Quantcast
U.S. & World

Gun control loses: No expanded background checks

Comments

Return To Article
  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 21, 2013 10:29 p.m.

    gun owners need to understand clearly - if they don't already - that the radical left led by Barack Obama has as it's goal the total ban of all firearms in America. This is not a one step process but a multi-step process initiated by an opportunist president who follows the "never let a crisis go to waste" mentality. Make no mistake this facade of public safety the president is pushing is smoke and mirrors tailored for the low information voter. Banning guns only makes law biding citizens less safe - less able to protect themselves and family members but in a socialist society there are no guns in the hands of the average citizen and there certainly isn't a second amendment. Anyone who still entertains the foolish idea that this continued gun ban - gun restriction effort by the left is 'just' about making a safer America ought to wake up and smell the stench of socialism in the air. Bad guys will still get their guns but the average joe law obeying citizen will be left unprotected which is of no concern to those on the left. Communism and guns can't co-exist.

  • mattmo Gallatin, MO
    April 20, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    Since the year 2000 over 500 have been killed or injured in mass shooting events which is indeed a tragedy and most of these killers were mentally ill so do we think that these people will abide by any gun restrictions or laws? We have a greater more grave and tragic issue at hand and it's done by sane people (so they believe)1.2 million children are aborted each year. This indeed is a tragedy.

  • Cool Cat Cosmo Payson, UT
    April 19, 2013 11:11 a.m.

    ' "Shame on you," shouted one, Patricia Maisch '

    Respectfully, Patricia, shame on YOU for assuming that you have a right to take away the constitutionally-protected 2nd Amendment rights of ALL American citizens based on the actions of a handful of deranged lunatics.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 18, 2013 9:37 p.m.

    Loosely defined could mean,- all guns being banned.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 18, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    Are there any guns that are not assault weapons?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 18, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    Right or wrong, it was disgusting, how Obama reacted.

    He looked like a person wanting total control of government.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    @Giuseppe: I’m not sure what your beef is. The primary ruling in Parker was the individual right, which I readily accepted in my post.

    We have a vast alphabet soup of regulatory bureaucracies based on the tenuous strength of the Interstate Commerce and General Welfare clauses, yet we find obstinate resistance to any regulation in the only domain where regulation is actually mentioned in the Constitution (and regulation is described as “necessary”). My point was that there is Constitutional authority for some firearms regulation. Even the libertarian co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs acknowledged the legitimacy of gun regulation, “So there are some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines.” (Robert Levy, quoted in Wikipedia)

    No constitutional right is absolute. Shout “Fire” in a crowded theater and see what happens. “Free” speech is only “mostly free.” I cannot see how “shall not be infringed” is any more restrictive on Congress than “shall make no law… prohibiting… or abridging…”

  • tabuno Clearfield, UT
    April 18, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    What should be taken away from this experience is that the NRA's power continues but has been tarnished, especially with several states imposing further gun restrictions and that Obama has administratively set into motion scientific research on gun violence that the NRA has opposed and sets the groundwork for future evidence-based gun control policy and legislation. Today's NRA and Republican success reflects that a significant portion of the Country still isn't ready for a cultural change in its interpretation of a basic fundamental Constitutional right and that the federal, National government ought not to impose its will on the minority on this matter. In some ways, the federalist conception of freedom continues to be strong, allowing experimentation and balance to our individual and state rights. Perhaps what has occurred is a reflection of the best that America has to offer the world.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 18, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    Gun background checks deny permits or purchases to people who have criminal records, domestic violence records, and documented mental health issues. 60% of guns purchased go through this process and thousands are denied guns each year because of it. The purpose of expanded background checks is not to stop all violence, or all crime. Nor is it believed that background checks will stop "all" criminals from obtaining guns.

    It's simple purpose is to do what we can to keep guns out of the hands of those most likely to have malicious intent or exercise poor judgement...background checks have no real effect on "law abiding" ciitzens.

    So I ask a simple question..because 60% of purchased guns all ready go through a background check why are those of you who are against "expanded" background checks in favor of criminals and the mentally ill having unfetted/uninfringed access to guns?

  • hellsbells Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2013 10:03 p.m.

    If guns kills people, shouldn't bombs kill people, as well? No. People kill people. The only thing the government is doing by creating tighter restrictions is putting the very people they are "protecting" in danger. Those who are are going to use guns for horrible purposes probably aren't the most just and accountable people anyway. They don't obey by the law. All it's going to do is make us defenseless.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 17, 2013 8:18 p.m.

    Re lagomorph

    Regulated or regulation exists in more than just one form. Ideally a person self regulates. This means the person commits to behave in a safe manner. The person obeys just laws and the person does what is right.

    Regulation can be internal, external, or a combination.

