Wow. Utah is weird. Conservative psychology is just full of YOU must but I
don't have to's.
Couldn't agree more. Amen and Amen.Teachers just need an NRA
like entity to buy off our politicians with millions of dollars in "campaign
An excellent letter. Too often, stupidity wins.Real Maverick hit
the nail on the head above.
Why not mandatory background checks on our politicians? Because they know that
most of them wouldn't pass?
Welcome to Utah. We have Republican senators railroading good legislation,
arcane liquor laws, the worst air in the nation, the most clogged and
underfunded schools, abysmal voter turnout, guns in church but no permits
Real Maverick and OneOldMan:I'm with you on the
disproportionate influence of the NRA, except that teachers do have a lobbying
organization - the NEA - whose contributions and lobbying payments are far
greater than the NRA's. I think the NRA's outsized influence is more
than just a money issue; it also involves idealogy and the rabid activism of
right-wing extremists. Too bad the teachers don't have a group that is
quite as passionate or effective.
It should be obvious that the more impact a person has on others, the more a
background check should be required. Our Commander in Chief has never had one
but he commands armys. In fact, he has spent millions to cover up his past.
I wonder how many teachers are prevented from committing criminal acts by
"Our Commander in Chief has never had one but he commands armys. In fact, he
has spent millions to cover up his past. Why?"Do you have any
idea how baseless those statements are? You sincerely think that Obama has not
been vetted fully and completely? Seriously. Use a little logic and think
about your statements.Certainly you should be able to see how
embarrassing they are.
@Henderson"Why not mandatory background checks on our politicians?
"After nominating the likes of Angle, O'Donnell, Mourdock,
and Akin I'm surprised the Republican party doesn't do that.
We use checks all the time for preventing --DUIs, ID for
alcohol, TSA for Airline safety, But not for stopping
children, KNOWN criminals, and the KNOWN mentally unstable from purchasing or
possessing weapons used to massacre those very Teachers and Children....It seems conservatives are all about checking for Word of Wisdom and
immoral sexual crimes but when it comes to protecting inncocent citizens -
crickets.The double standard is truely sad.
Sorry to disappoint Ms Curmudgeon but Unions have little to say in this state
and nationally because our nation has decided the average Joe or Jill need no
right to collective bargin. Trillions stashed overseas and the people that
helped earn it, teaching our children, saving our lives, protect us from crime,
and actually are the ones adding wealth for only 7% of the population are left
looking over their shoulders wondering if they are next ones on the chopping
The liberals here fail to see the use of these checks. Think of it this way.Would you support the US government from reverifying the information for
security clearance applications? Currently they have to periodically
re-investigate and verify the security applications for all clearance
holders.Are you liberals saying that your children are less valuable
to you than national security secrets?That is the message that you
are sending when you say that teachers do not need to have background checks
every few years.Your complaints about gun background checks is
unfounded. The Gun Control Act of 1968 already makes Strawman purchases
illegal, the sale or transfer of guns to mentally ill people ilegal, and the
sale of guns to fellons and criminals illegal. How about we worry about
enforcement of current gun laws, rather than adding new and unenforcable laws to
"Your complaints about gun background checks is unfounded. The Gun Control
Act of 1968 already makes Strawman purchases illegal, the sale or transfer of
guns to mentally ill people ilegal, and the sale of guns to fellons and
criminals illegal."And many on the right, including many posters
here, call these laws unconstitutional and would quickly do away with all the
laws you cite, if given a chance.
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah’s dubious distinction as one of the leading
states for suicide could be linked to its high rate of gun ownership and
political conservatism, according to a newly released study.Utah was
the second-most-armed state behind Kentucky in 2012.Suicide in the
2nd leading cause of death for Utahans age 15-44 and THE leading cause for males
in that age group. Suicides accounted for about 85% of gun-related
deaths in Utah between 2007 and 2011, according to statistics from the Utah
Department of Health. Utah is in the top 5 in the nation in
firearm-related suicides.“Many studies show that, of all
suicide methods, firearms have the highest case fatality, implying that an
individual that selects to use this technique has a very low chance of
survival,” states the study.Firearms are by far the most common way
that suicide is committed, and having firearms present in a home is a
demonstrated risk factor for suicide. Restricting access to firearms for persons
at risk of suicide is one potential way to prevent suicide.Both of
our U.S. Senators just snubbed their NRA noses at this.
