Quantcast
Opinion

My View: How to promote freedom in Utah

Comments

Return To Article
  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    When I saw the title: ‘My View: How to promote freedom in Utah’

    I thought it was going to say something about a balance of power, or a system of checks and balances.

    Meanwhile - We live in the closest Totalitarian, One-Party system of Government in the dwindling Free World.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 8:17 a.m.

    The founding fathers strongly supported competitive elections, and the idea that our fellow citizens would serve in office. What has evolved, in Utah, is a single party with career politicians. This political one-way street is hurting everyone in the State - including republicans. Guns, Gold, and God is the mindset. You need to have a gun to protect yourself from the federal government, you need gold to barter with when the federal government falls apart, and you strongly believe that God's wrath will befall those without Guns and Gold. This foolishness makes Utah look like a bunch of backwoods conservatives that are not part of the National mainstream.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    Reading this, I was left with the distinct impression that things the author saw as "wrong" (same sex marriage, for instance) should be prevented, even though it was an "individual right", while things he saw as "right" (assault weapons, for instance) should be allowed.

    This entire piece comes across as hypocritcal and self righteous.

  • mikeyso23 lehi, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    We do have competitive elections in Utah, and we even elect liberal Democrats in some areas. The fact that we live in a state where the majority of the people are religious conservatives, impacts the way we vote as a whole, but does not alter the political process. I would actually love to see more balance and diversity in Utah, but not at the sake of individual rights. Connor's article is about protecting our inalienable rights. Whether you believe God gave them to us or not is beside the point. The government does not have the authority to take our rights away. Our 2nd amendment right IS there to protect us from a tyrannical government, and one only needs to look at history to understand its importance. And buying gold is simply a smart way to hedge against the eroding value of the dollar, thanks to a government that has grown ridiculously huge and is incapable of slowing down their astronomical spending. I, for one, am happy not to 'look' like the national mainstream - a movement that continues to tear down the constitution and the principles our Founding Fathers built this country on.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    After reading this, I'm frankly not sure exactly what he's pushing.

    Sounds like just some more political fooferaw to me that can be taken any way any reader wants to take it. That's one of the most essential skills any politician must have. The ability to talk and talk and talk -- and actually say nothing.

  • mikeyso23 lehi, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    While, in fact, the author believes that government has no right to deny anyone marriage, so you are mistaken in your assumption. And yes, it is an individual right to own a 'black' gun, or an assault rifle - as antagonists love to call them. The fact remains that less than 1% of violent crime is committed with these types of weapons (were not used at Sandy Hook by the way as the media originally reported). Just consider this for a moment... why is our government so focused on banning guns that are used in such a small number of crimes? Interesting that they are the very same guns that the Department of Homeland Security has recently bought a billion rounds of ammunition for (these are for domestic use, in situations of 'civil unrest'.

  • mikeyso23 lehi, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    Maybe read it again? It is pretty clear to me that Connor is calling for 'a recurrence to fundamental principles' in order to protect our individual liberty and ensure a free government.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    Adding assault rifles and large clips to the list of items the second amendment doesn't necessarily guarantee you can have, like tanks or ballistic missiles, doesn't necessarily curtail our freedom somehow. The line is drawn somewhere; maybe we can move it a bit closer to sanity.

  • ShaunMcC La Verkin, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    I have held for a long time that unless we base our decisions on principles of truth (or fundamental principles) as this author states, our decisions will take us further and further from what we really want - even when made with the best of intentions. When we, instead, make decisions on knee-jerk or emotional response of the moment, we ignore the possible negative consequences they will create. Our legislators are supposed to be a "deliberative" body, which takes time to decide and uses thought and principles to make the good choices that will give us a better future instead of a worse one (which is what politicians give us when all they care about is emotional response or the next election.)

  • UT Brit London, England
    Jan. 25, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    @mikeyso23

    "Our 2nd amendment right IS there to protect us from a tyrannical government"

    As I have mentioned in other stories how much use is an AR-15 against an Abrams tank? Can an AR-15 help you dodge shells fired from an A-10? Can it protect you from gas that can turn your body into a pile of sludge?

    Lets not forget the weapons your government is developing such as lasers that can blind a large amount of people at once, railguns and tungston rods launched from space that will hit with enough force that no warhead is needed.

    Time has moved on since the second amendment was written and the US population has not kept up with the arms the US military has in its stockroom.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    Good conceptual article. The fact that it has not taking sides in some of the controversies du jour simply means it is taking about general principles. It seems as though the commenters are filling in their own definition of unalienable rights. At least the editorial stimulates discussion. Utah, by consensus one of the best run states, is less of a one party state than Massachusetts, NY, Vermont, Rhode Island, Minnesota, DC although it's not a state, California and most of the large US cities.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    ShaunMcC
    La Verkin, UT

    Our legislators are supposed to be a "deliberative" body, which takes time to decide and uses thought and principles to make the good choices that will give us a better future instead of a worse one (which is what politicians give us when all they care about is emotional response or the next election.)

    9:17 a.m. Jan. 25, 2013

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

    The Columbine massacre was 14 years ago.
    They had plenty of time, and have done NOTHING.

    To which, the occurances have been increasing - not decreasing.

    The Conservative policy of "Do Nothingism" - is not working.
    Time to reevaluate, and try something else.

    Yes - I know it's "Progressive".
    But Eternal Progression and Perfection is something I believe in.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    It amazes me that conservatives feel they can independently add words and meanings to documents like the Declaration of Independence.

    There is no such thing as the “right to own private property”.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    Specifically?

  • ShaunMcC La Verkin, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 10:19 a.m.

    Actually, Ultra Bob, the original draft of the Declaration included property as an unalienable right. It was removed after much discussion because it may have been construed that people have a right to have property they have not earned. It IS an unalienable right to control or own the property you create or earn. Also - LDS Lib, I disagree with your characterization of Conservative principles as "Do Nothingism" (I would characterize it more as "stop doing harm and taking away rights in the name of progressivism"), I disagree with "Conservatives" on many issues, but when it comes to guns and the misuse of same, I agree with them that ownership and use of guns is not the problem. Vehicles are involved in the death and maiming of thousands every year but we don't blame the vehicles - we blame the drivers that misuse them and try to educate or take the right to drive away from those who exhibit a disregard for law or other's safety. That may be a better blueprint than taking away guns from the citizenry. Remember Trolley Square? One man with a gun stopped a planned slaughter.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    Amendment 3, passed in Utah in 2004 changed the definition of marriage in the Utah state constitution from two people...

    to one man, one woman. Again, that was in 2004.

    Thereby eliminating any change of gay marriage in Utah.

    This letter is selective in what rights people have, and who should have them. Claiming 'freedom' only when they fit one demographic while not considering others.

    This is not 'freedom'. This is a letter about what the author wants. Not giving any consideration to anyone else.

    Oh, yeah and don't play video games.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    @ShaunMcC
    La Verkin, UT

    Vehicles are involved in the death and maiming of thousands every year but we don't blame the vehicles - we blame the drivers that misuse them and try to educate or take the right to drive away from those who exhibit a disregard for law or other's safety.

    =========

    OK then,
    let's compare --

    You are agreeing that assault gun owners should:

    Pass written comprehensive testing,
    Pass practicle use range testing,
    Pass extensive background checks,
    Pass physical and mental evaluation checks,
    and test and recertify every year?

    ...and keep all weapons and ammo secured in a gun-Safe, or Armory?
    Because that is what is REQUIRED for the ALL Military and Police who use these exact same weapons.

    And as for the vehicle analogy you guys keep bringing up --
    Property Tax,
    Mandatory Insurance,
    Testing,
    Registration,
    Safety inspections,
    Back Ground checks...

    Look,
    The point is, there is room for compromising --
    but YOU guys have got to start bringing something to the table.

    So far all we hear is MORE Guns, and even LESS Retrictions,
    and the American people far and wide, aren't not buying that one anymore.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 25, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    A long disquisition but nothing we don't all already know and agree on, Mr. Boyack. What exactly is your point? (except for "the right to property" -- there's no such right in any framing document or law).

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 25, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" if "Progressives" are continually improving things and advancing, why is it that their policies are just the failed policies of socialism and communism? Should we rename them "Repeatists" because they only seek to repeat the mistakes of the past while thinking they can do it better this time?

    I would rather be part of the group that is seeking to conserve and preserve our freedoms.

    Your tests for purchasing assault rifles is insane. All that will do is drive people to buy the same caliber hunting rifle with all the same capabilities.

    Why not figure out some way to improve communities and mental health issues that face us? We don't have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem, and your ilk wants to treat the symptoms and not the cause.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 25, 2013 12:57 p.m.

    Those who mock the Constitution don't want to have a "measuring stick" that can be used to show that their demands are out-of-line. They don't believe in "founding principles". They believe that government, not God, is the source of liberty. They want to rule over us. They want to reign. They want to take from the producers and transfer that wealth to themselves and to their friends.

    Human history has not changed. There has always been those who reject agency, those who demand that they have the right to change OUR laws without our consent, those who think that there is a privileged class in America and that they are that class.

    God gave us agency with accountability. The left demands to control our agency without accountability. Whose plan is that? Who is its father? How many of us living on earth today rejected that plan and that plan's author?

    America is free because we accepted the responsibility to govern ourselves and to limit the power and scope of all levels of government. Those enemies to our freedoms are vocal, but their premise is backwards.

    Returning to the fundamentals assures good and proper government.

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    @rs1701

    "...our freedoms...".

    Fascist totalitarian jack-booted republicon thug proscribed freedoms?

    See how easy it is to demonize?

    Two can easily play, at your simplistic, never ending daily demonizing diatribes...

    Insane?

    Republicons have long continued to de-fund mental health programs.

    America is reaping and will continue to reap the whirwind of that false economy.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 1:24 p.m.

    I just read my first post. I appreciate the supports in the 'Like' column, but the syntax is terrible. Sorry about that.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 25, 2013 1:45 p.m.

    Any argument that guns were supposed to protect from tyranny was an argument between states rights and the federalist. It's not so you personally get to decide that the political process din't end up how you wanted it too so you get to shoot at the government. Whatever that means.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 1:56 p.m.

    Redshirt1701
    Deep Space 9, Ut

    Why not figure out some way to improve communities and mental health issues that face us? We don't have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem, and your ilk wants to treat the symptoms and not the cause.

    12:33 p.m. Jan. 25, 2013

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

    1. Obamacare provides mental health for ALL Americans - what was the GOPs counter-proposal? Oh ya, more of the same -- NOTHING!

    2. My proposal for Assault rifles is nothing more than what is already required for fully trained and authorized users. When was the last time a soldier or policeman walked in mowed down a classroom full of children?

    3. I'm with V.P. Joe Biden on this one. Like Brinks armoured Security or any other topnotch security forces used worldwide, including the President's own Security detail -- I'll choose a 12 gauge security shotgun over an assault rifle to protect my family of intruders anyday.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 25, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Human history has not changed. There has always been those who reject agency, those who demand that they have the right to change OUR laws without our consent...

    Whose plan is that? Who is its father? How many of us living on earth today rejected that plan and that plan's author?

    America is free...
    Those enemies to our freedoms are vocal, but their premise is backwards.

    Returning to the fundamentals assures good and proper government.

    12:57 p.m. Jan. 25, 2013

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

    Here we go again...
    Speaking of backwards --

    Who's trying to force morality and Forcing everyone to choose the right - always.
    And taking away all Free Agency in the process by banning:

    Smoking
    Drinking
    pre-marital and homosexual sex,
    dictate clothing standards,
    all abortions (even those specifically outlined by LDS Church standards),
    some religions, while promoting others,
    cetain books in schools,

    While we might agree with Theology in many aspects Bro. Richards --
    The How's and the Why's are dimetrically opposed.

    BTW - Why ARE you covering and defending AG John Swallow?
    Putting Party Politics ahead of Right and Wrong, perhaps?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 4:37 p.m.

    ShaunMcC.

    Our rights as applied to human beings exist only so far as the other human beings we associate with, allow us to have. If God had given the rights to human beings, I think he would not have done such a unfair, haphazard, incomplete job.

    The DOI was a recruiting poster and an employment contract alluding to the motivations of the writers using words an phases to sell their cause to the American colonists. Their statement:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”

    is typical of the hucksters then and now who make improbable statements followed up by the fine print.

    I do not ask you to accept my version but merely to look around in your own world and analyze the source of your freedoms and rights, and their limitations.

    Also, the purpose of a car is transportation, the purpose of a gun is to kill. They have different rights.

  • jfarker Temecula, CA
    Jan. 25, 2013 10:28 p.m.

    There absolutely is a right to property. You guys need to do your homework, as Connor has done. The founders changed the wording in order to not embolden slave owners who wanted to declare their slaves as "property." Every effort I make, every calorie I spend, every bit of work I do creates "property" and it belongs to me. Perhaps it would be more clear if you think of it in terms of intellectual property. The principle inherent in this right is that we get to keep the results of our labors. (Obviously the IRS is ignorant of this fact.)

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 26, 2013 6:49 a.m.

    Freedom? In gerrymandered Utah? I guess there is freedom if you are a right wing republican political gun nut.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 28, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    To "WHAT NOW?" I would prefer more of a libertarian minded freedom. The Progressives in the Republican party are not better than the uber progressives in the Democrat party.

    To "LDS Liberal" you are all over the place. You won't admit that the problem is the mental health of the nation. Simply providing mental healthcare is not the solution, that again only treats the symptoms and not the problm.

    Look at the studies out there, social media, and lack of religious conviction are killing us.

    How do you mandate changes to the culture? How do you mandate people to be good and caring neighbors?

    Your ilk still won't recognize that there is NO DIFFERENCE between an assault rifle and a semi-automatic hunting rifle. You want to ban something based on looks only, not actual function.