Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Gun logical fallacies

Comments

Return To Article
  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 14, 2013 12:32 a.m.

    you'll forgive me if I don't buy this. historically registration has been used for confiscation and there are enough people who hate guns at this point to make that to real of a possibility.

    take away the so-called assault Guns and the Misfits and our society well then begin to misuse the non assault guns. these will then be targeted next eventually nothing will be left.
    confiscation will not get rid of violent murders there are too many other tools that could be used so in the end nobody would have guns to protect themself and you still won't have accomplished your goal of a less violent Society

    Utah is almost at the bottom of violence yet you tie has the most liberal of gun laws the gun grabbers should keep this in mind

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 14, 2013 5:08 a.m.

    Americans, including those in the middle and on the left would never, repeat NEVER stand for gun confiscation.

    Can you find people who advocate that? Certainly. And they represent a small fringe.

    Give Americans more credit. Don't put reasonable people who support reasonable gun legislation into that category.

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    May 14, 2013 6:25 a.m.

    Maybe you haven't heard some of the dem congressmen/women on a hot mic, saying "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate!"

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 14, 2013 7:02 a.m.

    Great letter.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    May 14, 2013 7:04 a.m.

    Gun advocates do not need or use logic. They rely on emotion, particularly fear. They use another popular logical fallacy, involving a false premise: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Except no one is seriously advocating outlawing all guns. Then there's the old fall-back: guns don't kill, people kill. Except a person without a gun cannot use a gun to kill.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 14, 2013 7:31 a.m.

    "Maybe you haven't heard some of the dem congressmen/women on a hot mic, saying "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate!""

    Congressmen/woman? Hardly. You mean state senator Linda Greenstein?

    If you want to did deep into state politics to find the crazies, be careful. There are plenty of those on both sides.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 14, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    It's hilarious that the first response to this well written letter demonstrates the exact point of the letter. Yea but historically registration has been used for confiscation..but has registration always led to confiscation..No.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 14, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    Re JoeBlow

    You keep repeating that no one wants to confiscate guns. I don't know if you really believe this or if you are just trying to lull others into a sense of complacency.

    The guns specifically protected by the second amendment are guns that would be suitable for militia service. The fact they keep trying to ban those guns is evidence the left doesn't respect the 2nd amendment isn't it? So what is to prevent these people from getting rid of all guns if we let them?

    Also until a recent supreme court decision affirming that the second amendment protects the individual right to have guns, it was common for the left to say the second amendment applies only to national guards. This should also be evidence to any honest person what their true intentions are.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 14, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    Re: "Tyrannical oppression is not the inevitable outcome of requiring background checks . . . ."

    Yeah, it is.

    Because liberals will NEVER stop until they destroy the ability of real people to resist their demands on our treasure and freedoms.

    Never.

    They must be defeated in every election, in every generation, in every epoch, if we're to endure as a culture.

    We know they're disingenuous about their intentions, since background checks can't and won't solve any of the "problems" they claim cry out for action. Checks can't, won't, never have, kept guns out of criminals' hands. They can't and won't keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed.

    The only "problem" addressed by liberals' demands for "reasonable" background checks is keeping real people from the tools we need to protect our freedoms.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 14, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    "You keep repeating that no one wants to confiscate guns."

    Never said that. What I said is that you can find fringe elements that may want to do that, but it is not the mainstream opinion even on the left.

    You cite a Supreme court ruling. Good for you. They do clarify the constitution. I assume that you are referring to the Heller Ruling that said the second amendment DOES NOT ONLY apply to Militias.

    However, in that ruling, they also affirmed that it was constitutional to limit

    1) who could carry (no convicted felons)
    2) where they could carry
    3) what they could carry.

    Banning automatic weapons is certainly not unconstitutional.

    It is unreasonable to assign the fringe element views to the masses.

    "The guns specifically protected by the second amendment are guns that would be suitable for militia service."

    Like fully automatic weapons? Like Grenades? Like RPG's?

    You think the 2nd Amendment protects those?

    "So what is to prevent these people from getting rid of all guns if we let them?"

    The collective will of the people, including the left will prevent the fringe from getting rid of our guns.

    That's who.

