On the EDge: Herbert supports students, calls for tighter gun laws

Utah State capitol with Gov. Gary Herbert. Undated. | Image courtesy Pixabay, St. George News

OPINION — Gun control, it’s not just for liberals any more, even in gun-friendly Utah.

It was more than a bit surprising last week to learn that Gov. Gary Herbert supports tightening down on the gun laws.

It was beyond surprising to learn that he also stands in support of the young people calling for stricter controls that would, hopefully, stop the killing that has occurred on our school campuses, in our churches, on our streets.

While acknowledging Utah’s traditional Second Amendment support, he noted “but that does not mean there are not parameters.”

He said he is willing to participate in the conversation about stricter gun safety, from banning the so-called bump stocks that allow shooters to squeeze off more rounds in quicker fashion to universal background checks, raising the minimum age to purchase a gun from 18 to 21, placing additional law enforcement in our schools and other measures.

In the run-up to Saturday’s March for Our Lives in Washington D.C., Herbert told The Salt Lake Tribune that he had nothing but praise for the young people who organized the demonstration, that he was pleased that they were “getting involved and mobilized. They are saying ‘Let our voices be heard’” as they took to the streets to march against gun violence.

It is a remarkable turnaround for Herbert who, last year, signed a bill that made it legal for 18-year-olds to obtain concealed carry permits.

There was a time, you know, when Herbert would have been tossed out on his ear for even muttering such blasphemy.

But, the times, they surely must be a-changing.

And, as much as I have looked at Herbert as being a rather bland governor, more intent with toeing the party line than pursuing vital legislation, I have to support him as he offers to address this national epidemic.

By the way, for those of you keeping score out there who are rushing to your keyboards to bash on President Obama because bump stocks were allowed on the market during his tenure, I suggest you save your breath.

Yes, indeed, they were.

There are legal vagaries regarding how that occurred, but nonetheless, steps were not taken to outlaw that particular piece of equipment. Other similar after-market items were banned, but the design and structure of bump stocks placed them in a sort of legal limbo as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives decided the law had no jurisdiction over the accessory. Apologists will say the bump stocks were allowed under a technicality. That’s a cop out. The ATF is part of the Department of Justice in the executive branch under the president’s purview, so, technicality or not, the buck ultimately stopped on Obama’s desk. Although Obama was, and remains, an advocate of stricter gun controls, his administration blew it on this one.

And, the results were tragic.

A bump stock was used in the horrific Las Vegas attack last October, the worst mass shooting in United States history. More than 1,100 rounds of ammunition were sprayed from a room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel onto a crowd gathered to attend a country music festival, killing 58 people.

Last Friday, the DOJ filed paperwork to ban them. We’ll see what happens after the 90-day public comment period. Let’s hope the regulation stands and these accessories are outlawed.

How much support it will garner remains to be seen as we know that this administration has busily tried to eliminate gun restrictions, going so far as to wipe out a law initiated during the George W. Bush administration and signed during the waning days of the Obama administration that banned people with mental illness from purchasing guns

If history and experience is any indication, it is wiser to follow the money than to base a prediction on morality or common sense.

That’s why it was interesting on Saturday when Al Hoffman Jr., a former U.S. ambassador to Portugal under President George W. Bush, and a longtime Republican donor, formally announced an organization to initiate far-reaching gun-control legislation.

The group, Americans for Gun Safety Now, is calling for expanding background checks, raising the age limit for all gun purchases to 21, eliminating bump stocks and limiting high-capacity magazines. The Florida real estate developer said he also will withhold campaign money from candidates who do not support a ban on assault weapons.

Hoffman announced his group officially in an ad that appeared in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal in conjunction with the March for Our Lives in Washington D.C., which he attended.

Hoffman told Time magazine that “the federal government better pass legislation that is readily available right now … and get it done now, before November. If they don’t do this, my guess is that they will lose big in November.”

It is estimated that at least $600,000 was donated by members of Hoffman’s group to Republican candidates and committees during the last election cycle and that he plans to personally lobby Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. and Rand Paul, R-Ky.

Of course, $600,000 is a drop in the bucket when compared with the money the NRA feeds candidates, mostly conservative, each election. Still, this group is based in Florida, a key state in national politics. Turning the state blue would be a major coup for Democrats.

On a lesser level, so is Herbert’s latest position on gun control in a state that prides itself as a bastion of the Second Amendment.

Herbert has announced that he has no plans to run for re-election, which could indicate a new boldness has emerged.

This doesn’t mean Utah is turning blue by any means.

It’s not even turning a slight shade of purple.

But, the door has been left slightly ajar, meaning there is a chance for cogent, mature discussion.

Whether the voices respond in kind has yet to be seen.

But, it is a start.

And, that’s a good thing.

No bad days!

Ed Kociela is an opinion columnist for St. George News. The opinions stated in this article are his own and may not be representative of St. George News.

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @STGnews, @EdKociela

Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2018, all rights reserved.

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!


  • Utahguns March 27, 2018 at 8:21 am

    Let’s get serious.
    Ed and his liberal friends want to take your guns.
    Why? Two reasons. First, it takes power from the citizenry. Liberals love that.
    Second, gun rights are important to normal Americans because the fact we maintain arms means we are not mere subjects. We are citizens, with the power to defend our freedom. Liberals hate that we have that dignity; taking our guns would humiliate us, and show us who is boss. They want to disarms us not because of the gun crime – name a liberal who wants to really do something about Chicago as opposed to hassling law-abiding normals – but because they hate us and want to see us submit.

    • No Filter March 27, 2018 at 9:34 am

      Wrong we just want to protect our children in schools and make it harder for people to get “military style” weapons, that’s right I said harder to get not impossible. We want to ban bump stocks and limit magazine capacity, it doesn’t take 50 rounds to kill a deer. We want to raise the age limit to buy certain guns, you have to be 21 to buy alcohol, why not be 21 to buy a gun. If you want to take your kids hunting then they can certainly use your guns for that, or maybe even restrict only a certain caliber bullet weapons. Maybe a few far left people want all guns banned, but most people just want to keep them out of the hands of people who are deemed unfit whether mentally or legally (I.E. criminals). I realize it’s your opinion, but your opinion sucks, who are you to speak for “normal Americans” in what they want as far as gun laws. As far as being hated by liberals, that seems like a bit of a stretch even for people from Utah. Lastly I just want to let you know that back in 1776 you could defend your home with your musket and a militia, but today I don’t care how many AR-15’s you own, if the government wanted to take full control via the military, they could do it with out any problems. We could be taken out with drones and military aircraft in a heart beat if our government really wanted to, but they know the best way to control the people is to keep them stupid and uninformed. I mean come on we elected a reality T.V. personality to run our country and you think we could form a militia and stop the greatest military ever created, not a chance in Hades.

      • Brian March 27, 2018 at 10:52 am

        Riiiiight, that’s why over 150 democrats have already signed onto H. R. 5087 (AKA the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018):

        It outlaws anything semiautomatic, which is over 80% of all guns in America. They benevolently agree to let existing guns be grandfathered in, but guaranteed that is very temporary and it wouldn’t be long before they’d take the next steps.

        The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with killing deer. It has to do with the right of citizens to prevent tyranny from its own government. Period. All other purposes (national and personal defense, hunting, sport shooting) are secondary to that. All you have to do is watch the news to realize that is as important today as it has ever been.

        If you really “just want to protect our children in schools” then you should be banning alcohol, not guns. The MOST kids killed in school shootings in a year is 63, but 4,300 kids are killed EVERY YEAR by their own over-consumption of alcohol. Why don’t you care about THOSE kids? Oh, that’s right, because protecting them would infringe on your rights to drink, which you care about, rather than my rights to protect my family and country (from tyranny, criminals, whatever), which you don’t care about.

        • No Filter March 27, 2018 at 12:14 pm

          Once again I will state that I don’t want to ban these guns, just make them harder for people to get so we don’t have another school shooting like the one in Florida. You gun nuts keep putting words in my mouth. I was not aware of the bill in congress, but even being a “liberal”, I know it won’t make it anywhere based on my quick glance at it. As far as alcohol bans, well we all know how well that went. I do care about the kids who die of alcohol related deaths, but people have to make their own choices in life and drinking to much alcohol is not effecting other innocent lives the same way mass shooters do. It effects there family yes, but you cannot compare it to mass shooting victims. Lastly I do own guns to protect my family and I do own an AR-15. I was trained to use the weapon in the military, but I don’t use it as a home defense weapon because any body with half a brain knows a shotgun is more effective than a rifle to shoot at would be criminals. But I am sure you have your rifle next to you in bed to use in an emergency. Mine is locked away in my gun safe so no one can take it without my knowledge. I do my part to make sure I secure my guns from children or criminals who would use it to harm other people.

        • bikeandfish March 27, 2018 at 1:48 pm

          Can you show me where in the 2nd Amendment it says its about “right of citizens to prevent tyranny from its own government. Period.” Given the emphatic use of “period” I assume that is an easy request to satisfy.

          • Brian March 27, 2018 at 4:06 pm

            It isn’t in the 2nd Amendment, but it is in the Declaration of Independence. You should read it. It’s quite clear. Pay attention to phrases like “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government”. How is an unarmed populace supposed to do that?

            You can also look to the words of the founders themselves to understand their intent:

            George Mason: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

            George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”

            Thomas Paine: “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”

            Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

            Thomas Jefferson: “Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”

            If you seriously think the 2nd Amendment as they wrote it, or their motives for writing it, has ANYTHING to do with hunting or sport shooting you know nothing of history.

          • bikeandfish March 27, 2018 at 9:59 pm

            I am fully aware of the historical roots of your argument but its important to highlight its not in the Constitution. As such it takes historical interpretation, ie judicial review. That is the same way/tool SCOTUS uses and how we now justify hunting and home protection as equal ways to judge the 2nd. The fact is the founders, who didn’t have a unified view of the Bill of Rights, don’t hold anymore ownership to its meaning now than judicial reviews. They lost control of it the moment it was ratified. It became ours more than theirs.

          • eddantes56 March 27, 2018 at 11:27 pm

            That is some of the most ridiculous sophistry I have read in a while. You may hold the opinion that the thinking of the FFs holds no sway today. All cultural marxists hold this opinion. However, it is laughable; the framework of the Constitution and holding to the intent of the FFs is exactly what created the high-trust, functionally and overal moral society (with room for improvement) that was our country. You and EK enjoy the fruits of that wisdom but if your dream of bringing down the country is realized, it will be very Hobbian….nasty and brutish, which is what the marxism has always produced.

            The FFs knew and studied English common law and the importance of self-defense against a tyrannical gov and lawless individuals was EXACTLY what they intended and they knew it was crucial for a free society. Arguably more important that the First Amendment. For crying out loud, T Jefferson even commented that the tree of Liberty need to be watered with the blood of tyrants periodically. The point is the FFs knew that societies without a form of self defense were subject to tyranny.

            You may think your “pontification” on nuance are relevant. You are entitled to them but they are so far off base…..so sophist! LOL

          • eddantes56 March 27, 2018 at 11:42 pm

            Your sophistry is laughable, but I enjoy reading it. The very idea that if a concept is not included in a short amendment and that the thinking of the FFs holds no sway today is really beyond the pale and is what people who are bested in argument throw out there. You are way over your skis.

            The framework of the Constitution and holding to the intent of the FFs is exactly what created the high-trust, functionally and overall moral society (with room for improvement) that was our country. You and EK enjoy the fruits of that wisdom (or what remains of it) …. if your dream of bringing down the country is realized, it will be very Hobbian….nasty and brutish, which is what the marxism, moral nihilism, et al has always produced.

            The FFs knew and studied English common law and the importance of self-defense against a tyrannical gov and lawless individuals was EXACTLY what they intended and they knew it was crucial for a free society. Arguably more important that the First Amendment. For crying out loud, T Jefferson even commented that the tree of Liberty needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants periodically. The point is the FFs knew that societies without a form of self defense were subject to tyranny.

            You and EK need to go live in the developing world and see how the average citizen is subject to the whims and violence of gangs and periodically of their own government and these average citizens have no recourse because the average citizen is disarmed.

            The FFs did not live in the pampered and ungrateful bubble that you and EK live it. Long live their memory and may we enjoy and cherish their wisdom.

          • bikeandfish March 28, 2018 at 10:45 am


            I never said “FFs hold no sway today”, that is a strawman. What I did say was “The fact is the founders, who didn’t have a unified view of the Bill of Rights, don’t hold anymore ownership to its meaning now than judicial reviews. They lost control of it the moment it was ratified. It became ours more than theirs.” There is nothing sophist, ie fallacious, about that statement. We now have 200 plus years of SCOTUS rulings plus numerous lower court ones to draw from. The Founding Father’s ideas are just one of the set of historical records we draw from.

            Its funny that you misrepresent my ideas as I actually come to different conclusions than Ed. Its judicial review that has undoubtedly expanded the legal definitions of the 2nd Amendment. I actually think, despite your fallacious statements, that the Heller case will ultimately guide a future SCOTUS ruling that defines assault weapons bans as unconstitutional. Ironically it will likely do so because of the explicit mention of “self-defense within the home.” I don’t own weapons for that purpose but I defend homeowners who do own AR-15s for that reason.

            So keep misrepresenting my ideas. I’ll just correct your BS for what it is.

        • bikeandfish March 27, 2018 at 1:59 pm

          The linked law does not “outlaw anything semi-automatic”. It outlaws semi-automatic weapons that meet a set of criteria that does not amount to “over 80% of all guns in America.”. Please stop exaggerating the truth if you want to have a meaningful dialog.

          I ultimately think the bill, if it ever passes, will be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, especially if Roberts retires this summer. I also think the focus on assault weapons will only have a minimal impact on the number of these massacres. Yes, it could have significantly reduced the # murdered in LV but many of these massacres are executed with pistols and also guns bought from private sellers. Given these murderers are most often first time offenders I am just not convinced the current recommendations will make a dent in the problem. Its disheartening to admit that but I think its true.

          But 2nd Amendment hardliners need to stop exaggerating the issue as much as gun control advocates. This is a nuanced problem that will take a multi-pronged effort to make any difference.

      • Brian March 27, 2018 at 10:54 am

        Sources for the stats:

        63 is the HIGHEST number of deaths per year in school shootings since 1992:

        4,300 students die per year due to their own alcohol consumption:

      • RVer March 27, 2018 at 11:13 am

        Thankfully, the Bill of Rights (have you every looked into WHY we have it?) is not subject to what someone perceives as “needs”, and it is not a Bill of Wants, Bill of Wishes, or Bill of Dreams. The Founders had so vary recently fought and had SEEN the bloodshed required to secure those rights. The whole of the Bill of Rights was – by them – considered “shall not be infringed”. There is a reason WHY they added that phrase to the Second Amendment.

        Consider this – what is your recourse if the government violates your First, Third, Fourth, or Fifth Amendment rights? You will, I presume, suggest “the courts”, which is – for the moment – correct. What if those courts ignore the protections in the Bill of Rights. What is your recourse, and the factor that keeps the ambitions of lesser men in check? It is the very fact that the Second Amendment exists. The Founders of this nation left it as the final recourse, to make sure that if it were ever to come to it, that we could fall back to the same actions they were forced to use.

        You go on to suggest that the 2nd Amendment is somehow outdated because the government could wipe us out. In that suggestion, you negate your own argument. How much more would we indeed need arms equivalent to theirs?

        Of course, there is another factor to consider here. How effective has our Military been in fighting guerilla-type conflicts? That is what a “Second American Revolution” would look like, at least at first.

        Then again, what is the Military? It is men and women. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. When you suggest that the 2nd Amendment is not needed because they could wipe us out – if that order was ever given, do you think that they would carry it out? Is it more likely that many, or perhaps most, of them would fight on the side of preserving freedom?

        The AR-15 IS the musket of today. True, it is NOT fully-automatic like the M-4 and M-16 used by our armed forces. It can accept many of the same optics, magazines, and other accessories that make it useful for home defense, varmint hunting, target shooting, and a host of other lawful purposes. Your “feelings” that they are not “needed” do not trump the Bill of Rights.

        If you are so in favor of raising the age to buy any arms to 21, will you also support delaying the age of voting to 21? How about delaying the age of being able to enter military or religious service? How about delaying the age to get a driver license? The age to enter into contracts?

        I would also recommend caution on banning things that you “feel” others don’t “need”. I’m sure that you realize that child pornography is a major issue. Would common sense not dictate limiting the size of memory cards sold for digital cameras? It would give the child a chance to escape when the photographer has to change memory cards. It’s a common-sense idea, is it not? Can you get on board with that?

        What about that ATV in your backyard? You surely don’t need that to enjoy the outdoors. Perhaps only paraplegics should be able to get them? Those with working legs can hike just fine.

        When you try to make rights subject to “feelings”, you enter a path that may have consequences you didn’t plan on, or that your grandchildren will regret.

        • No Filter March 27, 2018 at 12:49 pm

          You make some valid points about our military and a second revolution. But my thoughts were more to make a point about this idea of being so scared of a government take over via force, that we think we need to arm ourselves for a war, nothing more. Maybe I need to dumb down my comments for everyone. My specific comment regarding how easy it would be to combat regular citizens was not an interpretation of whether our troops would fire upon their own people, which I agree with you they wouldn’t, but just the point of showing the fire power available that conspiracy theorist dread to happen if they lose their guns. As far as the rest of your comment, I am not wasting my breath on arguing with you about ATV’s, voting age, and memory cards, that is for another time, don’t get off point this is a conversation about guns. You sound worse than Kellyanne Conway changing the subject when she doesn’t want to talk about what is being asked. Keep on task and stick to the topic in hand. Also what is the issue with “feelings”, I never said I feel this or that?

          • comments March 27, 2018 at 2:13 pm

            filter, if the US gov’t turned the military loose on civilians it wouldn’t be so simple of a dynamic as you put forth. I’d say you dumbed it way down already. Soldiers fighting civilians in the streets is not likely to happen for the very reason that the public is armed. With an unarmed public the gov’t could just go and gather up at will those who they deem “traitors” just as the bolsheviks did with russians and just as the nazis did with jews and others.

          • No Filter March 27, 2018 at 3:12 pm

            Still never said I wanted people unarmed, I ‘ve seen the movie Red Dawn, I just don’t want them in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. But I will admit that I don’t have an answer for how to determine who shouldn’t. Raising the age seem like a good start for me along with a waiting period. You have to admit many 18 year old kids don’t have the maturity to have a gun.

        • comments March 27, 2018 at 12:59 pm

          I was with you up till the memory card thing. That’s just a very cringey thing to say and isn’t relevant to the gun issue AT ALL. otherwise good comment

    • bikeandfish March 27, 2018 at 11:05 am

      I am evidently a “normal American” as I currently own 4 guns and would like to have another hunting rifle or two. As one of these “normal Americans” its fair to highlight we are a minority. Its estimated that only around 1/3 of Americans own guns.

      Gun rights advocates love to point fingers at Chicago but its largely a red herring. Its not remotely the worst city for gun violence and ultimately some shocking results are found when assessing per capita gun violence in the US. Chicago ranks 25th in per capita murders in US cities; heck even Bismark, Dayton, Richmond (VA), Salinas and West Palm Beach rank higher. Talking points are often low on actual facts.

      Every gun control advocate (I’m not in that camp as I’m on the fence) I know has no desire to remove guns from law abiding citizens homes. That is a strawman. Every person I know who marches and pushes for such laws wants to reduce gun violence across the board. And when they want to regulate certain guns its about restricting future sales, not confiscation.

      Its folks like you who make the conversation about thoughtful gun ownership difficult to impossible. (There are equivalents on the left). As a gun owner I have spent considerable time educating progressives about the flaws in their ideas and the history and laws that define our nation’s gun rights. I have spent time taking folks to the range and explaining parts of the gun culture. I don’t own many guns for home defense but I do take time to explain how even an AR platform is popular for that task and the judicial rulings that have supported that tradition.

      So please, stop presenting false narratives and actually engage people with different ideas. Listen and talk across the table instead of this hysterical rhetoric.

  • mater March 27, 2018 at 8:35 am


  • NotSoFast March 27, 2018 at 10:28 am

    It wasn’t that long ago when Ed could come up with his own personal ideas on how to live his own life without fear of what others might think.
    What happen Ed? Are you getting old and lazy? Wish you would get back to being yourself. Who really cares how Herbert flip flops for attention?
    We want to read your take on life. Not what Obama or Trump’s take is. Tell us what ‘Your Opinion’ is on say, Maxine Waters I.Q. results. Or why you think Hillary should be allowed to get her lawyer license back. ( in a humorous way).

