" He forgets that this is not a democracy where the people get to rule by
majority."I will remember this when a repub comes to me to
complain about Romneycare errr I mean Obamacare and claims that the majority of
Americans didn't want it.
It is true we have a compound constitutional republic. Re: gun laws,
many forget that Utah has this to say in its constitution:Article I,
Section 6. [Right to bear arms.] The individual right of the
people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others,
property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be
infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the
lawful use of arms.Our representatives and senators in DC should
represent Utah and make sure we don't lose our state constitutional rights
at the hands of the Feds as well.
If already most guns are sold with background checks, then this new law was
going to change little. If that is that case, why was the opposition so strong
to something so insignificant and already the rule of the land? Why fight
against so hard something that was simply going to close a few loop holes in
what the author claims was already a very inclusive law.If all the
things the author stated are true... it just reinforces the point that the vote
was purely political... and in fact "fixing" a problem was not the
motivation at all. If that vast majority of gun sales were covered by
background checks... there should have been little to no resistance in closing
back channel method of acquiring weapons.this was all political
theater and had nothing to do with protecting the constitution. The existing
laws the author references prove background checks was not the issue at all..
Yes, we are a Democratic Republic where we choose others from among us to
represent us. We have city councils that represent us on the local level. We
have county commissioners that represent us on the county level. Then we have
representatives that represent us on the state and federal level. We elect
"electors" to vote for us when a President is elected. Those who bring
up "popular vote" know little about our form of government. California uses popular vote to amend its constitution. Recently the popular
vote outlawed same-sex marriage. The first thing that those in favor of
same-sex marriage did was to enlist the help of a judge who admitted to being
homosexual to overturn the vote of the people. They want it both ways. They
want popular vote so that everyone has a voice, but when that popular vote
doesn't suit the minority, they look for "justice" in the courts.
The Democratic Republic system works. It keeps emotion to a minimum
and protects us from "pop star" presidents who temporarily gain power.
The supreme court already ruled that reasonable requirements such as background
checks ARE constitutional.
Examine the source. Whenever anyone starts throwing numbers around in their
argument, I am reminded that a large percentage of the population do not
understand what the difference between a percent and a percentile, let alone
margin of error, sampling bias, etc. We have a great need of more
librarians (who make us check our sources) and statisticians in our society (who
help us understand the numbers).
What Richard M. LaFontaine is saying is that what the people want doesn't
matter. He forgets that we elect people to do OUR will . . . such as voting in
favor of background checks to keep people safer (not totally safe -- just safer,
and something that an overwhelming percentage of the people of the United States
wanted). Instead, the only thing the majority of the politicians care about is
pandering to the special interest groups to get their $$$ to fund their next
campaign. The vote against background checks had nothing to do with
"liberty" or "the Constitution" and everything to do with
politicians getting dollars so they could fund a campaign to get themselves
re-elected. The politicans forget (or ignore) what they are supposed to be
doing and who they are supposed to be representing, and act for their own
Background checks don't violate the constitution. Those that voted against
the bill didn't defend the constitution, they did it to get a gold star
beside their name on an NRA list somewhere.
Suppose it is true that 90% really wanted gun control. Those people would have
been better off getting their representatives to deal with the violent people in
their jurisdictions, rather than to try to force their views on other areas of
the country that don't share their views.We realize something
they don't. Overly restrictive gun laws actually increases violence. FBI
statistics proves this. Why would this be? Because good people follow the law,
bad people don't. In areas where bad guys know good people are defenseless,
they are less afraid to mug and rob people.Take a Chicago thug and
put him in Utah. If he continues in his ways, he wouldn't live a year.
Chances are in this environment he would get a job instead.
Have you ever noticed that polls are meaningless unless it agrees with your
opinion? Have you ever noticed how Congress pretends they represent citizens
when in reality it is for their wealthy donors. Have you ever noticed how some
in this forum who claim expertise in the Constitution one day and the next, well
it's another story because their leaders ignored opinions of the masses and
demonstrated cowardice that corresponded with their opinion? Have you ever
noticed that the rules of the King's English are thrown out when it comes
to the 2nd Amendment? People just chop off half the sentence they don't
like, kinda like how they interpet the whole Constitution and Bible. This amazes
The alternative of rule by majority is rule by minority. The
representatives of the people in government are elected by the people to do the
will of God, as determined by the representatives. Not. The
“We the People” of republicans is not necessarily the “We the
People” that most people think of as being “We the People”.
The only reason we have any freedoms at all is because we have a
government to enforce the restrictions of freedom from those who would take away
And...Republicans are doing everything they can to kill democracy in America
(voting restrictions, electorial college changes, excessive use of the
fillibuster etc.) because they have lost the public. Argue over 90%
or 40% all you want but general social studies clearly show Republicans are
losing the gun battle also. Studies that have consistantly been taken since the
'70's show a sharp decline in gun ownership. Again you can argue
about the validity of the individual study but when the same study with the same
questions has shown a decline from 50% to 35% over the last 30 years you have to
believe the trend favors the 90% number. In addition the study shows the
decline comes from democrats and independents and the prevelance of female heads
of households all trends supported by other studies. Two more trends..increased
urbanization leading to fewer hunters, and a decline in the number of citizens
introduced to guns through military service. Republicans will
eventually lose this battle because gun restrictions are legal..and fewer and
fewer Americans believe that liberty is defined by guns.
From Politifact:"Jay Corzine has attended and studies gun shows in
Florida. The UCF professor says that based on his observation, no more than 15
to 20% of sales at gun shows happen without a background check. But when you add
in other private sales -- neighbors selling to neighbors, ads in the paper, etc.
-- the 40% figure is "probably accurate" and "a very good figure to
use."Gary Kleck, whose research has provided the foundation for
less restrictive concealed carry laws, agrees that conditions in the gun market
haven’t changed much."I know of no affirmative reason to
think that the methods of acquiring guns has significantly changed in recent
decades, or that conditions have changed such that private (non-dealer)
transfers have become more (or less) important. The laws regulating gun sales
have not gotten significantly more (or less) strict since the Brady Act, so
there's no strong basis for expecting fewer dealer sales or more non-dealer
sales as a result of legal changes," Kleck, a professor at Florida State
University, wrote in an email.Kleck says the 40% estimate is
"probably still reasonably valid today."
The problem with the background check bill is that would have made all transfers
of guns illegal unless a background check was performed first. what this means
is you couldn't loan your friend your gun unless he got a background check
first. It also means that he couldn't give you back your gun unless you got
a background check first.If you needed to have your gun repaired you
couldn't transfer your gun to gun Smiths unless he got a background check
first. When you went to pick up your gun he wouldn't be able to give it to
you until you also have a background check first.As in many things
the devil is in the details and this is what gun owners were fighting against.
"The problem with the background check bill is that would have made all
transfers of guns illegal unless a background check was performed first. what
this means is you couldn't loan your friend your gun unless he got a
background check first. It also means that he couldn't give you back your
gun unless you got a background check first."Um no. Not at all.
You clearly don't understand the background check bill.What gun
enthusiasts seem to advocate is unlimited and unfettered gun sales. Should
anyone and everyone have access to any and every weapon ever created? So we
should all have access to machine guns, drones, and nukes? Remember now,
according to you folks any regulation is an infringement on the 2nd amendment!
I hope this points out how liberals choose to ignore the fact that most people
did not want Obamacare but it was shoved down our throats anyway. Now they
scream about the majority wanting a law that gets voted down, you can't
have it both ways.
Toomey has seen a 10 point approval minus disapproval gain since voting for it
and Ayotte a 15 point drop since voting against it. Hopefully that pressure can
We are a Republic with democratic principles. The dangers of democracy are
ultimately mob rule. Republics focus on the rule of law and protect the rights
of the minority and the individual from the people and its own government.
Re:cjb"The NRA said that the Manchin-Toomey amendment would have
"criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens,
requiring lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal
government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face
prosecution."The amendment specifically exempted family and
friend transfers from the requirement to conduct a criminal background check.
But it did extend the requirement to Internet and gun show sales. So only if a
friend or family member purchased a gun in one of those settings would the
background check requirement kick in. That’s a limited circumstance, to be
sure. And as Wintemute argued, it was added a layer of paperwork but did not
make familial gun transfers crimes."(Politifact)
It would be VERY interesting if some TV station set up a deal in which they sent
a convicted felon to a gun show and recorded his attempts to purchase weaponry.
Record it with a hidden camera.Want to bet that within a few minutes
our felon would have all the guns he could carry?But, right now, it
would not be possible to charge the people who should be charged with a crime
for selling to a restricted person.So why not just make background
checks for personal sales optional? But declare that anyone who sells to
someone who would fail a check would be slammed into jail for five years or
more? Would that do the job?No -- but right now there is absolutely
nothing to stop a dangerous person from going out to find somebody who wants to
sell a gun and buying it.Something needs to change.
The guile of those who are trying to tell us that the majority of Americans want
Obama to control our right to keep and bear arms is astounding. IF
the majority of Americans wanted Obama to seize our guns, would that be the
legal thing to do?If 57% of Americans wanted ObamaCare to be tossed
out, would they agree and toss it out?If the majority of Americans
wanted DOMA to be enforced and same-sex marriage outlawed, would they be
happy?If the majority of Americans wanted to take away their right
to speak, would they agree?Mob rule, i.e., pure Democracy is NOT how
America is run. Telling your Congressman to break the law by infringing on our
Constitutional right to keep and bear arms without government infringement is
asking your Congressman to commit an illegal act. Believing that
the people can do anything without limit is just as bad as demanding that
government perform duties outside its authorized scope. It's
time people read and understood the Constitution.
"It's time people read and understood the Constitution."Too
many people read the Constitution only. They are too lazy to read through the
court cases. Your interpretation of the Constitution means nothing. The court
system's interpretation means everything.
Re truth seekerI had heard that family transfers were exempt or
might be exempt. I had heard nothing that transfers to friends might be exempt.
one thing the show guntalk brought up is that if you are at a range and some one
admires your gun and wants to shoot it, you could get into trouble for letting
them borrow the gun for just a few minutes.if you are right about
the friend transfers, I guess it would just depend how the particular court you
went to. which is part of the problem. what if you loaned it to somebody you
considered your friend, but the court said under the legal definition I choose
to use they are not a friend. at that point you are in deep doodoo.there are just too many questions and given the animosity towards guns by so
many people in the United States gun owners just didn't want to take that
chance.in addition if you make a gun transfer you are required to
keep records of that transfer for life and if you lose those records then what?
Re mederateNo where in the Constitution does it say that courts are
the final arbiter of the constitution..In most places the
constitution needs no arbitration anyway. Its pretty clear.
Seems like most on here that support the 'weapons ban / background
checks' are missing the bigger point, or bigger issue. This new
'law' or 'ban' is more then just about the 2nd ammend.
It's about ALL the 'Constitutional Rights' in general. It is no
different then if the government started to 'Disregard' the 4th/5th
Ammend. It seems typical (or even comical) for so called 'Liberals' to
bash the 'Gun Nut', NRA supporters, who defend the 2nd ammend., YET,
they scream 'Foul Play' when the government says "screw the
4th/5th amendments". You feel so strongly about the "Right to
Privacy", and the "Right to remain silent", and the "Right to
have legal council"... Yet, you dont seem to care about the 'Right to
protect yourself with a gun".. Go figure.. The other underlying issue
is this. I imagine if the "Gun nuts", or NRA supporters, (People
supporting the 2nd ammend.) felt there was a new "Law" being introduced
that would ACTUALLY help reduce violent crimes, or that would ACTUALLY keep our
children safer; they would support it without question
@CJB"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and
Treaties made,...""In all the other Cases before mentioned,
the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,
with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall
make."Do you find any other place where this power is granted to
any other body of the government? Just wondering where you are finding wording
where another party has equal or greater powers granted to it? Love
to know what your thinking....
@pragmatistferlifeYour logical error is assuming current trends will
continue indefinitely. Sometimes a trend is only a trend.
UtahBlueDevil wrote (in part), "arising under this Constitution". Those
are interesting words. The Constitution is not some nebulous document that no
one can understand without the help of thousands of court cases. It is the
Supreme Law of the Land upon which all law is measured. In effect, it is the
steel ruler that is used to measure the duties and authority of the federal
government. It is not the rubber ruler that so many people bend and twist and
then claim that they "measured" their argument by using the
Constitution."Under" does not mean "outside". It
does not mean "over". It means exactly what it says. Any law that
disagrees with the Supreme Law of the Land - as written and as ratified by the
States - is not eligible to go before the Court without being labeled
unconstitutional - no matter how many judges think differently. Self-important judges will argue forever that they have the right to legislate
from the bench by ruling something that disagrees with the Constitution. Not
only are they wrong, but they are the worst kinds of hypocrites, people who
claim to honor law and order while they actively work to destroy both.
‘Letters: America not a democracy’=====Thanks....and I'm reminded of that fact each and ever time I
think of GW Bush being "selected", and NOT "elected".
Mr Richards, you are so disengenous. Americans are asking to close the loopholes
to background checks. That is all the bill was about. According to the FBI,
during the past 15 years since the current background check law was passed there
have been 2 million gun purchase denials for various reasons. It stands to
reason that by closing a few more loopholes we would prevent a few more. The
proposed bill did not close the transactions between individuals and would not
save everyone but by doing nothing you are condoning and I for one expect
better. The average wife beater with a record will find it too inconvenient to
buy a pistol. Criminals who are using gun shows to purchase weapons will find it
more difficult. By doing nothing you are saying because there are law breakers
for every law then why have the law.
"No where in the Constitution does it say that courts are the final arbiter
of the constitution..In most places the constitution needs no
arbitration anyway. Its pretty clear."So, I wonder, who is it
you believe is the final arbiter? By the way, the constitution is clear on the
process, but I was just wondering who you think is the final arbiter.
@mark "[W]ho is it you believe is the final arbiter?"The
final arbiter is the American people. We elect leaders based on how closely
their views of the Constitution match ours. We elect the president who nominates
Supreme Court justices. We elect the Congress who creates the laws to be judged.
If we don't like the results, we vote them out of office. In the long haul,
we the people decide what the Constitution means.This, by the way,
is what prevented the Senate from passing gun control.
Rather than creating a new bureaucratic nightmare, how about we enforce existing
laws. The Gun Control Act of 1968 already prohibits strawman purchase and makes
it illegal to sell to people with criminal histories and mental problems.
Redshirt... much of what you say is true... but over the last 20 years, the NRA
has been able to create law that has stripped the ATF with much of its ability
to enforce these laws. For example, a law was passed that only allows the ATF
to view gun sale logs every two years. And the department still doesn't
have a head... that has been blocked for years.The NRA wants to make
it easier to buy a gun than to buy a drink... and in many cases, it is. There
is no drive for responsible gun ownership. But I do agree....
enforcing current law is always better than creating new law.
Has anyone here mentioned State's Rights? If citizens were abiding by the
constitution, then most of the so-called issues that 'divide' us would
be sent to the the states, as the Constitution states, and be decided there!
Thus, if the state of California wants Gay marriage, let them have it. If
Connecticut wants to confiscate all guns, let them do it--if that's what
their citizens want. However, it is amazing how insecure people are when they
have to strike out on their own. Instead of doing that, a person (state or
citizens from that state) looks around and thinks, 'Well, if I'm going
to do this, then everybody else has to do it with me, then if I am wrong, I
won't look so bad!' Liberty brings risk! Let liberty be heard from
state to state so we can really find out what ideas are the best! There should
be no partisan bickering or trying to prove someone else wrong or right, except
at the local level. I believe in our Republic,the rule of law, and the
constitution, all of which, won't mean a hill of beans without God.