Un-American Rifle Assoc.


Return To Article
  • MurrayRep Murray, UT
    May 1, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    Let me tell you something, when someone comes to your house to rob you and they have a gun pointed at you, and you don't have anything to protect yourself such as a gun...you're going to be out of luck...even though you're like 80 years old Ad.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 22, 2013 3:25 p.m.

    I am a proud member of the NRA for 30 years!!! I hunt and my wife and family all have been trained in gun use. God bless the NRA. Without the NRA America would soon become the old USSR or Communist China - a gun-less society. People ..please do some research regarding the second amendment and why it is CRITICAL in any free society.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 22, 2013 3:23 p.m.

    Using this same sort of ignorant thinking perhaps we should now ban all PRESSURE COOKERS after the Boston bombings - right? Yes let's go door to door and take granny's pressure cooker away - the one she uses to put up peaches - after all if there are no more pressure cookers there will be no more bombings ...CORRECT??

    Holy geez people this really isn't this hard if you think with your head instead of your emotions. Bad guys will ALWAYS get illegal guns. The guns used at Sandhook were obtained ILLEGALLY !! Bad people are going to kill. Evil exists. Taking guns away from law obeying citizens only makes it much easier for bad guys to rob stores, kill at will in grade and high schools, rape and do pretty much what ever they want. To the college co-ed walking across a dark parking lot - if this girl has a 9mm semi auto in her purse and is trained in it's use her chances of getting assaulted just dropped dramatically. Good people have the RIGHT to protect themselves and their families regardless of what the communist left thinks. In Communism there are no guns.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    April 22, 2013 1:40 p.m.

    Are you kidding me? Albertus, this must have been done "tongue-in-cheek".

    How can anyone be this ignorant.

    And once and for all, it isn't the NRA's fault. It's the Constitution's. So if you want to place blame, then look no further than the Founding Fathers.

  • mmaddox76 Orem, UT
    April 22, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    Guns, just like bombs, axes, swords, knives, and hands, kill people. These, though, are tools. We trust these tools in the hands of experts, such as law enforcement, and chefs, but we don't trust them in the hands of psychopaths, and rightly so. The NRA encourages proper training for the safe handling of these tools. Why vilify them and not the people who perpetrate and promulgate heinous methods of using these tools? People, it would seem, are the problem. When we have better people, we will have less problems with the ways they use their tools. Until then, depriving people of tools to defend themselves doesn't seem like such a good idea.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    April 20, 2013 5:37 p.m.

    History will decry the failure of this country to enact reasonable laws to protect citizens from the ravages of assault weapons. You who parrot the NRA lines will bear much responsibility for the continued slaughter.

    Since 1980 about 3500 people on American Soil have been killed by terrorists. Most of them on 9/11. To counter that we created a whole new government agency and legislated vast new laws granting the Federal Government sweeping new powers, some of which clearly infringe on certain Constitutional rights. But guns are killing more than 30,000 Americans each and every year, and we can't even get and up or down vote on legislation to require a background check, even when it was so watered down to exclude private sales? What is wrong with this picture?

  • Jory payson, utah
    April 20, 2013 5:11 p.m.

    It seems to me that the people who support this bill are the same people who supported the income tax amendment. They probably used the same arguments. It only affects a select few people. Now it affects everyone.

    The bill will only start as just background checks, but it would grow into something more. Just like New Yorks bill. They said it wouldn't lead to any confiscation, but it has.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    The defeated legislation will assist bad people and potential bad people in killing others.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    April 19, 2013 6:34 p.m.

    The NRA is a lobbying organization to promote the sale of guns. Period. Before it promoted gun safety. Now it works to encourage everyone to have a gun for defense against a tyrannical government. It concerns with the Constitution and 2nd Amendment rights is just a ruse to sell more guns. Nothing in the Machin-Toomey bill allowed for any infringement upon someone's right to purchase a gun. And the idea of developing a national registry was explicitly declared illegal under the legislation.

    However, the NRA said that the legislation would invalidate the 2nd Amendment and move toward establishing a national gun registry. Both false allegations. The fear the NRA has ginned up and the paranoid they generate is, as they have determined, is the best marketing tool they have. In fact, NRA finds that mass shootings like at Aurora, CO, and the Sandy Hook Elementary School is good for business. More guns get sold after such disasters than without such tragedies and the NRA simply fans the terror for financial gain.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 19, 2013 3:29 p.m.

    Public Service announcement–
    Some Important signs of lead poisoning:

    Learning difficulties
    Declines in mental functioning
    Memory loss
    Mood disorders

    Please wash your hands with cold water after handling your ammo.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2013 2:03 p.m.

    There's not constitutional right to have zero regulation on guns in this nation. Even Scalia agrees with that. (Scalia's the most conservative judge on the court... and yes I have to state that because someone in one of these threads once responded to my stating this by calling Scalia a liberal).

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2013 1:41 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    So I guess you are also against a registry for convicted sex offenders. After all, once released from prison, they have paid their debt to society, and no one is entitled to know that they once molested little girls. I suppose you'd have no problem employing them to care for your granddaughters.

    Every time you post you confirm my statement. How tragic it must be to view the world in stark black and white--no gray, no color.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    April 19, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    re: jsf

    I think the point is here that many commenters are comparing a pressure cooker to a gun. And suggesting if we ban guns we need to ban pressure cookers. It’s a silly comparison, and they all know it. Having a pressure cooker is not a crime. Using a pressure cooker to make a bomb is. Bombs are pretty much illegal for anyone to make or have. No one is suggesting that all bombs are registered, or that we need to have a background check before someone buys a bomb.
    I certainly think people have the right to own guns. Along with that, I would like to see gun owners secure their weapons, and be held responsible when they are not secure.
    If your gun discharges and kills a person, toilet, or table accidentally, you should be charged with something criminal.
    If a child get hold of your weapon and kills another child, you should go to prison.
    Requiring a background check to buy a gun is not unreasonable.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 19, 2013 11:52 a.m.


    If you think that I'm "extreme", then you must also think that President James Madison was "extreme", because he wrote the Bill of Rights. You must also think that Alexander Hamilton was "extreme" because he argued that no Bill of Rights was necessary because the people, not the government, held all rights.

    You must also think that Jesus Christ is extreme because he forgave fully some "sinners". He did not limit their freedoms after they had been forgiven.

    A felon who has been released from jail has paid whatever price demanded by society. He owes nothing more to society. Society owes him his freedom. He paid the bill in full.

    You imply that a convicted felon is forever a slave to the State; that he can never again receive his freedom, no matter that he paid the price required. I find that line of thought to be both illogical and reprehensible.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 19, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    But VIDAR the liberal argument is if it saves one life, we need controls. Tuesday, June 7, 2011, Miami woman hurt in pressure cooker accident dies. Just one death could have been prevented by common sense laws. Oh and for the last 40 years pressure cooker bombs have been used to kill thousands. It is about time liberals use reality checks.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 19, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    In the 1920s and ’30s, the NRA was at the forefront of legislative efforts to enact gun control. The organization’s president at the time was Karl T. Frederick, a Princeton- and Harvard-educated lawyer known as “the best shot in America”—a title he earned by winning three gold medals in pistol-shooting at the 1920 Summer Olympic Games. As a special consultant to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Frederick helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act, a model of state-level gun-control legislation.

    Frederick’s model law had three basic elements. The first required that no one carry a concealed handgun in public without a permit from the local police. A permit would be granted only to a “suitable” person with a “proper reason for carrying” a firearm. Second, the law required gun dealers to report to law enforcement every sale of a handgun, in essence creating a registry of small arms. Finally, the law imposed a two-day waiting period on handgun sales.

    In the 1960s, the NRA once again supported the push for new federal gun laws.

    Today, NRA=gun maufacturers.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 19, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    The title on the letter accuses an organization of being un-American. But the screeners won't pass any post I have tried saying that those who are trying to circumvent the constitution are the ones who are un-American.

    Maybe I don't have to name them. You know who they are.

    Thank God for a Patriotic American organization that upholds the Constitution, called the NRA!

  • Rynn Las Vegas, NV
    April 19, 2013 5:54 a.m.

    Re: People that say gun laws won't stop gun violence.

    So by that logic, should we also do away with all traffic laws? Because hey, even with traffic laws people are still running red lights, etc.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 18, 2013 9:10 p.m.

    Adolphus Busch IV, heir to the Busch family brewing fortune, resigned his lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association on Thursday, writing in a letter to NRA President David Keene, "I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable."

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2013 8:00 p.m.


    If the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is absolute, as you seem to argue, then you must support the right of felons, minors, and lunatics to keep and bear arms of all types (since the 2nd Amendment contains no exceptions), and you must also think that the current federal requirement for background checks when buying from a gun dealer is unconstitutional and should be abolished, right? And you must disagree with the Supreme Court, which has the responsibility to interpret the Constitution, as well as with common sense, both of which tell us that there are and must be some limits on 2nd Amendment rights, just as there are on all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

    Do you have any idea how extreme and irrational you sound?

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 18, 2013 7:30 p.m.

    Banning pressure cookers would be much easier than banning guns. The Founding Fathers didn't foresee the need for them so they are not protected in the Constitution.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    April 18, 2013 6:52 p.m.


    Centerville, UT

    well how many people die by pressure cooker compared to guns?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 18, 2013 6:42 p.m.

    "People have told me that I'm courageous, but I have seen greater courage. Gabe Zimmerman, my friend and staff member in whose honor we dedicated a room in the United States Capitol this week, saw me shot in the head and saw the shooter turn his gunfire on others. Gabe ran toward me as I lay bleeding. Toward gunfire. And then the gunman shot him, and then Gabe died. His body lay on the pavement in front of the Safeway for hours.

    I have thought a lot about why Gabe ran toward me when he could have run away. Service was part of his life, but it was also his job. The senators who voted against background checks for online and gun-show sales, and those who voted against checks to screen out would-be gun buyers with mental illness, failed to do their job.

    They looked at these most benign and practical of solutions, offered by moderates from each party, and then they looked over their shoulder at the powerful, shadowy gun lobby -- and brought shame on themselves and our government itself by choosing to do nothing."
    (Gabby Giffords)


  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 18, 2013 6:24 p.m.

    Is it Constitutional to prequalify us for ownership of guns when the Constitution explicitly forbids government from infringing on that right? That right is one that the people made perfectly clear to Obama and all who believe him that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms and that government has no right to infringe.

    If yesterday's melt-down by the President has shown us anything it is that we must distrust Washington when our liberties are at stake. When the President of the United States throws our liberties under the bus for political gain, he is someone to be pitied not someone to be admired. His total and complete disrespect for the Constitution has reached a new low. He, who swore and oath to protect and defend the Constitution has done exactly the opposite.

    In America, we are innocent until PROVEN guilty of a crime. Owning a firearm is not a crime; it is a right that we, the people, have reserved to ourselves without any government oversight.

    Anyone who trusts the government to provide security need look no further than Boston.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    April 18, 2013 6:13 p.m.

    I suppose proc knows that the measure actually passed by 54-46, but of course the GOP has changed the Constitution to to require 60 votes under filibuster rules. Their battle cray is "Do nothing!"

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 18, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    Re: ". . . a person who commits a crime with a firearm is more culpable than one who commits a crime without one . . . ."

    Huh? Seems like desperate, anti-gun liberals are now reduced to "jumping the shark."

    It's a little hard to ask them, but I'd bet big money that murder victims are WAY more concerned about being dead than about what tool was used to kill them.

    If that's the best liberals have got, it's no wonder they lost the argument.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 18, 2013 5:22 p.m.

    Re: "Let's be honest, there is no way prudent gun control ever has or would ever violate any reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment . . . ."

    Yeah, and while we're being honest -- let's admit that the US Supreme Court recently struck down laws that really DID violate the Second Amendment, laws that must have seemed "reasonable" to someone.

    Let's also be honest enough to admit liberals DO want to disarm America. Adoption of one or another "reasonable" restriction won't solve the problem, and is not the real end to liberals.

    Though the people have spoken, they have no plans to quit.

    They justify their perfidy with various excuses -- "people don't need guns;" "it's not 1791;" or my favorite, "armed insurrection is illegal."

    Actually, our Declaration of Independence sets out the conditions under which we, the people, may rebel. And there are millions of us that have sworn a perpetual oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," NOT its government.

    Real people really do associate Lexington and Concord with our guns, not Newtown and Aurora.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2013 4:34 p.m.


    "Why is it so hard for liberals to wrap their heads around the concept that the cause of crime is criminals, not their tools?"

    If the "tool" is irrelevant, why are the penalties for committing a crime with a firearm enhanced over committing exactly the same crime without one?

    Why is it so hard for conservatives to wrap their heads around the concept that a person who commits a crime with a firearm is more culpable than one who commits a crime without one, hence the "tool" used is not irrelevant?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 18, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    "They register when you transfer a car," Yes and the only reason they register cars is for the collection of taxes.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    There You Go Again,
    Your logic will lead the manufacturers of pressure cookers to join the NRA.

  • Roscoe West Jordan, UT
    April 18, 2013 3:59 p.m.

    "They register when you transfer a car, why not a gun?"

    Well for one, you do not have the constitutional right to own or drive a car. It is considered a privilege and the state can regulate that privilege.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 18, 2013 2:52 p.m.

    Let's be honest, the downfall of the government or the weakened Constitution and gun control would violate the reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Why did the English request any firearms from the U.S. during WWII? Why did the Nazi army go into the local governments to get the gun registration records first? Why does China support gun registration in the United States? And what program does the federal government administer without corruption and fraud? Which tyrannical government that has existed in the last 100 years didn't start with the concept of taking care of the people?

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    April 18, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    Guns are terrible home defense. Strong doors, alarms and security shutters are the right tools to keep your family safe. All these gun nut's fantasy is to take down a robber IN their home but to do that they first have to FAIL to keep their family safe. Pathetic.

    And as far as defending against tyranny, they may as well be concerned for their ability to have a spear. They should be limiting the size and spending of the DOD. But that's what conservatives do. They're in denial and resistance to change.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 18, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    Is a pressure cooker worth more than the lives of fellow Americans? Why would anybody be against a law that may have the possibilities of reducing the number of killings? Do we need pressure cookers capable of killing 20 runners in a marathon for our own cooking?

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    April 18, 2013 2:08 p.m.

    The nra tells us we will all be safer if everyone owns lots and lots of weapons.

    There is really no need for background checks.

    The 2nd Amendment was written to enable all of us to be safer since everyone is allowed, by the Constitution, to own lots and lots of weapons.

    The nra represents weapons owners and would-be weapons owners.

    As advocates for weapons owners and would-be weapons owners, the nra will soon be lobbying all weapons manufacturers to make more weapons so that we can all be safer.

    Stockholders holding weapons industry stocks salute the nra and the weapons industry!

    What could be more American?

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    April 18, 2013 2:03 p.m.

    I think there should be a background check on our Commander in Chief who orders thousands of armed citizens into conflict. None such has been performed...

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 18, 2013 1:55 p.m.

    I am still trying to figure out what is unamerican about defending constitutional rights. The NRA is defending our rights, and I can't figure out why that is wrong.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    April 18, 2013 1:35 p.m.

    The mentality here seems to be; laws will not stop people from getting guns illegally, so we should not have gun laws.
    Could we not apply this logic to any crime? Do murder laws stop murder? Do other laws stop crime?
    I do not think it is unreasonable to require a background check before selling a gun at a shop, gun show, or between two people.
    They register when you transfer a car, why not a gun?

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    April 18, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    Let's be honest, there is no way prudent gun control ever has or would ever violate any reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, let alone weaken the Constitution and hasten the downfall of the government. And regardless of what federal policies under consideration are adopted, there is no legitimate reason to suspect that we won't be at least as protected and as free as ever. So why the conniption?

    Obviously hidden under a welter of competing facts are deeper issues influencing the debate.

    All of us (regardless of how objective we fancy ourselves to be) mostly believe what we want to believe and find what we look for. Researchers have even suggested a genetic component to a person's conservative and liberal leanings.

    Key to our understanding is recognizing that the way we see our world is very much a projection of our inner selves. Acceptance of ourselves precedes acceptance of others, and to an important degree it is our inner insecurity that drives our outward aggression.

    You could say like Pogo of old that, "We have met the enemy and he is us.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 18, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    Here is the ironic paradox of "gun control"; Obama and the "important" people in government all have armed guards to protect them and their children but you and I must not be allowed to protect ourselves! Welcome to the new America!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 18, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    We won't see progress on this front until the elected ones are as fearful of the electorate as they are of the NRA.

  • Harry-T Davis, UT
    April 18, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    From the t-shirt that is worn by Mr. Larsen in the movie Happy Gilmore, “Guns don’t kill people, I kill people”

    My heart and prayers go out to all those who were victims of the Boston bombings, the shooting in Newtown, and the other violent tragedies that have transpired. It is clear that there are some very sick people among us, and unfortunately it is unclear when, where, and how the next catastrophe will occur.

    Whether it is by gun, pressure cooker, or airplane, it is apparent that anyone who is determined to inflict pain and carnage, they will by any means necessary. Keep the guns in the hands of those who respect them, and who are trained to use them.

