Published: Tuesday, April 2 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
I am so happy that Sen. Lee is being a true TeaPublican Patriot and standing up
for the 2nd Amendment! I was so afraid that Sen Lee was going to say he was
going to do what the majority of Americans wanted...and that would of been
terrible for the Constitution. A March 7 poll of voters nationwide by the
Independent Qyinniipiac University shows 88% FOR universal background checks
including 85% among gun owners! Thank God Sen. Lee has the courage to be a true
American Patriot and stand against what the majority of people THINK they want!
We TeaPublicans will NOT allow any gun control under any circumstances! We
Stand For America! What you expect anything less?
You can say or believe what you want regarding gun control. You can choose to
side with Mike Lee or land anywhere else on the issue. The current debate on gun
control is about addressing a very real epidemic of mass shootings in the United
States. It is only part of the whole issue. But it is a major part. I will
hold Senator Lee opinion void until I hear a real plan to deal with the
epidemic. Discussion on anything else at this point is a useless distraction
from the issue of protecting innocent life. Arming everyone who can hold a
gun is not an answer, it is a sick joke. Math doesn't lie, you introduce
more weapons into any situation it becomes inherently less safe. We have our
arms. We need to be more responsible with them. We have failed on that issue.
The overlooked history lesson seems to be that allowing people nearly unlimited
access to arms brings with it the attitude that access is equated with freedom
to use, and of the thousands of people shot in this country every year very few
are an act of defense.
Wow, the liberals have hit ever single one of their standard talking points.Here are the 2 main points that they have yet to deal with.First, and most importantly, are they prepared to have government regulations
on more of their rights? If the government can put all of these regulations on
guns, then why not make a registry of people that are registered press members
with all sorts of regulations to ensure that what they say is unbiased. How
about they require that all demonstrators obtain licenses and submit all the
names and addresses of attendees? How much freedom are you willing to sell for
a sense of security?Second, by making guns harder to get you are
putting more lives at risk to violent crimes and death by means other than guns.
Is it really worth saving 1 life if it costs 10 other lives that could have
been saved by guns?
"The federal government has no right to surveil innocent citizens exercising
their constitutional rights." - Mike LeeOh really? And I'm
sure you fought tooth and nail against the Bluffdale NSA facility which is to be
used for that very purpose. Senator Lee, I hope that you are distracted yourself
and not doing the distracting. There are epic times ahead.
Redshirt said, "...then why not make a registry of people that are
registered press members with all sorts of regulations to ensure that what they
say is unbiased. How about they require that all demonstrators obtain licenses
and submit all the names and addresses of attendees?" Do you
really think that will save lives?"Second, by making guns harder
to get you are putting more lives at risk to violent crimes and death by means
other than guns." Do you mean people will just look for
different ways to kill people and guns will lose the battle of what weapon can
kill the most? Of course I'm being facetious. I don't think
that's what you meant even though...that's what you said.Background checks for law abiding citizens is not a violation of anyone's
Constitutional rights. Even the most conservative member of the Supreme Court,
Antonin Scalia, said so in District if Columbia vs. Heller. Please stop trying
to scare Americans into thinking that this precautionary step taken by a
responsible government will lead to the confiscation of the weapons owned by
responsible citizens or allow the government to meddle in your private life.
@open minded mormonCan you show me the amendment in the constitution
dedicated to guaranteeing a "right" to gay marriage? Or any marriage for
that matter? I can point you to the one that guarantees the right to keep and
I'm not intimidated by Mike Lee. This is an imperfect but decent nation of
laws for the common good of all.
Dear Sen. Lee,Check's in the mail!Sincerely, NRA
It is interesting that if you take Senator Lee's family size, 5, and the
amount the bank lost on his home, $400,000.00, and factor in the population of
the United States, 315,596,000, and the national debt of 16,771,379,006,760 we
find that the equivalent national debt would be 25,247,680,000,000. And he
wants to control our budget?
