Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Background checks

Comments

Return To Article
  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    April 25, 2013 7:26 a.m.

    Wow. Utah is weird. Conservative psychology is just full of YOU must but I don't have to's.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 25, 2013 7:29 a.m.

    Couldn't agree more. Amen and Amen.

    Teachers just need an NRA like entity to buy off our politicians with millions of dollars in "campaign contributions."

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    April 25, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    An excellent letter. Too often, stupidity wins.

    Real Maverick hit the nail on the head above.

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    April 25, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    Why not mandatory background checks on our politicians? Because they know that most of them wouldn't pass?

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    April 25, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    Welcome to Utah. We have Republican senators railroading good legislation, arcane liquor laws, the worst air in the nation, the most clogged and underfunded schools, abysmal voter turnout, guns in church but no permits required.....Yeah....

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    Real Maverick and OneOldMan:

    I'm with you on the disproportionate influence of the NRA, except that teachers do have a lobbying organization - the NEA - whose contributions and lobbying payments are far greater than the NRA's. I think the NRA's outsized influence is more than just a money issue; it also involves idealogy and the rabid activism of right-wing extremists. Too bad the teachers don't have a group that is quite as passionate or effective.

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    April 25, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    It should be obvious that the more impact a person has on others, the more a background check should be required. Our Commander in Chief has never had one but he commands armys. In fact, he has spent millions to cover up his past. Why?

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 25, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    I wonder how many teachers are prevented from committing criminal acts by background checks?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 25, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    "Our Commander in Chief has never had one but he commands armys. In fact, he has spent millions to cover up his past. Why?"

    Do you have any idea how baseless those statements are? You sincerely think that Obama has not been vetted fully and completely? Seriously. Use a little logic and think about your statements.

    Certainly you should be able to see how embarrassing they are.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    @Henderson
    "Why not mandatory background checks on our politicians? "

    After nominating the likes of Angle, O'Donnell, Mourdock, and Akin I'm surprised the Republican party doesn't do that.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    April 25, 2013 11:33 a.m.

    We use checks all the time for preventing --

    DUIs,
    ID for alcohol,
    TSA for Airline safety,

    But not for stopping children, KNOWN criminals, and the KNOWN mentally unstable from purchasing or possessing weapons used to massacre those very Teachers and Children....

    It seems conservatives are all about checking for Word of Wisdom and immoral sexual crimes but when it comes to protecting inncocent citizens - crickets.

    The double standard is truely sad.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    April 25, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    Sorry to disappoint Ms Curmudgeon but Unions have little to say in this state and nationally because our nation has decided the average Joe or Jill need no right to collective bargin. Trillions stashed overseas and the people that helped earn it, teaching our children, saving our lives, protect us from crime, and actually are the ones adding wealth for only 7% of the population are left looking over their shoulders wondering if they are next ones on the chopping block.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 25, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    The liberals here fail to see the use of these checks. Think of it this way.

    Would you support the US government from reverifying the information for security clearance applications? Currently they have to periodically re-investigate and verify the security applications for all clearance holders.

    Are you liberals saying that your children are less valuable to you than national security secrets?

    That is the message that you are sending when you say that teachers do not need to have background checks every few years.

    Your complaints about gun background checks is unfounded. The Gun Control Act of 1968 already makes Strawman purchases illegal, the sale or transfer of guns to mentally ill people ilegal, and the sale of guns to fellons and criminals illegal. How about we worry about enforcement of current gun laws, rather than adding new and unenforcable laws to the books.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 25, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    "Your complaints about gun background checks is unfounded. The Gun Control Act of 1968 already makes Strawman purchases illegal, the sale or transfer of guns to mentally ill people ilegal, and the sale of guns to fellons and criminals illegal."

    And many on the right, including many posters here, call these laws unconstitutional and would quickly do away with all the laws you cite, if given a chance.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 25, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    SALT LAKE CITY — Utah’s dubious distinction as one of the leading states for suicide could be linked to its high rate of gun ownership and political conservatism, according to a newly released study.

    Utah was the second-most-armed state behind Kentucky in 2012.

    Suicide in the 2nd leading cause of death for Utahans age 15-44 and THE leading cause for males in that age group.

    Suicides accounted for about 85% of gun-related deaths in Utah between 2007 and 2011, according to statistics from the Utah Department of Health.

    Utah is in the top 5 in the nation in firearm-related suicides.

    “Many studies show that, of all suicide methods, firearms have the highest case fatality, implying that an individual that selects to use this technique has a very low chance of survival,” states the study.
    Firearms are by far the most common way that suicide is committed, and having firearms present in a home is a demonstrated risk factor for suicide. Restricting access to firearms for persons at risk of suicide is one potential way to prevent suicide.

    Both of our U.S. Senators just snubbed their NRA noses at this.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 25, 2013 1:33 p.m.

    To "JoeBlow" go and read the Gun Control Act of 1968 and tell me what is unconstitutional about that law. Does it do anything different than the current background checks that are already in place and conservatives agree are constitutional?

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    April 25, 2013 2:03 p.m.

    DougS:

    Every candidate who runs for president gets a more thorough background check than anyone buying a gun. It's called the primary election, followed by the final election. Remember all the fun we had with the Republican parade of clowns last year? And if there is anything lurking in the background, "millions" won't hide it. If the election process didn't uncover it, it is probably another of those wacky notions (like Obama's foreign birth) so popular among right-wing extremists and conspiracy theorists.

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    April 25, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    Joe Blow and M. DeForest; please tell me what passport he used for his foreign travel forbidden to U.S. Citizens.. Please tell me under what name(s) he was registered at the schools he attended and show me his grades.. Explain the in-consistencies in his birth certificate from a hospital that didn't exist when he was born and a father from a country that didn't exist at the time...If he was "vetted" so completely, surely you have the answers because no one else has..

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 25, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    "tell me what is unconstitutional about that law."

    Are you telling me that it is accepted by people like Mike Richards and Mountanman that the current system of background checks are constitutional?

    Mike, Mtnman? Thoughts

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 25, 2013 3:24 p.m.

    To "JoeBlow" I don't think you read the law. Please go and read the Gun Control Act of 1968 and tell me what is unconstitutional about that law. Does it do anything different than the current background checks that are already in place and conservatives agree are constitutional?

    Please stop cutting what I post in a way that misleads what I wrote.

  • joseywales Park City, UT
    April 25, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    Joeblow- Most of us don't have a problem with the current laws. Sure, there are always a few guys on both sides of the fence who run their mouths too much, but i'm ok with the BC's. However, most of us are tired of the new game Barry is playing with the minds of Americans. He's like the kid who constantly tries to change the rules of Candyland because he can't win. He tries and fails, so he gets louder and louder, then when the vote (game) doesn't go his way he cries about it and says "shame on you". It's getting really old. There are enough gun laws on the books right now. Don't believe me? Look them up. We already have background checks, why do we need a new law saying we need different background checks? Is it because the left is losing the game and wants to change the rules?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    "The Gun Control Act of 1968 already makes Strawman purchases illegal, the sale or transfer of guns to mentally ill people ilegal, and the sale of guns to fellons and criminals illegal."

    That's all well and good but without requiring a background check on private sales, people wouldn't know whether or not they are privately selling guns to felons or criminals and those who sell them unknowingly are not subject to this act, only those who knowingly do it. That's why there's this massive loophole we're trying to close (except the bill would only make a small dent in closing the loophole because it was compromised so heavily towards the Republicans).

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    April 25, 2013 5:10 p.m.

    RedShirt the GCA of 1968 leaves the verification of unqualified persons up to the seller. This of course is absurd for private sellers and gun shows, who have no means for determining whether the person is unqualified or not. That's why the background check loophole needs to be closed.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    April 25, 2013 7:46 p.m.

    Doug S -- what nonsense. All those things have been completely disproven time and time again. The only people still ranting about it are those who have been completely fooled by hate radio stations.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    April 25, 2013 7:48 p.m.

    A newspaper or TV investigative show should send a convicted felon to a gun show and track with hidden cameras to see how many guns he can buy.

    I'll bet it would blow most of our minds at how many he could obtain and how easily it can be done. Then they should have handcuffs ready to clap on the people who sell the weapons. (But, I know. They haven't done anything illegal. Wrong, but not illegal. That's why this law is needed.)

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 26, 2013 7:54 a.m.

    To "Irony Guy" and the current gun control laws also leave verification of unqualified persons up to the seller.

    Again, why do we need a new law that is unenforcable?

    How are you going to close the background check loophole. If I sell a gun that I inherited, how will the Federal Government ever know that I sold the gun?

    How are can teh government enforce the background check loophole? In the case of gun shows, all it will do is push the transactions for guns from the show floor to the parking lot.

    Why do you and your ilk want more unenforcable laws? Why not concentrate on ENFORCING the laws that we already have?

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    April 26, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    I don't believe that many of the posters know the difference between a "background check" and a "national agency check". The background check currently in place is a national agency check for any criminal record. A background check is much more comphrehensive and was used for security clrarences for access to classified material. It involved checks on work place, acquaintences, credit history, and such for the previous 10 years including places of residence.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    April 26, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    Confidence and trust is what I want for my kids in teachers.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 26, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    Real Maverick, Teachers have the NEA/UEA to represent their interests. It's just that the NEA and UEA spend most of their time advocating liberal/Progressive causes so they apparently don't care about teacher background checks or who pays for them. Not a good enough issue for them. BBackground checks are part of the teacher licensing process.

    By the way, I have to pay for a background check EVERY YEAR as part of the sign up fee to officiate High School sports for the UHSAA/National Federation. I also had to undergo a background check/fingerprinting to sell travel insurance at work, and I had to pay for my own background check/fingerprinting to get my Concealed Weapons Permitwhich expires in 2016 and then I'll have to pay for it again.

    So, my heart bleeds for the teachers.