  • hiker75 March 27, 2018 at 1:53 pm

    Does the second amendment say we have a right to bear automatic weapons that were created for the military?

    • comments March 27, 2018 at 2:14 pm

      No, and automatics are already banned for public purchase, with rare exceptions. Silly thing to say.

    • Sparky March 28, 2018 at 2:39 pm

      The Musket was the most advanced weapon at the time, so yes, in a way they did. They didn’t say “only muskets” or “no cannons” or “pistols only” they said “Bear Arms”. They weren’t specific, and i’d argue it was on purpose.

  • biker11 March 27, 2018 at 8:22 pm

    I can’t stand this guy, he is a democrat in many ways.

  • commonsense March 27, 2018 at 8:29 pm

    Everyone feels we need to protect our school children but only the naive feel gun control is an answer. Guns were more prevalent 30 years ago but seldom were they used to kill people. Growing up anyone could buy a gun even young teens and many guns were semi-automatic rifles.

    The big issue is a culture of unrestrained killers spawned by indulgence and lack of moral values.
    In my day society and religion enforced respect for human life with consequences. Liberals have preached relative morality and reward without merit.

    • bikeandfish March 28, 2018 at 10:58 am

      I tend to think gun control will have a minimal impact on these events.

      That said, the notion of ” a culture of unrestrained killers spawned by indulgence and lack of moral values” being the result of liberal “relative morality” is a joke. First, these young men come from an array of households similar to what honestly existed in “your day”. What they have done has always, including now, been immoral and dealt with legal consequences. Their only real discreet “culture” is the growing list of successful massacres that they draw from to plan and prepare. The rest of the culture is something we all live in and seem to manage not to massacre innocent civilians; so blaming it for the actions of statistical outliers is dangerously flawed logic. The irony is you are using the same logic many gun-rights advocates condemn in regards to the generic response of “don’t punish innocent gun owners for the actions of a criminal.”

      I also find the notion that liberals preach “reward without merit” ironic given the people I know and the platforms they support. Its ironic because much of the liberal platform is dismantling “reward without merit” but I’m guessing that conversation is neither here nor there.

      • comments March 28, 2018 at 12:41 pm

        commonsense suffers from a case of some of the most extreme black and white thinking that i’ve ever encountered. It’s a bit surprising for a “physician”, if he really is one. I’d never want a physician to suffer from such extreme bias– “THE LIBRULS DONE IT! IT’S ALWAYS THE LIBRULS”.

        He does have a point about moral decay in this country. I wouldn’t say it’s the “sole cause” of massacres but it most def is a factor.

        • Sparky March 28, 2018 at 2:44 pm

          He has a point though with the “everyone gets a trophy mentality” its a poison on our society and I don’t let my kids participate in those events. Everyone doesn’t win the Olympics, and no one gets handed out promotions.

          • redrock4 March 29, 2018 at 8:21 am

            I don’t think that praising people for trying is at all poisonous. People are not stupid (well, most are not). The whole notion of an entitled generation is nonsense. Plus – the concept of just having one winner is outdated.

          • Sparky March 29, 2018 at 2:12 pm

            Red rock, you seem like a nice person, and are entitled to your own opinion, but go have a conversation with a mid 20’s in the job force. One more quick question for ya, What two teams won the super bowl last year? how about the world series? Maybe Trump and Hilary both should have won, and we could of had two presidents? The Entitlement is real, and it starts with everyone “winning”. You should 100% encourage your children for trying, but pain heals, chicks dig scars, glory lasts forever.

    • redrock4 March 29, 2018 at 8:17 am

      So are you saying that liberals are responsible for changing the moral fabric of the U.S. thus resulting in an increase in gun deaths? And what do you mean by “in my day. . . ” You’re still alive – right now is your day. Like the past was a kinder, more gentle time. Sure, we had slavery, the holocaust, genocide. It was not a better time when in conservative America we kept black people from using bathrooms for white people, when blacks were not able to hold the priesthood in the LDS Church, etc. We are lucky that the kids are pro-active enough to lead this fight.

  • vintagehippie March 28, 2018 at 9:48 pm

    I believe that those individuals who want to impose “reasonable” restrictions on gun ownership should move to a country which already has such laws in effect. May I suggest that they should immediately move to Mexico or North Korea since those countries already have the laws they seem to want.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.