To "JoeBlow" go and read the Gun Control Act of 1968 and tell me what is
unconstitutional about that law. Does it do anything different than the current
background checks that are already in place and conservatives agree are
DougS:Every candidate who runs for president gets a more thorough
background check than anyone buying a gun. It's called the primary
election, followed by the final election. Remember all the fun we had with the
Republican parade of clowns last year? And if there is anything lurking in the
background, "millions" won't hide it. If the election process
didn't uncover it, it is probably another of those wacky notions (like
Obama's foreign birth) so popular among right-wing extremists and
Joe Blow and M. DeForest; please tell me what passport he used for his foreign
travel forbidden to U.S. Citizens.. Please tell me under what name(s) he was
registered at the schools he attended and show me his grades.. Explain the
in-consistencies in his birth certificate from a hospital that didn't exist
when he was born and a father from a country that didn't exist at the
time...If he was "vetted" so completely, surely you have the answers
because no one else has..
"tell me what is unconstitutional about that law."Are you
telling me that it is accepted by people like Mike Richards and Mountanman that
the current system of background checks are constitutional?Mike,
To "JoeBlow" I don't think you read the law. Please go and read
the Gun Control Act of 1968 and tell me what is unconstitutional about that law.
Does it do anything different than the current background checks that are
already in place and conservatives agree are constitutional?Please
stop cutting what I post in a way that misleads what I wrote.
Joeblow- Most of us don't have a problem with the current laws. Sure, there
are always a few guys on both sides of the fence who run their mouths too much,
but i'm ok with the BC's. However, most of us are tired of the new
game Barry is playing with the minds of Americans. He's like the kid who
constantly tries to change the rules of Candyland because he can't win. He
tries and fails, so he gets louder and louder, then when the vote (game)
doesn't go his way he cries about it and says "shame on you".
It's getting really old. There are enough gun laws on the books right now.
Don't believe me? Look them up. We already have background checks, why do
we need a new law saying we need different background checks? Is it because the
left is losing the game and wants to change the rules?
@Redshirt1701"The Gun Control Act of 1968 already makes Strawman
purchases illegal, the sale or transfer of guns to mentally ill people ilegal,
and the sale of guns to fellons and criminals illegal."That's all well and good but without requiring a background check on
private sales, people wouldn't know whether or not they are privately
selling guns to felons or criminals and those who sell them unknowingly are not
subject to this act, only those who knowingly do it. That's why
there's this massive loophole we're trying to close (except the bill
would only make a small dent in closing the loophole because it was compromised
so heavily towards the Republicans).
RedShirt the GCA of 1968 leaves the verification of unqualified persons up to
the seller. This of course is absurd for private sellers and gun shows, who
have no means for determining whether the person is unqualified or not.
That's why the background check loophole needs to be closed.
Doug S -- what nonsense. All those things have been completely disproven time
and time again. The only people still ranting about it are those who have been
completely fooled by hate radio stations.
A newspaper or TV investigative show should send a convicted felon to a gun show
and track with hidden cameras to see how many guns he can buy.I'll bet it would blow most of our minds at how many he could obtain and
how easily it can be done. Then they should have handcuffs ready to clap on the
people who sell the weapons. (But, I know. They haven't done anything
illegal. Wrong, but not illegal. That's why this law is needed.)
To "Irony Guy" and the current gun control laws also leave verification
of unqualified persons up to the seller.Again, why do we need a new
law that is unenforcable?How are you going to close the background
check loophole. If I sell a gun that I inherited, how will the Federal
Government ever know that I sold the gun?How are can teh government
enforce the background check loophole? In the case of gun shows, all it will do
is push the transactions for guns from the show floor to the parking lot.Why do you and your ilk want more unenforcable laws? Why not
concentrate on ENFORCING the laws that we already have?
I don't believe that many of the posters know the difference between a
"background check" and a "national agency check". The
background check currently in place is a national agency check for any criminal
record. A background check is much more comphrehensive and was used for
security clrarences for access to classified material. It involved checks on
work place, acquaintences, credit history, and such for the previous 10 years
including places of residence.
Confidence and trust is what I want for my kids in teachers.
Real Maverick, Teachers have the NEA/UEA to represent their interests.
It's just that the NEA and UEA spend most of their time advocating
liberal/Progressive causes so they apparently don't care about teacher
background checks or who pays for them. Not a good enough issue for them.
BBackground checks are part of the teacher licensing process.By the
way, I have to pay for a background check EVERY YEAR as part of the sign up fee
to officiate High School sports for the UHSAA/National Federation. I also had
to undergo a background check/fingerprinting to sell travel insurance at work,
and I had to pay for my own background check/fingerprinting to get my Concealed
Weapons Permitwhich expires in 2016 and then I'll have to pay for it again.
So, my heart bleeds for the teachers.