Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: 'We the people?'

Comments

Return To Article
  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    April 21, 2013 12:58 a.m.

    They can background check til the cows come home. But no one can be denied a gun... Says so in the Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment... For those who may not have access to a copy it goes something like this... 'the fight of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Sounds fairly clear to me.

    If there's to be any restrictions on gun ownership it should come from the US Congress. And it should start with Congress amending the 2nd Amendment. But will the Congress do anything like that? Not likely. It's too hot a button. Politicians don't like to jeopardize their cushy jobs by having black marked on them.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 21, 2013 6:26 a.m.

    Unfortunately, we can not have a reasonable discussion about background check.

    That is not the discussion that the NRA wants. Why? Because it is clearly supported by an overwhelming majority of the American People.

    So, they turn the discussion into

    - Background checks are in violation of the 2nd Amendment.
    This is clearly not true. The Supreme court has ruled that background checks ARE constitutional.
    You may not like it. You may not agree with it. But that does not change the FACT that background checks ARE constitutional.

    - This will lead to a national gun registry with the governments ultimate goal to confiscate all guns.
    Why would the government want to confiscate our guns? Do you have such little faith in America?
    Has the federal government EVER done ANYTHING that would suggest that?

    There are extremes on both sides.

    Left extreme - get rid of any and all guns.
    Right extreme - Any gun, any place by any one.

    The bulk of Americans do not fall into either of those 2 camps. And I can assure you that even those who support background checks would NEVER allow a federal gun ban or confiscation.

    I give the American people much more credit than some.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    April 21, 2013 7:18 a.m.

    When we have the "best congress that money can buy" the will of the people is of little consequence.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 21, 2013 7:54 a.m.

    The Supreme Law of the Land says that government cannot infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. The letter writer disagrees with the Supreme Law of the Land. He disagrees with the Senators who upheld the Constitution and who were elected by the people to represent the views of the States. He agrees with a President who has violated his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution when Obama pushed legislation that would make our right to keep and bear arms null and void. He refuses to use the method chosen by the people to modify the Constitution, i.e. an amendment proposed by Congress and then ratified by 75% of the States.

    In short, he is calling for the Senate to disregard the Constitution. He is calling for the President to have power over the people. He is calling for government to dispense rights, when the Constitution clearly and absolutely requires government to submit to acknowledge that all rights are held by the people and that government is allowed to perform a small number of enumerated duties for the people - duties which are listed in Article 1, Section 8.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    You will find what your looking for. My Dad would say that to me every time I got into trouble. If someone really wants a gun, they will find it, somewhere.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    We the people have been usurped by them the monied. The NRA, oil companies, pharmaceutical outfits, big tobacco...those that fund campaigns hold sway. Something needs to be changed.

  • Ralph West Jordan Taylorsville, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    Mr. Burt hits the nail on the head! "90% of Republican Senators" voting NO Hatch and Lee included, all the while thinking of ways to use their next NRA campaign donation. But lets not forget the four Dems. who voted NO, while shaking in their boots for fear of being primaried by the NRA and Tea Party in the next election. There is definitely a shortage of backbone in DC these days. Seems votes are easy to get, respect is another issue!

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    Here's what bothers me about letters like this....

    Do you actually know all the things that were in bill that the Republicans defeated? Yes there were some good things in it that would help with purchases of guns, but there was some very wide open interpretation of parts of the bill that made people scratch their heads..

    This is why they should not combine things into one big bill...

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    When has the GOP done the will of the people since Obama became president? Their #1 priority isn't to do the will of the people but to make Obama a 1 term president, remember? Now that he was reelected, they are opposing him just to make Democrats look bad: maybe even force the economy into another recession so that they can blame democrats later to make it easier for themselves in the next presidential election.

    It is time to get to business and do the will of the people. But the GOP refuses to do so

  • MacKayJones PROVO, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    There is a lot that Richard doesn't understand. 1) the "40%" is a myth. It comes from a Clinton-era survey of . . . 251 people taken before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks. The real number is closer to 10%.

    2) Richard also doesn't know that making a straw purchase is currently a federal offense. It is illegal.

  • Rand Ogden, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    "We the People" doesn't have much sway with any elected representative who allows a powerful gun lobby to grade lawmakers on their voting record. Legislators live in fear of offending the NRA.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 21, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    Since alcohol and illegal drugs kills and destroys far more lives than guns, maybe we should have more laws against drinking alcohol and illegal drugs! Think of the lives background checks, mandatory waiting periods to purchase alcohol, meth or cocaine and limited container sizes of would save in America! Do it for the children! We know addicts and criminals will obey these laws don't we? Parade drug and alcohol abuse victims on TV and demand new laws against these evils. After all, liberals, we need to be consistent in fighting evils plaguing our nation don't we?

  • ronnie sandy, utah
    April 21, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    Your thoughts are my thoughts but your words are better than my words. Thank you Richard Burt.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    There needs to be a constitutional amendment to get rid of the filibuster. The blocking of reasonable bipartisan will be the high mark of obstruction and game playing.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    Politics is about survival, who can put you out of office, who can give you the resources you need to keep getting re-elected.

    At this point, almost all GOP Congressmen (and some Democrats from Red States) fear the 10% from the NRA more than they do the passive 90% who would support background checks, outlawing straw purchases, etc.

    A sizable chunk of the 90% will be outraged enough to help contribute resources to like-minded political organizations, like Mark Kelly's PAC. Sadly, the 90% can't simply assume their representatives will do the right thing. (This is discouraging in itself, part of how politics turns people off.)

    But until the GOP and red-state Democrats fear getting booted from office by angry voters who are focused and motivated by a political organization that counters the NRA, there's no reason for Congressmen to change their orientation.

    If enough people who are outraged give money to Mark Kelly's PAC, maybe we'll begin to see GOP and red-state Dems "evolve" their positions on these issues. Until then, nothing will happen.

    "Nothing" is the goal of the NRA.

  • Copy Cat Murray, UT
    April 21, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    Facts matter, and this letter has distorted the facts. It is already illegal to buy a gun for someone who legally cannot. No need action needed other than enforcement.

    I seriously doubt that 90% want more background checks. That number has been created through carefully crafted deceptive polling. I thought more background checks was a good idea until I learned that it also requires everyone who sells a gun to keep a record of who they sold it to, i.e. they are making a registry. One day the government will call in all those records and the gun registry will be complete. That is contrary to the Constitution, and rights to privacy.

    Utah's senators did the right thing. Great job Senator Lee and the TEA Party, and the NRA.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 21, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    Re:wrz, MikeRichards
    You conveniently edit the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

    Your views are far to the right of the conservative Justicies serving on the Supreme Court. And the conservative Justices serving today are to the right of past conservative Justices on this issue.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    April 21, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    Again and again Richards and others distort the 2nd Amendment. I am still waiting for you to inform us what "well regulated" militia you belong to and if so then why do we have a standing military? Again and again Richards and others pick and choose what part of the Constitution you want to follow based on your bias. With every right comes responsibility and if you aren't a responsible gun owner you should be excluded like I would be with the 1st Amendment if I yell fire in a crowded dark theatre. How do I know? It has been established by law, another part of the Constitution. If you are using the argument that background checks won't stop all crime then lets repeal all restrictive safety laws because they don't stop violators as the fertilizer explosion in Texas demonstrates.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    April 21, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    Here's a little experiment for Mountainman, Mike Richards, and their philosophical kin:

    Do you support the right of *any* US citizen to purchase as many, and as powerful of guns they can legally purchase, including 100 round magazines, even if they're disgruntled immigrants from muslim nations? May these same immigrants also purchase as much ammonium nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel as they wish, without the federal government tracking their activities?

    And if you believe the feds actually should track immigrants and perhaps restrict their activities, what makes you think the same federal government couldn't track you and limit your rights?

    Does Rand Paul still want to get up on the soapbox and claim the federal government must never have the right to track US citizens?

    At some point, the ultra-right needs to temper their paranoia that the federal government is the enemy. Come in off the range, boys, and sit down and talk rationally with the rest of us.

    Maybe it's not inevitable that our government in DC is going to become tyrannical. This paranoid fantasy is what actually allows people like the Chechen brothers in Boston to operate.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 21, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    Re: "Forty percent of those who purchase guns are not subject to background checks . . . . Currently, there is no law prohibiting "straw purchases."

    Here's a good illustration as to why it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation with liberals about gun laws -- they lie.

    Straw purchases for prohibited persons have been a 10-year/$250k felony since 1968.

    And, Obama's 40% figure is a lie. It comes from a dated, questionable study, includes intra-family gifts and inheritances, and is "rounded" up from 35.7%.

