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.
Well, it's Utah, pride of the South and reddest of the red. So what else
I think its Great to see States stand up to the federal Goverment. Great job
Utah Stand for something .Or sit through everything
"Obama wants to take our guns" so in other words it was a rally based on
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?
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.
@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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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?
@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
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.....
"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."-ThomasJeffersonOh 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
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
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.
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?
"The Utah legislature knows what is best"??? Are these people nuts?
This rally was nothing more than an irrational and emotional outburst against
rational and reasonable proposals for gun control measures. These emotional
types worry me much more than their talked-about would-be evil intruders.
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety."Ben Franklin American Statesman "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not
warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance.
Let them take arms."Thomas Jeffersonto James MadisonThanks to all the Patriots who were in attendance at this rally. And to those
who poo poo this and blow it off as gun nuts please read Benjamin Franklin
again. And good luck to you.
For the love of all that is holy stop embarrassing those of us level headed
individuals who are proud to call Utah home. Do you really believe the Obama
and the Federal gov'mnt are just waiting till they take away our assault
rifles so he can inflict unending tyranny on us. What do you think he's
going to do put us all in forced labor camps while he imposes his socialist
agenda?As has been mentioned before a moderate and rational approach
needs to be taken where individuals are still able to enjoy their second
amendment rights while sensible restrictions are put in place.
To whoever would say that if guns do not kill people, then alcohol does not kill
people, consider that both items contribute to deaths in some way, but we cannot
assume it is to the same degree.I think it would be informative to
compare total alcohol-related deaths, both in Utah and in the country at large,
to total gun-related deaths. I have my suspicions about which would be higher,
but I leave it to professionals to do the research.Consider that,
last I checked, positive protection of alcoholic beverages is not spelled out
word for word in the Constitution as a right--only the repeal of its complete
and utter prohibition is, while the right to keep and bear arms, which
"shall not be infringed" is spelled out word for word in the
Constitution.Finally, guns, in addition to negative and neutral
uses, have vitally positive uses of defending ourselves and our communities.
Alcohol, I would argue has neutral and negative uses, for I suggest that
intoxication, even in moderation, is basically neutral at best. That does not
compare with the important and desirability of protecting the lives of those we
love against violence and villainy.
3000 Rally 20 children still dead.
Chances are pretty darn good that those attending have never actually been faced
with a child who died from a gun shot, guaranteed it will change your entire
line of thinking and perspective on whats imporant whats not what could have
been avoided if only.........
Obama wants, our guns, medical care, and money.So, what's next?
The 15 year old in New Mexico that used the assault weapon this weekend
"always walked around in camouflage". As Beck used to say before he left
the air "I am just saying....".
do those who made it to the capital think they are somehow going to get smarter
and not have any more accidents and there are going to be fewer deaths as a
result of their rally?how many deaths or woundings before we say
enough is enough? In our country there are over 20,000 people who
are accidentally shot, maimed, some are crippled and have their lives forever
changed and live to tell about it.does that number have to
increase?in a domestic dispute an out of control spouse grabs a high
powered weapon is it fair to the police to have to respond to somebody out of
control who has the armour piercing high powered assault type weapons?when the government comes for you because you deserve their attention the high
trained military will not be dissuaded by your guns but more likely by a high
powered attorney.Rambo and Bruce Willis live in Hollywood because
that is the land of make believe... maybe Utah has a place for them as well.
@ Pagan How about this as a result of your idol. Bengazi Americans were dying
and Obama is still lying. It is humorous that when a death occurs(and there are
plenty)from driving when impaired it is the driver who is vilified not the
vehicle. The opposite is true when there is a death that occurs from the result
of a gunshot it is the gun that is vilified.Both the same. Wow how about
backward thinking. Oh and how about the government wanting to control guns they
need to re read Fast And Furious. The king and his ilk can not control their own
guns. Of course they can cover that up with an executive order. Others of you
there is no such thing as an assualt rifle. The Libs have managed to put the
boogey man complex on something that just looks bad.
mohokat "It is humorous that when a death occurs(and there are plenty)from
driving when impaired it is the driver who is vilified not the vehicle. The
opposite is true when there is a death that occurs from the result of a gunshot
it is the gun that is vilified."... and then you blame of Obama
for the fast & furious in the next sentence? Your empty rhetoric and poor
analogy skills used here daily, don't help your cause.
JanSan -- apparently what you've heard about Sweden's gun laws in not
completely true. Here's some of what Wikipedia says:Gun
ownership requires license and is regulated by the weapon law (Vapenlagen
1996:67) further regulations are found in weapon decree (Vapenförordningen
1996:70). The law doesn't ban any specific firearms or weapons, it merely
states the requirements to own one. Everything from pepperspray to
full-automatic machine guns are technically legal, and license to civilians can
be given in 'special' cases. Like the other Nordic countries Sweden
has a high rate of gun ownership, due to the popularity of hunting. The weapons
law doesn't apply to air guns and similar with a projectile energy less
than 10 joules at the end of barrel. These require no license and may be bought
by any person over 18 years.
""The Utah legislature knows what is best"??? Are these people
nuts?"Yes.Why won't I be the least bit
surprised when someone is shot up one of the gun nuts because they feel
"threatened" by the other person's opinions against guns?
By the way -- where did that count of "Nearly 3000" come from?I saw the photos and it sure didn't look like 3000. Several hundred,
yes. But 3000????The article should tell us who made that estimate.
If it came from the gun lobby, then it is REALLY suspect.
The Tribune reports that estimates made by SLC police put the number in
attendance at about 1,500.And here comes another insane legislator
trying to pander to his base with a bill that will allow Utah sheriffs to arrest
any Federal officer who dares try to enforce a Federal gun law in Utah.Ah, insanity!Ain't it fun?
One old man, it could be worse. You could live in Arizona where the ATF gives
guns to smugglers and then blames it on Obama.Or asks every brown
person for their papers. Or sells all the public buildings for a short term
budget boost and then pays much more rent to their buddies in the future. Or
Why is it "crazy" to want guns, in case the gov't tries to impose
it's will on the citizens?After all that is EXACTLY how this
country came to exist! And that is specifically why the 2nd amendment exists;
since the gov't will need an army, the founders thought it would be a good
idea to ensure the citizens could fight that army, if it were used against the
people, exactly as England used it's military against it's
citizens.Is it happening now? No, but can you say that will be true
in 10 years? 20 years? No, you cannot.And it doesn't matter
if you can, as the constitution says specifically, the gov't cannot
infringe our right to keep and bear arms. It is not up for debate, rational or
otherwise, so get a clue, and move on to something that MIGHT actually save some
kids, like better mental health care or better prescription drug regulation
@ Happy Valley You may want to step back a ways from the fireplace the smoke
is getting to you. First your post did not make any sense and second who do you
think was responsible for Fast and Furious? On yea you libs like to blame
everything on Bush. So Bush must have done it!Follow the bouncing ball.
Your skills are in question.
I see the full range of opinion is posting here, so here's my take on
it.....these folks held a rally, as is their Constitutional right, to have their
say on a Constitutional right. They didn't hurt anyone, didn't get
arrested, didn't behave like the Occupiers so they must have done it
right.@Pagan, nothing will bring those children back. Nothing.
Those folks held a rally in support of their Constitutional rights, not a
celebration of those deaths.@OJF64 - Having seen too many children
who suffered at the hands of others doesn't make me want to ban guns, a
fruitless and illegal effort that won't undo the suffering they endured. I
am instead focused on the perpetrator of the crimes, not the tools used.
Getting mad at an inanimate object is illogical, and doesn't solve
anything.For those looking for a one-size-fits-all,
perfect-without-exception solution to the violence in our society, I am afraid
you will be disappointed....there isn't one.
Make that three thousand and one!
All the liberals should get out and march for the things that are dear to THEM:
Higher taxes, more government debt, runaway public spending, government
monitoring of all private activities, more regulation on enterprises that try to
make a profit, more dependence on foreign energy and foreign capital, mandated
public funding of abortion, increased medical costs due to confusion and
government intrusion, etc., etc. It's only right that they get out and
support the things that they believe in, too.
Looks like all the liberals are no longer satisfied with just commenting on the
Salt Lake Tribune site. Now they're flooding this one, telling us that the
most confused, indebted, encumbered, inefficient, ineffective, and political
organization in the history of the world (the U. S. Government) has another plan
to keep us safe and warm. Amazing.
Government is adept at two things: (1) taking your property, and (2) taking
your rights. They pretty much fail at everything else. If you want a real
SOLUTION to a situation, you're looking in the wrong direction if
you're looking at government. Of course most people don't understand
this, which is why Winston Churchill said the best argument against a democracy
is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
The US government has a flag on the moon.Taken photo's of
Mars.20 kids were murdered last month in elementary school.What have your guns accomplished?
It's easy to see that for many on this threat, obstructing Barack H. Obama
trumps the safety of children. I am so tired of a nation which pats itself on
the back so often for its love of "the kids" then allows them to be
bullied, abused and shot with assault weapons, weeps awhile and then goes back
to business as usual. They are right in one respect, Guns don't kill Sandy
Hook students---cowardly Americans do.
"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."So would it be
fair if I robbed a bank and as a consequence, you who had nothing to do with it,
had to spend a few days in jail for my crime? So we are tyrannophobes? Why is
there the patriot act? why is there warantless wiretapping? why do we have to be
sexually violated if we want to fly somewhere? So why do they have these
"laws" in place if it isn't tyranny? Is the new motto
of the country "It's not tyranny if we do it." ?
I hope that all who comment here have the best interests, safety, and love of
innocent children and our families in mind when we speak for or against the
right of the people of the US to own firearms.Let's all be
honest with ourselves, if we know and understand HUMAN NATURE, we can also
understand and know that a concentration of power and monopoly of our
country's resources at the head of our government would sooner or later
lead to tyranny. Tyranny of course is the loss of the separation and division of
powers and the guarantee of individual rights and private property or in other
words, the loss of our constitution.
Pagan, you wrote:The US government has a flag on the moon.Taken
photo's of Mars.20 kids were murdered last month in elementary
school.What have your guns accomplished?Well, since our guns
have accomplished none of those things, what exactly are you asking? Do you still not understand that there were several million guns in this
country that were owned and used by American men and women, who didn't kill
a single person last year? Do you still not understand that as tragic as Sandy
Hook was, it is a single outlier of a statistic that is being mis-represented to
get foolish people to think a certain way? Do you not understand that more
people were beat to death by hand last year, than were shot with rifles? That
more people were killed with a knife or a hammer or other tool, than by a
rifle?And yet, the government doesn't complain about the more
dangerous hammers or fists, they only complain about the one tool that could
possibly stop them from doing anything they want.Taking
citizen's guns won't stop mad men from killing people, it will only
change their method.
Rural Sports Fan-"Taking citzen's guns won't stop mad
men from killing people, it will only change their method."That is
100% correct. But, the argument that progressives use is that an assualt weapon
with a multiple shot magazine is a lot more damaging than a hammer, fist or even
another weapon with far less impact.
This should have been handled by Congress and not Obama and executive fiat. 2nd
this is people control first and foremost and an affront to the law abiding
working middle class. None of these measures will affect the plague of gang
violence/murder on our streets. None of these measures will curb deaths caused
by illegal aliens who participate in organized crime in this country. None of
these measures will impact those who do not uphold the rule of law and have
nefarious objectives. None of these measures will affect the wealthy
and politically powerful (the elites) having the ability to hire professionals
to protect themselves and their families with assault weapons. AR15
SEMI autos are expensive. Tactical semi-auto handguns are expensive. Ammo is
expensiveThe law abiding middle class Dr, Lawyers, Accountants,
Engineers and teachers ect and their ability to protect their families and
property are the ones who will be impacted by these executive orders. We will
be left to depend upon the inept, inefficient and often incompetent Government.
From 1900 to 2000, Governments have murdered more people than were
killed in all of the 20th century wars combined.
Obama said that he will never touch America's Guns or raise taxesLOL Now he is using the Tragedy in Sandy Hook to begin the disarming of America
& that is exactly what is going to happen - the criminals sure ain't
going to give up the semiautomatics , so why should law abiding citizens ?Obama should concentrate on the cause of all these school shootings,
which is Psychotropic Drugs being forced upon our young - ages kindergarden to
18 years old. Every shooter has been on these awful mind altering drugs , They
are especially harmful when taken by the young.
Part IIThe elite all have their kids , grandkids going to school
with armed guards and the common man deserves the same safety for his kids.Pay teachers , bus drivers , school employees extra money to become
licensed to carry and pay them more if they maintain a marksmanship rating.
Israel does this with great success End the gun free zones - That
only benefits the criminal , stop the use of these drugs , let the schools arm
their employees as we sure don't need another government agency such as the
TSA providing security.The UN is on record - that they will not send
in any muti-national peace keeping forces - Until America is Disarmed
What did my guns do?Nothing. They sit in my gun locker and do
nothing until I, as the operator or user, do something with them. They are not
capable of doing anything of themselves, they wait obediently in their locker
for me to take them out for use. They obey my commands...if the trigger is
pulled they fire a bullet. If I don't they wait for me to do so. They
cannot do anything without an operator. Inanimate, without brain or controlling
circuitry, they don't accomplish anything by themselves. A person
accomplishes a task, an object doesn't.So, what does any gun
do? It obeys the operator. It can be used to accomplish a good task, or a bad
one. It doesn't care which, it just obeys the operator. Penalizing the
object instead of the operator accomplishes nothing but leaves the operator with
the same state of mind, only looking for another tool to accomplish the task
desired. Fix the operator, not the tool.
Defenders of gun ownership observe that the underlying intent of the Second
Amendment was to allow individuals to have the means to protect their lives and
property and to protect themselves against government tyranny. They claim (and
to a certain extent I agree) that an armed populace keeps the government honest
and nontyrannical. I am completely comfortable with the idea of
“militia” as conferring an individual right. However, would
somebody please explain how a militia (individual or collective) works in
practice to oppose government tyranny? Can anyone act as militia in opposition
to the governmemnt? Must there be formal organization? Do the Weather
Underground, Symbionese Liberation Army, the 1973 AIM Wounded Knee occupiers,
the Black Panthers, or the Unabomber count as militia (they all claimed to be
fighting government oppression), or only those touting “true”
American values. Who decides? Is the difference between “patriotic
hero” and “violent criminal” who wins the gunfight?On a practical note, compare the effectiveness of any of the above groups to
those practicing nonviolent protests and civil disobedience (civil rights
movement, Clamshell Alliance, MX opposition in Utah, ACT-UP, etc.). Perhaps
armed insurrection is obsolete.