Letters: Guns aren't a deterrent to bad government like the NRA says


Return To Article
  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 30, 2013 10:30 p.m.

    ALL weapons that can be used for self-defense can also be used to Kill. It's up to the person.. not the weapon.

    We need to focus on taking personal responsibility for how we use everything... then we could start trusting our neighbors again instead of asking the government to step in and force our neighbors not to drive the car they want, or use too much electricity, or ask the government to disarm our neighbors so they are helpless without someone from the government coming to protect them.

    We all need to take more personal responsibility for our actions... and quit seeing the government as a tool to control our neighbors, or expecting the government to solve all our problems for us.

    April 30, 2013 8:03 p.m.

    @Sunny - you despise the NRA because they help corporations make a profit selling products that people want to buy? How is that a bad thing? Is it that corporations are bad? Or are profits bad?

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    April 30, 2013 7:03 p.m.

    @one vote

    You really believe that? If that's the extent of your knowledge, no wonder you support gun control. It won't take the radical left long to convince you also that guns used in sports should also be banned. Why not try the old adage "Guns kill"?

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 30, 2013 5:34 p.m.

    Guns not for sports are just to kill.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 30, 2013 2:42 p.m.

    LDS Liberal
    You are a hoot... and you really belive the stuff you post!

    At 2:06 and 3:10 you told the same story (about the guy in NY who had the police at his door revoking his constitutional rights because they got a disparaging report on him). You said, "the man was mentally ill, had thoughts of committing suicide, and was taking powerful psychotropic medications"... But you conveniently failed to mention that the NY State Police later said they made a mistake and issueed an apology and acknowledged that the guy they descended on was the wrong guy. Instead you said, "The State of New York was doing the right thing"... REALLY??? Even THEY admitted that they did the WRONG thing!

    I can give you references to their apology if you didn't read it.

    You really should stay up on the news. You sound so silly claiming the police did the right thing in this case. When we know they retracted all the accusations against him!

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 30, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    Inside of voting and primaries, we could have a bunch of duels and threats of deadly force. Does your gun shoot down the drones that can turn people to dust from miles away?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 30, 2013 12:30 p.m.

    "Would allowing citizens to purchase machine guns, drones and nukes actually improve Congress's approval rating"

    The NRA is HATED by the socialist- communist - progressive left in this country simply because guns don't exist in the hands of private citizens in a communist society (USSR, China, Cuba, etc...). The NRA IS main stream America - the NRA IS a living, breathing representation of the constitution and bill of rights and that is why it is so hated by the Obama White House and all of the Washington liberals and the stink hole of Hollywood. America is a nation divided thanks to Barack but that was the "hope n change" plan all along. Expect more division, more hate, more attacks against freedom and our Constitution because that is THE master plan from the left. The American main stream is now in a minority with the low information hand out crowd the growing majority. Where will the US be in 10 years? Perhaps Greece and other socialist Europe now in bankruptcy? Perhaps Detroit and LA? These are all ugly step children of socialism. NY is in free fall as well. By the way - machine guns are illegal. Wise up.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    April 30, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    Thanks Dane. You make complete sense (tongue in cheek). Now, let's shut down our military, since guns and munitions aren't a deterrent to any bad government. And while we're at it, let's continue to blame the NRA, and get the public's attention turned away from the Constitution and that pesky 2nd Amendment. It's all their fault.

    Truth be told, Dane, we're not all that stupid. But you keep up your radical leftist view. We'll keep ours. By the way, I'm going to buy a gun today.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 30, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    To those who think it is impossible to stand up to tyrants and governments with far superior weaponry, why then do we honor the fallen victims of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? Facing superior forces they fought for a month before all being killed. Why do we honor them? They were just to stupid to go peacefully to the Triblinka death camp?

    This man was mentally unstable, had been listed as a "danger to himself and/or others" by his Doctor ([professional psychiatrist]?), and had been prescribed powerful pyschotropic [mind altering] medications (What were they, don't interject adjectives?), and had been alerted to local authorities. No State police.

    You do realize the meds were simple anti-anxiety not MSNBC talking points. Remember that HIPPA law the government medical records would never be made available to government or public access? Major breach of the law. You do realize that Lisinopril a blood pressure med is mind altering. Ibupofen includes a warning "psychiatric side effects have included case reports of pseudodementia and psychotic exacerbation."

    Where's YOUR out-cry for them and their rights? Pretty arrogant to think I don't support their rights. But that was an attempt to

  • SUNNY ALL DAY Saint George, UT
    April 29, 2013 10:29 p.m.

    Who is the nra?

    A hired shill, shield, front, lobby, running political cover for weapons manufacturers.


    The last thing a successful CFO/CEO would consider, if ever, when examining their P&L statements, is the Founding Fathers.

    When weapons manufacturers no longer need the nra to enable them to make a profit, from those who put their money where their mouths are... they will drop the nra like a hot rock...looking for a new tool to help them make even more money.

    April 29, 2013 8:26 p.m.

    Yes, the big, bad, NRA! Who is the NRA? I'm the NRA. I agree with the Founding Fathers when it comes to the right to bear arms. And I put my money where my mouth is.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 29, 2013 7:55 p.m.

    "That is totally irrelevant, And they had no probelm with owning the most destructive weapons available in thier day, like the cannon."

    Those weapons had the ability to kill tens... not hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands with a single use. They didn't have weapons where they could operated from safe distances, and attack with impunity. But in the end, I real do hope as you say, this is all irrelevant.

    If we come to a time, that we need to institute policy change by killing our neighbors, that is pretty mush a country I wish to have nothing to do with. Those who would express their opinions via the end of a gun are not the kind of people I would ever want to be leading this country. If we ever get to the point where political changes requires the killing of elected leaders.... I will be the first one heading for the doors. You can have that brand of America.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    April 29, 2013 6:22 p.m.


    That is totally irrelevant, And they had no probelm with owning the most destructive weapons available in thier day, like the cannon.

    @Roland Keyser

    Isn't it Obama's administration, via the DHS, that is hoarding ammunition?

    Isn't it Obama that wants to be able to use drones on his own citizens?

    Isn't it the progressives, and the extreme left that want to disarm the citizenry, and render them powerless and defenseless? From What? For what reason? To what end?

    It is all about power and control.

    The founders wanted the power and control in the hands of the people,

    The left and progressive want quite the opposite, again, one must ask why? Control in the hands of elitists using the central government.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2013 5:58 p.m.

    To cjb, Mike Richards, J Thompson, RedShirt, & others:

    The Second Amendment might have been an effective deterrent to government tyranny when it was drafted and adopted, but it is completely inadequate to that purpose today.

    If you think that the only thing standing in the way of the United States becoming a totalitarian military regime is a bunch of citizens with Ruger Mini-14s & Desert Eagles, then you are more deluded that I would have believed possible.

    Let's put it this way -- in the exceedingly unlikely event of an armed confrontation between the U.S. military (defending the U.S. Government against insurrection, for better or worse) and the aforementioned citizens, I like the military's chances . . .

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 29, 2013 3:37 p.m.

    Just because your friends tell you it's not a deterent... doesn't make it so. Study history and it would easily prove them wrong. Let's take a look at history both old and recent that disproves the assertion that it's not a deterent.

    1. Armed non-military population played a significant roll in the Colonies overcomming bad government (King George of England)
    2. It kept Japan from seriously considering invading the US mainland. General Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the imperial Japanse Navy said it would be foolish to invade the American mainland because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

    If your history illiterate friends say, "Well that was a long time ago, armed civilians wouldn't be a serious deterent to a any modern military"...
    1. Armed civilians in Viet Nam.
    2. Armed civilian militias in Afganastan the held off the 2nd strongest military in the world, the Russian military.
    3. The Iraq military was wiped out in a day... but the armed civilaian insurgency held off the strongest military the world has ever known for a decade?

    Obviously an armed population can be a factor.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    April 29, 2013 3:12 p.m.


    I'm hoping that the date on that requirement said it all: April 1st, otherwise, whoever sent that notice should be hauled into court in a "New York minute". "Shall not be infringed" includes New York State.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 29, 2013 3:10 p.m.

    Centerville, UT
    One example.


    Bad example.
    or you didn't read the REST of the story --

    This man was mentally unstable,
    had been listed as a "danger to himself and/or others" by his Doctor [professional psychiatrist],
    and had been perscribed powerful pyschotropic [mind altering] medications,
    and had been alerted to local authorities.

    BTW - I have divorced friends here in Utah, who have had the law confisgate their guns due to frivelous ex-wife's restaining order.

    Where's YOUR out-cry for them and their rights?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 29, 2013 2:06 p.m.

    Centerville, UT
    One example.

    On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well.


    Did you bother to determine - Why?

    If you did - you would learn the man was mentally ill, had thoughts of committing suicide, and was taking powerful psychotropic medications with FDA Black Labels warning of the possible side-effects of suicidal behavior intensifying.

    The State of New York was doing the right thing.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 29, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    One example.

    On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well.
    Apparently, if people do not respond to the initial mailing, local law enforcement is authorized to visit the gun owner at their home and demand the surrender of the firearms. In this case, the gun owner followed the request as written. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt given to the client.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 29, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    one old man' ugottabkidn LOL!!!!!

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    How will the NRA react to background checks that deny gun sales to those on the terrorist watch list? They may decide that background checks aren't so bad after all.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    April 29, 2013 11:11 a.m.

    jsf, if they proposed a law that will clamp down on running redlights. That could lead to confiscation of my automobile.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    April 28, 2013 8:57 p.m.

    jsf, let's see some good documentation for the "facts" you posted. I won't hold my breath.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 28, 2013 6:49 p.m.

    The Truth.... the founding fathers never foresaw a day when the militaries of the world would have as the destructive power they have today. The gap between the weaponry of a modern military and the average citizen is beyond anything they could have comprehended. To pretend otherwise is unrealistic.

    But they also didn't foresee the bloodless revolutions that have happened over the last couple of decades. in the last four, we have had 3 dictators removed from office, without a full blown revolution. Poland gained its independence. Germany was reunited. China has seen a huge turn from its previous ways. Even in Vietnam and Cambodia, the communist party has lost its stranglehold rule of tyranny - not through armed insurrection - but the will of the people.

    So lets stop thinking that any number of AR-15s would stop even the most average of modern military. THis idea of an 18th century militia keeping the government at bey... this is a figment of the past. The military has far too advance weapons... just because they haven't used them doesn't mean they don't have the capability.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 28, 2013 6:47 p.m.

    To "Dane Henderson" I think that former President Kadaffi, from Libya might have another opinion about being afraid of guns in the hand of its populace. So would the Russian Tsars, the Chinese government, Syria is learning about guns in the hands of its people, Korea, and Vietnam understand what happens when the populace doesn't agree with you and decide to make changes outside of the ballot box.

    You forget that people can already buy drones.

    To those of you who are want to remove guns from the hands of citizens, did you see the news yesterday? A man in Salt Lake was going around stabbing people until a legal gun holder stopped him. Would you have wanted more people at Smiths to have been injured waiting for police?

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    April 28, 2013 5:25 p.m.

    Guns aren't a deterrent to bad government,

    But they are absolutely required to replace bad government. NO wonder the left,and any leftest or bad government in the history of the world wants to take them away, and destroy any voice that supports them.


    Reading any thoughts by the founders on the second amendment, and military weapons are exactly what it was meant to protect.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    April 28, 2013 3:30 p.m.

    To little to late. Big brother is watching every move. Listening to every word and reading every thing you wright. The golden rule is; he who has the gold makes the rules. We are out gunned. The Gov. has stole the money, because the could, by making legal to be entitled to be above the law.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 28, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    If political change requires a gun to make it happen... it is doomed.

    If somehow one believes a threat of violent acts against elected officials is required to preserve our government and constitution, they haven't paid enough attention to history... at least in my opinion.

    Change based on coercion is almost always the worst for of change.

    The NRA has this point really really wrong.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 28, 2013 2:11 p.m.

    Guns aren't a deterrent too bad government like the NRA says?


    When all is said and done, it doesn't matter what the NRA says. What matters is what the constitution says. What it says is ...

    Militias are necessary for the preservation of a free state. Also the right of the People to have guns shall not be infringed.

    Yes the NRA does speak of a tyranical government such as when the Nazis went after the Jews. Other possibilities where citizen militias would be useful is to defend against crime when the police or National Guard can't be there, or be there on time, typically this would happen in a natural disaster. Oftentimes the police can't be there to protect against a home invader in time therefor family members have to be a militia to help preserve a state free against crime. Yes NRA does emphasize government tyranny but there are other threats to a free state where a militia can be of service.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 28, 2013 1:47 p.m.

    The kind of guns protected by the 2nd Ammendment are the kind of guns that would be suitable for militia service. Militarys around the world all have fully automatic guns. However seldom are these guns ever used on fully automatic mode. It very wasteful of ammunition and seldom does the need arise.

    Therefore our restriction in law of fully automatic guns is probably constitutional. However to restrict people from having semi automatic guns would not be constitutional because lesser guns would not be suitable for militia service in today's world.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 28, 2013 1:42 p.m.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein unveiled a gun control proposal that would require federally approved licensing of all owners of handguns and certain semi-automatic weapons.
    official would then record the gun sale and licensing with the Treasury Department. Applicants would be required to submit a thumb print, a photograph, their name, birthplace and address, and sign a statement swearing that the information is accurate.
    The licenses would be renewable every five years and could be revoked. gun confiscation!!!!!!

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    April 28, 2013 1:30 p.m.

    It's sounds fine to me. No special interest money at all from Planned Parenthood , NRA to GE. Absolutely fine with this liberal. Now we agree, get r done.

    Too bad we can't get it done - because of special interest $$$ that blocks it.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    April 28, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    Will someone, anyone, please reference a single piece of legislation that would confiscate a a legally owned firearm of any size or type or are we going to continue with the absurdities that I read here? If you think you have the weapons to defer the government from going after you for your crimes then go for it. I for one would prefer to attempt to prevent legal gun sales to the incompetent, in sane, and criminals. Please don't continue the delusion that nothing can be done because otherwise let's repeal all public safety laws because there are violators everywhere you turn. Doing nothing is approval.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    April 28, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    What is the value of freedom? Apparently, most posters don't think much of the concept of being independent from government control. They DEMAND that we check our freedom at the door and that someone from the government be there to see who gets which freedom. Is that the way it should work? I don't think so. The people are in charge, not the government. Basic freedoms are independent of the government. At no time have the people ceded those rights to the control of the government.

    As long as people can't live without a nanny, there will be those who call for government to fill that spot in their lives. Unfortunately, too many people would rather listen to platitudes from a "rock star" president than do the work required of a free people to guard their freedoms from the pilfering fingers of corrupt politicians whose first desire is take away our right to defend ourselves.

    Compare the taxes that England levied on us to the taxes that Obama wants to levy and you'll see just how far we have fallen as a people who claim to love freedom from government control.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    April 28, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    Ironic that, after the Boston Marathon bombing, the media and many others were quick to say, "Don't condemn all Muslims because of the act of a few crazies."

    Yet, whenever there's a shooting, is the same respect paid to all gun owners?

    Of course not.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 28, 2013 12:14 p.m.

    "If this is a biased letter (against the NRA)the commentator needs to remember that if he limits the NRA, he also must limit Planned Parenthood, La Raza, pharmaceutical industry, Hollywood lobbyists, etc."

    Sounds good to me. Lets stop all the outside money that is used to buy legislation. (on both left and right causes.)

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    April 28, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    @Mad Hatter

    You said - "The primary concern of the NRA is to take advantage of tragic events, manipulate them to increase fear and paranoia amongst the American public, and make the gun industry greater profits."

    You've got to be kidding me.

    If anything it is the anti-gun advocates that take advantage of tragic shootings. All the NRA and gun owners are doing is attempting to defend themselves from the onslaught of attacks.

    After the Newtown, Aurora and Tucson shootings, it was the anti-gun advocates, allied by their friends in Hollywood (oh the hypocrisy there) that first jumped in front of the TV cameras doing all the manipulating and fear mongering. Read through just about any newspaper in the country. The editorial and political cartoonists have spent the last few months attacking and condemning the NRA and gun owners left and right.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    April 28, 2013 11:37 a.m.

    Any honest look at the good government to guns correlation theory shows it to be false.

    1. The US has by far more guns per capita than any other country. Twice as many as the nearest country Yemen and we have 20 - 50 times as many as European nations.

    2. Our government is corrupted by special interest money anyway.

    Guns are good at poking holes in things, they are terrible personal defense. Being able to poke a hole in the other guy doesn't keep him from poking a hole in you first. Don't let the guy get in your house in the first place.

    10CC is right on too.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    April 28, 2013 10:33 a.m.


    Drones are actually another excellent example of how the 1790 era 2nd Amendment context of citizens uprising against their own tyrannical government becomes more absurd as weapons technology gets more sophisticated.

    Are you going to be firing your AR-15 at the drones circling at 25,000 feet as they locate your position through high-tech guidance and prepare to launch a missile to destroy everything in your vicinity on the ground?

    Here's what's really happening: the more Obama haters talk about our current government being "tyrannical", the more the rest of us think the hard right are themselves becoming radicalized, even more detached from reality (eg, the Birthers) a potential threat, ala Tim McVeigh.

    You guys have worked yourselves into a paranoid fantasy, thinking the armed forces will join you in overthrowing Obama, when all you're really doing is sowing the seeds for more needless deaths under the guise of a hallucinatory apocalyptic fantasy.

    Come on down out of the hills and talk rationally with the rest of us.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    April 28, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    Good letter, silly rebuttals. Done.

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    April 28, 2013 9:49 a.m.

    The people having guns may not deter bad government, but I'm sure that those in government that want to take away those weapons would sleep better if they were successful...

  • bookemmarko west haven, UT
    April 28, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    Dane true to liberal form you totally misunderstand the argument about guns and the relationship to a free people. Neither the NRA nor gun owner claim that guns prevent "bad" government. Stupid voters have caused bad government. Guns ownership and an armed citizenry prevent a tyrannical Government from taking away your other constitutional rights is part of the argument. Your ludicrous statement about owning drones and and other large military equipment has never been the desire or freedom loving people, but the average citizen should be allowed the arms of an average soldier for defense in the event of a government take over.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 28, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    I agree with the letter writer! Get rid of special interest money so that our representatives can get back to doing our business! All they do is the bidding of their corporate masters.

    Corporations are NOT people.

  • Onion Daze Payson, UT
    April 28, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    The citizens of the United States have more guns now than at any time in history. We also have more public and private debt now than at any time in history. We also have more illegal immigrants, or is it undocumented workers, now than at any time in history. Millions of guns in citizens hands contribute zero answers to these major problems. They have dubious value in maintaining a healthy society.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 28, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    It's not tyranny of the government over the people we need to fear.It's tyranny of the NRA over the government.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 28, 2013 7:23 a.m.

    Dan... in most ways I completely agree with you. The NRA is a special interest group of a shrinking percentage of our population. There isn't much the NRA does I think that promotes the real interest of "gun owners". They are clearly interested in other segments.

    But, and as much as I hate to say this, we have to protect special interest groups rights. Women gaining the right to vote started as a special interest groups agenda. Equal rights under the law was started as a special interest groups agenda. There were competing interest groups to both of these. The Klan was a large lubby group that opposed both of these - as was better funded - that ultimately lost the battle. It took blacks nearly 100 years after so call freedom to actually gain political equality under the law.

    ERA ultimately failed. It asked for too much, but its overall goals have largely been recognized. The NRA will eventually fail. In my area, the majority of democrats I know are also gun owners. There is no solid blockagains the NRA right now. But eventually they will over step, and the tide will turn, and reasonable laws passed.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 28, 2013 7:18 a.m.

    I find it odd that the people who say we need weapons to protect ourselves from the government are the very same people who want the government to amass more and more weapons.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 28, 2013 7:13 a.m.

    Dane, you are looking at this issue completely incorrectly. Its only a bad government that would try to take guns away from free citizens. It's called FREEDOM! What kind of government restricts people's freedom? That's right, a bad government, just like what bad governments did in Nazi Germany, communist Russia, and every other dictatorship in the history of the world! And you are all in favor of that, right?

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    April 28, 2013 6:59 a.m.

    Does anyone REALLY think our elected representatives are ever going to do anything that stops the gravy train from flowing to their campaigns?

    The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue.

    It would take a constitutional amendment to change things. Good luck with that!

    If this is a biased letter (against the NRA)the commentator needs to remember that if he limits the NRA, he also must limit Planned Parenthood, La Raza, pharmaceutical industry, Hollywood lobbyists, etc.

    Just because the columnist doesn't like the results of NRA lobbying, he needs to realize they (the NRA)worked as all lobbyists do. To influence votes.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    April 28, 2013 1:52 a.m.

    The primary concern of the NRA is to take advantage of tragic events, manipulate them to increase fear and paranoia amongst the American public, and make the gun industry greater profits. Concerns about gun safety and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, mentally-unstable, and others in the public interest is essentially non-existent despite the rhetoric from the NRA. In fact, the NRA would probably like to eliminate background checks currently required of licensed gun stores.

    It doesn't make much sense to require background checks when purchasing a gun at a licensed gun store when an individual is not required when purchasing a gun in any other venue. The NRA appears to be fine with a criminal or terrorist purchasing a gun and leave it up to "good guys with a gun" to shoot it out when confronted by the "bad guy with a gun."

    And the whole nonsense about having to defend hearth and home against a tyrannical government is simply ludicrous. Considering the mess we have in Congress, the idea of government becoming tyrannical is too silly for words. They can't get anything done with the crazy nuts we have there now.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    April 28, 2013 1:34 a.m.

    There you go, showing common sense and everything. Expect to hear from some angry conservatives.