Gun-rights supporters are misrepresented

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Anonymous
    May 6, 2009 7:34 p.m.

    To oh please,

    The difference between 90% and 17% is quite large but the problem is that neither number is representative of the actual number of guns from America. The Mexican government confiscated 29,000 guns of which 6,000 were given to the FBI as suspected to have come from the America. The FBI was only able to identify 17% (1,000+) of the 6,000 as being purchased in the USA. As usual, the media misrepresented the statistics. In reality, the number we should be looking at is around 3% of the total 29,000 confiscated guns. In reality, the number we should be looking at is around 3% of the total 29,000 confiscated guns. In reality, the number we should be looking at is around 3% of the total 29,000 confiscated by the Mexican government.

    Hillary Clinton is the source of the 90% number which has no place in fact and was pulled by her out of the air. She has never been able to justify from where the number came. Once she used the number, the Obama administration and the press ran with it without verification.

  • Willbill
    May 4, 2009 4:16 p.m.

    How many of you have ever had to defend yourselves with a gun? It almost never happens

    The most conservative estimate of citizens using firearms to defend themselves against crime is over 100,000 times annually according to the Department of Justice. Other studies from organizations and institutions independent of advocacy groups have placed that number from 700,000 times a year to three million. It happens all the time.

    Also, how many times have you used a fire extinguisher to keep your house from burning down? Most people havent. Does that mean that we shouldnt keep fire extinguishers in our homes? How many times have you used CPR to save a life? Most people havent as well. So should they discontinue CPR training?

    More harm is done by a country mile by misuse, accidents, stupid gun owners, kids getting into them

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention deaths from accidental gunshot wounds in 2006, the latest data available, were 642 which is less than two a day nationwide. Deaths from accidental gunshot wounds in persons under the age of 21 were 192 which is less than one a day nationwide.

  • Dutch
    May 4, 2009 12:24 a.m.

    Do you know how many people in Oregon applied for Utah CHL's? Something to think about. We want our second amendment rights.

    Never forget our Constitutional Rights, Under the Second Amendment

  • Sons of Liberty
    May 3, 2009 6:55 p.m.

    Re: Oh Please @ 1:44 p.m. April 29, 2009.

    Your tendancy to stereotype gun owners with "rednecks" is insulting. Most of the people you call "rednecks" are the salt of the earth. They would give you the shirt off their back. These men and women are the first to volunteer when their country needs them.

  • Sons of Liberty
    May 3, 2009 2:59 p.m.

    Re: The real k9 | 1:09 p.m. April 29, 2009.

    Some things are better left unsaid, real K9. Now the hoplophobes will be listing pump shotguns as assault weapons.

    Seriously though, you hoplaphobes should take note that the average hunting rifle and/or shotgun has more firepower than a so-called "assault rifle". Most people who know about firearms have a nickname for the M16 and the AR-15 style weapons. They call them "poodle shooters". (Now we'll probably get a few PETA folks up in arms for relaying that little tidbit).

    Incidentally, hoplaphobe = one who suffers from hoplophobia.

    hoplaphobia = an unnatural and unhealthy fear of weapons in particular and firearms in general.

  • Sons of Liberty
    May 3, 2009 2:42 p.m.

    Samaritan said: "Our Rights come from God, we lend a few to the government for our protection. When a government seeks to act in a manner that is detrimental to the Rights of its citizens then we have a Right to withhold our support, and our consent, from that government."

    We don't lend the government our rights. People, not governments, have rights. Governments have power, or authority, which they (governments) derive from the people they govern. This is the foundation that our system of government is built upon.

    The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States) came about because many of the founders believed it neccessary to specify certain rights that needed to be protected from usurpation by government. The argument by some was that because the Constitution only gave government specific power and/or authority, that a bill of rights was not neccessary.

    Fortunately for us, those that thought it neccessary prevailed. So certain rights are specifically enumerated as rights to be protected, amoung those, the right to keep and bear arms. They also sought to protect rights not specifically enumerated, which is the reason for the 9th amendment.

  • Sons of Liberty
    May 3, 2009 2:00 p.m.

    With all due respect, Senator Hatch, the 2nd Amendment does not "confir" the right of the People to keep and bear arms. That right exists appart from any law. What the 2nd Amendment does is to protect the People's right to keep and bear arms. That is true of all our founding documents where rights are concerned. The Constitution and Bill of rights regulat the government, not the People.

    As for the figures you gave concerning firearms confiscated by Mexican authorities; 17 percent is the percentage of guns the Mexican authorities submitted to the ATF for tracing. 90 percent of those firearms submitted to the ATF were found to originate from the US. However, those who would disarm American citizens make it sound like it is 90 percent of all the firearms that are confiscated. Nor do they take into account the firearms our government has sold Mexico, which in turn were sold to criminals by people from within their own corrupt government.

    Thank you, Senator Hatch, for standinding with The People on this issue.

  • The real k9
    May 3, 2009 12:49 p.m.

    Re: Anonymous!!! You have got to be joking right!!! Anyone can tell from your statement that you don't have any experience with guns. No kids get into my guns they are in a safe. If you want to talk about stupid gun owners it sounds like your one of them. It sounds like to me that your one of these people that needs big brother to do your thinking for you. Well I have defended myself with a gun and I know for a fact that many other people have to. You just don't see it on CNN. Several times I have caught theives trying to steal things out of my truck. And when that red laser dot is on their chest if they have a weapon or not they are frozen and under my control till the police arrive. Lucky for them they didn't try anything or I would have shot them for sure!!! And I would not have regreted it. Just because you haven't needed to defend yourself don't tread on me. Substantial experience you say? I think not. Substantialy un-educated and narrow minded "BINGO"

  • JR, Tennessee
    May 3, 2009 11:16 a.m.

    " We can have an open and honest debate on these issues, or we can engage in pointless stereotypes in order to marginalize the opposition."

    A common tactic of the command-and-control left is to avoid the unnecessary and complicated mess of actually having an "honest debate."

    Honest debate requires factual information, thoughtful consideration, and a truth orientation. None of these things are highly valued. It is better to simply label people as "gun nuts" "insensitive" "anti-whatever"-- and the labels go on.

    If people don't show up to the debating field, you cannot play the game.

  • rnoble
    May 2, 2009 3:37 p.m.

    i think it odd that some would choose to equate arms with "nukes" and ignore the much more likely circumstance of high explosive bombs---it is a fact that i do not now or ever have had a bomb, but i do now own items and materials that could be used to make a bomb and have the knowledge to build such if i felt it was needed to preserve my own or others life---so we should start regulating those materials---that would include such dangerous things as the magnesium wheels on my car and the fertilizer used in the garden and yard and the household cleaners with which i keep my home tidy---get real folks and quit living in fear of guns---be wary of people and live free and allow all others the same privilege---or maybe we should just prevent education so can't think for ourselves---

  • Jim In Houston
    May 2, 2009 2:09 p.m.

    Anonymous: "You all make me laugh! How many of you have ever had to defend yourselves with a gun? It almost never happens. More harm is done by a country mile by misuse, accidents, stupid gun owners, kids getting into them, angry family members and the like than by the boogieman that you love to talk about."

    I guess you don't know that guns are used annually 1-3 million times per year to avert crime. That's the best and most authoritative research. Sorry, your opinion that "more harm is done" is simply wrong.

  • @Anonymous
    May 2, 2009 10:56 a.m.

    Stay in California where your liberal views and statements are intoxicating to the uninformed and misled. We have a constitutional rights to have guns. Why don't you go spend your time to continue fighting for gay marriage or joining the Band of Thebes?

  • Anonymous
    May 2, 2009 7:18 a.m.

    You all make me laugh! How many of you have ever had to defend yourselves with a gun? It almost never happens. More harm is done by a country mile by misuse, accidents, stupid gun owners, kids getting into them, angry family members and the like than by the boogieman that you love to talk about. Be macho men all you like, but guns are WAY overrated. I have substantial experience with them, so I am not coming from a position of ignorance. I'm just not emotional about guns. Good grief, people, look at your priorities in life.

  • Randy
    May 2, 2009 1:28 a.m.

    This really isn't that hard. From the constitution we have the right to Life, Liberty and the persuit of happiness. It's really quite basic but with thethese rights we also must excersise responsibility along with these rights because if you think through it when you or someone infringes upon the rights of another person then you must be held responsible for that infringment. So you have the right to just about anything as long as you don't infringe on anothers right to life liberty and their persuit of happiness. If that means you want to own an assualt rifle then you must exercise responsibility in doing so. So it comes down to being responsible and respecting the rights of others. The anti gun crowd and the raving liberals have used polictical correctness to undermine the basic rights as expressed in the constitution using arguments that smoke screen our basic rights and appeal to people who would try to pass of the responsibility of some onto others when they they themselves have failed to act responsibly. No one is required to come to the aid of someone who has infringed on anothers right or acted irresponsibly.

  • ralpherus
    May 1, 2009 5:14 p.m.

    We have rights that predate the nation, predate guns, predate books, and most certainly, democrats and marxists! Disarming innocent people is treason, whether or not a god exists. And, people like gun control traitos, should contemplate the fact that some folks' belief in god are the only reason you have not been hauled out and hanged for the traitors you are.

  • I have guns!
    May 1, 2009 4:11 p.m.

    I have guns and I will have guns. No nut job, or group of nut job's are going to deprive me of my constitional rights. You can argue pro's and con's tell h**l freezes over, but it doesn't change anything. You who want to intoxicate yourself with gun control ideas and slogans, go spend your time doing something constructive, or at least leave those of us alone who are going to observe this time honored tradition of having firearms.

  • Reason
    May 1, 2009 3:39 p.m.

    Re: The Facts 6:13pm April 29: The statistics youre quoting may or may not be accurate. But even if they are, you are presenting them in isolation, without any context. For one thing, you havent quoted the actual numbers for those states which exceeded the national average, so we dont know if they are just barely higher.

    Also, in your anti-gun argument, you triumphantly cite the higher gun death rates in those states with less restrictive gun laws, as if this proves that gun control works. However, for all we know, it just may be that the higher rates occur because in those states the better armed citizenry is able to shoot criminals who are attempting violent attacks. This is a GOOD thing, and it has a DOUBLE benefit: It gets rid of some of the bad guys, and it probably also lowers the crime rate.

    If you look to the VPC for honest analysis on gun-related issues, youre going to be waiting a long time.

  • Tim
    May 1, 2009 9:18 a.m.





  • Anonymous
    May 1, 2009 8:02 a.m.

    We have guns. We will keep our guns. Everyone in our family knows how to use a gun, hunt, take of themselves. It's not a nuclear weapon. Washington is afraid of the "great unwashed" masses having any defense. Most crimes are committed by those that have guns illegally. And NO laws will help that point. NON, NADA, ZILCH!!

    Plus, some of you are so concerned with spelling, or how a sentence was structrued..obviously you have no better argument so you try to cut someone down with trivial things..doesn't work..the rest of us have a brain and get past such things..try it sometimes..

    AND ... "OH PLEASE" 1:44 p.m. April 29, 2009

    YOU need to get a life, and take that stick out. Feigning Piety is so unbecoming.

  • proseshooter
    May 1, 2009 7:14 a.m.

    Interestingly, the guns of choice among both the criminal class and the honest people in Mexico are Kalashnikov and M-16 machine guns. Neither of these are available in the U.S, but can be purchased on the street in Mexico for less money than the semi-automatic replicas that are for sale in the U.S.

  • Willbill
    April 30, 2009 3:25 p.m.

    Instering, According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, the total number on deaths by accidental firearms discharge was 642.

  • Willbill
    April 30, 2009 3:22 p.m.

    Instering, According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, the total number on deaths by accidental firearms discharge was 789.

  • Willbill
    April 30, 2009 3:18 p.m.

    Oh Please, also, all rifles combined which include those scary looking AR-15s, AKs, SKS Etc. account for only three percent of murders nationwide. In 2007 the total was 450. That comes to less than two murders per day nationwide. This not only means that no one in your state will be murdered with a rifle today tomorrow or the next day but this week, the next week, and yes even the week after that. In fact, four times as many murders are committed knives or other cutting instruments, and more murders are committed with blunt objects like baseball bats, hammers, clubs Etc. or hands, fists, feet, Etc. than with all rifles combined. Since these weapons are so rarely used in crime the government has no compelling reason to reinstate the so called Assault Weapons ban

  • Willbill
    April 30, 2009 3:13 p.m.

    If the right to bear (not "bare," the usual spelling encountered among rednecks) arms is absolute, then shouldn't I be able to own a bazooka or even a nuke? Aren't they "arms"?
    Oh Please, oh please, no. At the time the Bill of Rights was ratified Arms were defined as rifles, pistols, and swords.

  • Bill Carson
    April 30, 2009 2:39 p.m.

    Many points can be argued, facts cannot.

    Fact: criminals who are willing to kill are not deterred by gun control laws, pass all you want.

    Fact: Self defense is legal.

    Fact: Armed self defense is more likely to be effective against armed attack.

    Fact: The Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment is an individual right.

    So those of you who think we can buy machine guns, RPGs, and grenades at gun shows, rave on! It's impossible to argue with you.

  • The real k9
    April 30, 2009 11:55 a.m.

    I have posted several comments already on this subject. I want to say how proud I am of the true gun owners and the knowledge that they have about their sport and about weapons. Being educated about firearms is the first step to enlightenment. Those of you who served in the military as I did deserve respect and admiration for having the guts to defend our nation and having the patriotism to truly understand what it means to be free. When you are standing knee deep in mud 10,000 miles from home being shot at. I don't know any Marine on my flight home that did not kiss the ground when they got off the plane on U.S. soil. As for the liberals who live under this blanket of protection provided by people who have given their lives to protect our freedoms. Remember, they fought with guns because they had no other choice. And, if you ever had your life in jeapordy with no way to defend yourselves and got rescued by people with guns that were willing to defend you to the death you would keep your mouth shut about taking someone elses freedoms.

  • The real k9
    April 30, 2009 11:30 a.m.

    Reply to whomever wrote about pump action shotguns being banned. Your absolutely right that they know what pump actions can do and how fast they can do it. They just can't put that mystique word "assualt rifle" on it. Although there are assault shotguns and really the only difference is round capacity. I served in the United States Marine Corp proudly and I will never surrender my firearms to anyone. Pump actions did well in the cong tunnels. Better than a .45 colt and a blackout light. Of course if you could use it, propane was the best. But, it was just as dangerous to carry around as a flamethrower. Usually only former military people know the limitations of an assault rifle fired in full auto. When I was qualifing with the M-16 A1, I shot rifle expert for 4 years in a row. I did not use full auto though. So many people don't understand that it's very difficult to shoot full auto and hit anything. That's why they are going to burst instead. I do not own a black rifle. It sounded like it was flying apart. It gave you shooters eye too.

  • DLP Hit It
    April 30, 2009 11:23 a.m.

    I think that DLP hit it right on the head.

    You can't *really* control a people until they are unarmed...

  • DLP
    April 30, 2009 10:33 a.m.

    One of the two reasons Hitler would not Attack Switzerland was because the citizenship of the country was armed. The people with their weapons was the army of Switzerland.

  • myayers
    April 30, 2009 10:15 a.m.

    I think it's time for the politicians and media to stop scheming for more gun control and start looking at "CRIMINAL CONTROL".

  • Dan W.
    April 30, 2009 9:29 a.m.

    John F. Kennedy said it best.
    "Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of American, cannot succeed with any lesser effort."
    -- President John F. Kennedy, January 29, 1961

  • RDB
    April 30, 2009 9:16 a.m.

    To "Oh Please": The NRA uses accurate statistics; the liberal media twists the truth to their anti-gun agenda. Do some unprejudiced research! People like you don't understand that banning so-called assault weapons leads to banning of others. I have the right to own firearms that are equal to or better than the criminals, and especially the terrorists and drug cartel. These firearms are also used for hunting, plinking, and national and state match competition. Criminals will always have guns; they do not obey the law! Look no further than Great Britain and Australia to see the results of gun bans. Wake up!

  • Gregg
    April 30, 2009 8:43 a.m.

    I would not have a problem with my next door neighbor possessing "bazookas and nukes" - he is totally trustworthy. The problem is can he secure them from those who are not? The second amenment was talking about military weapons in addition to those for self difence and hunting. It is still there and upheld.

  • freedom lover
    April 30, 2009 8:16 a.m.

    A firearm, in its simplest form, is a tool. A radial arm saw, saws-all, scewdriver, hammer, knife, rope, chainsaw, blowtorch, wrench, etc, are also tools. Any one of these items could very effectively be implemented to cause death (by accident or intentional mis-use.) All but the first "tool" I mentioned are primarily and naturally used for constructional purposes. Case-in-point, You wouldn't expect a contractor's crew to be effective unless they were equipped (armed) with these tools. Likewise, Our for-fathers knew that firearms were the best tools in defending their new found freedoms. You can't expect the American citizens to effectively check the governments power unless we can be armed (equipped) with the proper tools. Our for-fathers were American citizens first-the governing body is to be made up of citizens- not power hungry politicians who want to dictate how their subjects should live. If we actually had compitent officials, we could get the criminals off the streets. Then, there would be no reason to have guns on the streets. I could keep mine in the safe, except when I use it to hunt or target shoot!

  • AK
    April 30, 2009 8:00 a.m.

    Well, RW, if the political right scares you that much, then hide in your basement, right along with the few remaining Women's Christian Temperance Union types whose irrational, religious fear of alcohol foisted Prohibition on this country for almost 20 years. You and they woil be safe from gunsels and drunks - Mom'll bring you HoHos and lemonade.

  • Anonymous
    April 30, 2009 7:56 a.m.

    I think Orrin is pandering to the NRA, who must have secret fantasies about their weapons.

  • statistic
    April 30, 2009 7:34 a.m.

    The statistic is this:

    17% of the guns seized in Mexico were thought to come from the US. Of that 17%, 90% were traced, definitively, to the US.

    Note that means 83% of the guns in the Mexican drug raids did not come from the US. Think about it, why pay $1,000 for an AR-15 when you can pay $200 for a Chinese or other knock-off...? Drug dealers try to control their expenses too.

  • JimRed
    April 30, 2009 6:42 a.m.

    Oh Please- you said "There's absolutely no reason for any law-abiding citizen to own an assault rifle."

    Tell that to the Swiss; I'm sure you'll get some interesting answers. One of the lowest crime rates in the world, and the Germans stayed away in the 30's and 40's.

    The purpose of the second amendment is to permit the populace to be armed at least equally with the government forces they may have to face should an attempt be made to establish tyranny. If you choose not to resist, most of the rest of us believe in your freedom to choose. Enjoy your chains.

    We now have an administration which has proposed a "civilian security force", as well equipped and funded as the military. The only check on such an organization is the fear in the thugs' hearts that they stand a good chance of not coming home from their forays against their master's political opponents.

    Hitler's Brownshirts would have quickly dissolved had an armed populace resisted, but the people were disarmed first.

  • Get real
    April 30, 2009 6:40 a.m.

    We New Yorkers are about to get it good by the self righteous protectors of life.(Gun Nanny's) The only recourse we have is to unite and vote their butts out of office.

    Their not listening!!!!

  • CC Ryder
    April 30, 2009 6:29 a.m.

    The government does not consider criminals a threat to government, only an annoyance, easily dealt with.
    Government considers gun owning law abiding citizens a very real threat; these are the people they want to disarm.
    This is why all gun laws are directed against law abiding gun owners. If they can criminalize all gun owners then they can deal with us easily.
    Don't you know, we are now considered to be 'extremists'.

  • Rich-D
    April 30, 2009 2:01 a.m.

    Oh Please! You don't live next door to a person who owns a machine gun, bazooka, nor a 20 mega-ton warhead. The 83% of guns seized in Mexico bore no serial numbers, indicating they did not come from the USA.

    Your facts are not facts, and you certainly are grossly exaggerating the types of weapons at issue. Civilian AR's are not machine guns, they only fire one bullet at a time, like as standard hunting rifle. What is obvious is that you are merely a Troll who gets a kick out of antagonizing.

    Have a Great Day!

  • Michael
    April 30, 2009 1:07 a.m.

    It's interesting the way South African farmers, after being required by law to keep their guns in a locked safe, were found raped and skinned alive. Invariably, before killing them, the house invaders would make them open their safe so they could steal their guns, no doubt for future use on another "law abiding" family.

    The South African experience shows that people can and will be controlled to the point of stupidity by a central government, even to the extreme of denying the actual dangerous conditions in which they live.

    Is there any hope for Liberty given the nature of humanity? Given all of human history to review, the American experiment, and the notions of Liberty from which it and all civil rights ever introduced came, appear to be an anomaly. The standard human condition appears to be one of parent to child, with the government as parent and the people as children, controlled in what they say, do, and think, and controlled in the "dangerous ideas" they are exposed to.

    Clearly, America is on that path today.

  • rspock
    April 29, 2009 9:59 p.m.

    Should have said "How many GUN deaths in the Rwanda machette massacres?"

  • rspock
    April 29, 2009 9:56 p.m.

    To "The Facts"
    The simple fact is the VPC is lying. Kates and Mauser in the Harvard Law Review show that the total homicide rates are independent of firearms ownership rates:
    "...murder rates are determined by basic socio‚Äźcultural and economic factors rather than mere availability of some particular form of weaponry. Consider Norway and its neighbors Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark. Norway has far and away Western Europes highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%), and Sweden lies midway between (15.1%) the Netherlands and Norway. Yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian, and the Swedish rate is even higher, though only slightly." Google

    "Gun deaths" is a VPC red herring. How many deaths in the Rwanda machette massacres?

    Also, the Brady campaign gave N.D. an F for gun control in 2008. How many firearms homicides that year? ZERO!
    They are propaganda mills. Don't believe a word they say!

  • Illhunter
    April 29, 2009 9:34 p.m.

    Although he's more correct than my IL senators, he's in too long, term limits, vote out the incumbents, they drove us here!

  • Winghunter
    April 29, 2009 8:40 p.m.

    Most gun owners did not vote in the last election....make sure we ALL do in the next.

  • to the real K9
    April 29, 2009 7:41 p.m.

    Please note....Liberals know how effective pump action weapons are. That is why they are targeting to ban pump acion weapons in well as ban the time honored, and safe, practice of citizen militia members keeping their military...full automtic, assault weapons at home. I chose the pump shotgun for home defense....really effective...deadly in VC tunnels in Nam.

  • studi30
    April 29, 2009 7:38 p.m.

    The FBI says that firearms are used in one third of all murders. The other two thirds are hands and feet,blunt object,and edged weapons. So we must ban all knives,scissors,letter openers,baseball bats tire irons, hands and feet etc. Open your minds from your irrational fear of guns. The NRA only has 4 million members. There are 90 million households in the USA with 260 million REGISTERED guns(rifles,shotguns and handguns) and they haven't committed one crime.