    Most tellingly, that same study found that only 3.9% of purchases are made at gun shows.

    Funny we've never heard that. Or that most gun-show purchases are from licensed gun dealers, who are already subject to current background check laws.

    It's hard to have a meaningful conversation with people who want to start it off with a disingenuous premise.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    April 21, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    Those ignorant of the Constitution keep trying to link "well regulated" with the right to keep and bear arms. They refuse to accept the ruling of the Supreme Court. In effect, they refuse to support the Supreme Law of the Land in favor of the inferior law being proposed by Obama and the rest of those who have total disdain for the freedoms of 330,000 Americans.

    Would those who are so ignorant of the law sit back peaceably and wait for clearance from government before posting - as the government pre-qualified their speech?

    Would those who are so ignorant of the law sit back peaceable and wait for permission from government to worship God in the religion of their choice?

    Those who believe in a nanny state where liberties are doled out to the citizens by government do not deserve to be free. They want a king to rule and reign over them. They deserve to be pawns and to be used for the political purposes of those who disrespect the freedoms guaranteed to the people by the Constitution just as Obama shamefully used and abused citizens to promote government infringement on the 2nd Amendment.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 21, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    @ JThompson

    you write "They refuse to accept the ruling of the Supreme Court. In effect, they refuse to support the Supreme Law of the Land "

    Yes or no questions

    Has the Supreme court ruled that it is Constitutional to limit who can own a gun? Yes or no

    Has the Supreme court ruled that it is Constitutional to limit where one can carry a gun? Yes or no

    Has the Supreme court ruled that it is Constitutional to limit what kinds of weapons one may possess? Yes or no

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    April 21, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    This is the actual 2nd Amendment, taken directly from the Constitution, not the paraphrase version of wrz who was the 1st to comment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    Please note J Thompson from Springville, Mike Richards and the like that it is one sentence. It is not 2 paragraphs. This would indicate in English that the well regulated Militia and right to bear arms are connected. Your arguments are faux. We did not have a standing military until the late 1800's. Even during the civil war the armies were made of state militias, regulated by the individual states. It is no concern to me if you are responsible, competent, and sane, you own a weapon but with 2 million denials of legal weapon purchases the past 15 years don't tell me that closing loopholes in the background check laws won't help protect our citizens.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    April 21, 2013 11:47 a.m.

    The failure of this faulty bill is not due to the NRA. It's due to the Constitution. And I'm glad a sufficient number of Senators saw this bill for what it was.

    But above this being a constitutional issue, the overriding question, which should have been asked by the media, was how passage of this bill would have prevented Sandy Hook. The fact is it wouldn't have...anymore than the banning of shooting on public land prevented fires in Utah. (Note that the media and leftists did not request the banning of smoking on public land in this state. Only shooting. The concern wasn't fires. It was guns.)

    This isn't about protecting children or preventing shootings (this administration instigated "Fast and Furious", which provided thousands of auto- and semi-automatic weapons to the Mexican drug cartel), it's about taking control of the people and taking away their rights. And some of you are simply pawns being used by those in power to further their agenda. And some of you are part of the agenda.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    April 21, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    Joe Blow,

    Why don't you answer those questions? Why don't you show us where the Court ruled against the 2nd Amendment and infringed on your right to keep and bear arms? Why don't you show us the steel ruler against which the Court based any decision and then tell us how their "rubber ruler" has basis for deciding a Constitutional question? Why don't you tell us who gave the Court, the President, or Congress authority to infringe our right to keep and bear arms?

    There is no authority in America - that the people have Constitutionally authorized - that has authority to infringe our right to keep and bear arms. Those who improperly use firearms can be prosecuted AFTER they have broken laws related to the USE of firearms. They cannot be prosecuted, under the Constitution, for keeping and bearing arms.

    If you disagree, then you disagree with the only document in history that guarantees your freedom from government and from being a slave to political tyrants who would twist and change words to suit their purposes.

    Obama has twisted the words of the Constitution. Why does he want the government to suppress ownership of guns?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    In the Heller ruling that overturned Chicago's gun ban the Court did note that regulation of guns is Constitution (even Scalia did so and he's the most conservative justice). So anyone arguing that an expansion of background checks is unconstitutional... you disagree with the entire Supreme Court.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    @Copy Cat
    So basically you were fine with it until you read that it would set up a registry? Unfortunately, what you were reading was a lie. The background check provision they were voting on and rejected carried a 15-year felony jail sentence for anyone who attempted to make such a registry.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 21, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    I see J Thompson.

    So, in one post you fully support Supreme Court rulings, and in the next you don't. How convenient to stand behind them when you agree with their interpretation and throw them under a bridge when you dont.

    How convenient to call their ruling the "supreme law of the land" when it suits you and that they have no "authority" when you don't like their rulings.

    Look at the Heller Ruling. You are free to pick and choose which parts you like, but you are not free to choose which ones set the legal precedent that governs this country.

    "Obama has twisted the words of the Constitution. Why does he want the government to suppress ownership of guns?"

    Probably the same reason Reagan did in supporting background checks. Heck, Reagan even pushed and got a 15 day waiting period in California.

    Regardless of what Reagan, Bush or Obama do, or how you feel they twist words, the ultimate decision with any proposed legislation as far as what is Constitutional, lies with the Supreme court, LIke it or not.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    April 21, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    one vote

    No constitutional amendment is necessary. The filibuster is Senate rule and could be changed by that body. But parties reverse in power every so many years and the party in the minority likes the extra power provided by the filibuster. It tends to make the Senate move more collaboratively.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 21, 2013 1:51 p.m.

    Re: "'Nothing' is the goal of the NRA."

    You say it like it's a bad thing.

    Real people understand liberals' gun-control proposals can't actually control guns. Only people. The wrong people.

    And, we understand liberal's proposals don't even address the issues presented by the "crises" they claim motivate them, like Newtown.

    Most importantly, we understand that that liberal's proposals are phony "solutions" in search of a problem --

    The tiny percentage of gun-show sales have not really been shown to create a problem.

    Background checks are not really a problem, as demonstrated by the Obama regime's refusal to use the background-checking authority it already has. "Assault weapons" are not really a problem. Rifles are responsible for only a tiny fraction of gun deaths, and rifle color and aesthetics are not associated with misuse.

    In other words, nothing is the best response to this, as well as nearly ALL the "crises" liberals demand we address with their phony "solutions."

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    April 21, 2013 1:53 p.m.

    Joe Blow,

    Would you cite the oath that a Supreme Court justice takes? To whom does he owe 100% obedience? To his peers or to the Constitution?

    You are so fond of quoting one justice, with whom you agree, at the exclusion of everything else said by the Court or of the fact that no restrictions were placed on gun ownership and that no legislation was ruled on that limited or restricted ownership. That doesn't stop you from pretending that Justice Samuel Alito ruled against ownership of guns. HE DID NOT! No case was before the Court to limit or to infringe on ownership of firearms. If you are honest, you will stop pretending that judge Alito limited our right to own firearms or that he placed ANY restriction on our ownership of firearms. HE DID NOT!

    You are twisting a ruling to suit YOUR purposes.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 21, 2013 2:43 p.m.

    Here is some of the text of the DECISION. Not one person.

    (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

    This is the Supreme court ruling. Yours and my opinions don't matter. It does contain other things also, in support of guns.

    But it is clear by this ruling, not one persons opinion, that some "restriction on our ownership of firearms" are permissible.

    No twisting whatsoever.

    Out of posts.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 21, 2013 2:46 p.m.

    The biggest threat to the future of this country and our posterity is a complete and utter collapse of our economy caused by unsustainable debt and deficits. So naturally the President and Dianne Feinstein waste the American people's time with a meaningless piece of legislation that everyone knew was going nowhere.
    So after the legislation went down in flames the President acts like a spoiled child because he didn't get his way and we have Democrats criticizing Republicans for the failure when the majority leader of the Senate who is a Democrat also voted no.
    Why don't the Democrats just move on to their next piece of reactionary, illogical piece of legislation. Cash for clunkers anyone?

  • bill in af American Fork, UT
    April 21, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    I am greatly disappointed in our two US Senators from Utah who did not have the common sense to vote in favor of expanding background checks. Anyone who really understands the Constitution knows that the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution and they have determined that background checks and other limits (such as age) are constitutional and does not violate the concept "shall not be infringed". They have to look at what was the intent of the 2nd amendment when first adopted in 1791 and how it applies to us today. That is why we have a living constitution that has served us well for over 225 years. Our two Senators know this and have chosen to follow the far right party leadership rather than the citizens who they were elected to represent.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 21, 2013 3:10 p.m.

    Great Letter - Agreed!
    Thanks.

    ====

    BTW -
    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    The Supreme Law of the Land says that government cannot infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

    ---

    Richards - Do you support my right to keep and bear chemical, biological and nuclear weapons?
    Yes or No?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 21, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    J Thompson
    SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Those ignorant of the Constitution keep trying to link "well regulated" with the right to keep and bear arms. They refuse to accept the ruling of the Supreme Court.

    =======

    Well J Thompson, we link "well regulated militia" to the 2nd amendment because it's actually IN the 2nd amemndment!

    And speaking of refusing and accepting the ruling of the Sumpreme Court --
    All I can say to you is "Roe v. Wade".

    Try practicing what you preach.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 21, 2013 3:26 p.m.

    On June 29, 2010, The Washington Post reported that "Four members of the majority said the amendment was "incorporated" through the 14th Amendment's guarantee that the states may not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

    Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case but said the right was more correctly located elsewhere in the 14th Amendment, in a clause that forbids laws that abridge "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

    So much for putting Joe Blow's post in the "untwisted" category.

  • L White Springville, UT
    April 21, 2013 4:17 p.m.

    Mr. LDS Liberal takes great delight in promoting abortion and in trying to restrict our free speech by telling us that unless we also reject our oath to Christ to stand as a witness for Him at all times and witness of His love of his "little ones" that we are against the Constitution.

    Mr. LDS Liberal, you are full of baloney.

    You can support abortion. You can mock those of us who respect innocent life. You can continue to tell everyone that those who disagree with you are against the Constitution. None of that changes one thing.

    The Constitution does not allow government on any level to infringe on our right to keep and to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is not linked to abortion in any way. Roe v Wade does not force anyone to have an abortion but you want to force us to pre-qualify for gun ownership. In other words, you have no qualms against using force to make us do what you want us to do and then accuse us of forbidding your right to participate in abortions. We do nothing of the kind.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 21, 2013 5:36 p.m.

    @ L White

    "The Constitution does not allow government on any level to infringe on our right to keep and to bear arms."

    Sooooo according to you, we should all have access to machine guns, drones, and nerve gas? No background checks and no permits? Interesting.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 21, 2013 6:14 p.m.

    And yet you all are ok with restrictions on the phrase abridge..when the constitution clearly says that no laws shall abridge the right of free speech. You can't infringe on a constitutional right but go right ahead and abridge a constitutional right, with libel laws, hate speech laws, public indangerment laws etc.

    SCOTUS is packed with geniuses when considering abridging..but they are communist (the pharse used by one poster) when consindering infringing.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 21, 2013 6:25 p.m.

    "Sooooo according to you, we should all have access to machine guns, drones, and nerve gas? No background checks and no permits"?
    There are nations who already have and use machine guns, tanks and nerve gas but its always dictators using them on their own citizens, i.e. Syria, Iraq, N. Korea and the former USSR. What do you suggest the victims use to protect themselves? Spitballs? Incidentally, have you ever heard of Waco or Ruby Ridge?

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2013 7:33 p.m.

    So answer the question, Mountanman, do you think that American citizens should have access to nerve gas, high explosives such as c4, machine guns, missiles, bombs, etc, all without a background check.

    That is the argument being made by some people here, people saying that their right to bear arms shall not be infringed at all.

  • L White Springville, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:04 p.m.

    Mr. Maverick,

    Which part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? I asked my ten-year-old grandson what it meant and he said, "you can't do it - ever". What does he know that you do not know?

    After you learn what it means, would you please explain it to Mr. Mark? He's having the same trouble as you're having.

    Mr. Pragmatist,

    You seem to have trouble with "pre" and "post". You seem to be saying that slandering someone should have no consequences. I guess you could use that same logic to try to convince us that you have the right to rob a bank - if bank robbing is how you make your money because nobody should have the right to keep you from making a living. Your right to speak was not abridged if you used that right to commit slander but the punishment for slander would apply because you used your right to speak foolishly. The punishment came after you committed a crime, not before. "Pre" vs "Post". It makes a very big difference. You want to punish the innocent before they commit a crime.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:18 p.m.

    "Which part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? I asked my ten-year-old grandson what it meant and he said, "you can't do it - ever". What does he know that you do not know?"

    Good. Since your 10 year old explained it then it shouldn't be difficult for you to. So lets try this again. I ask the same question which you refused to answer: do you believe that any and every citizen should be able to purchase maching guns, drones, nerve gas, and virtually any and every weapon ever invented without permit, background check, or training?

    It's a simple yes or no question. C'mon repubs, it's simple. Stop beating around the bush and answer the question.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 21, 2013 10:47 p.m.

    L White..what? Abridge means to curtail, diminish, or reduce in scope. The first amendment says no law can be passed that abridges the right of free speech, yet we have laws against libel, laws that indanger the public, and laws that incite hate. Just as the courts have said to limit the sale of guns to law abiding citizens..excluding other citizens does not infringe on the "right" to bear arms.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 22, 2013 7:30 a.m.

    Re: "The first amendment says no law can be passed that abridges the right of free speech, yet we have laws against libel, laws that indanger the public, and laws that incite hate."

    Good illustration of how liberal Second Amendment proposals infringe!

    First off, there are no American laws against speech that incites hate. If there were, many liberals -- most Democrat politicians and nearly all the "progressive" Hollywood crowd -- would be in jail. You must be thinking of euro-socialist countries who punish anyone speaking against their governments.

    Second, the laws you cite regarding libel and endangering the public, punish abuses of First Amendment rights, AFTER they cause damage or hurt someone. No law requires a license to speak, before speaking is permitted; registration of printing presses or computers; reducing the capacity of big mouths; or prohibitions on people speaking that are of a different color, or otherwise look different than others.

    Deranged liberal Second Amendment proposals do.

  • L White Springville, UT
    April 22, 2013 7:41 a.m.

    Mr. Pragmatist,

    Which department of government to you register with to receive permission to speak? Is it the department of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and speech? Who signs your permission slip before you are allowed to speak? Who performs the background check before you can speak? Oh, so you are allowed to speak without government intervention! You are allowed call Nixon a crook without facing jail time! You are allowed to call Bush a baby killer without being sent to prison! You do have the right to speak, but your neighbor can sue you if you libel him, just as he can sue you if you shoot him.

    Mr.Maverick,

    King Obama does not dispense rights. We, the people, did not assign him the task of parceling out permission to keep and bear arms.

    You trust a government that arms Mexican gangs so that they could kill a border patrol agent.

    You trust a government that lied about Benghazi because the truth would have hurt Obama.

    You trust a government that labeled the Fort Hood Terrorist Attack a "work place incident".

    Yet, you do not trust your neighbors.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 22, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    @L White
    Springville, UT

    ---------

    I'm with The Real Maverick on this one...

    "..do you believe that any and every citizen should be able to purchase maching guns, drones, nerve gas, and virtually any and every weapon ever invented without permit, background check, or training?

    It's a simple yes or no question."

    I used chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in the Military.
    I'm trained and fully certified.
    Can I have such weapons in my garage?

    Yes or No?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 22, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    L White,

    It's a simple yes or no question.

    Do you believe that any and every citizen should have the opportunity to purchase any weapon ever created? Machine guns, bazookas, grenades, drones, chemical and biological weapons, nukes? Remember, any limitation of these weapons seems to be an "infringement" upon the 2nd amendment.

    It's a simple yes or no question.

    Do you believe that any and every citizen should have the opportunity to purchase these weapons? Yes. Or No.

    Stop beating around the bush.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 22, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    Which government do you support? OUR government is prohibited from infringing our right to keep and bear arms. There is no enumerated list of arms that are exempt from that prohibition. Which government do you hold allegiance to? Your words certainly don't support the Constitution which gives authority to the government to act. No authority has ever been given to the government at any time by the people through a Constitutional amendment to change the words "shall not be infringed"; therefore, whatever doctrine that you support that allows the government to "infringe" is in direct violation of the Supreme Law of the Land - your sentiments notwithstanding. Our government does not have authority to legislate based on your sentiments. It legislates under the limitations that we, the citizens of the United States, have placed upon it. It cannot change the Supreme Law of the Land unless 75% of the States ratify that change. That process has not taken place. The law of the land stands as written "shall not be infringed".

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2013 10:53 a.m.

    @red state pride
    "majority leader of the Senate who is a Democrat also voted no."

    Reid supported it. His no vote was a procedural quirk where the majority leader has to vote no if he wants to bring a failed bill/amendment to a bill back up again for another vote down the road

    @Mike Richards
    "OUR government is prohibited from infringing our right to keep and bear arms."

    The majority opinion the court gave when striking down the Chicago and DC gun bans included pointing out that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean there can't be regulation on guns.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    April 22, 2013 11:11 a.m.

    L White.

    "Mr. LDS Liberal takes great delight in promoting abortion and in trying to restrict our free speech by telling us that unless we also reject our oath to Christ to stand as a witness for Him at all times and witness of His love of his "little ones" that we are against the Constitution.

    Mr. LDS Liberal, you are full of baloney."

    Totally agree. It makes me sick to no end how someone can promote tyranny through the guise of the LDS church. Ted Bundy was LDS also. That didn't make what he did right. By the way, he didn't even use a Gun.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 22, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    For the last time -- [on this thread ata least, 3rd post, I'm out]

    My right to keep and bear chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in my garage --
    Yes or No?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 22, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    Wow, lots of comments on based on a poorly researched opinion. Again, we see that the problem isn't that we don't have enough laws, but that we are not enforcing what laws we have.

    From the Gun Control Act of 1968, " It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person...is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year..." It basically states that Strawman purchases are illegal.

    How about we enforce the laws, rather than making more of them?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 22, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    Some of my earliest memories are about my dad, my uncles and my grandparents as they studied and discussed the Constitution around the dinner table. WWII had just ended a few years before. Those adults knew, firsthand, what happens when a "blowhard" captured the hearts of his countrymen. They saw, for themselves, the destruction that falls upon the world when people put emotion above law.

    Even in our town, there were a few people who broke the rules. One time a student exited the school bus through the emergency door. That student was the son of the most prominent man in town. When dad, who was the bus driver, handed that boy a citation and told him that he couldn't ride the bus until he and his dad talked with the principal, the boy just sneered. That boy's father honored the rules. He and his son visited the principal. No exceptions were made.

    Today we have many people who use emotional arguments to tell why they disregard the Constitution. They've forgotten why we have laws and that freedom requires self-control - not government control.

    The Constitution can be amended but it must remain supreme.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2013 1:55 p.m.

    That is just so funny, no one will answer the question on whether they believe that people should be able to own RPGs, or hand grenades, or land mines, or missiles, or claymores, or bombs, or VX, or sarin, or anthrax, or nukes, or depleted uranium rounds, or AK47s, or M16s.

    Not one person claiming the Constitution allows no infringement whatsoever of our right to bear arms will answer this question. It is a simple yes or no question. Should you or your neighbor be able to buy sarin or VX? Yes or no?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    April 22, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    @ Mark,

    Your question does not deserve an answer. You mock precious principles. You mock the memory of hundreds of thousands who paid the ultimate price so that you still have the freedom to ask your inane questions. You, who have the right to speak freely, use that right to mock those whose blood was spilled to keep you free.

    "Shall not be infringed" means something to thinking people. They know the danger of mob rule. They know the danger of a government gone astray. They tolerate infantile questions from those who disrespect freedom and who disrespect the memory of their loved ones whose graves can be found in foreign lands - lands where people are grateful for the freedoms that we used wisely to re-establish the freedoms they gave away to popular politicians.

    Go ahead, compromise your own freedom, but don't be surprised when citizens who are mature in their understanding of the limits of government consider your question to be an insult to those who respect and honor freedom.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 22, 2013 2:30 p.m.

    To "mark" you shouldn't be able to buy sarin or VX because those agents have been outlawed by international treaty. According to the constitution, if we ratify a treaty then it becomes US law. The only way to get those is through highly illegal methods.

    As for everything else, yes, you should be able to buy those things, assuming that you can afford them. You should also be prepared for the consequences of using them.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 22, 2013 3:11 p.m.

    the gun used at Sandyhook was obtained ILLEGALLY. Many of the guns used in hold ups and gang shootings and rapes and home invasion are also obtained ILLEGALLY. Is it any wonder why Chicago with its out right gun ban has more gun related murders than any city in the US. Why is that? With a liberals thinking Chicago should have zero gun related deaths...right??? No guns and no shootings. WRONG!!!! Bad guys don't go through back ground checks to get their guns and they never will. There are millions of guns out there available for illegal purchase and always will be. So now we introduce the law biding citizen who by the way is having his/her guns taken away by the liberal left. Now what? Well it is called 'easy pickens' for the bad guys with no good guys left with guns to protect themselves. That is why Chicago is what it is.

    The point here - which is so darn hard for liberals to grasp I guess - is people have the right to protect themselves and the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Pretty simple.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 22, 2013 4:44 p.m.

    J Thompson

    "Well regulated militia" means something to thinking people, too.

    ...and I really don't believe for a moment that people (probably not you) fought in any war so that any yahoo, who can afford a weapon can use it to kill Americans here at home.

    ...and speech is regulated, and controlled with permits and limitations.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 22, 2013 7:25 p.m.

    Re: ". . . speech is regulated, and controlled with permits and limitations."

    In Orem, maybe, but nowhere else in America.

    Prohibition of "prior restraint" on an individual's right to speak freely is the rule in every US court I'm aware of.

    The rule is, you get to say what you want, but you're held responsible for the consequences.

    Prohibition of prior restraint is a common-sense rule that has been upheld and works well for other Bill-of-Rights cases.

    It will, no doubt, be adopted in Second Amendment jurisprudence.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 23, 2013 12:53 a.m.

    Hey, good for you, RedShirt, at least you have the guts to stand up for what your stance really means. Unlike, for instance, someone like J Thompson who is scared to answer the question.

    I am, though, a bit curious on your stance on international treaties. So you are saying that if the US signed a treaty banning all guns for citizens you would recognize the legality of that?

    As far as your stance that citizens should be able to own any weapons systems, other then biological and nerve agents, that's an interesting position. And like I said, congrats on actually embracing what arguing for literaly no infringement would really mean.

    It should make bombings much more deadly when people can actually buy high explosives, or maybe people will just lob a few mortar shells into a crowd. And the next mass shooting, forget the semi auto AR15, just go straight to the M16, or maybe the AK47. Which do you think is better at killing the most people? And the shooter can throw a few hand grenades, or maybe even set up a couple of claymores. That should cause a heavy causality rate.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 23, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    To "mark" if the US signed a treaty, I would not recognize the legality of that because it is not US law simply because the President signed a treaty. Go and read the Constitution to see what it takes to ratify a treaty.

    You realize that you can make powerful explosives from common household items. Plus, as the latest crazies have shown, all it takes is an internet connection and the right search to find out how to make bombs.

    Look at the mass shootings where there have been armed civilians present vs. gun free zones. Many potential mass murders have beens topped by armed civilians. The big question is why do you want people disarmed since they are proven to protect so many lives?

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 23, 2013 10:21 a.m.

    "I would not recognize the legality of that because it is not US law simply because the President signed a treaty"

    But, dude, you are the one that said you don't think chemical or biological weapons should be owned by private citizens because of international treaties. You conservatives are so confusing. And I didn't say just if the president signed it. If an international treaty was ratified, as the constitution sets out (with the whole two thirds of the Senate thing) that made it illegal for citizens to own guns, you would recognize its legitimacy?

    As far as people making bombs and explosives. It is illegal to do that right now. (And any explosives you make in your sink will hardly equal military grade high explosives) but what you are saying is that anyone could go down to the local weapons store and buy powerful bombs and carry them anywhere. And until they set it off no laws are broken. So a cop pulls you over, your backseat is full of bombs and high explosives, and not a thing he can do. Go on your way.

    No, that's cool, just want to know where you stand.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 23, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    To "mark" again read the Constitution and tell me how a treaty becomes US law. I will give you a hint, it isn't something that 1 person can do all by themselves. You said "if the US signed a treaty..." and the person who signs the treaty is the President. He can sign all of the treaties and agreements he wants, but that does not make them law.

    I think that the Oklahoma city bomber would disagree with you about the ability to produce powerful explosives. You can build a bomb out of supplies that people commonly buy for birthday parties.

    What you, and so many others fail to recognize is that so much of what we commonly have in our homes can be weaponized easily, it only takes a few minutes to search for the information on the internet.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    April 25, 2013 2:32 a.m.

    You want a good example of how well these "background checks" would work.

    The Boston Marathon bombers had been investigated by the FBI previously. Did it do any good?

    And these are the same people who would tell you background checks are full proof.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 25, 2013 3:05 p.m.

    It is shameful that Obama uses these people as props for his anti-gun agenda. Shameful!