Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: NRA suggestions valid

Comments

Return To Article
  • Bob Dobbs Salt Lake City USA, UT
    April 22, 2013 6:56 a.m.

    There is no hope of having bipartisan agreement in the current gun debate. Those who hate the NRA and have an irrational fear private firearms ownership will never be able to have a meaningful dialogue on the subject.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 22, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    NBC News; "The Newtown Board of Education wants more armed police officers in the town's four elementary schools after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. Last night, they decided to ask the town to approve the request to include one additional full-time Newtown police at each of the elementary schools in next year's budget."
    If only this had been done before Adam Lanza! The only way to stop bad people guns with guns is more good people with guns!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 22, 2013 7:50 a.m.

    I have posted the verbiage in the Heller supreme court ruling.

    The ruling was delivered by Scalia and joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Alito and Thomas.

    I was accused of "twisting" their words.
    Please explain how the exact wording is "twisting"

    Here is the part that deals with allowable restrictions.

    I doubt these guys have an "irrational fear of firearms ownership"

    (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.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    April 22, 2013 7:53 a.m.

    There is no hope of having bipartisan agreement in the current gun debate. Those who hate our government and have an irrational fear spawned by overdoses of hate radio that background checks be done before allowing private firearms ownership will never be able to have a meaningful dialogue on the subject.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 22, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    I'm pro gun rights and I think universal background checks would have been a good idea.

    To all the people who propose hiring armed guards for all of our schools: are you willing to pay more in taxes to support all of these new government employees?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 22, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    Same here Roland,

    I think the those on the right think that all "lefties" want to ban guns.

    There is much support for background checks, even with gun advocates and those on the right.

    However, there is little support nationwide with removing the ability for people to own guns and protect themselves. The American public would not stand for it, including the vast majority of the "left".

    Reasonable, constitutional restrictions should not be seen as anti-gun.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 22, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    Is the NRA going to pay for these armed guards? if not, who will?

    So let me get this straight...

    We have thee lowest per pupil funding in the entire nation... Many of our schools don't meet earthquake building codes... Many still don't even have air conditioning. And believe me, many textbooks social studies uses are out of date (showing that Russia is the ussr and that Germany is still divided) yet somehow we can afford to put armed guards in every single one of our schools? Huh?

    For folks who hate taxes we sure are proposing some expensive solutions to violence. Instead of attacking the core heart of the problem, too many powerful guns being sold to anyone, we keep beating around the bush. Beating around the bush not only costs lives but is incredibly expensive.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 22, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    The truth is that the NRA leadership and others have made a very positive suggestion: Place experienced, armed security officers in schools to protect against harm to our children.

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

    The truth is they never suggested HOW to pay for it.
    Tell me -- NRA supporter...
    Is that BEFORE or AFTER we start start buying pencils for children?

    But the Teachers guns,
    but can't buy the children pencils.

    Ridiculous.

    This being suggested as a viable solution in the LOWEST school spending in the United States of America.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 22, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    @ LDS Liberal; How to pay for armed guards in schools? Easy, just take the money out of the Dept of Education budget and cut out some of the frills that they waste money on, like half the administrators, vice principals, and junkets they go on. We spend more money per student in America than any other nation, except Switzerland with poorer results than most other countries. That's why charter schools are so popular, they are less expensive and the children actually get a good education!

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    April 22, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    Didn't we just go through a debate on these posts over whining about too many non-teachers employed in schools?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 22, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    "We spend more money per student in America than any other nation, except Switzerland"

    How many of those schools have organized sports? Music? Arts? Once again, you fail to grasp the entire picture.

    How many of those schools agree to pay for the education of minorities and other folks who have immigrated (illegally)? Of course, we can't do anything about that because repubs who don't want to hurt their big business contributors and lose votes will never actually do anything other than amnesty illegals.

    The bottom line is, if you wish to pay higher taxes, then keep voting with the NRA. They are all about higher taxes and beating around the bush.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 22, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    Aside from the fact that the background check did pass, applying normal procedures-- not the 60 vote threshold that Republicans have imposed on anything getting done in the Senate, gun control legislation was DOA in the House.

    But this issue represents just one more thing Republicans are on the wrong side of with most Americans.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 22, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    Seeing armed guards at our schools with semi-automatic weapons is another reason to consider home schooling.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    Mountm pulls another of his standard right tropes by suggesting that funding for the "Ed Army" be taken out of the education budget from all that fat and waste there. I believe if we should get an actuarial estimate of the cost of arming every school, we should raise taxes to pay for it and put it in with the property tax bill with a line item for all to see the true cost of this "security". I suspect the right would find such and increase intolerable and an infringement on their "rights".

    PS. Does the left have rights or only lefts?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 22, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    The NRA and their GOP stooges want America turned into a Police State.

    Nothing conditions the next generation of children into growing up into paranoid gun lovers than seeing and believing they can only be safe and secure when surrounded by armed guards.

    Kind of like the scared and ignorant North Koreans...

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 22, 2013 10:42 a.m.

    ""We spend more money per student in America than any other nation, except Switzerland"

    A factual but very misleading statment. That is like comparing the cost of living in San Francisco to Provo.. you can't just take raw dollars and make statements like this. It is about as close to lying as you can get.

    Now if you look at the number as percentage of GDP...not the same story is told. There are numerous countries that spend more per child per gdp -Norway, Isreal, Iceland, Korea to start with.

    The idea of placing armed guards in each and every of the 98,817 public schools is rediculas. The same crowd who thought the TSA was an over reach, now want to put guards into our schools. Of the recent mass killings, one, only one, occured at a school. The rest were in public places, and placing more armed guards in schools does nothing to prevent those killings.

    It would sell guns to 100,000 more people though. What a coincidence.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    Why should my side listen to your side when your side refuses to listen to my side? Earlier in the debate I was fine with a compromise plan that gave your side the armed guards for schools thing. Now I just want it to lose. It's not like it really makes things safer anyway, after all the reason school shootings are such massive shocks are due to their rarety and even then...

    @Mountanman
    "The only way to stop bad people guns with guns is more good people with guns!"

    ...Columbine had an armed officer.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    April 22, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    LDS Liberal

    "The NRA and their GOP stooges want America turned into a Police State.

    Nothing conditions the next generation of children into growing up into paranoid gun lovers than seeing and believing they can only be safe and secure when surrounded by armed guards.

    Kind of like the scared and ignorant North Koreans..."

    You are becoming irrational. You are just putting everything you hate into categories where it doesn't even belong like comparing pro gun advocates to north koreans. That makes no sense whatsoever. In North Korea only the government has guns. Isn't that what you are trying to promote?

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    April 22, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    Not to mention In North Korea, all political dissidents are put to death. That should be a liberals paradise.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    April 22, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    Im a gun owner and still support universal background checks. They work. Last year in Utah alone 600 unqualified purchasers were turned away because of background checks. Why would we let those people walk next door and make their purchase without a check?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 22, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    Re: "To all the people who propose hiring armed guards for all of our schools: are you willing to pay more in taxes to support all of these new government employees?"

    Apparently, the good people of Sandy Hook are.

    But, as another poster said, ". . . placing armed guards in each and every of the 98,817 public schools is rediculas [sic]."

    And that may be so.

    Thus, other states -- Utah, among them -- have chosen a different, less "rediculas" course. We've decided to train and arm willing educational staff and teachers who want to protect themselves and the schoolkids from this mindless predation.

    Cost? Much less.

    Effectiveness? The same. Murderous criminals now know our schools are no longer the free-fire zones they used to be, so, rather than take a risk, they'll take their grisly business elsewhere.

    At least Sandy Hook parents are doing SOMETHING to actually protect their children. As opposed to the big, fat nothing that deranged liberal gun-control advocates' proposals amount to.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    April 22, 2013 11:40 a.m.

    You already have some background checks. Why not expand the process to the level your friends, the criminals, get their guns, on line, gun shows, private sales? 2 million denials have happened with our loosy goosy current system the past 15 years. No, this will not stop all crime, mass killings, terrorism etc but it might stop some. Our gun laws are so lax my dim witted son in law bought a pistol and didn't even know what and how to use the safety. There was no requirement to show proficiency. Your arguments against expanding background checks hold no water otherwise we can repeal all traffic laws because there are still violators. Maybe we can repeal safety regulations at chemical plants and coal mines since they don't seem to want to abide by them either. Being responsible is not infringing but liberation. There is no boogie man.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 22, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    I'm still amazed that there are "some" who still think the 2nd Amendment somehow protects the rights of guns to children, criminals and the mentally insane.

    The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution under the premise of using some "common sense".

    The uber-far-right-wingers are dishonoring them, and are trampling the very Constitution they "think" they are protecting.

    FYI - I heard over the weekend that in many states, in order to buy a hunting license, you need to disclose what caliber rifle you plan to use.
    i.e., giving "them" your Name, address, and weapon.
    Isn't that the big evil nasty "gun registry" you all are alreaady so worked up and worried about?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 22, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    To "Roland Kayser" and "JoeBlow" how would background checks have stopped any of the recent mass murders? How do performing background checks stop illegal activity? The better solution would be to enforce existing gun laws.

    To "LDS Liberal" actually the NRA has found a way to pay for the security. They have offered to properly train existing school staff for security. The traing would cost the taxpayers NOTHING, yet make our local schools almost as secure as the school Obama sends his kids to.

    If the GOP and NRA want to turn the US into a police state, why is it that it was the liberals that shut down Boston and turned it into a police state? The evidence points to liberals wanting the police state, not the GOP.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 22, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    "How do performing background checks stop illegal activity?"

    No law can totally prevent crime. But speed limits certainly entice many people to not speed.
    Couldn't you say that speed limits stop SOME illegal activity?

    Some have suggested that 15 million gun purchasers were denied guns because of background checks in the last 10 years. Can they still get guns? Yes. Did many of them go on to get guns? I am sure that they did. Partially because that law very easy to get around.

    But, one the day that each and every one of those 15 million tried to buy a gun, they were not able.
    The background check system stopped illegal activity 15 million times.

    No law stops all illegal activity. If that is your criteria, we should get rid of all of our laws.

    Look, I am not anti gun. I own guns. But, I am for reasonable and constitutional laws.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 22, 2013 12:54 p.m.

    I'm all for it if the NRA uses it's extensive cashflow to pay for it instead of using it to hijack our legislative bodies.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    The scope of the NRA solution is absolutely staggering when you consider applying it to society as a whole. Last year, we had mass shootings in a movie theater, a public school, a shopping mall, and a church. Maybe others locations as well. If we were to somehow figure out a way to fund armed guards for the tens of thousands of public schools, then what about every other public venue that can and has been a target for mass shootings? The NRA solution is guns... guns everywhere! Leave your house and every possible destination, from grocery stores, to shopping malls, to movie theaters, to churches, to government buildings will have at least one armed guard. The NRA solution now is armed guards in every public school. The NRA solution somewhere down the road is a complete police state.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    April 22, 2013 1:46 p.m.

    The anti-gun people need to go to their utopia in North Korea where only the government has guns, there is no political opposition and everybody is treated equally. I know they are starving over there but they are being treated equally.

    LDS liberal promotes the very thing that we got away from in 1776. King george would've loved to have him as one of his disciples. He can even use Religion to promote his agenda.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    April 22, 2013 1:53 p.m.

    The first gun control laws were passed by pro slavery democrats against the blacks. They are not any different today. Sure they claim to be pro civil rights but they like keeping black people dependent on the government and yet will use race baiting frauds like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to keep them dependant and call it civil rights.

    Leopards never change their spots.

    They just use civil rights as a cover for their racism and divisiveness. They have not changed since 1865. Dependency on the Government is not freedom it's slavery.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 22, 2013 2:34 p.m.

    Re: ". . . I am for reasonable and constitutional laws."

    Then you must be opposed to all liberal gun-control measures currently being debated.

    Any measure of the "reasonableness" of proposals, necessarily implies, both a substantial likelihood of accomplishing the objective, and a downside proportional to any benefit to be gained.

    Loony liberal gun-control measures fail on both accounts,

    Even liberals admit their proposals have zero chance of preventing future incidents like those in Sandy Hook, Aurora, or Tucson, though that doesn't prevent disingenuous political exploitation of victims of those incidents.

    Play that manifest ineffectiveness off against the intrusive, expensive, easily abused nature of these proposals, and "reasonableness" falls quickly off the table, clearly revealing the real liberal motive -- hassling real people into abandoning their rights.

    Rreductio ad absurdum comments regarding nerve gas and nukes, aside, the unconstitutionality of any political scam that provides no benefits, only burdens on the exercise of constitutional rights is patent.

    Anyone who is "for reasonable and constitutional laws" must, necessarily, oppose the current crop of UNreasonable, UNconstitutional liberal gun laws.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2013 2:36 p.m.

    Reading some of the comments on this post make me even more convinced of universal background checks without exceptions. I am most interested in the keeping guns from the mentally disturbed since reading these comments convince me that there are already lots of folks with mental issues who have guns today (and post in this column).

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2013 3:00 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    "How do performing background checks stop illegal activity?"

    We require ID when purchasing alcohol because we have an age requirement of 21. Does that eliminate all underage consumption? Obviously not. But do you think it reduces underage consumption? If your answer is yes, then that's the same sort of logic we use for background checks. No, they won't stop all illegal activity, but it should reduce it. Same goes for speed limits, obviously doesn't stop everyone from driving like a maniac, but I imagine it has some effect.

    Sure, background checks wouldn't have stopped Newtown since he got the guns from his mother who legally purchased them but we have around 30,000 murders and suicides each year in this nation as a result of firearms and I'm not going to just ignore the potential impacts this has on some of the other ~29,974 gun deaths just because this provision wouldn't have stopped one particular incident.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 22, 2013 4:21 p.m.

    Redshirt1701
    Deep Space 9, Ut
    To "Roland Kayser" and "JoeBlow" how would background checks have stopped any of the recent mass murders? How do performing background checks stop illegal activity?

    ===========

    Umm,
    pretty much the same way "Road Checks" stops DUIs,
    and "Border Checks" stops illegal immigration,
    and "ID Checks" stops under age drinking,
    and TSA "Security Checks" stops terrorists from blowing up airplanes and skyscrapers,
    and "Background Checks" keeps pediphiles and repeat rapists away from women and children.

    C'mon RedShirt - this is a no-brainer!
    Why do you keep supporting a KNOWN criminal's right to buy weapons?
    This is beyond ridiculous!

    Truely it is.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2013 6:09 p.m.

    Goofy theories have resulted in crazy politics.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    April 22, 2013 9:31 p.m.

    Not to mention In North Korea, all political dissidents are put to death. That should be a conservative's paradise.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 23, 2013 5:43 a.m.

    I love the proposition that arming a kindergarten teacher provides the same level of security as having a training police officer on campus. Just think about it. This brought to you by the same crowd that says women shouldn't be allowed in combat roles in the military, now believe a teacher (vast majority are women) should be the first line of defense on those who would attack our kids.

    Now lets be clear... I firmly believe women can handle guns every bit as well as a man, when they receive the same training. But we are talking about placing loaded weapons in several hundred thousand classrooms under the charge of someone whose primary role is not to make sure that weapon is secured and safe. It is a recipe to numerous incidents of accidental discharge.

    I am confident we can teach teachers how to shoot and gun.... what I am not as confident is that we can train them on situation management to make sure those weapons are only used appropriately.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 23, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    To "atl134" we already require background checks. So why do we need more laws and regulations and more background checks? Wouldn't it be easier to enforce the law? For example, there were 72,000 attempts by felons to buy guns in 2010, yet only 44 were prosecuted. With that many attempts, and so few prosecuted, doesn't that indicate that Federal agencies are not enforcing the law? If they are already not enforcing the law, what good does it to do add more unenforcable laws onto the books?

    To "LDS Liberal" the roadblocks do not stop people from driving drunk, they are just enforcing the law. People still drive drunk despite the roadblocks. If "Border Checks" stop illegal immigration, how is it that we have millions of illegals here?

    Why do you want to make purchasing guns legally harder? What good does it do to make it so that law-abiding citizens have a harder time buying guns?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 23, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    "we already require background checks. "

    Not for all gun purchases we don't. We do not require background checks for private sales. That is a massive loophole that can be exploited.

    "With that many attempts, and so few prosecuted, doesn't that indicate that Federal agencies are not enforcing the law?"

    Maybe they lack the manpower/resources to do much about that. You'd need a lot of lawyers if you wanted to prosecute 72,000 more people each year wouldn't you say?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 23, 2013 2:10 p.m.

    To "atl134" if we are already not enforcing the laws that state that you cannot sell or give a gun to felon or other person not legally permitted to own a gun, what good will it do to make more laws that are unenforcable and lack the manpower to prosecute?

    Go and read federal gun laws. The proposed laws do nothing other than make buying guns more difficult for law abiding people. The proposed laws do nothing to stop the illegal gun trade.

    Again, we already have laws that make straw man purchases illegal, and make it illegal to sell to somebody who has been in jail, is abusive, drug addicted, or mentally ill. The laws that are being proposed are already covered by the Gun Control Act of 1968. If we are not enforcing a law that has been on the books for 45 years, what makes you think that making a new law will help?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 24, 2013 7:41 a.m.

    Re: "We do not require background checks for private sales. That is a massive loophole that can be exploited."

    Yeah. Something less than 3.9%, according to the flawed, dated study the Obama regime uses to justify its attempted power grab.

    Massive.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 24, 2013 12:18 p.m.

    "For example, there were 72,000 attempts by felons to buy guns in 2010, yet only 44 were prosecuted. With that many attempts, and so few prosecuted, doesn't that indicate that Federal agencies are not enforcing the law? "

    The law is being enforced, RedShirt. Those 72,000 attempts to buy guns by felons, means that 72,000 felons were not able to buy guns. At least not through a gun dealer. The law worked, it was enforced. The gun dealers enforced it by doing the background check. And I seriously doubt if any licensed gun dealer would not run a background check, because they would lose their license if caught.

    What you are complaining about is that the government doesn't waste the resources to prosecute 72,000 people that wanted to purchase a gun but were denied. What crime is it, exactly, that they commited?

    It's been a while since I bought a gun, I might be wrong, but I don't remember filling out papers, I just showed them my id and they ran a background check.

    So you would think every person turned away from a bar because they are underage should be prosecuted?

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 24, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    I'm also really not sure what your point is RedShirt. You don't think we should have backgrounds checks, so in the world you want to live in every single one of those 72,000 felons would have been able to buy a gun. And also, in the world you want to live in, not only would everyone of those 72,000 felons been able to buy a gun they would have been able to buy fully auto M16s, or AK47s (you never did answer me which one of those you recommend for being able to kill the most people the fastest).

    Of course in the world you wish you lived in, you also would like to see terrorists be able to walk into the local Bombs-R-Us and be able to purchase the largest most powerful bomb imaginable, and fill their car with these bombs. And if a cop stops them and sees their back seat stuffed with these bombs the cop can only say, "have a good day, go on your way." Because you don't think any of that should be against the law.

    In the world you wish you lived in.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 24, 2013 4:25 p.m.

    To "mark" you can walk into your local grocery store or farm supply store and buy the components needed to make powerful bombs.

    You seem awefully angry and bitter that I have pointed out that the problem isn't that we don't have enough laws, but that the problem is enforcement of the laws that we do have.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    April 24, 2013 4:42 p.m.

    Typical leftist thoght. They don't want to pay for expanded security personell in schools, because it's to expensive, as though a background check system is free, and an expanded background system is even more free!

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 24, 2013 6:28 p.m.

    Hahaha, I'll pay for more security personnel in school. Absolutely. But I won't try to do it on the cheap. I won't pretend that teachers should also be cops. If you want cops in schools, lets do it. But we will need to pay for it, and it won't be cheap. So we will have to raise taxes. You ready?

    RedShirt, are just pretending to not understand.

    It really is not difficult. Clearly people can make explosives. And yes they are deadly. But they cannot make military quality explosives. They just can't do it. Maybe you don't understand that. But it's immaterial anyway to the point.

    Right now owning, or making, a bomb is a crime. No new laws needed. YOU want to get rid of the law that says its a crime. So anyone can buy a bomb. And a bomb that will work. No more making them.

    Plus they can carry that bomb right into the middle of a crowd. Of children. If a cop sees them, not a thing can be done. No crime has been commited. Until he detonates the bomb.

    That's the world you want.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 25, 2013 3:36 p.m.

    To "mark" again, you are wrong. It is possible to make military grade explosives at home, using easily procurable ingredients and equipment.

    People carry potentially explosive devices into crowds every day, and are not arrested. Why make more laws and problems for law-abiding citizens if the laws are going to be either unenforced or are unenforcable?