  • Proud of America!!!
    April 29, 2009 7:26 p.m.

    Mr/Ms RW..."The lynch mob mentality of the current right-wing wackos scares me. They carry guns!"....the Left-wing, Socialists ("Progressives"), "News Reporting" (er, manipulating) Media, Liberal, anti-Americans scare me much more that any law abiding, patriotic American citizen's gun. Yes, there are wackos out there, as the anti-gun media highlights instead of the 80,000,000 patriotic, law abiding, safe, Second Amendment supporting gun owners. The media's mantra...."Blood and guts" leads at 6:00PM.....and manipulates the gullible, uneducated masses.
    Your perception and understanding of Conservatives, guns, wackos have been effectively media manipulated to view them as interchangeable. Many more people are killed annually via cars and drugs than guns. Why aren't you fearful of cars? Ah, you don't have experience with guns, but you do use cars. Individuals fear what they do not understand and are manipulated to fear. The media has an agenda to destroy the Second Amendment and related gun ownership to attain their hidden agenda.

  • More Fact....More Lies
    April 29, 2009 7:19 p.m.

    More Facts at 6:25 writes that you are safe from gun crime in gun-crime hot zones such as New York and New Jersy.


    And the statistics that "More Facts" write lists that the US is behind Mexico for death rate from firearms.

    Notice anything weird about those statistics?

    Well, I'll tell you what I thought was weird about those statistics...

    "More Facts" left out all of the African continent...And the Middle East...

    The .gov got so powerful in many African countries, and the people were disarmed and unprepared, entire villages were raped, and the (unarmed) people killed...

    So when some liberal shows up with "More facts" rest assured they are just really trying to get you to "ignore" the facts.

    The liberals want a disarmed people. It is that simple.

    Why do they want a disarmed people?

    Look to what .gov did to its people in Africa to find out why liberals want a disarmed people...

    Liberals know that they can only control a disarmed populace...

  • Old American Patriot
    April 29, 2009 6:54 p.m.

    Dear Oh Please: As to your judgmental pronouncement..."There's absolutely no reason for any law-abiding citizen to own an assault rifle. The right to bear arms doesn't extend to bazookas or nukes, either." You have just justified why the founding fathers inserted the Second Amendment. They knew that individuals such as yourself (or Obama, Pelozi, Clinton, Schummer,...) would feel qualified and annointed to decide for others what type of, and if/when, weapons would be necessary and appropriate for the intended purpose of self defense and resisting the future generations' "King George" government. The Second Amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting as many anti-gunners attempt to use as an "appropriateness test" to confuse/divert/change the Second Amendment's true intent and power. They do not want power to reside with the people. They want the power over the people. That's what it is all about...who has the power to decide who has the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

  • seano
    April 29, 2009 6:38 p.m.

    You are correct in that most cases Americans don't need assault rifles. Do you know what an assault rifle is? It's a fully automatic machine gun; one that is capable of firing continously with one pull and hold of the trigger until the trigger finger either releases the trigger or the weapon runs out of ammunition. What the news media and politicians generally refer as an assault weapon is merely a semi-automatic firearm that sends ont one bullet per trigger sqeeze, regardless of the appearance of the firearm. I've seen demonstrations of a shooter firing two six-shot revolvers firing faster and more accurately than a machine gun.

  • Pro2A
    April 29, 2009 6:28 p.m.

    Dear "Oh Please"..."A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of a the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.".....which words do you feel restrict which type, how many, and on which squares of US soil, that lawful citizens have the right to keep and bear arms?? Only through demonizing of guns by anti-America Liberal media/educators, politicians, Bill Aryes/Ward Churchill/Obama/Schummer/Clintons types have the precepts in the founding Constitution/Bill of Rights douments (now considered "inconvenient documents" by our anti-American politicos) have citizens come to believe that certain types/colors/features of guns/weapons, in certain buildings/locations, for which purposes (self defense/tyrannical government ouster/hunting/sport shooting/collecting/door props, or whatever,...) are "bad."

  • Proud Gun Owner
    April 29, 2009 6:26 p.m.

    Oh, Please...Why is it that as soon as someone of your political leaning ways in on the gun issue, the "there is no legitimate reason for owning an assault weapon, bazooka or nuke" comes out? It is amazing that instead of engaging in sensible debate; those who denigrate the hobbies and interests of law-abiding gunowners always revert to ridiculous emotional outbursts. Why is that? We who enjoy our Second Amendment rights do not seek to stop others from enjoying their hobbies. Learning to shoot at a very early age, I learned patience, responsibility, attention to detail, safety, courtesy and to value my rights and to respect the rights of others. I also own plenty of "assault weapons" as you like to refer to them. Yet somehow I have never hurt anyone, don't have ANY criminal record, not even a parking ticket, but maybe you think I am still a danger to the public because of my interests that you don't agree with? I will await a logical and reasoned response, but I will not be holding my breath in anticipation of one. Please prove me wrong.

  • More Facts
    April 29, 2009 6:25 p.m.

    In 1998, the death rate from firearms was roughly 10 per 100,000 people. The next highest industrialized country was Finland with 6.86. Estonia and Mexico had over 12 per 100,000.

    People can argue all day about the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, but the facts are clear. More guns, more deaths from guns.

  • The Facts
    April 29, 2009 6:13 p.m.

    States in the South and West
    with weak gun laws and high rates of gun ownership lead the nation in overall
    firearm death rates according to a new analysis issued today by the Violence
    Policy Center (VPC) of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data.

    The new VPC analysis uses 2005 data (the most recent available) from the CDC's
    National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. The analysis reveals that
    the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Louisiana,
    Alaska, Montana, Tennessee, and Alabama. Each of these states had a per capita
    gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32
    per 100,000.

    By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had
    far lower rates of firearm-related death. Ranking last in the nation for gun
    death was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and New
    Reuters April 24, 2008

  • Pro2A
    April 29, 2009 6:01 p.m.

    Following are two quotes from George Washington...
    "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

    Mr. Cline...admiration to you sir..SALUTE!! Price of Freedom payments were paid at Concord/Lexington, European/Pacific Theatres, Viet Nam/Kuwait, Irag/Afganhistan. Next payment may have to be paid within our own borders. Liberal, anti-2A, anti-gunners like to see pro-2Aers waste time/energy on citing facts....THEY DON'T CARE..THEY HAVE AGENDAS TO DESTROY THIS GREAT COUNTRY!! Japs feared invading US mainland with gun behind every do Socialists/"Obamas"...therefore DHS Napolotano's anti-veteran (patriot) bulletin. Learn from history..or be doomed to repeat it!! Fortunately 1773-1778 patriots INDIVIDUALLY had then current technology assualt weapons to oust the Redcoats rather than registered, taxed, King of England approved/authorized bows and quivers holding over 10 arrows!! Taxation, fees, gun/assault weapon bans, registration, ammo restrictions, gun manufacturer legislation/lawsuits, every form of gun control,.....INFRINGE individual rights to well regulated militia.

  • Lionheart
    April 29, 2009 5:58 p.m.

    A look at the statistics, annually 250,000 deaths from automobiles, 5000 deaths from guns. Why the overkill of legislation and political hot air on gun ownership for such a small statistical death figure?

  • No Conversions?
    April 29, 2009 5:50 p.m.

    After all the rhetoric and debate I was looking for a conversion to either side. I didn't see any.

  • RE: Oh please
    April 29, 2009 5:38 p.m.

    You brings up an interesting question.

    IF the reasons behind the second admendment are mainly for military puposes, including the posssiblity of the need for the people and/or the states to fightback against a tyrannical goverment,

    then perhaps there should be very few if any limits.

    The government would sure have to understand they need stay in line and reflect the will of the people or states.

    But the left seems to have very irrational fears of guns.

    either that or have deep seeded agenda to disarm and dispower the people.

  • John
    April 29, 2009 5:22 p.m.

    The Constitution is the foundation of our Country, however, you have to wonder if it is worth the paper that it was written on if it can be changed or modified at the whim of every Tom Dick and Harry that want to challenge it to fit thier ideas of how it should be or when a new administration comes in. It's truly hanging by a thread with just a simple vote of the Supreme Court. You hear the term "UNCONSTITUTIONAL", well hell, to change that lets just get the Supreme Court together, or nominate a new member of the court and we'll make it Constitutional. Really is sad.

  • Oh Please, Oh Please
    April 29, 2009 4:58 p.m.

    Why shouldn't a citizen own an assault weapon? That's the best kind to have if we have to take back our country from the likes of you.

    I guarantee there are many non-citizens carrying assault weapons in this state as we speak. Why should they have more firepower than me?

  • Genaro
    April 29, 2009 4:45 p.m.

    Thank you Senator Hatch, for being a positive political and moral supporter of the 2nd Amendment and all it represents. Being a down state NYer, I have few elected politicians in my State to look out for our individual rights. I agree with the comment that the media( TV coverage, and Newspapers) have chosen to be deceptive and dishonest about guns and those who own them.
    My belief is that the 2nd amendment is every bit as important and individually guaranteed as the 1st Amendment.
    The Media brainwashing of the gun issue and the supposed wacho conspirator identity they have pasted on all gun owners is just their way to eliminate any desire for it to be a continued part of our culture, and many law abiding gun owners have given up on enjoying gun related sports as a result. We owe it to our future generations to maintain a vigilant stand against this dishonest and misguided pyschology and mantra that undermines the Bill of Rights and our founders beliefs for individual rights and freedoms. I don't need the U.N. or Global activists to tell me what firearms I can or can't own, being an American.

  • To: Gerald
    April 29, 2009 4:33 p.m.

    China produces excellent full-auto weapons.

    Russia and many of its former republics also pruduce excellent full-auto weapons.

    I would question Mexico's Southern border (and its own ports) before I would question its (pretty tight) Norther border.

    The truth is, some of the full-auto weapons in Mexico probably originated in the United States...At military producers such as Colt Mfg...Colt sells its M-16 derivatives all around the world to militaries...

    I have no doubt that a lot of those Colts ended up in the hands of evil doers...Seing how much power the gangs have...With many police and military also part of the gangs in Mexico...

    So the liberals can say that some of the guns in Mexico originate in the US...But they were never intended for civilian use...

    Most of the guns that are in Mexico are not from US origin, but are extremely high quality military weapons such as the Chinese or Russian full-auto AK47...

    You are 100% correct...Gun free zones create criminal attacks on unarmed people...

  • Anonymous
    April 29, 2009 4:29 p.m.

    Gerald | 4:04 p.m.

    Who said Mexico doesn't manufacture any guns?

    They manufacture guns (or at least gun parts) for the US government. Our government even gives contracts to companies in Mexico to make arms for our military.

    Where did you get the factoid that Mexico doesn't have any gun manufacturing plants.

    Go to "" and check up on the bogus 90% of the weapons in Mexico come from the USA claim. They state the following... "Is it true, as President Obama said, that "[m]ore than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States?" Government statistics dont actually support that claim.

    Don't trust the opinioners, get the facts.

  • Gerald
    April 29, 2009 4:04 p.m.

    If Mexico and their neighboring countries do not manufacture any firearms, why do you believe that any of their firearms are not from the USA? If they make any firearms, they are of probably such low quality that the drug dealers will not buy them.

    Mexican Law completely prohibits firearm ownership by their citizens. The politically connected and the criminals are own firearms and are armed to the teeth. The citizen is powerless to overthrow his government. The Criminals control the government. India has a similar situation.

    With guns, we are citizens. Without guns, we are subjects.

    'gun free zones' invite armed criminal attacks

  • GPNaderSupporter
    April 29, 2009 3:43 p.m.

    Hey Orrin,

    Even though I'm a Green and a Socialist, and I probably would abhore 90+ % of your politics, I think you've written a pretty good commentary here.

    I support the Second Amendment as well as all other parts of the Constitution, much of which was won in armed struggle against the founding fathers attempts to cheat veterans out of their earned compensation and farmers off of their productive land. (See _Peoples History of the United States_ by Ben and Matt's good buddy Howard).

    Keep up the good work on this issue, Orrin.

  • Interesting!
    April 29, 2009 3:29 p.m.

    A-The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
    B-Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000.
    C-Accidental deaths per physician is o.171
    Stats. courtesty of U.S. Health and Human Services.
    A-The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
    B-The number of accidental gun deaths per year, in all age groups, is 1500.
    The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is.000188.
    Statistics courtesy of FBI
    So, stastically doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

    April 29, 2009 3:19 p.m.


  • Nate
    April 29, 2009 3:17 p.m.


    Sorry, I won't have any part of it. I've seen him do this so many times, it's predictable. Pick a conservative cause just before election and espouse it so you can blend in and look like a Utahn. When all the time you're making deals with your buddies that stand the Constitution right upside-down on its head.

    No way I'm ever voting for Orrin Hatch again. Same goes for Bailout Bob Bennett.

  • Carl in Chicago
    April 29, 2009 3:11 p.m.

    Oh Please and others ...

    Let me be perfectly clear. The so-called "assault weapons" that some would love to ban are merely single-shot firearms.

    They fire one shot per pull of the trigger.

    You would support a ban on single-shot firearms just because some people think they look scary?

    Grow up.

  • Answer to "to the left"
    April 29, 2009 3:09 p.m.

    They hate them because they are ideologues and these people oppose THEIR ideology.

  • @Oh Please
    April 29, 2009 3:07 p.m.

    "American guns in Mexico: Which is it--90% or 17%? Whom to believe, the Washington Post or the NRA?"

    Why don't you believe the BATF from whom the %17 comes from. The 90% comes from the media, president, etc. misrepresenting and/or misunderstanding BATF's figures.

  • To the Left...
    April 29, 2009 3:05 p.m.

    Why all the hate and vitriol for the NRA or anyone who owns a gun? What have they ever done to you?

  • J B Books
    April 29, 2009 2:56 p.m.

    As some have noted non-felon citizens CAN own assault rifles, suppressors, bazookas, etc. (NFA Weapons) but there is no such thing as a "permit" for them.

    One pays a TAX to transfer them.

    The reason it's a TAX instead of a FEE for a PERMIT is that back in 1934 when the feds were first infringing on both the right to keep and bear arms, and intrastate commerce, they realized that the Federal Government hadn't been granted the power by the States (see 10th amendment, the Federal Government has ONLY those powers SPECIFICALLY granted to it by the States) to issue said permits or to require permits to own said arms.

    Now they just won't accept the tax payment (kinda like Castro not accepting the checks we send every year for the rent on Guantanamo Bay).

  • tlc9193
    April 29, 2009 2:53 p.m.

    To oh please,

    Just like assault weapons, you know fully automatic rifles, "bazookas and nukes" ARE closely regulated. Try to PAY ATTENTION, will you!

  • CALogic
    April 29, 2009 2:52 p.m.

    The preponderance of empirical data clearly indicate that civilian gun ownership provides all of society with an extraordinary, net positive benefit in lives saved and crimes stopped. Indeed, just the "deterrent" effect provided by the right of individuals to own guns stops many, many crimes before they are committed.

    Moreover, reports issues by the Centers for Disease Control and the National Science Foundation have indicated that in their expert analysis GUN CONTROL LAWS DO NOT WORK!

    To the "anti gunnners:" PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELVES.

    April 29, 2009 2:03 p.m.

