Quantcast

Comments about ‘Gun control loses: No expanded background checks’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 17 2013 2:55 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mountanman
Hayden, ID

"Public support ebbing". Because intelligent people know that all the laws in the world will never stop criminals from obtaining guns any more than laws against making bombs out of pressure cookers will ever stop terrorists from making bombs.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

From Ronald Reagan.

Was he anti freedom? Or anti Second Amendment? I have always respected Ronald Reagan and have felt that he was an "intelligent" person.

"With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases," Mr. Reagan said at a gathering at George Washington University marking the 10th anniversary of the attempt on his life by John W. Hinckley Jr. "And it's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law-enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to purchase handguns."

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Joe Blow. Here is the way some of us see this issue. Let's go ahead and pass more gun control laws and when that didn't prevent bad people from getting guns,(they can steal them or buy them off the street or even make their own) some will want more silly gun control laws and when those laws don't work, then eventually comes confiscation! See how this works? Please don't say it won't happen because it has in many other countries all over the world and then the citizens have no protection and are relegated to being only unarmed subjects and potential victims.

Elcapitan
Ivins, UT

It only makes sense to oppose over restricrive legislation of any kind. The next thing the liberals will want to do is to banish pressure cookers because some nut jobs use them to make bombs.

Punish the criminals instead. They do not participate in background checks anyway. Preserve our second amendment, it was establsihed for good reason by God fearing, freedom loving people for good reasons.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

the current proposal for background checks, with the retention of the checks (even if evidence if the cehck is NOT retained by the feds), will eventually lead to a national registry and then confiscation. Any lib or dem official who says otherwise is being duplicitous.

Some hateful lefties have called me paranoid for making similar comments earlier, but they are either ignorant of the request by the social security administration for Missouri's concealed permit carrier database, ot they chose to ignore it. Why would the SS administration need a list of concealed permit holders?

DN Subscriber 2
SLC, UT

Oppose the "universal background check" scheme at all costs!

First, criminals get 80% of their guns by theft, illegal means, or having a straw purchaser with a clean record get them. None of that will be changed by this law.

Second, advocates claim background checks are to punish crooks buying guns. But with only a few dozen prosecutions after tens of thousands of felonious attempts to purchase someone is lying about the reason for the laws, or Holder's Justice Department is failing miserably to do their job.

Although noble in title, the Toomey-Manchin bill is devilish in the details and merely sets up the foundation for universal gun registration. Sure, it is only "checks" today, with a ban on keeping the names...but only as long as the dealer doing the checks is in business. Then it automatically becomes a registration program, although a "delayed registration program."

Prosecute armed criminals. Add the mentally ill to the prohibited list. Encourage arming and training of teachers. Study the effect of psychotropic medicines. Ban violent video games.

NO on any form of gun registration, or tools which can be used for that!

Tators
Hyrum, UT

"The dirty little secret is that gun control laws do not actually control guns. They disarm law-abiding citizens, making them more vulnerable to criminals, who remain armed in disregard of such laws.

In England, armed crimes skyrocketed as legal gun ownership almost vanished under increasingly severe gun control laws in the late 20th century. (See the book "Guns and Violence" by Joyce Lee Malcolm). But gun control has become one of those fact-free crusades, based on assumptions, emotions and rhetoric.

What almost no one talks about is that guns are used to defend lives as well as to take lives. In fact, many of the horrific killings that we see in the media were brought to an end when someone else with a gun showed up and put a stop to the slaughter."

Virtually nothing that is being proposed in current gun control legislation is likely to reduce murder rates. There is virtually no evidence to support such implied contentions.

JayTee
Sandy, UT

American citizens should be outraged. We currently have an OFFICIAL Federal deficit of nearly $17,000,000,000,000 now, and annual deficit spending of over $1,000,000,000,000/year--and these people are spending their time trying to restrict and dismantle the rights of law abiding citizens and potential victims instead of doing something responsible to save the country. It would be laughable if it weren't such a stark travesty.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

Oh, I get it. PRETEND violence that turns up in video games must be banned, but whatever can produce REAL violence must be protected "at all costs".

How strange that my right-leaning friends always loudly argue in favor of whatever THEY are doing, but younger, or different-looking or different-thinking people deserve only MAXIMUM government to keep them in line.

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

For you liberals who think that there should be so many restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, just apply all of these restrictions to the 1st Amendment and see how long you would put up with it.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

m.g. - I just don't see how it's possible to talk someone to death (using the 1st amendment freedom). Much easier to do it with a gun, hence the need to treat the 2nd with care. But there ARE some commonsense restrictions on free speech and freedom of religion that we live with without a second thought. If owning guns made us safer, we'd already be the safest people who ever existed.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mountanman
"Here is the way some of us see this issue."

Some being the operative word since only about 10% agree with you in polling. Congress is just bought off by the merchants of death that are the gun industry.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ atl134 thanks for the laugh of the day! Read the article, "support is ebbing" and not the "10%" that you claim.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

m.g. scott: "For you liberals who think that there should be so many restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, just apply all of these restrictions to the 1st Amendment and see how long you would put up with it."

We accept a lot of restrictions on free speech. Pornography and indecency in media are restricted by various means, for instance. Try recasting the 1st amendment in 2nd amendment terms and see how it looks: The right to keep and bear ideas shall not be infringed. Is any restriction acceptable then, even on porn?

We accept that there will be some pain as a consequence of the First Amendment. Neo-Nazis are allowed to parade in Jewish Skokie, IL. Larry Flynt puts a woman through a meat grinder on the cover of Hustler. Honey Boo Boo. That is the price we pay for freedom. We accept the hurt because the cost of losing the freedom to have and express ideas is greater. Will any 2nd Amendment advocate come out and say that the 10k+ firearms deaths annually likewise is simply the price we pay for firearms freedom? If so, when does the price become too great? 50k, 100k, a million?

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"Let's go ahead and pass more gun control laws and when that didn't prevent bad people from getting guns,(they can steal them or buy them off the street "

Why do they need to steal them or buy them off the street?
All they have to do is go to a gun show or look in the want ads.

Think about if we had the same loophole for sales of alcohol to minors. Can you imagine if supermarkets were mandated to check id's but convenience stores were not?

That is the current logic for background checks.

We either need to make them universal, or get rid of them.

Were you guys screaming at the NRA for advocating for background check 15 years ago?

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Unlike many here, I see Constitutional authority for gun regulation. “[S]hall not be infringed” needs to be considered with the rest of the document.

The only place the word “regulate” appears in any form in the Constitution is in the 2nd Amendment. Not only did the framers think that the militia should be regulated, they thought it should be “well” regulated. And not only did they think a well regulated militia was a good idea, they held regulation to be absolutely “necessary.” Further, Article 1, Section 2 gives Congress the authority to organize, arm, train, and discipline the militia.

I wholly accept that “militia” confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, it’s clear in the Constitutional language that the framers intended for the militia (individual or collective) to be organized and disciplined, that is, regulated, and it gave Congress the authority to accomplish that.

Every organization that uses force to achieve its goal has rules for its members to increase mission effectiveness and decrease losses from the misuse of weapons. These include training, proficiency standards, and inventory controls. The militia is no different.

Bag Man
POWDER SPRINGS, GA

it is time we really start to reduce the violence. Let's start to limit the magazine size of the nail guns, or limit the number of nails you can buy. Also we can start to require the nail manufacturers to stamp each nail with a serial number so that we can trace it back to who purchased it. We can also have the pressure cooker manufactures put serial number on both the top and bottom of the cooker.

Lets see what else can we have serial numbers put on because they could be put into a bomb.

There will always be things that can cause mass destruction. if not a gun then a pressure cooker, pipe, rocket motor.

Lets start regulating all things that way we can stop all violence.

Mash76
Provo, UT

Joe Blow, So how are those laws stopping underage people from getting alcohol. Kids can get alcohol a lot easier then guns. I have bought guns at guns and been checked. I feel the majority of gun owners would not sell a gun to anyone that does not have a Concealed Carry Permit or current Drivers license unless they know them. Hence as stated above most criminals steal or buy guns underground not at gun shows, online, or private sales.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mountanman
"support is ebbing"

In the Senate, not among the people.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mountanman
That poll didn't ask specifically about the background check provision which polls extremely high. Those are the numbers I refer to.

to comment

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