Kathleen Parker: Tighter gun laws are still needed because 'This time is different'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Feb. 22, 2013 7:46 a.m.

    Jay Tea. Fear, fear, fear. What was it the Roosevelt said? "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". True in the 30's and 40's and just as true today. The Federal Government is not your enemy, but people like Beck are. They make a lot of money expoiting your fear.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 7:27 p.m.

    "Who is it is grabbing the power?" Open your eyes, Mike. The Federal government is grabbing all kinds of power and property as well, with seemingly unlimited regulation and taxation of every facet of life. We have self-serving politicians who want to dictate everything, and the list is endless. Where have you been? Do you really think the alternative to this is Somalia? That sounds exactly like something that Hitler or Stalin would have said. "If we don't control life for y'all, you would run amok immediately and self-destruct." Really? Do we really need the great bureaucratic and political mind to guide our every action? Are we really that lacking in intelligence and individual responsibility? Maybe some of us are, but I think some of us think we can do a better job than the irresponsible government can do. Every time.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    "we can't we can't we don't" Self fullfilling prophecies. A power grab? Who is it that is grabbing the power? Your thinking is Fox News convoluted. Why do we bother to pass law on anthing? Your unreasonable defeatest attitude does nothing to solve real problems, only perpetuate them. You would just let the slaughter continue because law is not what you care for. You want less goverment? Emigrate to Somolia.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    Feb. 20, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    At best, this gun control deal is a distraction from the real business of government--like the ongoing spending spree and the 16.5 trillion dollar official deficit. At worst, it's a power grab to keep people under government's thumb in the name of limiting "violence." In this country and this culture, when you restrict weapons for potential victims, the only real impact is making it more of an open-season situation for the predators. We will never disarm the criminals--we can't even control who invades this homeland. We don't need the most wasteful, unaccountable, bureaucratic, and bankrupt organization in the history of the world telling its subjects what they can and cannot have for defense, sports, and recreation. Let Super Nanny find another hobby.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 10:59 p.m.

    The problem claiming there no right is absolute right is just a leftest backdoor to abridged and infringe on any right.

    and as we see by laws that the left, the progressives, the liberals are passing around the country,

    that door continues to get nudged wider and wider open.

    There must be an absolute line drawn.

    I believe unless one's actions harm another then that right is absolute and the government must stay out.

    As Thomas Jefferson said:

    "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

    The left seems to want make laws based on fear or on controlling others.

    How does someone owning "assault" weapon (not there is no such thing, any definition is completely arbitrary) hurt you?

    How does someone having a large magazine hurt you?

    Answer without making up any hypotheticals.

    Neither hurts you, so any such law would be unconstitutional.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 8:23 p.m.

    Well, J Thompson, the Supreme Court disagrees with you, so I guess you'll just have to live with it.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 7:39 p.m.

    How many of those who keep telling us that they have the right to restrict our right to keep and bear arms tell us that the government also restricts our right to speak. The conveniently forget to tell us that those "restrictions" on speech come AFTER we have spoken, not before; but they have no qualms telling us that they will tell us what arms we can keep and where we can carry those arms.

    Isn't it nice to know that someone created a "superclass" whose only duty is to keep the rest of us in line?

    The RIGHT to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by Obama, by Congress, or by any follower of Obama who thinks that the Constitution no longer applies. Their fallacious arguments show only that they are willing to do anything and to say anything to take away our rights.

  • Ying Fah Provo, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 7:29 p.m.

    Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah

    Can you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater?

    Can you have a full-automatic assualt rifle?

    There are limits regarding the rights "guaranteed" under the Constitution as enumerated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Also, interpreting the Constitution in the same manner that religious fundamentalists do Bible study only works if the group agrees upon the interpretation being presented. There is no room for differences of opinion (i.e. interpretation) since everyone within the group is only interested in one interpretation. Those who see things differently are usually expelled from the group because no one within the group wants disagreement and argument because it challenges "faith".

    The major reason being made for "open, unfettered access" to any type of firearm appears to be for "defense" against a tyrannical, democratically-elected government(whatever that means) considering we change our government every two years to some extent and every four year in a major way.

    Usually, those who talk about "tyrannical government" generally refer to a government they did't vote for and don't like. So, for them, an Obama administration represents "tyrannical" government while a Romney government would be "not tyrannical".

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 19, 2013 6:15 p.m.

    Yes Wonder.

    Lets just say for the sake of argument that Mike is correct. That in this country, we can, without restriction, carry any weapon, any place, any time.

    Can one just imagine what that would bring.

    Yes, we would have machine guns. And we could carry them on airplanes.

    Certainly we would have had a constitutional amendment to address it by now.

    And most certainly , the framers did not envision the weapons of today.

    It is strange to me that so many espouse that "without restriction" view. It scares me.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 5:08 p.m.

    Yes, JoeBlow, Mike apparently thinks that his rights are being violated when he can't take his assault rifle on an airplane. Poor Mike.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 19, 2013 4:28 p.m.

    Does government have the right to censor your speech?

    Why, Yes they do Mike.

    There are multiple instances where this occurs.

    Speech that incites violence can be determined by the courts to be illegal.
    Speech that advocates violence against government officials is illegal
    Threatening terrorism against the US is illegal
    Defamation is illegal.
    Seditious speech

    These are a few. And I understand them. And I agree with them. And I am happy to abide by them for the good of the country.

    And no, these free speech "exceptions" are not specified in the constitution. But they have evolved in our society by Supreme court ruling, which IS addressed in the constitution.

    And they make for a better society.

    The first Amendment has been tweaked along the way to accommodate a changing society.
    Many, including me, believe that the second Amendment should also (and already has)

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 19, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    @ JoeBlow,

    You're still posting, so you must think that the right to speak freely is absolute and that you, not the government, determines what you say and when you say it. Did I get that part right?

    Let's look at the 1st and 2nd Amendments:

    "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."

    "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."

    Does government have the right to censor your speech? Does the government have the right to infringe our right to keep and bear arms? (The militia question has been settled by the Supreme Court.)

    Even with proof right in front of you, you demand that government infringe. What is the purpose of law if you disregard it whenever it pleases you?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    "We will then be like China or the middle east where
    school children are attacked with knives"

    The same day as Sandy Hook a madman went to a Chinese school and stabbed around 20 kids. At least they all survived. Oh, and there's a huge difference between no guns allowed at all and closing background check dodging loopholes.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    Could I sit in a hotel window with my gun loaded and aimed and until I pull the trigger, no one can do anything about it. Aiming the rifle is the crime. Called assault with a deadly weapon. But you can sit in your hotel window with a loaded gun in the same room which is not a crime.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    Joe and Mike from Cedar, thank you for some sensible postings. Those are kind of scarce around here these days.

    This editorial is spot on.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    If this gun grab is allowed. Killings will continue.
    Today's hunting guns will be tomorrows assault
    Guns. Then those guns will be confiscated.

    We will then be like China or the middle east where
    school children are attacked with knives, bombs
    and acid. Women and weaker men will be more
    vulnerable in their homes, less able to defend
    against rapists and other home invaders.

    Guns make people safer in their homes if they
    learn and abide by gun safety rules. With a gun
    a frail woman is a potent threat to the strongest
    man or group of men.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Feb. 19, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    Mike Richards. I don't know how anyone could be more wrong. We already "restrict" access to certain weapons. Fully automatic rifles have been restricted since the 1930's. The supreme court has said in so many words that dangerous and unusual weapons can be restricted. The semi-automatic weapons of today are in many ways more destructive and dangerous than the now banned tommy guns of the the 30's. It has been said that free speach is limited. "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" when there is no fire. The guiding principal limiting freedom is the common good. And the slaugher going on on our streets and in schools makes more than clear to everyone except a few narrow minded folks that change is long overdue.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 19, 2013 9:21 a.m.


    You are very clear. And I applaud that. NO RESTRICTION is your mantra.

    NO strings attached.

    I get it.

    We cannot allow guns on planes. Makes no sense, but, according to your interpretation, a restriction.

    Should an 18 year old high school student be allowed to carry a loaded weapon to school? Another welcome restriction.

    Should I be able to carry a semi-auto weapon into the Superbowl? Certainly a restriction if I cant. How about onto the floor of congress? Or into the Republican National Convention?

    How about a sniper rifle to the inaugural address? Could I sit in a hotel window with my gun loaded and aimed and until I pull the trigger, no one can do anything about it.

    These are reasonable scenarios. They are not far fetched.

    I assure you that how you interpret the second amendment, if universally accepted, would quickly force an amendment. And it would have overwhelming support.

    It is easy to scream "NO restrictions" and "NO strings attached" until you logically look at what that means.

    And ask yourself if it is reasonable. And ask yourself HONESTLY if you believe that is what the framers meant.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 19, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    The operative word is "restrict". That word is in direct violation of our guaranteed Constitutional rights. "Shall not be infringed" is what is guaranteed. What rights of free speech would JoeBlow or Kathleen Parker like imposed? Which government censor would they like to check with before writing or speaking?

    Keeping and bearing arms is an absolute right without strings attached. If that right is misused, prosecution comes after a crime has been committed, not before.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 19, 2013 5:08 a.m.

    Advancing laws to..

    "Allow concealed weapons to be carried in bars and restaurants;"

    Does it make sense to carry a loaded weapon in a Bar? Well, OK, but how about this addition to the law. (some states probably already have this)
    It is illegal to carry a weapon in public if over the legal alcohol limit. Punishment is similar to Drunk driving penalties.

    Do any of you gun advocates have a problem with that? Is it reasonable to restrict public carry to only sober people?

    And many people say that we need stop gun purchases for the mentally ill.

    How does anyone propose that without background checks?