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
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Mike Richards: The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, yet courts have ruled that Mormons can't practice polygamy, states can prevent Native Americans from using peyote in religious ceremonies, and religions that believe in human sacrifice can't use that as an excuse against murder charges. The freedom is not absolute.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, yet courts have ruled that you can't publish military secrets or child pornography. Neither can you engage in speech that will bring on immediate violence. The freedom is not absolute.

I would suggest that there are some restrictions on virtually all of our constitutional freedoms.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

Senator Lee took an oath to uphold the Constitution. He is doing that. He is putting the Constitution above the public outcry for more government control of our lives.

He understands the difference between people who want to turn everything over to the government and the people who want the government to be leashed.

He understands that the federal government has very little authority and that the federal government has no authority to regulate the firearms that any citizen may wish to own and operate.

He has read the Constitution. He knows that all government authority comes from the people and that the government has no authority outside the consent of the governed. The people (the governed) have clearly stated that government has no authority to limit personal ownership or use of firearms.

He knows that laws restricting firearms are both illegal and ineffective. He knows that government can punish those who use firearms to commit crimes after the crime has been committed.

It's a shame that so many are so willing to give away their freedoms when hundreds of thousands have died to protect those freedoms.

Anti Bush-Obama
Washington, DC

Once again, criminals will never follow the rules to obtain a firearm. they will get them and there is no stopping them. That's just a fact. Punishing law abiding citizens for something they didn't do is just as dumb. The Government needs to let people choose for themselves or it is facist and the are hindering the progress they claim to be all in favor of as long as it stays in the party line.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

Roland,

The Courts punish those who use speech illegally after they have "spoken", not before. The government does not require anyone to "pre-register" his speech before "speaking". The government does not limit the "quantity" of words a citizen may use every day. The government does not restrict "which words" a citizen may use.

Too many liberals can't see the difference between "pre-authorization" and "punishment". Too many liberals want to limit the type of firearms that citizens can own - when the Constitution prohibits that infringement. Too may liberals want to limit the capacity of those firearms - when the Constitution prohibits that infringement.

Owning a firearm is not a punishable crime - under the Constitution. Using a firearm when committing a crime is punishable.

Speaking is not a punishable crime - under the Constitution. Using speech improperly may be punished - after the "speech" has taken place.

We are free to speak, knowing that there may be consequences to using speech improperly.

We are free to own and bear firearms - without being a member of a militia - knowing that there may be consequences to using firearms improperly.

The government cannot infringe either speech or firearms without violating the Constitution.

Anti Bush-Obama
Washington, DC

Lds Liberal

"Are you calling the US military a secret combination?"

No but I'm calling the US Government one. Things like NDAA, The Patriot act, TSA, Warrantless wiretapping, etc convinces me of this.

Before you say, "Where were you when Bush did this? " I was in the 12th grade and couldn't vote.

Blaming Bush won't work anymore because in my eyes they are both Tyrants that deserve to be in prison for the rest of their lives.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "I've sworn the oath, and you?"

The oath I swore contains no reference to Billy Bob, contains no indictment of freedom-loving Americans as terrorists, it requires me to defend the Constitution [including the Second Amendment] from all enemies. I took that oath seriously that day back in '72, and I take it seriously today.

Enough so, to stand up against anyone disingenuously attempting to pervert into something it isn't. Anyone suggesting an enlistment oath doesn't apply to protecting all honest, decent Americans exercising their well-established Constitutional rights is clearly referring to some oath other than the enlistment or commissioning oath taken by American service members.

Maybe a secret, liberal, anti-American oath to some secret combination, but not an American enlistment oath.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Roland Kayser" do you read what you write.

If people already have to pass a background check to legally buy a gun, why do we need additional laws telling us to do the same thing?

FYI, the constitution forbids people from aiding our enemies, which would include giving away secrets.

To "Open Minded Mormon" you are wrong. Infringed means "act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on" according to the Oxford dictionary. If the government sets limits on gun purchases, they are infringing on that right.

As for the oath you took, do you live by it, or just give it lip service. You often say that you have taken the oath, but what do you live up to that oath? We now see government infringing on our rights, and you seem to be going against the oath you took to defend the constitution.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Open minded mormon
HAHAHAHAHAHA. “infringe means confiscate”

Oh please, stop! My side aches from laughing!

Roland,
Thank you for pointing out how the SCOTUS has failed us numerous times, most recently telling us the feds can tax us for not eating broccoli.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

This Senator is so far out of touch that he may not have email. He is too busy throwing tea out of the British ship.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

"More gun laws only keep guns out of the law abiding citizenry, not criminals."

How is this possible. The only people this law would prevent from getting easy access to guns is criminals. If your not a criminal, by the nature of the law, it would allow you to buy guns. In fact, it might even make more types of guns more available... since only responsible adults would have access to them.

I would love to have someone explain to me how only allowing non-fellons and the mentally ill from accessing guns will keep law abiding people from aquiring guns.

In the case of the firman shootings, back ground checks did provide an impediment to the felon from buy guns... he would not have gotten them if not for the idiot who bought them for him... which should be part two of the law... holding these people equally responsible.

andyjaggy
American Fork, UT

I love how all the right wing ultra conservatives call polls "liberal biased" anytime they don't say what they want them to say. Lee uses the State legislature as a better guide to the will of the people, that's a good one, keep living in fantasy land Lee. Kind of like when Gayle Ruzicka said the public didn't really know what they wanted concerning the sex ed bill, and that's why we have "representative" government instead.

andyjaggy
American Fork, UT

Background checks are probably largely ineffective, but if it prevents just a hand full of murders in any given year,even just ONE murder in a year, then it is worth the small hassle and inconvenience for everyone. That's my opinion.

Anti Bush-Obama
Washington, DC

This proposed Gun bill is no better than Prohibition. It will be just as effective.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"And the bad guys are going to fall in line and obey more gun laws? Any of you seriously believe that?" The point mountainman, and the all the rest of "criminals won't obey the law and then only criminals will have guns" crowd, is they can legally not comply now and you are aiding and abetting that situation. First of all over 60% of all guns purchased now are bought from dealers that have to register your purchase and there is no national register. You can bet all those purchses are from law abiding citizens. With over 60% all ready having to register what is Obama waiting for to start a national registery to take away all your guns, the criminals? It's a fantasy..hasn't happened and will never happen. No President in your life time or mine will try and outlaw guns..you all are making this up. All conservatives are doing now is supporting the legal purchase of guns by criminals. That's it that's what you are pushing.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

If there were no restrictions allowed on arms then individuals could buy cruise missiles or predator drones.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

To Red Shirt..Infringed means "act so as to limit or undermine (something); limiting what specific guns you purchase, or how many bulletts a magazine contains does not..does not, limit your "right to bear arms" which is what the second amendment guarantees. Even if you can't buy a magazine that holds thirty bulletts you can still purchase and own a shotgun or a rifle etc... It's a right to own/bear an arm/gun..not any specific gun. If you want to word smith you need to at least apply your reasoing to the issue at hand.

ronnie
sandy, utah

So much of what I read on the Editorial page is about protecting our children and promoting family values. In light of this how could anyone not support more background checks and/or more controls on assault weapons?

John C. C.
Payson, UT

Every year about 20 children in the U.S., ages 5 to 9, die as victims of accidental shootings. That's the age of the students attacked at Sandy Hook Elementary. But whom do we blame for these accidental shootings? Certainly not the guns. They don't kill, people kill. And we don't blame those who accidentally kill, especially those innocents who accidentally kill themselves.

Just think, the equivalent of one Sandy Hook tragedy every year, but no outcry and no headlines.

Before the gun control laws from 1968 to 1999 there were three or four times as many such accidental deaths. And still no one to blame.

Unfortunately, this particular death rate has started to trend upwards again, coincident with the lapse of the 1994 assault weapons ban in 2004, and the new law in 2005 protecting gun sellers from liability.

Do future innocent victims of innocent shooters have any constitutional rights?

The Judge
Kaysville, UT

Open Minded,

Read Heller v DC (554 U.S. 570). In it, the supremes...you know, the highest court in the land, interpreting what you supposedly swore an oath to defend, stated clearly that the second amendment applies to what you call "non-uniform wearing billy bobs." I'll quote just a bit of it:
"We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above..."
Go ahead and read the whole thing. You might learn something, and it is the law of the land, which, by your own admission, you've sworn to uphold.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The CDC reported that between 2004 and 2005, that 71,000 children were seen in emergency rooms because of poisoning. That's about 100 per day. In 2009, there were 41,592 deaths (children and adults) caused by poisoning, or about 113 per day.

Every death is a tragedy, but why is there no uproar about poisons? Why is Obama not flying around the Country demanding that people should register with the government before being allowed to buy "poisons"? Why are Senators not demanding that "poisons" should only be available in 2oz bottles?

What is wrong with the government when they turn a blind eye to 42,000 deaths? Were those lives not important? How many people must die before government forces us to be pre-qualified before buying "poisons"?

to comment

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