Senators callous

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    May 2, 2013 4:15 p.m.

    Lost in DC
    The Brits were heading off to confiscate arms held in a public armory. An obvious first step in combating guerrilla war. The larger point is, though, that 'bear arms' mostly wasn't about private firearms ownership. America had no native firearms industry--guns had to be imported, and were expensive. Since you were parsing the language of the Second, let's get our terms right. And I'm not saying that only government controlled and endorsed bodies can maintain arms. Just that the best reading of the language of the Second Amendment and the history of 18th century firearms suggests that's what the Framers had mostly (not entirely, of course) in mind.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 2, 2013 2:03 p.m.

    there are weapons that are forbidden. whether the restrictions on those weapons is constitutional or not is another story.

    thank you for the definition - I still disagree with your interpretation.

    When the first battles fought in the revolution were fought because the British were moving to confiscate weapons, the idea that only government controled and endorsed bodies can maintain arms is counter-intuituve.

  • mom of three Holladay, UT
    May 2, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    they were absolutely not callous. they are going with clear thinking, not emotional whims that obama wanted them to do. more background checks are not the answer. these are already in place. criminals don't go through the system check as law abiding systems do. if more laws are passed, criminals will still not abide by the law. do you really think that they will now saw... "oh, they made stricter laws, i better go get a background check before i get this gun." obama is using emotions and children to get people riled up and it seems to be working.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 2, 2013 10:21 a.m.

    Bountiful, UT
    It was not "…heartless and cynical politics…" as this letter writer claims, that defeated this bill. It was the constituents of the Senators back home that defeated this bill.

    As Senator Max Baucus aptly put it when asked why he voted against the bill. He responded that it is "…one word – Montana." The majority of his constituents did not want it passed.

    And he is not running for re-election. He voted the way his constituents wanted him to vote – not because he wanted to be re-elected.

    6:10 p.m. May 1, 2013


    But Utahans - by 85% - wanted sticter gun controls.
    Senators Hatch and Lee BOTH voted against it.

    At least the good Senator from Montana showed integrity.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    May 2, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    Lost in DC,
    Sorry, no. The latin root is 'regularis' and means 'to control or direct according to law.' The "Concordia Regularis," for example, is a listing of the rules for administering religious orders.
    But since you want to play latin with someone who actually knows the language, let's continue. To bear arms' always meant, in the 18th century, to serve in an organized military capacity. And 'arms' meant a Brown Bess unrifled black powder musket. So the Second Amendment is about the rights of communities to form local and state militias, armed with muskets, which for the most part were not privately owned, but stored in a community armory.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    May 2, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    Lost in DC,

    Can you at least agree that not all "arms" are legal to possess today? And if automatic rifles are illegal to possess, whereas semi-automatic rifles are acceptable, then how can anyone say with a straight face that restrictions on the size of gun clips and so on violate the Second Amendment?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 2, 2013 8:11 a.m.

    Nope, in this context “regulated” means trained and capable – from the same Latin root as “regular”

    Your comment proves the old saying about what happens when you assume, whether you use the word “assume” or the synonymous “presupposes”.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 1, 2013 5:31 p.m.

    "You know, since, in the last few decades, there's been 3,400 deaths from terrorism, Islamic and otherwise, and in that same period, we've had nearly, I dunno, a million deaths from gun violence, 30 to 40,000 a year, every year, is there anything we can do about that?

    Yes, it turns out there's only one Amendment in our Constitution's pantheon that is exempt from statistical analysis or emotional freak-out-itude. And it is the Second. So "heaven" help us if the Muslims ever decide to form a well-regulated militia."
    (Jon Stewart April 24, 2013)

  • Monsieur le prof Sandy, UT
    May 1, 2013 4:29 p.m.

    From what we know, tougher gun laws would not have stopped the killing at Sandy Hook, nor at any of the other places around the country where similar events have occured. Perhaps we need to be more "callous" in our handling of the mentally ill who are responsible for these senseless killings.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 1, 2013 3:02 p.m.

    @Louis Borgenicht "Personal stories have always made political issues more real. Abstract issues become individually meaningful."

    We also run the risk of substituting emotion for rational thought. We are being asked to accept the slow erosion of a constitutional right. In times like these, clear thinking is required. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be manipulated by cynical politicians.

    Mark Mattioli also lost his son at Sandy Hook, but he says more gun control is *not* what is needed. Strangely enough, Obama didn't invite him to ride along on Air Force One.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 1, 2013 2:28 p.m.

    Senators callous?

    Callous is the president's reaction to the Boston Marathon bombing, as he continues narrative that Islamic terrorists have been rendered impotent.

    Callous is the president's reaction to the Benghazi, as he continues narrative that Islamic terrorists have been rendered impotent.

    Islamic terrorists are still strong and bathing Americans in blood and horror. It is callous to deny this, thus emboldening the terrorists to make their mark on American, and giving the citizens a false sense of security leaving them less watchful and more vulnerable.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    May 1, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    Great letter. This isn't about Constitutional principles. That's silly: the phrase 'well-regulated militia' presupposes regulations. This isn't about 'enforcing the laws we have,' which are clearly inadequate and which the NRA has fought against enforcing for years--gutting ATF, fighting any kind of national database. This isn't about the patently ridiculous argument that we shouldn't pass laws, because crooks will just break them, an argument no one makes against any other criminal law. This is about greed, fear and fanaticism. Greed for NRA campaign funds. Fear of the reaction from a few angry zealots. And fanaticism from those who imagine jackbooted thugs in black helicopters disarming all Americans.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 1, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    I see.

    Lets not enact reasonable, common sense laws, because it is a step closer to unreasonable laws.

    You dont give the collective American people very much credit.

    I assure you that the masses (moderates and most liberals) would rise up against disarming Americans.

    Plain and Simple

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 1, 2013 11:38 a.m.

    Re alt34

    You don't think a knife can kill a school child? Google 'Chinese school attacks'. There have been many such attacks and many Chinese school children have died as a result.

    The children you speak of lived only because this particular attacker choose not to stab these children in a vital area such as the heart.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 1, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    "Would the family members of Sandy Hook victims prefer their family members who died be blown? up, or burned to death? or stabbed to death instead?"

    The same day as Sandy Hook a maniac broke into a Chinese school and stabbed 20 kids. None of them died. You falsely assume the guy could've done as much damage with a knife as he could have with his assault weapon.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 1, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    Well, yes, the senators were callous because they valued the big bucks from the gun lobby more than the children of Newtown.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 1, 2013 10:36 a.m.

    Re JoeBlow

    What is it with allowing a child to use a gun to disable a stronger attacker?


    I was speaking of 10 years old or older. I recently saw in Texas news where a home invader was shot by a boy, probably in 6th grade using an AR-15. The parents taught him how to shoot and that he may need to use it to defend himself and his family. If memory serves, the parents were gone at the time, but he and his younger sister were in the house.

    This isn't the first time I have come across such a news story. I have also watched westerns (television shows) where children have scared off potential home invaders by threatening the use of a gun.

    Is letting a child use a gun foreign to you? If so we come from different cultures. You have to admit, letting an (old enough) child defend themself is better than the alternative.

    Of course guns will make a home less, not more safe if rules of gun safety are not learned and followed.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    May 1, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    We have had background checks for years! What really is your point, other then to infringe on constitutional rights of gun owners? Sad as it may be, please tell us what was not against the law, among the the shooter's actions, that took place at Sandy Hook elementary that morning? We don't need to trample the constitution further, when we cant enforce the laws we already have!

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 1, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    "So when families from Sandy Hook took it upon themselves to travel to Washington, D.C.," Does the letter writer recognize Air Force One, the plane that transported them, hardly taking it upon themselves to travel to Washington.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 1, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    Re JoeBlow

    You are ignoring the real agenda of the anti gunners. This bill was just a step in the journey to take away all gun rights. If we give them this, there will be another bill and another and another until all our gun rights are gone.

    More specifically this bill was more than it claimed to be. If two friends were out camping together, this bill would have made it illegal for one friend to hand (transfer) his gun to his friend so he could shoot it or even look at it.

    Do you see what an imposition this is on the law abiding while doing nothing to solve the problem of violence? Enough is enough.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 1, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    "A gun is an equalizer, allowing a woman or a child to successfully disable a stronger attacker."

    And even if the background check law had passed, any sane woman who had not committed a crime would be free to do just that.

    It is obviously a much easier argument to make that someone is trying to ban guns as opposed to putting forth a background check.

    That is why so many people do it.

    Classic example of a straw man.

    And, whats with allowing a child to disable a stronger attacker with a gun?


  • higv Dietrich, ID
    May 1, 2013 7:16 a.m.

    What good will more gun laws do? And who will gun laws bring back? Devastating to lose someone but no new laws will bring anyone back or prevent tragedies done by people with no respect for the law.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 1, 2013 6:56 a.m.

    Senators are not callous for voting down this bill. Quite the opposite. Senators realize we have thousands of gun laws already which haven't helped and wont help. They realize that what we have is not a gun problem, what we have is a violent people problem and that guns are merely a tool. A tool that saves thousands of lives of individuals and family members each year.

    If a person is intent on going some place and killing people, the events of the past few weeks should have taught us that there are other tools which can be used to accomplish the job besides guns. Would the family members of Sandy Hook victims prefer their family members who died be blown? up, or burned to death? or stabbed to death instead?

    Bombs, gasoline and matches, nor swords or knives are as well suited to defend a home as a gun. A gun is an equalizer, allowing a woman or a child to successfully disable a stronger attacker.

    Our senators did the right thing.