Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Gun ban needed

Comments

Return To Article
  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 12:26 a.m.

    In NM a 15 year old child took the gun out of his families closet and killed them.

    A gun safe would have kept that family alive.

    In Colorado, a man purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition and no one stopped him from killing Americans.

    I can go to any gun show and purchase any gun if I use cash.

    I am not trying to 'ban' guns. I am trying to offer solutions when 20 children are gunned down in elementary school...

    last month.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 24, 2013 5:25 a.m.

    Good letter, but the Obama plan lacks an assault weapon buy back provision. A buy back will be needed if the weapons at issue are to be removed from the street. Without that there will eventually be a strong "black market" for the weapons. In a black market professional criminals will dominate the market, and these weapons do have a very long shelf life.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 24, 2013 6:11 a.m.

    The title assigned to this letter is disingenuous at best.

    With hard searching, one can probably find some people who want to "ban guns".
    However, the mainstream is not advocating "banning guns"

    But it is heard all too often.

    Outlawing "assault" style weapons is a far cry from "banning guns"

    Reasonable arguments can be made and discussions can be had, but to classify ANY proposed legislation as a "gun ban" is only meant to feed the flames.

    How about we talk about the real issues and leave the imaginary ones out of the discussion.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 24, 2013 7:26 a.m.

    Gun ban will bring zero people back and stop zero murders as most are used illegaly anyway. 2nd amendment saves lives.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 24, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    All you need to know about this issue is to remember than cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you! Self protection is THE best protection because bad guys will ALWAYS get guns and a gun in your hand is always better than a cop on the phone!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 24, 2013 7:39 a.m.

    "cops carry guns to protect themselves"

    The cops I see do carry guns. They carry pistols. They are highly trained and accountable for their actions. They are screened for mental stability and proficiency with their weapon. They control their weapons at all times. They practice periodically.

    I support similar requirements for your average citizen. Do you?

  • Another Perspective Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    Military type guns are exactly the kind of guns the constitution meant to protect.

    A people's militia must have arms sufficient to protect themselves, their homes and their community or the people's militia will be vulnerable to threat from roving gangs or other threats in the event of a natural or other disaster.

    As recent events have taught us and as the framers of the Constitution predicted, government militias can't always be counted on to be there or be there on time. This is why they provided that people keep the right to protect themselves by forming up into well regulated militias when required.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    @Bartley: "Now is the time to do something about gun violence."

    Often the best deterrent is to fire back.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 24, 2013 8:17 a.m.

    @ Joe Blow. You make very good points. If you can guarantee any law will eliminate mentally unstable and people not proficient with their weapon will never obtain a gun, I will enthusiastically support it. Since that is impossible, I will use a gun in a proficient and responsible way to protect myself and my family from the bad guys who will NEVER obey laws including gun laws. Any by the way, cops don't just carry pistols, they have all the firepower they need, including "assault weapons".

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 24, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    How soon we forget our history.

    On October 27, 1838, Missouri Governor Boggs issued an extermination order directing the extermination of any "Mormon" in Missouri.

    In 1857, US President Buchanan ordered the US Army to put down the rebellion in the Utah Territory. What rebellion? The religious worship and doctrine of the "Mormons" were protected by the 1st Amendment, but that was "rebellion" to Buchanan.

    Now Obama wants to overthrow the foundation of the 2nd Amendment. He has found a political cause that he thinks gives him authority to disregard the rights of the people and the Constitution of the United States. He thinks that he has the right, like Governor Boggs before him and President Buchanan to use the power and authority of the government to destroy the rights of the people.

    So many agree with Obama. What will they think when they are driven, like the Native American Nations, at gun point from their homes, their businesses, their families? Didn't the "government" make promises to them?

    We, the people, are responsible to keep the government honest. They won't do it by themselves.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Jan. 24, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    Spoken like a true non-gun-owner.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 24, 2013 9:16 a.m.

    Another Perspective
    Bountiful, UT
    Military type guns are exactly the kind of guns the constitution meant to protect.

    A people's militia...or the people's militia...the people's militia
    ...IS called a gang.

    A militia is the National Guard.

    As as noted previously --
    Those Assualt rifles you say you need, that are used by the Military and the Police.
    The same rules should apply then:

    Extensive background checks,
    Pass pysical AND mental evaluations,
    Are required to have extensive annual and semi-annual training,
    and must ALWAYS must keep those weapons secured in a Gun Safe or ARMORY.

    The same is the SAME.

  • SteveD North Salt Lake, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    Other than the background checks,the only result of the proposed gun control laws, will be stepping stones to more draconion laws. The size of the magazine or the way a gun looks, will have no effect on criminals.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    Excellent letter.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    Mike, yes we have forgotten our history. Unfortunately, though, most of us never knew the other half of that history. Our forebears had a way of making enemies out of people who would really have preferred to leave them alone. Look at the citizens of Quincy for the best example. They harbored the Mormons in their homes after the exodus from Missouri. But after getting to know the Latter-day Saints during the next five years, they signed a resolution demanding that the Mormons leave the state. They were willing to take up arms to make it happen, if necessary. Ever wonder why?

    In Missouri, the Mormons came in proclaiming they were going to take over all the land and set up their own utopia. Not exactly what the locals had in mind. Look into the affairs in Caldwell and Daviess Counties, and you'll find that the Mormons weren't just victims of evil oppression. Truth is always much more complicated than myth.

    If we start talking about establishing our own vigilante "militias" today, I can imagine we might face similar consequences. Thank goodness Church leaders are more wise and cautious than many of their followers.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    re Open Minded Mormon
    Everett, 00

    This is probably my last post due to desnews frequency restrictions.

    A WELL REGULATED people's militia is NOT a gang. A well regulated people's militia is people banding together in event of an emergency to defend themselves against gangs and other invaders.

    If the 2nd Ammendment were talking about national guards (a government militia), it wouldn't have been necessary to give regular people the right to have guns (so they could form a peoples militia when necessary). A government militia can always keep its guns in a central location, which is what army units and national guard units do.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 24, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    "If you can guarantee any law will eliminate mentally unstable and people not proficient with their weapon will never obtain a gun, I will enthusiastically support it"

    Well Mtnman, we both know that is not possible. Name one law that eliminates any bad behavior.

    People will still drive drunk, but I support laws that reduce the likelihood.

    When people get a license to carry in public, they should have some training. Doesn't that make sense? Could you imagine getting a car license without driving a car?

    Look. In many ways, I am on your side. I fully support people owning guns. Any attempt to take away peoples guns would have me in the streets in protest.

    I, however do not fear the govt raising arms against me.

    Therefore, I do not support those who want any number of weapons, any kind of weapons and an unlimited amount of ammo.

    I do not feel that background checks, waiting periods and types of weapon restrictions are unreasonable.

    Can you share what, if any, restrictions that you could support?

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Jan. 24, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    "In NM a 15 year old child took the gun out of his families closet and killed them.

    A gun safe would have kept that family alive.

    In Colorado, a man purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition and no one stopped him from killing Americans.

    I can go to any gun show and purchase any gun if I use cash.

    I am not trying to 'ban' guns. I am trying to offer solutions when 20 children are gunned down in elementary school..."

    At mount carmel elementary school, a 5 year old girl was arrested and treated like a terrorist for bringing a pink toy bubble gun to school. In another school a child made a paper gun and got the same treatement. talk about paranoid whackos.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Jan. 24, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    This just puts a bandaid on mental illness. It doesn't help treat those types of people in any way shape or form. If you defang a rabid dog, the dog is still rabid.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 10:35 a.m.

    @Bartly "Assault rifles and similar weapons were designed for war and killing the enemy by laying down a 'field of fire.'"

    I think you may be confusing semi-automatic weapons with fully automatic weapons. The so-called "assault weapons" banned by Feinstein's proposed legislation are semi-automatic, which means that you pull the trigger once for each shot fired. These are not "field of fire" weapons. The automatic weapons you describe are already illegal.

    The nation has tried a ban on "assault weapons", and it didn't stop Columbine from happening. It seems that murderers don't stop to think whether they might be breaking a gun law.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    "So many agree with Obama. What will they think when they are driven, like the Native American Nations, at gun point from their homes, their businesses, their families? Didn't the "government" make promises to them?"

    It is exactly that kind of paranoia and gloom and doom that make me feel terribly sorry for people who think that way.

    It also makes me seriously wonder about the wisdom of allowing certain people to carry guns without restriction.

    We also need to remember that about 2/3 of gang members, and nearly all of those who use weapons against others in domestic violence incidents are legally able to carry a gun.

    Why?

    Because, although they may have a history of violence, none of it has passed the level of misdemeanor. They have not been convicted of a felony.

    Yet.

    Do we need to tighten our laws and include violent misdemeanors as disqualifiers for gun possession?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 24, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    People say gun bans don't work. Actually, they do work. None of the massacres were committed with a machine gun because you can't GET a machine gun. As bad as the massacres are, think how much worse they could have been.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    Someone wrote: "A WELL REGULATED people's militia is NOT a gang. A well regulated people's militia is people banding together in event of an emergency to defend themselves against gangs and other invaders."

    Exactly right.

    So where, then, is the WELL REGULATED part of the NRA's idiocy?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    Irony Guy
    Bountiful, Utah
    People say gun bans don't work. Actually, they do work. None of the massacres were committed with a machine gun because you can't GET a machine gun. As bad as the massacres are, think how much worse they could have been.

    10:56 a.m. Jan. 24, 2013

    ============

    Precisely --

    We passed laws "restricting" weapons from fully automatic to only semi-automatic.
    And Everyone - including the NRA - agrees this was the smart and right thing to do.

    Why all the push back now - same weapon, limited function?

    I'll bet assault rilfe folks - the all weapons, No questions, no restrictions, I can have anything I want - people secretly have a hidden agenda to take away ALL restricitons and all regulations allowing for fully automatic weapons too!

    The non-sense (i.e., lacking all sense, common sense) is ad nauseum.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 24, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    It never fails.

    One left-wing nut takes up the talk about "militia" and the rest of his cronies join in. They reject the 2008 ruling from the Supreme Court that separated militia from gun ownership. They, themselves, issued a decree and we're suppose to set aside the Court's ruling and join in with them in overthrowing the Constitution. Obama uses them. Obama's handlers use them. They join right in with everyone who wants to usurp freedom from the citizens. They infer that they have oversized brains and that they will think for us; otherwise why would they tell us to ignore the Constitution and the ruling of the Court that clarified the 2nd Amendment?

    Anyone who demands that Obama have the right to sign anything that inhibits our right to keep and bear arms is an enemy of the Constitution. There is no other way to say it. Until an amendment is ratified by 75% of the States, Obama has no authority to take away our liberty to keep and bear arms.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    Another Perspective
    Mountanman
    Mike Richards
    SteveD
    cjb
    Bountiful, UT

    A WELL REGULATED people's militia is NOT a gang. A well regulated people's militia is people banding together in event of an emergency to defend themselves against gangs and other invaders.

    If the 2nd Ammendment were talking about national guards (a government militia), it wouldn't have been necessary to give regular people the right to have guns (so they could form a peoples militia when necessary).
    10:23 a.m. Jan. 24, 2013

    -------

    Whatever -

    When this “people's militia” starts having;
    “regular” training,
    “regular” meetings,
    “regular” drills,
    “regular” deployments,
    shows “regular” organization,
    and has a proper "regular" Chain of Command…

    I might agree you have met the Constitutional requirement of being “well-regulated”.

    But,
    a self-proclaimed bunch of guys, in pickup trucks, with Assault rifles, with no Authority is a Gang = Mobocracy.

    Mike Richards's little history lesson shows exactly what happens to others Constituional rights [speech, press, religion, peace, prosperity]
    gets trampled by "mobs" posing as a "people's milita", when not meeting the Founder's criteria of being "WELL-regulated".

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    Again with the same old tired arguments. It is unacceptable to do nothing about keeping weapons from the unfit. Maybe if any of you NRA people would go back to it's roots then we can listen and finally get to work. We will never have a total gun ban and nor should we so get off it and get in tune with reality. The POTUS directives are a good starting place. I'm telling you we can not keep doing nothing.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 24, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    Why should we enact meaningless legislation that does nothing to work with the root of the problem.

    If you ban the assault rifles and the extended magazines for them, that won't stop the use of semi-automatic rifles that can carry lots of ammunition. I can easily find multiple rifles that hold over 10 rounds that don't look like "assault rifles".

    If you want to fix the problem, you need to look to mental health. In some cases, you need to look at the mental condition of the community. The problem is that you cannot legislate better mental health or better communities.

    To "Pagan" did you see the story "Casper College Attack: Man Kills 2, Self In Murder-Suicide" in the Huffington Post? Does that mean we should ban bows and arrows too? That murderer killed 2 people with a bow and arrow. He could have killed more if he had wanted to.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    @Kent C. DeForrest

    What I get from your comment is, it is perfectly okay for people to take up arms and defend themselves, just so long as the people doing the defending meet a certain criteria.

    Clearly from your point of view, any action taken to kill or drive out the early Latter-day Saints was justified, while both the early and current Latter-day Saints should not be afforded the same privilege.

    Is that what the Second Amendment is to you and to many others? A privilege? Hollywood celebrities can go on TV and demand regular citizens give up their guns, while many of them have armed body guards?

    The President and Vice President of the United States can attack the NRA as well as many citizens of this country for defending their right to keep and bare arms, while they themselves receive 24 hour Secret Service Protection from agents who often use the very firearms they wish to ban?

  • Monsieur le prof Sandy, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    The Sandy Hook shooter didn't use an "assault rifle." He used handguns. The rifle was found in his car, but the media didn't mention that. They made it seem that the rifle was part of his arsenal. In any case, the rifle was not an automatic weapon. The emotion behind the killing of innocent children is so strong that it has clouded the minds of many people as to the foolishness of trying to ban weapons as if it were possible or as if it would do any good. Until we can cure mental illness, senseless killings will continue. Nothing will deter a demented mind.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 2:06 p.m.

    Just remember gun registration equals gun confiscation. Ask the people of Belgium, Netherlands, and French what happened when the German army arrived in town. First step get the gun registrations from the city fathers, second eliminate the guns and a few of the gun owners. Liberals will not acknowledge Obama's suggested goal to create a citizen army as well armed as the U.S. military. What could ever be the purpose of a citizen army? When he made the statement I was shocked that he actually voiced it. Discount it all you want but he said it. It may not be Obama, but what other objectionable policies are in the wings by those who wish to secure power over the nation. Liberals are always harping the GOP is the equivalent of the National Socialist Party, then liberals why give the GOP this unconstitutional control. The GOP got the Patriot act passed giving the federal government the power to hold anyone without due process. Obama pushed it further. You can be declared a terrorist with out evidence and held indefinitely.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    Lest you doubt

    Senator Barack Obama, July 2, 2008:

    “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security directives that we’ve set. We got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful---just as strong—just as well funded.”

    Can you say "Brown Shirts"? Lenin's Komsomol.?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    Everyone is talking about the right to own a gun.

    Ok.

    How about the right to go to elementary school without fear of being gunned down?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 24, 2013 2:43 p.m.

    JSF writes "Just remember gun registration equals gun confiscation."

    One cannot be taken seriously after such a ludicrous statement. I did not bother to read the rest.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 3:30 p.m.

    "I did not bother to read the rest." You should, but like a true zealot of the left, ridicule works for you better than dialog. Ignoring what has happened in the past invites the past to replay itself. Pagan is right every child has the right to go to elementary school without fear of being gunned down. So how does this equate to gun control. It is neither a solution nor a protection.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 4:03 p.m.

    How does a childs right to life equate to gun control?

    Really?

    Feigning ignorance that a lack of guns or more regulation to PREVENT gun deaths is self-evident.

    A man in china attacked 20 kids with a knife as the same time as the Sandy hook shootings.

    They, all lived.

    The children shot in America, did not.

    85% of children killed by gun deaths occur, in America.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 4:19 p.m.

    @Pagan "How about the right to go to elementary school without fear of being gunned down?"

    You are more likely to be struck by lightning.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 4:28 p.m.

    Feigning ignorance, hardly, identify how elimination of guns, or increased gun control will protect children in elementary schools. You can't because you can not regulate a madman with no moral compass. A few castor beans and way more than twenty could die. See you did not protect the children by any level. Additionally you exposed hundreds more families to violent crimes. Shouldn't a child be able to feel protected in their own home by their own parents. How about the right to go home from elementary school without fear of being gunned down or violently attacked? You draw a two edge sword that cuts both ways.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 10:24 p.m.

    @cjb
    @one old man
    @LDS Liberal

    The left continues to demonstrate their lack understanding of the constitution.

    'regulated' as defined in the 1700's, means functioning or working.

    The intent of the framers was for the people to be able to adequately function as a militia if ever needed against a tyrannical government.

    So any ban would definitely be UNconstitutional.

    The words of the constitution do have meaning,
    they are not vague nor antiquated.

    Their are many ways to fix our problems, which are far superior, from education to moral training to to proper care of the mentally ill,

    depriving law abiding citizens of rights and liberties is not one of them.

    Nor is the indoctrination of children against guns, and wacko irrational fear of guns the left displays.

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    Millitary style weapons have No place on our streets. Machine guns and hand grenades were outlawed in the 1930's. Its high time we did the same with assault weapons. Limiting clip capacity, and the types of bullets(aka cop killers) would help also. If you feel the need to fire such weapons ,,, Join the millitary!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Anyone who demands that Obama have the right to sign anything that inhibits our right to keep and bear arms is an enemy of the Constitution.

    [Boy - You must really hate Abraham Lincoln then. He not only ignored the 2nd Ammmendment - He ignored Habius Corpus, dis-armed every Southerner, and freed the "property" by the Emancipation Proclamation...all without Congress and their 75%.]

    ========

    the truth
    Holladay, UT
    @cjb
    @one old man
    @LDS Liberal

    The left continues to demonstrate their lack understanding of the constitution.

    'regulated' as defined in the 1700's, means functioning or working.

    ["regulated' mean regulated....regulations, restrictions, ...
    BTW - what back of 'taget shooting', pick trucks and drinking beer has to do with a fully "functioning" or "working" organized and "well-regulated militia" -- as you claim?

    BTW - "infringed" in the 1700's (and the 21st century) means - confisgated.
    The Government confisgating your arms shall not be infringed.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    Don't just stand there, do something, anything." It would be more reassuring if the proposed solutions were validated in some manner. Assault weapons (still lacking a clear definition) and high capacity magazines are great for assaulting, but they should not be available to the civilian public, just as machine gums and other aggressive weapons (artillery, bazookas, land mines, Rocket Propelled Grenades, mustard gas, etc.) are not. The solution also needs to include more comprehensive background checks, mental health support (the ACLU will be an obstacle) and strict enforcement of illegal gun possession/use. Passing "photo op" laws delays real progress.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 25, 2013 10:53 a.m.

    Re:jsf
    Stop misrepresenting what Obama said.

    "We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.

    We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer."

    Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.
    (Factcheck)

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 12:49 p.m.

    All I can say is God Bless the NRA!! This organization has been going strong since the late 1890's and really represents the heart of what America is all about.. freedom!!! I am a proud member of the NRA and also a proud gun owner and hunter as well as concealed carrier. The NRA is pure Americana and is one of the last strong holds of our constitutional rights. The looney left and their Communist puppets foam at the mouth and attempt to ban guns and destroy the second amendment but the NRA stands firm. What those of you on the left don't seem to understand is that the NRA is not just an organization but it is a vast membership consisting of American citizens - law obeying and freedom loving American citizens - that stretch from Main to Washington state and from Alaska to Texas. Congressmen and women are scared spit-less to ban guns and bash the NRA because even in blue states folks still hunt as well as cherish the right to protect themselves and families. Make no mistake this is fight over freedom vs BIG BROTHER central party rule with King Obama.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 1:50 p.m.

    Both Presidents Nixon and George H. W. Bush resigned from their lifetime memberships in the NRA over their political activity and fundraising in which they called police "jack booted thugs". No matter how many members they have, they are still run by a group of loonies seeking power and influence beyond that which they deserve. President Obama is just following the standard set by his predecessors.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    Another Perspective
    Bountiful, UT
    "Military type guns are exactly the kind of guns the constitution meant to protect."

    Then why aren't the NRA and its ditto heads demanding the right to own M-16A2 rifles, machine guns, rocket launchers, and artillery? These are what is meant by "military type guns." After all, gun owners have been adamant that AR-14's and their variants are not assault rifles nor military rifles despite the uncontrovertable fact that the basic model was designed for military use with the intent of being able to kill as many enemy soldiers as possible without jamming. You can't have it both ways. Either they're military assault weapons or they aren't. And either way, there are far too many people, based on their online responses, who eagerly look forward to a breakdown in civilization so they can prove their manhood by shooting as many of their neighbors as possible to defend our way of life, or to having someone break into their home so they can shoot them. Most of them have never been in actual combat and have no idea of what it is like for you afterwards.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 10:39 p.m.

    Of course the left isn't trying ban guns. At least, not in one fell swoop. You have to do it a little bit at a time. Why not start with magazines (not clips) that hold more than 10 cartridges? Or scary-looking guns? (The unintended consequence, of course, is that I wouldn't be able to store a home-defense weapon unloaded, so we'll be less safe.)

    Assault rifles aren't used in the commission of crimes. Good grief, baseball bats kill more people that assault rifles. Banning assault rifles is bizarrely unrelated to the objective of reducing gun deaths.

    One of the reasons the anti-gun movement has any traction at all is because there's an apparent news blackout on the number of lives saved by the use of guns for self defense. It happens every day, but you rarely read about it in the popular media. That lack of coverage has always bothered me.

    But I do believe in gun control - which is hitting where you were aiming.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 7:27 a.m.

    Pops
    NORTH SALT LAKE, UT

    One of the reasons the anti-gun movement has any traction at all is because there's an apparent news blackout on the number of lives saved by the use of guns for self defense.

    =========

    Perhaps youn didn't get the message:

    Glenn Beck just told you guys 2 nights in a row - to drop the conspiracy theories.
    It's making the right=wing look extremeist and whacky.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    The second amendment should have reasonable restrictions or be repealed.

  • Jack Aurora, CO
    Jan. 27, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    Ah yes, the continuing saga of gun bans, misapplication of principle, hysteria and hyperbole.

    First, you cannot seriously believe that most gun owners want to own antiques. Bazookas went out at the end of WWII, so if you can find one, lots of luck trying to find round for it, which ARE regulated because they are explosive....just like Hellfire missiles (straight out of a video game session, I'll guess) Stinger missiles, nuclear weapons and all the other explosive things that some here and on other sites claim must be needed by gun owners. Such claims are borne of hyperbole and hysteria, not reality.

    Second, we DON'T have a free for all system for gun ownership. You have to fill out Federal forms, undergo a background check, pay the fees and THEN you can legally have your purchase. You cannot buy a machine gun, (a REAL assault weapon) or bazooka at the gun show. You CANNOT buy an Uzi, MAC-10 or any other fully automatic weapon at the Gun show. You need licenses/permits at the Federal level to legally own such things.

    STOP THE MISINFORMATION!!!

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    Just say 'gun ban' and they come out of the woodwork just like termites.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Jan. 28, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    @one vote

    "The second amendment should have reasonable restrictions or be repealed."

    Well here is how to do that:
    Two thirds of Senate and two thirds of house must pass a new amendment repealing the second amendment then three-fourths of the State legislatures must ratify it. There might be a small problem though. The bill of rights ( the first ten amendments to the constitution) cannot be repealed