    Why would I ever give my gun to the government in return of their protection? It is quite obvious that the protection they are currently offering can’t catch everything. It is because of that I have guns to protect myself, my family, and my property from the previously mentioned people, and if needed tyrannical governments, and foreign attacks/invasions.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    The 5 year old that gets run over when mom backs up the SUV cannot defend himself either
    So what’s your point

    I am NOT a gun person. But I am an anti-politically correct silliness person: So in the spirit of renaming efforts, I give you: Planned Anti-parenthood, Nutty Organization of Women, Unoccupied (brain) Wall Street, National Association of Professional Victims, Human Rights Crushers, PMSNBC

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 18, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    Re: "Why ARE bombs illegal?"

    They aren't. Unless you intend to use them to kill or injure people. See 18 USC 921.

    Why is it so hard for liberals to wrap their heads around the concept that the cause of crime is criminals, not their tools?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 18, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    Re: "Why would anybody be against a law that may have the possibilities of reducing the number of killings? "

    Primarily because it does NOT "have the possibilities of reducing the number of killings."

    The current crop of Anti-American liberal gun control proposals don't address the issue of reducing the number of killings. They don't even address the issue of gun control. They only address controlling people, and even then, they're directed at controlling the wrong people.

    Liberals are well aware of the ONLY tactic that actually has a chance of reduceing the number of killings -- directing their efforts against criminals, rather than the law-abiding.

    Well-known Republican liberal, Rudy Giuliani, even implemented that tactic, and it worked. He reduced the number of killings in NYC by 65%, simply by getting serious about enforcing those laws already in effect.

    But today's anti-American liberal politicians clearly want a festering political crisis they can run against, WAY more than they wan't an actual solution.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    Keep in mind that the NRA represents the gun manufacturers. Their goal is money money money. This scare over "they might take my gun away" has generated a nice spike in the sale of guns and ammo. As gruesome and repugnant as it sounds, the massacre of children at Newtown was great for business.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 18, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    Did you call your legislators to let them know how you want them to vote on gun control measures?

    Apparently your legislators believe voting against expanded background checks is politically the right thing to do.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    "Bombs are merely tools. By themselves, they can do nothing. It takes a human mind and heart to put them to use, for good or ill. Bomb control laws are not going to stop evil people from violently attacking those they wish to hurt. Americans have a constitutional right to defend themselves. The NRA merely helps protect that right."


    If you do not see anything wrong with this post, I pity you.

    Why ARE bombs illegal?

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    April 18, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    The reason we have these mass killings is because we have crowds of unprotected people. So let's pass a law that says everyone must wear full body armor every time they go out in public...or...lets pass a law that says no more than 2 people can be within 100 yards of each other. That will solve it...right?

    I'm sure the writer would be for such measures, because as he put it..."Why would anybody be against a law that may have the possibilities of reducing the number of killings?"

    Such silly notions make about as much sense as this gun bill does.

  • Bloodhound Provo, UT
    April 18, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    Guns are merely tools. By themselves, they can do nothing. It takes a human mind and heart to put them to use, for good or ill. Gun control laws are not going to stop evil people from violently attacking those they wish to hurt. Americans have a constitutional right to defend themselves. The NRA merely helps protect that right.

  • William Gronberg Payson, UT
    April 18, 2013 7:53 a.m.

    My U. S. Army drill instructors, in the year 1964, had a little gem that sums up the following quote taken out of context from an above DN post.

    "...Chicago, Illinois, the murder capital of the world..."

    "Some of you people must live in a vacuum."

    There are small countries with murder rates substantially higher than Chicago.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    April 18, 2013 7:46 a.m.

    Let's compromise on this name change: you call it the Un-American Rifle Association, and I'll call Obama's health care plan for what it is: the Un-Affordable Health Care Act. Deal?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 18, 2013 7:15 a.m.

    The author is assuming that gun control laws prevent bad people from getting guns which they never have and never will. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Chicago, Illinois, the murder capital of the world with the strictest gun laws in the nation! Anyone with a brain can see more gun control laws are useless and only serve to punish law abiding citizens! Cops can not protect you from bad guys!

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    April 18, 2013 6:45 a.m.

    There's good law abiding people that have guns, who take car of what they have. There's some bad one's out there to. You don't need a gun to kill. The most dangerous weapon in the world is the human mind.