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
ShaunMcC
La Verkin, UT

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.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"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.

TeaPublican
Houston, TX

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?

Monk
Pleasant Grove, UT

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.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

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.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

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?

vague_reality
Logan, UT

"The federal government has no right to surveil innocent citizens exercising their constitutional rights." - Mike Lee

Oh 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.

ECR
Burke, VA

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.

Duckhunter
Highland, UT

@open minded mormon

Can 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 bear arms.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

I'm not intimidated by Mike Lee. This is an imperfect but decent nation of laws for the common good of all.

Blue Bolshevik
Salt Lake City, UT

Dear Sen. Lee,

Check's in the mail!

Sincerely, NRA

dobberdobber
Ivins, UT

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?

IRS Agent
PROVO, UT

@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.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

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 have?

EJM
Herriman, UT

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.

The Skeptical Chymist
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

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?

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

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.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

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" or not.

TNChristopher
Kingsport, TN

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 pause.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

ThomasJefferson
WELLSVILLE, UT

Where 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.

to comment

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