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.
It's not important?Tell that to the thousands upon thousands of
Americans whose lives have been shattered by gunfire.
Says the newspaper that runs "Traditional marriage is under attack!"
articles on a daily basis.
"....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
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.
Typical Beltway reasoning. "It's not important to me, so . . ."
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.
Sorry, bob. It's an important issue.
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".
@ 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
BennettOnly 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.
"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
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.
Dear Truthseeker: No legislative process was shut down. The bill just
re:CATS54 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.
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
@ CatsIf 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
Unless an assault rifle is aimed at you...
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?
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.
@flashbackYou are absolutely correct.Laws do not prevent
behavior.Let's abolish all laws.
"A national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted April 4-7 among
1,003 adults, finds 37% say they are following the debate over gun control very
closely. That compares with just 23% who say they are very closely following
news about debate over immigration policy. In recent weeks, no story
has received more public attention than the debate over gun control. Other
closely followed stories since mid-March have been news about the economy (30%
very closely), news about automatic federal spending cuts (24%) and discussions
about how to address the federal budget deficit and national debt (also
24%)."(Pew Research Center April 2013)
Just like the Electoral College, the Senate skews toward the lightly populated
states. The fewer people who live there, the more relative influence each
resident has. And in the case of an issue with a clear, urban-rural divide like
gun control, the numbers are stacked against the wishes of city and suburb
dwellers, even before factoring in Senate rules that allow a single member to
gum up the works.Of the 45 real no votes Wednesday, 35 came from
states that benefit from their over-representation in the Senate.
If you have an issue with the vote, talk to Harry Reid. He "shelved"
the bill. By the way, he's a Democrat. He didn't want the process to
Mike Richards, it is common knowledge that the reason Reid "shelved" the
bill was to preserve his opportunity to bring it up again later. Are you even
TRYING to make sense?
Dear Wasteintime:I'm sure you won't read this, but I
actually have spent many years of my life on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. I
know the legislative process very well since it was my profession for a long
time. I venture to guess I have much more experience and understanding of
legislation than you do.The bill didn't pass based on the rules
of the Senate that have existed for many years. That's how legislation is
conducted--based on the parliamentary rules that have been agreed upon by the
legislative body. The same rules existed when the Republicans were in majority.
The right to filibuster, or unlimited debate, has been somewhat of a sacred
right in the Senate for many, many years. It's just that it's an
inconvenience right now for the majority Democrats.
Cats,".....The right to filibuster, or unlimited debate, has
been somewhat of a sacred right in the Senate for many, many years....."______________________________It's more expedient than
sacred. The filibuster has always been controversial because it allows a
minority to obstruct the will of the majority. Both sides use it and want it in
place for those times when they are the minority which is why it's not
likely to be tossed anytime soon.
Truthseeker,The filibuster (a super majority is necessary to move a
bill forward) IS the normal rule for the Senate. Nothing has changed in that
regard. It has nothing to do with the current politics. Also, the bill would
have had to passed the House - a much tougher run for any gun control
Dear Craig Clark,You are correct. But, it has been a right that has
been honored and considered "sacred" for many years. Senators take
Senate courtesy very seriously and are, in fact, very reluctant to call cloture
votes because they respect a senator's right to keep the floor and
"filibuster." They are very loathe to change those rules. When the
Democrats were in minority, they were all for it. Now, it has become very
inconvenient so they don't like it much. When the Republicans were
controlling, they weren't very happy about it either. That's the way
it goes. But, individual senators, on the whole, are very reluctant to give
this right up and I doubt they will choose to do it.My post was to
set another poster straight who claimed I didnt know anything about the
legislative process. In fact, it was my profession for a long time and I have a
pretty good idea of how it works. Sometimes parliamentary rules can be a real
pain, but that's how it works in a republic and we have to live with it.
Hmmm. Mr. Bennett, when would be a good time to put gun controls in place?
Just maybe we could save some innocent victims.
It wasn't the public that lost interest. At the time the bills were voted
down public polls were reporting as high as a 90% favorability in favor of some
improved gun control legislation . the problem isn't public apathy,
it's political cowardice and unthinking ideology.