Comments about ‘Nation's largest gun show promoter criticizes proposed firearms legislation’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Feb. 1 2013 8:30 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Springville, UT

"Registration is ONLY used for one thing, and that is eventual confiscation- the ultimate infringement."

That's a bold statement. I suppose you have evidence that registration's sole aim is confiscation, and that representatives of the people are conspiring to overthrow our republic and its constitution by wanting background checks and sales to be registered. Oh, a liberal in the White House is not evidence.

Since 1994, background checks have stopped more than 2 million illegal gun sales. You are right, though. Gun registration does not "solve" crime. It helps prevent crime. And since 1994, crime has gone down.

If the government comes for your guns in the way you are implying with your paranoid mini-rant, they will be coming in Abrams Tanks and Apache helicopters. I'm pretty sure they won't call ahead or knock at your door.

Ralph West Jordan
Taylorsville, UT

Re: My2Cents

"Obama has no intention of ever leaving he White House, he is an absolute dictator and evil man doing what no other man in world history has been able to do, destroy the United States. He has made sure we have no nation to call to help us defend against his Despotic ambitions of absolute power. Guns and armed citizens are his only road block and the proposed legislation is one that will have absolute power to disarm to enslave all americans."

Back away from the kool-aid my friend! The thought of people with your kind of thinking, running amok with an automatic weapon scares the be-jeebers out of me! If you are finding the Govt. as oppressive and restrictive as you note implies, you might want to consider another country, oh say Syria or maybe even Egypt, they say it is nice there this time of year!

Saint George, UT

@4:29 AM

A DN reader wrote:

"...Guns are our current defense against government oppression...".

"...the most blatant and outrageous attempt we have ever faced...".

"...Many fear... the demise of this country...".

"...Obama has no intention of ever leaving he White House, he is an absolute dictator and evil man doing what no other man in world history has been able to do, destroy the United States. He has made sure we have no nation to call to help us defend against his Despotic ambitions of absolute power. Guns and armed citizens are his only road block and the proposed legislation is one that will have absolute power to disarm to enslave all americans...".

"...suicide attacks by education disabled children...thousands will die daily...".

The comments above are not a sarcastic rant nor are they an example of one who spends all of their mental energy filling their minds with reasons to validate their paranoia but must represent the honest belief of one who has a firm grip on reality.

Thank you DN for providing readers a forum to express their 1st Amendment Rights.

Far East USA, SC

"Obama has no intention of ever leaving he White House, he is an absolute dictator and evil man doing what no other man in world history has been able to do, destroy the United States. He has made sure we have no nation to call to help us defend against his Despotic ambitions of absolute power. Guns and armed citizens are his only road block and the proposed legislation is one that will have absolute power to disarm to enslave all americans."

"Registration is ONLY used for one thing, and that is eventual confiscation"

Do you both realize that what you have posted is a complete disconnect from current or reasonably imagined reality?

Eden, UT

I firmly support Chief Burbank's position on gun issues He is an intelligent, thoughtful, law enforcement officer. He is stating what he thinks is best for the citizens he is sworn to protect. Nothing in his statements violates the U.S. Constitution; and what he states fulfills his sworn duties to protect the public he is sworn to protect. All I can say is, "Chief Burbank: Keep up the courageous and professional job you are doing for the people of Salt Lake." You have my full support.

Eden, UT

Dear bricha: Using your car accident analogy is on shaky ground. You need a license to drive a car, the car has to be safety inspected each year, you can have your license revoked if you don't drive properly, you need insurance to drive a car. etc. etc, etc. Because of the 2nd Amendment, all of these restrictions are missing for those that own a gun. Would you support these measures, which are required to drive a car in the State of Utah, if only some of them were required to own a gun? People have to register their car with the DMV (Division of Motor Vehicles. How about registering your gun with a newly created agency- DGS Division of Gun Safety? Use you head. The car analogy is bogus.

lehi, ut

Beverly: The point I was making was that any tool/machine/whatever used incorrectly can have devastating and deadly consequences. Of course I am appalled by the number of people who die from guns, I hope and pray it goes down, but we are fooling ourselves to think that by taking away guns it will solve any kind of problem. There are any number of ways that one can hurt or kill another if one is intent enough. If we take away deadly tool, those who wish harm on others will find another.

