Gun control forces seek new path after big loss

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 23, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    Salsero--who receives the data from "universal background checks"? You seem to place your trust with them.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    How do we know you are not the founder of a white supremacy hate group?

    Your attempt at passive/aggressively taint anyone who disagrees with you as a "supremacist" (or mentally ill, etc) is quite suspicious

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    April 22, 2013 7:10 a.m.

    I want our Utah Congressional Delegation to know, that my neighbors and I, are going to work hard to get them defeated in the next election. As a life-long Republican, I am fed up with their weak, nonsensical, positions on guns and their collective fear of the NRA.

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    April 21, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    The loss to Obamaites was not to the NRA it was to the people of the United States who love their freedom. The legal jargon proposed by Obama and his crowd does nothing toward slowing down the use of guns by violent people and the Congress knows it.

  • oldschool Farmington, UT
    April 21, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    The writer failed to mention that only 4% of Americans consider gun control a pressing issue, according to a recent Gallup poll. My group of friends and I have very little faith in President Obama's ability to solve any problem, and especially the crime problem. We've seen him try to solve other problems by implementing previously failed "solutions" that only liberal ideologues support. Look at how he "solved" the problem of high health care costs. He pushed for mandatory health insurance that covers so many things that now the average family will spend up to 80 percent MORE on health care. Obama is so focused on fundamentally changing our nation that he can't see the forest for the trees. He wants to transform America from a nation founded on principles of individual freedom, individual rights and limited government to a socialistic country that places governmental power over the individual. He sees increased federal control as a solution to almost any imaginable problem. Reduce crime by focusing on guns? Give me a break. How about keeping armed robbers and attempted murderers in jail for life? How about locking up mentally ill sociopaths and Islamofascists who preach the killing of infidels?

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    April 21, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    Anyone opposed to reasonable gun control measures is just fooling himself if he does it in the name of protecting the 2nd. Automatic weapons are illegal to possess, whereas semi-automatic weapons are allowed. Why isn't anyone shouting about an assault on freedom because automatic weapons are banned? Proposed bans on large-capacity magazines and some types of semi-automatic weapons is just a small thing compared to the restrictions we already accept without question.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    April 21, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    @ Mad Hatter
    "We're talking about background checks in the Machin-Toomey legislation. Nothing about restricting someone's right to buy a gun. Nothing about establishing a gun registry. And nothing about requiring background checks for selling/giving guns to family members or close friends the seller knows."

    Read the bill, and understand the implementation process and the present laws and you will see that your understanding of the Manchin-Toomey bill is just wrong, although it accurately states what the media has (deliberately?) mislead you to believe the bill would do.

    The checks themselves were relatively innocuous, but the machinery to perform them created a de facto registry of guns and gun owners. The prohibitions on maintaining such a registry were flimsy at best and could be easily ignored. Especially by Obama and Eric Holder's disregard for existing laws.

    Background checks will not disarm criminals or crazies who get mot (80%) of their guns by theft, other illegal sources, or having straw purchasers who can pass a check buy them.

    Gun control is not about reducing crime, but disarming law abiding citizens.

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

  • vdubbin' Ogden, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    This wasn't a loss against the NRA. It was a loss against the legislative branch, which is, in effect, the arm of the American people. You give too much credit to the NRA, powerful as they may be.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    April 21, 2013 7:23 a.m.

    Background checks hurt no one - unless you are already a convicted felon, drug user, or mentally ill. Why block this reasonable step to prevent some gun violence? I won't stop all gun violence, but it is step in the right direction. The paranoid statements in these comments should be a concern. Just think through this past week. Two guys with several bombs killed three people- including an 8 year old boy. The lone Sandy Hook School shooter killed 20 children under 6 years old and four teachers. Any bomb is against the law, but a nutcake can buy an assault rifle on line without a background check. Why would you be afraid of blocking a nut from getting an assault rifle?

  • jskains Orem, UT
    April 21, 2013 6:47 a.m.

    The reason the NRA is so powerful is because a lot of voting U.S. citizens back it. I am tired if them acting like the NRA is some powerful entity going outside the interests of the public. They are part of the public.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 20, 2013 10:47 p.m.

    "gun control advocates are scrambling to regroup after losing soundly to the (NRA)"

    I did not know the NRA voted in the senate.

    just shows the mentality of the BO misadministration, they don't get their way and they have to find a boogeyman to blame it on.

    Mad HAtter,
    more background checks will not stop criminals, they just lead to registries of honest gun owners that will lead to confiscation.

    And if you think the NRA celebrates mass killings, you would not meet the sanity requirements to purchase a gun. Lay off the MSNBC and DNC propgranda.

    Old Man,
    nothing to add but hate-speech? typical of the "tolerant" left.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    April 20, 2013 9:57 p.m.

    Worf Great point. Mass. was at a standstill and I would bet most folks in that area were praying for a gun. The anti second amendment, anti gun, anti freedom, anti libery folks have another Boogey Man (to go along with oh no the dreaded assualt rifles) the insidious NRA. The NRA is citizens who treasure their second amendment rights. I guess if that makes me a Boogey Man I am proud to be one.

  • CPA Howard Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
    April 20, 2013 9:21 p.m.

    A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic. 20 Children die in Newtown and it's a tragedy, and 435 gun deaths in Chicago is a statistic. Chicago has some on the nation's most restrictive gun laws and it has had a small effect on deaths. In 2010 ~80,000 people were unable to purchase gun because they failed a background check, which is a felony because they lied on the application; however, only 44 were prosecuted.

    The current law is preventing people from buying guns; however, we're not inforcing the laws on the books. Let's inforce the laws on the books first and address the other issues, anti-depression drugs and violent video games; a common element between Newtown and Colorado.

  • Superfluous Anaheim, CA
    April 20, 2013 7:08 p.m.

    This is America not Iraq--You can belong to any group you want--even hateful ones.
    This is America not Afghanistan--Mental capability isn't required for many things--Look at Congress :)
    This is America not Russia--You are assumed to be alright until you PROVE you are not.
    This is America not Pakistan--We don't need to know EVERYTHING about our neighbors just because they own guns.
    This is America not Iran-- Our lives are NOT open books to you, the government, or anybody else.
    This is America not North Korea--You don't HAVE to believe ANYBODY, and personally I wouldn't.

    If a person IS CRAZY, he will find a way to hurt you.
    In the meantime we are AMERICANS, and have the right to our privacy and the right to protect ourselves from the same crazies you fear.

  • Silly Rabbit Small Town, USA, UT
    April 20, 2013 6:16 p.m.

    I don't get it. I respect the 2nd Amendment and I am an avid firearm owner, I shoot targets and occasionally hunt once in a blue moon, and have them for protection for family. What I don't get is the headline for this article "Gun control forces seek new path after big loss against NRA". I didn't realize this Gun control stuff is against the NRA I just assumed that it was against the 2nd Amendment. The NRA is just a lobby group, albeit a powerful one. But why blame them for what is going on, they don't get money for guns being sold, they don't sell guns, they don't manufacture them, they are just a lobby. I guess the NRA are to blame when a person that has a mental illness kills someone, or when a Gang banger shoots up a park full of kids. It's like let's blame pressure cookers for bombings now.

    Oh by the way, I am not a member of the NRA was once long ago never will be again, for personal reasons. I do appreciate that they stick up for the 2nd Amendment.

  • Fitz Murray, UT
    April 20, 2013 5:40 p.m.

    I am a supporter of the US Constitution. I am not a member of the NRA. I write my Congressional Delegation when I deem it important. Upholding the Constitution is always important. It is not just the NRA that made a lot of noise on this last go around on 2nd Amendment rights, there were a lot like me contacted their Senators.

    Why is the 2nd Amendment important? "Commentaries on the Constitution" written by Joseph Story, makes this points better than I can. He writes:

    "The right of the citizens to keep, and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist, and triumph over them.

    There is certainly no small danger, that indifference many lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 20, 2013 4:50 p.m.

    A week ago Harry Reid accidentally referred to this as taking guns away from people, and background checks are already happening.

    Do some homework. How many times have our political leaders told untruths, and when will you start looking beyond their words?

    If politicians were true to they're political campaign speeches, -we would not have the problems we have.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    April 20, 2013 4:45 p.m.


    "A way must be found to protect us, and our legislative process, from the NRA."

    This is the reason nothing gets done. You are looking for a scapegoat and in this case, the scapegoat happens to have MILLIONS of members who disagree with your stance. The left is responsible for nothing getting done on this because they CANNOT resist the urge to control things. The NRA is, by and large, a group of honest, hardworking American people who are some of the most responsible citizens. Not some demonic specter that haunts America. And yet, the left keeps pushing an agenda instead of an honest solution.

  • Salsero Provo, UT
    April 20, 2013 4:13 p.m.

    @DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT

    @Longfellow Holladay, UT

    @MoJules Florissant, MO

    @cjb Bountiful, UT

    @worf Mcallen, TX

    @Chase Saint George, UT

    @Flashback Kearns, UT

    @HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT

    @red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT

    @Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT

    I have no idea how well you can handle a gun under pressure. I don't know anything about your shooting skill and your training in handling a gun. I know nothing about your mental stability. I don't know if you belong to a white supremacy hate group. I don't know if you are an anti-govenment gun nut waiting for the "revolution". I don't know if you belong to a domestic terrorist organization.

    I know nothing about you. I'm not sure I could trust you in this. You talk about everything except the issue of universal background checks. Maybe you'd fail a background check. I don't know. So, why should I believe you?

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 20, 2013 3:52 p.m.

    mad hatter-"The NRA loves mass killings. It sells more guns. That is their business: selling more guns. They are no longer focused on gun safety. Their business if enhanced through fear."
    Did you think about this before you typed it? You believe that? I'm an NRA member and I've never seen the NRA celebrate a mass killing. I have however seen the NRA celebrate the countless incidents where a law abiding citizen uses a gun to prevent a robbery, rape, home invasion and possibly murder- unlike the MSM which hardly ever reports those news events because they don't fit the narrative.
    The NRA is focused on preserving the individual's constitutional right to bear arms- not selling guns. Law abiding Americans often buy guns when they feel their right to bear arms is under attack - which is why your man Barack Obama has been gun salesman of the year for the past 5 years. He's caused more guns to be sold than any salesman for Ruger, Smith and Wesson, Sig Sauer, H&K ever has combined.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    April 20, 2013 3:04 p.m.

    Hey People,

    We're talking about background checks in the Machin-Toomey legislation. Nothing about restricting someone's right to buy a gun. Nothing about establishing a gun registry. And nothing about requiring background checks for selling/giving guns to family members or close friends the seller knows. Just background checks which the NRA supported as recently as 1999.

    Now, give your argument based on the topic of background checks only. Why are you opposed to having universal background checks? And if you are opposed to universal background checks as a matter of principle, then it must follow that you are opposed to background checks required of purchasers at gun shops.

    Don't confuse the issue by references to the Constitution. That doesn't work. You are either in favor of people we don't want to have guns to get them however they can buy them or you want to have a system that stops them from going to legitimate dealers, gun trafficers, and straw purchasers.

    The NRA loves mass killings. It sells more guns. That is their business: selling more guns. They are no longer focused on gun safety. Their business if enhanced through fear.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 20, 2013 2:54 p.m.

    A few questions for all those allegedly well intentioned people so hot for more gun control: Why is the President so concerned about "doing something" after white children were killed in Newtown, CT but doesn't want to do anything about the black babies who were killed by Kermit Gosnell in Pa?
    Why hasn't Major Hassan been punished yet for his attack (with a handgun)that killed 13 US Soldiers at Fort Hood over two years ago?
    Why do you keep talking about a "gun show loophole" when there is no such thing as a gun show loophole?
    How would the new laws you proposed have helped to prevent the attacks at Newtown and Aurora?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 20, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    In an area of more then a million,--people were terrified of one man. So much that 10,000 policemen were called in to capture him.

    Still! Politicians are thinking of restricting guns of innocent citizens. Wow! But weapons were given to Egypt, and Mexican cartels.

    I don't understand it. Are we to be defenseless, and dependent on government for protection? The ones who put us seventeen trillion dollars in debt?

  • Chase Saint George, UT
    April 20, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    Gallup: 4% care about gun control. Yet Politicians push it. It's an agenda.

    I imagine it will be shoved down our throat like the highly successful Obamacare.

    Politicians' leashes have become much too long.

    Anyone pay attention to STOCK act being repealed...?

    Didn't think so....

    It's a purely corrupt institution - on both sides of the isle.

    All of you folks propagating and puppeting and parroting the politicians' agenda are not standing with the constitution. You either stand with the constitution, or burn it.
    Choose ye this day whom ye will serve. Many of you already have.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    The associated press USED to be a good unbiased source.

    With this article (among others)they've lost their credibility.

    I wonder - do they accept funds from the democratic national committee to keep afloat?

    The Senate gun control bill was doomed from the start. Harry Reid was even reluctant to waste time on it. The "boss" insisted on wasting time on it, so they did.

    The bill wasn't defeated because of the NRA, it was defeated because the Senate still puts some value on the 2nd amendment.

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    To quote John Belushi "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor"? Gun Control advocates are providing the NRA with some good chuckles, but that's about it.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 20, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    Hutterite, I guess if we need to be protected from the NRA so badly, then we need to be protected from Labor Unions, Trial Lawyers, the AMA, Dentists, MLM companies, GE, Lockheed, Detroit, GM, Ford, George Soros, the Kohn brothers, Warren Buffett, the State of California, Planned Parenthood, the SDS, the Black Panthers, the FOP, and anyone else that lobbies the Congress. Labor Unions and the Trial Lawyers are responsible for far more legislation that damages our freedoms than the NRA ever hoped to do.

    There is this little thing called the First Amendment which allows all of these entities to lobby congress. The NRA has as much right to throw their weight around as Labor Unions do. YOu ban the NRA you have no choice but to ban your precious progressive/liberal outfits also.

    By the way, the Constitution and your freedoms guaranteed therein won out in this mess. The NRA was just the catalyst. I guess you don't like your Constitutional freedoms, eh? The right to bear arms protects all the others.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 20, 2013 10:21 a.m.

    Let me share with the gun opponents why gun laws are being vigorously opposed.

    Pro gun people believe the goal is to get rid of guns. Either by banning them we're by making them so difficult to legally keep the people give them up. It's a case of if you keep giving them an inch in an inch and an inch, the other side will eventually get their mile.

    Pro gun people do not believe that the primary purpose of the opposing sides gun laws r to keep people safe. if so why would they even have invented gun free zones. isn't it obvious criminals would ignore them, and these only serve to harass legitament gun owners.

    If the goal was to keep people safe why is there opposition to training and arming teachers?

    This latest proposal for universal background check would have required people to keep records of gun sales for the rest of their life under penalty of law, what would have happened had the Wreckers been lost? a big fine? the right to have a gun in the future?

  • MoJules Florissant, MO
    April 20, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    How about car control, alcohol control, knife control, bat control and lastly pressure cooker control?

  • Longfellow Holladay, UT
    April 20, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    How can you tell when a writer has an agenda on gun control?

    When they use a dishonest and misleading term like: "After Congress approved the 10-year ban on 19 types of military-style assault weapons..."

    The banned weapons were semi-automatic rifles, a technology that is almost 100 years old. The term "military-style assault weapon" is phrased to conjure up an image of a fully automatic military assault rifle. Anyone who uses the term "military-style assault weapon" to describe a semi-automatic rifle that is only cosmetically different from a modern semi-automatic hunting rifle is being dishonest.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    April 20, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    First, remember that this is advocacy propaganda from the Associated Press, not impartial reporting of facts by real journalists.

    They lead off the article celebrating passage of the 1995 "Assault Weapons Ban" but fail to note that scientific studies confirmed it was a total failure and made no difference in criminals killing people. It was "feel good" legislation at best, or a thinly disguised attempt to curtail private gun ownership one type of gun at a time.

    "Gun control" is not about making the country safe for law abiding citizens, it is the cynical goal of statists to remove any potential impediment to government tyranny (as feared by the Founders- leading the the Second Amendment), or a misguided attempt to prevent legal self defense, ironically making it safer for criminals.

    The Cruz-Grassley substitute provided workable options for common sense "gun safety" measures, but the leftists shot it down.

    Freedom loving Americans will continue to oppose all forms of "gun control" that are ineffective, and infringe on our rights.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 20, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    A way must be found to protect us, and our legislative process, from the NRA. Because, although they are particularly good at it, the NRA isn't the only dog in this hunt. Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and any number of other outfits are out there, each and every one of them seeking to have their agenda moved forward, almost always to the detriment somehow of the citizens of the nation. The outcome of the political process should be the will of the people and the rule of law (which this bill did not contravene) and not the NRA agenda. We all lost today.