Senate panel approves gun background check

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    March 14, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    Old man,
    repeating more hate speech from the DNC and MSNBC.

    thanks for the consistency.

  • Steve Cottrell Centerville, UT
    March 13, 2013 4:00 p.m.

    As reported several days ago, the majority of our US population favors universal background checks. This seems like a good move forward.

  • lket Bluffdale, UT
    March 13, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    m2cents is making his own laws right now. i swore an oath to protect, but if a change is made by our repulic then that is the law it is not a bible. it was made to be modified, grow with our country. slavery was never right so we changed it.

  • lket Bluffdale, UT
    March 13, 2013 11:58 a.m.

    the only reason the nra dosent want background checks is the gun makers control them and have been making record profits here and other countries. and since the talk about gun laws sales are even higher because of proaganda by them people think guns are going to be taken away even though no one has said anthing of the kind at all. they are winning with miss information.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 13, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    The History of the 2nd Amendment:

    Most of the House debate was lead by two Antifederalists. In general the Antifederalists showed their deep fear of the national government. The Federalists, with the votes to back them up, said little.

    The debaters never sought to clarify the meaning of the words "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But, the overwhelming tenor of the debate is that the Congressmen perceived this discussion as concerning only the militia. The last clause, providing an exemption for pacifists, fits with this understanding. Nowhere in the debate is there the slightest hint about a private or individual right to own a weapon. One of the leading military historians of the period notes, "in all the discussion and debates" over the Second Amendment, there is precious little evidence that advocates of local control of the militia showed an equal or even a secondary concern for gun ownership as a personal right." The records of the state courts and legislatures for this period reflect this conclusion, as numerous courts accepted the notion that to "bear arms" was a term solely connected to the militia and the military.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 13, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    Now watch for the paranoid rants from the extreme right. They will be warning us that we all need to have guns at hand and be ready to rise up against imaginary government oppressions.

    What's equally frightening as a mentally ill person with a gun? It's a super hyper patriot with an arsenal in his bunker.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    March 13, 2013 6:06 a.m.

    I think there is a misunderstanding of our rights and what this group is calling violence. We have every right to use guns or any weapaone against governmernt oppressions and any attempt to modify of change our bill of rights and freedoms. This right to use weapons is a constituional right and we do not need government permission to buy or keep or maintain our guns or weapons of choice.

    Defending our freedoms has no restrictions and none can be made or enacted by law. These bill of rights and 2nd amendments are having the desired affect and purpose for their existence, put fear in their hearts for disobeying the Constitution and our rights. Be it civilian, government, or foreign invasion, the 2nd amendment is to insure citizens have the power to repel undesirable attempts to change or alter our government.

    The civilian militia has the authority to march on leaders and remove all from office. The Army is the property of the citizens and must obey our wishes even if it is in the act of removing undesirable politicians or leaders from office. Government and representatives exist with our permission as government has no rights.