Second Amendment: History's lesson and warning

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Rhino40 Salem, UT
    April 6, 2013 4:47 p.m.

    I have never been so proud of my Senator. Beautifully said Senator. Laws like the ones being proposed right now only effect law abiding citizens. Which means, if they are passed it will force 60 million Americans to make a choice. We must set aside our rights in order to remain law abiding citizens, or we must become criminals in order to keep our second amendment rights.

    Is a law that puts the people in this kind of catch 22 ever a good thing? I think not.

  • I-am-I South Jordan, UT
    April 6, 2013 3:55 p.m.

    I like Senator Lee he isn't afraid to stand alone for what he thinks is right. I also like that he and I see eye to eye most of the time.

  • HTM Draper, UT
    April 6, 2013 1:37 p.m.

    What about my rights as a citizen to be able to send my child to school and be safe and my right to go to a movie theater and be safe? Why does your right to bear arms come before my right to be safe .

  • Andy Gundersen Sandy, UT
    April 6, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    It offends me that the politicians in Utah continue to pander to the wayward fringe of their base that is not part of, nor represents mainstream America. All things in our society have limits, mostly based on common sense. With every aspect of freedom, comes responsibility. I have no qualms with those that want to own guns. I do, however, have a problem with those citizens, especially politicians, that use a very literal and outdated interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as a means of perpetuating a culture based on no limits. Mike Lee's stance on gun control is a political prop used to create fear and paranoia by waging a huge information campaign. Nobody is coming to take your guns away. The majority of Americans just want common sense restrictions and regulations in place to keep gun ownership exclusive to those that are responsible enough to bear that right. And Senator Lee's continual criticism of the federal government seems a bit hypocritical, considering that he is an integral part of it.

  • Mickey Kovars Tampa, FL
    April 6, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    The critical and missing element here is trust. Obama says his proposals are not intended to violate the right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment. Why should we believe him? He has squandered his credibility on a host of issues. His attorney general made a speech back in the '90s where he said he'd like to put guns into the same category as cigarettes -- taxed and shamed out of existence. He is close to Mayor Bloomberg and numerous others who want guns gone -- period. I don't trust Obama on any issue any more -- why should anyone else?

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    April 5, 2013 3:47 p.m.

    “....the Constitution was not written to maximize the convenience of the government. It was written to protect the liberty of the people....”

    We're in trouble if that’s an example of the perceptive insight from a sitting Senator touted as a world class authority on American history and the Constitution. If Senator Lee was half the authority some in here wish to believe he is, he would know that the Constitution is a framework for a strong central government without provision for liberty and that the Bill of Rights was tacked on as an afterthought several months after adjournment of the Philadelphia convention by a Congress desperate to win ratification.

    Senator Lee’s only obvious familiarity with the concept of liberty seems to be the liberty he takes in interpreting history in this shrill alarmist diatribe.

  • skinnyreporter Farmington, UT
    April 5, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    The Deseret News reader comments are invaluable. Without them I wouldn't have realized that the readers know more about the Constitution than Sen. Mike Lee, who was elected on the false premise that he knows a great deal about constitutional law from his background as a constitutional lawyer in Utah and Washington DC and as a law clerk for current U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sammy Alito. His late father, Rex Lee, founder of the BYU law school and former Solicitor General of our nation, obviously did a poor job of passing on his knowledge to son Mikey. Thank you, dear readers, for enlightening me on this.

    I should also point out my support for universal background checks for anybody who wishes to express their freedom of the press or freedom of speech. Since the pen is mightier than the sword (or the keyboard mightier than the AR15), it's incumbent upon us a nation to ensure that people who brandish weapons of words verify their capability to employ logic as well as certify their knowledge of history and current events.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 5, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    The Scientist: You can call me whatever you want, but if a conservative means all the things you said they were for, then I am not a conservative. I am not a libertarian either. I believe in exactly what the founders wrote the constitution to mean, protection for me in my individual rights and a limited government. I have always considered myself conservative and I have never stood for the federal government's involvement in the issues you stated. As far as I'm concerned the democrats and republicans, you name the issue, have thrown in with big government. What imaginary colossus or politically correct issue can you bring up next?

  • jsrroger Columbia, SC
    April 5, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    Senator Lee has issued a concise summary on the meaning of our Constitution's 2nd Amendment. It is a beautifully written piece. Of course we see many writing about what gun control means to American citizens but Senator Lee has given it a fresh touch that brings it to life. He covers the basic points we all must study and know by heart and treats the issue with what is an evident respect for the founders intent. We have all grieved over the tragedies of Sandy Hook and Aurora but those who understand history's lessons know that in attempting to rectify these tragedies we must not risk endangering liberty.

  • NCFreeman North Beach, MD
    April 5, 2013 6:00 a.m.

    It seems like very little root cause analysis was done by politicians to determine the causes of gun violence. If you take away the guns, the killers still remain. These people who do not respect human life may suffer from mental illness, poor role-models or lack of values training during childhood, etc., and nothing is being done to combat these problems. Politicians who attempt to enforce gun control are using bad medicine to treat a symptom of the cancer while ignoring the 80lb tumor causing the sickness. Since many murders occur in poverty stricken areas where unemployment and single-parent household numbers are high, it would seem that building strong family units, creating a favorable environment for job creation and having available high-quality medical care would do more for Americans' safety and well-being than limiting which firearms they are allowed to purchase.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 4:44 p.m.

    "All of you commenting on how government is only seeking to curtail gun violence by passing universal background checks need to read some history...income security...affordable care act..."

    Yes, let's look at history. Conservatives are so confused.

    The most vocal moral crusaders of today are Christian conservatives, who deploy government power against all sorts of perceived wrongs: sexual trafficking, AIDS in Africa, gay unions, poor parenting, teen sex, indecent television, abortion, and euthanasia, etc.

    Conservatives see nothing wrong with channeling $2 billion of public money to religious charities, as the Bush administration boasted.

    They have no problem spending government money to promote sexual abstinence, or with telling parents in government literature that a gay child probably needs therapy. They disparage Science, question the teaching of evolution, and pharmacists are allowed to refuse prescriptions for contraception on "religious grounds."

    Bismarck in Germany ("social security") and Disraeli in Britain are their "conservative" examples from the 19th century, using imperial foreign policy, domestic paternalism, and religious piety to cement new majorities to get elected at all cost. In America, it was the abolitionist/temperance campaigns, Jim Crow laws, and a Constitutional Amendment to forbid drinking alcohol!

  • Bomar22 Roberts, ID
    April 4, 2013 3:55 p.m.

    It would be nice if you learned how to use "spell check". Also "gerrymander" does not apply to Senators because they are elected by state wide elections, with exception of those Democrat controlled states that bus in outsiders to vote for their candidate.

  • Bomar22 Roberts, ID
    April 4, 2013 3:54 p.m.

    To Ronald Keyser & er al,
    For your information criminals do not buy guns at guns shows or any other legal source. They buy them on the black market and steal them. Just last month a friend in San Diego had his home burgled while he was out of town. The thieves stole his gun safe with several rifles, shotguns and handguns securely locked away. There are also many people who will satisfy the demand for guns by illegally selling guns to criminals and would be criminals knowingly that the guns will be used in criminal activity.

    We have drug laws and prisons full of drug offenders and there are more drugs on the street than ever before and it is obvious that law enforcement can't control something that is far more destructive than guns.

    Something that all mass murderers have in common is mental instability and most, if not all, have been prescribed psychotropic drugs. Guns don't kill people, deranged people kill people.

  • medieval0 Concord, CA
    April 4, 2013 12:30 p.m.

    There are only two questions to this debate.

    1. How many legally owned guns are used by their legal owner to harm someone? A legal owner is someone who has met their state's requirements to own a firearm.
    2. How many illegally possessed guns are used to harm someone?

    If the number in question one is the greater number, we need more gun control. If the number in question two is greater, we need more effective enforcement of existing laws.

    If this country spends more on making new laws when it can't enforce existing ones, we have a problem. With prisons that are overcrowded, criminals are being let out without serving their full sentences, the police on the streets can't respond in time to many crimes in progress, emphasis needs to be placed on fixing those glaring problems.

    Most people don't realize that about the same number of people are killed on average in the US in school bus accidents as those killed in mass shootings every year....

  • texaspatriot&ccl Stephenville, TX
    April 4, 2013 10:36 a.m.

    All of you commenting on how government is only seeking to curtail gun violence by passing universal background checks need to read some history. Study up on how the income tax was passed and where we are now, study social security and what its status is now and study what Obama said about the "affordable care act" and what it is already costing us without full implementation. Adam Lanza murdered his mother and stole guns. Go to Chicago and see how many of those guns used in the 500 murders were purchased legally, NONE! So how is limiting the rights of law abiding citizens going to stop one more incident like these. Evil will always carry out its desire. Criminals dont obey laws so making up one more or a thousand more will not stop evil. Murder has been illegal since the dawn of time, to use the words of Hilary what difference does it make what tool was used to accomplish it. Our forefathers new exactly what they were doing when they created the 2nd amendment, it was created for this time in history when a government bent on tyranny would come to power!

  • oldpro Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    Senator Lee: Thank you for that concise, well-written and spot-on commentary on the Second Amendment, what it means, and what those who attack and oppose it are all about. Your words ought to be cast in bronze and set for all to see in the National Archives. And, thank you for your courage in the face of constant criticism from those who oppose your commitment to defend the Constitution- no matter what. And thank you for your sacrifice, your time, your fortune, your sacred honor and your strength to stand up for what you believe, and for what those of us who comprise the majority in the state of Utah believe, and that is that America was founded on principles of freedom and liberty, and you defend those principles against all odds. May you continue to have the strength to stand and fight, even when it may seem that all is lost. All is not lost, even if you are the last man standing. Let us help you stand, because you continue to work for what you promised the voters of Utah that you would do, and you are doing just that

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    April 3, 2013 9:31 p.m.

    "I still think Utah needs a comprehensive overhaul of it's reading comprehension program. The constitution guarantees the 'right' to [keep and] bear arms, and says that 'right' will not be infringed."

    So far, so good...

    "It doesn't prevent the government from restricting or regulating what guns are owned or even produced for public consumption, and it surely doesn't guarantee a completely unregulated process of gun ownership and use."

    Think of it this way... under your theory, the government could legislate the right to keep and bear arms down to a simple, harmless pea shooter toy... without peas, not less.

    The fact that the right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution is so that the government couldn't fiddle with it... as governments are wont to do.

    "As long as a restriction or regulation doesn't diminish the overall 'right to bear arms' it's constitutional..."

    If the Constitution writers wanted the government to modify the 'right' they would've made provision. They didn't. Because they knew how governments like to strip rights away. They must've envisioned Hitler's day.

    The proper action for the government is to amend the Amendment.

  • The Sensible Middle Bountiful, UT
    April 3, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    The problem with todays attempts at gun control, is that people believe their rights of self defense are being put at risk because of the misdeeds of other people. People are generally willing to pay for their own misdeeds, but to be asked to give up a basic human right because of what others have done is something most people would resist amd rightfully so.

    If those offended by gun violence would go back to square one, brain storm of ways to accomplish their goal, without holding innocent law abiding people responsible for the misdeeds of others, progress could be made.

    I won't list specifics here of what could be done, people own ideas more when they feel they originated them.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 3, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    "Some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual right for U.S. citizens. Under this "individual right theory," the Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. Other scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

    In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in U.S. v. Miller. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun under the National Firearms Act of 1934. The Court explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
    This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008, D.C. v Heller."
    (Cornell Law School)

  • theccur Chattanooga, TN
    April 3, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    Government at all levels has diligently tried to eradicate the knowledge that, in the U.S., ALL government powers were granted to them by WE THE PEOPLE . It is ENTIRELY up to WE THE PEOPLE whether or not WE choose to let government retain it power OR establish governments more in keeping with OUR beliefs.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 3, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    It is great to see so many posters supporting Senator Lee, and justly so. He articulated the issue so well, and he is on the correct side of this, and so many other issues.

    Yeah all the regulars are here, with their usual dribble, but all the new or rare posters, you give me hope that there are still masses who care about freedom.

    Nice work Senator Lee! Keep it up!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 3, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    Americans can own any kind of firearm they want; almost. The FEDERAL government does not BAN any type of firearm, but they do put strict controls on them.
    States ban or restrict certain firearms like machineguns, cannons, silencers and short barreled rifles or shotguns.

    The federal government divides firearms into two categories; title 1 and title 2.
    Title 1 guns are ordinary rifles, handguns and shotguns.
    Title 2 guns are machineguns, silencers, shortbarreled guns, and destructive devices (greater than ½” bore, and bombs). The National Firearms Act of 1934 controls the possession of machineguns and other title 2 firearms.

    Title 2 guns are NOT banned, but in order for a person to buy them, they must submit the required registration forms to the ATF. There are hefty fines ($500,000) and jailtime (25 years) for those who do not comply.
    In May of 1986 REAGAN signed a bill into law that prohibited the registration of new machine guns for civilian use. Machine guns can now only be sold to licensed dealers or government agencies (FBI, US Army etc). Machineguns registered before May 1986 can be sold to anyone that lives in a state where they not banned.

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    April 3, 2013 12:18 p.m.

    Well I think we learned a lot today.

    We learned that an AR15 will totally defend you from a government with F-22's and Reaper Drones

    We learned the 2nd ammendment says "The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
    ...and there is nothing before that statement.

    We learned that "shall not be infringed" means the rights of ALL people (Convicted Felons, loons) to own any type of arms (Machine Guns, RPG's) "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

    And we learned Scalia is a "Liberal"

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    April 3, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    Here is another history lesson for you all. Back in 1934, people were able to buy chain machine guns. Guess how many mass shootings they had in 1934? ZERO.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    April 3, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    Background checks will only bring about the 2nd coming of Al Capone. The Gun Manufacturers will just sell firearms to those who can't pass a background check, on the black market and it will be more violent than ever before. These people who sell the Guns, will grow very rich and buy off anybody who wants to arrest them.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    April 3, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    Mike Lee has his interpretation of history. I have mine. I don't see why the framers of the Constitution would have said "a well-regulated militia" if what they actually meant was a well-armed mob. With so many in here sharing Lee's view of history, I shudder to think what they're not teaching in school these days.

  • SonOfLiberty West Jordan, UT
    April 3, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    I commend Senator Lee for his correct assessment of history and the purposes of gun control legislation, regardless of what the history revisionists and gun-grabbing progressives have commented to the contrary.

    The irreducible challenge the Second Amendment poses to gun restrictionists is that it does not bestow upon the people a right they previously lacked. It proscribes the government from infringing upon a right the people already have. It is not that the people are allowed to arm. It is that the government is disallowed to disarm them.

    The key fallacy of gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

    Liberty allows good people to do good and pursue happiness. It also allows bad people the ability to pursue their nefarious course, for which there are just laws and punishments inflicted for the violations of these laws ONCE THEY ARE BROKEN…not before.

    Every act of government restricts in some way the liberty of the people. Careful deliberation is therefore required before the force of government is used to restrict liberty.

    Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.

  • John A Johanson Murray, UT
    April 3, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    What all the naysayers are saying is they don't want senators following the constitution, in my life (58) I have never seen such a srict constitutionalist. The founding fathers would be delighted in seeing Mike Lees character and his steadfast determination to do the right thing I for one am grateful that he represents me. By the way senators are just people and as human beings are want to do, make mistakes!!!

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    April 3, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    I think people should be able to own as many guns as they want, just as people can own as many cars as they want. But the true cost of guns should be paid by the gun owners just as the cost of automobiles are paid by car owners. I am tired of paying for the cost of gun violence (our emergency rooms are full of gun-related injuries). Therefore, if you own a gun you should buy an insurance policy to cover any mayhem that may occur as a result of that gun being in existence. Just as the cost of automobiles is spread over car owners, the cost of guns should be spread over gun owners.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 3, 2013 8:03 a.m.

    "There is no room for interpretation. It says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' That means everybody."..I still think Utah needs a comprehensive overhaul of it's reading comprehension program. The constitution guarantees the "right" to bear arms, and says that "right" will not be infringed. It doesn't prevent the governmnent from restricting or regulating what guns are owned or even produced for public consumption, and it surely doesn't guarantee a completely unregulated process of gun ownership and use. As long as a restriction or regulation doesn't diminish the overall "right" to bear arms it's constitutional, and that's why we currently have Supreme Court supported restrictions on guns, and all you any gun, any time, any where, for anyone crowd are just plain wrong.

    Restrictions on who can purchase guns, size of magazines, and even specific weapons does not "infringe" on the "right" to bear arms. It's still there just regulated..oh yea and that word regulated is in there too..right?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 3, 2013 7:56 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" unfortunately we don't have any common sense legislation being proposed in Washington. The problem that we face with the mass murders is a mental health problem, and the politicians are going after the guns.

    What they are doing is like taking away an alcholic's credit or debt card as a means to make them stop. It does nothing to address the underlying problem.

    To "atl134" we already have laws to cover the private sales loopholes you claim. Utah laws prohibit selling firearms to people not allowed to have them. Maybe we can figure out how to enforce that law.

    It is sad to see that you are willing to sell you freedom for a sense of security. Allowing government to regulate and limit your freedoms will never end well for anybody. In countries that have enacted strict gun control laws they have all experienced an increase in violent crimes. The people are put in more danger by removing the guns than be leaving them in the hands of law abiding people.

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    April 3, 2013 7:52 a.m.

    "TANGENT: Tyrants, criminals, ignorant, fearful, and possibly another group doesn't want armed good civilians. Which are you? If ignorant or fearful; learn. If that other group; please define."

    What does this even mean? The unarmed are tyrants and criminals? Here's an attempt to define: It is precisely because I'm not ignorant or fearful that I feel no need to be armed. Only the fearful ("I believe the world is full of bad guys," even though most cops never draw weapons), the foolish ("Red Dawn is coming," and my AK can stop the black helicopters) and the faithless ("Turning the other cheek is meant for other Christians") need guns. But go ahead and keep them. I don't care, since you're more likely to thin your own part of the population than eliminate bad guys. Just don't claim your "right" to be "god-given" or without "regulation."

    If you need a gun in America for reasons other than just wanting one (which is fine) please define. Gun ownership is evidence of foolishness, faithlessness or fear.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 3, 2013 7:27 a.m.

    Scientist: That 'blather' are my rights you so indiscriminately want someone else to manage. I only feel pity for those who want the 'government' to do something and refuse to do much, if anything, themselves to make our society less violent. Christ said 'help thy neighbor',not give all your liberty to a corrupt and powerful entity to whip people into helping 'thy neighbor'.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 3, 2013 7:16 a.m.

    Thank you Senator Lee. As a government and civics teacher, I can assure you that there are more liberty loving students and parents then socialists. Kids want direction, structure, and the truth. America has always been the beacon of hope throughout the world because of its dependence on God, the Constitution, and Free Enterprise. Unfortunately, we are been drenched with propaganda about the virtues of socialism, government control, etc., and it has hurt us as a nation. Senator Lee believes in Liberty and is only defending our individual rights. There are far too many that don't even understand the concepts found in our constitution and why they are important!

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    April 3, 2013 6:13 a.m.

    Lee's overly idealistic (and totally naive and dogmatic) opinion piece(meal) is on par with another conservative pundit who recently tried to assert that when the 2nd Amendment refers to "a well regulated militia...", ALL Americans ARE the militia! As if that poor argument automatically gives every US citizen the unfettered, un monitored, uncontrolled "right" to build up arsenals of weapons, pack any and all forms of "heat" everywhere he pleases, and brandish any form of weapon indiscriminately.

    We, the People, have ordained and established a Government by which we regulate "arms" among us. Slathering together abstract patriotic-sounding platitudes, as Mr. Lee has done is empty rhetoric that does nothing to address the very real problems in our increasingly violent society, the regulation of which is our mandate. Mr. Lee's blather provides no comfort to families and friends of victims of gun violence, and gives no hope for turning the red tide in our nation.

  • Gregg Weber SEATTLE, WA
    April 3, 2013 1:44 a.m.

    2nd Amendment not about sport, hunting, crime. It's about that last means, when all else fails, that last incentive against tyranny, to regain our rights, freedoms lost from the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
    A tyrant wants no civilian armed, also a criminal so that they have advantage to intimidate citizens.
    At some future time, when needed, and you're against some corupt vote, press, and politician; when the military just follows orders as in the Milgram Experiment, when they threaten the Church and your family to get submission, will a flintlock or less be enough to get back the Constitution and our freedoms?
    For those that might say "God will do it. We don't need weapons or anything." may I remind you that Noah built an ark in preparation. He was acting under orders but his work provided the means of success. Were Utah War defenders wrong? Does the Lord want us to stand or submit to future tyranny under color of law?
    TANGENT: Tyrants, criminals, ignorant, fearful, and possibly another group doesn't want armed good civilians. Which are you? If ignorant or fearful; learn. If that other group; please define.

  • Gregg Weber SEATTLE, WA
    April 3, 2013 1:24 a.m.

    It shows I had one word less.

    Your comment encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments. Please note that comments are limited to 200 words.
    — About comments

    Screen Name: Gregg Weber

    Location: SEATTLE, WA

    1 words remaining
    The 2nd Amendment isn't about sport, hunting, or even crime. It's about that last means, when all else fails, and that last incentive to tyranny, to regain our rights and freedoms lost from the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
    TANGENT: Tyrants, criminals, ignorant, fearful, and possibly another group doesn't want armed good civilians. Which are you? If ignorant or fearful; learn. If that other group; please define.

    Comment not saved. Comment has more than 200 words.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    April 3, 2013 12:13 a.m.

    @Doogie -- Justice Scalia is a liberal? I think you are the first person who has ever made that claim. Got my entertainment for the night reading that comment.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    April 2, 2013 11:55 p.m.

    Sen. Mike Lee,

    I have honestly tried to make sense of your opinion piece by reading it carefully three times. It makes no sense. You cite no history, as expected by the title, for one.

    Worse, you have no argument. You have a shameless, unsupported rant about individual rights. Let me, as a layperson, bring some news to the self-declared constitutional expert: You cannot own a tank and drive it down America's Main Street; you cannot fly your own armed drones. I could go on forever to cite the number and type of arms you cannot bear - thank goodness to the modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    April 2, 2013 11:11 p.m.

    "Either their is some room for interpretation or their is not."

    There is no room for interpretation. It says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' That means everybody.

    And it means all things that can be considered to be arms. Missiles and tanks are not arms. But hand-held rocket launchers and hand grenades are arms.

    You have to remember why the 2nd Amendment was put in the Constitution. To overthrow a corrupt government, if necessary.

    It is fairly obvious that the Amendment is outdated and should be reworked. And how is that done? There is provision in the Constitution for that exigency... Amendments by the US Congress.

    Will there be an amendment? Not likely. Why? Because members of Congress are chicken and will do nothing to jeopardize their jobs. Any amendment would be extremely messy and complicated causing alotta consternation with the gun-owning constituency. Obviously, the mentally incapacitated shouldn't have guns. But how you gonna decide that? Inventory all guns in the country and test the mental capacity of the gun owner on a monthly basis?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 2, 2013 10:41 p.m.

    A little "history" lesson for the Tea-Partiers, including the Honorable Senator from Utah...

    The Framers of the Constitution, who wrote said 2nd Amendment, did so with the understanding that modern human beings, with the most elementary education, would be capable of using some "Common Sense".

    Therefore, they didn't feel a need to spell every stupid little possible scenerio that could happen over the course of history of this nation.

    For example - "shall not be infringed" - does not automatically mean total unrestrained access of any and all types of "arms" not does it apply to children, the mentally ill, dangerously violent, or known Criminals.

    That's where good old "Common Sense" is supposed to kick in, we use our God-given intelligence, think for ourselves, and we do the right thing to "insure domestic Tranquillity" (the other part of the Constitution you extremeists convienntly forget or sinisterly leave out to suit your political agenda.

    Class ajourned.

  • s_allen Tyler, TX
    April 2, 2013 9:58 p.m.

    If you add a provision for mentally ill what constitutes mentally ill? Would that eliminate every person who has been treated for say OCD, ADD, depression? There are people who seek treatment for depression in particular due to some type of trauma in their life and do not require permanent treatment. How does the government differentiate? And what about the ones who slip through the cracks?

    The ones who are not known to have mental problems because they never sought treatment? When one of them go on a shooting spree then what? We all have to PROVE we're sane to own a firearm?

    That still doesn't cover those who can beat a mental health evaluation. Which would cover just about anyone of average intelligence who is not completely off their rocker.

  • s_allen Tyler, TX
    April 2, 2013 8:54 p.m.

    People were commuting murder among other violent crimes long before guns came along. And if guns were wiped off the face of the earth they would commit them still. Wasn't' there a guy that went on a rampage with a knife and a crossbow nit that far back. Our time might. Be better spent helping good people stay good and putting bad people away long term.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 2, 2013 8:50 p.m.


    You quoted the following passage from the 2nd Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Based on the interpretation that you and Mr. Lee are applying to this part of the 2nd Amendment EVERYONE should be able to have any and every weapon of their choosing. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "the right of the people except for mentally ill and felons to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon". Based on yours and Mr. Lee's argument the possession of surface to air missiles, grenade launchers etc. should not be infringed upon either. The constitution does not say the right of the people to keep and bear arms except for surface to air missiles and grenade launchers shall not be infringed upon.

    The NRA and the gun advocates are perfectly fine with a broad definition of the 2nd Amendment, but only in the places (felons and mentally ill) of their choosing. In other aspects of the 2nd Amendment they want a very narrow interpretation. You cannot have it both ways. Either their is some room for interpretation or their is not.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    April 2, 2013 8:49 p.m.