  • booshway Woods Cross, UT
    May 14, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    Did anyone get the author's switch in logic in his letter? First he said that registration = tyranny, then in the last paragraph, he changed it to background checks = tyranny. So which concept is he railing against? BTW - we already have background checks. The failed gun bill was unenforceable and massively intrusive against our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. No where in the Constitution is the gov't granted the authority to do background checks, tax, license, test, restrict or forbid the ownership of guns, for anyone. In fact, the second amendment specifically FORBIDS these gov't actions. No matter how "reasonable" you think gun laws are or should be they are all unconstitutional.

  • Longfellow Holladay, UT
    May 14, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    It's interesting to read the opinions of the low information readers who are quick to comment that confiscation would never happen, but too lazy to do ten minutes worth of research. A single case in point; in the recently enacted New York State guns laws the original markup bill before the legislature used registration of certain semi-automatic rifles as the first step in confiscating those weapons. The Democrats that originated the markup polled the other legislators and found that there were not sufficient votes to support confiscation, so they dropped it from the bill while keeping the registration provisions. The plan was to get a list of gun owners now, so that if they could get the votes for confiscation at a later date, they would already know who to go after. News reports from New York State indicate that compliance with the new registration requirement is expected to be quite low.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 14, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    A reminder of what you said.

    'Americans , including those in the middle and the left would never, repeat NEVER stand for gun confiscation'.

    The fact that this really can't be relied upon ( as I just gave evidence that this is the case), is why we shouldn't allow registration, the step that precedes confiscation.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 14, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    When you buy a hunting license in most states, you give them your name, your address, and what weapon you will be using.
    If that isn't data base enough for the paranoid gun registration folks, I don't know what is.

    Meanwhile --
    Your GWBush "Patriot Act" already empowers the G'nment to collect whatever data they want on you, whether you like it, know it - or not.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 14, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    "Shall not inhibit" includes "shall not require registration with the government" to keep and bear arms. At no time have the citizens ceded their right to keep and bear arms without permission of any kind from the government. That includes background checks. That includes permits. That includes signing any governmental form.

    Those who misunderstand the fact that government does NOT give us rights, but that we limit the authority of government, will disagree. They think that the "king" sits on his throne and gives his subjects the right to keep and bear arms. They think that the "king" can require us to seek permission from him before we keep and bear arms. They think that the "king" can keep a list of which of his subjects have arms. They forget that we don't have a "king".

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 14, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    I call. "When you buy a hunting license in most states, you give them your name, your address, and what weapon you will be using."

    Give me a list of at least ten states that require identification of the weapon to be used?

    And registration for a specific type of hunt does not qualify. Would it be a good place to go to get an idea of who might have a gun, yes, would it identify like registration no.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 14, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    Re: "Banning automatic weapons is certainly not unconstitutional."

    Well, we can have that conversation some other day, in the not-too-distant future.

    But the real issue of the day is the constitutionality of liberal gun cosmetics, gun functionality, and prior restraint on gun ownership proposals. For which liberals clearly understand they have NO strong supporting arguments.

    Ashamed of their weak, unsupported political bleating, liberals keep trying to change the subject away from the clearly unconstitutional people-control measures currently pending in Congress, toward those that will become important only at some uncertain future time.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    May 14, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    Curious - why do you (2nd Amendment absolutists) think the framers thought it necessary to explain why this right was needed (i.e., a well regulated militia), something they did not feel was necessary regarding any of the other Bill of Rights (e.g., why doesn’t the 1st Amendment say “the dissemination of information being necessary for a free state, a free press shall not be infringed”)?

    And if the right is absolute – notice this does not apply to the 1st Amendment as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater will quickly get you arrested – why doesn’t it apply to bazookas and .50 cal machine guns mounted in SUV’s (since given the power of today’s armed forced, these weapons would be the minimum necessary to even begin to have a fighting chance in a revolution)?

    The vast majority of the country will never allow guns to be confiscated, but doing what we can to keep criminals and the mentally ill from having easy access to them (e.g., the weekend gun show) is something both the NRA and Justice Scalia (author of the Heller opinion) have affirmed.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 14, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    Re: ". . . doing what we can to keep criminals and the mentally ill from having easy access . . . ."

    We're already doing what we can to keep criminals and the mentally ill from having easy access -- nothing.

    And, let's be clear, NOTHING in the current proposals will do anything more than what we're doing now to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies.

    That's how we KNOW the anti-American, anti-gun liberals' agenda has nothing to do with protecting us, only with controlling us.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 14, 2013 11:33 a.m.

    @jsf
    Centerville, UT

    The simple fact of the matter is, all a G'ment agency has to do is pull up every hunting license ever sold - and Viola!....instant database of who, live where, and owns what.

    49 of the 50 States all require Hunter Safety.
    Same list, same reason, same database.

    I could do it, at home, on an Excel SpeadSheet!

    At the very least, I would know who owned A firearm.
    Becasue rarely does a gun-nut only ONE weapon, and
    even more rarely does a NON-gun owner purchase a hunting license.

    BTW, off the top of my head - I know Idaho, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachucetts, Oregon, New York and New Jersey all require calibre or type weapon.
    i.e., It is illegal to use a .22 or 410 shotgun for deer, or assault rifles for doves & pheasants.

    Non-gun owners rarely take hunter safety.

    At any rate, the data is already readily available.
    You can now begin your full blown paranoid gun-confisgation fantasy panic now....

    =====

    @Tyler D
    Meridian, ID

    Agreed!

    These so called "Constitution Absoluteists" are the biggest bunch of selective, pick and choosers just to twist and fit personal agenda - on the planet.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    May 14, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    Hyrum makes an excellent argument. But when has logic ever appealed to those suffering from paranoia?

    jcb, no, we will not forgive you.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    May 14, 2013 11:52 a.m.

    They are going to do Gun Confiscation with the using the lie of the Gun Owner being mentally ill. This is what is being promoted and this is what will most like get the gullable public to buy into the whole thing.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 14, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    If background checks led to gun confiscation... the NRA is gonna flip when they find out we already have background checks for the majority of gun purchases in this nation.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    May 14, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    We got a bunch of Redcoat sympathizers commenting on here. You know, many people in the contential army didn't have the "training" to be in the military and they were technically by todays standards an "unorganized" milita. They won because God was on their side end of story.

    This nation has become the very thing that it rebelled aginst. Taxation without representation.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    May 14, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    I'm telling you they are going to do this under the guise of "mental illness." They won't tell you that they are going door to door confiscating firearms because they know the public won't buy it.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 14, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    Apparently Hyrum hasn't been paying attention to the Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo and his comments this year where he was quoted as suggesting gun registration would logically lead to confiscation - door to door. Each gun owner would be offered a 'fair' price for their gun as set by the government. Now Cuomo isn't the president but he a BIG player on the left and in his own state alone he effects tens of millions of people. Registration of guns serves only one purpose - to later locate and confiscate those guns. Registration doesn't stop a killer with a gun and it doesn't keep guns out of the hands of crazy people or the 'gangsters' in America. These guys don't buy legal guns. Registration is ALWAYS a first step in any socialist or communist society where guns MUST be banned in order for the government to seize control of the masses. Our inspired founders foresaw this very thing happening where corrupt men would attempt to undermine our free republic and thus created the 2nd amendment. The left HATES the constitution and especially the 2nd amendment. Yes Hyrum - registration then confiscation. WAKE UP!!!

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    May 14, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    Anti Bush-Obama said: "I'm telling you they are going to do this under the guise of "mental illness."

    1st they would have to find you mentally ill, your post should make you wary but I believe calling all gun owners mentally ill would be nearly as impossible as patriots door to door buy back fantasy.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    May 14, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    Those who vehemently oppose any sort of gun control rely on all kinds of fallacies and fantasies. Here are a few more:

    "Restrictions on the amount of ammo and types of weapons we can legally possess won't work; criminals ignore the law anyway." Fully automatic weapons are currently illegal to possess for the very reason that they are much more dangerous than semi-automatic weapons (which are legal). True, a criminal might get hold of an automatic weapon -- but that is not an argument for legalizing automatic weapons.

    "Gun control is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment." Even if that's true, it's too late. Again, private possession of fully automatic weapons is illegal - not to mention every other "arm" more powerful and dangerous.

    "Gun ownership will protect me from a tyrannical government." No, not when the barrel of a tank is pointed into your bunker.

    ...and so on.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 14, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    How is your "gun" going to protect you from nerve gas?
    How is your "gun" going to protect you from a Drone Strike?
    How is your "gun" going to protect you from a B-2?

