Gun control bill clears first hurdle in Senate (+video)

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    April 15, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    The thing that is being ignored and the most important fact is that guns don't shoot without a human being in control. It's not the guns, bombs, etc. that are killing it's those who are holding them, pulling the trigger. It's human beings. Guns are our protection from all the bad people who are dishonest, dangerous and put our lives in danger. The Second Amendment is for our Rights and is not to be taken lightly as it is being done by our present Administration. They do not have respect for our Constitution of the United States of America.We need to ban together as citizens of this precious country of ours. If we don't we will lose what is most precious to us.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 12, 2013 2:50 p.m.

    Is this "poll" the same one by the weapons manufacturer you where trying to claim was ligitimate before?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 12, 2013 2:15 p.m.

    Actually this law does not apply to the private sale of guns to neighbors. As to the rest of your comment I would respond as always do using your logic what is the point of having any laws since criminals may choose to try to evade it. The answer being that without the laws you cannot prosecute the criminal and just because one particular law does not solve every problem does not mean the law is worthless.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    April 12, 2013 12:18 p.m.

    With the Obamacare that was passed by our elected officials around the country when they voted before they read or understood what they were voting for, I am afraid that mentally competent or incompetent is hiding in that bill to make it anything that someone wants to make it. The President has said that laws should be changed because the Constitution means something different today than it did in 1800. He is such an expert having a law degree. The Supreme Court has it's mission but the President now is interpreting what it means. He is supposed to be out governing but is campaigning all the time and using the Chicago mentality as his guide.

  • Andy Gundersen Sandy, UT
    April 12, 2013 11:33 a.m.

    There is no issue that illustrates our broken political system more than gun regulation. The powerful gun lobby, the NRA in particular, exerts extreme influence over our politicians and citizenry. The ad campaigns they engage in are meant to instill fear through misinformation. The idea that both Utah Senators are beholden to such dynamics sidelines those of us that disagree with this warped stance. The "guns without limits" culture is thrust upon all of us by politicians that are too cowardly to do the right thing. The fact that the Bush administration let the assault weapons ban expire speaks volumes about how rigged the game is. It is fairly obvious, to those of us paying attention, that Mike Lee has found a home within the wayward fringe of the GOP. In doing so, he so alienates the majority of us that I find it unbelievable that he was elected in the first place. Utah is a RED state; that is a given. However, within this same political universe live many, like myself, that subscribe to a more sensible philosophy about what creates a healthy society. The GOP mantra: Our way, or the highway. That no longer works for me.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    April 12, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    If the Obama administration only pursued 44 of 15,000 gun violations in 2012, it appears as if it is an enforcement issue and not a law problem.

    There has to be a reason for more laws when they don't go by the ones already on the books. More laws don't make us safer. It is to ensure good laws are enforced. Bad people will always get access to weapons. Parents of children with mental illness have some responsibility in the process, if the fault is with men having mental illness, whether adult or child. Access is not an issue as those people that have done these acts have spent months or years planning their processes. They set up a plan, get weapons or devices and munitions to accomplish their actions. Even though mental problems may exist, these individuals have plans to disguise, get access to a building with weapons and store them and retrieve them. Their mental abilities are good enough for that. They leave message or notes and e-mails for tracking, sometimes deliberately. Where have the parents of these people been? School authorities knew of problems with these people that are still in school or older students.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 12, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    Could you imagine if only supermarkets were required to check ID's before selling alcohol to someone?

    People who were underage would simply go next door and buy from the gas station. That is the situation we currently have with guns.

    I completely agree that background checks are worthless as long as there is such an easy workaround.

    So, either get rid of all background checks or make them universal.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 12, 2013 7:44 a.m.

    To "George" and tell us how you are going to enforce any law requiring that all gun purchases go through a background check?

    If I sell a gun to my neighbor, how will the government know that transaction ever took place?

    Meanwhile, there are countless people filling out false applications at gun shops and are purchasing guns when background checks theoretically should prevent it.

    Wouln't you keep more guns off the street if you enforced current laws and made penalties more severe? That is what the police say.

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    April 12, 2013 6:25 a.m.

    We need criminal control not gun control. Any restrictions on guns will only hurt citizens who agree to abide by the law. The most dangerous weapon in harmless in a responsible citizen.

    In addition, the right to keep AND bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amazing how that is being ignored.

    Enforce law, don't restrict constitutional rights.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 11, 2013 10:48 p.m.

    Hope you're right.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 11, 2013 10:37 p.m.

    actually the only way that shows up on a background check is atfer a formal diagnosis by a licensed professional which then must go before a judicial hearing where they must show the person is mentally incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions and present a significant risk to themselves or others if left to make their own decisions so no it really is not a broad tterm that can be free applied to anyone.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 11, 2013 9:54 p.m.

