Quantcast

Comments about ‘Lee, Hatch help kill background checks in gun bill’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 17 2013 7:05 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
andyjaggy
American Fork, UT

"My hope is that we can now discuss the problems that lead to these violent acts and propose solutions that actually address them,"

I thought Lee didn't even want to have a discussion...? I don't necessarily agree with new gun control measures, but I do agree with Obama that it at least deserves discussion and a vote.

Dektol
Powell, OH

Glad this was defeated. Normal folks do not need more government intrusion and investigation. A waste of money.
Enforce the laws for misuse and prosecute quickly. We have more than enough laws on the books to take care of those who commit crimes using firearms. No need to bother law abiding people.

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

This is great news. Now illegal aliens can continue to cross our borders and buy guns without being hassled by a background check.

MapleDon
Springville, UT

It isn't the NRA or lobbying that's preventing gun control, it's the Constitution. And thank goodness there are enough senators that recognize that all of these disconcerting attempts at gun control are unconstitutional and will do nothing to curb gun violence.

Taking away Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens does nothing to curb the behavior of the criminal.

eastcoastcoug
Danbury, CT

@ I-am-I and all others who think like you do,

If there is no law that could stop the Newtown tragedy, then apply the same logic for all crimes and remove all our laws against murder, rape, child pornography, etc. Heaven knows we have thousands of laws against these crimes, yet people are victimized every single day.

I've never heard before this "logic" that since we can't stop every case of something from happening, that we shouldn't even try. But I have heard a lot of people repeat this nonsense.

Astounding!!

tomof12
Provo, UT

I am appalled and embarrassed. Why on earth would you oppose a measure that can only help reduce violence? The argument that it won't stop everyone is grotesquely illogical. If it stops a significant number, it is worth its weight in gold. In no way does the requirement for universal background checks conflict with the 2nd Amendment, particularly as it was most recently interpreted by the Supreme Court. And these measures DO make a difference. Australia is a magnificent example. I can't help but feeling that the message here is: a Sandy Hook Elementary here and there is an acceptable price to pay. (And for what?!?) I wonder how many people would still oppose responsible gun control if it was THEIR child shot dead with his/her teacher and classmates.

justamacguy
Manti, UT

Let me see... Chris Dorner. Psychology major (certified and qualified), military service (requires background checks), police service (background check and psych tested). Now let me see, how did that background check stop him? Oh, it didn't. So why have a law that doesn't work?

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "It's time we put politics aside and do what's best for our country."

Agreed.

That's why the Obama regime needs to step back from its freedom-robbing, un-American people-control proposals and start enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

Liberals know what will work. And it's enforcement of current laws, NOT a gun registration scheme, magazine control, or gun-appearance control.

docport1
,

I wouldn't be bragging if I was one of those two Senators....I would hang my head in shame. It's time the state of Utah joined in with the rest of the country and stop thinking they are a unique people isolated from the troubles of the rest of the country. It's time the population stops listening to each other just because they have a common religion (of which I am a member) and start informing themselves about what life is really like.......it's not all hearts and flowers, and church on Sunday.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

Polls mean nothing. I could put together a poll saying the sky was green and if I worded it properly, I could get 90% of the respondents to agree that the sky was green. It's all part of the game played by both sides.

The bottom line, you can't have universal background checks without requiring guns to be registered. There would be no way to enforce the law on every gun sale if the guns weren't registered. Plus, who is going to pay for the background check? I think that the current system we have in place is fine. I don't have a problem with a background check at point of sale in a retail establishment.

I for one don't want my guns registered with either the state and for sure not the federal government. The fact that I own guns is not any of their business.

Kudos to Hatch and Lee. Boo to all you naysayers. Freedom and the Constitution won out.

LogicInduced
Ogden, UT

Just to clarify, my first comment was mostly sarcastic. But I do feel the 2nd Amendment does need some updating and clarification. The term "arms" is any weapon, not just guns. I would hope the vast majority of people agree there are some "arms" which should not be available. There has to be a line drawn between legal arms and illegal arms. I am not an expert on guns, so I do not know where that line should be drawn; and maybe the current line is proper, but a line has to be drawn.

The most ridiculous argument for guns is that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Using that logic every weapon should be legal. Rocket launchers and nukes don't kill people, people kill people...right?

The 2nd most ridiculous argument is we need the weapons to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government...they have nuclear subs, an incredible air force, aircraft carriers, missiles, etc. Really? And if you buy that argument, then I'm sure you are for huge cuts in the Defense Department to weaken their possible takeover of all of our possessions and rights.

God Bless America!

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "And these measures DO make a difference."

Sure they do -- to people that will NEVER engage in violence. It complicates their lives and makes it harder for them to peascefully and legally exercise their Constitutional rights.

But to criminals? They can't and won't make the slightest difference, whatever.

Makes one wonder about the Obama regime's real agenda, doesn't it?

I-am-I
South Jordan, UT

@eastcostcoug: Apparently you didn't understand what I wrote. I never said there was no law that could have stopped the Newtown shooting. I said that additional backgrounds checks would not have stopped the Newtown shooting. Remember, he stole the weapons from his mom. My opinion is this, as is clear in Senator Lee's remarks: We have plenty of laws to mitigate these kinds of issues although the enforcement of these laws may need refining. We also need to create laws and systems to help identify and treat the mentally ill. All in all we have a pretty good system, that doesn't mean it can't be improved. It means I don't think this law would have improved anything. A background check wouldn't have stopped Lanza from committing his terrible crimes. It's that simple. Aside from that trying to regulate private sales is not cost effective because for every large shooting in this country there are millions of private gun sales. I propose (1) we worry about bigger problems - car accident deaths for example, (2) if we worry about violence then lets attack real causes not imaginary ones.

jsf
Centerville, UT

I am always amazed when liberals and progressives claim that the senators elected by a majority, republicans and conservatives don't represent Utah and them as if they violated a trust they have. You didn't vote for them. Why would they represent your liberal positions on issues of federal governance? They were elected to represent those who voted for them. Similarly I would not expect Matheson to represent the minority conservatives and republicans that did not vote for him. He will represent those of the majority that elected him.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

Has the Deseret News taken a position on expanded background checks? If not, they should. If so, do you recall what it is?

Clinton
Draper, UT

@Bacus0902 You act like the NRA is this evil entity that goes about operating against the will of the people. I pay my dues every month so that they will protect MY rights against the kind of mass ignorance that always gets displayed whenever anybody talks about guns. They did their job, as did our senators, in defending our Constitutional rights, so good on them.

@Really??? We already have laws against killing people, so how do you suppose adding more laws to the myriad laws we already have is going to make one iota of difference? Also, "sticking it to Obama?" Really, that's is what you got out of this? I suggest a good read through our Constitution. Also, do you want the government cataloging everything you purchase? Yeah, me either!

perspicacious
Salt lake city, Utah

Lee and Hatch sold out to the NRA as we knew they would. Lee uses the excuse he follows the mandate of the Utah legislature. They are gun nuts and out of touch with 80% of the citizens. So we have a legislature and two senators who don't serve the voters and only pay homage to the gun nuts and lobbyist money. Time to get rid of them. We need leaders who will vote to protect the children.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Side Note: Yesterday, the Senate voted on a measure to increase mental health funding and to help identify those individuals who have problems and should not have a gun. The vote was 98-2.

Rand Paul and our MIKE LEE voted against this!

Is he crazy?

Schwa
South Jordan, UT

Every Chief of Police will tell you that background checks save lives. Hatch and Lee have blood on their hands.

I-am-I
South Jordan, UT

@ Schwa, You probably shouldn't speak for every single chief of police ever. Hatch and Lee do not have blood on their hands please calm down. You see the current system has background checks. The liberals love to forget that part. It just doesn't have enough of them for the liberals primarily because it is not cost efficient. While every life is important, at some point we have to say as a society the risk of this happening is basically zero so we're not going to spend money on that, which means we can spend it to save more lives in another area. Exactly where that point is is tricky to determine and anything but absolute but it can be reasonably asserted. Also keep in mind basically zero and zero are different. We all deserve better rhetoric from our leaders and media. The issue as it has been marketed to you is, background checks v. no backgrounds checks. This is a horrible lie. The issue is existing background checks v. whatever current proposal to increase backgrounds checks chooses to step in the ring.

to comment

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