Comments about ‘Robert Bennett: U.S. gun control should not be a high priority right now’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 22 2013 12:50 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
cjb
Bountiful, UT

I understand that in several of the larger cities there is a problem with violent people who happen to use guns. Mayors and other officials in these cities as a result encourage their representatives to pass gun restriction laws nation wide.

This is their mistake. They somehow assume that I, a law abiding person should have my gun rights curtailed, because they have a problem with violent people that they are unwilling to deal with adequately.

I know in Ogden Utah, gang members are forbidden from even associating with each other. This law has helped lower Ogden's crime rate. These cities could put cameras all around such that when ever a gang member misuses a gun, they are identified and caught. They could monitor gang menbers and when ever they break any minor law, they could be aprehended and then police could see if they are carrying an illegal weapon.

The point here is that there is a lot these jusisdictions could do within their own borders that they aren't doing. Instead they want to take away my gun rights, and I live hundreds of miles away from any of their cities.

one old man
Ogden, UT

It's not important?

Tell that to the thousands upon thousands of Americans whose lives have been shattered by gunfire.

KJB1
Eugene, OR

Says the newspaper that runs "Traditional marriage is under attack!" articles on a daily basis.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

"....If supporters of Manchin-Toomey had understood what had happened to public attitudes between Newtown and January, and started with a call for a bill on background checks instead of being forced to retreat to one as a last resort, the outcome could well have been different...."
______________________________

Bennett’s argument there is one that supporters of expanded background checks should take note of. The bill was a crime bill, not a curtailment of 2nd Amendment rights. But the NRA was able to successfully play off the baseless fear that this was a gun control bill.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

Finially, something that I actually agree with Bennett on. Mostly.

Obviously One Old Man doesn't care about cars and the number of children killed annually that are not placed in child safety seats and the 100's of Thousands of lives shattered by fatal car wrecks each year with children involved.

We have all kinds of laws mandating that kids in cars be put in child safety seats, yet they get killed all the time because they are not put in child safety seats or their seats are not properly secured. Those laws help some, but not all and many ignore them. Way more than get killed by guns. I'm guessing if you line the stats up, it wouldn't even be close.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Typical Beltway reasoning. "It's not important to me, so . . ."

shadow01
,

I am retired military and think myself a Republican. But I also see myself as one who can think for himself and not need to be lead around by the nose by the NRA and others who blindly believe that the right to bear arms is a God given right instead of an institutional right. I have never been opposed to the right to bear arms but then I have never seen any defensible reason for individuals to own weapons which only have one purpose, that of inflicting wounds on a large number of people without having to rely on marksmanship. Gun manufactures and by extension the NRA see the 2nd amendment only as a means to justify making and selling more of those weapons than our armed forces actually need. They feed on our fears and we let them. There is nothing wrong with gun ownership but the NRA and Gun manufacturers need to stop spreading the paranoia that better gun control will be the downfall of the nation.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Sorry, bob. It's an important issue.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Government has no right to change the Constitution to suit the whim of any governmental official or those who support that official. We have rules that govern government. Those rules were accepted by the people and by the government as the rules by which things are to be done by those elected or appointed to protect our freedoms.

One of the rules is that government cannot infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Any thinking person would understand that "giving in" on that absolute rule would allow a tyrant to control the citizens of this country by force. But, if that "tyrant" understands that the people are armed and that the people value their freedom more than they value him, he will submit himself to the limits established by the people.

Those who tell us that governmental control is the solution do not understand the value of being a member of a free society and the obligation that that free society has to always keep power hungry politicians carefully "harnessed".

1aggie
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@ Flashback

"Obviously One Old Man doesn't care about cars and the number of children killed annually that are not placed in child safety seats and the 100's of Thousands of lives shattered by fatal car wrecks each year with children involved."

Your comment makes no sense. I think it's possible to care about more than one thing.

@ Bob Bennett

Only 4 percent of Americans think gun control is our most important issue because people who favor some gun control tend not to be single-issue voters, and tend to be capable of understanding nuanced arguments, trade-offs, and compromise. That does not mean the issue is not important and it is a mistake to conclude so.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"Just not an important issue"

And yet, this topic generates a significant number of comments on Deseret News day after day.

Obviously it is an important topic--among many other issues our Congress can't move forward with Senate Republicans essentially shutting down the legislative process.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

Man, there's a lot of crybabying on here.

These elected officals know where their constituents are. If their constituents had wanted the legislation, it would have passed. Polls show that and so did the vote in the Senate. Most Americans clearly didn't want the legislation and don't find it "important" enough to support.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

Dear Truthseeker: No legislative process was shut down. The bill just didn't pass.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

re:CATS

54 Senators voted IN FAVOR of expanding background checks while 46 voted against.

If Congress were acting under "normal" rules, not having to meet the 60 vote threshold required by Republicans, it would be law today.

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

To agree on a vague general concept (background checks) is NOT the same as agreeing that one of many possible specific laws to impose that concept is liked by anywhere near that number of people.

Manchin-Toomey provided the foundation for a gun registration scheme, and that is why so many people opposed it. The Cruz-Grassley alternative was much better, but lacking the registration groundwork, of course the liberals would not adopt it.

90% of people would agree we should all be healthy. Not so many would be in favor of forced exercise programs, and mandatory food choices and portion sizes, and government "fat cops" to enforce the new laws. Same with "gun safety" except there is the added factor of gun rights being a Constitutionally protected right.

Wastintime
Los Angeles, CA

@ Cats

If you are going to comment on this board, perhaps you should learn something about the legislative process. The amendment was filibustered by the GOP minority. It had majority support and would've passed on an up-and-down vote but did not have enough votes to overcome the Republican filibuster.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Unless an assault rifle is aimed at you...

one old man
Ogden, UT

Flashback, that argument is pitifully pitiful. THINK about what you are saying. Yes, many parents fail to obey the laws about safety seats and safety belts. But does that mean we simply stop trying?

one old man
Ogden, UT

Cats, this was NOT a vote on the bill. It was a vote that stopped any DISCUSSION of the bill.

In other words, it was a vote that said, "We don't wanna talk about it, so THERE!"

Sheeesh -- I have a four year old granddaughter who says things like that.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

@flashback

You are absolutely correct.

Laws do not prevent behavior.

Let's abolish all laws.

to comment

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