    You gun nuts and your Mad-Max apocolyptic Rambo fantasies will undoubtedly create your own self-fulfilling prophecy.

    ala,
    Ruby Ridge,
    Waco,
    and Jim Jones People's Temple.

    The best way to be and remain Free, is to quite simply follow the Master, be Christ-like.

    BTW - Don''t be too disappointed when, because Christ never came to over threw the tyranical Romans either.

    He will only come those prepared to recieve him.

    Look at the Amish for a good example of what to be and expect at his 2nd coming....

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 14, 2013 1:25 p.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife" if gun registration doesn't always lead to confiscation, tell us where that is true? I can't think of any nation that has had a national gun registration law that didn't eventually confiscate guns from a majority of the population.

    To "LDS Liberal" the Bush Patriot act expired years ago. What you have now is the Obama Patriot act on Steroids.

    You are wrong about those who defend the constitution. The same people defending the 2nd amendment will also defend your right speak your mind here. It is your ilk that twists and selects what it will enforce to meet their personal agenda.

    Look to the book of Revelations and 3 Nephi to see what will go on before the 2nd coming.

    To "Tyler D" that is simple. Guns and weapons are a means of defense. If you break into a cave where a momma bear and her cubs live would you expect to get out alive? The same is true for the American People. If you break into my house, prepare to meet the best means of defense I have available, and don't expect to come out without a loss of blood.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    May 14, 2013 1:57 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal – “You gun nuts and your Mad-Max apocolyptic Rambo fantasies will undoubtedly create your own self-fulfilling prophecy.”

    And toss in a good dose of end-times, left-behind series, totally misunderstanding the Book of Revelations, rapture-ready conviction and you have the perfect mixture for global combustion.

    Then combine this with the spark of radical Islam and Mad Max here we come. Sure wish there was a nice habitable place (like Mars with an atmosphere) where the non-religious fanatics among us could watch it all unfold without getting caught in the crossfire.

    @Redshirt1701 – “To "Tyler D" that is simple…”

    Was that an attempt to answer the question I posed? Sorry, I missed it. But I was happy (relieved) to see that you support my “ilk” exercising our 1st amendment rights.

    Curious – how do you feel about the other amendments, notably the 1st part of the 1st sentence of the 1st amendment, the 4th amendment, the 6th amendment, the 8th amendment, and the 9th amendment? Well, really all of them… do you like some more than others, or are they all to be equally revered (with the same passion you hold for the 2nd)?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 14, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    Those who tell us that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is the reasoning behind requiring government intercession in gun ownership are full of baloney. They must not know just how ridiculous their argument is. The government does not issue you a permit to yell. The government does not require that you take a "course" before yelling. The government does not care if you yell - unless you endanger others by yelling. You are prosecuted AFTER you have violated the safety of others - not before.

    On the other hand. They want the government to infringe on the rights of Americans BEFORE those Americans can keep and bear arms. They want to know WHO those Americans are. They want to know WHAT firearms those Americans own. They tell us that the government has that right. Who gave them that right? The Constitution forbids government to do that. There has been no amendment to the Constitution that allows the government to do that. There has been a Court ruling that tells the liberals that NO membership in a militia is necessary - but the liberals reject that.

    "Shall not be infringed" are the operative words - Obama and friends notwithstanding.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 14, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    Re: "How is your "gun" going to protect you from nerve gas? How is your "gun" going to protect you from a Drone Strike? How is your "gun" going to protect you from a B-2?"

    All good arguments for a more correct and literal interpretation of the Second Amendment.

    But that's an argument for another day.

    Today's issue is, "How will restrictions on gun cosmetics prevent the next Newtown -- are black rifles with handgrips somehow more dangerous than others of identical function?

    How about restriction on magazine size? Ten 10-round mags hold as many rounds as one 100-round. In no-pressure gun-free, free-fire zones, even 10 mag-swaps would be easy.

    How will prior restraint on ownership -- that criminals will never obey anyway, and that the ACLU will never permit to violate HIPAA or the ADA -- keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies?

    Those are the real questions relevant to the current proposals.

