Published: Sunday, April 21 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
They can background check til the cows come home. But no one can be denied a
gun... Says so in the Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment... For those who may not
have access to a copy it goes something like this... 'the fight of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Sounds fairly clear
to me.If there's to be any restrictions on gun ownership it
should come from the US Congress. And it should start with Congress amending
the 2nd Amendment. But will the Congress do anything like that? Not likely.
It's too hot a button. Politicians don't like to jeopardize their
cushy jobs by having black marked on them.
Unfortunately, we can not have a reasonable discussion about background
check.That is not the discussion that the NRA wants. Why? Because
it is clearly supported by an overwhelming majority of the American People.So, they turn the discussion into - Background checks are in
violation of the 2nd Amendment.This is clearly not true. The Supreme
court has ruled that background checks ARE constitutional.You may not like
it. You may not agree with it. But that does not change the FACT that
background checks ARE constitutional. - This will lead to a
national gun registry with the governments ultimate goal to confiscate all
guns.Why would the government want to confiscate our guns? Do you have
such little faith in America?Has the federal government EVER done ANYTHING
that would suggest that?There are extremes on both sides.Left extreme - get rid of any and all guns.Right extreme - Any gun, any
place by any one.The bulk of Americans do not fall into either of
those 2 camps. And I can assure you that even those who support background
checks would NEVER allow a federal gun ban or confiscation.I give
the American people much more credit than some.
When we have the "best congress that money can buy" the will of the
people is of little consequence.
The Supreme Law of the Land says that government cannot infringe on our right to
keep and bear arms. The letter writer disagrees with the Supreme Law of the
Land. He disagrees with the Senators who upheld the Constitution and who were
elected by the people to represent the views of the States. He agrees with a
President who has violated his oath of office to protect and defend the
Constitution when Obama pushed legislation that would make our right to keep and
bear arms null and void. He refuses to use the method chosen by the people to
modify the Constitution, i.e. an amendment proposed by Congress and then
ratified by 75% of the States.In short, he is calling for the Senate
to disregard the Constitution. He is calling for the President to have power
over the people. He is calling for government to dispense rights, when the
Constitution clearly and absolutely requires government to submit to acknowledge
that all rights are held by the people and that government is allowed to perform
a small number of enumerated duties for the people - duties which are listed in
Article 1, Section 8.
You will find what your looking for. My Dad would say that to me every time I
got into trouble. If someone really wants a gun, they will find it, somewhere.
We the people have been usurped by them the monied. The NRA, oil companies,
pharmaceutical outfits, big tobacco...those that fund campaigns hold sway.
Something needs to be changed.
Mr. Burt hits the nail on the head! "90% of Republican Senators" voting
NO Hatch and Lee included, all the while thinking of ways to use their next NRA
campaign donation. But lets not forget the four Dems. who voted NO, while
shaking in their boots for fear of being primaried by the NRA and Tea Party in
the next election. There is definitely a shortage of backbone in DC these days.
Seems votes are easy to get, respect is another issue!
Here's what bothers me about letters like this....Do you
actually know all the things that were in bill that the Republicans defeated?
Yes there were some good things in it that would help with purchases of guns,
but there was some very wide open interpretation of parts of the bill that made
people scratch their heads..This is why they should not combine
things into one big bill...
When has the GOP done the will of the people since Obama became president? Their
#1 priority isn't to do the will of the people but to make Obama a 1 term
president, remember? Now that he was reelected, they are opposing him just to
make Democrats look bad: maybe even force the economy into another recession so
that they can blame democrats later to make it easier for themselves in the next
presidential election.It is time to get to business and do the will
of the people. But the GOP refuses to do so
There is a lot that Richard doesn't understand. 1) the "40%" is a
myth. It comes from a Clinton-era survey of . . . 251 people taken before the
Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks. The real number is
closer to 10%.2) Richard also doesn't know that making a straw
purchase is currently a federal offense. It is illegal.
"We the People" doesn't have much sway with any elected
representative who allows a powerful gun lobby to grade lawmakers on their
voting record. Legislators live in fear of offending the NRA.
Since alcohol and illegal drugs kills and destroys far more lives than guns,
maybe we should have more laws against drinking alcohol and illegal drugs! Think
of the lives background checks, mandatory waiting periods to purchase alcohol,
meth or cocaine and limited container sizes of would save in America! Do it for
the children! We know addicts and criminals will obey these laws don't we?
Parade drug and alcohol abuse victims on TV and demand new laws against these
evils. After all, liberals, we need to be consistent in fighting evils plaguing
our nation don't we?
Your thoughts are my thoughts but your words are better than my words. Thank
you Richard Burt.
There needs to be a constitutional amendment to get rid of the filibuster. The
blocking of reasonable bipartisan will be the high mark of obstruction and game
Politics is about survival, who can put you out of office, who can give you the
resources you need to keep getting re-elected.At this point, almost
all GOP Congressmen (and some Democrats from Red States) fear the 10% from the
NRA more than they do the passive 90% who would support background checks,
outlawing straw purchases, etc.A sizable chunk of the 90% will be
outraged enough to help contribute resources to like-minded political
organizations, like Mark Kelly's PAC. Sadly, the 90% can't simply
assume their representatives will do the right thing. (This is discouraging in
itself, part of how politics turns people off.)But until the GOP and
red-state Democrats fear getting booted from office by angry voters who are
focused and motivated by a political organization that counters the NRA,
there's no reason for Congressmen to change their orientation.If enough people who are outraged give money to Mark Kelly's PAC, maybe
we'll begin to see GOP and red-state Dems "evolve" their positions
on these issues. Until then, nothing will happen. "Nothing" is the goal of the NRA.
Facts matter, and this letter has distorted the facts. It is already illegal to
buy a gun for someone who legally cannot. No need action needed other than
enforcement.I seriously doubt that 90% want more background checks.
That number has been created through carefully crafted deceptive polling. I
thought more background checks was a good idea until I learned that it also
requires everyone who sells a gun to keep a record of who they sold it to, i.e.
they are making a registry. One day the government will call in all those
records and the gun registry will be complete. That is contrary to the
Constitution, and rights to privacy.Utah's senators did the
right thing. Great job Senator Lee and the TEA Party, and the NRA.
Re:wrz, MikeRichardsYou conveniently edit the 2nd Amendment, "A well
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."Your views are far to the right of the conservative Justicies serving on
the Supreme Court. And the conservative Justices serving today are to the right
of past conservative Justices on this issue.
Again and again Richards and others distort the 2nd Amendment. I am still
waiting for you to inform us what "well regulated" militia you belong to
and if so then why do we have a standing military? Again and again Richards and
others pick and choose what part of the Constitution you want to follow based on
your bias. With every right comes responsibility and if you aren't a
responsible gun owner you should be excluded like I would be with the 1st
Amendment if I yell fire in a crowded dark theatre. How do I know? It has been
established by law, another part of the Constitution. If you are using the
argument that background checks won't stop all crime then lets repeal all
restrictive safety laws because they don't stop violators as the fertilizer
explosion in Texas demonstrates.
Here's a little experiment for Mountainman, Mike Richards, and their
philosophical kin:Do you support the right of *any* US citizen to
purchase as many, and as powerful of guns they can legally purchase, including
100 round magazines, even if they're disgruntled immigrants from muslim
nations? May these same immigrants also purchase as much ammonium nitrate
fertilizer and diesel fuel as they wish, without the federal government tracking
their activities?And if you believe the feds actually should track
immigrants and perhaps restrict their activities, what makes you think the same
federal government couldn't track you and limit your rights?Does Rand Paul still want to get up on the soapbox and claim the federal
government must never have the right to track US citizens?At some
point, the ultra-right needs to temper their paranoia that the federal
government is the enemy. Come in off the range, boys, and sit down and talk
rationally with the rest of us. Maybe it's not inevitable that
our government in DC is going to become tyrannical. This paranoid fantasy is
what actually allows people like the Chechen brothers in Boston to operate.
Re: "Forty percent of those who purchase guns are not subject to background
checks . . . . Currently, there is no law prohibiting "straw
purchases."Here's a good illustration as to why it's
impossible to have a reasonable conversation with liberals about gun laws --
they lie.Straw purchases for prohibited persons have been a
10-year/$250k felony since 1968.And, Obama's 40% figure is a
lie. It comes from a dated, questionable study, includes intra-family gifts and
inheritances, and is "rounded" up from 35.7%.Most tellingly,
that same study found that only 3.9% of purchases are made at gun shows.Funny we've never heard that. Or that most gun-show purchases are
from licensed gun dealers, who are already subject to current background check
laws.It's hard to have a meaningful conversation with people
who want to start it off with a disingenuous premise.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments