NRA uses Justice Department memo to accuse President Obama on guns

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 26, 2013 4:05 p.m.


    "makes sense in the wake of everything'?

    Define everything.

    Many people have been saved, because they could defend themselves. Propaganda keeps you from knowing that. Just remember:

    Through out history, --more people have suffered pain, and poverty, because of governments.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 9:08 p.m.


    I do not understand why the left wants government with such unfettered power and control over their lives.

    Thomas Jefferson:

    When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

    Thomas Jefferson:

    No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.

    Their have never been such restriction from day one. That is a lie, any restriction are a modern progressive invention which is all about control.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Feb. 24, 2013 9:58 p.m.

    Worf and The Truth,

    Yes, I am very much for gun control because it's the only thing that makes sense in the wake of everything.

    And what I am calling you out on is this: Your ridiculous defense of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment has had its restrictions from day one. Current proposals for restrictions on certain guns, clips, etc., is nothing new. But you argue as if the 2nd exists without restrictions! Second, you argue that we need access to guns to defend ourselves in case the government turns against its good citizens. Too late. You simply cannot legally possess all that the government does. Defending large clips and high-powered rifles makes no sense if, as you say, they should be allowed to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.

    The bottom line is this: Your high power weapon will do you no good if the government comes for you, and yet that same gun might be the weapon of horrific destruction. There isn't a place for it.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Feb. 24, 2013 6:33 p.m.

    @EDM and all the lefties here

    Thomas Jefferson:

    The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 24, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    EDM--so what are you saying? Gun control?:

    * Many people along the southern borders have been killed by American guns.
    * It's already been stated that a civilian military is needed.
    * Drones will soon be patrolling the country, and will shoot people without due process.
    * People will be called terrorist, and arrested. A person mowing his lawn can be a terrorist for polluting.

    A tyrannical government doesn't announce its intentions.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Feb. 23, 2013 9:08 p.m.


    When was the last time in US history that an armed militia defended the people from a tyrannical government? You have nothing to thank the NRA for.


    We've read your history lesson before, thank you. But please understand, you can arm yourself to no end with all that is legal to possess, but it will do no good when the barrel of a tank is pointed into your bunker. The argument that our rght to bear arms will protect us from tyranny is just silly. That arms race was lost about a century ago.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 23, 2013 2:05 p.m.


    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Germany established gun control amongst Jews in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million, and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. >From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Defenseless people rounded, and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

    WW 2--Japanese didn't touch American soil, because of armed citizens.

  • Bryan Syracuse, UT
    Feb. 23, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    Regardless of what he may say, if Obama could get away with it he would ban private ownership of guns. The reason why he does not require all guns to be registered or even outright ban them is because he knows that he couldn't do it.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Feb. 23, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    Obama wants "universal background checks" on ALL gun sales.

    But, they hardly ever bother prosecuting people who break the law and are detected by failing the background check. Even Biden admitted "we don't have enough people to do that."

    So, since they do not prosecute people now, why expand the program to add millions more transfers to detect a few thousand more bad guys who will not be prosecuted?

    The ONLY logical explanation is that they need to get a de facto registration list of all guns and gun owners. And, the ONLY use of such a list is eventual confiscation of some or all guns.

    2,000 bad guys failed the background checks here in Utah last year and less than a handful (if any at all) were prosecuted. Why? Is it BATFE or the U.S. Attorney's office that is not doing their job? Or, is this on orders from Eric Holder's corrupt Justice Department?

    Obama can be trusted on nothing, especially on guns, or defending all our freedoms!

  • peter Alpine, UT
    Feb. 23, 2013 1:00 p.m.

    3grandslams--I agree, we should focus on prosecuting and punishing criminals. But, criminals won't go after criminals. It's against their nature.

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    Feb. 23, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    If this is true it is sickening. What this article outlines is unconstitutional. The government cannot ban guns. The 2nd amendment is clear, the right to keep and bear arms, "shall not be infringed".

    We need to focus our energies on those who commit crimes, not the weapons they use. Plus it is shameful that law abiding citizens are being punished and having their constitutional rights threatened because of criminals.

  • wYo8 Rock Springs, WY
    Feb. 23, 2013 12:12 p.m.

    Just hope the NRA helps to allow me to keep my personal protection guns. There have been a lot of people using guns to protect themselves and families but their stories are not mentioned in the news very often. Just look at some of the towns in Mexico have taken it upon themselves to protect and defend their communities. Why because the police and politicans can't or won't.

  • gee-en Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    Usually, negative comments toward the NRA come off as though the NRA is some inanimate organization that imposes its will on a helpless American society. This view could not be farther from reality, because in fact, the NRA is nothing more than a collection of millions and millions of citizens of the United States of America that are working and speaking in unity regarding one aspect of the inalienable rights mentioned in our Constitution. Yes, that very same Constitution that happens to be the highest law in our land. Yes, that very same Constitution that has been in force for hundreds of years. So, I ask, why would some of our fellow citizens be so against millions and millions of citizens of the United States of America standing up for and seeking to uphold the highest laws of our great land?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    Nothing in this story indicates that the memo in question endorsed gun seizures.

    Nothing in this story indicates that the observations made in the memo about the efficacy of existing or proposed gun laws would ever become the basis for legislation.

    I am a firearms enthusiast and have a CCW permit. I have in my life been an NRA-certified home safety and pistol marksmanship instructor, and used to be a staunch NRA supporter. That was prior to 1996, when the NRA pretty much went off the deep end and become little more than a far right wing chest-thumping organization.

    The NRA is no longer credible.

  • SteveD North Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 23, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    We should all be thankful the NRA fights from such extreme angles. It just counter acts the rediculous angles the left wing gun grabbers attack from., If not for the NRA we may be living under a tyranny.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 23, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    The NRA comes off as an organisation that is sometimes delusional, sometimes insane, and always angry. We need to stop letting them influence national policy.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Feb. 23, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    I won't be one bit surprised if this "memo" turns out be a forgery by the NRA. They probably feel their political power slipping as sensible Americans come to realize what the NRA is all about. So if you don't have a real reason to provide fear for your propaganda, invent some.

  • William Gronberg Payson, UT
    Feb. 23, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    "...the Obama administration believes its gun control plans won't work unless the government seizes firearms and requires national gun registration."

    IF firearms are seized then what is there to register??

    Does not add up.