Many voices for guns

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • pollyd Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    While I appreciate DesertNews printing my article, changing the title to, "Many Voices For Guns..." changes the intent of my letter which urged people working together to take a more reasoned approach than lining up all gun-defenders versus the gun limitation folks. Those who urge ramping up the anti-federal paranoia, and fear of gun confiscation are scaring people into wild ideas such as arming teachers. As a teacher myself, I deplore increasing fear in our students and teachers as to who is "carrying" and what is concealed. The school districts I have worked for have "Safe Schools" rules that forbid weapons on campus. PTAs and other school organizations need to be alert that the Legislature leaves this alone, as well as administrators, who sadly must often put their lives on the line by confronting dangerous students.

    While Safe Schools codes cannot be enforced without metal detectors or searches, which no one advocates, it does lessen these worries for teachers and administrators when disagreements occur, which is crucial to good management and maintaining a peaceful learning environment. Most teachers want to protect students, not become a combatant. That's the right spirit. Polly H.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 5:27 p.m.

    A leadership conference? HA!! Who would attend? Michael Moore and friends? The second amendment needs no leadership conference or negotiators...only followers of the constitution. We have the radical left who want communism and no guns and they want your guns!!! Hand em over people!!!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    To "Screwdriver" then you agree that the problem is not guns, but a societal attitude. How do you propose changing societal attitudes?

    To "Open Minded Mormon" and "The Taxman" here is an example of a drone "Helicopter parenting? Dad's homemade drone follows kid to bus stop" at NBC News. See also "U.S. historian's home-made spy drone sparks debate on growing trend of hobby aircraft" in the UK daily Mail. There are also reports of people arming their drones with paintball or airsoft guns. You can also easily buy the Parrot AR.Drone Quadricopter Controlled by iPod touch, iPhone, iPad, and Android Devices from Amazon and start your drone army.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 15, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    Aurora, CO

    "Although the National Guard is sometimes nick-named a militia, they are in fact a reserve component of the Army, and can be called to active duty. They are trained, equipped and must perform to standards set by the Army."

    I'm, excuse me...but this precisely the definition of a militia.
    Regular guys, working regular jobs, living regular lives, non-career soldiers, weekend warriors....called up and ready for duty at a minutes notice?
    Minute Men?
    Get it??

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    Our founders realized that there would be the need for change in the laws they set forth. Ammendments change laws and tweak them . The 2nd ammendments referance to a well regulated militia, Is refering to state militias ran by state government. The 2nd ammendment does not give you the right to own any weapon you choose to protect yourself from an imaginary tyranical government, or imaginary Hitler, It does the opposite. It gives the government the right to protect its citizens from gun toting crazy gunnuts. When did a well regulated militia, become a unregulated populace of gun nuts?? Your right to bear arms shall not be infringed. it does not guarentee you the right to own military style weapons used for 1 reason, to kill many quickly. At the time of it being writen, arms consisted of a single shot musket. If you want to interprate the 2nd ammendment the way it was written, That is the only weapon you are allowed to own.

  • Jack Aurora, CO
    Jan. 14, 2013 9:11 p.m.

    Did someone say that there were no background check currently required to purchase a firearm? Obviously that person hasn't gone through the background check to purchase a firearm. I think the phrase was "anything goes for everyone"... It isn't the case.
    A check is completed prior to the purchaser taking possession from the dealer.....but that doesn't fit your agenda, so you ignore it. Someone else tried to say that the militia is the police and National Guard, again incorrect as defined. Although the National Guard is sometimes nick-named a militia, they are in fact a reserve component of the Army, and can be called to active duty. They are trained, equipped and must perform to standards set by the Army. They are not a substitute and do not negate the individual right to bear arms. Machine guns and explosives are strictly regulated so as not to be found just anywhere. Tanks and aircraft are "de-militarized" prior to entry on the open market, so they are not just anywhere. Nuclear weapons are strictly controlled so as not to be just anywhere. Did I leave anything out?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 7:44 p.m.

    I was talking recently with a friend who is an expert on gangs in Utah. He works with the Utah Attorney General's office. Although he is pro-gun, he has some serious concerns with the lack of adequate background checks, the gun show loophole, and the fact that before being prohibited from possessing a gun, a person must have been convicted of a felony.

    According to him, at least two thirds of gang members cannot be restricted from packing. Most have fairly extensive records of misdemeanors, but no felonies -- yet. It is not unusual for police agencies to have to return weapons to gang bangers because their possession of the weapon is permitted under current law and the Second Amendment. Because there is no registration of gun serial numbers, there is no way of learning if the gun has been stolen.

    He also points out that in almost every case of a gun being used in domestic violence, the gun was lawfully possessed by the shooter. Even though the shooter may have had a long history of previous violence, nothing can be done until he crosses the line from misdemeanor to felony.

    Something to think about?

  • The Taxman Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 14, 2013 6:50 p.m.

    "I hate to break it to you, but citizens can already buy drones."

    This is totally untrue. Somebody I know tried to buy a drone (to use in farming operations) and was not allowed to purchase a drone.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 5:13 p.m.

    Mike and Procura,

    Let's be clear - are you two advocating NO restrictions on military weapons held by private citizens?

    Larry Ellison, the CEO of Oracle, sought to purchase a Russian-built Mig-29 fighter jet, for recreational purposes only, and was opposed by the Department of Defense (because the Mig-29 is still a state of the art military platform for delivering missiles, nuclear weapons, etc.) Are you suggesting the US government was wrong to restrict this personal acquisition of military hardware?

    What (if any) limits do you propose for weaponry for individual citizens?

    Semi-automatic AK-47s and AR-15s we presume you support for private individuals.

    What about making them fully automatic? RPGs? Stinger should-fired missiles? Tactical nuclear weapons? B-52s? Cruise Missiles?

    Where exactly do you two draw the line? Or will you merely hide behind the wording in the 2nd Amendment to avoid specific answers?

    I think a lot of people in this debate are curious to know just how far 2nd Amendment advocates push the issue, see if they're capable of drawing a rational line in the extensive continuum of weapons.

    This may impact how aggressive mental health screening for gun purchases should become.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 5:10 p.m.


    I think I hear you saying that it's OK (constitutionally permitted) for a terrorist to walk into a crowded place wearing a suicide vest, because anything qualifies as "arms" under the 2nd Amendment, a person has the absolute constitutional right to keep and bear arms without any prior restraints, and the government's only recourse is prosecution after the terrorist has detonated the vest, at which point, of course, it would be a little too late.

    You take the cake. Really.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 4:55 p.m.

    Mike Richards:

    From the less than adroit way you avoided answering my questions, I take it that they make you uncomfortable or that you have no rational answers. Mission accomplished.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 14, 2013 3:24 p.m.


    Who has the right to speak? The Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Can felons speak? Can your political foes speak? Who limits what a person can say BEFORE he says it? Yes, someone can be prosecuted for slander or for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but can his speech be limited or abridged BEFORE he violates the law?

    We are FREE to keep and bear arms, without restriction, according to the Constitution. You may wish that we didn't have that right. You may wish that my right to speak freely could be abridged. But, if you abridge my rights, you also abridge your rights. At some point neither of us would have rights and the government would become all powerful just as it was before we demanded that the PEOPLE retain all rights and that the government restrict itself to only do those things which we allowed it to do.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 14, 2013 3:15 p.m.

    Sorry Red Shirt your anecdotes don't trump reality. Individualism isn't the same as personal repsonsibility..and indiviudalism is not the answer. Socieities with more collectivist tendencies and trust their government to be a partner are in fact very successful across the span of civilized measurments.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 14, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    ya -- all those evil terrible items need to be banned!
    such as;
    shampoo and toothpaste on airlines,
    over-the-counter headcold medicines,
    certain toy model airplanes,
    TSA x-ray screenings and pat-downs,
    continued enforcement of the Patriot Act,

    ....but assault rifles and high capacity clips shouldn't be banned, restrictioned or regulated.

    Isn't this another example of the Good becoming bad, and Bad becoming good?

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    Mike and Procuradorable:

    The 2nd Amendment doesn't define "arms," so what is your basis for saying that all types of arms are permitted? Is there no limit? Does it include arms that the authors of the 2nd Amendment could not even imagine?

    By the same token, the 2nd Amendment does not define "people." So do you believe that "people" is as broad as "arms" in the context of the 2nd Amendment? More particularly, the 2nd Amendment does not expressly limit the right to bear arms to "good guys," law-abiding citizens, or any other class of people. So, being constitutional literalists, you would logically conclude that the 2nd Amendment permits arms in the hands of all types of "people," including felons, terrorists, lunatics, non-citizens, and/or children, right? On the other hand, if you say we can constitutionally limit the right to keep and bear arms to certain classes of people, where is the Constitutional authority for that? And if there can be constitutionally permissible limits on who can keep and bear arms, who decides where to draw the lines, given that the 2nd Amendment does not expressly do so?

    Just curious.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 14, 2013 2:22 p.m.

    1. I'm considered left-of-center. I do not want anyone coming to get our guns. But - limits, regulations, and restrictions are necessary -- IN ORDER, to protect and maintain our individual rights to keep and bare arms.
    Regulations and Restrictions will not keep any LAW abiding and Mentally sane citizen from keeping and maintaining those rights. But this silly Anything goes for anyone - No back ground checks, No restritions what-so-ever isn't working and IT is our biggest threat of loosing ALL of our rights.


    2. Mr. RedShirt - who said,
    To "Lane Myer" I hate to break it to you, but citizens can already buy drones.

    Where on earth did you come up with that one?
    I have never heard of such a lie.
    I have built and flown model airplanes for over 50 years.
    You can no longer build or fly certain models anymore since they can be easily "weaponized".
    Like liquids over 3 oz on all airliners.

    We have George W. Bush and the 9/11 terrorists to Thank for that one.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 14, 2013 2:10 p.m.

    Redshirt, the answer to your Honduras question was found in 3 minutes. If honestly studying the question you might have googled it.

    On Honduras homicide rates: Custodio stressed in the document his “concern, first, because the right to life is so little respected in this country, and second, because of the high degree of impunity enjoyed by those dedicated to committing acts of violence against people’s lives and personal safety.”

    Guns were used in 77 percent of the homicides registered between 2005-2008, while 36 percent of the murders in 2005-2009 were suspected of being contract killings.

    In short as Professor Steven Pinker would point out in his books, the Honduran government is too small and weak (conservative) to provide the safety and system of justice that would bring down their homicide rate. And since 77% percent of these homicides were committed using guns we can assume that the gun makes it much easier to kill. I think we all knew that though.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 14, 2013 1:52 p.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    ...To them, the Court is unimportant. They will believe whatever they want to believe regardless of what the Supreme Law of the Law clearly says.


    How Ironic,
    Coming from the same man who daily slams the Supmere Court and believes whatever he wants regardless of what the Supreme Law of the Law clearly says regarding Roe v. Wade.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 1:39 p.m.

    "There's not the slightest hint of an explanation as to how unilaterally disarming good guys will make us safer from bad guys"

    Strawman argument. Liberals are not proposing disarming good guys.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 12:58 p.m.

    Surveys show the majority of NRA members support requiring background checks on all gun purchases and limiting capacity of magazines. I say we compromise and only have those two things for gun safety legislation. Neither of these things will stop responsible gun-owners from getting guns and nobody's guns will be taken away. All it does is close a loophole, and reduce the ability to go on a shooting spree (that lunatic in Tuscon was stopped when he was tackled while trying to reload).

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 12:57 p.m.

    Re: ". . . NRA leadership and extremist elements . . . just say 'No' to any recommendations to make the community safer regardless of the attempt."

    Liberals love to duck the issue, don't they?

    There's not the slightest hint of an explanation as to how unilaterally disarming good guys will make us safer from bad guys -- who, long history shows, absolutely WILL NOT disarm.

    Not even if liberals say, "pretty please."

    Since we've seen no measurable effect on community safety where they've been tried, multiple times, in multiple places; and since there simply is NO possible way to disarm those most disposed and most likely to use weapons against us -- even if the Second Amendment permitted it, which any honest reading makes clear it does NOT -- how could ANY liberal honestly argue that ANY gun-control scam can possibly make ANY difference, or could in ANY way "make the community safer"?

    We're still waiting for objective specifics, not snarky reproof.

    Liberals have the burden of proof here. They're the ones demanding change.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    To "Lane Myer" I hate to break it to you, but citizens can already buy drones. Rocket launchers are not legal to buy as individuals, but people can buy some old decomissioned military vehicles, including tanks.

    The military also has MREs, bayonetts, horses, camoflage, and metal trays for their chow halls. Should we ban the public from owning those too because they are used by the military?

    To "pragmatistferlife" but individualism is the solution. The government collectivist solutions don't work and end up harming more people. For example mass murders peaked in 1929. Since then there has been a decrease in mass murders with guns. If you look at new stories going back 30 years, there are many incidents where individuals shot criminals before they could kill more than 2 people.

    To "LDS Liberal" you are wrong about teh government banning the sale of guns. See the recent Supreme court ruling on the DC gun ban.

    To "Screwdriver" if guns are the problem how do you explain the fact that countries like Honduras and most of Central and South america have fewer guns but up to 13 times the homicide rate?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 14, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    Some people would like us to believe that they have the right to redefine the Constitution. They would have us believe that they can redefine what "shall not be infringed" means. They would have us believe that ownership of guns outside the duties of being a member of a militia is not allowed. Apparently, they cannot read. The Court settled that question in 2010. To them, the Court is unimportant. They will believe whatever they want to believe regardless of what the Supreme Law of the Law clearly says.

    They will insult. They will slander. They will mock. All that they prove is that that they are wrong - 100% wrong.

    Those who have the truth on their side do not mock, they do not divert, they do not redefine. They simply state the facts. The facts state the truth. The point is made.

    Obama is President, not George Bush. Obama has not repealed the "Patriot Act". Obama is the only person in America who can do anything about the "Patriot Act". He won't - so liberals will blame Bush.

    We are free to keep and bear arms without infringement whether we belong to a militia or not.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 12:31 p.m.

    On May 19, 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed H.R. 4332 and Executed Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.

    Restricitng the sale, use and ownership of fully automatic fire arms.

    It IS within the Constitution to restrict Fire Arms,
    and YES, it was that very same RINO Pres. Reagan who signed it into law.

    So, that begs this question....

    Who shifted?
    Was it Ronald Reagan,
    or the uber-far-right wing of today's GOP?

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 12:14 p.m.

    In a nutshell, the NRA leadership and extremist elements promoting unregulated gun ownership find mass carnage acceptable so to enable themselves to have the tools for mass carnage. It's just one of those things. They say, "Get over it." It's the price we pay, and to them it's OK. Shed a fear tears when a mass shooting occurs and just say "No" to any recommendations to make the community safer regardless of the attempt.

    Too bad 20 little kids and 6 adults died. You just have to accept these things happening because they want it this way. Don't say they mourn the dead. They celebrate their victory in keeping reasonable gun safety legislation at bay. And they will say the necessary words the next time a massacre occurs, hold their gus up in defiance, and again say "No."

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 14, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    There you go again, making stuff up....

    "Quite simply, it protects the right of the people to possess and use military arms.

    There is no other honest interpretation. The Supreme Court has ruled as much."

    Justice Scalia, arguably the most conservative of all the Supreme Court dissagrees with you.

    Scalia, a strict interpreter of the Constitution, said there's an "important limitation" on the right to bear arms.

    "We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'," Scalia wrote, in an opinion first cited by UPI over the weekend.