    George-- Define mentally incompetent.

    Could mean many things.

  • George New York, NY
    April 11, 2013 8:14 p.m.

    the only way you lose any rights under this law is if you are a convicted felon or been found to be mentally incompetent, so which is it?

  • George New York, NY
    April 11, 2013 8:04 p.m.

    actually that is a very simple question to answer. The back ground checks currently in place only apply to licensed gun stores and this law closes the loophole given to gun shows and other people that sale guns. frankly the current law gives an unfair marketing advantage to those that are not licensed dealers which seems rather backwards if the point is to make access to guns more accessible to law abiding citizens and less so to criminals.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    April 11, 2013 6:07 p.m.

    So here we are, once again debating passing more law. Does anyone believe that more law in Washington D.C. is going to really change much. Look at how much law already exists on the books that is ignored by the people who should be enforcing it. Best example is the immmigration laws.

    As for background checks for guns. That raises lots of questions and concerns. As stated above, we already have some form of background check, so just what does this add to the check? What agency of government will be in charge of the checks. Where will they be allowed to get information from. For instance, can they check citizenship? Medical records? Political leanings? You see, as is usually the case, the devil will be in the details.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 11, 2013 5:11 p.m.

    A few questions:

    1. Was our government suppose to have as much power as it does?.
    2. Will our government ever take money from our bank accounts to pay the debt?
    3. Do parents raise their children?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 11, 2013 4:55 p.m.

    "Gun control bill clears first hurdle in Senate"?

    What part of the second amendment don't they understand?

    How can we trust a government, which has put all of us, 17 trillion dollars in debt, and yet has seventy percent of the people on the dole?

    And now they want background checks on us? The president didn't have a background check, and has armed gun touting guards for protection.

    Are the Obama's better then the rest of us?

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    April 11, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    @ LDS Liberal:

    No gun privacy paranoia. I absolutely guarantee you that the federal government has no idea of how many, what kind, or if I even own any guns.

    You need to brush up on what the Patriot Act really is and does before your comments start making you seem to have some sort of political paranoia and/or ignorance. Just a friendly suggestion.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 11, 2013 3:51 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" yes, and thanks to Obama, Bush's "Patriot Act" was just a stepping stone to more destruction of our freedoms and constitutional rights. If it wasn't for Obama, the Patriot Act would be nothing but a bad memory. Why do you want to keep bad laws alive?

    The question for you is why do you keep supporting somebody who destroying our rights and freedoms as fast as he is able?

    Bush and Obama are taking us to the same place, yet you have problems with how Bush was doing things.

    How many rights will you need to lose before you will stop your support for Obama and his Progressive/Liberal adgenda?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 11, 2013 2:52 p.m.

    68 to 31


    We're finally getting somewhere.


    FYI - Tators and RedShirt.

    Bush's "Patriot Act" left your gun privacy paranioa in the dust years and years ago.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    April 11, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    Yes, Redshirt, we do already have background checks in place... at least from federally licensed gun dealers. But those just determine who and who can't buy guns from those dealiers. But (thankfully) what we don't have (yet) is an inclusive national registry of gun owners and a list of what guns they currently own. One of my (and the NRA's) biggest fears is that someday that might happen... if the leftists with their liberal agenda get their way.

    After that, it would be easy to start confiscating people's guns if another Obama down the road somehow gets in office, especially if we're dumb enough to open the door to similar things now. That's exactly the path of what happened in Great Britain and then Australia. It was and is a nightmare for previous gun owners in those countries. And they still continue to pay the price with higher felony crime rates.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 11, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    To "Tators" it is worse than that. We already have background check laws in place.

    The question that has yet to be answered is why do we need more laws? Why not enforce the laws that we already have?

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    April 11, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    Right or wrong, this bill should be pushed on whatever merits it might have, not on temporary high emotions from a tragedy. Obama flies victims' families around on Air Force One (at taxpayer's expense) to push his agenda.

    On the surface, this bill seems to make a certain degree of common sense. But my biggest concern is that those pushing it are just trying to get their foot in the door to much more restrictive legislation... which has been their admitted goal for decades. Make no mistake about it, there are influential people out there who would love to have a national registry of all gun owners, and eventually the confiscation of their guns, just has it happened in England and Australia... and even in Chicago. Incidently, doing so has only worsened the overall felony crime rates in those areas. Look up the statistics.

    It doesn't take rocket science to figure out what happens in society when only criminals have guns. Knowing their intended victims won't have a weapon, perpetrators become emboldened. Having common sense, our forefathers were wise when establishing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. It was relevant then, and it's still relevant now.