so One vote, Firearms are not banned on airplanes, they must be declared
and the Captain must approve it. Flying is a choice, and with that choice comes
the limitations you hint at. We can choose to fly and accept them, or we can
drive or take the bus or train or not go at all. We choose to put ourselves in
that situation. Should the anti-gun agenda take hold, we will not have a
choice, which then violates the Constitutional guarantees. Are you then
conspiring to violate my civil rights by disallowing my 2nd Amendment rights?As for drones......you all have to realize that the military is made up
of Americans, who swore an oath to the Constitution, not to a man. The first
allegiance is to the Constitution, so we don't have the military taking
over in a coup like other countries. Unlawful orders are refused, and attacking
Americans on US soil is unlawful. So your fantasy goes the way of all such
imaginings......you will have to find another form of entertainment.
Obama wants to do "backgrounds checks" for every gun transfer, even
among family members for heirlooms, but WHY?The ONLY explanation is
that he wants to create a gun registration list---- useful ONLY for eventual
confiscation..Don't believe it? Then check the facts. For the
last year with statistics available, Utah's BCI denied about 2,000 attempts
by prohibited persons trying to buy guns in Utah. That is a federal felony, and
one would expect about 2,000 people to have been charged, easily convicted from
the false statements made under penalty of perjury in front of an eye witness,
and thrown into jail. However, the U.S. Attorney's office has
prosecuted somewhere between ZERO and TEN out of 2,000 felonies reported to them
by BCI.Now, how can anyone believe that the background checks are
about keeping guns away from criminals and not getting all guns registered for
eventual confiscation from honest gun owners?
If the right to bear arms is absolute, why are they banned on planes. Why not
have automatic weapons mounted Somali style in pickup trucks, they are
free to do it. Time to get real and gun fantasy. If the evil government wants
you, it will be from a drone five miles away.
The problem I have with O'bama's Executive Orders is the tendency
toward dictatorship. The problems I have with ANY law are precedent and the Law
of Unintended Consequences.The President did nothing to address
mental health issues, which was the problem at Sandy Hook and most of the recent
mass murders. If there is a record for EOs issued in one day, I think he is the
holder.Limitations on liberty are rarely single big events, but
constant chipping away until there is nothing left but a handful of sand. We
have no idea where this will lead, what future laws or rulings will follow the
proposed precedents, so let's trod very carefully, because we might get
what we ask for.Finally, recall what happened with other great
socialist schemes, such as Clinton's Luxury Tax, which practically
destroyed the boat-building industry in the US, as The Rich bought their yachts
from foreign manufacturers. The Law of Unintended Consequences is always in
effect, regardless of what politicians may do, and its effects are not always
re:Go Big BlueIf Barack gets his way the ONLY gun left that
hasn't been banned will be a musket!! Try using a musket to defend your
family against a bad guy who is carrying a .45 cal Smith and Wesson semi-auto
obtained illegally of course. You might get one shot off before you and your
family are escorted rudely to the next life.
@Redshirt1701Err thats exactly what I said earlier. When I lived in
Utah I spoke with some people that believed the framers of the constitution
literally channelled God so his words were directly put into it. Like I said,
inspired but far from perfect.
To "UT Brit" the US constitution is inspired by God, not written by God.
There is a difference. Unfortunately some of the men involved chose to allow
slavery.Inspriation just sets the direction, it is up to the man to
decide how to travel the path.
@RedShirtMy apologies I am not a US constitutional scholar. My point
was that if your constitution actually allowed slavery in the first place its
hardly directly written by God is it?
The Founding Fathers felt it was wise that American Citizens have the right to
own weapons as a deterrent from a tyrannical government. That means that they
expected us to be able to use them if necessary to maintain our liberty. In
fact, they realized that this right to "bear arms" is so important; it
became number 2 on that list of rights, just after the "free speech and
assembly thing." However, it was also important to them that we are able to
"bear arms" as a deterrent and protection from others that would
threaten our life and liberty. Now we've made amazing strides in civility
over the last 200 years, to the point where the idea a carrying (bearing) a
weapon (arms) seems abhorrent to most of us. However, we have recently strayed
from civility, and eroded the value of life through liberal policies that,
although seemingly compassionate and altruistic, have corrupted our society and
made a mockery of all that we used to hold sacred. So now society spawns
derelicts and nut jobs, and it’s time again to protect ourselves. A
community dedicated to the ideal of “self-protection” is an amazing
@Mike in Cedar CityYour emotional manipulation and pseudo
intellectual pontifications will not change the fact that gun legislation does
not curb gun violence. The only solution that will totally stop gun violence is
to confiscate every single firearm that exists in every home, office, retail gun
store, pawn shop, etc. throughout the US. The only persons allowed to carry a
firearm would be law enforcement or military personnel. Your fear of firearms
feeds into Obama's fantasy. Rest assured, his agenda is clear and he'd
love nothing more than to remove all opposition to his progressive socialistic
agenda and disarm Americans. Your emotional plea "Children are dead" is
a divisive ploy and not a rational cause to strip us of our rights and the means
by which those rights can be defended. Firearms are a tool, just like any other,
and in the wrong hands can be dangerous. Yes, we need to keep firearms out of
the hands of dangerous people, but you can't always guaranty that result.
Bad people will continue to do bad things. What we need to adopt is a more
courageous and proactive policy of deterrence.
Perfice, I am quite familiar with the term "homicide" and no, it
doesn't always mean a bad guy did the killing. It can be applied when a
police officer must kill a armed perpetrator, but it doesn't always mean a
crime was committed.Yes, Japan may have "solved" the gun
death issue, but how did they do it? Their constitution was written just after
WWII when they did not want any organized military or armaments. They depended
on the US to protect them for many years thereafter, as they could not do it
themselves. In other words, the government took away all the guns thus creating
a nation of potential victims who depended on someone else to do it for
them....with guns. I prefer to maintain my rights to self-protection and the
means to do it.I am shocked that rational beings can cling so
tightly to a few cherry-picked ideas in the face of reality. The trivial issues
of feel-good orders and proposed laws that don't address the issues are
quite offensive to parents of dead victims, I'm certain.
Jack,I assume you're familiar with the term
'homicide' i.e. a bad guy doing the killing. But yes, you correctly
assume that many of the gun deaths are not homicides. In other terms, just
having guns around causes deaths. In our case, it nearly doubles the number of
deaths from gun homicide.How can comparing ourselves to Japan be
wrong when they have clearly solved the gun death issue? Are you saying that
Americans are above reproach? Are you saying that the 2nd amendment supersedes
all other considerations?I'm shocked that rational beings can
cling so tightly to a few 'cherry-picked' principles while ignoring
the weightier matters. Partisanship no doubt accounts for much of it but
it's time to fairly discuss how we can reduce some of this violence.If you think your principles are offended, think of how the parents of
dead gunshot victims feel.
Perfice,Do your numbers include gang violence? Do they include criminals
killed by police and or law-abiding citizens exercising their rights under the
Constitution? Are they reflective of all gun deaths or do they reflect only
those who were victimized by criminals? My point is that not all those deaths
were mass shootings or involved helpless citizens. Some of those deaths were
lawful exercise of law enforcement duty or self-defense. How are those numbers
represented? Comparing the US to Japan is like apples to oranges.
Different governments, of which ours has Constitutionally protected rights which
prohibit the Government from certain acts. The Japanese constitution does not
have such protections. I prefer ours.
I'm sorry, but some of your facts don't add up. The USA has a gun
death rate of 10.2 per 100,000 people per year. Mexico has a gun death rate of
25. Therefore if I understand some of your logic, it would be better to arm more
Mexicans?That makes sense.Japan, which prohibits almost
all gun ownership has a gun death rate of 0.07. In fact, last year their gun
homicides were 11, yes I meant 11. Our gun deaths were over 20,000 (more than
the population of Brigham City), of which 11,000 were homicides. In fact, gun
homicides are expected to exceed deaths caused by drunk drivers in 2015 in the
USA. Meanwhile because of ever increasing auto safety regulations, the highway
death toll continues to decline.Huh...
Not one of President Obama's 23 executive actions would have averted the
tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary. Therefore, his solutions do not address the
problem. All he will accomplish today is increased sales of guns and ammunition.
Gun control does not equal crime prevention.
One more thought...I have lived in El Paso for the last several years. In
that time there have been drug wars right across the border. In fact bullets
from an AK 47 hit a downtown El Paso gov't building a year or so ago. They
were strays from an execution in Juarez. Back when I was paying attention there
were more people killed in Juarez than there were in Iraq (07-08) and the number
of deaths has been consistent year over year.The citizens of Mexico
cannot own a gun. In fact, when a police officer goes off duty they have to
turn in their gun and several have been killed on their way home. The bad guys
have come to birthday parties, graduation parties, discos, and forced their way
onto city buses and indiscriminately killed all who got in their way until they
found who they were looking for. Senseless? Yes. And the innocent were
helpless.So for those of you who may be thinking banning guns is a
step in the right direction, come spend a weekend in Ciudad Juarez. Guns will never be taken away in America. I pity the fool who thinks
Honestly ...You mean that when you meet your Maker and he asks what
you did to turn your sword into a plowshare ...You'll tell him
that the right to own guns without restriction was more important than all other
Just some trivia:The great object is that every man be armed."
and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."Patrick HenryAmerican Patriot"Are we at last brought to such humiliating
and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?
Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our
direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be
the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with
more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"Patrick
Are you a single mom? Have you not had to worry about someone coming to harm
you? I DO know the reality of having a man come to my house to kill or rape me
because of something my children's father did? Can I please own a weapon
just in case something like that happens? Again just a thought?
gun bans do nothing but increase violence - look at Chicago!!! I guess you can
ignorantly ignore Chicago which all liberals do because the fact that guns were
banned in that city and gun violence went up is the LAST thing you want
reported. This gun ban has nothing to do with protecting anyone - it is all
about using an event to push an agenda which is standard operating procedure for
Obama. The NRA is exactly right - all gun bans do is take guns away from law
obeying citizens allowing the bad guys to get their guns illegally anyway. Most
of the violent crime - including the grade school shooting - were from guns
obtained ILLEGALLY!!!! Obama and his far left followers won't be content
until America is gun-less. If you want to own a gun - ANY GUN - in the future
you had better wake up and smell the communist agenda!!!
Mike in Cedar CityI call on the officials elected to the United
States Congress to up hold the US Constitution that they took an oath to
protect. If these new provisions are enacted the only ones adhering to them will
be the law abiding citizens that currently abide to the laws, the criminals will
still disregard the law as they do now!I believe the NRA came up
with a plausible solution to protecting our school children by using armed
guards, similar to those used at the schools Pres. Obama children attend.
To "UT Brit" you are wrong. The US consitution states that
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective
Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free
Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding
Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." In other words, a
black person is counted as a whole person if he is not a slave. not all
indentured (slaves) people were black. Race was not a consideration here. Also
the US constituion does not specify who can and who cannot vote, that was left
to the states.Please read the US Constitution before commenting on
To "Lane Myer" you are obviously not a hunter.If I go out
"bunny blasting" or go to collect the bounty for coyotes I don't
want to have to keep reloading my clip or changing clips. Texans say that when
they go hunting wild hogs they need up to 30 rounds to take them down. (There
are YouTube videos with DWS people using fully automatic runs to take down
hogs.) Why get rid of semi-automatic rifles? If an intruder is coming into my
house with his semi-automatic hand gun, I sure want my semi-automatic rifle with
the large clip available to take him down.The "assault
rifles" are nothing more than guns that look scary to people that are afraid
of guns.Do we do background checks for cars? How about knives?
What about for pesticides? Why not have mandatory background checks for anybody
who wants to learn any martial art or boxing because hands and feet kill more
people every year than guns do?
I guess I have nothing but gulags and torture to look forward to. America has
become North Korea.
I taught all 3 of my children to shoot and taught them the respect of the gun, I
never had to lock them up they knew and taught that they can kill someone. I
have seen others teach their children the same but have had a mentally ill child
that eventually at 31 shot someone. He was realeased from 4 different
intstitutions deemed okay to be in public? Can we try to help them instead of
banning guns? Isn't that mostly where the problem lies...73% of all women
and 55% of all men in prison are mentally ill? Just a thought...
Mountanman states: "You can't legislate moral behavior." It is
immoral to murder. There are laws against murder. It is immoral to sexually
assault women. There are numerous laws against sexual assault. This kind of
thinking is almost as bad as saying that if good people don't have guns -
only criminals will have guns. The person most likely to kill another person is
in fact a family member - not some unknown stranger with a gun. Trying to
convince the American public that there is an armed criminal class lurking
around in America's cities is a deflection from the real issue. 30,000
people have been killed, with a gun, every year for the past 10 years. We need
to stop this horrible reality in America. The NRA's smoke screen is
designed to scare Americans into buying guns to protect themselves from a threat
that doesn't exist in any meaningful manner.
The current liberal crusade for more so-called "gun control" laws is not
about protecting anyone - instead, it is all about a devious way to take away
freedom and the underhanded dismantling of the U.S. Constitution.Fact
studies over the years, both in the United States and in other countries,
repeatedly show that "gun control" laws do not in fact reduce crimes
committed with guns.Cities such as Chicago (and others) with some of the
tightest gun control laws in America have murder rates far above the national
average. In the middle of the 20th century, New York had far more restrictive
gun control laws than London, but London had far less gun crime. Yet gun crimes
in London skyrocketed after severe gun control laws were imposed over the next
several decades.But who cares about facts, when you are on a liberal
crusade that makes you feel morally superior? All under the guise of
@Sneaky JimmyDidnt the constitution also say that black people could
not be counted as a "whole person" and only white, male land owners
could vote? Inspired by God yes, but there is a whole lot of man made stuff in
there as well.@GrundleUK and US count violent crime
differently. The vast majority of violent crime in the UK does not actually end
with physical assault against someone.Are you trying to suggest that
the US with a 4 times higher murder rate is a less violent place than the UK?To all those who think they need assault rifles to defend a tyrannical
government, you lost that arms race a century ago. I have yet to see
Ar-15's take down a drone carrying hellfire missiles. I also have not seen
bullets stop gas that will shut down your nervous system so you can no longer
breathe. That is what your government is equipped with.
Hitler disarmed the populace before he started killing. His argument save lives
and protect the children. He specifically made it illegal for Jews to own any
guns. Lenin let the old military members keep their guns so they would stay out
of his way. After taking full control he said it was necessary to have all
people register their guns. When the old military individuals showed up to
register their guns, he shot them dead. After Castro took power his first act
was to relieve the people of their guns. You can't decent if you don't
have weapons. And no liberal wants to remember in 2008 that Obama said he wants
a citizen army as well armed as the U.S. military. Why does he want this? Fools
are the only ones that trust a government.
Re: "WWII [sic - it's actually WWI] Russia, Germany? These are all fear
tactics."Yeah.We SHOULD be afraid. Very, very
afraid.We have a President who is exploiting the tragic death of
children to justify overriding the Constitution and implement supposed
"emergency" measures that could not have prevented a single one of those
deaths.Hmmmmm.Since nothing he proposes will affect
school violence, we can safely assume his real agenda has nothing to do with
school violence.What then?A legacy? Payback to an
important constituency? Sucking up to the UN in hopes of one day being elected
Secretary General? All real possibilities. All scary.But an even
scarier possibility has to do with violent victimization of people, like that
which occurred in WWI-era Russia, '20s Germany, and WAY too many other
times, as well.Their governments were only able to pull it off
because their victims were unarmed.The President wants us to be
unarmed, or at least, much more lightly armed that we are now.Why?That's what should scare us all.
Wow. The extremists are frothing at the mouth so much they're splattering
goo all over the place.Not much common sense being displayed here
Chris B: "I"m just asking barack for consistency. If he's going to
outlaw the general public from owning the kinds of guns and magazines that are
more capable of killing many people, he should also outlaw all cars that go
faster tahn 5 miles per hour, because its a proven FACT that those cars kill way
more people."This isn't a total ban on guns much like how
you aren't allowed to drive a tank on the interstate. If you want to stick
with the gun analogy then I guess all guns should be registered and inspected
every year or two just like cars; is that what you want?
Sure we have all sorts of laws for cars to protect life and keep us safe. But
that doesn't mean we can't own a super-fast sports car. Almost every
car on the road can do more than the law allows. It's up to the operator to
show an amount of restraint. Why can cars go way over the speed limit? Why
don't we limit those with governers and make them super dull performers?
Oh I know, because liberals like em too!
@Lee Long"I could see all this going the way of the Hunger Games.
"This is why people like me don't want people like you
having guns... you sound crazy.
Chris B: "I"m just asking barack for consistency. If he's going to
outlaw the general public from owning the kinds of guns and magazines that are
more capable of killing many people, he should also outlaw all cars that go
faster tahn 5 miles per hour, because its a proven FACT that those cars kill way
more people."Not in Utah. We have more deaths from guns than
from car accidents. Look it up.Redshirt: "How many more
regulations do you want? What new regulations do you want?"How
about limiting the amount of bullets that can go into one magazine? And
semi-automatic rifles really need to be recalled. If anyone needs to use them -
go to a shooting range. The range should own these guns only. They should not
be available for anyone to get and use them against other Americans. That is my
opinion. To me, they are military style weapons, like rocket launchers and
there is no need for them in a home.How about mandatory checks on
ALL gun purchases? Weed out the crazies. Do something, but
don't just complain that our rights are being taken away. #1 is the right
I could see all this going the way of the Hunger Games. The fasionista liberal
elite living in the Capitol, and the hard working honest people, bereft of
autonomy, self defense and freedom, out in the districts.I'd rather
be out in the districts.
To "Lane Myer" but we already have all sorts of laws governing guns.
For example, I cannot set up a target range in my back yard. During the deer
hunt I cannot sit on my front porch and shoot the deer that visit my flower
beds.How many more regulations do you want? What new regulations do
you want? So far the NRA is the only group offering sensible ideas.How about this for a solution. How about we enforce the laws that we already
Here is the Obama presidential legacy:1) spend money2) take away
individual liberty3) violate or ignore the constitution4) blame
RepublicansWhat a pathetic president. Impeach him now!
@Lane Myer and EastCougCoug"What is wrong with being well
regulated when it comes to guns?"I"m just asking barack for
consistency. If he's going to outlaw the general public from owning the
kinds of guns and magazines that are more capable of killing many people, he
should also outlaw all cars that go faster tahn 5 miles per hour, because its a
proven FACT that those cars kill way more people. "It all
depends on how you drive your car. If you're killing people with it, we
will take it away, plain and simple. Nice analogy..."Thank you,
it was a nice analogy. And continuing on with your comment, Yes, we take cars
away if people don't drive their cars correctly. Similary,
let's have barack and the liberals be consistent, and take away
people's weapons AFTER they have used them improperly.We dont
take away people's cars before they have used them incorrectly.Why with guns?barack - please be consistent
Procuradorfiscal,WWII, Russia, Germany?These are all
fear tactics. The US has the highest rate of gun deaths and total gun deaths in
the developed world. Europe is no where close. We are ahead of Yemen, Iran,
Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Venezuela. Lovely places.Our
friends in other developed countries cannot figure out why we love our automatic
weapons so much. Part of it is the NRA is a well-financed machine that spews
fear propaganda and destroys any politician who dares to speak against them.
I'd look into that if you're afraid of something. Just this week,
I've had 3 robocalls and a letter from the NRA asking for money.
The mass murders that we have witness these last few years would have been much
easier and killed more people if the shooters had used a machine gun, like they
did in the thirties. Ask yourself why these murderers did not use these
automatic weapons if their goal was to kill as many as possible before killing
themselves...could it be because they could not get these types of guns -
because we ban them in the 1940's? Did any of you gun owners
feel your constitutional rights were being denied because you could not own a
machine gun? A bazooka? A drone missle? All are arms, but yes, there are
limits on our right to own them, just as there are limits on our right to free
speech. Why is this so hard to understand? We need to be sensible. This is
not a knee-jerk reaction to mass murder. How long ago was Columbine? It is
actually past due. Thank you Mr President, and PLEASE, Utah congressmen, pass
Chris BSalt Lake City, UT@Moderate,What measures are
currently being taken to curb the deaths of thousands due to cars that go over 5
miles per hour?_____________Chris, we have all sorts of
laws to regulate cars that go over 5 miles per hour. How about the law that we
must drive on the right side of the road? Seatbelts? Speed limits?Yes, we are well regulated when it come to cars.What is wrong with
being well regulated when it comes to guns?
Well they have gotten off of the Gun Control language and gone to gun violence.
Same ol Same ol. The key word is control this issue is just one more method of
control from Progressives. Control through health care, control through a
watered down or abolished second ammendment, welfare, etc. It is all in their
plan. Little by little control, control. To the sound of trumpets and the
rolling of drums throughout the land the King has made his proclamations to the
sheeeple and they are cheering him on. They chant long live the King. God save
the King. Wow what a show.
My favorite line from the article..."The president's plan does little
to address violent images in video games, movies and entertainment, beyond
asking the CDC to study their impact on gun crimes." I'm
guessing the $500mm was lowball. Our competent govt typically runs 2X, 3X and
more to initial projections. "A Republic, if you can keep
Someone should tell Obama that he doesn't have 500 million to spend.He already spent it all.Maybe he could take it out of his
Coming off the fiscal cliff negotiations, what could possibly go wrong?We
are in very good hands. This president is like Washington and Lincoln rolled
into one super hero.
Chris B. It all depends on how you drive your car. If you're
killing people with it, we will take it away, plain and simple. Nice analogy...
Liberal progressives (there are some in both parties)like to take "baby
steps" in removing constitutional protections.This is the first
step. Citizens need to be informed and watchful for ones that will surely
I decided to answer my own question...The U.S. has a violence rate
of 466 crimes per 100,000 residentsThe U.K. has a violence rate of
2034 crimes per 100,000 resident** As of 2006
I found this form letter on the Ruger website, and I completely agree with its
message. See below:Dear Lawmakers,I am a law-abiding
citizen and responsible gun owner.I am saddened by the tragic events
in Newtown, Connecticut, but I believe that efforts to impose new restrictions
on me and other lawful and responsible owners like me are misguided. Did you
know that violent crime with firearms has declined since the Federal
"assault weapons ban" expired in 2004?Your focus should be
on strengthening mental health care and improving the quality of data supporting
NICs checks (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). Do NOT pass
more gun laws; instead, work to enforce the more than 20,000 gun laws already on
the books.I am your constituent and I vote. Please represent me.Sincerely,J. Wright
Re: ". . . the Constitution . . . establishes rule of law . . . let's
stop using FEAR as the primary excuse for not doing anything."Yeah, let's use the Constitution and the rule of law.Once we
go down that road of accepting the disingenuous suggestion that the Constitution
means whatever one or another politician or political pressure group is pushing,
we're through.The rule of law, not of men, requires that, to
change a law or the Constitution, we go through the process established in the
Constitution itself. Liberals know they don't have the democratic support
for the changes they want, so they're calling us to abandon the rule of law
and establish a dangerous rule of men.It happened in WWI-era Russia,
in late-'20s Germany, in late-'40s China and Korea, and in
'50s-era Cuba.But, what American in his right mind would want
that kind of chaos here?
Re:eastcoastcougYou wrote "And let's stop using FEAR as the
primary excuse for not doing anything."I so agree with you.I would like to add... Lets stop using ignorance, hyperbole, and fear
for doing the wrong thing!This knee-jerk reaction to the Sandyhook
killings is, in part, the wrong thing.Another thing...This whole
goat and sheep thing. Who constitutes a goat or a sheep is
determined by the one who will judge us all perfectly. Our attempts to
prematurely categorize whole groups as either based on a one issue belief, just
shows the ignorance and intolerance of that person.Back on topic. I
am glad that the president has taken these actions as now we will have no more
gun violence in our country. I eagerly await the eminent decline in violent
crimes that are going to result in his deluded proclamations. And if by chance
there are more incidents, we merely have to broaden the dis-arming of the law
abiding citizens to make sure his vision of a violence free society comes to
pass. What was the violent crime rate per capita of Great Britain
compared to the USA?
Re: ". . . the 2nd Amendment was not cognizant of the deadly power of modern
weapons."Oh, I think the Second Amendment's drafters saw
enough dead people during the Revolution that they're WAY more aware of
weapons' deadly power that any of today's detractors.But,
apparently the liberal argument is that the Second Amendment has outlived its
usefulness, huh?So, they must also be demanding that we repeal the
outdated Thirteenth Amendment, since we no longer have slavery. Or the outdated
Nineteenth, since women can now vote. Or how about the outdated Fourth, Fifth,
and Sixth, since judges now issue warrants, require Miranda warnings, and
appoint Public Defenders and court-appointed counsel?The Second
Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, operates as a limit on
government's power to oppress. Its purpose -- to enable people's
militias to resist tyranny -- is as critical today, maybe more so, as it was in
the immediate post-Revolutionary War period. That's why
it's so distasteful to liberals intent on enslaving America, and why
they're so intent on circumventing it.
To "Mike in Texas" actually guns are not designed to kill. They are
designed to fire bullets. Some bullets are designed to kill, but the same can
be said for hunting tips on arrows, knives, and drugs.The problem
with the mass murders is not the guns, but is a mental health issue. If the
government looked at that and tried to do something with the mentaly ill, then
we would have a starting point. The world is full of examples of what happens
once you enact the laws that the anti-gun liberals want.First they
will take away the guns, then they will be forced to regulate knives and swords,
then they move to the next thing. In the end the only thing we will have in our
homes is a dull spork.
Lets not forget that government had muskets and pistols when the 2nd Amendment
This is such great news. Sadly for us Republicans, the Democrats have taken the
higher ground on another common sense issue (remember civil rights, the
environment, etc.). I don't get the mentality that says everything the
other side is for we must be automatically against. There are some things that
are just common sense. Putting limits on the kinds of weapons and ammunition we
can get is one of them. As great as the Constitution is, it is great
because it establishes rule of law, and we the people set the laws and can
change them. We don't have slavery any more either, although the
Constitution ignored that too. The law abiding citizens and families of this
country have suffered far too long at the ends of those on the fringes that want
no restrictions whatsoever to their "freedoms". And let's stop
using FEAR as the primary excuse for not doing anything.
@Moderate,What measures are currently being taken to curb the deaths
of thousands due to cars that go over 5 miles per hour?Safety ads on
tv? If that is good enough to try and curb the thousands of deaths
from cars that go over 5 miles per hour, why aren't those same measurements
good enough for guns?
just how would one of yomama's actions have stopped Sandy Hook? He is
absolutely clueless. why doesn't he go after the 500 plus annual gun
killings in Chicago. Most are handguns and handguns are outlawed in Chicago. We
only have four more years of a guy that is qualified to run a c-store.
Re: "This is a sheep and goats issue."I really don't
want to be either.Uniformed liberal sheep, who blindly follow an
uniformed or nefarious shepherd -- like the President -- will come to rue the
decision.And, many liberals will be identified as the goat of this
era, for giving up freedom, in exchange for empty promises of temporary
security, supporting the President's dictatorial, illegal, and
unconstitutional measures.I think I'll opt to stand with the
scores of millions of Americans that are outraged by the President's high
crimes and misdemeanors, and who will fight his malfeasance by every legal
Lets not forget that people had muskets and pistols when the 2nd Amendment was
Sneaky Jimmy. point one. Yes insofar as they were able to recieve inspiration.
However, part of the constitution says that it is about "Life, Liberty, etc.
and we do have the inspired ahility to change it and congress is given the power
to pass statutes in support of its provisions. Point 2 the Second
Amendment is in the constitution for a reason. That reason seems to be that
citizens can have guns. But the 2nd Amendment was not cognizant of the deadly
power of modern weapons. Congress can and should regulate them in the interest
of presenving the rights to Life. Life was placed first in the constitution for
a reason, because without life there is no liberty, and how happy do you think
the parents and other relatives are about the slaughter that has gone on for far
too long?Point 3. If being on the side of policies that reduce the
slaughter of innocent children then call me an evil and conspiring person. MajorMariine. Yes, perhaps hyperbole, but we need a wakeup call
children are dead. and many more will die if we do nothing.Duckhunter. Foolish is as foolish does.
Facts matter, especially when lives are at stake.Chicago has
essentially a TOTAL gun ban. And, more than 500 killing last year, more than
the number of allies troops killed in Afghanistan where every goat herder has an
assault rifle. "Gu free" Washington DC is another murder capitol.The CDC did a study of all types of gun control and found (much to their
disappointment) that NONE of them had a significant reduction in violent crime.
Thus, the "solution" proposed by Obama are not solutions at all, but
repetition of past failed schemes, with a different goal, that of disarming
citizens who may refuse to yield to a tyrannical government- the real purpose of
the Second Amendment as drafted by the Founders.Criminals and crazy
people do not obey laws. Gun crime will never go away, and the "war on
guns" will be no more successful than the liberal's fantasies that wars
on "poverty" or "drugs" would result in peaceful, prosperous
land covered with flowers and prancing unicorns.The only thing that
stops a bad guy with a gun, is a GOOD guy with a gun. Disarming the good guys
doe not make them safer.
I agree some things need to be done but making certain guns and magazines
illegal won't do anything. It won't stop there once they get a start
on outlawing certain items. The criminals will still use whatever they can to
hurt or kill. The only ones that follow the law are law abiding citizens.
I strongly support the President's initiatives to curb gun violence. As a
long time member of the NRA, and a citizen of Utah, I will do all I can to get
our elected congressmen to support the President's recommendations. I own
guns and this presidential action will not hurt my ability to hunt, target
practice, or protect my family. It is about time we, as a country, did
something to stop gun violence in America. With over 30,000 people being killed
each year, with a gun, in the United States, we are finally acting in a positive
manner. Please support the President, and help curb gun violence.
Even the great Obama must know you can not legislate moral behavior. All this
will not stop criminal behavior and is only a ineffective symbolic gesture to
make the left feel better. In the meantime the rights of good Americas are
trampled on once again.
Common sense must prevail in the issue of guns, society and safety. Without
common sense, it is only a matter of time before the NRA begins defending the
right to have a rocket launcher, bazooka or armed drone. Frankly, many
countries have armed MILITIA (that are not national military forces) that have
these weapons. But somehow I doubt that the Founding Father's definition of
regulated militia had that in mind. They were people of common sense.Obama's plan is sensible and balanced. It does not threaten gun rights,
nor "violate" the Second Amendment. We need to implment these changes
for our own safety.
Chris B, your exaggerated example would be far more effective if you followed up
with an alternate solution. Your position that "we can't solve
anything, so why even try?" is tiresome. People want action. The people of
New York took action; may the United States follow suit.
Mike in Cedar CityCedar City, Utah"You can be on the side
of life, our you can choose to support the evil conspiring men of the NRA and
Gun industry"Wow, Mike. Isn't hyperbole the best thing
ever?Tell me. How are they evil?Actually, change NRA and
Gun Industry to Congress and the Democratic party, and I'm right there with
@Mike in Cedar City. A couple of points for you to ponder:Do you believe
the Constitution was inspired by God? (your religion does see Doctrine and
Covenants 101:80)Do you believe the 2nd amendment is in the constitution
for a reason?Are you one of he evil and conspiring men that seek to
deprive us of our God given rights?
Chris B. Typical NRA sophestry. Cars are not produced with the specific intent
to kill. Guns are, especially assault weapons. Count you with the goat herd. To
quote the president "we will be judged by this".
@mike in cedar cityWhat foolish nonsense.
will this bill cost taxpayers 500 Million? Why not charge the gun owners to run
the program, rather than have taxpayers spend more on administration fees.
Why don't we outlaw all cars that go faster than 5 miles per hour? Those
are way more dangerous and kill way more people than cars that only go under 5
miles per hour.
It's way past time for change. This is a sheep and goats issue. You can
be on the side of life, our you can choose to support the evil conspiring men of
the NRA and Gun industry. There is no middle grownd. I call on all Utahns to
be on the side of life, and I believe that those that support the evil empire
either by direct oposition or by their silence, individually or collectively,
will have to answer for that failure in the next life. So, what will it be Utah,
are you with the sheep or with the goats?I call upon our elected
congressman to support the President plan without significant modification.