@EDM 8:31 You stated "There have been and are restrictions on
the types of "arms" we can "bear" nearly since the day the
Second Amendment was written." I am just curious. Can you please
share what exactly those restrictions were? I have never heard this before. Are
you using the old liberal tactic of just throwing info out without anything to
back it up? Please share."When seconds count, the police are
just minutes away". "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed." PERIOD! Sounds pretty clear to me.
To "ECR" by regulating the press you could save people. For example, if
the paparazi was regulated we could have saved Princess Diana.More
recently the NY Times published the names and addresses of people with conceal
carry permits in NY. Some of their homes were robbed and had the guns stolen.
That never would have happened if the press had been responsible.How
many soldiers were killed as a result of journalists publishing pictures of
troops doing things that enraged islamists in the middle east?It
seems like there are hundreds if not thousands of lives that could have been
saved if the press was regulated.We already have laws for background
checks when buying a gun. How about we just enforce the laws that we already
If people want to find a gun to buy they will. The idea of universal background
checks is closing the door after the cows have escaped. To me, Senator Lee and
his personal background on the financing of his house makes me ill. On this
issue, I agree with him. Go figure.
What a load of tired old tripe! Let's take on some of these statements:"There is no reason to believe a government $17 trillion in debt has
the competence to cast a net of paperwork that will catch every single gun sale
in a country of 300 million people and 300 million firearms. And even that
ignores the fact — always inconvenient when designing gun laws —
that armed criminals don't obey laws in the first place."Sure - criminals don't obey laws in the first place. So, why bother
having laws at all. This is the essence of this objection. Criminals will
always find a way to sell heroin. Why should we enact laws against it? Our government is $17 trillion in debt, so how can you expect us to have
an FDA that prevents the sale of thalidomide. Why bother? Is there an argument
that is more ridiculous than this one?The difference in quality
between former Senator Bennett's thinking abilities and Senator Lee's
is quite striking, don't you think?
Fresh from a revolution the Founders created a list of rights they had been
denied by the British, rights that would have made dissent possible and perhaps
held oppression at bay.Those rights included speaking your mind,
assembling in groups and arming yourself.Now, a local militia might be no
match for Homeland Security, but it would be impossible to contend with a
government who knew where all the weapons were.Gun ownership is, simply
put, none of Washington's business. If they take over that function it is
a clear sign that it has become too big and too controlling. In short, it has
assumed too many rights that do not belong to it.
I will call 9-11 on anyone not wearing a uniform carrying a weapon in public.They are not protected by the 2nd Amendnment becasue they are not part of
"a well regulated milita" and should therefor be considered a Domestic
Terrorist.Terrorists do not wear uniforms.I will then
let the responding police officers decide if it's "Constitutional"
I think the old bumper sticker said it well. "If guns are outlawed, only
outlaws will have guns." Universal background checks will only net law
abiders. Crooks and thugs will continue to get their guns from untracked
sources. The mentally ill will still have access to guns left unsecured.I
am not a gun owner, but I am beginning to think that the best deterrent would be
for everyone to be armed, or at least a sufficient number to give an attacker
ThomasJeffersonWELLSVILLE, UTWhere you ever in the
Military?I grow more and more tired everyday of you self-called
"Tea-Partiers", "Patriots", and "TRUE Americans", who
have never one-day serving this great Country of ours in uniform.Your tripe falls on this veteran's deaf ears.
What do we do for excitement when we tire of whacking "criminals?"
@ ECR:"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?"By your own admission earlier Adam Lanza never completed
the paperwork for a background check or CT's 14 day waiting period. He also
was not listed on the National Registry since he had a clean record and was
never adjudicated as mentall unstable. So even if they had required every person
in the house to have a background check he still would have escaped notice.I would start by determining what is causing these people to do things like
this and finding a way to identify the warning signs earlier so that they can
receive the help they need.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments