Quantcast
U.S. & World

President Obama unveils $500 million gun violence package, 23 executive actions

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 16, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    It's way past time for change. This is a sheep and goats issue. You can be on the side of life, our you can choose to support the evil conspiring men of the NRA and Gun industry. There is no middle grownd. I call on all Utahns to be on the side of life, and I believe that those that support the evil empire either by direct oposition or by their silence, individually or collectively, will have to answer for that failure in the next life. So, what will it be Utah, are you with the sheep or with the goats?

    I call upon our elected congressman to support the President plan without significant modification.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    Why don't we outlaw all cars that go faster than 5 miles per hour? Those are way more dangerous and kill way more people than cars that only go under 5 miles per hour.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    will this bill cost taxpayers 500 Million? Why not charge the gun owners to run the program, rather than have taxpayers spend more on administration fees.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    @mike in cedar city

    What foolish nonsense.

  • Mike in Texas Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 16, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    Chris B. Typical NRA sophestry. Cars are not produced with the specific intent to kill. Guns are, especially assault weapons. Count you with the goat herd. To quote the president "we will be judged by this".

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Jan. 16, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    @Mike in Cedar City. A couple of points for you to ponder:
    Do you believe the Constitution was inspired by God? (your religion does see Doctrine and Covenants 101:80)
    Do you believe the 2nd amendment is in the constitution for a reason?
    Are you one of he evil and conspiring men that seek to deprive us of our God given rights?

  • MajMarine Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    Mike in Cedar City
    Cedar City, Utah

    "You can be on the side of life, our you can choose to support the evil conspiring men of the NRA and Gun industry"

    Wow, Mike. Isn't hyperbole the best thing ever?

    Tell me. How are they evil?

    Actually, change NRA and Gun Industry to Congress and the Democratic party, and I'm right there with ya.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    Chris B, your exaggerated example would be far more effective if you followed up with an alternate solution. Your position that "we can't solve anything, so why even try?" is tiresome. People want action. The people of New York took action; may the United States follow suit.

  • patriot vet Cedar City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    Common sense must prevail in the issue of guns, society and safety. Without common sense, it is only a matter of time before the NRA begins defending the right to have a rocket launcher, bazooka or armed drone. Frankly, many countries have armed MILITIA (that are not national military forces) that have these weapons. But somehow I doubt that the Founding Father's definition of regulated militia had that in mind. They were people of common sense.

    Obama's plan is sensible and balanced. It does not threaten gun rights, nor "violate" the Second Amendment. We need to implment these changes for our own safety.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 16, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    Even the great Obama must know you can not legislate moral behavior. All this will not stop criminal behavior and is only a ineffective symbolic gesture to make the left feel better. In the meantime the rights of good Americas are trampled on once again.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    I strongly support the President's initiatives to curb gun violence. As a long time member of the NRA, and a citizen of Utah, I will do all I can to get our elected congressmen to support the President's recommendations. I own guns and this presidential action will not hurt my ability to hunt, target practice, or protect my family. It is about time we, as a country, did something to stop gun violence in America. With over 30,000 people being killed each year, with a gun, in the United States, we are finally acting in a positive manner. Please support the President, and help curb gun violence.

  • Mash76 Provo, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    I agree some things need to be done but making certain guns and magazines illegal won't do anything. It won't stop there once they get a start on outlawing certain items. The criminals will still use whatever they can to hurt or kill. The only ones that follow the law are law abiding citizens.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    Facts matter, especially when lives are at stake.

    Chicago has essentially a TOTAL gun ban. And, more than 500 killing last year, more than the number of allies troops killed in Afghanistan where every goat herder has an assault rifle. "Gu free" Washington DC is another murder capitol.

    The CDC did a study of all types of gun control and found (much to their disappointment) that NONE of them had a significant reduction in violent crime. Thus, the "solution" proposed by Obama are not solutions at all, but repetition of past failed schemes, with a different goal, that of disarming citizens who may refuse to yield to a tyrannical government- the real purpose of the Second Amendment as drafted by the Founders.

    Criminals and crazy people do not obey laws. Gun crime will never go away, and the "war on guns" will be no more successful than the liberal's fantasies that wars on "poverty" or "drugs" would result in peaceful, prosperous land covered with flowers and prancing unicorns.

    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a GOOD guy with a gun. Disarming the good guys doe not make them safer.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 16, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    Sneaky Jimmy. point one. Yes insofar as they were able to recieve inspiration. However, part of the constitution says that it is about "Life, Liberty, etc. and we do have the inspired ahility to change it and congress is given the power to pass statutes in support of its provisions.

