Gun measures put moderate Senate Dems in bind

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    April 13, 2013 10:13 p.m.

    Joe Blow: what's the use of trying to argue with you. They were not prosecuted, and they didn't get guns. Because of background checks? I suppose so. So I guess what we have now is working, but the legal eagles are not following up and charging them.
    You know just kind of like Fast & Furious when they let guns walk!

  • Red Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2013 5:36 p.m.

    Absolutely amazing that we have so many people who are traitors to Freedom.

    Where is Captain Moroni?

  • SteveD North Salt Lake, UT
    April 13, 2013 5:09 p.m.

    @joeblow, No I do not believe that there should be any gun in any place but just the fact that the four did not agree that the second amendment insures the individual right to own firearms, proves that they are in FACT ideologes.
    There are already many restrictions on firearms and that should be enough, I just do not trust our government to hold freedom first, especially the idological liberals that want to decide what the law abiding citizens should live by.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    April 13, 2013 4:58 p.m.

    Re: Joe Blow

    That argument about the 2nd amendment you make can also be applied to the First. Do you really think that the founders would have said that the 1st amendment protects the rights of some of the pornography and stuff of today if they could have seen it in the 21st century? They didn't even have basic photography back then.

    Steve D did make a very important point though. The question becomes, just how far can a court go in "ammending" the rights, without going to a constitutional vote of the President, Congress, States, and the people, which is the way the Constitution is supposed to be ammended. Just remember you liberals, someday a very activist conservative Supreme Court could undue all of the Roe V Wade type decisions that have been forced on us.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 13, 2013 4:46 p.m.

    "15,000 were caught trying to buy guns illegally."

    Why? Because of background checks perhaps?

    There were 15000 people who did not get guns on the day they wanted.

    Did they eventually get guns? Sure. Just go to a gun show or the want ads.

    Are you suggesting that those 15000 people should be allowed to buy guns?

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    April 13, 2013 4:20 p.m.

    "They [supreme court] interpret and clarify the constitution meaning in today's world."

    If SCOTUS has the final say, why stop short of total denial of arms ownership... which would authorize the government to round up and destroy all arms? My reading of the 2nd Amendment 'shall not be denied' leaves little or no room for quibbling.

    "Who can keep and bear arms"

    Of course, felons have some constitutional rights restricted. So it's not beyond the realm of possibilities to restrict gun possession/ownership.

    "What kind of arms that you can keep"

    Army tanks, missiles, and the like are not 'arms.'

    "And where you can bring your arms."

    The 2nd Amendment implies use of arms for a militia. Accordingly, there'd seem to be no need to bring arms to an airport... unless you're conducting militia training there.

    "Maybe you or I disagree with their rulings."

    The 2nd Amendment disagrees with their ruling.

    "And it IS Constitutional to restrict where guns may be carried."

    OK, but you should be able to 'keep' arms.

    My point is simply that it's the job of the Congress to modify the Constitution... not the SCOTUS.

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    April 13, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    15,000 were caught trying to buy guns illegally. How many did holder prosecute? 45! Wow! And that's not counting the over 2,000 guns illegally taken to Mexico with the saction of the U.S. government. Has anyone been prosecuted for that? Even though a couple of our border guards were murdered and 100's of Mexicans and yet we want to make sure law abiding people have to jump through hoops and maybe loose their guns.

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    April 13, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    These gun measures are useless in contgrolling shooting incidents, crime, and gang violence.
    They merely put stumbling blocks in the way of law abiding people. Criminals and weak minded people just do not care about the laws that are on the books. They do what suits them best.

    Guns are available to the worst of them if they want them bad enough. This legislation is only put forward to make the unwary feel good about themselves. Enforce the laws that are on the books and let our justice system do their job in punishing and jailing offencers first.

    Also our President should clean up on Chicago's gang violence of which he is aware. Jail them.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 13, 2013 12:03 p.m.


    Like it or not, the SCOTUS's decisions affect how the constitution is interpreted.

    Maybe they are a bunch of "ideologues". Maybe you or I disagree with their rulings.

    That does NOT change the fact that today, it is legal and constitutional to have some restrictions on the second amendment.

    Based on SCOTUS rulings, it IS CONSTITUTIONAL, by definition, to deny felons the right to carry guns.
    And it IS Constitutional to restrict where guns may be carried.

    Seriously, are you suggesting that all Americans should be allowed to bring loaded guns onto Airplanes and into courtrooms?

    Do you seriously believe that the framers would, based on the realities of today, think that what they wrote means any gun, anyplace, in the 21st century?

  • SteveD North Salt Lake, UT
    April 13, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    @ Joeblow
    WRZ is right, he never said anything about the SCOTUS decision. They are a bunch of ideologues anyway. The fact that four of them decided that the strongest language in the bill of rights (Shall not be infringed)didn't mean what it said proves they don't care about the constitution, just their idology.
    That being said I agree with you that the Utah religouslature should be consistent and employ logic instead of their ideology.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 13, 2013 8:16 a.m.


    You may want to review some supreme court cases. They interpret and clarify the constitution meaning in todays world.

    "This means no one, repeat, no one can be denied the right to keep and bear arms. "

    Not according to the Supreme court. THey ruled that there can be restrictions on

    Who can keep and bear arms
    What kind of arms that you can keep
    And where you can bring your arms.

    May want to brush up on some of the rulings. Suggest you start with Heller ruling.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 13, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    "the majority of people in Utah do not want the government controlling us"

    Unless it is related to Alcohol, Tobacco, pornography, Gay Marriage, Gambling

    Maybe your statement should read,

    "the majority of people in Utah do not want the government controlling us, but they are happy for the Government to control those other people in the state"

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    April 12, 2013 11:21 p.m.

    The issue isn't at all complicated. Just read the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution... For those who might not be familiar it goes something like this... 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

    This means no one, repeat, no one can be denied the right to keep and bear arms. If people in the government don't think that's such a hot idea the answer to that is also not at all complicated... Amend the 2nd Amendment. So, who's derelict in this whole issue? The US Congress. Their inaction shows members of Congress agree to and approve of what the 2nd Amendment says.

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    April 12, 2013 9:36 p.m.

    I guess Jim Mattheson will do what he did with the healthcare. When I called his office they said he was reading the law and couldn't tell me. He voted against it, but when push came to shove and when they needed his vote he voted in favor. Truth is no one read the bill. But with this he has to know that the majority of people in Utah do not want the government controlling us.
    But maybe he wants to pursue other possibilities instead of government.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    April 12, 2013 4:29 p.m.

    Yeah, for the Democrats in Congress this could be a case of "be careful what you wish for, you may get it."

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 12, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong.

    How different would history be, had the Jews not been disarmed in 1938?

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    April 12, 2013 3:56 p.m.

    If you get elected to a position that requires you to make decisions that could be hard, then it shouldn't be surprising when those decisions arise. And lose your seat? Well, yeah. That's always a possibility.