The sign, "No guns in my school" leaves the school unprotected from
attack by the lawbreakers and the left.There are plenty of guns to
go around for those crazys who refuse to obey basic laws and signs.The
only way to shut down attacker if for some law abiding armed citizen or
policeman to be there to stop it. All other reasonable efforts will fail except
to make the left "feel good".Fight evil force with good law
abiding force of equal strength.It would be nice to see swift
justice done to those who have broken the laws which are already on our books
but it seems to a lost cause in a liberal, evil world.
I agree with one old man, we do need more of this. This country is ripe for a
revolution, I think Barry and his ilk are actually asking for it. So let the
pro-gays march, let the anti guns march, let the illegal immigration is ok
people march. But, the other side will march too. And I'm going to bet that
when we do, we'll double their numbers. Ya, the last election was about
50-50, but most who voted for BO did so so they wouldn't lose their gravy
train, so they won't get off the couch. So, really, let's get after
it, let's see who is really willing to defend the Constitution of the
United States of America! And guess what? 100 years from now your grandchildren
will be watching a play about the New American Revolution, it may not be as good
as Les Mis, but it will be great for them to understand why they still have the
freedoms we have now, that a bunch of fed up Patriots stood up to a guy who
wanted to change everything that was meant to be by the founders of this nation.
DN Subscriber 2, Our right to own guns is not in question, and this
right will not be infringed upon in any proposal on the table today. No
Washington official has proposed repealing the 2nd Amendment. And no one
interprets the 2nd to mean that we can buy whatever "arm" we want. Do
you really think we, the public, should have random access to whatever might be
considered an arm - nuclear weapons, for example? 3000 Utahns at a
pro-gun rally does not mean that the general public is against reasonable gun
controls. The polls say something different.
Wow!!!A lot of ill-informed comments here! Do you guys willingly act
ignorant to draw attention to yourselves or are you really just this poorly
informed?Who is proposing the repeal of the 2nd amendment? Surely
not the president! Have you folks even read his proposals? How are they against
the 2nd amendment? You can't own machine guns and bazookas so it's not
lie you should be able to purchase any gun you want. Why do repubs need
semi-autos, endless amounts of bullets, and demand that background checks be
avoided!?Time to get informed!
@ EDM- For the sake of discussion, let's consider allowing some tiny
incremental infringement on gun rights.Now, how about we slap a 7
day waiting period on freedom of speech? Or limit your choice of churches to
only those which are state approved, as some might "offend" other people
with their theology. Or, can we search your house with drones, spy cameras,
thermal imagere and the like without a warrant?The Bill of Rights
places strict limits on the powers of government, and any agreement to surrender
freedom for the illusion of some benefit is a very dangerous slippery slope
indeed.And, back to the basic story- That sure is a lot of national
media attention (parroted by the incestuous wire service users) over a march
that drew about a thousand people from all over the country with several weeks
of high level organizing. Meanwhile, last week around 3,000 Utahns showed up to
SUPPORT gun rights at our state Capitol in bitterly cold weather with only a few
days of local grass roots efforts. Which is a better barometer of public
sentiment, and more worthy of coverage. Yeah, Utah's even got largely
Kill pack, DN Subscriber 2, ThomasJefferson, You illustrate one of
my points beautifully: So many comments in this thread are nothing but emotional
fear-driven rants, utterly lacking any reasonable, rational, or constructive
suggestions."There is nothing we can or should do" is not an
answer or an argument. There is a lot we can do. The current concept is simple:
Limit the number of rounds that can be rapidly fired at any one time so that
when someone goes crazy fewer lives might be lost. Fewer lives would have been
lost in Newtown if the killer had only a muzzle-loader. If you
believe that the restrictions being discussed today are infringements of the
Second Amendment, I've got news for you. A plethora of arms, from rockets
to nerve gas, are off limits for home and personal use. Drawing a new line is
what is being discussed.True, drawing a new line will not prevent
every crazy killer from obtaining a weapon on the off-limits side of the line.
But what if it made a difference in just one tragedy, like Newtown?
Wouldn't it be worth it? Why not try?
I've got news for you people who think this is some right-wing conspiracy
to take away your rights and that this problem cannot be solved...there are
millions of us out here who are GOP, moderate, Conservative, Democrat, Liberal -
who all want some common sense on the kinds of weapons and ammunition we sell so
freely in our society. The US is the oddball of the developed world, if you ask
anyone from a civilized country outside the US.Many of you are so
horrified at the thought of no-limits thinking on abortion, violent movies,
sexual behavior. You say you want limits on pornography, especially when applied
to children. Yet, some might argue that is a limit on our First Amendment. Why
should there be no limits on guns? Should everyone own a tank, a Stinger, or a
machine gun? These are "arms". Why have you decided to "draw the
line" outside of a hunting rifle or 6 shot handgun? NYC has
restrictive gun laws AND they have a very successful strategy for taking the
guns away from criminals. Crime has dropped significantly. Fact is, we CAN and
will reduce violence by getting rid of assault weapons.
While the 2nd Amendment is designed as a check against governmental interference
with the right of the individual to own and carry personal firearms, it is not
the only check against the Federal government's interference. The 9th,
10th and 14th Amendment also are a checks against the Federal governmnet's
interference with this fundemental right. What gives the Federal government the
authority to limit the ownership of personal firearms? Can anyone point to a
specific provision in the US Constitution that allows such act?
@EDMSo much to say, where to begin? First, I believe in God, as I am
entitled to. That is ABSOLUTELY my right. So no, I will NOT take God out of the
equation. You may, if you wish, as that is your right. But I most definitely
WILL NOT. Second, as I believe God to be very much a part of this equation, I
believe that He has indeed given me the right to defend myself. I believe that
is an inborn, inalienable right. Again, you do not have to believe that, but I
most certainly do. And nothing is ever going to change that. Third, you are
entitled to have an opinion on what weapons should be restricted. Just know that
I may not agree with or act upon that opinion. For example, if you don't
think I should have semi-automatic assault weapons, you can believe that all you
want. However, that belief will NOT affect me. I will possess AR-15s, regardless
of what you or anyone believes. Does that rationale astound you? Well, you have
every right to be astounded. Just know that I don't really care, either
1. Criminals don't obey laws, and neither do crazy people. Why are some
advocating disarming the good guys, not the killers?2. Gun bans and
all the other schemes being promoted simply do NOT work! (See the CDC study
that said so.)3. Feinstein and Cuomo have both mentioned
confiscation, so anyone who thinks that is impossible is not being honest, or
not paying attention. Both NY and California have previously confiscated guns
after demanding they be registered, so confiscation is a valid and rational
fear. And registration has always preceded confiscation in other countries when
tyrants seized control.4. The Second Amendment is not just about
hunting, or self defense, but about keeping We The People in a position to
"protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and
domestic." 5. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun
is a good guy with a gun.6. Some well-intentioned people simply
refuse to accept that evil people exist, and that the police have no duty to
protect anyone, and that it is prudent to be able to defend yourself, and in the
case of teachers, your students. 7. "Gun Free Zones"
Killpack, Your rationale is astounding. First, can we take God out
of it because it has not been proven that he/she exists, and therefore it Is
quite possible that he/she has not given you or me anything? Second, how on
earth can restrictions on posession of certain types of guns (not all guns, mind
you) be interpreted as a violation of the Second Amendment? The "arms"
mentioned in the Constitution are muskets - you must know that. And should you
agree that any restriction on the possession of "arms" refers to
whatever they may be at the current time, do you really think that we many good
citizens should possess nuclear weapons at home, for example?
Two For Flinching is right. Way too much hyperbole in this thread. A total gun
ban is not on the table. Reasonable and rational restrictions on some types of
weapons and magazines are on the table. But witness the emotion, the vitriol,
the temper tantrum! And how sadly effective it is in dysfunctional environments.
I'm a gun owner, but I'm siding with level-headed folks on this one.
I have no fear whatsoever that the guns I own will be taken away,and I cannot
find any reason for anyone needing an assault weapon.
@ There you go again,And what rights am I asking the government to
take from me by supporting the 2nd Amendment and my right to bear arms? As
opposed to asking the government to repeal the 2nd Amendment and take my arms
from me? If there is any logic in your statement it must need some explaining.
Don't get mad at the gun more than you would the whiskey or beer. Common
sense here folks, banning guns is not the answer, just like we go after dead
beat fathers and folks driving under the influence, we've got to targer
criminals and punsih offenders harder and more swift. Taking guns,
banning, or downsizing guns from responsible citizens only makes law abiding
citizens sitting ducks. Just as those folks in Chicago.
Re:KillpackFirst, i happened to come across the Oaks statement
today, while doing a search on an entirely different subject and found it
interesting.Second, I have seen articles about leaders of other
denominations taking a stance on gun control. I am not interpreting Oaks
comment as being for or against gun control legislation. Third, i
have seen comments on DN by people, defending lax gun laws, who believe one day
they will need to use those guns against the govt. , often based on purported
prophecies of past LDS leaders. (also some draw parallels with Hitler's
puported gun restrictions).It is not irrelevant.
@Truthseeker 2Save it for church. I have never ONCE appealed to
scripture or an ecclesiastical leader when debating the 2nd Amendment. I
certainly didn't do so on this thread. So why are you? I say over and over
again that the right to defend oneself is God-given and inalienable, as I am
DEFINITELY entitled to that opinion. But, that is the extent of bringing
religion into it. I recognize that my church, officially, doesn't endorse
my own political leanings. As they SHOULDN'T. If you have a different
opinion about what God grants to His children, by all means. Just realize that
your opinions aren't officially supported by the LDS Church either,
especially if you think individuals shouldn't be able to arm themselves. I
didn't glean that anywhere out of Elder Oaks' statement. As far as LDS
individuals replacing the regular military or law enforcement agencies with some
vigilante mob, I have NEVER advocated the like. Nor did anyone on this thread.
So, I guess the real question is, why did you bring up these quotes from an LDS
general authority, that are totally irrelevant to this issue.
5th try.It's not ok to use the threat of guns in the political
They can't change the Constitution. Guns don't kill people, people
If all military style guns were to be banned, the criminally insane would then
turn to using non military style guns. Then those will be gone after too. The
banning won't stop here.We need to ensure that all mentally
I'll people get the help they need. Nothing else will solve this problem.
A lot of hyperbole in this thread.Nobody is trying to ban all guns.
If you guys need one to make yourself to feel warm and safe at night,
that's your problem. I think most people agree that we need to find a
better system for how people get guns. One that includes background checks and
mental evaluations perhaps?
If you are a gun rights supporter you need to be aware of a seemingly unrelated
movement that if implemented will result in damage to the second Ammendment.This is the movement to get rid of the electoral college or the movement
to elect the president and possibly the senate based on population only. The
electoral college gives small states more power with respect to large states
than they would have otherwise.Small states on average are more pro
2nd Ammendment than the larger states.
Washington (CNN) -- Thousands of demonstrators rallied Saturday in Washington to
demand tougher gun control laws, many describing themselves as first-time
capital marchers who've had enough of gun violence.On a cold day
(temps hovering around 30 degrees), a vanguard led a blocks-long procession with
a big blue banner, declaring "March on Washington for Gun Control: When we
stand together, we stand a chance."LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks
cautioned Mormons against joining or supporting "right-wing groups who
mistakenly apply prophecies about the last days to promote efforts to form
paramilitary or other organizations."Such groups could "undermine
the authority of public officials," Oaks said Sunday at a regional Mormon
conference broadcast from the Marriott Center on Brigham Young
University’s Provo campus, "in the event of extraordinary emergencies
or even in cases of simple disagreement with government policy."Latter-day Saints should not "substitute [their] own organizations for the
political and military authorities put in place by constitutional government and
processes," the apostle said.(Sept 2012)
I agree 100% with those who say we should repeal the 2nd Amendment, and the
evidence that banning something makes the problem go away is crystal clear.Cocaine, LSD and Meth are illegal and this country clearly has no
problems with those things, right?It is illegal to drink and drive
which clearly means is not a problem in this country. Producing or
selling child pornography is illegal and therefore not a problem.The
evidence is obvious. When you make something illegal, problem solved, right?
Hmm:* ban on alcohol didn't work* ban on marijuana
didn't* ban on illegals haven't worked.Obama thinks
he's going to ban guns?
louie,Tell me about it. I wonder how many millions of suckers over
the past century or so rotting in gulags and concentration camps didn't ask
themselves the similar questions: 'What was I thinking? Why on earth did I
not arm myself? Why did I trust my government so much to take care of me?'
These same protestors would march for abortion rights. Such hypocrisy.Alcohol kills more people then guns,---ban that.
It may take a generation or two but one of these days they will look back and
ask "What were we thinking? Why not do something to reduce gun violent risk?
Talk about being on the wrong side of history, that is where we are now. Most
of the modern countries look at us and wonder when America is going to pull
The crowd was small and full of uninformed voters. Using kids as pawns. I
guess they numbered less than 500 if that. The protests for anti-abortion and
in favor of gun protection were in 1000's with little to no coverage. Come
on AP.I live and work in the DC area. They only cover what they
It is correct for the DN to run this news story. However, where was your
coverage of yesterday's "March for Life" that occurred in D.C.?
The March for Life march is traditionally held on Jan. 22 -- the anniversary of
Roe v. Wade -- but this year, the 57th presidential inauguration caused the
National Park Service to schedule the march to occur on Jan. 25. We've
come to expect the liberal lamestream press to be silent, but you, DN?
"Gun control is using both hands".......
These people are so blinded by a horrific event that they are actually asking
the government to take rights away. They are feeding right into the hand of the
RIGHT wing agenda. I never thought I'd live to see the day when people
agreed to have their rights taken away.Just like 9/11/01...
@ One Old Man, There should be a lot more of asking to take away
constitutional rights? Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Are you serious? That's
insane. These people are so blinded by a horrific event that they
are actually asking the government to take rights away. They are feeding right
into the hand of the left wing agenda. I never thought I'd live to see the
day when people ask for their rights to be taken away. I can't
wrap my head around people thinking that banning the selling of "assault
rifles" (whatever that consists of) will actually stop shootings from
happening. It won't even put a dent in the percentages of people killed by
firearms. Those people are dreaming. And if I hear one more person say
"military style assault rifle" I might just puke. They aren't what
the military uses at all.
It would be nice if the A.P. would give us an aerial photo.As close
as the front portion of the crowd looks, I'd say more like "dozens"
rather than "thousands"!Even "thousands" is not that
big for a D.C. march though.
What's happening or "news" has been planned by social engineering
networks, specifically the 'National Training Laboratory'. Having
studied the science of mass manipulation through crisis creation... we now have
a manipulated population marching for gun control.Gun control is a
critical step towards these social scientists achieving their draconian utopia
of a collectivist, one world socialistic dictatorship.The created
crisis strategy?..... Sandy Hook, before that...Batman theater shooter.....
before that....Arizona Senator mass shooting... get the sequence? There is a pattern here- A lone crazed young man as shooter with a hypnotized,
drugged look on their face when brought to court.... Get the picture?
Good. We need a lot more of this.
So a bunch of people who have no regard for the Constitution are marching in
Washington. Whatever. I'm not giving up my weapons. I don't care what
illegal, unconstitutional 'laws' are passed. March and protest all you
want. Get your stooge Senator Feinstein to introduce unconstitutional
legislation. I don't care. I'm not going to comply. Hope you like
marching out in the cold.