Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Represent the people

Comments

Return To Article
  • Maudine SLC, UT
    April 11, 2013 4:09 a.m.

    That passage is not in the Constitution - it is in the Gettysburg Address.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 11, 2013 4:47 a.m.

    It is a shame Stan.

    The people have clearly spoken, but our state and federal legislators would rather bow to the NRA lobby than to the will of the people.

    We have the best government that money can buy.

    (and please. Don't tell me about the constitution. Background checks are not in conflict with the Second Amendment. The Supreme court said so.)

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    April 11, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    But, but, THE PEOPLE don't have enough money to make them pay attention.

  • Mark l SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 11, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    There is no such thing as we the people, and never has been. There has always been disagreement over what the best course of action. I remember one way that the founding of our great nation was described is, a great compromise. We don't have a pure/direct democracy by design. We are guaranteed a republican form of government. We pick representatives to make the decisions in our behalf. Mike Lee is doing a great job that he signed up to do, which is protect and defend the Constitution, from enemies both foreign and domestic.

    More gun control laws will not do anything to make us safer. More laws controlling guns will only take away our dwindling freedoms.

    We are all safer when law abiding citizens have arms to protect themselves and others.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 11, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    Elected officials are not responsible to the people. They are responsible to those who fund their campaigns, first and foremost. And that's not you and I.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 11, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    Some believe in mob rule. We have a law that supersedes all other law in America. That law is the Constitution. No law that contradicts the Constitution is legal. Gun control by government is against that law. Laws can be passed to punish people who have misused guns; but, under the Constitution, no law can be passed that "infringes" on our right to keep and bear arms.

    Any elected official who votes for gun control is breaking the law. Any citizen who encourages an elected official to break the law is as guilty as the elected official.

    When people get out of their "mob mentality mode" and apply the law as it is written, they will see for themselves that they and their neighbors do not need Uncle Sam breathing down their necks to maintain our personal liberty. There is only one reason that Washington wants to limit the people's access to guns and that reason is to keep the people from opposing the government from dictating to the people. That is the very reason why we have the 2nd Amendment.

  • rpm9 Lehi, UT
    April 11, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    We don't live in a country of majority rule. Our founders were very concerned about the potential of tyranny by the majority. For that reason, rather than create a direct democracy, our founders created a republic, based on elected representatives and a constitution that limits the power of those representatives.
    Mike Lee is doing a fine job of protecting the rights of lawful gun owners. Wider background checks sounds like a good idea, which is probably why polls show a strong majority in their favor. However, Mike Lee and others recognize that to implement background checks over private sales would require a gun registry. The polls don't include any questions asking how the public feels about a national gun registry.
    Also, the argument that a large number of gun sales happen without background checks because of current law is false. The Washington Post has called the president's statement that 40% of gun sales happen without a background check exceedingly misleading, and applied three Pinocchios to the statement. We already know that no recent mass shootings would have been affected by a change in the background-check law.

  • booshway Woods Cross, UT
    April 11, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    Well, at least SOME of our reps understand the Constitution. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?
    The Supreme Court says background checks are OK? The same SC that OK'd Dred Scott, allowed socialism into our gov't in 1936, allows mothers to kill their unborn babies, allows gov't to take private property from one person and give it to another (Kelo), and, most recently allowed the abomination of Obamacare to stand? That Supreme Court?
    As Bugs Bunny used to say "It is to laugh".
    80% want more gun control? Really? Since the Obamanation was elected (now reelected) there have been 70 million background checks done. AT least 70 million new guns. That doesn't tell me 80% want more gun laws.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    April 11, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    Mike Richards, no, sorry. 'Well regulated militia' means, you know, regulated. Gun control is NOT unconstitutional. Mandatory gun confistication might be.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 11, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    "Gun control by government is against that law"

    Mike, Please. YOu spout that day after day after day.

    The Supreme court has the task of clarifying the meaning of the constitution when laws are challenged.

    Do you disagree?

    The Supreme court has held that is is CONSTITUTIONAL to place some restrictions on

    Who can own them
    What weapons they can own
    Where they can carry them.

    Do you discount EVERY supreme court ruling, or just those that you disagree with.

    Tell me how you can conclude that there can be NO RESTRICTIONS on the Second Amendment when the Supreme Court has said differently.

    What logic do you use?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 11, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    For the benefit of your understanding Stan, “money makes the world go round”.

    If you would have government by, for and of the people, you have to change the way we elect and compensate our government.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    April 11, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    Mike Richards,

    Thomas Jefferson wrote, "A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

    Or as SCOTUS Justice Robert Jackson wrote, "There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

    The law was written for man, not vice versa. We should not be tempted towards a fundamentalist worship of it.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 11, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    Some believe in mob rule.

    ===========

    Mike -

    The Consitituion does not support your twisted interpretaion allowing ANYONE [children, criminals, and mentally insane] free and unfettered access to any and all weapons.

    What next? - Do you seriously believe we [including criminals, terrorists and mentally insane] can all have chemical, biological and dirty nuclear bombs in our garages, malls, and school grounds -- so long as we don't USE them?

    C'mon - where's you common sense man?

    BTW - Your "militia" is the very difinition of mob rules.

    Joseph and Hyrum Smith were murdered by a self appointed "militia", who thought they were defending the Consitutional rights of Freedom of the Press.

    They were a MOB - with No Commanding Officer, No Chain of Command, No Authority, No Orders, No training, and No Accountability.

    Just like you and the rest of the pro-gun commentors here.
    M-O-B

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2013 10:19 a.m.

    Representatives/senators don't have to do what the people want. Of course doing so can cause electoral problems if Utah wasn't a state that'd vote for anyone with an R next to their name.

    As for the gun regulations... even Scalia considers it constitutional and he's the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court. There is nothing unconstitutional at all about what is being proposed.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    April 11, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    Reason and good sense notwithstanding, probably most fundamental to the gun controversy is the irrational fear-induced ideology of some that "government" is conspiring against them. What they openly contend are mostly distracting rationalizations. To argue over the particulars of the likes of the 2nd Amendment, safety and freedom when the real issue stems from deluded thinking is a waste of time, recalling the biblical adage of straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 11, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    @RPM9

    "Mike Lee and others recognize that to implement background checks over private sales would require a gun registry. "

    We have had background checks for years now when buying from a dealer. Do we have a gun registry?

    Why would that change if we had universal background checks?

    I dont understand the logic. Please explain.

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

    Like Mike Richards, there are many that only interpet the Constitution how they perceive it will effect them personally. You and I are to be ignored because we don't know what's good for us. Mike Lee will see to that as witnessed by his dismal record of communication to his constituents.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 11, 2013 12:13 p.m.

    Question,
    Since privacy laws prevent access to medical records, how will the background checks screen out the insane? Aren’t doctors proscribed from violating Dr./patient confidentiality and divulding that their patient has a problem?

    Eric,
    No, sorry. In 2nd amendment context, “well regulated” means trained and competent, not restricted.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 11, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    To "Stan Jacobson" many of the people are ignorant of the laws currently on the books.

    We already have laws that cover what has been proposed. How about we enforce the laws that are currently on the books.

    Or, how about we see what Police Officers are saying.

    Most police officers say that the best thing to do would be to make gun crimes have stiffer punishments. The Police say that the WH proposed laws will make things worse, not better.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 11, 2013 12:39 p.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    We have a law that supersedes all other law in America. That law is the Constitution. No law that contradicts the Constitution is legal.

    ==========

    Good grief Mike...

    Using your micro pin dot sized narrow interpretation of the "Constitution",

    Traffic laws are illegal.
    Drugs laws are illegal.
    Prostituion and Gambling Laws are illegal.

    You need pull up - use some common sense - and see the forest from the trees.

    You're so down in the weeds reading the letter of the law, you've completely missed the spirit of the law.

    It's an insult to the Founding Fathers and the document they produced.
    Just like the Pharisees and the Scriptures.
    Missed it...

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    April 11, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    Oh the irony. When it's about gay marriage we should go with the will of the majority. But when it's guns we should stick to the constitution. The hypocrisy knows no bounds.

  • rpm9 Lehi, UT
    April 11, 2013 1:24 p.m.

    @JoeBlow

    Why will a universal background check law likely lead a gun registry?

    The law would have very little teeth without it.

    For gun dealers, they know they can be audited at any time by the ATF to show that they have a 4470 form (background check form) for every gun they have sold. So, they are highly motivated to comply.

    For an individual, unless the ATF has the ability to audit any gun owner at any time to determine if a lawful transfer has occurred, there will be little motivation to comply. Without a registry, no auditing ability. For an individual, they know the ATF will investigate transfer of a firearm only if a trace on the serial number is initiated because the gun was used in a crime.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 11, 2013 1:35 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" actually, the Traffic Laws, Drug Laws, Prostitution, and Gambling are all state issues, that is how they fit withing the Constitution. Read the 10th Ammendment.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    April 11, 2013 2:33 p.m.

    Bob Bennett needed to go. He became corrupted by his office.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    April 11, 2013 2:34 p.m.

    Yes the 10th amendment that is abhorred by so many that believe the states shouldn't have any rights.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 11, 2013 3:36 p.m.

    Re:repm9

    Enforcement of existing gun laws?

    Lol

    Congress has steadily decreased the ability of law enforcement--ATF-- to enforce existing gun laws.
    For example:
    Congress (ie Republicans) have not allowed the confirmation of an ATF Director for the past 7yrs. Prior to 2006 the ATF Director did not need congressional confirmation.

    And
    The 1986 Firearm Owners' Protection Act laid out special rules for gun dealers. ATF can inspect gun dealers once each year without a federal court order, but they inspect only about one in five because there aren't enough investigators. Thousands of dealers have not been inspected in five years or more.

    When the agency finds violations at gun stores, Congress generally only allows ATF to issue a warning or revoke; it has very narrow suspension or fining authority.

    Since 2003, Congress passed a provision that forbids ATF from releasing gun-trace data and what violations they find at gun stores. Congress has even told ATF it cannot require stores to take an inventory.

    In 2009 752 inspections, or about 7% of the total, turned up missing guns - some 18,000-plus in all, according to ATF data.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 11, 2013 3:44 p.m.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, OR to the PEOPLE.

    ==========

    Yes the 10th amendment that is abhorred by so many that believe the "PEOPLE" shouldn't have any rights.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 11, 2013 5:39 p.m.

    After reading some of the posts today, I wonder if the school system failed or if the students were unteachable.

    Does the FEDERAL level of government have the right to set your property tax rate?

    Does the FEDERAL level of government have the right to set the speed limit in your city?

    Does the FEDERAL level of government have the right to dictate rights to you?

    Does the FEDERAL level of government have the right to restrict those rights that you reserved to yourself, rights outside the jurisdiction of any level of government?

    The 1st Amendment is such a right. You can be prosecuted AFTER you have cried "fire" in a theater, not before.

    The 2nd Amendment is such a right. You have the absolute right to keep and bear arms, independent of membership in a militia and independent of government oversight of any kind. That is a guaranteed right that is outside the authority of any level of government to infringe.

    Too many people insist that the Constitution is outdated and that government is the source of our rights. By so doing, they reject every American principle that makes us free.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2013 6:27 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    "The 2nd Amendment is such a right. You have the absolute right to keep and bear arms, independent of membership in a militia and independent of government oversight of any kind."

    That's false. Even Scalia disagrees with you.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 11, 2013 7:21 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "The 2nd Amendment is such a right. You have the absolute right to keep and bear arms, independent of membership in a militia and independent of government oversight of any kind."

    ======

    Mike - You refuse to answer my question...

    Once and for all --

    By YOUR interpretation;
    My right to keep and bear chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in my garage? Y/N

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 11, 2013 9:16 p.m.

    If there's one thing this Country definitely needs more of it's laws and regulations.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2013 10:15 p.m.

    I’m very proud of Sen. Mike Lee for standing up for freedom and the Constitution. This is in contrast to Sen. Orrin Hatch, who is afraid to take a stand on this critical issue.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 12, 2013 2:47 a.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    Once and for all, is the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land or are we supposed to throw away our God given liberties and bind ourselves to your law? Are we to give away our rights because you have decided that "shall not be infringed" really means "shall be infringed"?

    Once and for all, why do you continually propose that the Supreme Law of the Land become an "Inferior Law of the Land"?

    Once and for all, why do you continually tell us how much you believe in personal freedom and in the same breath demand that we do exactly as you tell us to do?

    Once and for all, when exactly was the 2nd Amendment amended by the vote of 75% of the States to mean the opposite of what it says?

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    re: one old man 1st page

    But, but, corporations are people too. Or, so a certain former GOP Candidate for POTUS would have the gullible & simple-minded believe.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 12, 2013 10:38 p.m.

    LDS? lib,
    Since when do liberals care about the constitution? They don't and you know it.

    No one has answered my question about doctor / patient confidentiality.