Guns and gun laws on display at Capitol

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 7:24 p.m.


    You just made the argument that the government is too powerful,
    and must be checked and balanced.

    You have just reaffirmed what I had previously written.

  • Sequoya Stafford, VA
    Feb. 22, 2013 12:41 p.m.

    @ EDM: "If a tyrannical government comes after you...(etc)."

    U R correct ONLY from the standpoint of one individual or small group against U.S. Federal might over long term. If U.S. Gov't upsets enough folks, they have the mass of armed citizens, plus those who mutiny from armed forces/police. In such civil conflict, armed citizenry could tip the balance (one way or the other). However, are examples smaller level conflicts where local militia mattered. E.G., Athens, Tennessee circa 1948; the Mormon/Utah Territory Militia of mid-19th century (opposing federal tyranny and religious persecution), and others. Again, the armed citizen won't save himeself by himself (or herself); but may tip the balance in favor of liberty if armed.

    And -- needless to say -- the well armed individual/family (and well trained) may successfully survive and prevail against home invasion.

  • Thoughtful Stafford, VA
    Feb. 22, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    On the "well regulated" issue: Even as an ardent supporter of the 2A, I'm "tempted" to entertain this or that proposed "reasonable" regulation.

    BUT -- the problem, at the end of the day, is one of trust. The other side to this issue wants to eliminate all citizen access to firearms. In such a context, any measure is just a sneaky, incremental way to implement that goal. It is the proverbial "slippery slope." Add to that the fact that most "reasonable proposals" have this or that thing wrong with them, and that they ultimately destroy the ability of self-defense, -- and trust and confidence is just gone.

    A "well regulated militia" would be to practice more what they do in Switzerland (or even Israel): Everyone is in the militia (actually, in the U.S., most people ARE in the "Unorganized Militia" by law, whether they know it or not); and everyone is required or at least encouraged to obtain, maintain, and train with, firearms suitable to participation as militia infantry or constabulary.

    To use a worn-out old quip: (Good) Gun Control is using both hands and employing proper sight-alignment, sight-picture, breath control, and trigger squeeze.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:46 p.m.


    I agree. No freedom for religion post 1789. The world would be better for it.

    And seriously, the 2nd Amendment has been severely restricted for more than a century. "Protect the 2nd!" is just a joke as an argument. If a tyrannical government comes after you, the 2nd isn't going to protect you in the least because you can't own a fraction of what they will have at their disposal.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:14 p.m.


    Thank you for the history lesson.

    Are you aware that you cannot possess a fraction of the weapons that our government possesses? For example, you might possess several high-powered rifles with high-capacity clips, while our government possesses other weapons unavailable to you - for example, drones armed with missiles and nerve gas.

    Now, what, exactly is your argument?

  • gee-en Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:40 p.m.

    Wow EDM you are brilliant! Let`s also allow only the types of free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press that was available when the 1st amendment was written. So no freedom of speech and no freedom of the press over the internet or radio or tv since none of these things existed in 1789. Also, no freedom of religion for any churches established since 1789...

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 6:58 p.m.


    As usual the extreme left misinterprets the constitution.

    "well regulated" does not mean what liberals think it means.

    "well regulated", as the phrase was used during time of the founding fathers, meant to work or function in proper balance.

    In balance to what?

    The founding father wanted the citizens to be able to act as militia in balance to the federal government,

    As we can all plainly see, liberal's nonsense has knocked that balance out of whack, and citizens are no longer able to be a well-regulated militia if necessary.

    Why shouldn't a citizen be able to own what ever they want?

    In the time the founding fathers private citizen owned cannons, the most powerful artillery that was available at the time.

    There was never a problem in the history of our country with citizens owning whatever arms they wanted, no one distrusted a law abiding citizen,

    until the progressives came along and wanted to disarm the citizens and empower the the federal government.

    It is all about power and control,

    Which the founding fathers intended to belong to the people.

    The progressive left has turned that upside down, with the intention of destroying the constitution.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 12:13 p.m.

    To "Scoundrel" the phrase "well regulated" applies to the state militia, not gun ownership. Please read the constitution befrom making comments on what it states.

    To "worf" look at central and south america. They have very strict gun laws, and higher homicide rates with guns than the US has.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:32 a.m.

    "The Nazi Party actually eased gun restrictions enacted during the prior regime." Correct except for Jews. Oh that's right Jews were not allowed to have any guns, 6 million were killed. The Nazi army removed registered guns, and their owners in countries they invaded.

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    re: scoundrel

    I think you missed the part in the 2nd Amend. that says,"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Plus "well regulated" isn't talking about guns, the next word is...Militia.

    I bet you knew this but were hoping nobody looked up the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    American Gun History:

    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. >From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

    Armed citizens prevented Japanese attacks on our soil during World War Two.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    @ Scoundrel- Too many people concentrate on the Second Amendment protections at the federal level.

    Remember, The Utah Constitution also safeguards our rights in Article 1 Section 6:
    "The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms"

    @ Flashback- No one will disagree that training is very beneficial for people who want to carry legal self defense weapons. However, a right is not contingent on meeting arbitrary (and potentially abusive) qualifications. Would you demand journalists, politicians or individuals get a government approved spelling and grammar license before exercising free speech? Or that you must pass a religion test before you are allowed to go to the church of your choice?

    Gun owners are liable for any damage if they do anything stupid or crazy, so while you cannot restrict their right to carry, they are held accountable for their actions. And, 90% of the time the mere presence of a legal firearm is enough to stop a criminal without firing a shot.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    I have a consealed carry permit, I own lots of guns, and I want very few restrictions on my guns. One I do want is that to carry consealed, you need to have a permit and training. I am not opposed to background checks and training.

    Just having some untrained dope out there packing without knowing what his obligations under the law are and not being vetted and/or trained worries even me.

    The responsibility that comes with packing a weapon is huge. I know people that shouldn't be allowed to even own guns because they don't have the common sense of a flea. They can buy them, and even qualify for a consealed carry permit legally, but they shouldn't have one because they are not capable of understanding the obligation or have the brains to use them carefully.

    Requiring the consealed carry permit is reasonable and prudent. Not requiring it is stupid and short sighted. This should be voted down or vetoed by the Gov. Let's not stretch the meaning of the Second Amendment or the intent like this.

    The "constitutional carry" bill basically creates anarchy.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    I have an idea: let's allow everyone to own and carry in public any number of guns, as long as it is the one that was protected when the 2 nd Amendment was written - the muzzle-loader.

  • Demisana South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    Actually, Scoundrel, the way the Second Amendment is worded, the federal government shouldn't be passing any gun laws at all. There's nothing in there, however, to prohibit states from passing gun laws. The Second Amendment was required by the states (as a part of the first 10) as part of an agreement to pass the Constitution at all, as a check on the military powers of the Federal government ensuring that the people would retain arms without restriction.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    Many a grown little boy now thinks he has permission to play with his guns.
    So many issues more important in our world could take the place of this in his life.

  • ruraljohnboy Duchesne, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    "Well-regulated" is certainly part of the 2nd amendment, but it is a little vague. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is a little more specific. I'd say the federal government has a compelling interest in making sure gun owners rights are restricted, and that is why we the people have those rights protected by the Constitution -- to protect us from our government. I think it is OK that grenades, RPG's, machine guns etc. are restricted. But so far, I've seen nothing in the proposed gun restrictions that would have circumvented the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary. We'll never get every kook off the street, and we'll never get all the guns away from criminals.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    Shouldn't the headline read: "Guns, Paranoia, and Extremism On Display in the Capitol?"

  • mrusson Lehi, Utah, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    It's nice to see some open dialog taking place on this topic. I just hope that the representation of gun owners who attend these meetings, are not misconstrued by the bill opponents as "radical" due to their open display of firearms. It always strikes me as funny when the very people who oppose gun legislation allowing citizens to carry firearms scream against the idea, until a mugger sticks a gun in their face. They suddenly understand that force must be met with equal force in order to subdue the threat. No whistle for me thanks.

  • ruraljohnboy Duchesne, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    @Scoundrel: I didn't read that part in the Constitution that guarantees me the right to drive or be a nurse. I did read something that guarantees me the right to speak freely, practice religion, tote a gun -- and I don't have to take a class or obtain a license to have those rights.

  • N.C.Y. Iowa City, IA
    Feb. 21, 2013 6:29 a.m.

    Democrats want to arm US citizens with whistles for self defense, Republicans want Americans to have a choice how they defend themselves.

    Big difference.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 12:30 a.m.

    Not to be pedantic, but to say a gun "eliminates the monopoly of force from the government and the criminal element," is not correct. A monopoly implies one. What he meant was duopoly.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Feb. 20, 2013 11:03 p.m.

    Good reporting on a controversial subject, one often badly misunderstood and poorly reported. I assume there is a story in another paper in town that tells a much different tale.

    All of these are good bills, and good ideas.

    For the critics who worry that background checks stopped some people from getting a permit, I wonder if they know the number or people who are prohibited from owning a gun, who just steal them and carry anyway. Most criminals do not follow laws about stuff like "permits" or "background checks" when they are intent on breaking bigger laws like robbery or even murder.

    If restrictive gun laws made places safe, Chicago and Washington DC would not be the murder capitals of the country.

    Thank you legislators, and concerned citizens for working to keep Utah a safer, and more free place.