Quantcast

Comments about ‘Call Sen. Lee about universal background checks for gun purchases’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, March 25 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Thank you for the heads-up.

My e-mail to the out-of-touch Senator Short-Sell has just been sent!

Wonder
Provo, UT

Far right politician's definition of a "liberal" poll -- one that disagrees with their preconceived notion of what people should say in response to the poll question. Yeah, yeah, skewed polls and all that. I thought we got past that nonsense after Nov. 2012.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "I would ask any citizens who are concerned about this issue to take a second and call Sen. Lee's office to express your opinion."

I will. And so will many of my friends.

We'll call to express our disgust at this useless, dangerous, illegal intrusion into our lives by an out-of-control liberal federal government.

These new, expanded "background checks" have but one object -- to make it more difficult and dangerous to exercise Second Amendment rights.

They won't prevent a single murder. They won't protect schools. They won't keep guns out of the hands of the mentally impaired. They won't be enforced to deter criminals any better than the law currently in place.

What they will do is establish a permanent database giving the location of every legally purchased gun in a law-abiding home, and set up a whole new bureaucracy to make felons out of honest, decent Americans.

Thanks for reminding us to do the right thing!

cjb
Bountiful, UT

The Problems with Universal Back Ground Checks

The universal back ground checks as some are trying to write it is really a back door gun registration, which would come in handy if ever the government decided to confiscate guns. Or the list could leak out and gun owners would then be targets for thieves.

Another problem is the writers of this bill would require the seller of a gun to keep records of any gun sale. Presumably if they lost this record they would be in trouble. This is too much of an imposition.

I ask any of our Senators and Representatives, if you do find a gun restriction you would like to vote for, insist that in that same bill there also be some give back of gun rights. One example would be to all all people to have silencers on guns, which would help to prevent hearing loss. The era of take take take of gun rights needs to be over.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

The support for " I can do anything I want regarding guns" is getting whackier and whackier, and a poll that shows over 90% support for something is only a liberal bias..my, my..did any of you work for the Romney camp.

BTW a good story on the front page of what all these macheeesmos fantasize about and what the real world consequences are (guy with no training and a short fuse who supposedly defends his daughter and winds up in prison).

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

And the bad guys are going to fall in line and obey more gun laws? Any of you seriously believe that?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Where would Senator Lee, or any other government official, get the authority to legislate anything that directly violates the Constitution?

"shall not be infringed" still has meaning to those who don't pretend that the Constitution is null and void.

"shall not be infringed" still prohibits government from requiring any prequalification to firearm ownership.

"shall not be infringed" is the people's guarantee that no one, not the President, not Congress, not the Court will ever require a background check BEFORE a firearm is owned.

Driving a vehicle is not a Constitutionally protected right. Government can require a driver's license BEFORE allowing anyone to drive.

Owning a firearm is every citizen's right. No law can be passed that infringes on that right - unless those who pass laws think that they are above the Supreme Law of the Land and that they can put government's desires above the will of the people - people who have prohibited government from having authority until itself.

Wonder
Provo, UT

@Mountanman -- We typically don't make laws by first determining that 100% of people are already doing what the law calls for. Following your logic, since there are people who commit murder we should have no laws prohibiting murder. In fact, we should have no laws at all, because there's always going to be somebody who doesn't obey that law.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Anyone who buys a gun from a retailer already has to pass a backgound check. Convicted felons know this, so they buy guns through venues where no check will be required. I am generally pro gun rights, but this is no more than common sense.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Wonder. You are missed the point. Will passing ever more laws against grand larceny, rape or murder stop people from murdering, rapine or stealing? We already have gun laws, what good are more and more gun laws going to do? The truth is, more gun laws or more laws prohibiting murder, rape or stealing will not do any more good than have the strictest gun laws in the world have done in Chicago which is NOTHING! With your logic since Chicago is he murder capital of America, we should pass more and more laws against murder! Wrong target (no pun intended). More gun laws only keep guns out of the law abiding citizenry, not criminals.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah
Where would Senator Lee, or any other government official, get the authority to legislate anything that directly violates the Constitution?

"shall not be infringed" still has meaning to those who don't pretend that the Constitution is null and void.

"shall not be infringed" still prohibits government from requiring any prequalification to firearm ownership.

================

"Infringed" means confisgate Mike.
It doesn't mean free and totally unrestricted.
Your fantasy world interpretations of the Consitution remind me of Somalia or Columbia.