    Scalia reiterated that sentiment in July of this year when he told Fox News that the Second Amendment leaves room for federal gun control legislation.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 14, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    No one suggests that scoiety acting as a collective is a substitute for personal morality...a better word would be responsibility. Societies acting as a collective rely more than any other societies on individuals acting responsibly. And guess what they do..that's why they do better than us in education, health care, mortatlity, upward mobility etc. Why do they act more responsibly..because they decided as a society to function a certain way..and why could they make such decisions..because they see government as an extention of themselves..not their enemy. They've matured past the adolescent stage of newly discovered individual freedom. To know why America is in the situation we are in you don't have to look any further than most 16 year olds with a newly minted drivers license and the family car.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 14, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    Guns are just holding society back.

    True defense of your home has nothing to do with guns. Otherwise having the most guns in the world per capita would have solved it.

    True defense against tyranny doesn't have anything to do with guns. Otherwise in your minds there is no logic to the hysteria that the government would or COULD take your guns. Gun nuts obviously don't believe just owning those guns prevents tyranny.

    Both ideas are flawed and fail.

    Think differently and find new solutions. There's nothing a gun can do for self defense that less or non lethal solutions can't provide much more safely to your family yet they are never mentioned.

    You're stuck in 1776.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    Re: "Get off your high horse."

    While we're on the subject . . . the Constitution means what it says in real English, not what one or another disingenuous think tank wants to shape it to signify in Orwellian Newspeak.

    The Second Amendment states its raison d'etre, in the well-regulated militia clause -- the people need those military arms necessary to act as a militia, when necessary. But, that clause in no way limits the right to keep and bear clause. The Amendment states a right of the people, not of a militia or a bloated, distant, central government.

    Quite simply, it protects the right of the people to possess and use military arms.

    There is no other honest interpretation. The Supreme Court has ruled as much.

    The universe of arms protected by the Second Amendment begins with those very weapons liberals currently want to ban. That it extends beyond them is clear, as well, but to suggest the Second Amendment would countenance a ban on weapons because the look military is the worst form of sophistry.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    BTW - Mike Richards....

    I'd for just once like to see you go after the shredding and trampling of the Constitution by GWBush's Patriot Act, and Citizen's United with 1/100th the zeal and rath you exhibit toward any imaginary Constitutional trampling under Pres. Obama.

    Just ONCE. Please?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    Seeing the economic success of the Cold War,

    Small arms dealers are promoting the idea of a local and individual Arms Race.

    Filled with fear and terror,
    Citizens are being told by the NRA that only Good Guys and Bad Guys have guns.
    And that the Good Guys need to out arm, out number, and out gun the Bad guys.

    The Arms Race, lead to MAD - Mutal Assured Destruction - and nearly wiped out the Human Race.

    Conservatives see the solution to all of life's problems through the end of a gun.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    The pro-gun people want to ignore the first clause. The anti-gun people want to ignore the second clause. We can't ignore either one.

    The founders wanted all free white men to be armed so they could be called to form a militia to repel foreign invaders and to suppress domestic insurrection. Look at the militias that George Washington led to put down the Whiskey Rebellion as an example. This was because the founders were adamantly opposed to maintaining a standing army.

    Since the end of WWII we have maintained a standing army, which is one thing the founders would look on with absolute horror and revulsion. One could make the point that this obviates the need for a militia. That being the case, what is the reason for the second clause if the first is no longer operative?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"


    I love the way you cherry pick....

    Heere's the Ammedment in it's ENTIRITY;
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    As part of "A well regulated Militia," -- i.e., a State's National Guard, State and County police and sheriff forces have the right to assault rifles, not you Billy-Bob soldier cop wanna-bes.

    BTW - that little word "infringed" does not mean you can have or do anything you dare well feel like.
    It means "confisgated".
    The government can not "confisgate" your arms from off your property,
    Infringe doesn't mean the banning of future sales of assault weapns, limiting caliber or clip capacity or restricting access to those not deemed legally responsible [criminals, mentally ill, ect.] shall be unchecked or unrestricted.

    Get off your high horse.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    Re: "Most modern socieities have learned to trust the need for collective action."

    Well, I would agree that too many modern societies have been snookered into believing secular "collective action" can somehow substitute for personal morality.

    But, it can't.

    Nor can we make ourselves collectively safer by legislating individual vulnerability.

    Once I can no longer count on the moral scruples of my fellows to prevent them injuring me, it becomes my responsibility to protect myself and my family. Suggesting government can somehow fill that role is deranged.

    Human moral decisions are made one-by-one. Individual people, who are individually responsible for those decisions, are the ones making them, not a collective. We are endowed by our Creator with agency to act for ourselves. That's why a hive mentality will never replace individual human responsibility.

    No matter how often liberals try. They just can't come up with a way to completely take away our freedom of choice.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 14, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    Re:MikeRichards, Procuradorfiscal

    How does the 2nd Amendment allow for denying access to guns for the mentally ill?

    How does the 2nd Amendment allow churches, schools, workplaces to prohibit guns?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 14, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

    That's out guaranteed right. That is the Supreme Law of the Land. That is the law that the Court upheld in 2010.

    There can be no compromise.

    Laws did not stop a madman from killing school children. He was underage. He was not allowed to own pistols. He was not allowed to buy ammunition. He was not allowed to take any firearm in a "gun free" zone. He broke the law. NO LAW would have kept him from killing. He proved that he had absolutely no respect for law, but now people are wringing their hands telling us that if we just had ANOTHER law, that those criminals who disrespect law would not be able to kill.

    Look at the handgun killings in Washington, D.C. and in Chicago where NO ONE except the police could carry handguns. The laws were ignored. CRIMINALS aren't stopped be laws.

    How many freedoms do we loose before we prove that laws do not make us safe from criminals?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 14, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    Waaaa Waaaa.People in America are free to own guns to protect themselves! Whine, cry, have a conniption fit and hold your breath until you turn blue. People in America are free to own guns, get over it!

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 8:45 a.m.


    Should Americans have rocket launchers? Drones? Tanks? All are armaments used by our military. What a sad country this would be if everyone stockpiled these types of weapons just because the military uses them.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 14, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    I'm going to go out on a limb here with a thought I've had that has been planted and nurtured by a number of new books and articles, that I've either read or reviewed. The thought is America is stuck in a troubling place right now trying to honor it's old tradition of fierce personal independence and the realities of modern life. It was barely over a hundred and fifity years ago that 60 acres a mule and a strong work ethic was all that was required for success. Now we have an econonmy where hadly anyone has a job that doesn't rely on at least Inrastate commerce and most likely international commerce. Yet we still foster an ilusion of just leave me alone I'll take care of this. Most modern socieities have learned to trust the need for collective action. Not America. If we have a gun violence problem it's described as a good guy vs. bad guy just give the good guys more guns. In reality it's a society problem, a problem that reflects all the complexities of modern society. It's time for America to face reality.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    The constitution trumps the emotional hysteria, because it is the only way to promote citizen safety.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 14, 2013 7:53 a.m.

    I am still thinking about what can/should be banned (if anything).

    But background checks on all purchasers all the time is a must.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    Re: "Please lend your collaborative voice and concern to gun violence prevention."

    I'd be happy to.

    Contrary to your assertion, this "national problem" does NOT require a ban on "assault weapons."

    The Constitution wisely guarantees the right of the people to own and use the types of weapons useful to a well-ordered militia. In other words, military weapons.

    This "national problem" CANNOT be solved by limiting good-guy access to the tools necessary to defend ourselves from the bad guys -- who will ALWAYS have access to "assault weapons," meaning, of course, whatever weapon they choose to assault us with.

    We cannot preserve freedom by laws limiting freedom. Since only good guys obey the law, anyway, laws banning guns will only apply to, and limit the freedom of, good guys.

    How in the world could disarming good guys solve a "national problem" created by bad guys?

  • Onion Daze Payson, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 7:22 a.m.

    "Plinking" cans trumps citizen safety.