Quantcast

Comments about ‘What others say: A shameful day’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, April 19 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
anti-liar
Salt Lake City, UT

This very gun bill would have done nothing to prevent the recent tragedies. Criminals do not submit to background checks. Nor do they submit to expanded background checks. All this bill would do is threaten law-abiding Americans' ability to defend themselves.

And I don't care if Barrack Hussein Obama promised that a registry would never materialize as a result of implementation of this bill. He also has made known is utter disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law and tramples upon both freely with regard to immigration law and its enforcement for example. I have plenty of basis to not trust Barrack Hussein Obama in the slightest.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

The Washington Post, said that there was not one portion of this bill; not one clause; not one section; that would have prevented the shootings in Newtown. But the question wasn’t really whether or not Obama's gun control measures would work, was it? The point was that he wanted to take an incremental step toward confiscation How do we know? Obama once told a fellow professor at that Chicago law school that he didn’t believe that people should be allowed to own guns. His name was John Lott. Professor Lott hasn’t forgotten. Pesky things, those memories. Anyway … you knew that the troublesome Second Amendment was going to be problematic, so take anything you can get, right?

Voice of Reason
Layton, UT

Obama's claim that the bill's opponents "willfully lied" is the absolute pinnacle of arrogance and deeply misleading.

Like millions of Americans, 46 senators honestly and sincerely disagreed with Obama's opinion of the bill. They reasonably believe, as I do, that it will do absolutely nothing to prevent the next massacre. Nothing whatsoever. That is not a "lie", which requires knowing you are wrong and still repeating a falsehood that you already understand to be wrong. Stating a differing opinion is not a "lie". It may even be a MISGUIDED opinion, but it is NOT a "lie."

The word "lie" is way overused in politics today. A difference of opinion, however misguided you may think it to be, is NOT a lie.

DN Subscriber 2
SLC, UT

What a waste of ink. Pompous platitudes from media elites, who probably never even read the bill or any of the amendments to understand what it actually contained.

This was bad legislation, with no benefits, and only advancing the leftist agenda to establish the basis for a registration system.

Just by looking at Chicago and Washington DC with their near total gun bans for decades should be sufficient proof that gun control is a failed concept that needs to be dropped. Instead, we need criminal control.

And, despite the willful refusal by the media to even mention the topic, we really need to look at the demographics of gun violence and try to fix the cultural basis that has some segments of our society thinking that killing is acceptable, along with other forms of self destructive behavior.

It's not the guns, it's the criminals!

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

Obama's temper tantrum over not getting his way is a statement on him, not the bill in the senate.

As far as a registry, it already exists. Stores have to keep the records of who buys guns and have for years. It is an outright lie for the President to say there is no registry in the bill. It adds to the existing registry, which is real and does exist.

The parading of victims, who's outcomes would not have been changed by more restrictions on guns, is what is shameful. It re-victimizes them. It is hasn't been for just one day, It has been several shameful months. And the president promised to keep this shameful behavior up.

He got his vote. It should be over. Let's work on mental illness, where the real problem is.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

It isn't President Obama who didn't get his way. It's most of us. The legislative process got hijacked, mostly by the NRA. We need to make our elected officials fear us, the voters, more than they fear the NRA.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Mountanman
Hayden, ID
The Washington Post, said that there was not one portion of this bill; not one clause; not one section; that would have prevented the shootings in Newtown. But the question wasn’t really whether or not Obama's gun control measures would work, was it?

-----------

It was NOT to prevent Newtown, it is to prevent the next big one - even if it only saves one more person, it is worth it.

Also, this was NOT Obama's gun control measures. Why don't you find out who wrote these measures (Both a Rep and a Dem worked on them)?

And finally, WHY can't we debate these issues? Why are our Senators so scared of allow a debate? Why do they think they need a supermajority to pass this? Why are they afraid of the NRA instead of the people they represent?

mohokat
Ogden, UT

Obamas outrage has nothing to do with gun control. What he was expecting was that this would pass the Dem. Senate knowing full well it would not pass the House. That said he has missed that wedge issue to help him win the House in 2014 which is his opportunity to completely bring the Nation to its knees and convert us to Socialism/Communism. Obama does nothing that does not benefit him and only him.

MapleDon
Springville, UT

@Hutterite, et al

It wasn't the NRA that got in the way. You should understand that. Turn off MSNBC for awhile and think this issue through.

It was the Constitution that got in the way. Read the 2nd Amendment again, then come back and provide some worthwhile discourse. It is unconstitutional for the government to infringe a citizen's right to bear arms.

What happened in the Senate was patriotic. The behavior of 54 senators and our president was shameful.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Maple Don..perhaps you should read the second amendmend again and the bill and then tell me how a bill that merely "expands" a process that all ready effects 60% of gun purchases and that has been deemed constitutional by the supreme court, violates the second amendment.

The second amendment clearly says that a citizens "right" to bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't in any way say that a specific individual can't be deemed unworthy of that right. It's the same thing as an incarcirated felons right to vote. As a civil society you can and must protect citizens constitutional rights while at the same time denying individual citizens the opportunity to exercise that right when they prove themselves unworthy of that right.

This bill does nothing to "infringe" on the right of law abiding citizens to own a gun. It simply does what we can as a society to further keep guns out of the hands of criminals, those charged with domestic violence and those deemed mentally unstable.

The Hammer
lehi, utah

This bill is a bad idea from the get go. First off gun regulation should be done on the state level. Federal enforcement leads to federal prosecution which means more cases on the docket of an already overwhelmed system. Not to mention the fact that most of the states that have had these incidence already have gun safety laws. Connecticuts being by far one of the most far reaching states as far as gun control is concerned.

This bill would have done nothing to prevent the Newtown tragedy and whats worse is that it would likely harm law abiding citizens and businesses who own and trade guns. There should be no federal background check which will ultimately lead to a federal database and registry (despite the bills wording) and then heavy handed federal law which infringes on state and 2nd ammendment rights.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Lane Meyer,
the bill would have done nothing to prevent the next one, either.

What is truly shameful, as other have said, is BO holding up dead children and grieving parents as a political prop then throwing a north-korea-leader like temper tantrum when he doesn't get his own way.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "The U.S. Senate's handling of a gun safety package was cowardly and contemptible."

Agreed.

The bill should have been overwhelmingly defeated, rather than simply allowed to go away, for now, to be brought back again and again as the left's attempt to sway low-information voters in the upcoming Congressional elections.

The bill was trash.

Everyone, even the left, admits it would not have made the slightest difference in any of the incidents being exploited to drum up support. The only people affected by its provisions would be the law-abiding. It's a dangerous part of the regime's agenda to "fundamentally transform" America into a brave, new, 1984 world.

Ajax
Mapleton, UT

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 or liberal leanings.

Key to our understanding is recognizing that the way we see our world is very much a projection of our inner selves. To an important degree it is our inner insecurity that drives our outward bluster and aggression. Blaming others is often more a rationalization of our own deficiencies than reality.

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

Ajax
Mapleton, UT

Reason and good sense notwithstanding, probably most fundamental to the gun controversy is the irrational fear-induced ideology of some that "government" is conspiring against them. What they openly contend are mostly distracting rationalizations. To argue over the particulars of the likes of the 2nd Amendment, safety and freedom when the real issue stems from deluded thinking is a waste of time, recalling the biblical adage of straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Hutterite "We need to make our elected officials fear us, the voters, more than they fear the NRA."

This is where Obama met with failure. Those who had strong feelings about his legislation far outnumbered those who didn't. It is one thing to be one of 90% answering a poll question, and it is wholly another thing to be willing to take a firm stand motivated by deep conviction.

Unfortunately for Obama, his constituency is largely made up of disengaged people who don't pay that much attention to political matters. This enables him to win elections, but not necessarily to carry out his agenda. It also may have caused him to misread his mandate.

His evident frustration with the constitutional process is a continual delight for me. I believe the Constitution will win out in the end.

MapleDon
Springville, UT

@pragmatistferlife

What you said makes complete sense...to a communist.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

What was more shameful was the day Obama Care was rammed down our throats. Many more people will die in the future due to the passage of Obama Care than ever were killed with guns. Just wait and see.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

What is "shameful" is that a newspaper would support the violation of the Constitution. What is the purpose of the "4th Estate"? Is it not to stand for truth? Is it not to stand for the Supreme Law of the Land? Then, why would a newspaper call for an infringement on the absolute right of citizens of America to keep and bear arms? Who gave that newspaper the right to set aside the Constitution and to decide that the Supreme Law of the Land is of no importance and that government has the right to restrict our rights when the people, who hold all rights, has expressly forbidden government from doing that very thing?

When loud voices who reject the Constitution become the only voices heard, those voices will destroy this nation. That newspaper should be rejected by every citizen in America. Those who subscribe to that newspaper should immediately remove their financial support - unless they truly believe that our rights come from government and unless they can show in the Constitution where we have given government that authority.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

Around 10,000 people are killed by guns each year. Just because a proposal wouldn't have stopped Newtown doesn't mean it wouldn't have stopped some of those other 10,000.

to comment

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