    Re: Doogie

    Anyone who could refer to Antonin Scalia as a "liberal" justice needs to re-evaluate how he distinguishes the words 'liberal' and 'conservative.' Justice Scalia does not fall in the category of the former, not even in some weird Freudian dream interpretation.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    April 2, 2013 8:48 p.m.

    Senator Lee is absolutely right in his view of history and opposition to the universal gun registration (needed for confiscation later) scheme.

    Keep up the good work, despite the opposition from the "low information voters."

  • Alfred Pheonix, AZ
    April 2, 2013 8:50 p.m.

    What's all the falderal about controlling guns? If Congress seriously thinks guns should be controlled all it need do is amend the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. That's the shortest and easiest way. Otherwise, hands off.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    April 2, 2013 8:30 p.m.

    The surest way to increase the population of bad guys with guns is to persuade more good guys to bear arms. That's because every bad guy with a gun is legally a good guy until he commits his first crime.

    And let's face it, having a gun around sure makes it easy for a good guy to quickly become a bad guy, especially if he's angry, loopy, desperate or off his meds. (Loopy is probably not the technical medical term, but I can't think of it at the moment.)

  • tigger AMERICAN FORK, UT
    April 2, 2013 8:30 p.m.

    Oh, I get it---it's an April Fools joke.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    April 2, 2013 8:19 p.m.

    The government can background check til they are blue in the face. The end result is, it cannot restrict gun ownership in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Says so in the US Constitution. And, in case they haven't read it lately, it says in part '... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' I don't see any, ANY exceptions there.

  • Doogie South Jordan, Utah
    April 2, 2013 8:06 p.m.

    @alt 134

    "Even Justice Scalia said in the court ruling striking down the Chicago gun ban that the Second Amendment doesn't mean there can't be any regulation on guns." And your point is? That is an opinion of one supreme court justice, a liberal one at that. The facts about gun control are well stated and for that matter no one focuses on the lives guns have saved! The killer in Portland only shot and killed two people...why? Because there was a man with concealed carry gun who pointed his gun at the shooter and would have fired if another person had not been in the way. That was the last shot the guy fired at anyone but himself!

  • s_allen Tyler, TX
    April 2, 2013 7:25 p.m.

    I see people complaining about Lee's knowledge of history. Some of you should do some brushing up yourselves. The 2nd amendment was not written into law to protect us from each other. It was written into law to protect us from government tyrant. Something the founding fathers were all to familiar with as are many people's from many nations.

    If we really want to protect us from ourselves how about better medical education to prevent malpractice deaths which far out number gun deaths.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    April 2, 2013 7:11 p.m.

    Re: dwayne

    "First, being elected to the Senate doesnt make you a part of the government. It makes you a representative of the people who elected you."

    Then, pray tell, who/what exactly IS the government if it isn't the people we elect to, you know, govern?

    Forget gun control. We need remedial education for all of these folks who somehow conned their teachers, parents and peers into believing they understood basic word structure.

  • tigger AMERICAN FORK, UT
    April 2, 2013 7:10 p.m.

    Mr. Lee,
    I own several guns and am for gun control. My husband is a CC permit holder and is also for gun control.

  • Moracle Blackshear, GA
    April 2, 2013 6:55 p.m.

    Regardless of what anyone thinks of Mike Lee; what he is saying and what he is doing in fighting arms control and defending the 2nd Amendment is RIGHT ON!

    Don't cut off your nose to spite your face, folks.

    If we lose our right to bear arms, or have our arms capacity scaled down so much (magazine size, etc.) that we can't protect ourselves from a Tyrannical government, should one arise, you will wish for a thousand Mike Lees.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2013 5:56 p.m.

    "We already have laws for background checks when buying a gun. How about we just enforce the laws that we already have?"

    We don't currently have laws that require background checks for ALL gun purchases. There are plenty of loopholes in the system whereby someone can currently legally by a gun without a background check. I would like those loopholes closed. Btw, if you want things enforced then tell the Republicans to stop blocking the appointment of an ATF director.

    "Are these people making an argument for more government control because they are on the payroll of the Wall street bankers? You know, the bankers who float all the bonds that underwrite big government spending programs and take their percentage on every dollar of big government debt?"

    What logic is that even trying to... no, not at all. We just want less gun violence.

    "no facts to back them up. "

    Even Justice Scalia said in the court ruling striking down the Chicago gun ban that the Second Amendment doesn't mean there can't be any regulation on guns.

    "I don't hear anyone lambasting Corzine"

    Because that's off-topic to this editorial.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2013 5:54 p.m.

    "The current debate on gun control is about addressing a very real epidemic of mass shootings in the United States."

    We have maybe 50 people a year killed by mass shootings. We have roughly 10,000 a year killed by guns. Mass shootings are a tiny fraction of the gun violence we see. We should be looking to reduce ALL gun violence (including suicide).

    "Here are the 2 main points that they have yet to deal with.
    First, and most importantly, are they prepared to have government regulations on more of their rights?"

    As long as it's a reasonable regulation, sure. Obviously we differ on what we consider reasonable.

    "Second, by making guns harder to get you are putting more lives at risk to violent crimes and death by means other than guns. Is it really worth saving 1 life if it costs 10 other lives that could have been saved by guns?"

    If your hypothetical were true, I'd say no. However, I do not believe your hypothetical is accurate since I believe the ratio goes the other way where making guns harder to get saves more lives than it costs.

  • Clydesdale Tooele, UT
    April 2, 2013 5:46 p.m.

    Ah I helped get rid of that loser other politician so there'd be room for Mike Lee! Go me! I rock! You all owe me a debt of gratitude.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2013 5:44 p.m.

    A right to "arm" includes by the senators open ended discussion any arm, including rocket grenades, and laser weaponry available to the military. Then the citizens can fill in the "gaps" of government and take individual action to remain free.
    So if your having a paranoid delusion about a conspiracy to regulate who can buy guns that develops into into a UN conspriacy to confiscate all guns, you can act on it? The problem with weapons designed to kill people being carried around concealed on the streets is the reasonableness of the gun obsessives as demonstrated above. A resonable person should not mind proving they are law abiding and carry weapons outside the home in a secure locked case.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2013 5:47 p.m.

    "Just because you can justify and do something and call it "constitutional" or "allowed" it doesn't mean it should be done."

    As a general concept, I agree with this. As it regards this particular issue, I don't think this is such a case.

    "None of these proposals will buy you a bit of safety nor will they make your life better, but you appear to be just another of the emotional reactionaries that wants "something done" regardless of its lack of value or effectiveness. "

    I held these positions long before Newtown and I do think some of these proposals will make things safer, especially the background checks for all gun purchases provision. Something like the high capacity magazine ban doesn't do much outside of mass shootings, a small percentage of the gun deaths each year, so I'm willing to compromise away things like that just to get the background check provision.

    "we ignore and even assist criminals ability to have weapons"

    Fast and Furious? You know the problem with that is because our laws do not currently allow us to pursue those who engage in straw purchasing. That's something we need to change.

  • salty dog BOUNTIFUL, UT
    April 2, 2013 5:10 p.m.

    Senator Lee respectively how do you expect us to respect you when you did a short sale on your own home after you had mortgaged it to the hilt for some last minute campaign spending. Is it not true that Reagen's own head of the budget has said that the combo of the Bush tax cuts and the unfunded wars (two) are almost half the debt owed now?
    and yes I believe those who sell to the mentally impaired and people who lie on gun checks are committing a felony and should be put in jail along with the felon.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 2, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    Mike won't win another election, because he is just hot air and radio hype.

  • Doogie South Jordan, Utah
    April 2, 2013 4:56 p.m.

    In addition I don't hear anyone lambasting Corzine, the ex governor of New Jersey for his bilking millions out the investors in his charge at MF Global. He is being protected by this administration because he has made significant contributions to it. The guy should be in jail! Personal attacks instead of solid reasoning and facts don't solve any problems.

  • Doogie South Jordan, Utah
    April 2, 2013 4:47 p.m.

    I find it pretty interesting that those arguing against what Mr. Lee says in his article have no facts to back them up. Personal attacks and heresay don't cut it. Way to go Senator Lee keep up the good work. Yes you are one of the Senators back there but you are not a part of their hypocrisy. Those who attack Mr Lee for short selling his house think about the own mistakes you have made in your lives. Would you like to be publicly berated for it? It comes with the territory I know, but the mistake he made in no way discredits the good work he is doing back in Washington to bring about change. Again, keep it up Mike, we are with you!

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    April 2, 2013 4:41 p.m.

    Well-stated reasoning for opposing the madness of current gun-control efforts.

  • Captain Green Heber City, UT
    April 2, 2013 4:41 p.m.

    It's nice to know we have a true Patriot in Washington representing our interests properly. Senator Lee understands our God-given, Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms, and it appears he will do all he can to preserve this fundamental right... even if he has to launch a filibuster to prevent the UN Small Arms Treaty from being ratified in the Senate. I applaud him for his brave stance and loyalty to liberty!

  • mgdhunter Spanish Fork, UT
    April 2, 2013 4:26 p.m.

    Whatever you think of Mike Lee is not the point! He is right in what he says, and we had better stand for our liberties, or there will shortly be NONE! Not everyone is perfect, but the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are the only thing we have to protect us. I hope all will see through what the Government is doing, because we are little by little losing anything we cherish.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    April 2, 2013 4:15 p.m.

    In writing about the Second Amendment, Sen. Lee said nothing about the term "well-regulated." I'd like his thoughts on what well-regulated means. Remember, the amendment doesn't merely say "regulated." It says "well-regulated."

    Also, he talks about the right of gun ownership. Usually, a discussion of rights includes comments about responsibilities, because rights and responsibilities tend to go hand in hand. What does he think are the responsibilities connected to gun ownership?

  • pam dale Santa Clara, UT
    April 2, 2013 4:10 p.m.

    Thank God for men like Senator Lee, as they are few and far between during these dark days. It is the Constitution that must be upheld, nothing more. I stand behind you, Mike, and applaud your courage in remembering and fighting for our laws. Undoing the damage that has been wrought on our nation may be impossible, but we have a fighting chance with principled men such as yourself.

  • Jared from CT SOUTHBURY, CT
    April 2, 2013 4:06 p.m.

    I heartily endorse what Mike Lee wrote. He is 100% correct on everything he wrote. The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Pretty doggone easy to understand. If you support the Constitution, you cannot be in favor of gun control. Frankly, the fact that criminals sometimes use guns to commit crimes doesn't give government the right to infringe on the Constitutional right of citizens to bear arms (of all types). The sole remedy the government has is to prosecute criminals to the full extent of the law. Tell you what, do away with illegal immigration, stop the welfare cycle in inner cities, and quit government sponsorship of the destruction of the traditional family, and crime, including crimes committed using guns, will plummet.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    April 2, 2013 3:56 p.m.

    Thomas Jefferson said, "When the founders of the Constitution wrote it, they wanted to assure universal ownership be uninfringed."

    And the founders also established the Supreme Court with intention of interpreting the Constitution. One of the most conservative members ever to sit on the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, wrote these words in the majority opinion against the DC ban on owning and possessing handguns,

    "The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time."

    And so we see that the right to bear arms is not absolute, without any conditions. Mr. Lee should know that. I think Justice Scalia would agree with me.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 2, 2013 3:55 p.m.

    Roland, if the government had its way, all of our guns would be registered so they could confiscate them at their leisure. Any gun registry would be a violation of at least teh 4th and 5th Amendment.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    April 2, 2013 3:45 p.m.

    Good job Mike Lee. You are representing the people of Utah well.

    There are some misguided people commenting here who don't seem to comprehend how a Constitutional Republic works, or they have an agenda that is seditious and rebellious of said Constitutional Republic and they want government to own and control everything.

    Which begs the question:... Are these people making an argument for more government control because they are on the payroll of the Wall street bankers? You know, the bankers who float all the bonds that underwrite big government spending programs and take their percentage on every dollar of big government debt?

  • hoopsgirl Draper, UT
    April 2, 2013 3:43 p.m.

    Senator Lee is right on with his common sense approach! The government is all about passing legislation without a way or the means to enforce it. "They" are all of the bandwagon legislators who want to look like they are "doing something" for their constituents, even if what they are doing is wrong. Would gun legislation have prevented Sandy Hook's horror? No. Would gun legislation have prevented the Colorado theater shootings? No. "We" need to stand up and be counted so that "they" quit trying to invade every single aspect of our lives, beginning with gun control. Thanks for the great work you are doing, Senator Lee!

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    April 2, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    History's lesson and warning: those who misuse the words "right granted by God..." usually find themselves on the outside looking in.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    April 2, 2013 3:34 p.m.

    ".....I will oppose any attempt by Congress to restrict Americans' constitutional rights. And I will equally oppose any attempt to allow government surveillance of law-abiding citizens exercising those rights....."

    If Senator Lee was half the defender of the Constitution that he aspires to be, he would know that Congress not only has the right to pass needed legislation, it has a duty to do so. The United States can’t surrender the public well-being to the mercy of the law of the jungle. And the Bill of Rights was never meant to empower miscreants who show utter contempt for the public safety of 300 million Americans.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 2, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    "Second, by making guns harder to get you are putting more lives at risk to violent crimes and death by means other than guns. Is it really worth saving 1 life if it costs 10 other lives that could have been saved by guns?"

    This is such utter nonsense, guns are saving the lives of ordinary middle class citizens. First of all nearly 70% of Americans do not own a gun. If guns where what stood between ordinary citizens and being killed by violence, we'd have a slaughter. There would be dead accountants every night on the news..instead what we have is dead criminals every night on the news, killed by another criminal, and an obituary page full of suicides. That's where gun violence occurrs. All those ordinary citizens who think they are protecting their families from some deranged criminal are living in an alternate universe.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 2, 2013 3:10 p.m.

    re techpubs
    Sioux City, IA

    Military type guns are exactly the type of guns protected by the 2nd ammendment. This is so that people can join militias, (which are a military organization) when the need arises.

    For example, suppose there were a hurricane or an earth quake and as a result there were gangs looting. Because the founders recognized that government militias (The army, the national guard, the police) wouldn't ALWAYS be able to respond in time or all the time, they allowed for the possibility of people militias to fill the void. Individuals, families, neighboors standing firm against criminals and gangs who would take advantage of them in this vulnerable time.

  • Mormon Ute Kaysville, UT
    April 2, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    Senator Lee,

    You need to be less of an obstructionist and more cooperative in getting things done for the people who elected you. The only purpose for military style weaponry and ammunition maganizes is to arm a militia to oppose our government. Are you aware that Dallin H. Oaks has cautioned against this very thing and advocated using the peaceful means available to us of which you are a part to solve these differences. Your promise to filibuster would be frowned upon by our founding fathers as much as any restriction on our freedoms. Let the bill be heard and debated so a vote can be taken.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 2, 2013 2:56 p.m.

    Mr. Bloomberg before attempting to infringe on the constitutional rights of all people in the nation, do all you can to try to solve your problems yourself.

    Are you aware of what Ogden Utah is doing?, they don't allow gang members to associate with other gang members. Have you tried this?

    Do you ensure that everyone gets the mental health care they need?

    Do you teach gun safety in your schools?

    Do you allow teachers to carry a gun in the class room to help protect the children?

    Do you allow law abiding people to carry a gun so they can defend themselves and others?

    Mr. Bloomberg, you have no business asking others to give up their rights when you refuse to do what you can to help yourself.

  • junkgeek Agua Dulce, TX
    April 2, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    Leavitt for Senate!

  • UtahVET1 Sandy, Utah
    April 2, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    I applaud your support on Americas Second Amendment rights Mr. LEE, we need more Americans like you, and need to get those who want to control people like Bloomberg, Obama, Pelosi, and Biden out of office. Just look at how Bloomberg is pushing his financial weight around in NY. That is what they want for the rest of America.

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    April 2, 2013 2:19 p.m.

    @ John Armstrong:
    "Nor does it say that God gave everyone a right to arm themselves with military assault rifles."

    And that is why there has been a ban on most private ownership of fully automatic guns, tanks, cannons, etc. for a long time. Not a complete ban, but it is very difficult to obtain permission to possess, clear the background checks, and pay the necessary fees to have one.
    Now you seem to believe that we should ban semi-automatic rifles that are used for hunting and target practice even though they are used in less than 24% of the homicides annually.

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    April 2, 2013 2:05 p.m.

    @ ECR:
    "Techpubs - Universal background checks would have saved Adam Lanza's mother if he had been identified as someone who should not own a gun or have access to a gun. Hopefully his mother would have been more responsible about making those guns accessible to him. But the system can never work if we don't start somewhere. Where would yiou suggest we start?"

    By your own admission earlier Adam Lanza never completed the paperwork for a background check or CT's 14 day waiting period. He also was not listed on the National Registry since he had a clean record and was never adjudicated as mentall unstable. So even if they had required every person in the house to have a background check he still would have escaped notice.
    I would start by determining what is causing these people to do things like this and finding a way to identify the warning signs earlier so that they can receive the help they need.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    April 2, 2013 1:39 p.m.

    What do we do for excitement when we tire of whacking "criminals?"

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 2, 2013 1:29 p.m.


    Where you ever in the Military?

    I grow more and more tired everyday of you self-called "Tea-Partiers", "Patriots", and "TRUE Americans", who have never one-day serving this great Country of ours in uniform.

    Your tripe falls on this veteran's deaf ears.

  • TNChristopher Kingsport, TN
    April 2, 2013 1:29 p.m.

    I think the old bumper sticker said it well. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Universal background checks will only net law abiders. Crooks and thugs will continue to get their guns from untracked sources. The mentally ill will still have access to guns left unsecured.
    I am not a gun owner, but I am beginning to think that the best deterrent would be for everyone to be armed, or at least a sufficient number to give an attacker pause.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 2, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    I will call 9-11 on anyone not wearing a uniform carrying a weapon in public.
    They are not protected by the 2nd Amendnment becasue they are not part of "a well regulated milita" and should therefor be considered a Domestic Terrorist.

    Terrorists do not wear uniforms.

    I will then let the responding police officers decide if it's "Constitutional" or not.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    April 2, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    Fresh from a revolution the Founders created a list of rights they had been denied by the British, rights that would have made dissent possible and perhaps held oppression at bay.
    Those rights included speaking your mind, assembling in groups and arming yourself.
    Now, a local militia might be no match for Homeland Security, but it would be impossible to contend with a government who knew where all the weapons were.
    Gun ownership is, simply put, none of Washington's business. If they take over that function it is a clear sign that it has become too big and too controlling. In short, it has assumed too many rights that do not belong to it.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 2, 2013 1:19 p.m.

    What a load of tired old tripe! Let's take on some of these statements:

    "There is no reason to believe a government $17 trillion in debt has the competence to cast a net of paperwork that will catch every single gun sale in a country of 300 million people and 300 million firearms. And even that ignores the fact — always inconvenient when designing gun laws — that armed criminals don't obey laws in the first place."

    Sure - criminals don't obey laws in the first place. So, why bother having laws at all. This is the essence of this objection. Criminals will always find a way to sell heroin. Why should we enact laws against it?

    Our government is $17 trillion in debt, so how can you expect us to have an FDA that prevents the sale of thalidomide. Why bother? Is there an argument that is more ridiculous than this one?

    The difference in quality between former Senator Bennett's thinking abilities and Senator Lee's is quite striking, don't you think?

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    April 2, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    If people want to find a gun to buy they will. The idea of universal background checks is closing the door after the cows have escaped. To me, Senator Lee and his personal background on the financing of his house makes me ill. On this issue, I agree with him. Go figure.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 2, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    To "ECR" by regulating the press you could save people. For example, if the paparazi was regulated we could have saved Princess Diana.

    More recently the NY Times published the names and addresses of people with conceal carry permits in NY. Some of their homes were robbed and had the guns stolen. That never would have happened if the press had been responsible.

    How many soldiers were killed as a result of journalists publishing pictures of troops doing things that enraged islamists in the middle east?

    It seems like there are hundreds if not thousands of lives that could have been saved if the press was regulated.

    We already have laws for background checks when buying a gun. How about we just enforce the laws that we already have?

  • IRS Agent PROVO, UT
    April 2, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    @EDM 8:31

    You stated "There have been and are restrictions on the types of "arms" we can "bear" nearly since the day the Second Amendment was written."

    I am just curious. Can you please share what exactly those restrictions were? I have never heard this before. Are you using the old liberal tactic of just throwing info out without anything to back it up? Please share.

    "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away". "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." PERIOD! Sounds pretty clear to me.

  • dobberdobber Ivins, UT
    April 2, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    It is interesting that if you take Senator Lee's family size, 5, and the amount the bank lost on his home, $400,000.00, and factor in the population of the United States, 315,596,000, and the national debt of 16,771,379,006,760 we find that the equivalent national debt would be 25,247,680,000,000. And he wants to control our budget?

  • Blue Bolshevik Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2013 12:30 p.m.

    Dear Sen. Lee,

    Check's in the mail!

    Sincerely, NRA

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    April 2, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    I'm not intimidated by Mike Lee. This is an imperfect but decent nation of laws for the common good of all.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    April 2, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    @open minded mormon

    Can you show me the amendment in the constitution dedicated to guaranteeing a "right" to gay marriage? Or any marriage for that matter? I can point you to the one that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    April 2, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    Redshirt said, "...then why not make a registry of people that are registered press members with all sorts of regulations to ensure that what they say is unbiased. How about they require that all demonstrators obtain licenses and submit all the names and addresses of attendees?"

    Do you really think that will save lives?

    "Second, by making guns harder to get you are putting more lives at risk to violent crimes and death by means other than guns."

    Do you mean people will just look for different ways to kill people and guns will lose the battle of what weapon can kill the most? Of course I'm being facetious. I don't think that's what you meant even though...that's what you said.

    Background checks for law abiding citizens is not a violation of anyone's Constitutional rights. Even the most conservative member of the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, said so in District if Columbia vs. Heller. Please stop trying to scare Americans into thinking that this precautionary step taken by a responsible government will lead to the confiscation of the weapons owned by responsible citizens or allow the government to meddle in your private life.

  • vague_reality Logan, UT
    April 2, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    "The federal government has no right to surveil innocent citizens exercising their constitutional rights." - Mike Lee

    Oh really? And I'm sure you fought tooth and nail against the Bluffdale NSA facility which is to be used for that very purpose. Senator Lee, I hope that you are distracted yourself and not doing the distracting. There are epic times ahead.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 2, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    Wow, the liberals have hit ever single one of their standard talking points.

    Here are the 2 main points that they have yet to deal with.

    First, and most importantly, are they prepared to have government regulations on more of their rights? If the government can put all of these regulations on guns, then why not make a registry of people that are registered press members with all sorts of regulations to ensure that what they say is unbiased. How about they require that all demonstrators obtain licenses and submit all the names and addresses of attendees? How much freedom are you willing to sell for a sense of security?

    Second, by making guns harder to get you are putting more lives at risk to violent crimes and death by means other than guns. Is it really worth saving 1 life if it costs 10 other lives that could have been saved by guns?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 2, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    The overlooked history lesson seems to be that allowing people nearly unlimited access to arms brings with it the attitude that access is equated with freedom to use, and of the thousands of people shot in this country every year very few are an act of defense.

  • Monk Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 2, 2013 11:38 a.m.

    You can say or believe what you want regarding gun control. You can choose to side with Mike Lee or land anywhere else on the issue. The current debate on gun control is about addressing a very real epidemic of mass shootings in the United States. It is only part of the whole issue. But it is a major part. I will hold Senator Lee opinion void until I hear a real plan to deal with the epidemic. Discussion on anything else at this point is a useless distraction from the issue of protecting innocent life.
    Arming everyone who can hold a gun is not an answer, it is a sick joke. Math doesn't lie, you introduce more weapons into any situation it becomes inherently less safe. We have our arms. We need to be more responsible with them. We have failed on that issue.

  • TeaPublican Houston, TX
    April 2, 2013 11:38 a.m.

    I am so happy that Sen. Lee is being a true TeaPublican Patriot and standing up for the 2nd Amendment! I was so afraid that Sen Lee was going to say he was going to do what the majority of Americans wanted...and that would of been terrible for the Constitution. A March 7 poll of voters nationwide by the Independent Qyinniipiac University shows 88% FOR universal background checks including 85% among gun owners! Thank God Sen. Lee has the courage to be a true American Patriot and stand against what the majority of people THINK they want! We TeaPublicans will NOT allow any gun control under any circumstances! We Stand For America! What you expect anything less?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 2, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    "From reading some of the comments here I am troubled that communism is so prevelant in Utah"..Good summary of Utah..what a whacky place this is. Not the only whacky place certainly but truly a whacky place. Sunday the DN had an editorial touting the need for Christians to celebrate Easter and to especially celebrate caring for all. Christ died for all so ergo we should care for all..then this nonsense of me, me, liberty, and the nearly pathological logic that your liberty is tied up in your ability to own a gun inorder to shoot and kill someone. The cognitive dissonance here is truly scary.

  • ShaunMcC La Verkin, UT
    April 2, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    I am dismayed by the typically critical comments by some. Senator Lee has expressed very well the constitutional and logical framework on which his decisions are to be based. I wish all our legislators had the integrity to do likewise. Knee-jerk reactions to tragedy are the source of many of our worst laws and judicial decisions. I am considered liberal by some and conservative by others, but in this I am totally in agreement with Mr. Lee. Until we realize that keeping track of and limiting ownership of weapons by law abiding citizens while we ignore and even assist criminals ability to have weapons that are not registered is not the way to stop crime and decrease violence, we will have missed the boat and contributed to the loss of liberty and safety for our citizens. Thank you Senator Lee for a principled stand on an important topic.

  • Halach Huinic Mapleton, UT
    April 2, 2013 11:14 a.m.

    I am totally confused, To me Lee's article is disturbingly out of focus. For the life of me I'm unable to understand exactly how prudent gun control would ever violate any reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, let alone endanger the Constitution and threaten the downfall of the government? And here I thought it was government tyranny why we were arming ourselves. Is this some kind of joke?

    Does Lee have any recommendations on what kind of weapons we can stockpile to effectively take on local law enforcement officials or the U.S. military when the need arises?

    Who elects these people?

  • John Armstrong Buena Vista, VA
    April 2, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    The Constitution, according to its preamble, was written not only to protect liberty. It was also written to secure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and provide for the common defense. Allowing citizens to arm themselves however they see fit seems to me not to promote these goals. Rather, it seems to create a nightmare civilization. The reason stated in the second amendment for the right to bear arms is to have a well-regulated militia for the security of the state. It says nothing about personal protection. Nor does it say that God gave everyone a right to arm themselves with military assault rifles. Do something for domestic tranquility, Senator Lee. Be a statesman.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 2, 2013 11:11 a.m.

    I will oppose any attempt by Congress to restrict Americans' constitutional rights. And I will equally oppose any attempt to allow government surveillance of law-abiding citizens exercising those rights.

    [Great! Prove it Senator - And you can start by repealling the Patriot Act]

    I will remind people in Washington that the Constitution protects everyone equally, not just the people we happen to agree with, and the rights we happen to like.

    [I'm so glad you will be reminding people in Washington that you are a firm supporter of Gay Marriage then as well.]

  • ECR Burke, VA
    April 2, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    duayne - I'm afraid I don't quite follow your explanation of the American Revolition. I always thought it was about obtaining liberty from a tryannical government that made laws without the representation of the citizens effected by those laws - taxation without representation - which I think you agree with. And if you do you might want to come help the half million or so tax paying citizens that live across the Potomac River from my house who have no representation in government. You accuse me of using the tragedy of children dying to violate your rights. I am not proposing the violation of anyone's rights and I wonder how many dead children it will take for you to accept the fact that a conversation needs to take place about how to save those children.

    Techpubs - Universal background checks would have saved Adam Lanza's mother if he had been identified as someone who should not own a gun or have access to a gun. Hopefully his mother would have been more responsible about making those guns accessible to him. But the system can never work if we don't start somewhere. Where would yiou suggest we start?

  • azreader1 tucson, AZ
    April 2, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    Well said Senator Lee.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    April 2, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    From reading some of the comments here I am troubled that communism is so prevelant in Utah.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    April 2, 2013 10:55 a.m.


    Just because you can justify and do something and call it "constitutional" or "allowed" it doesn't mean it should be done. None of these proposals will buy you a bit of safety nor will they make your life better, but you appear to be just another of the emotional reactionaries that wants "something done" regardless of its lack of value or effectiveness. I feel true pity for you and all like you, I really do.

  • Anti Government Alpine, UT
    April 2, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    @one old man

    "More blatant pandering to the extreme right from Mike Lee."

    Meanwhile your unfactual subjective emotional statement panders to the extreme left.

    Evidently now people are the "extreme right" if they believe in liberty and the constitution. That is what the extreme left would scare you into believing so that our corrupt government can slowly remove your liberty and rights.

    Weak old man. Very weak indeed.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    April 2, 2013 10:52 a.m.


    So do you think they'd be any less dead if they'd only been shot 3 times each?

    Lotsa foolish and thoughtless reactionaries on this subject.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 2, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    Dead wrong, again, Mike.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    April 2, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    I normally don't side with the extreme right but on the 2nd amendment i stand with them. Citizens cannot let the government (which is made up of human beings) control our rights. Take a look at the DA's in Texas. Suppose the Aryan Brotherhood targeted you. The police can't protect you. I would support laws the prevent criminals and the insane from obtaining firearms and laws the would severely punish the misuse of firearms. Politicians don't want to punish behavior.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    April 2, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    Right on, Senator! I thank you for defending my Second Amendment rights. You must also know that all of the Bill of Rights is under attack. There are those who wish to curtail our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, and even our right to life. Every elected official and every appointed judge takes an oath to sustain and defend the Constitution, but many are lying in their teeth. The Constitution now hangs as by a thread. Thank you again, Senator Lee, for honoring your oath.

    April 2, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    This over bloated government can't even control our borders so why should we allow them to control our guns? There is no reason for the federal government to be moving down this path at all. In my opinion, those who are promoting "gun control" are deluded, simplistic, and unpatriotic.

    How about, for once, the federal government do it's constitutional duty? That doesn't include promoting social issues or agendas?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    Oh please... even if the Democrats get everything they proposed on gun control we'd still be 1st in the world in the guns per person ratio.

    @Cool Cat Cosmo
    "we only seek to protect the innocent."

    So you oppose expanded background checks to apply to all gun purchases? That provision only harms those who shouldn't be allowed to have guns and is merely a temporary inconvenience to the rest of you rather than actually stopping you from getting the gun. Probably why this provision has 80-90% support in polls and majority support among NRA members and gun owners.

    Statistically a person is much more likely to be shot by a gun owned by someone in their own home than by anyone else. I'm safer without a gun.

    "Please stop defending your violation of our rights"

    Guns violate the right to life of roughly 10,000 Americans a year. There's no argument behind your claim that your rights are being violated when there's a "well-regulated" clause in the 2nd Amendment and even Scalia says that the Second Amendment allows for regulation (just not total bans like Chicago was doing).

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 2, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    Sure - You have the right to your guns.
    How many of you pro-gun nuts have tried to buy ammo lately?

    Your rellious insurrection against the U.S. Government will last about 3 days, when you run out of ammo.
    And then your Rambo, Red Dawn fanatasies will slip away.

    BTW - The Taliban had AK-47s, mortors and shoulder launched stinger missles.
    And the Iraqi Army lasted about 2 weeks.

    Sad - It was like shooting fish in a barrel.

    The only thing different, would be this time the military would be opening fire on fellow Americans.
    White guys, Christians, and speaking english.

    BTW - I wonder if Senator Mike Lee supports my right to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in my garage in Farmington, Utah.
    I seriously doubt he would - so his whole premise is merely political pandering to the mindless masses.

  • larzado Provo, UT
    April 2, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    Senator Lee, as a constituent, I am disappointed that you would generate the same ill-conceived rhetoric that has contributed to increased divisiveness. The 2nd amendment has become so broadly defined that it seems to grant us a license to deride anyone who thinks maybe society would be better off if there were a limit to how many guns are produced and disseminated. How shall we define arms anyway? Is it okay to say that we should limit assault weapons or high capacity magazines? What about automatic weapons, what if I want a bazooka? Where do we draw the line, and who decides? It seems that there is a limit to what most reasonable people feel should be allowed and I think it is a good thing to strictly limit these weapons. Of course, I do understand that there are individuals who choose not to obey the law, which is why we should prohibit the manufacturing of these weapons. I know that there are a few individuals who could still make them illegally, but it would severely limit the availability, which would go a long way to curb the types of tragedies that took place in CT, AZ, and CO.

  • dave4197 Redding, CA
    April 2, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    Senator, and other tea partiers: I do not fear a background check. Since you're talking about "law abiding citizens" right to bear arms, an effective background check is a minimal step, but a very necessary step for us to take.
    The 2nd amendment is one of the poorest written sentences I've read, in or out of the gov't, and I've worked for the gov't and read plenty of sentences. There is too much left to interpretation in the wording of the 2nd amendment. While I agree with your 2 reasons, self protection from criminals and self protection from an out of control gov't, I do not agree with your conclusion that we must avoid a background check before owning a gun. Stop your illogical conclusions, you're so tea party!
    When 2 mass murderers are still awaiting trial a year or more after the fact, that's a problem. Fix that one, Sen Lee. These 2 obviously guilty guys should've been done away with long before now, there's no mystery or lack of facts about their guilt.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    April 2, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    Conservative mantra -- "Everything is about ME". E.g.: I want to go shooting with multiple rounds, so who cares if some little kids were shot 10 or so times each in the space of 5 minutes. Or, in another example: I have insurance, so why would I care if anyone else does. In fact if they get insurance, they'll go to the doctor more and then that will really inconvenience me. Modern tea party conservatism (devotion to atheist Ayn Rand) is the very definition of selfishness and greed.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    April 2, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    @eric samuelsen

    Every time you post we learn how little you know about history, the constitution, and liberty in general.

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    April 2, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    Once again, our delusional senator misses the point. Since his gerrymandered election to the senate, this clown has done NOTHING! He opposes to oppose. He obstructs just to obstruct. Bob Lee could teach you a thing or to MR Lee, about compromise and governing. Lying on the florr and crying is No way to govern. YOU are an embarassment to this state, and to the nation.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    April 2, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    Cjb's comment expressed my opinion on this issue exactly. It's also the most truthful comment on this board. What a beautiful statment. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

  • Well.ok Lehi, UT
    April 2, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    So background checks restrict our "God given" rights? Therefore God must be against background checks. I'm surprised he didn't throw in the requisite, "choose ye this day whom you will serve..." Please fellow Utahns, let's vote this embarrassment out!

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    April 2, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    @ ECR "And it is worth noting that Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook gunman, was turned down for a gun purchase by a Connecticut gun shop becasue their laws require a 14 day background check and wiating period, which he rejected. That law worked in that case but the lack of other laws and enforcement allowed Lanza kill 26 innocent victims."

    Since you brought up this tragedy I would like to ask you the following:
    1. Would Universal Background Checks have stopped him from killing his mother and stealing her guns?
    2. Would more magazines with less rounds have prevented him from killing those at the school? (Please don't tell me that these children would have tackled him while he was reloading.)

  • coltakashi Richland, WA
    April 2, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    The problem that caused the Sandy Hook tragedy is two fold. First, we have abandoned control of people who are potentially violently insane. Second, we pretend that a sign declaring an area a gun free zone actually prevents guns from being carried inside, as if the guns themselves read the signs and refuse to enter. That is as stupid as the woman who thinks we should relocate all deer crossing signs to less busy sections of the highways, to make the deer cross there. But guns and deer don't read signs. And people disobey signs all the time.

    We enforce speed limit signs with a highway patrol. Gun free zone signs are only effective if there is a school patrol to enforce them. We know how to do it. We have armed guards and metal detectors at our courthouses and airports, using metal detectors and x-ray macines. All the government buildings where laws are made have real guards, such as the US Capitol. If we want real security, it needs to se real guards.

    The Sandy Hook survivors are in a new building. And they have armed guards now, to ensure against another attack by an insane person.

  • Red State Littleton, CO
    April 2, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    I thought Utah was a conservative state. I am amazed at the uninformed leftists trashing this article. Effective background checks always lead to total gun registry. Those of us who have read the history of the last 100 years know that is very dangerous. I will take my freedom, you liberals take your big government.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 2, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    Former Governor Mike Leavitt said, he was concerned that another six years of Lee, who along with Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who make up the Senate version of The Three Stooges, would be too embarrassing.
    So Lee proposes to block an attempt to punish aiding and abetting in a murder in order to protect Second Amendment rights.
    Mike is apparently thinking of running against him, to relieve Utah of the failed tea party experiment, that is Mike Lee.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    April 2, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    Compare what Sen. Lee says and the likes of Obama and his wanna be,s

    From the voices of Freedom and liberty!

    According to a Washington Times article, on a Wednesday conference call organized by "Mayors Against Illegal Guns," Biden referred to current anti-gun legislation and told his anti-gun supporters, "Let me say this as clearly as I can: this is just the beginning."

    As reported Monday by the Washington Times, Bloomberg indicated on Sunday that sometimes government does know best, and in those cases, Americans should just cede their rights and allow the government to make their personal choices for them.

    "I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom," Mr. Bloomberg said, during
    an appearance on NBC.

    Please stay the course Sen. Lee

  • cindy56k TOK, AK
    April 2, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    I find those of you who are commenting on this and Senator Mike Lee, either unconstitutional or sheep still sleeping. I am from Utah but live in Alaska and I have been awake for awhile. Mike Lee is doing a great job in the senate for Utahns I wish I could say the same about our senators, who just vote with Obama regardless. Mike Lee is fighting for your constitutional rights come on Utahs I have seen a lot of people in pictures at the capitol standing for your rights also. This is no joke, this is the government trying to take your 2nd amendment rights. We don't need a Universal Background Check that will be controlled by the UN, this is about this Administration taking YOUR RIGHTS TO BEAR ARMS. I know a lot of hunters in Utah, and this is not about more laws but complete control of our guns. If they take them welcome to Germany and socialism. Be smart Utah listen to Mike Lee and God.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 2, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    “Gun control isn't about guns — it's about control. And the right to bear arms isn't about the arms — it's about the right.”

    A person who is supposed to be a representative of the people should understand the purpose of government and how it accomplishes it’s job. And knowing the true job of government, should support the main purpose of government.

    There are very few, if any, laws that regulate the actions of inanimate things. The laws of government regulate and control the use of inanimate by human beings. And by that regulation and control of the human beings make possible civilization and the society we live in.

    The first and most important job of government is the protection of it’s citizens. The main part of that job is protecting them from each other. There are many more laws about our own actions than about actions of foreigners. The government tool for that job is control.

    That control is what gives us freedom and protection. Those who rant about government control may not have our best interest in mind

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    April 2, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    So today we learned that Mike Lee knows as little about history as he knows about the Constitution. Why did anyone ever vote for this guy?

  • whi7efea7her Layton, UT
    April 2, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    Thank you Mike Lee! Keep up the heat on Washington, I am rooting for you!

  • Obama10 SYRACUSE, UT
    April 2, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    I would like someone to explain the logistics to me about the universal background check. If I want to sell a gun, would I go to a website and enter the person's information and it would tell me if I can sell my gun to him/her? Would I need to make a trip to a police station to have them perform the check for me? What if the person gives me false information, am I now liable? The universal background check sounds nice, but I have not heard a concrete plan on how it would be implemented. Could someone please explain? And lets just forget, that criminal and thugs and gang-bangers do not follow the law anyway and would continue to get their guns illegally.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    April 2, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    Thank you Sen. Lee. Excellent explanation and you are right on. This Government would like nothing more that a registry showing ownership of all guns. And I firmly believe that a government led by the likes of Obama and those like him would welcome the chance to confiscate those guns.
    " The unarmed man is not just defenseless, he is also contemptible." ~ Machiavelli.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 2, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    I would also be opposed to a national gun registry. There is not one being proposed at the time, so the Senator's point on that issue is moot.

    Anyone who buys a gun from a retailer has to pass a background check. Convicted felons know this, so they buy their guns at venues where no check will be required, or they pay someone else to buy them. This is why universal background checks are needed along with tougher laws on straw buyers.

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    April 2, 2013 7:16 a.m.

    Thank you Senator for a reasonable explanation of why the Universal Background Checks won't work.

  • Cool Cat Cosmo Payson, UT
    April 2, 2013 7:02 a.m.

    "I will oppose any attempt by Congress to restrict Americans' constitutional rights. And I will equally oppose any attempt to allow government surveillance of law-abiding citizens exercising those rights."

    This is one American that could not agree more, which is why at this moment I am typing this from my smartphone before getting up for another day of intensive firearms training in the Nevada desert.

    I do not have much spare time as a school teacher, but knowing the deadly use of force, understanding the repercussions, & threats my students may face, I feel I have the obligation to exercse my 2nd Amendment rights and defend them and myself.

    Thank you for standing for our eroding rights, even if it means being demonized as a "nut," "baby-killer," etc. The irony is, we only seek to protect the innocent.

    I invite all who may see weapons as simply evil to go and get trained by those who train our policeman. You will see that the majority of legal gunowners take it very seriously, and are responsible & respectible citizens, not the crazies we are sometimes made out to be.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    April 2, 2013 7:00 a.m.

    It is disheaertening to read the Senator's words and discover that he uses the same, worn outm message used by others to squelch the conversation about gun violence in America.

    "The first is history's lesson that government can't be everywhere, all the time. So free citizens must fill in the inevitable gaps to look out for ourselves and for each other."

    Seems like a reasonable statement, but then...

    "The second reason is history's warning that we would not like to live under any government that tried to be everywhere, all the time."

    There goes that totalitarian plot theory. No one is talking about the government being everywhere but we are talking about doing something, even if you if it is just one thing, in response to the tragedy of Sandy Hook and so many other shootings in recent times. And it is worth noting that Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook gunman, was turned down for a gun purchase by a Connecticut gun shop becasue their laws require a 14 day background check and wiating period, which he rejected. That law worked in that case but the lack of other laws and enforcement allowed Lanza kill 26 innocent victims.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 2, 2013 6:58 a.m.

    For the elite gun control people its one set of rules for them and another for the rest of us.

    For us, we have gun free zones to protect our schools. For them, they have armed guards to protect the schools their kids go to.

    For them they have guards with automatic assault guns to protect them. For us, we are supposed to have a double barrel shotgun and then shoot both rounds in the air to scare off an attacker.

    If this is such a good tactic, may I suggest they train and then instruct their guards to do the same?

    May I also suggest to Mayor Bloomberg, that if New York has issues with gun violence, that he deal with the violent people in his juristiction and let law abiding across the nation alone.