  • Superfluous Anaheim, CA
    April 17, 2013 8:21 p.m.

    Why all the lefty, liberal, dem jabs? Do you really believe that only Republicans own guns? Only Republicans have fought wars? Only Republicans care about the 2nd Amendment? Only Republicans keep a well-oiled Glock? Think again.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    April 17, 2013 7:19 p.m.

    A win for freedom, and confirmation that despite innocuous sounding terms, the details may be totally unacceptable.

    Nearly everyone would agree we need to stamp out pornography, or to sliminate illegal drug sales. So, let's ban all newspapers and television and movies and close down all the pharmacies.

    That was essentially the left's prescription- Universal background checks" was the cute name for setting up a gun registration system to enable their ultimate goal of disarming all law abiding citizens. (As Sen. Feinstein previously stated was her goal!)

    Thank you Senators Hatch and Lee for opposing these well intentioned, but totally ineffective and nefarious bills.

    Several of the amendments were actually not bad- but rejected largely by the left- National Recognition of permits; revision of procedures of vets unable to handle finances. And, especially the Cruz-Grassley substitute which addressed mental health issues and strengthened enforcement and school safety, but lacking the registration process demanded by the left.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 17, 2013 7:01 p.m.

    :"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.:

    While were at it, lets scrap underage drinking laws too... because we haven't stopped that either. Speed limits, people still speed at will... lets abandon those too.

    Lets only have laws that no one ever breaks.... and then we'll have unicorns, rainbows and puppy dogs too.

    Good grief... love the logic

  • AzPete Mesa, AZ
    April 17, 2013 7:02 p.m.

    @Hutterite
    He who frames the question wins the debate. If you ask, "Do you favor background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill?" Most people will agree.

    More laws are not the answer. We already have laws that require background checks for purchases from gun stores. Purchases over the internet are required to go through a FFL dealer - including a background check. Purchases at gun shows from dealers require a background check. We already have laws that are adequate - those laws simply need to be enforced. Making criminals out of law-abiding citizens is not the answer.

    The POTUS needs to quit whining. For weeks he has demanded that these proposals be put to a vote. Well, they were put to a vote and were defeated. That is how a democratic republic works. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Now he is acting like a kid who has gum in his hair and someone just took away his favorite toy.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 17, 2013 6:47 p.m.

    Re:theTruth

    In March, a Fox News poll asked the following question:

    Do you favor or oppose:
    "Requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows and private sales"

    85% of the respondents responded they favored, 13% oppose.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    April 17, 2013 6:05 p.m.

    @Hutterite

    Polls from extreme leftest sources are not legitimate polls of the people.

    More importantly those people are being asked questions without any understanding of the ramifications.

    Or they use "background checks" so generically it has no meaning.

  • Bleed Crimson Sandy, Utah
    April 17, 2013 6:03 p.m.

    @ toosmartforyou

    "Exactly WHAT would you do to help solve the problem of gun violence in this country?"

    cjb just listed quite a few solutions we could do to prevent gun violence. What our government is proposing would NOT prevent the Newtown shooting or the Aurora shooting and they know that. So the question is now: "why is our government proposing gun control legislation that will not save lives?" Here's the answer; they want full control of the people and they will exploit any mass shooting to advance their agenda. The purpose of our second amendment is to not only protect ourselves but to prevent government tyranny. These gun control laws will only affect law abiding citizens leaving them sitting ducks for criminals to take advantage of. So, why disarm the people?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 17, 2013 5:49 p.m.

    Far and away a large majority of US citizens support background checks. In light of this decision, it's pretty obvious the idea of our representative democracy is something of an illusion these days.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 17, 2013 4:58 p.m.

    Re toosmartforyou

    I have an answer for you. When solving any problem, the first steps are to recognize there is a problem, which we all do, and then to identify the nature of the problem. This is the step gun control advocates continually get wrong.

    See my previous post where I demonstrate this is a people problem, not a gun problem.

    Knowing this is a people problem, we now know what form our solutions will be. Given that many people who murder are mentally ill, lets start by providing adequate mental health care to all who need it. Next lets provide moral training in the schools. Lets encourage young women to not try to have it all, but instead if they are going to have children, encourage them to stay home during their children's formative years and provide a sense of emotional stability and moral training.

    There now that I have given you a jump start can you think of other possible solutions?

  • CPA Howard Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
    April 17, 2013 4:20 p.m.

    Let's end all the arguing about the second amendment by repealing it or amend it. If the people want it changed then let's make the changes through the method outlined in the consitution. If they can't get the necessary 2/3 vote in congress and 3/4 of the states to approve the amendment, then the matter is settled. The advocates of gun control say it's being held hostage by a small minority of people, if that's true then they should be able to get the support to repeal or amend the second amendment.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    April 17, 2013 4:12 p.m.