    Great article. I don't own an automatic weapon, rocket launcher or flame thrower, but come into my home in the middle of the night and say goodby to this world.

  • anrgywdc
    April 29, 2009 1:54 p.m.

    Here is a typical politician. I worked on Mr. Hatch's original campaign years ago. He seemd fresh and vital back then.

    Now here he is squaking about others back there like the courts and other members. After the teaparties he was complaining about the democrats. And at the same time he's selling the constitution out for a few more seats on committees or whatever it is those bozos think is important back there.

    The fingerpointing has got to stop. We need people back there who have at least read the constitution.

    April 29, 2009 1:54 p.m.

    A few points...

    Being alive gives you the right to defend yourself anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.

    the term "Assault weapons" was shrewdly selected knowing most people will believe it refers to machine guns. Shame on anyone who doesn't know what the looney left are really after when they use this term

    The police have ZERO legal obligation to protect anyone. They have NO liability in this capacity. They are NOT our personal body guards. They ENFORCE the law, that's it. They are very busy, so when seconds count, know that the police are minutes away....figure it out from there.

  • Oh Please
    April 29, 2009 1:44 p.m.

    If the right to bear (not "bare," the usual spelling encountered among rednecks) arms is absolute, then shouldn't I be able to own a bazooka or even a nuke? Aren't they "arms"? If living next to a guy who owns a machine gun is supposed to make me feel safer, then shouldn't I feel a lot safer if he has a 20-kiloton warhead in his basement? Especially if he drinks a lot of beer and grumbles a lot about the gov'mint?

  • The real k9 again
    April 29, 2009 1:37 p.m.

    Just to educate the non gun owners and I'm sure most of the legal gun owners would agree with me. If I were to choose to commit a robbery or some other violent gun crime, would my first choice be my ak-47? Probably not, would it be my Glock 21? Maybe. But, if I really wanted to create death and destruction I would use my trusty pump shotgun with 00 buckshot. If your going to talk about personal protection don't forget the shotgun. For you poor un-educated non gun owners, compared to a full choke shotgun with 00 buckshot an assualt rifle is a pea shooter. But why you say?. A shotgun takes little or no training to use. The firepower is devastating at close range and if your good you can empty 8 to 10 rounds in 5 seconds. It's not tracable by ballistics since it has a smooth bore. So that's a little education for the non gun owner. The rest of us gun owners know this already. If your holding a really sharp knife in your hand, does it give you an overwhelming desire to kill someone? Neither does holding guns.

  • Matt
    April 29, 2009 1:34 p.m.

    For the lefties -
    - All able-bodied adult citizens are considered members of "the militia". Selective service, draft, etc. are the formalized recognition of this. Though unlikely to be necessary, all citizens have a responsibility to defend the homeland.
    - The 2nd amendment DOES give anyone a right to machine guns, tanks and nukes. Is it advisable, no, but consider the check on -creating- nuclear weapons if the inventors had this in mind. Maybe we wouldn't have nukes at all.
    - Infringed means not just bans, but anything intended to make firearm ownership more difficult. This originates from a gunpowder embargo on Boston by British Gen. Gage and forbids registration, background checks or taxation, etc.
    - Please, my liberal friends, visit a gun range. It is a utopia of generosity, politeness, love of unspoiled nature,respect and color-blindness. Why?? Because everybody knows everybody else is carrying!!

    Guns are tools. Like a car, a power drill, chainsaw or the bare hands of a black belt. Used wisely, they make necessary work easier, used improperly, people can get hurt. The laws that must be enforced are only those that make deliberate improper use, and only deliberate improper use, a crime.

  • To Oh Please @9:23
    April 29, 2009 1:25 p.m.

    You must have been educated in public schools. You don't seem to be able to follow a train of thought. 90% of the guns THAT COULD BE TRACED came from the US. However, only 17% of the guns they had could be traced. Follow closely now 100% - 17% means that 83% of the guns could not be traced. THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY CAME FROM. THEY COULD HAVE COME FROM ANYWHERE. An honest reporting of this information would have pointed out that they don't know where 83% of the guns come from. However, honest reporting is not where the media wants to go. So the 90% figure makes the news and the rest is left out.

  • JimInMT
    April 29, 2009 1:19 p.m.

    @RW wrote: "The lynch mob mentality of the current right-wing wackos scares me. They carry guns!" Why, I find that I could easily substitute "left-wing" in there, and I would be equaly scared. Because THEIR intent is to stifle debate, disarm us so we have to wait minutes for the police when seconds count, and generally cow-tow to their ONE. Speaking of lynching, wasn't that a fine job Napolitano did!? All that remains is for the left-wing mobs to come get us with their guillotines.

  • The real k9
    April 29, 2009 1:09 p.m.

    I am so sick of people not taking responsibility for their own actions. They act like victims of their own design. The simple fact is that I own a quote "assualt rifle" would it be my first choice to rob someone with it? No, I would use my Glock 21. When someone tells me that I don't have any business owning an assault rifle. I say you don't have any business telling me what I can and cannot own. The worst possible weapon you can own is your basic pump shotgun not an assault rifle. Why? for you non educated non gun owners, they take little or no training to use, they have devastating firepower in close and you don't have to be a good shot to kill multiple targets within 20 yards of where your standing. Oh yeah, I almost forgot you can't trace a shotgun through ballistics since it doesn't have any rifling in the barrel. When you pick up a sharp knife about to cut your steak meat, do you have an overwelming desire to go down and cut your boss's throat because you don't like him. Self control.

  • @Oh Please
    April 29, 2009 12:53 p.m.

    By your logic, there is absolutely no reason for law-abiding citizens to NOT own an assault rifle, either.

    Thanks for pointing that out.

  • The real k9
    April 29, 2009 12:49 p.m.

    Same old story!! The people that legally own firearms are not the ones commiting the crimes period. The non gun owners still have the right to not own a gun. These people are paranoid and obviously don't know anything about firearms. I have been to many gun shows and have never felt in danger. Why? because with that many armed people around you, you wouldn't have much of a chance for violence armed or not. Most gun owners are proud that they have control over their emotions and know that killing someone with a gun is a last resort. They are not afraid to claim the right of common sense and they are usually trained with that weapon and know how to use it safely. It's called being educated!! I also own an ak-47 not a knock off a real one. If I chose to with a couple of parts I can make it go full auto. I choose not to though it only wastes ammo and being former military I know full auto is designed to be used if you are ambushed. You can't hit your target and you would burn out your barrel.

  • @Oh Please
    April 29, 2009 12:48 p.m.

    This is a very difficult issue for me. I am about as far left as it gets, politically. However, even I can't see the logic in your argument. You state that "there's absolutely no reason for any law-abiding citizen to own an assault rifle." However, by your very own admission, there is no reason for that citizen NOT to own an assault rifle.
    I would love to hear a well thought-out opinion on gun control, if not to engage in a debate then at least so I can respect the opinion of those who I more closely align with on almost every other political issue.
    Personally, I would lose much more sleep over the safety of my loved ones if I knew that guns didn't exist and my mother or sister had to rely on the response time of police officers if attacked, than I currently do knowing that law abiding citizens feel the need to own assault rifles.

  • Mateo
    April 29, 2009 12:14 p.m.

    Nice work, Senator Hatch. You have my vote next election.

  • TSgt B
    April 29, 2009 12:06 p.m.

    Oh Please: What should it matter to you what type of firearm I own if, in your own words, I AM A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN? Please share with us how much experience you have with firearms, or in firearms law.

    I'm retired military, a former cop, firearms instructor, and small arms expert who has fired over 500,000 rounds, and only ONE of those in anger (read that: self defense).

    There are approximately 4,000,000 (yes, MILLION) people in this country licensed or permitted to carry concealed firearms. As a group, we are more lawful than politicians (no surprise there), law enforcement officers, and THE CLERGY.

    Don't you find it problematic that in those areas with the strictest "gun control", we also find the highest rates of violent, firearms-related crime? How do you explain this FACT?

    We had a 10 year experiment with an "assault weapon" ban, and the result was: NO, REPEAT, NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN CRIME NUMBERS, UP OR DOWN. In other words, the ban was TOTALLY useless as a crime-fighting tool. All that was accomplished was intentional interference with a Constitutional RIGHT. Do your homework, get the facts, then speak your piece.

  • Nate
    April 29, 2009 12:03 p.m.

    Ah, I see Senator Hatch is up for re-election soon, and is supporting conservative causes again. Fine, but will it last until the next bailout?

  • Liberty
    April 29, 2009 11:49 a.m.

    Samaritan wrote:
    Our Rights come from God, we lend a few to the government for our protection. When a government seeks to act in a manner that is detrimental to the Rights of its citizens then we have a Right to withhold our support, and our consent, from that government.

    Samaritan, it's not a right to withhold support or consent from an unjust government, it's a DUTY. Which is the main reason for the second amendment. That's why corrupt governments are so oppose to the people owning firearms.

  • Gary
    April 29, 2009 11:49 a.m.

    Other than the existing laws against murder and other violent crimes, Sen. Hatch, what laws should we gun owners be "abiding by," exactly? The fact is our fundamental right to defend our own lives by any means necessary (which is supposedly protected by the Second Amendment) has been infringed for seventy-five years by hundreds of these laws we're expected to "abide by." Until all of those laws have been repealed, the Second Amendment will continue to remain infringed. Now, what I'd like to know is, if you're so concerned about we gun owners being properly represented, why is it you and your colleagues in Congress have done absolutely nothing to repeal these laws that clearly stand in violation of our Constitution?

  • rspock
    April 29, 2009 11:37 a.m.

    "...There's absolutely no reason for any law-abiding citizen to own an assault rifle. The right to bear arms doesn't extend to bazookas or nukes, either..."

    Typical antigun hyperbole. There is a reason and it's expressly stated in the second amendment. Part of your problem may be that the language has changed a little since 1790. "well regulated" doesn't mean the same now as it did then. Think Shakespeare. Don't believe me? Read the Heller decision - and Jules Verne. You'll find plenty of support in both places.

    Here is the Second Amendment translated into a modern day equivalent supported by both the founding fathers words (Federalist papers and others) and the SCOTUS.

    Because a well equipped and well practiced (=well regulated) military eligible citizenry (=militia) is necessary to keep a nation free, the right of citizens (excludes felons, etc.) to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed.

    Notice the military justification - which applies to your dreaded (and misnamed) "assault weapons" and yet does not exclude other reasons.

    What you think we "need" is completely irrelevant!

  • Stilweezy
    April 29, 2009 11:25 a.m.

    A citizen formed militia would do a lot for this country, we rely on the government to "fix" all our problems and then compain when they do a horrible job. which is most of the time. take the katrina floods in 06, the citizens relyed on government. but last year in Iowa they did not . one was a fiasco the other hardly mentioned. my 1911 is nicknamed "american express" because I will not leave home without it. I would much rather call a cop than use it, however I will not rely on a cop for my familys safty. I also own several black guns that are incorrectly refered to as assult weapons. for those of you that ask WHAT DO YOU NEED AN ASSULT RIFLE FOR?? here goes, the Japanese emperor was qouted saying he would never attack the mainland of the united states because "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass". that my friend is homeland security. not fingerpointing politicians. if are military is so great how come the somali pirates will even call them out. I dont see them boating over to texas and helping themselves out. get a rifle and learn how to shoot

  • Jose
    April 29, 2009 11:13 a.m.

    Join the NRA today and help fight the media that want to ban the Second Amendment.Call 1-877-NRA-2000.

  • Ron
    April 29, 2009 11:10 a.m.

    This is why newspapers are going out of business bacause they can't get their facts right.Senator Hatch set this newspaper right but will they understand what he wrote?

  • Mac Wade, NH
    April 29, 2009 10:56 a.m.

    What our pro-second amendment groups need to do is go on the legal offensive. Unless, they're willing to use aggressive lawsuits like the left-wing ACLU, we will lose this fight - proactive not reactive.

    With that being said, the first step is for gun rights groups to file a lawsuit against the Obama Administration's Department of Homeland Security and Janet Napolitano for violating the 1st and 5th amendment of law-abiding firearms owners. Napolitano needs to be fired.

    We must pressure the NRA and GOA to file a lawsuit on behalf of gun owners. A similar lawsuit was actually filed by talk radio host Michael Savage.

    The Obama Administration, the leader of the Democratic Party (George Sorros), the DHS, and their communist ilk of radical left-wingers in the main stream media are engaging in political oppression. They need to be held accountable and made an example of.

    The oppressive and unconstitutional tactics of the left are indicative of their dictatorial third world nation mentality. They need to be impeached for violating the oath of office. Infringing upon our constitutional rights is an act of treason against the nation and our principals of self-government.

  • scout2
    April 29, 2009 10:44 a.m.

    Dear Mr. Cline, I'm With you 100% never give up, never surender!

  • ralpherus
    April 29, 2009 10:37 a.m.

    YES! It IS the criminals. About every problem in our country can be traced to Criminals as being the origin.... Tornados, hurricanes no...but societal ills- criminals are the cause. Now what then defines a criminal? The inability or refusal to respect the rights of Americans. When a person tramples the rights of another, that is a crime. Steal a purse? Trampled private property rights! Ok now, let us expand and extrapolate. What is gun control? Treason, and the trampling of the rights to keep and bear arms! It is also victim disarmament, and murder by proxy! So- Rather than tolerate the people who propose promote and vote FOR gun control, the traitors need to be gathered up, prosecuted, and hanged without a merciful thought, because the half million murders caused by gun control since 1965!!!

  • rw
    April 29, 2009 10:35 a.m.

    The lynch mob mentality of the current right-wing wackos scares me. They carry guns!

  • to clarence
    April 29, 2009 10:32 a.m.

    Paranoid much?

  • tlcar9193
    April 29, 2009 10:31 a.m.

    To oh please,

    First, let me take exception with your comment, "There's absolutely no reason for any law-abiding citizen to own an assault rifle." It takes a special permit for a citizen to own an assault rifle, remember an assault rifle has the ability to be switched from semi-automatic to automatic, and the average citizen can't get that permit. That fact aside, we do have the right to own a semi-automatic rifle. Please don't be confused by this distinction. If we put rifles that "look like" assault rifles in the mix this opens the ban up to all semi-automatic rifles, and then to all semi-automatic weapons. All of this aside, AR-15s, and many other rifles are used every day in shooting events like target shooting. Not to mention the fact that these weapons are used very infrequently by criminals. Let's get the facts before we speak, what do you say?

  • Change the tile
    April 29, 2009 10:29 a.m.

    I wish that Hatch could see the arguments he makes in behalf of a cause he supports are the same arguments others make in behalf of causes he opposes. Change the tile to any controversial topic and you will see the same line of thought--the facts are distorted, attacks are aimed at people/culture with no real basis, opponents are painted with a wide brush as extremists, laws can be changed without affecting the rights of others. It's like these politicians are speaking the same language, but listening in another.

  • Re: oh please
    April 29, 2009 10:17 a.m.

    I would like you to know what you're talking about before you comment. Citizens can't own bazookas or nukes nor should they. And ask yourself, what exactly is an "assault weapon"? It's a coined phrase in order to demonize any semi-automatic firearm in order to associate it with fully automatic firearms, which are already not available to the general populace. Beyond this, only about 2% of crimes are committed with either of these classes of firearms. So even if you could achieve preventing criminals from obtaining and using these firearms for crime through a ban would it do anything? Gun bans don't work because only those predisposed to follow the law will follow the gun ban, seeing as it is itself a law. Stop infringing the rights of law abiding citizens and actually go after those who are breaking the law. That's how to deal with crime; by dealing with the criminals.

  • clarence lee cline
    April 29, 2009 9:43 a.m.


  • GCQ
    April 29, 2009 9:37 a.m.

    Gun control advocates don't understand that laws restricting law-abiding citizens' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do more harm to society than good. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

    Additionally, overzealous gun control backers dont understand that the Second Amendment helps ensure the preservation our other rights. Justice Joseph Story (appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison) wrote, The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

    I support any lawmakers efforts to keep government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

  • Stu Strickler
    April 29, 2009 9:35 a.m.

    The Government needs to butt out of trying to control firearms. It's not going to happen! Every law abiding citizen has the right to own and carry a firearm.

    We already have more firearms laws on the books than we need. Passing more idiot laws won't stop criminals.

    Every time we have a new threat about firearms, gun sales increase. Crime does not increase as gun sales rise.

    When will people realize that firearms have never killed anyone? Bad people are the cause of crime, not firearms.

    Wake up America and take back this great country!

  • ralpherus
    April 29, 2009 9:32 a.m.

    I love to see great comments from fellow Americans! I agree with Scott- we need to strip the lies in media output. Let us infringe on the ability of "journalists" to lie by making the telling of falsity, and failing to fully report FACTS, very very personally painful and expensive- nationwide!

  • @ Eddie
    April 29, 2009 9:28 a.m.

    Eddie Keen | 7:13 a.m.

    I think the "God given rights" he's refering to are different than the ones your thinking of. I think the God given rights are the ones we would have if there were no government at all. The right to breath, the right to live, the right to be happy and take care of and even protect our families, etc.

    I don't think he was talking about things the left considers when they talk about their "rights", such as the right to free medical care, unemployment benefits, free speach, etc.

    I think you are talking past each other assuming your talking about the same thing.

  • Roland Kayser
    April 29, 2009 9:23 a.m.

    To Great Article: I thought that beating plowshares into swords is something that the Bible tells us to do. From reading all of the gay marriage letters in this section, I thought Utahns want to follow the Bible in everything. Personally, I support gun rights,and I also support gay marriage, but I don't base my support for either issue based on the Bible.

  • Oh Please
    April 29, 2009 9:23 a.m.

    American guns in Mexico: Which is it--90% or 17%? Whom to believe, the Washington Post or the NRA? It's probably somewhere in the middle, and if so, is still alarming. There's absolutely no reason for any law-abiding citizen to own an assault rifle. The right to bear arms doesn't extend to bazookas or nukes, either.

  • Oldshooter
    April 29, 2009 9:22 a.m.

    I notice that in Bellingham, WA they are now debating a new law to restrict anyone from selling guns within 500 ft. of a school (from nursery school to college), as they already do with porn shops or "Gentlemen's Clubs." This is totally nonsensical, but is also typical of the anti-gun movement's efforts to marginalize guns and gun owners/users as "bad guys," who are socially unacceptable. 50 years ago, when I was a young man, just the opposite was true. Gun owners were accurately protrayed as generally responsible citizens and the "backbone of the society." What we really need today, is a large-scale PR effort that is proactive in selling that image, rather than what we usually have, which is a defensive, reactive response whenever there is a shooting, or when the anti-gun media puts out false and defamatory information. Perhaps the NRA or Gun Owners of America could start up a major, long-term, ongoing PR campaign of this type. At least some of the local media would carry it, as well as Fox News.

  • Scott
    April 29, 2009 9:16 a.m.

    Great article from Senator Hatch. He does, however, need a better proof reader. Last two sentences contradict the entire article with the word "latter" in the last sentence that should say "former". In other words, we want "an open and honest debate on these issues" (the former) and we do not want to "engage in pointless stereotypes in order to marginalize the opposition" (the latter).

    Let's get the false assumptions out of the media and educate the population with facts. Only then can informed decisions be made.

  • Great Article
    April 29, 2009 8:39 a.m.

    I think that this was a great article.

    I can't wait until the lambs lay down with the lions and we beat our weapons into plowshares.

    Until then, I will be carrying a Glock G26 in a concealed holster, and those who decide to hurt myself or my family better reconsider...

  • RedShirt
    April 29, 2009 8:16 a.m.

    I once heard that part of the reason to allow the public to own guns is to remind the government who is really in charge. Leaving guns in the hands of the general population always leaves the possibility of a revolution when the government becomes corrupt.

  • Cosmo
    April 29, 2009 8:03 a.m.

    Re: Mr Keen; please read,Marcus Tullius Cicero. He is the Father of the concept of "Natural Law", and one whom our Founding Fathers studied greatly, and drew much from. I would that he was required reading
    in all our schools.

  • Al
    April 29, 2009 7:50 a.m.

    Everyone has a right to defend themselves period.

  • DDS -- NRA Life Member
    April 29, 2009 7:37 a.m.

    Mr. Keen,

    All logical systems including our moral and legal codes start from certain postulates and develop more complex ideas from them. Take away the foundation and the justification for all that comes after falls apart. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "We hold these truths to be self evident, That all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with cetain inalienable rights..." This postulate is the foundation of the United States constitution and the system of government that flows from it. If you do not agree with Mr. Jefferson's postulate, where do you think your rights come from? From the government itself? That would have the foundation of the government coming from the government, an exercise in circular logic. Not very bright.

  • ralpherus
    April 29, 2009 7:35 a.m.

    " a fully armed, similarly equipped, population ready to spring into action being necessary for the preservation of FREEDOM, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed"-- Now- 2A does not proscribe laws about the discharging of arms- but anything that restricts the purchase, owning and carrying of arms is treason. But to say, no shooting in a theater, or no criminally attacking others with guns, are good laws... But, 20,000 laws are redundant, and infringements. Simply, "hurting a person in anything other than a self-defense situation with or without weapons shall be punished by hanging" would preclude jobs to millions of worthless attorneys!

  • @Eddie
    April 29, 2009 7:29 a.m.

    @Eddie, fortunately for you, the foundation of this country's legal framework is the acknowledgement that rights are from God directly to the people. Immutable, omniscient, not from some political hack class in Washington, DC. However, right now, we have politicians that think they are God, and are acting as dictators, if the Supreme Court holds up, many of the actions taken this last 100 days will be declared unconstititional and the banks and other industries will revert to their rightful owners.

  • Eddie Keen
    April 29, 2009 7:13 a.m.

    Once you start telling me your rights come from god you've lost me, because now you don't have to justify anything except to say 'god says so'. Senator hatch, i trust that your support for the second amendment includes support for the need for a well regulated militia, because your unqualified support for the right to bear arms shows you've determined one is necessary....

  • Samaritan
    April 29, 2009 2:08 a.m.

    We gun owners know the truth about the Second Amendment and the responsibility that accompanies it. We also realize that there exists a political clique that ardently seeks to deny us our God given rights to self defense and self preservation and this has been with us for a very long time, whether they realize it or not.

    The Dred Scott decision stated that slaves weren't "persons" and therefore had no rights and the Roe v. Wade decision stated the same thing about the unborn. When the Left seeks to take away our Rights, any of them, they are saying the same thing about us!

    Our Rights come from God, we lend a few to the government for our protection. When a government seeks to act in a manner that is detrimental to the Rights of its citizens then we have a Right to withhold our support, and our consent, from that government.

    The government exists to protect the Rights of its citizens, and nothing more...

  • Kevin J.
    April 29, 2009 1:46 a.m.

    Thank you, Senator Hatch, for your continued support of the second amendment!

    Now, quit pandering to the likes of Edward Kennedy. ;)