Comments about ‘Nearly 3,000 rally against president's gun control measures at Capitol’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Jan. 19 2013 5:40 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Cool Cat Cosmo
Payson, UT

this rally was like many others that happened nationwide, and I am proud to say that I made the trip to the Utah State Capital and carpooled with several other like-minded friends to see the rally. I felt like the speakers articulated very well the fact that this issue is about control, and less so about violence. While some Americans may be willing to sell their own rights and the rights of their fellow Americans, many are not.

Even though it was bitter cold (some 10 degrees I think...), we showed our support, and it was inspiring to see the other men and women out there joining us. Thank you to all who made the trip out, and I hope that as we discuss the issues before us of violence, we may be both civil, and also look at ALL the sources guilty; entertainment, mental illness, prescription drugs, etc., to name a few, and not just blame responsible gun-owning citizens as the scapegoats.

Ying Fah
Provo, UT

Well, it's Utah, pride of the South and reddest of the red. So what else is new.

Phillip M Hotchkiss
Malta, Mt

I think its Great to see States stand up to the federal Goverment. Great job Utah
Stand for something .Or sit through everything

Bronx, NY

"Obama wants to take our guns" so in other words it was a rally based on lies.

Salt Lake City, UT

Stand up against "government tyranny"? - What government tyranny are you talking about? The government is tying to protect our children from all the gun toating nuts in America that wouldn't know the difference between responsible gun ownership and sour owl manure. As a hunter, gun owner and citizen, I recognize the sad reality that when a few citizens act irresponsibly it causes the rest of us to lose some of our freedoms. Until WE are able to do a better job of teaching,setting a good example for our children, and providing better mental health care for those who show signs of instability, then the government has to help protect us from ourselves. That is not government tyranny as some tyrannophobes out there are suggesting.


Really Utah? The beehive state shoot 'em up legacy was in high gear at the capital today! I'm more afraid of redneck weapon owners in Utah and their paranoia of the "Feds" and hatred for Obama than I am for gun control. Three thousand protesters is a small minority compared to the entire nation who have clearly voiced that gun control needs to happen to prevent children dying in shootings like Sandy Hook Elementary. What could possibly be the reason for owning an assault rifle with clips capable of killing so many? Other developed countries don't allow gun ownership like we have here in the U.S. My cousins son shot and killed a 8 year old friend whilst playing. A gun found in his parents bureau that was loaded for "protection against evil intruders" but was instead used in play by 2 boys. I hope all you protesters lock those semi automatic guns up so your own children use them! Our country is a war zone with all the private guns! Do you really sport hunt with assault rifles? Blow the deer up?

Sandy, UT

When someone kills somebody because they were drunk, people in this state cry for tighter restrictions on alcohol especially our state lawmakers. When someone kills twenty six people with a gun. People in this state not only do not cry for more restrictions they want less.

If guns do not kill people alcohol does not kill people.

Phillip M Hotchkiss
Malta, Mt

@Meckofahess.History will show the Federal Goverment does not always have the interest of our safety in mind while taking away our rights as humans. Look what happened when they took the weapons away from the natives at Wounded Knee and it was so called for the safety of the Indians. Look what happened when the Government took the weapons away from the LDS in Missouri. And it was for their Safety. Although I do agree with the restrictions on the type of guns we should be allowed to have but I think it should be decided by the voice of the people and not some Executive Order.

John C. C.
Payson, UT

Let's not jump to either extreme. It's not against the 2nd Amendment to have some restrictions on gun, nor are most gun enthusiasts anti-government crazies. Those who enjoy guns just don't want to see their opportunities diminished, and those who feel the pain caused by widespread gun availability would like to see better control. There is plenty of middle ground.

Among all those of us who are moderates on the issue are some who enjoy shooting, but do not want irresponsible people and criminals to be easily armed.

I can just imagine the interest groups on one side saying that broader background checks will lead to a national registry and confiscation. On the other side I can see interest groups portraying 2nd Amendment supporters as Rambo wannabe's and gun runners.

They are both wrong. Most of us would accept a reasonable compromise.

Orem, UT

There are maybe three of the executive orders he issued that would have ANY positive effect and those only dealt a glancing blow to the real need. This should be handled by Legislators, not the executive branch. It should take time and be thought out, not rammed through like NY's new laws that didn't have the normal "doesn't apply to Police" clause.

The best way to deal with this is to get rid of the laws establishing so called "Gun free zones" that have proven to be "Come shoot us we can't stop you" zones.

You don't have to have armed guards, you don't have to force Teachers to carry, just stop forcing EVERYONE to die because it is "Politically correct" to not allow anyone to defend themselves.

This stuff didn't happen like this back before all these knee jerk laws got passed.

The Media needs to quit making Hero's of these nuts that shoot people. They want to die, but only die Famous.

Salt Lake City, UT

"He specifically cites the necessity of every citizen armed to dissuade a tyrannical government."

I believe reasonable gun owners exist, and I definitely believe in gun nuts.
You say "I need a gun for protection against criminals"? Reasonable.
You say "I need a gun to protect myself from a tyrannical government"? Crazy.

We're tracking terrorists by satellite and killing them with drones guided by a guy sitting in a computer lab. You think your AR-15 with a high-capacity clip is going to protect you from that? Too funny.

Pocatello, ID

To jrgl.. I have been informed that not only in Sweden are you allowed to have guns but that it is the law there to have a gun and you are fined if you do not have one.

Does anyone know if this is correct?

From what I also have been told is that they have a very low rate of accidents/deaths/killings etc.. from guns.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

Hey Thomas...

"...Get a clue. What would have prevented the tragedy was an armed guard. Every school should have an armed Policeman in their school...".

Like the security guard in Michigan who left his weapon in the charter school bathroom?

On the other hand
Riverdale, MD

@JanSan, you're probably thinking of Switzerland, where most able-bodied men between the ages of 19 and 30 are in the militia and are required to keep their military-issued gun at home. Switzerland does indeed have a low rate of gun deaths--3.84 per 100,000 people (compare to 10.2 per 100,000 in the United States).

Sweden, on the other hand, has very stringent gun control laws, and an even lower rate of gun deaths--1.47 per 100,000. However, it's unlikely that the crime rates in either country is primarily due to gun laws or the prevalence (or lack) of guns in households. There are socioeconomic and cultural components to the gun violence equation that aren't easily extracted from statistics like these. Switzerland and Sweden are countries with more or less stable economies and governments and a certain degree of societal equality. There's arguably less motivation for people in those countries to commit violent crimes.

There's no guarantee that one country's gun laws will produce the same outcomes in another country. While we should examine other nations' laws, ultimately, we need a uniquely American approach that reflects our historical, cultural, and societal circumstances.

Why would I?
Farmington, UT

Why would I not be surprised that the powerful interests that make a healthy profit from fire arms would be out in droves for this rally?

I am OK with people owning guns, even assault rifles and large capacity clips, which they need like a fish needs a bicycle. But when people's guns are not secured and their guns are used to kiil innocent persons they should be fully prosecuted as being assessory to the crime.

Buy your guns, but store them SECURELY! Even though people kiil people, not their guns, the guns are designed to kill and that is their very purpose. So take care of them, folks!!

Veterans fought to keep our country free from dictators, not necessarily so you could buy ammo and an assault rifle and take it to JC Penny. Good grief.

And a background check will assure you can have one, not the other way around. Get a clue! Not everyone should have a gun, or a car, or a machette, or a rattlesnake, or.....

South Jordan, UT

"There is NOTHING in Obama's proposal that would have prevented what happened in CT. Nothing! Get a clue. What would have prevented the tragedy was an armed guard. Every school should have an armed Policeman in their school."-ThomasJefferson

Oh really? Because one of Obama's executive orders specifically designated grants for police departments to hire school resource officers aka ARMED GUARDS FOR SCHOOLS.

So which is it? Is there absolutely nothing in the President's proposal that would make a difference or would armed guards make a difference? You cannot have it both ways on this point, even if your blind opposition to the President makes you want to.

Mad Hatter
Provo, UT

It appears that the people most opposed to having an open and rational discussion about gun violence are those most concerned about a "tyrannical government" coming in the black helicopters and taking away their freedom to have a gun. The only problem is that no one is talking about eliminating the second amendment much less taking away their guns. Whoever got them worked up into a froth is not interested in finding common ground. The only suggestion they have is more guns. That's not a suggestion. That's incitement. But then, the gun crazies from the fringe are not interested in anything except keeping the pot boiling because their paranoia requires constant reinforcement. They don't want to live in a democracy. The appear to want a tyranny with themselves in charge.

Reasonable gun owners understand this and they don't want extremists acting like they speak for them. It is unfortunate that the NRA doesn't represent their interests as it has moved to join forces with the anti-democratic fringe of the conservative movement. It's not a question of hunting, sport shooting, or even home defense against an assailant.

Casa Grande, AZ

Honestly I see very little difference in the terrorists across the waters and the people here using the threat of their assault weapons and other guns in the political process.

Well, I guess the difference is that Al Qaeda is far away and has 0 impact on our elections or laws unlike the t-party gun nuts. And we hunt down anyone overseas that even hints at being weaponized against us.

no fit in SG
St.George, Utah

Photos show the Rugged, the Roughest, and the Reddest of the Red gathered together yesterday.
Yes, we will stay out of you and your "any weapon I want to have" way.
Why do you have to carry them around to the Malls, tho?
Ah......if only some time travel was available to the bygone days of the ol' Wild West, huh?

Powell, OH

"The Utah legislature knows what is best"??? Are these people nuts?

to comment

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