Published: Monday, March 25 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Thank you for the heads-up.My e-mail to the out-of-touch Senator
Short-Sell has just been sent!
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.
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!
The Problems with Universal Back Ground ChecksThe 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.
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).
And the bad guys are going to fall in line and obey more gun laws? Any of you
seriously believe that?
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.
@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.
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
@ 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
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahWhere 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.
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.
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......
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
procuradorfiscalTooele, UTRe: "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?...
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"?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments