Published: Tuesday, April 2 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
Dead wrong, again, Mike.
@wonderSo 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.
@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.
@atlJust 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.
From reading some of the comments here I am troubled that communism is so
prevelant in Utah.
Well said Senator Lee.
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?
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.]
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.
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?
I am dismayed by the typically critical comments by some. Senator Lee has
expressed very well the constitutional and logical framework on which his
decisions are to be based. I wish all our legislators had the integrity to do
likewise. Knee-jerk reactions to tragedy are the source of many of our worst
laws and judicial decisions. I am considered liberal by some and conservative by
others, but in this I am totally in agreement with Mr. Lee. Until we realize
that keeping track of and limiting ownership of weapons by law abiding citizens
while we ignore and even assist criminals ability to have weapons that are not
registered is not the way to stop crime and decrease violence, we will have
missed the boat and contributed to the loss of liberty and safety for our
citizens. Thank you Senator Lee for a principled stand on an important topic.
"From reading some of the comments here I am troubled that communism is so
prevelant in Utah"..Good summary of Utah..what a whacky place this is. Not
the only whacky place certainly but truly a whacky place. Sunday the DN had an
editorial touting the need for Christians to celebrate Easter and to especially
celebrate caring for all. Christ died for all so ergo we should care for
all..then this nonsense of me, me, me...my liberty, and the nearly pathological
logic that your liberty is tied up in your ability to own a gun inorder to shoot
and kill someone. The cognitive dissonance here is truly scary.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments