Senators seek deal on gun-sale background checks

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 9, 2013 6:17 p.m.

    Our government has sent guns to Mexican cartels, and WMD's to Egypt.

    Federal government, being the employee of the American people, should be the ones having a background check, but our commander doesn't seem to care.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 8, 2013 8:47 p.m.

    How does one propose "keeping guns away from criminals and mentally ill people" without a background check?

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 4:21 p.m.

    @atl134 Respectfully, I do not have a problem with keeping guns away from criminals and mentally ill people..Background checks on all gun sales? If I transfer ownership of a gun to my son and neither one of us is a criminal I do not want to have to go through a federal web to make that happen. Universal gun check is that! Universal gun checks is gun registration. That is the first thing a corrupt government needs to start confiscation. I believe we now have in place a corrupt government. One word that rings out is Infringed. "Shall not be infringed". My right specifically spelled out in the Constitution. That is what all this is is an infringement. Law abiding gun owners having to jump through hoops(infringed) because of a few nut jobs.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 3:22 p.m.


    Actually I'm pretty sure it was the NRA that suggested our focus on gun purchase limitations should be based on mental health issues.

    Regardless, I don't want a ban on all guns, I just want it to be harder for criminals to get guns and I feel the way to do that is to go after gun sales and make sure there's background checks on all gun purchases. The Supreme Court ruled that total gun bans are unconstitutional but even Scalia suggested that that doesn't mean there can't be regulations on guns.

  • GiuseppeG Murray, Utah
    Feb. 8, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    2 points:

    1. How would universal background checks have stopped what happened at Newtown? They wouldn't.

    2. So if I want to sell my old shotgun to my neighbor and get a new do I as a private citizen run a background check on him?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 8, 2013 3:06 p.m.

    "NO background check expansion should be passed, unless those voting for it admit it is merely a tool to build their confiscation lists."

    Well, I would vote for universal background, along with 90+ % of the rest of the population.

    However, I cannot ADMIT that it is a tool to build a confiscation list because I dont see it that way.

    Additionally, I am not concerned that the US government will take arms against me, therefore I see no reason to keep a tank in my garage.

    You are entitled to your beliefs, but that does not make them sound.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    @atl134 It is called the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Something that always gets in the way of Liberals. Obviously you have no interest in that either! But we knew that.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 2:03 p.m.

    @ Brrave Robin

    Talk about leaps, Guns vs cars, boats or whatever toy you might be trying to impress us with. None of those are under assault, Guns are. But you knew that. Outstanding comparison. How far down did you have to dredge for that? So astounding and to the point I am speechless. Fruit and nuts and you know how that works.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 1:14 p.m.

    The left's ultimate goal is confiscation of guns. All types of guns. From law abiding citizens.

    They just cannot do that until they get a list of all guns and gun owners. That is now being attempted, disguised as innocent sounding "universal background checks."

    If it was about keeping bad guys from getting guns, the feds, or Utah would have prosecuted SOME of the 2,000 plus prohibited persons who tried to buy guns in Utah last year but were turned down by background checks. When actual prosecutions are in the single digits, that proves that they do not care about using background checks to disarm criminals. So, it must be some other purpose.

    If they can devise a system that only confirms that a purchaser is NOT on the list of prohibited persons, and no record is kept after that, go ahead. Just remember, illegals can get fake ID of all sorts within hours, and crooks will do the same and also evade background checks, by using "straw purchasers."

    NO background check expansion should be passed, unless those voting for it admit it is merely a tool to build their confiscation lists.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    "Gun registration is the natural step to confiscation."

    Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy, after all I had no interest in the gov't confiscating your guns until now that you've demonstrated a level of paranoia that makes me question why you should be allowed to have guns.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    The shooter in colorado purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition before he went on to kill Americans watching a movie.

    All guns purchased in the Sandy Hook shooting, killing 20 children in school were legally purchased.

    You can by pass any back ground check if you go to a gun show and purchase a gun with cash.

    It's time to do this.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    I'm thinking some people have been handling the lead in their bullets a little to long, and have got it into their brain, which is the only reason they can't logically understand regulation vs. lawless free for all.

    Please remember to wash your hands w/soap and cool water after handling your amo.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    "My problem with background checks is you're never going to get criminals to go through background checks" -Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president

    Obama10, you and Mr. LaPierre don't seem to get that universal background checks have never been about disarming organized crime, or gangbangers cruising Compton, or hardened criminals in general. That problem will have to be addressed another way. However, what universal background checks will do is make it harder for petty criminals to get guns, and harder for others with a record of known violent crime risk factors (e.g., certain mental illnesses) to get guns.

    This isn't about "feel(ing) good about doing 'something,'" it's about taking proactive steps (even if they are incremental ones, though I believe this to be much more than incremental) to improve on the status quo with regard to gun violence.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    Obama10 -- how about some supporting documentation for that claim? As a former cop, I can tell you from personal experience that you are wrong.

    And -- just for the record -- probably 2/3 of active gang bangers are legally allowed to carry guns because they have never been convicted of a felony. They might have dozens of misdemeanors -- some violent -- but without a felony conviction, their guns must be returned to them.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    An "F" from the NRA is an "A" grade from people with any more than zero sense.

    I applaud the courage of these Senators. It's a shame neither of our Senators from Utah share any of it.

  • Obama10 SYRACUSE, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    Just curious, how many of the "ganster-thugs" who are responsible for most of the "gun violence" bought there guns from a gun show??? NONE!!!! This will have zero effect on reducing gun violence but make everyone feel good about doing "something".

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Feb. 8, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    @mokohat "Gun registration is the natural step to confiscation."

    Wow, that's quite a leap of logic you just made. If registration comes right before confiscation, tell me why the government hasn't come to confiscate my car yet? Or my boat? Because I've been registering those things for years. Maybe they lost my registration.

  • MajMarine Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    I am a gun owner and strong supporter of the Second Amendment. While I have many reservations about banning 'Assault' weapons and high-capacity magazines (which makes no sense, such magazines jam more often than 10-round magazines, and I can switch out a magazine in less than 3 seconds), I do NOT have a problem with background checks on gun purchases, and absolutely support closing the 'gun-show loophole'. A universal background check is not going to prevent any law-abiding citizen from purchasing a gun. In those instances where a person has been denied, there is an appeal process in place.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    Universal backgrond checks equal gun registration. It is none of the Govs. busniess how many guns I have and nobody elses either. Gun registration is the natural step to confiscation. No compromise on the second.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 8, 2013 7:16 a.m.

    Ah, Universal Background checks.

    Recent polls show 90+ percent supported them.

    Unconstitutional? Unreasonable? Obviously not a crazy proposal as it was once fully supported, even pushed by the NRA.

    What good are current background checks when they are so easy to get around?

    I find it hard to understand why the GOP would rather stand with the (current) NRA position than that of their constituents.

    Man, the gun lobby must be giving them obscene amounts of money to have them go against the overwhelming will of the people.