A shameful day

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    April 23, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    It is a hard thing to deal with and Americans, I believe, have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, nobody wants to take away the rights of gun owners. At the same time, what does it look like when people are dying and no action is being taken!I think it is one of the harder issues that leaders face. People are afraid that changes will be made and then something will happen that make it seem like it has worked. I don't envy them on this one.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    April 21, 2013 7:47 p.m.

    atl134: Explain please why fewer people will be killed by uncontrolled guns in the hands of criminals when fewer law-abiding citizens are able to defend themselves. The second amendment was placed in the Constitution because we, the people, can't trust the government. Well, it becomes less trustworthy every day BHO reigns. The time may come when free and independent states will call up the "well regulated [citizen] militia" referenced in the 2nd Amendment. Remember that the "Minutemen" of Concord were armed citizens who rose up to thwart the Redcoats on their errand of arms confiscation.

  • Mike in Texas Cedar City, Utah
    April 21, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    Many of these right wing comments suggest that the bill would have done nothing. That is pure speculation because the bill will never go into effect and I don't think that these fine citizens are prophets. But they are disingenuous in their claim because they would never support stronger measures to remove from circulation these weapons of mass destruction. This patently foolish inaction will just mean more and more gun violence. Gun violence that is already killing more than 30,000 people a year in this country.

    Yes the Senate has shamed itself, and some of these comments are even more shameful.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 20, 2013 10:27 p.m.

    The Senate did the right thing.

    Taking away guns from good people does nothing to further the cause safety. It puts good people at greater risk of being a victim to a criminal. It pita families at risk.

  • Pete234 Sandy, UT
    April 20, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    ...well, come election time, we the people can say "NO" also. In fact it should be no to any incumbent, always say no. ELECT DON'T RE-ELECT' until we the people have a more perfect union!!!

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    Those of us who support the 2nd amendment should take just a minute and email at least one of the democratic senators who went against Obama's wishes to thank them for their vote AGAINST "background checks".

    Those Senators will be taking a lot of heat from their party and Obama.

    The Senators are: Begich, Baucus, Pryor, and Heitkamp.

    No doubt the liberal progressives will be back at some point with another scheme to erode 2nd amendment rights. Hopefully we'll be just as organized next time it happens.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 20, 2013 7:49 a.m.

    @Happy Valley Heretic "The only thing that offended you was mine?"

    Well, you *are* the only one who called me a paranoid gun worshiper.

    Here's what I've noticed: there's a conceit out there on the left that they're the rational, enlightened ones, while everyone else is angry, irrational, and stupid. It's just not so. Your descent into name-calling is only a tiny illustration.

    Watch Obama's news conference again (the one he gave after the gun control Senate vote was announced), and note the number of appeals to emotion. You could even count the number of times he says the word "emotion." The community organizer is trying to stir up something other than a rational response. It's not working for him, but that's what he's trying to do. It's strange that you don't see that.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2013 8:52 p.m.

    Time to get rid of the filibuster and procedural technicality. The obstruction need to stop.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    April 19, 2013 8:19 p.m.

    Republicans have taught us that there is NO LAW that PREVENTS someone from doing whatever they want to do...

    Let's do away with all law since NO LAW PREVENTS someone from doing whatever they want to do!

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 19, 2013 7:48 p.m.

    So Mike...yada, yada, yada..who knows what you were saying to..."The role of the Court is not to establish new law; it is to see that Congress and the President do not exceed the limits that the people have placed on government." In essence the legislators, and courts have been wrong for the last 200 years when they placed individual restrictions on the general rights of freedom of speech gun ownership, and voting. uninfringed, and unabridged should mean that society allows anyone to say anything, anywhere, at anytime, to anyone..carte blanche, and that the chaos and pain that ensues will be sorted out by God on an individual basis at a later time. Let me first ask which God..remember we're talking about America here so it could Alla, Eloheim, or God the Father..all of whom have different rules. And secondly isn't this establishiment of religion prohibited by the first amendment?

  • FT1/SS Virginia Beach, VA
    April 19, 2013 5:53 p.m.

    Here's the lie "The first step must be reminding obstructionist senators at every chance that almost nine of 10 Americans support universal background checks."

    If that was the case, the bill would of swept right on by the Senate, and thru the House. Maybe a slight majority supports background checks, not enough to fear re-election for the Senate.

    Article after article, comment after comment. I still hav'nt seen how the Bill will prevent criminals from obtaining guns, and why would anybody want to punish law abiding citizens? Unless your a supporter of NDAA.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2013 3:18 p.m.

    More recent than 2010? Gun violence levels haven't changed much since then. After all it's only been two years. Even a 10% drop (taking it from 11k to 9.9k) didn't happen but if it did that'd be amazing progress and I'd still be correct in saying 10k a year.

    "As to guns coming to Chicago from other states, then the obvious question is; why don't other states (with all those guns) have the crime problems that Chicago does? "

    Some of them do. Gun crime is higher in southern states than northern states. There are other factors at play such as inner-city poverty and illegal drug related violence. Even our best states still have gun violence many times worse than nations like Japan, Germany, and the UK.

    "Why don't the criminals in Chicago obey the law that buying guns anywhere is illegal?"

    That's not illegal. The Chicago law banned possession in the city which is different (by the way, Chicago gun laws have gotten less strict the last couple years thanks to the Supreme Court overturning their ban, so much for reducing regulation...)

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 19, 2013 3:11 p.m.


    When anyone puts himself above the law and demands that his law is binding on anyone else, that person has exceeded his God-given authority to act only for himself. No justice can legislate. That is the law. No justice can disregard the Constitution when citing precedence without admitting that he/she is using a political "ruler" to establish new law. The role of the Court is not to establish new law; it is to see that Congress and the President do not exceed the limits that the people have placed on government.

    If you want to misuse speech or if you want to view pornography, that is your right as a human being who has agency extended to him from his Creator; however, the day will come when you must account for every thought and for every deed to that Creator. You can fool yourself into thinking that someone else is responsible for your actions and for your thoughts, but at that day, when just you and your creator are examining the events of your life, nobody else will be there to offer you an excuse.

    America was founded on principles requiring self-control - not force.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 19, 2013 2:46 p.m.

    @atl134 Your statistics (2010) from Wikipedia are ancient. Try more recent numbers! As to guns coming to Chicago from other states, then the obvious question is; why don't other states (with all those guns) have the crime problems that Chicago does? After all, doesn't that prove my point that guns are not the problem, its the people who are the problem? Why don't the criminals in Chicago obey the law that buying guns anywhere is illegal? How can you solve a problem if you don't even know what the problem is?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 19, 2013 2:18 p.m.

    article obviously written by a non gun owning liberal. The fact is - all this gun bill did was restrict the law observing citizen more than he already is and did absolutley nothing to curb gun violence. Liberals want a total gun ban as their ultimate goal and this bill was step #1 in a series of steps toward that goal. The NRA correctly recognized the real strategy of the left and used it's influence to stop this thing before it got any roots. Let's work on ways that parents can get help for their mentally ill kids. Let's STOP trying to take guns out of the hands of law biding citizens. People have the right to protect themselves and their families...it is called the 2nd ammendment. By the way - we already have background checks...we don't need more. Bad guys don't get guns legally - they get them ILLEGALLY and that isn't going to change.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 19, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    Mike Richards..Congress shall make no law to abridge the right of free speech yet SCOTUS has validated restrictions on that very right. Do you think SCOTUS got it wrong and that it should be perfectly legal to print the most grapic of pornoraphy, or there should be no boundaries on liable and hate speech? Or....is the second amendment the only part of the constituion that should be above any restrictions?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    "According to Wikipedia your numbers are way high!"

    From Wikipedia's article about 'gun violence in the US'... [In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicide deaths, and 11,078 firearm-related homicide deaths in the United States]

    "Why don't those gun control laws work?"

    Most of the guns used in Chicago crimes are from out of state. That's why we need stricter federal gun control.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 19, 2013 1:41 p.m.

    Maple Don, then you are in favor of being able to threaten to kill someone, yelling fire in a crowded theatre, publishing the most graphic of pornogrphy, all first amendment activities that are regulated. You must also be in favor of giving a convicted murder on death row the right to vote.

    All of these activites are constitutionaly protected rights that have been regulated by society, and and the regulations have been validated by the supreme court..so you must also believe that the supreme court is a communist organization...right?

    Lastly when a background check only prevents the purchase of a fire arm by a convicted felon, someone with a history of domestic violence, or someone with a documented mental illness please explain how the only people affected by its provisions would be the law-abiding? So what if it doesn't keep guns out of the hands of "all" criminals. Are you in favor of having loopholes in the law that allow some criminals and mentally ill to obtain guns freely and lawfully?

  • ronnie sandy, utah
    April 19, 2013 1:27 p.m.

    America will continue to lead the western world in gun deaths. Remember this, the proliferation of guns in this country will not lead to a safer society. All you have to do is look at the statistics. But I realize many of you do not follow the logic of rational thought.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 19, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    @ atl134. According to Wikipedia your numbers are way high! But isn't it the least bit interesting to you that a huge portions of those murders are committed in Chicago, which coincidently has the strictest gun laws in the nation? Why don't those gun control laws work? The same answer to that question will help you understand why THESE gun control laws will not work either! THESE gun control laws only serve to punish law abiding citizens not crooks!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    Around 10,000 people are killed by guns each year. Just because a proposal wouldn't have stopped Newtown doesn't mean it wouldn't have stopped some of those other 10,000.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 19, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    What is "shameful" is that a newspaper would support the violation of the Constitution. What is the purpose of the "4th Estate"? Is it not to stand for truth? Is it not to stand for the Supreme Law of the Land? Then, why would a newspaper call for an infringement on the absolute right of citizens of America to keep and bear arms? Who gave that newspaper the right to set aside the Constitution and to decide that the Supreme Law of the Land is of no importance and that government has the right to restrict our rights when the people, who hold all rights, has expressly forbidden government from doing that very thing?

    When loud voices who reject the Constitution become the only voices heard, those voices will destroy this nation. That newspaper should be rejected by every citizen in America. Those who subscribe to that newspaper should immediately remove their financial support - unless they truly believe that our rights come from government and unless they can show in the Constitution where we have given government that authority.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 19, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    What was more shameful was the day Obama Care was rammed down our throats. Many more people will die in the future due to the passage of Obama Care than ever were killed with guns. Just wait and see.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    April 19, 2013 10:55 a.m.


    What you said makes complete sense...to a communist.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 19, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    @Hutterite "We need to make our elected officials fear us, the voters, more than they fear the NRA."

    This is where Obama met with failure. Those who had strong feelings about his legislation far outnumbered those who didn't. It is one thing to be one of 90% answering a poll question, and it is wholly another thing to be willing to take a firm stand motivated by deep conviction.

    Unfortunately for Obama, his constituency is largely made up of disengaged people who don't pay that much attention to political matters. This enables him to win elections, but not necessarily to carry out his agenda. It also may have caused him to misread his mandate.

    His evident frustration with the constitutional process is a continual delight for me. I believe the Constitution will win out in the end.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    April 19, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    Reason and good sense notwithstanding, probably most fundamental to the gun controversy is the irrational fear-induced ideology of some that "government" is conspiring against them. What they openly contend are mostly distracting rationalizations. To argue over the particulars of the likes of the 2nd Amendment, safety and freedom when the real issue stems from deluded thinking is a waste of time, recalling the biblical adage of straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    April 19, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    Let's be honest, there is no way prudent gun control ever has or would ever violate any reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, let alone weaken the Constitution and hasten the downfall of the government. And regardless of what federal policies under consideration are adopted, there is no legitimate reason to suspect that we won't be at least as protected and as free as ever. So why the conniption?

    Obviously hidden under a welter of competing facts are deeper issues influencing the debate.

    All of us (regardless of how objective we fancy ourselves to be) mostly believe what we want to believe and find what we look for. Researchers have even suggested a genetic component to a person's conservative or liberal leanings.

    Key to our understanding is recognizing that the way we see our world is very much a projection of our inner selves. To an important degree it is our inner insecurity that drives our outward bluster and aggression. Blaming others is often more a rationalization of our own deficiencies than reality.

    You could say like Pogo of old that, "We have met the enemy and he is us.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 19, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    Re: "The U.S. Senate's handling of a gun safety package was cowardly and contemptible."


    The bill should have been overwhelmingly defeated, rather than simply allowed to go away, for now, to be brought back again and again as the left's attempt to sway low-information voters in the upcoming Congressional elections.

    The bill was trash.

    Everyone, even the left, admits it would not have made the slightest difference in any of the incidents being exploited to drum up support. The only people affected by its provisions would be the law-abiding. It's a dangerous part of the regime's agenda to "fundamentally transform" America into a brave, new, 1984 world.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 19, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    Lane Meyer,
    the bill would have done nothing to prevent the next one, either.

    What is truly shameful, as other have said, is BO holding up dead children and grieving parents as a political prop then throwing a north-korea-leader like temper tantrum when he doesn't get his own way.

  • The Hammer lehi, utah
    April 19, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    This bill is a bad idea from the get go. First off gun regulation should be done on the state level. Federal enforcement leads to federal prosecution which means more cases on the docket of an already overwhelmed system. Not to mention the fact that most of the states that have had these incidence already have gun safety laws. Connecticuts being by far one of the most far reaching states as far as gun control is concerned.

    This bill would have done nothing to prevent the Newtown tragedy and whats worse is that it would likely harm law abiding citizens and businesses who own and trade guns. There should be no federal background check which will ultimately lead to a federal database and registry (despite the bills wording) and then heavy handed federal law which infringes on state and 2nd ammendment rights.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 19, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    Maple Don..perhaps you should read the second amendmend again and the bill and then tell me how a bill that merely "expands" a process that all ready effects 60% of gun purchases and that has been deemed constitutional by the supreme court, violates the second amendment.

    The second amendment clearly says that a citizens "right" to bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't in any way say that a specific individual can't be deemed unworthy of that right. It's the same thing as an incarcirated felons right to vote. As a civil society you can and must protect citizens constitutional rights while at the same time denying individual citizens the opportunity to exercise that right when they prove themselves unworthy of that right.

    This bill does nothing to "infringe" on the right of law abiding citizens to own a gun. It simply does what we can as a society to further keep guns out of the hands of criminals, those charged with domestic violence and those deemed mentally unstable.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    April 19, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    @Hutterite, et al

    It wasn't the NRA that got in the way. You should understand that. Turn off MSNBC for awhile and think this issue through.

    It was the Constitution that got in the way. Read the 2nd Amendment again, then come back and provide some worthwhile discourse. It is unconstitutional for the government to infringe a citizen's right to bear arms.

    What happened in the Senate was patriotic. The behavior of 54 senators and our president was shameful.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    April 19, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    Obamas outrage has nothing to do with gun control. What he was expecting was that this would pass the Dem. Senate knowing full well it would not pass the House. That said he has missed that wedge issue to help him win the House in 2014 which is his opportunity to completely bring the Nation to its knees and convert us to Socialism/Communism. Obama does nothing that does not benefit him and only him.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    Hayden, ID
    The Washington Post, said that there was not one portion of this bill; not one clause; not one section; that would have prevented the shootings in Newtown. But the question wasn’t really whether or not Obama's gun control measures would work, was it?


    It was NOT to prevent Newtown, it is to prevent the next big one - even if it only saves one more person, it is worth it.

    Also, this was NOT Obama's gun control measures. Why don't you find out who wrote these measures (Both a Rep and a Dem worked on them)?

    And finally, WHY can't we debate these issues? Why are our Senators so scared of allow a debate? Why do they think they need a supermajority to pass this? Why are they afraid of the NRA instead of the people they represent?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 19, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    It isn't President Obama who didn't get his way. It's most of us. The legislative process got hijacked, mostly by the NRA. We need to make our elected officials fear us, the voters, more than they fear the NRA.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 19, 2013 8:03 a.m.

    Obama's temper tantrum over not getting his way is a statement on him, not the bill in the senate.

    As far as a registry, it already exists. Stores have to keep the records of who buys guns and have for years. It is an outright lie for the President to say there is no registry in the bill. It adds to the existing registry, which is real and does exist.

    The parading of victims, who's outcomes would not have been changed by more restrictions on guns, is what is shameful. It re-victimizes them. It is hasn't been for just one day, It has been several shameful months. And the president promised to keep this shameful behavior up.

    He got his vote. It should be over. Let's work on mental illness, where the real problem is.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    April 19, 2013 7:52 a.m.

    What a waste of ink. Pompous platitudes from media elites, who probably never even read the bill or any of the amendments to understand what it actually contained.

    This was bad legislation, with no benefits, and only advancing the leftist agenda to establish the basis for a registration system.

    Just by looking at Chicago and Washington DC with their near total gun bans for decades should be sufficient proof that gun control is a failed concept that needs to be dropped. Instead, we need criminal control.

    And, despite the willful refusal by the media to even mention the topic, we really need to look at the demographics of gun violence and try to fix the cultural basis that has some segments of our society thinking that killing is acceptable, along with other forms of self destructive behavior.

    It's not the guns, it's the criminals!

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    April 19, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    Obama's claim that the bill's opponents "willfully lied" is the absolute pinnacle of arrogance and deeply misleading.

    Like millions of Americans, 46 senators honestly and sincerely disagreed with Obama's opinion of the bill. They reasonably believe, as I do, that it will do absolutely nothing to prevent the next massacre. Nothing whatsoever. That is not a "lie", which requires knowing you are wrong and still repeating a falsehood that you already understand to be wrong. Stating a differing opinion is not a "lie". It may even be a MISGUIDED opinion, but it is NOT a "lie."

    The word "lie" is way overused in politics today. A difference of opinion, however misguided you may think it to be, is NOT a lie.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 19, 2013 7:21 a.m.

    The Washington Post, said that there was not one portion of this bill; not one clause; not one section; that would have prevented the shootings in Newtown. But the question wasn’t really whether or not Obama's gun control measures would work, was it? The point was that he wanted to take an incremental step toward confiscation How do we know? Obama once told a fellow professor at that Chicago law school that he didn’t believe that people should be allowed to own guns. His name was John Lott. Professor Lott hasn’t forgotten. Pesky things, those memories. Anyway … you knew that the troublesome Second Amendment was going to be problematic, so take anything you can get, right?

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2013 5:35 a.m.

    This very gun bill would have done nothing to prevent the recent tragedies. Criminals do not submit to background checks. Nor do they submit to expanded background checks. All this bill would do is threaten law-abiding Americans' ability to defend themselves.

    And I don't care if Barrack Hussein Obama promised that a registry would never materialize as a result of implementation of this bill. He also has made known is utter disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law and tramples upon both freely with regard to immigration law and its enforcement for example. I have plenty of basis to not trust Barrack Hussein Obama in the slightest.