BTW -- Why it your "ilk" constantly and purposefully ignores the REST of the 2nd Amendment -- you know -- the part about the right to keep and bear arms is only being allowed for a "well regulated militia".
[there's that evil nasty word again...REGULATED, i.e., must meet certain government criteria and restrictions.]

Non-uniform wearing Billy Bobs, riding around in pick-up trucks, open carrying and brandishing assault rifles and such, are not meeting the Constutional muster -- they are nothing more than domestic terrorists.

I've sworn an oath against them/you.

1conservative
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

I know Mike Lee supports the 2nd amendment, but it wouldn't hurt some of us to drop him a brief email to support HIM.

The credibility of the federal government is at an all-time low. Why would we want to trust them with our personal gun information?
Why should we believe the feds wouldn't sell our personal info.? Does anyone need any more "visa" offers?
How can the feds afford the money to collect personal gun information while at the same time they SAY they are forced to let 6000 illegal aliens loose because they "don't have the funds"?
No tours of the White House, but nagging gun owners for their personal information is o.k.?

Besides its' unconstitutionality, any more 2nd amendment "databases" or other attempts at progressively denying American citizens their rights should also be considered a waste of money.

Henderson
Orem, UT

Why have any laws against abortion, stealing, and murder?

People will still have abortions, will still steal, and commit murders.

Laws don't have any effect on those who wish to do evil. Just like how gun laws have no effect on those who want to have guns and do evil with them.

Any weapon ever invented should be allowed for the public to purchase. Bazookas, machine guns, nerve gas, nukes, etc.

Nothing would deter crazy people from attacking schools than a teacher armed with a machine gun, tank, or nuke.

If we, the public, are unable to purchase these then only the bad guys will have them......

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

LDS Liberal / Open Minded Mormon,

You wrote, "Infringed means confisgat".

Baloney!

Why would you expect anyone to accept your redefinition of a word simply because your definition suits your thought process? Why not use the dictionary?

Infringe: "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another"

Confiscate: "to seize by authority"

Using your redefinition, the government could do anything it wants with your family as long as it didn't confiscate your children. It could tell you how to feed your children. It could tell you how to clothe your children. I would call government interference in my family "infringement". What would you call it?

Just what limits do you place on government? I can't see that you place any limits on government; but, I can see that you would restrict the freedom of the people.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Convicted felons . . . buy guns through venues where no check will be required."

I'd love to see your statistics backing up such a ludicrous statement.

It runs counter to what 35+ years prosecutorial experience tells me. I've never known a felon in receipt to have bought the gun they're prosecuted for. They either steal them, receive them from other felons, or from family members/accomplices.

NONE of these issues is addressed, nor could they realistically be addressed, by any of the unconstitutional, liberal anti-gun legislative proposals.

Since these sophomoric, illegal proposals don't actually address the problems given as their raison d'etre, we can safely assume they are actually part of a poorly-disguised liberal agenda to identify, vilify, and sanction gun owners, and to eventually confiscate their guns.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

I will contact Lee's office again, although it will do no good. Like some commenting here, the man is criminally deluded. If reasonable gun controls are not implemented, with each new gun slaughter of the innocents, I will remember him as one valuing guns over life.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Non-uniform wearing Billy Bobs . . . I've sworn an oath against . . . you."

Sounds kinda secret combination-ish.

I know you're not talking about any military or other governmental oath, since they all swear to defend the Constitution.

Couple that with calling anyone exercising well-established Constitutional rights a terrorist, and it gets pretty scary.

EJM
Herriman, UT

I enjoy reading comments from those posters who portray themselves as constitutional scholars. Puts a smile in my face knowing that the beauty of the Internet gives everyone the opportunity to exercise their First Amendment rights, even when they probably should not.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT
Re: "Non-uniform wearing Billy Bobs . . . I've sworn an oath against . . . you."

Sounds kinda secret combination-ish.

=============

Are you calling the US military a secret combination?

Military oath --

against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic...

As I stated:
Non-uniform wearing Billy Bobs,
riding around in pick-up trucks,
open carrying and brandishing assault rifles and such,
are not meeting the Constitutional muster
-- they are nothing more than domestic terrorists.

I've sworn the oath,
and you?...

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

I just contacted Senator Short-Sale and told him I favor universal background checks. It's absurd that any nutter can walk into a gun show and buy without any check at all.

The constitutional arguments here are invalid; every enumerated right is subject to limitation. Even my right to vote is regulated -- I have to register first!

And when will ANY gun worshiper answer my question: What is meant by "well-regulated"?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments