Quantcast

Comments about ‘Second Amendment: History's lesson and warning’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 2 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
homebrew
South Jordan, UT

Once again, our delusional senator misses the point. Since his gerrymandered election to the senate, this clown has done NOTHING! He opposes to oppose. He obstructs just to obstruct. Bob Lee could teach you a thing or to MR Lee, about compromise and governing. Lying on the florr and crying is No way to govern. YOU are an embarassment to this state, and to the nation.

Duckhunter
Highland, UT

@eric samuelsen

Every time you post we learn how little you know about history, the constitution, and liberty in general.

Wonder
Provo, UT

Conservative mantra -- "Everything is about ME". E.g.: I want to go shooting with multiple rounds, so who cares if some little kids were shot 10 or so times each in the space of 5 minutes. Or, in another example: I have insurance, so why would I care if anyone else does. In fact if they get insurance, they'll go to the doctor more and then that will really inconvenience me. Modern tea party conservatism (devotion to atheist Ayn Rand) is the very definition of selfishness and greed.

dave4197
Redding, CA

Senator, and other tea partiers: I do not fear a background check. Since you're talking about "law abiding citizens" right to bear arms, an effective background check is a minimal step, but a very necessary step for us to take.
The 2nd amendment is one of the poorest written sentences I've read, in or out of the gov't, and I've worked for the gov't and read plenty of sentences. There is too much left to interpretation in the wording of the 2nd amendment. While I agree with your 2 reasons, self protection from criminals and self protection from an out of control gov't, I do not agree with your conclusion that we must avoid a background check before owning a gun. Stop your illogical conclusions, you're so tea party!
When 2 mass murderers are still awaiting trial a year or more after the fact, that's a problem. Fix that one, Sen Lee. These 2 obviously guilty guys should've been done away with long before now, there's no mystery or lack of facts about their guilt.

larzado
Provo, UT

Senator Lee, as a constituent, I am disappointed that you would generate the same ill-conceived rhetoric that has contributed to increased divisiveness. The 2nd amendment has become so broadly defined that it seems to grant us a license to deride anyone who thinks maybe society would be better off if there were a limit to how many guns are produced and disseminated. How shall we define arms anyway? Is it okay to say that we should limit assault weapons or high capacity magazines? What about automatic weapons, what if I want a bazooka? Where do we draw the line, and who decides? It seems that there is a limit to what most reasonable people feel should be allowed and I think it is a good thing to strictly limit these weapons. Of course, I do understand that there are individuals who choose not to obey the law, which is why we should prohibit the manufacturing of these weapons. I know that there are a few individuals who could still make them illegally, but it would severely limit the availability, which would go a long way to curb the types of tragedies that took place in CT, AZ, and CO.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Sure - You have the right to your guns.
How many of you pro-gun nuts have tried to buy ammo lately?

Your rellious insurrection against the U.S. Government will last about 3 days, when you run out of ammo.
And then your Rambo, Red Dawn fanatasies will slip away.

BTW - The Taliban had AK-47s, mortors and shoulder launched stinger missles.
And the Iraqi Army lasted about 2 weeks.

Sad - It was like shooting fish in a barrel.

The only thing different, would be this time the military would be opening fire on fellow Americans.
White guys, Christians, and speaking english.

BTW - I wonder if Senator Mike Lee supports my right to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in my garage in Farmington, Utah.
I seriously doubt he would - so his whole premise is merely political pandering to the mindless masses.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

Oh please... even if the Democrats get everything they proposed on gun control we'd still be 1st in the world in the guns per person ratio.

@Cool Cat Cosmo
"we only seek to protect the innocent."

So you oppose expanded background checks to apply to all gun purchases? That provision only harms those who shouldn't be allowed to have guns and is merely a temporary inconvenience to the rest of you rather than actually stopping you from getting the gun. Probably why this provision has 80-90% support in polls and majority support among NRA members and gun owners.

Statistically a person is much more likely to be shot by a gun owned by someone in their own home than by anyone else. I'm safer without a gun.

@dwayne
"Please stop defending your violation of our rights"

Guns violate the right to life of roughly 10,000 Americans a year. There's no argument behind your claim that your rights are being violated when there's a "well-regulated" clause in the 2nd Amendment and even Scalia says that the Second Amendment allows for regulation (just not total bans like Chicago was doing).

IMAPatriot2
PLEASANT GROVE, UT

This over bloated government can't even control our borders so why should we allow them to control our guns? There is no reason for the federal government to be moving down this path at all. In my opinion, those who are promoting "gun control" are deluded, simplistic, and unpatriotic.

How about, for once, the federal government do it's constitutional duty? That doesn't include promoting social issues or agendas?

Linus
Bountiful, UT

Right on, Senator! I thank you for defending my Second Amendment rights. You must also know that all of the Bill of Rights is under attack. There are those who wish to curtail our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, and even our right to life. Every elected official and every appointed judge takes an oath to sustain and defend the Constitution, but many are lying in their teeth. The Constitution now hangs as by a thread. Thank you again, Senator Lee, for honoring your oath.

Sneaky Jimmy
Bay Area, CA

I normally don't side with the extreme right but on the 2nd amendment i stand with them. Citizens cannot let the government (which is made up of human beings) control our rights. Take a look at the DA's in Texas. Suppose the Aryan Brotherhood targeted you. The police can't protect you. I would support laws the prevent criminals and the insane from obtaining firearms and laws the would severely punish the misuse of firearms. Politicians don't want to punish behavior.

Esquire
Springville, UT

Dead wrong, again, Mike.

Duckhunter
Highland, UT

@wonder

So do you think they'd be any less dead if they'd only been shot 3 times each?

Lotsa foolish and thoughtless reactionaries on this subject.

Anti Government
Alpine, UT

@one old man

"More blatant pandering to the extreme right from Mike Lee."

Meanwhile your unfactual subjective emotional statement panders to the extreme left.

Evidently now people are the "extreme right" if they believe in liberty and the constitution. That is what the extreme left would scare you into believing so that our corrupt government can slowly remove your liberty and rights.

Weak old man. Very weak indeed.

Duckhunter
Highland, UT

@atl

Just because you can justify and do something and call it "constitutional" or "allowed" it doesn't mean it should be done. None of these proposals will buy you a bit of safety nor will they make your life better, but you appear to be just another of the emotional reactionaries that wants "something done" regardless of its lack of value or effectiveness. I feel true pity for you and all like you, I really do.

mohokat
Ogden, UT

From reading some of the comments here I am troubled that communism is so prevelant in Utah.

azreader1
tucson, AZ

Well said Senator Lee.

ECR
Burke, VA

duayne - I'm afraid I don't quite follow your explanation of the American Revolition. I always thought it was about obtaining liberty from a tryannical government that made laws without the representation of the citizens effected by those laws - taxation without representation - which I think you agree with. And if you do you might want to come help the half million or so tax paying citizens that live across the Potomac River from my house who have no representation in government. You accuse me of using the tragedy of children dying to violate your rights. I am not proposing the violation of anyone's rights and I wonder how many dead children it will take for you to accept the fact that a conversation needs to take place about how to save those children.

Techpubs - Universal background checks would have saved Adam Lanza's mother if he had been identified as someone who should not own a gun or have access to a gun. Hopefully his mother would have been more responsible about making those guns accessible to him. But the system can never work if we don't start somewhere. Where would yiou suggest we start?

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

I will oppose any attempt by Congress to restrict Americans' constitutional rights. And I will equally oppose any attempt to allow government surveillance of law-abiding citizens exercising those rights.

[Great! Prove it Senator - And you can start by repealling the Patriot Act]

I will remind people in Washington that the Constitution protects everyone equally, not just the people we happen to agree with, and the rights we happen to like.

[I'm so glad you will be reminding people in Washington that you are a firm supporter of Gay Marriage then as well.]

John Armstrong
Buena Vista, VA

The Constitution, according to its preamble, was written not only to protect liberty. It was also written to secure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and provide for the common defense. Allowing citizens to arm themselves however they see fit seems to me not to promote these goals. Rather, it seems to create a nightmare civilization. The reason stated in the second amendment for the right to bear arms is to have a well-regulated militia for the security of the state. It says nothing about personal protection. Nor does it say that God gave everyone a right to arm themselves with military assault rifles. Do something for domestic tranquility, Senator Lee. Be a statesman.

Halach Huinic
Mapleton, UT

I am totally confused, To me Lee's article is disturbingly out of focus. For the life of me I'm unable to understand exactly how prudent gun control would ever violate any reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, let alone endanger the Constitution and threaten the downfall of the government? And here I thought it was government tyranny why we were arming ourselves. Is this some kind of joke?

Does Lee have any recommendations on what kind of weapons we can stockpile to effectively take on local law enforcement officials or the U.S. military when the need arises?

Who elects these people?

to comment

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