    Point 2 the Second Amendment is in the constitution for a reason. That reason seems to be that citizens can have guns. But the 2nd Amendment was not cognizant of the deadly power of modern weapons. Congress can and should regulate them in the interest of presenving the rights to Life. Life was placed first in the constitution for a reason, because without life there is no liberty, and how happy do you think the parents and other relatives are about the slaughter that has gone on for far too long?

    Point 3. If being on the side of policies that reduce the slaughter of innocent children then call me an evil and conspiring person.

    MajorMariine. Yes, perhaps hyperbole, but we need a wakeup call children are dead. and many more will die if we do nothing.

    Duckhunter. Foolish is as foolish does.

  • Conner Johnson
    Jan. 16, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    Lets not forget that people had muskets and pistols when the 2nd Amendment was written.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 11:40 a.m.

    Re: "This is a sheep and goats issue."

    I really don't want to be either.

    Uniformed liberal sheep, who blindly follow an uniformed or nefarious shepherd -- like the President -- will come to rue the decision.

    And, many liberals will be identified as the goat of this era, for giving up freedom, in exchange for empty promises of temporary security, supporting the President's dictatorial, illegal, and unconstitutional measures.

    I think I'll opt to stand with the scores of millions of Americans that are outraged by the President's high crimes and misdemeanors, and who will fight his malfeasance by every legal means.

  • freedom in 2017 paradise, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 11:54 a.m.

    just how would one of yomama's actions have stopped Sandy Hook? He is absolutely clueless. why doesn't he go after the 500 plus annual gun killings in Chicago. Most are handguns and handguns are outlawed in Chicago. We only have four more years of a guy that is qualified to run a c-store.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    @Moderate,

    What measures are currently being taken to curb the deaths of thousands due to cars that go over 5 miles per hour?

    Safety ads on tv?

    If that is good enough to try and curb the thousands of deaths from cars that go over 5 miles per hour, why aren't those same measurements good enough for guns?

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    Jan. 16, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    This is such great news. Sadly for us Republicans, the Democrats have taken the higher ground on another common sense issue (remember civil rights, the environment, etc.). I don't get the mentality that says everything the other side is for we must be automatically against. There are some things that are just common sense. Putting limits on the kinds of weapons and ammunition we can get is one of them.

    As great as the Constitution is, it is great because it establishes rule of law, and we the people set the laws and can change them. We don't have slavery any more either, although the Constitution ignored that too. The law abiding citizens and families of this country have suffered far too long at the ends of those on the fringes that want no restrictions whatsoever to their "freedoms". And let's stop using FEAR as the primary excuse for not doing anything.

  • Go Big Blue!!! Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    Lets not forget that government had muskets and pistols when the 2nd Amendment was written.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 12:31 p.m.

    To "Mike in Texas" actually guns are not designed to kill. They are designed to fire bullets. Some bullets are designed to kill, but the same can be said for hunting tips on arrows, knives, and drugs.

    The problem with the mass murders is not the guns, but is a mental health issue. If the government looked at that and tried to do something with the mentaly ill, then we would have a starting point. The world is full of examples of what happens once you enact the laws that the anti-gun liberals want.

    First they will take away the guns, then they will be forced to regulate knives and swords, then they move to the next thing. In the end the only thing we will have in our homes is a dull spork.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    Re: ". . . the 2nd Amendment was not cognizant of the deadly power of modern weapons."

    Oh, I think the Second Amendment's drafters saw enough dead people during the Revolution that they're WAY more aware of weapons' deadly power that any of today's detractors.

    But, apparently the liberal argument is that the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness, huh?

    So, they must also be demanding that we repeal the outdated Thirteenth Amendment, since we no longer have slavery. Or the outdated Nineteenth, since women can now vote. Or how about the outdated Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth, since judges now issue warrants, require Miranda warnings, and appoint Public Defenders and court-appointed counsel?

    The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, operates as a limit on government's power to oppress. Its purpose -- to enable people's militias to resist tyranny -- is as critical today, maybe more so, as it was in the immediate post-Revolutionary War period.

    That's why it's so distasteful to liberals intent on enslaving America, and why they're so intent on circumventing it.

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    Re:eastcoastcoug

    You wrote "And let's stop using FEAR as the primary excuse for not doing anything."

    I so agree with you.

    I would like to add... Lets stop using ignorance, hyperbole, and fear for doing the wrong thing!

    This knee-jerk reaction to the Sandyhook killings is, in part, the wrong thing.

    Another thing...This whole goat and sheep thing.

    Who constitutes a goat or a sheep is determined by the one who will judge us all perfectly. Our attempts to prematurely categorize whole groups as either based on a one issue belief, just shows the ignorance and intolerance of that person.

    Back on topic. I am glad that the president has taken these actions as now we will have no more gun violence in our country. I eagerly await the eminent decline in violent crimes that are going to result in his deluded proclamations. And if by chance there are more incidents, we merely have to broaden the dis-arming of the law abiding citizens to make sure his vision of a violence free society comes to pass.

    What was the violent crime rate per capita of Great Britain compared to the USA?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 12:45 p.m.

    Re: ". . . the Constitution . . . establishes rule of law . . . let's stop using FEAR as the primary excuse for not doing anything."

    Yeah, let's use the Constitution and the rule of law.

    Once we go down that road of accepting the disingenuous suggestion that the Constitution means whatever one or another politician or political pressure group is pushing, we're through.

    The rule of law, not of men, requires that, to change a law or the Constitution, we go through the process established in the Constitution itself. Liberals know they don't have the democratic support for the changes they want, so they're calling us to abandon the rule of law and establish a dangerous rule of men.

    It happened in WWI-era Russia, in late-'20s Germany, in late-'40s China and Korea, and in '50s-era Cuba.

    But, what American in his right mind would want that kind of chaos here?

  • Cool Cat Cosmo Payson, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 12:51 p.m.

    I found this form letter on the Ruger website, and I completely agree with its message. See below:

    Dear Lawmakers,

    I am a law-abiding citizen and responsible gun owner.

    I am saddened by the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut, but I believe that efforts to impose new restrictions on me and other lawful and responsible owners like me are misguided. Did you know that violent crime with firearms has declined since the Federal "assault weapons ban" expired in 2004?

    Your focus should be on strengthening mental health care and improving the quality of data supporting NICs checks (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). Do NOT pass more gun laws; instead, work to enforce the more than 20,000 gun laws already on the books.

    I am your constituent and I vote. Please represent me.

    Sincerely,

    J. Wright

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 12:58 p.m.

    I decided to answer my own question...

    The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents

    The U.K. has a violence rate of 2034 crimes per 100,000 resident

    ** As of 2006

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 1:00 p.m.

    Liberal progressives (there are some in both parties)like to take "baby steps" in removing constitutional protections.

    This is the first step. Citizens need to be informed and watchful for ones that will surely follow.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    Jan. 16, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    Chris B.

    It all depends on how you drive your car. If you're killing people with it, we will take it away, plain and simple. Nice analogy...

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    Coming off the fiscal cliff negotiations, what could possibly go wrong?
    We are in very good hands. This president is like Washington and Lincoln rolled into one super hero.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    Someone should tell Obama that he doesn't have 500 million to spend.

    He already spent it all.

    Maybe he could take it out of his vacation budget?

  • Leo Femedlers El Paso, TX
    Jan. 16, 2013 1:30 p.m.

    My favorite line from the article..."The president's plan does little to address violent images in video games, movies and entertainment, beyond asking the CDC to study their impact on gun crimes."

    I'm guessing the $500mm was lowball. Our competent govt typically runs 2X, 3X and more to initial projections.

    "A Republic, if you can keep it.”

    Sigh......

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 1:37 p.m.

    Well they have gotten off of the Gun Control language and gone to gun violence. Same ol Same ol. The key word is control this issue is just one more method of control from Progressives. Control through health care, control through a watered down or abolished second ammendment, welfare, etc. It is all in their plan. Little by little control, control. To the sound of trumpets and the rolling of drums throughout the land the King has made his proclamations to the sheeeple and they are cheering him on. They chant long live the King. God save the King. Wow what a show.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 1:40 p.m.

    Chris B
    Salt Lake City, UT
    @Moderate,

    What measures are currently being taken to curb the deaths of thousands due to cars that go over 5 miles per hour?

    _____________

    Chris, we have all sorts of laws to regulate cars that go over 5 miles per hour. How about the law that we must drive on the right side of the road? Seatbelts? Speed limits?

    Yes, we are well regulated when it come to cars.

    What is wrong with being well regulated when it comes to guns?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 1:49 p.m.

    The mass murders that we have witness these last few years would have been much easier and killed more people if the shooters had used a machine gun, like they did in the thirties. Ask yourself why these murderers did not use these automatic weapons if their goal was to kill as many as possible before killing themselves...could it be because they could not get these types of guns - because we ban them in the 1940's?

    Did any of you gun owners feel your constitutional rights were being denied because you could not own a machine gun? A bazooka? A drone missle? All are arms, but yes, there are limits on our right to own them, just as there are limits on our right to free speech. Why is this so hard to understand? We need to be sensible. This is not a knee-jerk reaction to mass murder. How long ago was Columbine? It is actually past due. Thank you Mr President, and PLEASE, Utah congressmen, pass these measures.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    Jan. 16, 2013 2:18 p.m.

    Procuradorfiscal,

    WWII, Russia, Germany?

    These are all fear tactics. The US has the highest rate of gun deaths and total gun deaths in the developed world. Europe is no where close. We are ahead of Yemen, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Venezuela. Lovely places.

    Our friends in other developed countries cannot figure out why we love our automatic weapons so much. Part of it is the NRA is a well-financed machine that spews fear propaganda and destroys any politician who dares to speak against them. I'd look into that if you're afraid of something. Just this week, I've had 3 robocalls and a letter from the NRA asking for money.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    @Lane Myer and EastCougCoug

    "What is wrong with being well regulated when it comes to guns?"

    I"m just asking barack for consistency. If he's going to outlaw the general public from owning the kinds of guns and magazines that are more capable of killing many people, he should also outlaw all cars that go faster tahn 5 miles per hour, because its a proven FACT that those cars kill way more people.

    "It all depends on how you drive your car. If you're killing people with it, we will take it away, plain and simple. Nice analogy..."

    Thank you, it was a nice analogy. And continuing on with your comment, Yes, we take cars away if people don't drive their cars correctly.

    Similary, let's have barack and the liberals be consistent, and take away people's weapons AFTER they have used them improperly.

    We dont take away people's cars before they have used them incorrectly.

    Why with guns?

    barack - please be consistent

  • dumprake Washington, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 2:38 p.m.

    Here is the Obama presidential legacy:
    1) spend money
    2) take away individual liberty
    3) violate or ignore the constitution
    4) blame Republicans

    What a pathetic president. Impeach him now!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 2:38 p.m.

    To "Lane Myer" but we already have all sorts of laws governing guns. For example, I cannot set up a target range in my back yard. During the deer hunt I cannot sit on my front porch and shoot the deer that visit my flower beds.

    How many more regulations do you want? What new regulations do you want? So far the NRA is the only group offering sensible ideas.

    How about this for a solution. How about we enforce the laws that we already have?

  • Lee Long? Payson, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 2:49 p.m.

    I could see all this going the way of the Hunger Games. The fasionista liberal elite living in the Capitol, and the hard working honest people, bereft of autonomy, self defense and freedom, out in the districts.
    I'd rather be out in the districts.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    Chris B: "I"m just asking barack for consistency. If he's going to outlaw the general public from owning the kinds of guns and magazines that are more capable of killing many people, he should also outlaw all cars that go faster tahn 5 miles per hour, because its a proven FACT that those cars kill way more people."

    Not in Utah. We have more deaths from guns than from car accidents. Look it up.

    Redshirt: "How many more regulations do you want? What new regulations do you want?"

    How about limiting the amount of bullets that can go into one magazine? And semi-automatic rifles really need to be recalled. If anyone needs to use them - go to a shooting range. The range should own these guns only. They should not be available for anyone to get and use them against other Americans. That is my opinion. To me, they are military style weapons, like rocket launchers and there is no need for them in a home.

    How about mandatory checks on ALL gun purchases? Weed out the crazies.

    Do something, but don't just complain that our rights are being taken away. #1 is the right to life.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    @Lee Long
    "I could see all this going the way of the Hunger Games. "

    This is why people like me don't want people like you having guns... you sound crazy.

  • Sigfried Payson, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    Sure we have all sorts of laws for cars to protect life and keep us safe. But that doesn't mean we can't own a super-fast sports car. Almost every car on the road can do more than the law allows. It's up to the operator to show an amount of restraint. Why can cars go way over the speed limit? Why don't we limit those with governers and make them super dull performers? Oh I know, because liberals like em too!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 3:14 p.m.

    Chris B: "I"m just asking barack for consistency. If he's going to outlaw the general public from owning the kinds of guns and magazines that are more capable of killing many people, he should also outlaw all cars that go faster tahn 5 miles per hour, because its a proven FACT that those cars kill way more people."

    This isn't a total ban on guns much like how you aren't allowed to drive a tank on the interstate. If you want to stick with the gun analogy then I guess all guns should be registered and inspected every year or two just like cars; is that what you want?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 3:18 p.m.

    Wow. The extremists are frothing at the mouth so much they're splattering goo all over the place.

    Not much common sense being displayed here today.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 3:35 p.m.

    Re: "WWII [sic - it's actually WWI] Russia, Germany? These are all fear tactics."

    Yeah.

    We SHOULD be afraid. Very, very afraid.

    We have a President who is exploiting the tragic death of children to justify overriding the Constitution and implement supposed "emergency" measures that could not have prevented a single one of those deaths.

    Hmmmmm.

    Since nothing he proposes will affect school violence, we can safely assume his real agenda has nothing to do with school violence.

    What then?

    A legacy? Payback to an important constituency? Sucking up to the UN in hopes of one day being elected Secretary General? All real possibilities. All scary.

    But an even scarier possibility has to do with violent victimization of people, like that which occurred in WWI-era Russia, '20s Germany, and WAY too many other times, as well.

    Their governments were only able to pull it off because their victims were unarmed.

    The President wants us to be unarmed, or at least, much more lightly armed that we are now.

    Why?

    That's what should scare us all.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 3:41 p.m.

    Hitler disarmed the populace before he started killing. His argument save lives and protect the children. He specifically made it illegal for Jews to own any guns. Lenin let the old military members keep their guns so they would stay out of his way. After taking full control he said it was necessary to have all people register their guns. When the old military individuals showed up to register their guns, he shot them dead. After Castro took power his first act was to relieve the people of their guns. You can't decent if you don't have weapons. And no liberal wants to remember in 2008 that Obama said he wants a citizen army as well armed as the U.S. military. Why does he want this? Fools are the only ones that trust a government.

  • UT Brit London, England
    Jan. 16, 2013 3:44 p.m.

    @Sneaky Jimmy

    Didnt the constitution also say that black people could not be counted as a "whole person" and only white, male land owners could vote? Inspired by God yes, but there is a whole lot of man made stuff in there as well.

    @Grundle

    UK and US count violent crime differently. The vast majority of violent crime in the UK does not actually end with physical assault against someone.

    Are you trying to suggest that the US with a 4 times higher murder rate is a less violent place than the UK?

    To all those who think they need assault rifles to defend a tyrannical government, you lost that arms race a century ago. I have yet to see Ar-15's take down a drone carrying hellfire missiles. I also have not seen bullets stop gas that will shut down your nervous system so you can no longer breathe. That is what your government is equipped with.

  • Tom in CA Vallejo, CA
    Jan. 16, 2013 3:45 p.m.

    The current liberal crusade for more so-called "gun control" laws is not about protecting anyone - instead, it is all about a devious way to take away freedom and the underhanded dismantling of the U.S. Constitution.
    Fact studies over the years, both in the United States and in other countries, repeatedly show that "gun control" laws do not in fact reduce crimes committed with guns.
    Cities such as Chicago (and others) with some of the tightest gun control laws in America have murder rates far above the national average. In the middle of the 20th century, New York had far more restrictive gun control laws than London, but London had far less gun crime. Yet gun crimes in London skyrocketed after severe gun control laws were imposed over the next several decades.
    But who cares about facts, when you are on a liberal crusade that makes you feel morally superior? All under the guise of "forward thinking".

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 3:53 p.m.

    Mountanman states: "You can't legislate moral behavior." It is immoral to murder. There are laws against murder. It is immoral to sexually assault women. There are numerous laws against sexual assault. This kind of thinking is almost as bad as saying that if good people don't have guns - only criminals will have guns. The person most likely to kill another person is in fact a family member - not some unknown stranger with a gun. Trying to convince the American public that there is an armed criminal class lurking around in America's cities is a deflection from the real issue. 30,000 people have been killed, with a gun, every year for the past 10 years. We need to stop this horrible reality in America. The NRA's smoke screen is designed to scare Americans into buying guns to protect themselves from a threat that doesn't exist in any meaningful manner.

  • Jeeperdaisygirl Parowan, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 4:02 p.m.

    I taught all 3 of my children to shoot and taught them the respect of the gun, I never had to lock them up they knew and taught that they can kill someone. I have seen others teach their children the same but have had a mentally ill child that eventually at 31 shot someone. He was realeased from 4 different intstitutions deemed okay to be in public? Can we try to help them instead of banning guns? Isn't that mostly where the problem lies...73% of all women and 55% of all men in prison are mentally ill? Just a thought...

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Jan. 16, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    I guess I have nothing but gulags and torture to look forward to. America has become North Korea.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 4:13 p.m.

    To "Lane Myer" you are obviously not a hunter.

    If I go out "bunny blasting" or go to collect the bounty for coyotes I don't want to have to keep reloading my clip or changing clips. Texans say that when they go hunting wild hogs they need up to 30 rounds to take them down. (There are YouTube videos with DWS people using fully automatic runs to take down hogs.) Why get rid of semi-automatic rifles? If an intruder is coming into my house with his semi-automatic hand gun, I sure want my semi-automatic rifle with the large clip available to take him down.

    The "assault rifles" are nothing more than guns that look scary to people that are afraid of guns.

    Do we do background checks for cars? How about knives? What about for pesticides? Why not have mandatory background checks for anybody who wants to learn any martial art or boxing because hands and feet kill more people every year than guns do?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 4:19 p.m.

    To "UT Brit" you are wrong. The US consitution states that "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." In other words, a black person is counted as a whole person if he is not a slave. not all indentured (slaves) people were black. Race was not a consideration here. Also the US constituion does not specify who can and who cannot vote, that was left to the states.

    Please read the US Constitution before commenting on it.

  • Joey D WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 4:28 p.m.

    Mike in Cedar City

    I call on the officials elected to the United States Congress to up hold the US Constitution that they took an oath to protect. If these new provisions are enacted the only ones adhering to them will be the law abiding citizens that currently abide to the laws, the criminals will still disregard the law as they do now!

    I believe the NRA came up with a plausible solution to protecting our school children by using armed guards, similar to those used at the schools Pres. Obama children attend.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 4:30 p.m.

    gun bans do nothing but increase violence - look at Chicago!!! I guess you can ignorantly ignore Chicago which all liberals do because the fact that guns were banned in that city and gun violence went up is the LAST thing you want reported. This gun ban has nothing to do with protecting anyone - it is all about using an event to push an agenda which is standard operating procedure for Obama. The NRA is exactly right - all gun bans do is take guns away from law obeying citizens allowing the bad guys to get their guns illegally anyway. Most of the violent crime - including the grade school shooting - were from guns obtained ILLEGALLY!!!! Obama and his far left followers won't be content until America is gun-less. If you want to own a gun - ANY GUN - in the future you had better wake up and smell the communist agenda!!!

  • Jeeperdaisygirl Parowan, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 4:37 p.m.

    Are you a single mom? Have you not had to worry about someone coming to harm you? I DO know the reality of having a man come to my house to kill or rape me because of something my children's father did? Can I please own a weapon just in case something like that happens? Again just a thought?

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 4:39 p.m.

    Just some trivia:

    The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
    Patrick Henry
    American Patriot

    "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
    Patrick Henry
    American Patriot

  • Perfice South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 4:51 p.m.

    Honestly ...

    You mean that when you meet your Maker and he asks what you did to turn your sword into a plowshare ...

    You'll tell him that the right to own guns without restriction was more important than all other considerations?

  • Leo Femedlers El Paso, TX
    Jan. 16, 2013 5:21 p.m.

    One more thought...
    I have lived in El Paso for the last several years. In that time there have been drug wars right across the border. In fact bullets from an AK 47 hit a downtown El Paso gov't building a year or so ago. They were strays from an execution in Juarez. Back when I was paying attention there were more people killed in Juarez than there were in Iraq (07-08) and the number of deaths has been consistent year over year.

    The citizens of Mexico cannot own a gun. In fact, when a police officer goes off duty they have to turn in their gun and several have been killed on their way home. The bad guys have come to birthday parties, graduation parties, discos, and forced their way onto city buses and indiscriminately killed all who got in their way until they found who they were looking for. Senseless? Yes. And the innocent were helpless.

    So for those of you who may be thinking banning guns is a step in the right direction, come spend a weekend in Ciudad Juarez.

    Guns will never be taken away in America. I pity the fool who thinks otherwise.

  • ruraljohnboy Duchesne, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    Not one of President Obama's 23 executive actions would have averted the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary. Therefore, his solutions do not address the problem. All he will accomplish today is increased sales of guns and ammunition. Gun control does not equal crime prevention.

  • Perfice South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 8:04 p.m.

    I'm sorry, but some of your facts don't add up. The USA has a gun death rate of 10.2 per 100,000 people per year. Mexico has a gun death rate of 25. Therefore if I understand some of your logic, it would be better to arm more Mexicans?

    That makes sense.

    Japan, which prohibits almost all gun ownership has a gun death rate of 0.07. In fact, last year their gun homicides were 11, yes I meant 11. Our gun deaths were over 20,000 (more than the population of Brigham City), of which 11,000 were homicides. In fact, gun homicides are expected to exceed deaths caused by drunk drivers in 2015 in the USA. Meanwhile because of ever increasing auto safety regulations, the highway death toll continues to decline.

    Huh...

  • Jack Aurora, CO
    Jan. 16, 2013 8:47 p.m.

    Perfice,
    Do your numbers include gang violence? Do they include criminals killed by police and or law-abiding citizens exercising their rights under the Constitution? Are they reflective of all gun deaths or do they reflect only those who were victimized by criminals? My point is that not all those deaths were mass shootings or involved helpless citizens. Some of those deaths were lawful exercise of law enforcement duty or self-defense. How are those numbers represented?

    Comparing the US to Japan is like apples to oranges. Different governments, of which ours has Constitutionally protected rights which prohibit the Government from certain acts. The Japanese constitution does not have such protections. I prefer ours.

  • Perfice South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 9:25 p.m.

    Jack,

    I assume you're familiar with the term 'homicide' i.e. a bad guy doing the killing. But yes, you correctly assume that many of the gun deaths are not homicides. In other terms, just having guns around causes deaths. In our case, it nearly doubles the number of deaths from gun homicide.

    How can comparing ourselves to Japan be wrong when they have clearly solved the gun death issue? Are you saying that Americans are above reproach? Are you saying that the 2nd amendment supersedes all other considerations?

    I'm shocked that rational beings can cling so tightly to a few 'cherry-picked' principles while ignoring the weightier matters. Partisanship no doubt accounts for much of it but it's time to fairly discuss how we can reduce some of this violence.

    If you think your principles are offended, think of how the parents of dead gunshot victims feel.

  • Jack Aurora, CO
    Jan. 16, 2013 10:20 p.m.

    Perfice,
    I am quite familiar with the term "homicide" and no, it doesn't always mean a bad guy did the killing. It can be applied when a police officer must kill a armed perpetrator, but it doesn't always mean a crime was committed.

    Yes, Japan may have "solved" the gun death issue, but how did they do it? Their constitution was written just after WWII when they did not want any organized military or armaments. They depended on the US to protect them for many years thereafter, as they could not do it themselves. In other words, the government took away all the guns thus creating a nation of potential victims who depended on someone else to do it for them....with guns. I prefer to maintain my rights to self-protection and the means to do it.

    I am shocked that rational beings can cling so tightly to a few cherry-picked ideas in the face of reality. The trivial issues of feel-good orders and proposed laws that don't address the issues are quite offensive to parents of dead victims, I'm certain.

  • CabezaMan Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 10:29 p.m.

    @Mike in Cedar City

    Your emotional manipulation and pseudo intellectual pontifications will not change the fact that gun legislation does not curb gun violence. The only solution that will totally stop gun violence is to confiscate every single firearm that exists in every home, office, retail gun store, pawn shop, etc. throughout the US. The only persons allowed to carry a firearm would be law enforcement or military personnel. Your fear of firearms feeds into Obama's fantasy. Rest assured, his agenda is clear and he'd love nothing more than to remove all opposition to his progressive socialistic agenda and disarm Americans. Your emotional plea "Children are dead" is a divisive ploy and not a rational cause to strip us of our rights and the means by which those rights can be defended. Firearms are a tool, just like any other, and in the wrong hands can be dangerous. Yes, we need to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous people, but you can't always guaranty that result. Bad people will continue to do bad things. What we need to adopt is a more courageous and proactive policy of deterrence.

  • UteRB77 Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 10:30 p.m.

    The Founding Fathers felt it was wise that American Citizens have the right to own weapons as a deterrent from a tyrannical government. That means that they expected us to be able to use them if necessary to maintain our liberty. In fact, they realized that this right to "bear arms" is so important; it became number 2 on that list of rights, just after the "free speech and assembly thing." However, it was also important to them that we are able to "bear arms" as a deterrent and protection from others that would threaten our life and liberty. Now we've made amazing strides in civility over the last 200 years, to the point where the idea a carrying (bearing) a weapon (arms) seems abhorrent to most of us. However, we have recently strayed from civility, and eroded the value of life through liberal policies that, although seemingly compassionate and altruistic, have corrupted our society and made a mockery of all that we used to hold sacred. So now society spawns derelicts and nut jobs, and it’s time again to protect ourselves. A community dedicated to the ideal of “self-protection” is an amazing deterrent.

  • UT Brit London, England
    Jan. 17, 2013 4:07 a.m.

    @RedShirt

    My apologies I am not a US constitutional scholar. My point was that if your constitution actually allowed slavery in the first place its hardly directly written by God is it?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 17, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    To "UT Brit" the US constitution is inspired by God, not written by God. There is a difference. Unfortunately some of the men involved chose to allow slavery.

    Inspriation just sets the direction, it is up to the man to decide how to travel the path.

  • UT Brit London, England
    Jan. 17, 2013 12:12 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701

    Err thats exactly what I said earlier. When I lived in Utah I spoke with some people that believed the framers of the constitution literally channelled God so his words were directly put into it. Like I said, inspired but far from perfect.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 5:51 p.m.

    re:Go Big Blue

    If Barack gets his way the ONLY gun left that hasn't been banned will be a musket!! Try using a musket to defend your family against a bad guy who is carrying a .45 cal Smith and Wesson semi-auto obtained illegally of course. You might get one shot off before you and your family are escorted rudely to the next life.

  • flyboy53 HERRIMAN, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 2:24 p.m.

    The problem I have with O'bama's Executive Orders is the tendency toward dictatorship. The problems I have with ANY law are precedent and the Law of Unintended Consequences.

    The President did nothing to address mental health issues, which was the problem at Sandy Hook and most of the recent mass murders. If there is a record for EOs issued in one day, I think he is the holder.

    Limitations on liberty are rarely single big events, but constant chipping away until there is nothing left but a handful of sand. We have no idea where this will lead, what future laws or rulings will follow the proposed precedents, so let's trod very carefully, because we might get what we ask for.

    Finally, recall what happened with other great socialist schemes, such as Clinton's Luxury Tax, which practically destroyed the boat-building industry in the US, as The Rich bought their yachts from foreign manufacturers. The Law of Unintended Consequences is always in effect, regardless of what politicians may do, and its effects are not always precisely predictable.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 2:25 p.m.

    If the right to bear arms is absolute, why are they banned on planes. Why not have automatic weapons mounted
    Somali style in pickup trucks, they are free to do it. Time to get real and gun fantasy. If the evil government wants you, it will be from a drone five miles away.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 6:01 p.m.

    Obama wants to do "backgrounds checks" for every gun transfer, even among family members for heirlooms, but WHY?

    The ONLY explanation is that he wants to create a gun registration list---- useful ONLY for eventual confiscation..

    Don't believe it? Then check the facts. For the last year with statistics available, Utah's BCI denied about 2,000 attempts by prohibited persons trying to buy guns in Utah. That is a federal felony, and one would expect about 2,000 people to have been charged, easily convicted from the false statements made under penalty of perjury in front of an eye witness, and thrown into jail.

    However, the U.S. Attorney's office has prosecuted somewhere between ZERO and TEN out of 2,000 felonies reported to them by BCI.

    Now, how can anyone believe that the background checks are about keeping guns away from criminals and not getting all guns registered for eventual confiscation from honest gun owners?

  • Jack Aurora, CO
    Jan. 18, 2013 6:19 p.m.

    so One vote,
    Firearms are not banned on airplanes, they must be declared and the Captain must approve it. Flying is a choice, and with that choice comes the limitations you hint at. We can choose to fly and accept them, or we can drive or take the bus or train or not go at all. We choose to put ourselves in that situation. Should the anti-gun agenda take hold, we will not have a choice, which then violates the Constitutional guarantees. Are you then conspiring to violate my civil rights by disallowing my 2nd Amendment rights?

    As for drones......you all have to realize that the military is made up of Americans, who swore an oath to the Constitution, not to a man. The first allegiance is to the Constitution, so we don't have the military taking over in a coup like other countries. Unlawful orders are refused, and attacking Americans on US soil is unlawful. So your fantasy goes the way of all such imaginings......you will have to find another form of entertainment.