    Questions for which liberals have yet to concoct a plausible, though disingenuous response.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    May 14, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    Obama has only expanded the patriot act. We also have the NDAA.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 14, 2013 3:05 p.m.

    atl134 thank you for pointing out the current liberal progressive argument of what they are trying to do."If background checks led to gun confiscation... the NRA is gonna flip when they find out we already have background checks for the majority of gun purchases in this nation." The liberal progressives tell us all they want is background checks, you just told us they already have it. So what are they trying to get under this argument?

    EDM "No, not when the barrel of a tank is pointed into your bunker." Gee how did that tank work out in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iran, Romania. Why do we honor the Jewish rebellion and those who died in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising 1942.

    This can be said of those who refuse the idea of defense against a tyrannical government, "they went quietly into the night."

    I will not go quietly into the night.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 14, 2013 3:11 p.m.

    "Look at the Amish for a good example of what to be and expect at his 2nd coming."
    ...so you are saying we need to be more like them because

    "they are:
    Against abortion,
    Against homosexuals and Pre-marital sex,
    Against smoking and drinking,
    Against pornography,
    Against gambling,
    and other forms of vice and decadence...

    That puts them squarely into the uber-far-right-wing camp."

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 14, 2013 3:20 p.m.

    Tyler D
    Meridian, ID

    Curious – how do you feel about the other amendments...?
    Well, really all of them… do you like some more than others, or are they all to be equally revered (with the same passion you hold for the 2nd)?

    1:57 p.m. May 14, 2013

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

    Agreed!

    They don't.

    These are the very same jokers who are constantly trying to Appeal the 14th amendment,
    Add a Same-Sex Marriage ban ammendment,
    Add a Flag Burning Amendment,
    and Add a Balanced Budget Amendment.

    They SAY they are trying to protect the Constitution,
    but most ironically -- they are picking an choosing Amendments they support [which only seems to be PARTS of the 2nd Amendment, the parts they like - and simply ignoring the 1st half of it], Adding one's that aren't there, and twisting the one's already defined into something they are not.

    Who's TRAMPLING the Consitution,
    and Who's reading it and abiding by it as currently written?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 14, 2013 3:22 p.m.

    What is the most iconic image we have today of people standing up to a tyrannical government.

    One individual A Chinese man stands alone to block a line of tanks heading east on Beijing's Cangan Blvd. in Tiananmen Square on June 5, 1989. The photo seen around the world.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    May 14, 2013 3:23 p.m.

    @Mike Richards – “"Shall not be infringed" are the operative words”

    So again, we did the framers even write the first part of the amendment (“a well regulated militia”)? Was it just rhetorical window dressing? If so, why doesn’t any other amendment in the Bill of Rights contain this sort of Madisonian flourish?

    @Procuradorfiscal – “All good arguments for a more correct and literal interpretation of the Second Amendment… But that's an argument for another day.”

    Why wait?

    You seem itching to go there, so have the courage of your convictions and lay out your argument(s). What are you afraid of?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 14, 2013 3:29 p.m.

    What did the Manchin-Toomey amendment say about a registry?

    First, it made reference to (mid 1980's)federal law that already bans creation of a federal registry.

    The Manchin-Toomey amendment doubled down on this ban, declaring: "Congress supports and reaffirms the existing prohibition on a national firearms registry."
    It also declared that nothing in the legislation should be construed to "allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a federal firearms registry."
    Later, it also added these provisions:
    • "The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination authorized by this paragraph other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law."
    • "The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the ... acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof."
    • "Any person who knowingly violates (the prohibition against consolidating or centralizing records) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.''
    (politifact)

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 14, 2013 3:33 p.m.

    To "Tyler D" I don't fully understand the problem that you have with those Amendments.

    The first amendment guarantees that we won't have a state religion.

    The 4th is being trampled by progressives as they enact laws that allow government to search our electronic records. That should be stopped.

    The 6, 8th and 9th are all fine by me. They should be defended equally, but the progressives are working overtime to destroy them one at a time.

    The one right that your ilk seems to hate is the 10th amendment. That one specifically states that if the Constitution is not specific about a right given to the Feds, it is up to the states or people to decide.

    Why is it that your ilk seems to think that more government and more regulation is the solution. History shows us that less government is better.

    Why is it that guns are ok to protect your liberal leaders, but the common man is not considered capable of protecting themselves with a gun?

    Why do progressives fear guns and want to disarm the populace? Gun deaths are already decreasing without the draconian measures they propose.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 14, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    @Anti-Bush Obama
    "This nation has become the very thing that it rebelled against. Taxation without representation."

    Oh please. You have... actually you're from D.C. who has no senators or voting members in the house so I guess you do have a point.

    @jsf
    "The liberal progressives tell us all they want is background checks, you just told us they already have it. So what are they trying to get under this argument?"

    No, liberal progressives don't already have it. We have background checks on the majority of gun purchases (the ones from dealers). We don't have them on ALL gun purchases. Private sales are completely exempt and don't currently require a background check. The bill in Congress that was voted down would've only closed this loophole for private sales over the internet. I would like to see all gun purchases require a background check.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 14, 2013 3:46 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    "if gun registration doesn't always lead to confiscation, tell us where that is true? "

    Switzerland, a nation frequently touted by conservatives as evidence of a nation with a lot of guns but low gun violence rates.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    May 14, 2013 4:01 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal,

    "Those are the real questions relevant to the current proposals.
    Questions for which liberals have yet to concoct a plausible, though disingenuous response."

    Do you not see the irony in these statements? Those whom you argue against ARE making plausible suggestions. Meanwhile, your position is "nothing can be done!" - hardly the type of concoction you're demanding from liberals.

    Further, not one person suggests that gun control will prevent criminals from doing damage. But again, how is this an argument for NO gun control?

    To your example, yes, your math is correct: Ten 10-round clips are basically equal to one 100-round clip. But what if the Newtown shooter took a rock to his head in that moment of brief distraction, swapping out clips? One life saved, perhaps? Far-fetched as this scenario is, at least it's an argument for trying to do something. "Do nothing" is not an argument.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    May 14, 2013 4:16 p.m.

    Here is what “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Founding Fathers” has to say on this (seemed like an appropriate resource for today’s discussion):

    “Today, people who argue that the Second Amendment applies to individuals point to the Pennsylvania measure, Jefferson’s proposal, and the suggested amendments by the two Massachusetts towns… On the other hand, those who argue that the Second Amendment was meant only for common defense remind us that the framers rejected such wording, and insist that if they didn’t want it in the Second Amendment, we shouldn’t try to stick it in either.”

    Also…

    “the members of Congress, who debated and passed the measure, talked only about the danger of standing armies and the need to strengthen militias. Those had been the issues at the Constitutional Convention as well. It’s all there in the written record. The discussion was never about an individual’s right to bear arms, so that couldn’t have been the purpose for this amendment.”

    But despite what the framers wanted, Scalia has spoken so it is the law of the land… because 5 is a larger number than 4.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    May 14, 2013 4:22 p.m.

    From the comments here I learn that desiring common-sense solutions to gun violence, including a basic determination of responsibility (eg, that you're not insane or a felon) before handing you a weapon, and attempting to create some sort of accountability if a weapon you own is used wrongfully, all means that you are:
    -a low information voter
    -a redcoat sympathizer
    -anti-American
    -anti-freedom
    -in favor of a tyrannical monarchy

    It's no wonder this nation can't have a mature, reasoned discussion on this subject with such overblown rhetoric against any attempt to find a reasonable solution to an epidemic of violence.

    On the other hand, you're doing your job well. I don't own a gun, but am reconsidering that position. The idea of lunatic right-wing, my-way-is-the-only-way extremists having a monopoly on privately owned firepower is terrifying.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 14, 2013 4:34 p.m.

    @jsf
    Centerville, UT

    What is the most iconic image we have today of people standing up to a tyrannical government.

    One individual A Chinese man stands alone to block a line of tanks heading east on Beijing's Cangan Blvd. in Tiananmen Square on June 5, 1989. The photo seen around the world.

    3:22 p.m. May 14, 2013

    =========

    Yes,
    And I'd like to point out he had NO gun,
    and even placed a flower in the muzzle of the cannon.

    FYI,
    The Government was cracking down on the "Liberal" University Students who were peacefully protesting Freedom and Equal Rights for ALL people in Tiannamen Square.

    And a rebuttle comment regarding the Amish --
    They mind their own business, keep to themselves, and Live and Let Live --
    They don't try to FORCE anyone to live their ways, obey their rules or follow their customs,
    and
    They most certainly don't try to pass legislation on all the citizens thoughout Pennsylvania to follow them or their beliefs about God either.

    BTW, they live in COMMUNES having all things in common.

    That puts them squarely into the uber-far-LEFT-wing camp.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    May 14, 2013 4:57 p.m.

    So basically what the gun rights people are afraid of is; that the police, and military are going to take away their guns.
    Really? You think the United States Marine corps; is going to come to Utah and take away your guns?
    You think other American citizens, who are in the military, might declare martial law in Provo Utah, and first thing they are going to do; is take away your shotguns?
    The fallacy is; even if they were ordered to do so, few fellow American citizens; who happen to be in the military, are not going to invade bluffdale, and start shooting other Americans.
    If anything, it is the National Guard that would protect us; not some Yosemite Sam wannabe.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    May 14, 2013 5:06 p.m.

    The Second Amendment is the result of concerns by Anti-Federalists that a standing national army was antithetical to democracy and needed to be balanced by militias. It was inserted as a guarantee that the federal government couldn't deprive militias of what is necessary to be "well regulated" and as a counterweight the federal controls of militias as enumerated in Article I, Section 8. It was not viewed as individual right to bear arms, but a civic duty to serve in militias.

    All of this is overwhelmingly borne out in the legal views of the time, the history of amendment's drafts and revisions, and the ratification debates. It was accepted as uncontroversial by legal scholars until the 1970s, when the NRA emerged as anti-anything related to gun regulations.

    Madison proposed a bill drafted by Jefferson to the Virginia legislature that barred anyone who violated hunting laws from carrying a weapon, except on their own property. The author of the Second Amendment had no problem regulating who could bear arms.

    I'm a vet. I own weapons. I enjoy them. But my personal right to own them is not derived from the Second Amendment.

  • OlderGreg USA, CA
    May 14, 2013 5:52 p.m.

    California *has* a confiscation squad whose stated purpose is to remove legally purchased weapons from those who could not purchase them now (i.e. had a legal gun -- some time later was convicted of something). The squad x-references purchases, criminal records, 5150 evaluations, restraining orders, DMV, and who knows what else ---- swat-style raids the target home, and takes all.

    Of course, they do not clean up their mess or repair their damage before they leave. They might remove the cuffs from someone on the way out.

    Do you know who lived in or visited your home before you got there? Been involved in a stereotypical rabid divorce? Is your home clearly marked with the address (wrong house protection)? Are you *sure* that everyone one who is welcome in your home has been squeaky-clean forever?

    Additionally color that with no open carry of anything, loaded or not --- concealed carry permit process so convoluted and expensive as to be nearly a ban in itself ---.

    California has historically "led the way" for things to come. Naaaa -- no reason to be concerned ---

  • 4word thinker Murray, UT
    May 14, 2013 5:57 p.m.

    Background checks, in the form of a license to buy and trade guns, would prevent unqualified people from obtaining guns just as well and the 'background check' with registry of purchase, that was in the most recent gun bill, because neither will make any difference in bad guys getting guns.

    The registry is just more objectionable because it is the next step towards confiscation, when it is proven that background checks don't work. We all know where this is going. The left just denies it hoping they can make it happen when those in the right aren't looking.

  • OlderGreg USA, CA
    May 14, 2013 6:05 p.m.

    Vidar: Kent State, 4 May 1970 ---- National Guard (not?) shooting Americans

    (and my other post re California squad)

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 14, 2013 6:16 p.m.

    This may be the wrong week to make the claim that a gun registry would never, ever be abused by the federal government.

    Just sayin'.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 15, 2013 7:30 a.m.

    To "atl134" you are wrong. Read "Swiss soldiers face loss of right to store guns at home" at CNN. The government in Switzerland is seeking to control and confiscate the guns there.

    To "Tyler D" you are wrong about the 2nd amendment. It clearly states " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If you are making it very difficult to buy and keep guns, you are infringing on that right.

    Why do you want to usurp the Constitution and disarm law abiding citizens? What are you so afraid of?

  • Janca salt lake city, utah
    May 15, 2013 7:46 a.m.

    Hat tilt to Unreconstructed Reb. You said it perfectly! You are exactly RIGHT!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 15, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    "Read "Swiss soldiers face loss of right to store guns at home" at CNN. The government in Switzerland is seeking to control and confiscate the guns there."

    Swiss soldiers? We already have that law in the US since it's not like military personnel in this nation can store their army/etc weapons at home.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    May 15, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    Redshirt1701
    Deep Space 9, Ut

    Why do progressives fear guns and want to disarm the populace?

    3:33 p.m. May 14, 2013

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

    We don't, not by a long, LONG shot.
    Name ONE comment were we have said anything so ridiculous.

    We simply want universal background checks to stop loop holes that allow those who clearly should have them [children, criminals, and the mentally insane] from having free and unfettered access to them.

    Not an unrealistic, paranoid, gun confisgation fantasyland,
    Just good old Common-sense.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 15, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    @ Tyler D

    You're quoting what??

    “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Founding Fathers”

    I guess that about says it all.

    Not helpful to the anti-gun case is it?

    I prefer reading material for thinking and intelligent people, material like the Constitution itself, and other writings of the Founding Fathers. (You could try cliff notes, if that helps, but that still means you become a bleating sheep of whatever spin clifford has to offer.)

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    May 15, 2013 1:51 p.m.

    @Badgerbadger
    Murray, UT

    "I prefer reading material for thinking and intelligent people, material like the Constitution itself..."

    =========

    So what part of "A well regulated Militia," does this self-proclimed thinking and intelligent person fail to comprehend and understand?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 15, 2013 2:34 p.m.

    To "atl134" had you bothered to read the article, the gun registry is going beyond the active duty military. It is going to extend to all guns so that the government can take guns away from the people. The politicians who are proposing that law are using the same arguments your ilk uses to get guns out of the hands of its people.

    To "airnaut" we already have background checks, and the 1968 Gun Control Act restricts who can own a gun. Why do we need redundant laws to accomplish what is already on the books?

    What you should be asking yourself is this: Why is it that Obama and the liberals are following the same pattern and arguments as Hitler and every other tyrant? Obama is setting up laws so that he can disarm large segments of the population at any time for almost any reason. Just look at the case from NY where they confiscated a man's guns because of what the state didn't like in his medical records.

    Also, based on the recent scandals where this Administration is breaking laws, why wouldn't you want an armed populace?

  • stuff Provo, UT
    May 16, 2013 3:41 a.m.

    So, why do government and liberals even care about gun registration? Is it simply to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill or criminal? If so, then there has to be better ways of screening gun purchases. But screening does not equal registration.

    There is no logical purpose for gun registration. There is absolutely no need for the government to know if I have a gun or what guns I have unless they plan to control gun ownership. The only way the government can control gun ownership is to either prohibit the purchase of guns or to confiscate guns from legal owners. Neither of those can be legally done because purchase and ownership are guaranteed by our own Constitution. So, the government has no need to require gun registration.

    Note that I believe these arguments apply to law abiding gun owners, but not to anyone who uses guns for any criminal activity. Once they are guilty of committing a criminal act, they forfeit their 2nd amendment, and many other, rights.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2013 2:51 p.m.

    "Once they are guilty of committing a criminal act, they forfeit their 2nd amendment, and many other, rights."

    I'm not sure you do forfeit your rights when you have been convicted of a criminal act. The one you clearly do forfeit is your second amendment rights. No rational person would think that prisoners should have weapons. But show me where in the Constitutiion it says this. Show me where in the second amendment it says shall not be infringed except if you have been convicted of a crime. It's not there.

    And this is where the literalists, like Richards and RedShirt and their ilk (thanks RedShirt) run into problems. Clearly there are limits and built into the second, such as prisoners being denied weapons, not spelled out in the amendment or the Constitutution. I would think the founders expected future generations to be able to think.

    I would hardly think the founders would quibble about us NOT providing some of the weapons we have created to the populace, or letting children or convicts own weapons. No matter if they wrote shall not be infringed or not.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 17, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    To "mark" duh, prisoners should not have weapons. The Constitution states clearly that we are to have Justice, and that cannot occur if criminals are allowed to continue killing people. The constitution already covers that.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    May 17, 2013 7:15 p.m.

    RedShirt, show me where the constitution specifically says that. Or are you just reading into it? Your ilk wants to read it exactly as written. So show me where the second makes an exception for anyone.