    @ FT1/SS

    You wouldn't have gotten it from me! When I worked for 7-11 years ago, a young man (age 20) tried to buy and I asked for ID. When it showed he would turn 21 in 3 months, I refused and told him to come back when he was of legal age. He got upset and threatened me with physical violence. I looked at him and said sternly, "Get out of my store." He left.

    Just because you found some wimp to sell you alcohol doesn't mean it should be ok to sell it to minors. Some people actually obey the law, believe it or not. Some enforce it, too.

    How would you solve the gun problem in America?

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    April 17, 2013 4:05 p.m.

    My question to Mountanman and those Senators who voted against this proposal:

    "Exactly WHAT would you do to help solve the problem of gun violence in this country?"

    What we have now DOES NOT WORK.

    So, what do you propose, other than everyone owning a gun? With the 4-year old that fatally shot another child within the past month, do you really think more guns will make us safer?

    I'm seriously asking----what is your answer?

  • GiuseppeG Murray, Utah
    April 17, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    re: Lagomorph

    Unless you're a member of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), I don't particularly care about your interpretation of the use of "regulate" in the 2nd amendment. Educate yourself...read the SCOTUS decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller and you'll find your interpretation squarely at odds with it and history.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 17, 2013 3:37 p.m.

    pathetic

  • Clark W. Griswold Sandy, Utah
    April 17, 2013 3:19 p.m.

    We the people 1
    Obama and his media lapdogs 0

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 17, 2013 3:10 p.m.

    Events of this week have reminded us that we have is a people problem, not a gun problem, not a pressure cooker problem, but a people problem.

    Cars, bats, knives, swords, guns, pressure cookers, ropes, 2 x 4's with a nail embeded, a bottle of gasoline and a match can all be used to kill people. We simply can not get rid of all the tools a person intent on killing can make use of to murder.

    Were we to get rid of a certain kinds of guns, other kinds of guns would be used. Were we to get rid of all guns, people intent on killing would make use of other tools of which the supply is endless.

    Let us focus on the part of the problem that would actually do us good, not just make us feel good for a moment.

    Like it or not the 2nd ammendment is a part of the constitution. Guns are an equalizer. They allow women, the weak and small, even children to protect their homes from invaders. A child or a woman is much less likely to successfully repel a dangerous home invader with any tool other than a gun.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 17, 2013 3:00 p.m.

    Good for congress, many congress people and our president too acts as if the second ammendment doesn't exist.

  • FT1/SS Virginia Beach, VA
    April 17, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    @Joe Blow "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."

    I don't think Id checks work very well on alcohol sales to minors. In case you hav'nt heard the past couple of weeks in the news there have been 3 cases of sexual assault involving minors and alcohol. I found it pretty easy to purchase illegal alcohol when I was a teen. I'am sure criminals will find it easy to pickup guns with strict background checks for law abiding citizens. I wonder how soon the military will have to apply President Obama's NDAA Law? There's a reason for every law, and why it was signed on New Year's Eve.
    T

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 17, 2013 2:14 p.m.

    "Add the mentally ill to the prohibited list."

    What list? You are advocating against any list or any check.
    Too funny.

    Then you want to "Ban violent video games."

    So, you are OK with stepping on parts of the Constitution, as long as its not the 2nd Amendment.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    April 17, 2013 2:08 p.m.

    Re: Mark B and Lagomorph

    There are virtually NO restrictions on the 1st Amendment. Try listening to satellite radio speech. Try websites and see how easy any kind of pornography is available. The only thing restricting 1st Amendment allowed free expression, political or otherwise, is the venue. (or the gunstore). "......the right.....shall not be infringed." Those are the most powerful absolute words in the Constitution. And if there was an amendment that said "The right of a woman to have an abortion shall not be infringed." You would defend that just like the 2nd amendment is being defended.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2013 2:08 p.m.

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

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2013 2:06 p.m.

    @Mountanman
    "support is ebbing"

    In the Senate, not among the people.

  • Mash76 Provo, UT
    April 17, 2013 1:56 p.m.

    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.

  • Bag Man POWDER SPRINGS, GA
    April 17, 2013 1:57 p.m.

    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.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2013 1:50 p.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 17, 2013 1:14 p.m.

    "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
    April 17, 2013 1:00 p.m.

    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?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 17, 2013 12:50 p.m.

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

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    @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.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    April 17, 2013 12:06 p.m.

    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.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    April 17, 2013 11:29 a.m.

    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
    April 17, 2013 11:15 a.m.

    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.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    April 17, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    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.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    April 17, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    "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.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    April 17, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    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!

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 17, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    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?

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    April 17, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 17, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 17, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    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
    April 17, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    "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.