What we have is a human problem. We should be talking about how we can help our neighbors, how we can have a better sense of community, reaching out to all who might be struggling. Instead we are left demonizing anyone who responsibly owns a gun, and responsibly uses the gun for sport, and yes even for protection.

Cal Too
Garland, UT

Many people argue are attempting to interpret the 2nd amendment without having read the 2nd amendment. Here is the text: "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." The purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the security of a free state, and it says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". It doesn't say, "shall not be infringed except by action of Congress or the President of the United States". It doesn't list any type of weapon as being excluded. Congress does not have the authority to place ANY restrictions on firearms without amending the Constitution. I agree that restrictions make sense in present circumstances, but will there come a time when the people have to take up arms and form a militia in order to secure a free state? I'm not willing to take the chance. There are no guarantees when it comes to human behavior.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Here's a background check idea without it registering guns.

Gun owners could pass a background check and be issued a numbered ID card with their info, photo and thumbprint on it. The government would only keep a copy of the card which would only have the card number and thumbprint.

All gun sales, even private party sales, would require the participants to go to a gun store or police dept. Their card numbers would be checked to make sure that they're valid and the sale would be made. The gun's info would be registered to the card. The feds/police wouldn't know the name of the guns' owner. This would allay gun owners' fears of registration and prevent confiscation.

If gun owners become felons or mentally ill, cops could run their prints to see if they are card owners. If so, the guns will have to be transferred to another. If they can't produce the guns, he could be charged with gunrunning.

Recovered stolen guns could be listed on the Net under the owner's card number listing the gun's location.

This system would work and satisfy everyone's concerns.

Draper, UT

@liberal larry: That's not what he said. He said that we're not enforcing existing laws. Of the 72,000 people who failed a background check in 2010, only 44 were prosecuted for providing false information. What was done with the other 72,000? So, his point to Biden was, if you can't enforce the law against the 72,000 people who failed background checks, then how is adding to that burden against law-abiding citizens going to help the matter. Biden's response was, "We'll deal with that when we get there." So the question that begs to be asked is, "Why can't we deal with the issue of the 72,000 failed applicants now then without adding any burden to law-abiding citizens?' The reason is because that isn't the point. Disarming America is. Don't buy into political sophistry.

Draper, UT

@micawber: Wouldn't "appropriate limitations" include things that actually matter, rather than cosmetic features of a gun that have no bearing whatsoever on its functionality?

@one vote: Because non-sequitur arguments are so helpful.

@ECR: What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? The problem is that people have been conditioned to think that it is OK for the government to limit our rights, or limit when and where we can exercise them. That was NEVER the intent, and I defy you to show me otherwise. Just because our government has become corrupt, and gotten out of hand to a certain extent, doesn't mean we should support them in inching further away from the intents and laws of the Constitution. Freedom requires vigilance, and quite frankly, many Americans, and many of you on this forum, are not fulfilling your civic duties to preserve freedom and liberty, in my opinion.

Sandy, UT

I am at the gun show now. There are a few scary people. Then I realized that the odds of anyone here interfering with my right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness is much lower than with the folks in DC.

Harley Rider
Small Town, CT

So all these new proposed gun laws are now going to make law abiding citizens criminals, and that is wrong. Gun control is not the answer to all the shootings going on at our schools. How about letting our kids go to school safely by allowing - teachers , bus drivers and school administrators to carry after taking gun safety classes & lots of range time. All of these politician's kids , grandkids have that benefit. These gun laws have nothing to do with safety as it has been proven many many times that guns in an open carry setting bring down all crime. So who's afraid of Armed Citizens ? Criminals and Our out of Control Politicians in Washington
Some of you need to research the Patriot Act , NDAA Bill and why our Civil Liberties are disappearing. Law abiding Citizens do not deserve to be going to jail. Those in Washington no longer responds to the citizen's demands - ie No Obama Care - Stop the Foreign Occupations - No Wall Street Bail-outs - No Amnesty - Repeal the Patriot Act and now Leave our 2nd amendment god given rights alone

Harley Rider
Small Town, CT

Here are the current gun laws in place
*It is a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms without having a federal dealer's license
* It is a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check--that's all dealers, everywhere, whether at retail stores or gun shows.
*it is a federal felony to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should know is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm
*It is a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm

This is all that is needed for new Gun Law Legislation -

Records of those who are prohibited by law from purchasing firearms (including those whose mental health history puts them in this category) should be included in the federal instant background check system.

So will Gang Members , Drug Dealers , Hoodlums & Criminals go thru a gun check ? No Way and Washington should be concentrating on Our Wide Open Southern Border. What was Fast and Furious ? Google it

Steve Cottrell
Centerville, UT

I believe the purpose of the background checks is to stop those with violent criminal history and those who are mentally ill from buying guns. It seems to me that is right and appropriate.

Burke, VA

Clinton 2:52 pm - Who would you say should interpret the Constitution if not the Supreme Court? Isn't that how our government was designed - Executive, Legislative, Judicial; Checks and Balances - do any of those terms ring a bell to you. I am not saying, in any way, that law abiding citizens should not be allowed to own firearms for their protection, for sport or for any other reason that is not harmful to other humans. But I am suggesting that there should be or could be limitations to that right for our own protection and "freedom." And the most conservative court in the last 50 years has backed me up on that opinion with their decision of DC vs. Heller.

There are a number of things we need to do in response to the latest, or to any of the past tragedies that have befallen the nation. But to suggest, as the Mr. Templeton has, that requiring background checks at gun shows does not make sense doesn't make sense to me. The District of Columbia previously had a gun ban but it was useless because guns were so easily accessible in neighboring Virgina. Just common sense, that's all we need.

Bountiful, UT

Law abiding people are not the problem, and should not have their rights curtailed. Guns have a legitimate use . They provide home and personal protection. In the event of a natural disaster they enable people to help protect their community.

Bountiful, UT

Guns make people and families safer ... IF ... gun safety is practiced.

1. Always treat a gun as if it is loaded,
2. Unless a gun is supposed to be loaded, each time it is handled, verify it is unloaded.
3. Teach each member of the household the rules of gun safety as soon as they are old enough.
4. If any members of the household are too young or otherwise mentally unfit to handle a gun, keep guns out of their reach.

It is often repeated that more people die in gun accidents than are saved by guns. Though I suspect this is untrue, (I would like to see actual statistics), this is definitely not true for people and families who treat guns with the respect they deserve.

Bountiful, UT

If this gun ban succeeds, the criminally insane will then use other kinds of guns exclusively. Then they will want to ban these guns. What then? If we don't stand firm, banning all guns is then just a few steps away.

And if this happens we still will not have solved the problem. The criminally insane can easily find other tools to murder. Knives, swords, fertilizer bombs, gasoline bombs. Some of these tools are more effective than any gun in mass killing. Any of these weapons are not as good to help a person defend themselves. A woman with a knife doesn't have much of a chance against a strong man who attacks her with a knife. She does have a good chance if both have a gun.

Erda, UT

Salt Lake City...Wake up! You have a police chief who is wanting to put a crack in the 2nd Amendment. It is time for him to go. We live in a world full of men who wish to exercise power over us and take away our freedoms. This is a very real threat that must not be allowed to take hold. Once the Amendment becomes cracked and limits are placed upon us, this opens the door to us eventually losing our rights to defend ourselves. That is the ultimate goal here despite what your chief is telling you. It would be nice to live in the world that many of my fellow democrats believe in, but we don't...period...end of story.

to comment

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