Quantcast

Comments about ‘Connecticut school shooting stirs debate about competing liberties, gun violence’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Dec. 16 2012 6:00 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
one old man
Ogden, UT

"The Obama regime has a long, LONG history of circumventing law and Constitution to accomplish its transparent totalitarian aims.

Real people are rightly concerned."

This was posted here not long ago.

It is this kind of nonsensical paranoia that does have real people concerned. Very concerned.

Ford DeTreese
Provo, UT

Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

Providing resources for the mentally ill should be a priority. I know people who suffer from schizophrenia and depression but are not always aware of medication that can help them or cannot afford them. While nobody doubts that we can't make everyone 100% safe, that simply isn't an excuse to do nothing.

merich39
Salt Lake City, UT

People here (and the NRA) bemoan the mention of any kind of gun control. We already have restrictions on personal ownership of many types of weapons. Private ownership of surface to air missile launchers is not legal. Why? What if someone feels they need a surface to air missile launcher to protect themselves? Why is it acceptable to the NRA and their followers to outlaw that type of weapon but unacceptable to outlaw armor piercing bullets or 50-round ammo clips? Why are we allowing the NRA to dictate our national agenda on gun control and use coercion to prevent even starting discussions of reasonable controls? Why is it unacceptable for someone to own a missile launcher that can shoot down a commercial airliner full of innocent people but acceptable for someone to own a high-powered gun with multiple 50-round ammo clips that can shoot down a room full of kindergarten children in a matter of just a few minutes?

It is way past time to have these discussions and take the NRA out of the drivers seat on policy! Way past time!

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "eastcoastcoug" your logic is severly lacking. The problem isn't the legal gun owners. What you want to do will only disarm the law-abiding people and make it easier for criminals to commit acts of violence. Just look at the cities that have done exactly what you ask for, they have high crime rates involving guns.

The solution is actually counterintuitive. Make getting guns easier, and allow teachers to conceal-carry.

The 2nd ammendment was not just for hunting and national defense. It was also put in place as a warning to the government about getting out of control. An armed people can prevent tyrany because tyrants fear an armed populace.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "I think Barak Obama’s grasp of the Constitution is far more advanced than that of folks who argue that the solution . . . is to have . . . principals and teachers . . . armed . . . ."

No doubt you do.

Fortunately, that doesn't mean that Obama's grasp actually IS "far more advanced."

The Second Amendment is actually quite simple -- " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't take an "advanced" grasp of the Constitution to understand those 14 words. Liberals suggest, however, that only "progressive" gnosticism can unlock the key to its true meaning -- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL be infringed."

Sad.

Fred44
Salt Lake City, Utah

Left wing looney, controlling nut jobs, left wing crazies, Obama circumvents the law, ignorant and fearful, shrill voices on the left, left wingo wacko, fear monger. It doesn't matter what the topic is, those who claim to be conservative on this board, much like their national leaders Shaun, Rush and Glenn seem to feel a need to call people names and try to belittle them rather than have an intelligent conversation about real solutions to real problems. This country is in deep trouble and love of country and love of freedom is not something exclusively owned by those on the political right.

The writing of the constitution was a grand compromise with many disagreements and strong battles and feelings. The difference was that these men showed respect one for another and were able to disagree without being disagreeable. They didn't believe that if someone said something they didn't like they were entitled to respond in kind or even with more venom.

Contrary to what some of you have said I am not lib or democrat I am actually a registered republican tired of the attitude of superiority of the far right. We are Americans above all else.

I Choose Freedom
Atlanta, GA

Why is it that the liberal Left in this country insist on making all schools and most public places "Gun Free Zones" yet the very first reaction they have when something goes wrong in one of these places is to call 911 and ask for someone with a gun to come rescue them? If a person with a gun can help AFTER a problem occurs, would it not have been better to have a person with a gun in place BEFORE something bad occurred?

In 1982, the Kennesaw, Georgia City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition. (There was no enforcement mechanism for ensuring the law was followed.) Following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city in the first year but there was no significant change in the surrounding communities. The second year saw a reduction of 45% compared to the first year. Today, 30 years later, the population of Kennesaw has grown six fold but the crime rate is still the lowest in the Atlanta metro area. And yes, the law is still on the books.

Coincidence? I think not. Guns save lives.

John Brown 1000
Laketown, UT

It appears that there’s no correlation between gun control and murder rates, as odd as that conclusion may sound. The 2007 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy article “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence”
(you can google it and read the full article online) presents some surprising findings and conclusions. They found a negative correlation, which is just strange. But there it is. It’s a fascinating read which leads me to think that a real solution lies somewhere else. Not in guns. Do something, yes. But do something that works!

At the same time, I can see how limiting access to certain types of weapons makes it harder to kill larger numbers of people. It’s not like we allow all US citizens the right to have their own personal nuclear bomb or stockpile of anthrax. And for good reason. Even if just a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent used a bomb, well, that would be more than enough. But does that same logic scale down to guns?

Again, I look at the Harvard report above.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

procuradorfiscal,

"....The Second Amendment is actually quite simple -- " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't take an "advanced" grasp of the Constitution to understand those 14 words. Liberals suggest, however, that only "progressive" gnosticism can unlock the key to its true meaning -- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL be infringed."
______________________________

To begin with, it’s 27 words, not 14. Your arithmetic skills could use some brushing up on along with your understanding of history. Now let’s look at those 27 words.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I find that wording just perfect as is. I wouldn't change a word. Now if you can just explain to me how a heavily armed population whose use of its firearms is left to nothing more than the individual judgment of each person constitutes a well regulated militia, you and I might be a step closer to finding some common ground.

Observation-ist
Ogden, UT

If this is truly to be an a-political discussion, can we include, along with Gun Control, Mental Illness, etc. a discussion about societal norms and respect for human life?

A society that embraces partial-birth abortion and promotes personal irresponsibility by encouraging dependence upon the government contributes to a victim mentality that has the right to use force to right social injustice.

This tragedy follows on the heels of Aurora CO and, before that, Columbine HS. Gun control can be discussed but shouldn't be the only focus.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@procuradorfiscal
"Unfortunately, single-trick liberal ponies "

Single-trick conservative ponies have only one answer... more guns everywhere. Ever bother to realize that the US is the highest gun per person rate in the world and yet our levels of gun violence are 5-25x that of Canada, Germany, Spain, England, or Japan?

@patriot
"but the left wing crazies want only one thing - NO GUNS PERIOD. How do you have a discussion with these types?"

Very few on the left want no guns period. Most, including myself, just want tighter regulation. That's not the same as a ban.

"but the NRA well knows if it gives and inch the left will go for a mile immediately so that is why we can't have a sensible discussion."

You just admitted what the problem is, the NRA refuses to budge at all, even for things the majority of their members support. So we can't have a sensible discussion because of the NRA.

JoCo Ute
Grants Pass, OR

"We already have gun control at every level." Not even close to the truth. Some state like Utah and Virginia make it easier to get a gun than a drivers license. We need standardized gun control for the entire nation. Mandatory criminal background checks, 10 day waiting period, no assault weapons, no over-sized clips and no bullets than can go through body armor.

A National medical plan to seriously address care of mentally ill citizens. Right now mental health care, if offered at all on medical insurance, is very limited and expensive. Doctor should flag individuals w/ serious mental illness so they can not purchase guns.

sportrealist
FILLMORE, UT

lET'S MOVE AWAY FROM THE GUN CONTROL ISSUE. SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO KILL WILL FIND A WAT TO DO IT. We need to talk about what we endorse in the name of freedom. Check out your children's MUSIC, VIDEOS, TV PROGRAMS AND VIDEO GAMES. WE HAVE LEGALIZED MURDER IN THE FORM OF ABORTION.(whoa I feel there are times it is necessary and acceptable but this is another discussion) We are continually bombarded with violence. Our children's minds are full of violence and disregard for human life and respect. When we allow all of this, Why are we surprised with these acts of violence. If we want to stop this violence we need to get back to the basics of parenting in our own home. Teach our children right and wrong, bring in proper behavioral standards, eliminate the violent images in their lives whenever we can, get involved in society in curbing the violent content of their music and videos etc.. We can get rid of all of the guns, knives, explosives, cars, trucks, or planes and we will still have acts of violence if we do not change what is acceptable in our society.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@dwayne
Nobody is land-invading the US. That's just suicide to attempt. Our air force would obliterate their transport aircraft/ships.

@procuradorfiscal
"The Obama regime has a long, LONG history of circumventing law and Constitution to accomplish its transparent totalitarian aims.

Real people are rightly concerned."

I'm concerned about people that far gone from reality stocking up on guns.

justamacguy
Manti, UT

All of these attacks take place in gun-free zones. You never see one of these attacks a your local sporting goods store, or the firing range, or the police station.

The model to be followed is the same one that TSA has taken. "We will have an armed agent on our flights." No hijackings of US aircraft since 2001.

When our country perceives a threat from another country, we increase our military, not decrease it.

President Obama's security continues to arm itself with the most state of the art lethal weapons.

If it works in all of these scenarios, why aren't we arming our teachers (at least those that would like to participate). Israel does it.

When it comes to those with no moral compass. Force makes better friends of them.

killpack
Sandy, UT

It my hope that when discussing this terrible tragedy we don't lose sight of reality. The federal government wants to use this as an excuse to infringe on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, the rationale, of course, being that such infringement would lead to more safety and security. Please, don't allow them, or their propagandists in the media, to convince you of this. The federal government is inefficient, incompetent and immoral. They and their increasingly corrupt, ineffective actions do NOT make you more safe. Ever heard of Fast and Furious? What happened in CT was horrible, but how many more innocents have died because of that debacle? Do not think that they are going to take care of you when they make gun ownership illegal. They won't. Even if they weren't so incapable, they couldn't anyway. You can't have policemen patrol every section of this country at every second. Nor would you want them to. People need to start getting used to fact that there are dangerous, bloodthirsty criminals wandering around and they possess firearms. Whether or not they purchase them legally is totally irrelevant. They have them. You better have them, too!

merich39
Salt Lake City, UT

RedShirt...

Tyrants armed with tanks, fighter jets and drone aircraft are not going to be too afraid of civilians armed with the types of guns that killed those children. Those types of guns will put fear into the hearts of kindergartners but not very much fear into the heart of an air force pilot flying an F-16. Besides, it would take an unbelievable amount of collusion for a tyrant to circumvent the separation of powers in the Constitution and gain control of the country.

I'm a lot more afraid of the solitary, suicidal looney with a stash of guns and ammo than a wannabe tyrant kept in check by the Constitution.

zoar63
Mesa, AZ

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Infringe

1

: the act of infringing : violation

2

: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

Synonyms: contravention, infraction, breach, transgression, trespass, violation

What part of the meaning of infringe do people not understand?

tejas
washington, utah

zoar63 @ 12:43 p.m
they dont understand "SHALL NOT"

to comment

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