Spank 10 to punish one?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:44 p.m.

    The main benefits of gun ownership are feeling safe, free, independent, and powerful. However, if you own a gun it is 22 times more likely to be used to kill you (suicide) or someone you love (accident, homicide in a heated argument) than a stranger in self-defense. The costs of living in a society of gun owners also means a substantially higher rate of homicides, suicides, and accidents. - psycology today

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2013 6:09 p.m.

    Two men facing off with single load rifles are safer than two men facing off with assault rifles.

    I don't see any need for analogies when there are so many easily understood examples of gun stupidity.

    A family with a secure home nobody can get into is safer than the family who's father refuses to spend $30 a month on an alarm but spends $10,000 a year on guns and ammunition and leaves them loaded around their home.

    But if you can't make your point with the real thing then by all means make something up.

  • Miss Piggie Ogden, UT
    Jan. 4, 2013 1:36 p.m.

    "The U.S. Constitution was written for a moral people and is wholly inadequate for any other. - John Adams."

    Very true, Richard. The problem we face these days is, we have no moral people now running our government. And we lost our best chance getting at least a president when Obama got reelected. God help us.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    Jan. 4, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    The problem is not trying to find the one kid that put his hands on the curtains.
    The problem is the parent is not stopping the kid from breaking into my house, putting his dirty hands on my curtains, and then burning my house down.
    And then the father does not think he should be held responsible to pay for the damage.
    If the father will not control his kid, they someone else like the police/government needs to step in.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 4, 2013 12:51 p.m.

    Assault rifles exist. Just like illegal drugs, there will always be people who are willing to manufacture them, sell them, hide them, and use them regardless of what the law says.

    Any kind of ban will simply take them out of the hands of those who choose to follow the law. If you think that if Congress will just pass something like the Feinstein proposal that suddenly dangerous guns will be kept away from "bad people", you live in a fairy-tale world.

    One of the biggest purposes of the second amendment is to help keep government power in check (something liberals oppose all day long). While a single person wouldn't stand a chance against the military even if they owned a tank, having 100,000 neighbors also with powerful weapons can keep a tyrant at bay. (And no, I am not suggesting that Obama is a tyrant who wants to send the military to my doorstep, but his actions may make it more possible for one to come to power one day.)

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 4, 2013 12:30 p.m.

    What the liberals fail to see is that they like to punish everybody because of 1.

    On gun control, you are more likely to be murdered with a blunt instrument, knife, or fists than a gun. Since liberals hate guns when they don't control who uses them, they have to ban them from everybody.

    The same can be said for SS. A few people used to fail to save for retirement, now we all pay for everybody's retirement.

    Look at healthcare. A small minority of people (about 10 million or less) couldn't afford insurance and were not covered under an existing program. So, rather than fix that small problem, we have to make healthcare more expensive for everybody else to pay for the healthcare of the few.

    Look at the testing that goes on in schools. There were too many people not passing, so we had to drop the standards to make it so that everybody would pass. We now have a system that is failing everybody, rather than just a small minority.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 4, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    You aren't being 'punished' if we get some of these absurd killing machines out of the public realm.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 4, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    Great analogy! It truly makes sense.


    It makes the liberals see red, one way or another.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 4, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    It's moral for me to be able to protect myself and immoral for the government to take away that right.

    Richard Nielsen


    Does Richard and the rest of the "I can have anything I want, and the Government can't take that right away" support my supposed right to bare MY arms?

    I don't need stupid pea-shooters (rifles) to protect myself.
    I served in the Military.
    We only used rifles to protect our REAL weapons.

    I can built, store, improvise, and deploy numerous -
    conventional, Nuclear, Chemical and Bio-logical weapons.

    I've been asking this all week...

    Do YOU 2nd ammendment "I can have any weapon I want" support my right to have those "arms" in my garage in Farmington, Utah?
    No questions asked or Government oversight needed?

    Yes or No?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 4, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    Deseret News,
    For the past week, your website is having major problems loading up.

    Republicans frame issues in not just the most ridiculous ways, but in the most extreme ways as well.
    Even hard-line conservative and Constitutional expert Justice Scalia thinks it would be reasonable to enact laws against people owning military-type firearms, as well as regulate who can carry weapons outside the home.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 4, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    Screwdriver: Since we are so into analogies today...using your example - the government may say that you can't drive your dragster on public roads to get to work each day, but they can't take away your right to build one in your garage and race it on your own private track.

    The government already has lots of practical regulations regarding the use of firearms. I can't target practice in the school playground or public park. I can't hunt deer while they are eating the bushes in my front yard. I can't fire into the air on New Year's eve. I can't use it to threaten someone I just disagree with.

    So to answer your question, the government can put regulations on the USE of guns, but they can't take away your right to own one.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 4, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    For the love of... mountainman.

    It's like a man on fire asking for lotion and a phone so he can order a wig and sunglasses. There.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 4, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    Best analogy posted this year! Thanks for writing it!

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 4, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    Wow, this topic sure brings out strange analogies. "Wiping hands on the shower curtain and spanking." geeesh.

    There are lots of things that I have the right to own. This is a comparison by the way, not an analogy. I have the right to own a car. Yet the car is heavily regulated in construction safety features and I need to prove my ability to use it safety and be licensed. I may not be able to drive a dragster to work or have jet engine in my Jetta but I can have a functional car that more than meets my needs.

    Nowhere in all that regulation did the government infringe my right to own a car and that I can't drive a jet dragster to work is not a punishment but a reasonable limitation.