Quantcast
U.S. & World

Thousands march for gun control in Washington

Comments

Return To Article
  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    So a bunch of people who have no regard for the Constitution are marching in Washington. Whatever. I'm not giving up my weapons. I don't care what illegal, unconstitutional 'laws' are passed. March and protest all you want. Get your stooge Senator Feinstein to introduce unconstitutional legislation. I don't care. I'm not going to comply. Hope you like marching out in the cold.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 11:20 a.m.

    Good. We need a lot more of this.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    What's happening or "news" has been planned by social engineering networks, specifically the 'National Training Laboratory'. Having studied the science of mass manipulation through crisis creation... we now have a manipulated population marching for gun control.
    Gun control is a critical step towards these social scientists achieving their draconian utopia of a collectivist, one world socialistic dictatorship.

    The created crisis strategy?..... Sandy Hook, before that...Batman theater shooter..... before that....Arizona Senator mass shooting... get the sequence?

    There is a pattern here- A lone crazed young man as shooter with a hypnotized, drugged look on their face when brought to court.... Get the picture?

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    It would be nice if the A.P. would give us an aerial photo.

    As close as the front portion of the crowd looks, I'd say more like "dozens" rather than "thousands"!

    Even "thousands" is not that big for a D.C. march though.

  • SS MiddleofNowhere, Utah
    Jan. 26, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    @ One Old Man,
    There should be a lot more of asking to take away constitutional rights? Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Are you serious? That's insane.

    These people are so blinded by a horrific event that they are actually asking the government to take rights away. They are feeding right into the hand of the left wing agenda. I never thought I'd live to see the day when people ask for their rights to be taken away.

    I can't wrap my head around people thinking that banning the selling of "assault rifles" (whatever that consists of) will actually stop shootings from happening. It won't even put a dent in the percentages of people killed by firearms. Those people are dreaming. And if I hear one more person say "military style assault rifle" I might just puke. They aren't what the military uses at all.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    These people are so blinded by a horrific event that they are actually asking the government to take rights away. They are feeding right into the hand of the RIGHT wing agenda. I never thought I'd live to see the day when people agreed to have their rights taken away.

    Just like 9/11/01...

  • Richard Larson Galt, CA
    Jan. 26, 2013 12:19 p.m.

    "Gun control is
    using both hands".......

  • Lasvegaspam Henderson, NV
    Jan. 26, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    It is correct for the DN to run this news story. However, where was your coverage of yesterday's "March for Life" that occurred in D.C.? The March for Life march is traditionally held on Jan. 22 -- the anniversary of Roe v. Wade -- but this year, the 57th presidential inauguration caused the National Park Service to schedule the march to occur on Jan. 25. We've come to expect the liberal lamestream press to be silent, but you, DN?

  • Sand Flea FALLING WATERS, WV
    Jan. 26, 2013 1:01 p.m.

    The crowd was small and full of uninformed voters. Using kids as pawns. I guess they numbered less than 500 if that. The protests for anti-abortion and in favor of gun protection were in 1000's with little to no coverage. Come on AP.

    I live and work in the DC area. They only cover what they want.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    It may take a generation or two but one of these days they will look back and ask "What were we thinking? Why not do something to reduce gun violent risk? Talk about being on the wrong side of history, that is where we are now. Most of the modern countries look at us and wonder when America is going to pull itself together.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 26, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    These same protestors would march for abortion rights. Such hypocrisy.

    Alcohol kills more people then guns,---ban that.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    louie,

    Tell me about it. I wonder how many millions of suckers over the past century or so rotting in gulags and concentration camps didn't ask themselves the similar questions: 'What was I thinking? Why on earth did I not arm myself? Why did I trust my government so much to take care of me?'

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 26, 2013 1:40 p.m.

    Hmm:

    * ban on alcohol didn't work
    * ban on marijuana didn't
    * ban on illegals haven't worked.

    Obama thinks he's going to ban guns?

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 1:50 p.m.

    I agree 100% with those who say we should repeal the 2nd Amendment, and the evidence that banning something makes the problem go away is crystal clear.

    Cocaine, LSD and Meth are illegal and this country clearly has no problems with those things, right?

    It is illegal to drink and drive which clearly means is not a problem in this country.

    Producing or selling child pornography is illegal and therefore not a problem.

    The evidence is obvious. When you make something illegal, problem solved, right?

  • Truthseeker2 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
    Jan. 26, 2013 2:05 p.m.

    Washington (CNN) -- Thousands of demonstrators rallied Saturday in Washington to demand tougher gun control laws, many describing themselves as first-time capital marchers who've had enough of gun violence.
    On a cold day (temps hovering around 30 degrees), a vanguard led a blocks-long procession with a big blue banner, declaring "March on Washington for Gun Control: When we stand together, we stand a chance."

    LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks cautioned Mormons against joining or supporting "right-wing groups who mistakenly apply prophecies about the last days to promote efforts to form paramilitary or other organizations."
    Such groups could "undermine the authority of public officials," Oaks said Sunday at a regional Mormon conference broadcast from the Marriott Center on Brigham Young University’s Provo campus, "in the event of extraordinary emergencies or even in cases of simple disagreement with government policy."

    Latter-day Saints should not "substitute [their] own organizations for the political and military authorities put in place by constitutional government and processes," the apostle said.
    (Sept 2012)

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 2:13 p.m.

    If you are a gun rights supporter you need to be aware of a seemingly unrelated movement that if implemented will result in damage to the second Ammendment.

    This is the movement to get rid of the electoral college or the movement to elect the president and possibly the senate based on population only. The electoral college gives small states more power with respect to large states than they would have otherwise.

    Small states on average are more pro 2nd Ammendment than the larger states.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    A lot of hyperbole in this thread.

    Nobody is trying to ban all guns. If you guys need one to make yourself to feel warm and safe at night, that's your problem. I think most people agree that we need to find a better system for how people get guns. One that includes background checks and mental evaluations perhaps?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    If all military style guns were to be banned, the criminally insane would then turn to using non military style guns. Then those will be gone after too. The banning won't stop here.

    We need to ensure that all mentally I'll people get the help they need. Nothing else will solve this problem.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 3:07 p.m.

    They can't change the Constitution. Guns don't kill people, people kill people

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 26, 2013 3:22 p.m.

    5th try.

    It's not ok to use the threat of guns in the political process.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 3:29 p.m.

    @Truthseeker 2

    Save it for church. I have never ONCE appealed to scripture or an ecclesiastical leader when debating the 2nd Amendment. I certainly didn't do so on this thread. So why are you? I say over and over again that the right to defend oneself is God-given and inalienable, as I am DEFINITELY entitled to that opinion. But, that is the extent of bringing religion into it. I recognize that my church, officially, doesn't endorse my own political leanings. As they SHOULDN'T. If you have a different opinion about what God grants to His children, by all means. Just realize that your opinions aren't officially supported by the LDS Church either, especially if you think individuals shouldn't be able to arm themselves. I didn't glean that anywhere out of Elder Oaks' statement. As far as LDS individuals replacing the regular military or law enforcement agencies with some vigilante mob, I have NEVER advocated the like. Nor did anyone on this thread. So, I guess the real question is, why did you bring up these quotes from an LDS general authority, that are totally irrelevant to this issue.

  • Truthseeker2 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
    Jan. 26, 2013 3:57 p.m.

    Re:Killpack

    First, i happened to come across the Oaks statement today, while doing a search on an entirely different subject and found it interesting.

    Second, I have seen articles about leaders of other denominations taking a stance on gun control. I am not interpreting Oaks comment as being for or against gun control legislation.

    Third, i have seen comments on DN by people, defending lax gun laws, who believe one day they will need to use those guns against the govt. , often based on purported prophecies of past LDS leaders. (also some draw parallels with Hitler's puported gun restrictions).

    It is not irrelevant.

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    Jan. 26, 2013 4:30 p.m.

    Don't get mad at the gun more than you would the whiskey or beer. Common sense here folks, banning guns is not the answer, just like we go after dead beat fathers and folks driving under the influence, we've got to targer criminals and punsih offenders harder and more swift.

    Taking guns, banning, or downsizing guns from responsible citizens only makes law abiding citizens sitting ducks. Just as those folks in Chicago.

  • SS MiddleofNowhere, Utah
    Jan. 26, 2013 6:55 p.m.

    @ There you go again,

    And what rights am I asking the government to take from me by supporting the 2nd Amendment and my right to bear arms? As opposed to asking the government to repeal the 2nd Amendment and take my arms from me? If there is any logic in your statement it must need some explaining.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 26, 2013 7:33 p.m.

    Two For Flinching is right. Way too much hyperbole in this thread. A total gun ban is not on the table. Reasonable and rational restrictions on some types of weapons and magazines are on the table. But witness the emotion, the vitriol, the temper tantrum! And how sadly effective it is in dysfunctional environments. I'm a gun owner, but I'm siding with level-headed folks on this one. I have no fear whatsoever that the guns I own will be taken away,and I cannot find any reason for anyone needing an assault weapon.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 26, 2013 8:14 p.m.

    Killpack,

    Your rationale is astounding. First, can we take God out of it because it has not been proven that he/she exists, and therefore it Is quite possible that he/she has not given you or me anything? Second, how on earth can restrictions on posession of certain types of guns (not all guns, mind you) be interpreted as a violation of the Second Amendment? The "arms" mentioned in the Constitution are muskets - you must know that. And should you agree that any restriction on the possession of "arms" refers to whatever they may be at the current time, do you really think that we many good citizens should possess nuclear weapons at home, for example?

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Jan. 26, 2013 11:09 p.m.

    1. Criminals don't obey laws, and neither do crazy people. Why are some advocating disarming the good guys, not the killers?

    2. Gun bans and all the other schemes being promoted simply do NOT work! (See the CDC study that said so.)

    3. Feinstein and Cuomo have both mentioned confiscation, so anyone who thinks that is impossible is not being honest, or not paying attention. Both NY and California have previously confiscated guns after demanding they be registered, so confiscation is a valid and rational fear. And registration has always preceded confiscation in other countries when tyrants seized control.

    4. The Second Amendment is not just about hunting, or self defense, but about keeping We The People in a position to "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic."

    5. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

    6. Some well-intentioned people simply refuse to accept that evil people exist, and that the police have no duty to protect anyone, and that it is prudent to be able to defend yourself, and in the case of teachers, your students.

    7. "Gun Free Zones" attract killers.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Jan. 27, 2013 12:09 a.m.

    @EDM

    So much to say, where to begin? First, I believe in God, as I am entitled to. That is ABSOLUTELY my right. So no, I will NOT take God out of the equation. You may, if you wish, as that is your right. But I most definitely WILL NOT. Second, as I believe God to be very much a part of this equation, I believe that He has indeed given me the right to defend myself. I believe that is an inborn, inalienable right. Again, you do not have to believe that, but I most certainly do. And nothing is ever going to change that. Third, you are entitled to have an opinion on what weapons should be restricted. Just know that I may not agree with or act upon that opinion. For example, if you don't think I should have semi-automatic assault weapons, you can believe that all you want. However, that belief will NOT affect me. I will possess AR-15s, regardless of what you or anyone believes. Does that rationale astound you? Well, you have every right to be astounded. Just know that I don't really care, either way.

  • JJL Eugene, OR
    Jan. 27, 2013 1:17 a.m.

    While the 2nd Amendment is designed as a check against governmental interference with the right of the individual to own and carry personal firearms, it is not the only check against the Federal government's interference. The 9th, 10th and 14th Amendment also are a checks against the Federal governmnet's interference with this fundemental right. What gives the Federal government the authority to limit the ownership of personal firearms? Can anyone point to a specific provision in the US Constitution that allows such act?

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    Jan. 27, 2013 5:39 a.m.

    I've got news for you people who think this is some right-wing conspiracy to take away your rights and that this problem cannot be solved...there are millions of us out here who are GOP, moderate, Conservative, Democrat, Liberal - who all want some common sense on the kinds of weapons and ammunition we sell so freely in our society. The US is the oddball of the developed world, if you ask anyone from a civilized country outside the US.

    Many of you are so horrified at the thought of no-limits thinking on abortion, violent movies, sexual behavior. You say you want limits on pornography, especially when applied to children. Yet, some might argue that is a limit on our First Amendment. Why should there be no limits on guns? Should everyone own a tank, a Stinger, or a machine gun? These are "arms". Why have you decided to "draw the line" outside of a hunting rifle or 6 shot handgun?

    NYC has restrictive gun laws AND they have a very successful strategy for taking the guns away from criminals. Crime has dropped significantly. Fact is, we CAN and will reduce violence by getting rid of assault weapons.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 27, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    Kill pack, DN Subscriber 2, ThomasJefferson,

    You illustrate one of my points beautifully: So many comments in this thread are nothing but emotional fear-driven rants, utterly lacking any reasonable, rational, or constructive suggestions.

    "There is nothing we can or should do" is not an answer or an argument. There is a lot we can do. The current concept is simple: Limit the number of rounds that can be rapidly fired at any one time so that when someone goes crazy fewer lives might be lost. Fewer lives would have been lost in Newtown if the killer had only a muzzle-loader.

    If you believe that the restrictions being discussed today are infringements of the Second Amendment, I've got news for you. A plethora of arms, from rockets to nerve gas, are off limits for home and personal use. Drawing a new line is what is being discussed.

    True, drawing a new line will not prevent every crazy killer from obtaining a weapon on the off-limits side of the line. But what if it made a difference in just one tragedy, like Newtown? Wouldn't it be worth it? Why not try?

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Jan. 27, 2013 7:49 p.m.

    @ EDM- For the sake of discussion, let's consider allowing some tiny incremental infringement on gun rights.

    Now, how about we slap a 7 day waiting period on freedom of speech? Or limit your choice of churches to only those which are state approved, as some might "offend" other people with their theology. Or, can we search your house with drones, spy cameras, thermal imagere and the like without a warrant?

    The Bill of Rights places strict limits on the powers of government, and any agreement to surrender freedom for the illusion of some benefit is a very dangerous slippery slope indeed.

    And, back to the basic story- That sure is a lot of national media attention (parroted by the incestuous wire service users) over a march that drew about a thousand people from all over the country with several weeks of high level organizing. Meanwhile, last week around 3,000 Utahns showed up to SUPPORT gun rights at our state Capitol in bitterly cold weather with only a few days of local grass roots efforts. Which is a better barometer of public sentiment, and more worthy of coverage. Yeah, Utah's even got largely ignored.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 27, 2013 8:25 p.m.

    Wow!!!

    A lot of ill-informed comments here! Do you guys willingly act ignorant to draw attention to yourselves or are you really just this poorly informed?

    Who is proposing the repeal of the 2nd amendment? Surely not the president! Have you folks even read his proposals? How are they against the 2nd amendment? You can't own machine guns and bazookas so it's not lie you should be able to purchase any gun you want. Why do repubs need semi-autos, endless amounts of bullets, and demand that background checks be avoided!?

    Time to get informed!

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 28, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    DN Subscriber 2,

    Our right to own guns is not in question, and this right will not be infringed upon in any proposal on the table today. No Washington official has proposed repealing the 2nd Amendment. And no one interprets the 2nd to mean that we can buy whatever "arm" we want. Do you really think we, the public, should have random access to whatever might be considered an arm - nuclear weapons, for example?

    3000 Utahns at a pro-gun rally does not mean that the general public is against reasonable gun controls. The polls say something different.

  • joseywales Park City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 8:50 p.m.

    I agree with one old man, we do need more of this. This country is ripe for a revolution, I think Barry and his ilk are actually asking for it. So let the pro-gays march, let the anti guns march, let the illegal immigration is ok people march. But, the other side will march too. And I'm going to bet that when we do, we'll double their numbers. Ya, the last election was about 50-50, but most who voted for BO did so so they wouldn't lose their gravy train, so they won't get off the couch. So, really, let's get after it, let's see who is really willing to defend the Constitution of the United States of America! And guess what? 100 years from now your grandchildren will be watching a play about the New American Revolution, it may not be as good as Les Mis, but it will be great for them to understand why they still have the freedoms we have now, that a bunch of fed up Patriots stood up to a guy who wanted to change everything that was meant to be by the founders of this nation.

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    Jan. 30, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    The sign, "No guns in my school" leaves the school unprotected from attack by the lawbreakers and the left.

    There are plenty of guns to go around for those crazys who refuse to obey basic laws and signs.
    The only way to shut down attacker if for some law abiding armed citizen or policeman to be there to stop it. All other reasonable efforts will fail except to make the left "feel good".
    Fight evil force with good law abiding force of equal strength.

    It would be nice to see swift justice done to those who have broken the laws which are already on our books but it seems to a lost cause in a liberal, evil world.