| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| -Land of the Free | ||
| I Know How America Should Implement Gun Control | ||
| 2015-10-01 | ||
| Some of the worst gun grabbers are veterans and gun owners. Those are people who believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to them alone, and no one else, save for whoever can successfully jump through the hoops they wish to impose on everyone else to obtain and carry a gun. Via David Codrea via Oathkeepers. Last week, there was yet another campus shooting. This time, it was at Florida State University. The exhaustingly predictable cycle of mass shooting, recycled talking points from all sides, proposed legislation, insider lobbying, stagnation, and loss of public interest is about to begin and has been repeated far too many times in recent memory. Face it: the gun rights debate in this country is stale.
Here we go. The writer wants to claim the "middle' of the debate when in fact he has already staked out his ground with the above statement. That is a dishonest start to a dishonest opinion. Today, I am calling on lawmakers to have some damn courage. Me, too. Repeal the National Firearms Act of 1933, just for starters. If you feel, like the fringe gun lobby does, that my six-year-old son's life is less important than your right to own whatever firearm and ammunition you want, then say that.
My right to obtain and carry a firearm is more important than your hellspawn's life. If you can't protect yourself, or you refuse to have responsibility to protect yourself through the use of firearms, you can just go unarmed. Don't expect me and 80 million others to go quietly into that good night of government sponsored tyranny without a firearm. And before you jump to assumptions, know that I'm no hippie. As a former weapons instructor in the U.S. Navy, I own guns myself--and I want to keep them. However, I believe that our society is overflowing with lethal weapons and that we must take action to prevent more dead kids. Mass shootings are on the rise. Children are dying. When will it be enough to actually do something? Who has the courage to do the right thing--money from special interest groups be damned? Fewer dead kids; that's his goal. More dead political opponents goes hand to hand with what he proposes. And using laws and government to prevent crime is the reaction of a tyrant, and support for that reaction is the venue of a serf. I'll make it easy for lawmakers. Here is the first common sense step for what we need to do, at the state level, to maintain our constitutional right to bear arms while arming ourselves with the tools to be safer in public. Licensing, to be renewed every five years with full background checks and mental health screenings, is the first step. Adding a checkbox to a driver's license and another form would make this easy to implement. My driver's license tells folks that I am a donor; it could very easily also indicate whether or not I am a gun owner or authorized to carry concealed firearms. I think he's on to something here. A donkey checkbox for Democrat, an elephant for a Republican and a portrait of Che or Castro, or better yet a fasci for someone who hates guns. Then we could have a checkbox for Christians with a cross, a yellow Star of David for Jews, and a crescent for Muslim. Before you tell me how I am violating your rights by proposing a record of gun owners, note that the constitution does not say that you have the right to bear arms and not tell anyone. We regulate chemicals, elevators, airplanes, and financial transactions--and none of those are specifically designed to kill anyone. The actual act itself of keeping a record of firearms owners, which the government already has, but for the existence of a hostile and well armed government doesn't violate anyone's rights as long as it is completely voluntary. But the government, being the recursive entity it is, will get up to no good with such an activity and will impose such a requirement, and will violate the right to life and liberty with such lists, as it is doing now. Regulations for the purpose of regulating economic activity are not the same thing as recording information on gun owners, and to suggest that it is is so over the top a lie, it is hard to believe it can be considered serious. The next step is requiring 40 hours of training prior to license approval. I'm here to tell you that there is little value to having a firearm if one is cannot employ it tactically. I'm not saying we need owners to be trained to the level of Navy SEALs or SWAT teams, but if you claim to want these weapons to protect your home, then you should at least have a baseline knowledge. The training hours should jump to 80 hours for a concealed carry permit. This training should be done by the government to ensure consistency and quality control and should be covered by the tax on ammunition. Training required by, and administered by the Gang That Can't Shoot Straight. But I agree: knowing how to use a gun tactically is useful if you expect to find yourself in a tactical situation. Most people, however, use their firearm for point defense. They expect to camp out inside the spaces of their own domicile, and will use a firearm if trouble comes to them. They have little illusion about countering threats with tactical knowledge mostly because most people expect to have a firearm and have a ready-made tactical advantage on any hostile threat. Hard to see how tactical training would improve that. In such cases the tactics are already laid out, already determined: You come into the field of fire of an armed individual defending his own property, if you have ill intent, you will be shot. You can go out and engage bad guys with a firearm, if you wish; you can go all Rambo on a threat, if you wish, but you will better survive an encounter with a hostile threat if the tactics are already in your favor. All the tactical training in the world will not shift the odds away from you. In fact, in my opinion, the only reason you should get tactical training is to counter government goons sent by fascists such as this Navy veteran seeking to take your property and your life. And finally, to pay for the licensing process and training as well as the background and mental health screenings, we can add a modest tax to ammunition sales (think five to ten cents per round--a manageable amount). This way, the costs are spread amongst those who wish to own guns. No, costs are not "spread". They are concentrated into the hands of a politically disfavored group: gun owners. And the main intention of ammunition tax is to end private reloading. I can see a law in which the government will fund seek and destroy programs intended to seize self loaded ammunition under the paradigm that the detainees are avoiding paying a tax. The government will not tolerate anyone avoiding a tax, and the current courts system will back up any legislation, just as long as more and more money can flow towards government. My hometown city charter calls out public safety as the number one priority; many politicians around the country say the same thing, and I'd like to see them put their money where their mouths are. The question is pretty simple: do your lawmakers have the courage to protect you? Your hometown lawmakers are a buncha fascists. And government by definition will protect no entity other than government. If lawmakers wanted to "protect" us they would not have passed the 20,000 gun laws already on the books. They just want your money, your guns and your life, in that order. Call your state senators, your assembly members, your mayors, and your city councils. Tell them that you want to protect your kids. You want to protect your communities. Hell, you want to protect yourself. Tell them that, with the stroke of a pen, they can improve safety for their constituents and side with the clear majority of Americans. Yeah, democracy rules. That's why we have a 2nd Amendment. Gun owners still get a vote when the people become fascists and serfs. And if they try to run you around or brush you off, remember to ask them if they think the right to own as many firearms as one wants without anyone else knowing about it is more important than the lives of America's children--including yours and theirs. | ||
| Posted by:badanov |
| #9 It's called the Shooting Range. That's where proper gun control is handled. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2015-10-01 14:22 |
| #8 I know how America should implement gun control, too. Sponsor shooting lessons for every law-abiding citizen so they'll be sure to have good control of their guns if they need to use them against NON-law-abiding "citizens" (who don't give a rat's ass about laws). |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2015-10-01 13:40 |
| #7 Not a single regulation the author proposes would have prevented the cited event. Moreover, the effects of such laws are impossible to quantify. And the "if it saves a single life it's worth it" argument is juvenile logic at best. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2015-10-01 12:18 |
| #6 ..the Swiss system. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2015-10-01 11:44 |
| #5 Big GIVERment funds most rights and some made up rights (legal representation, housing, abortion...) but never the right to own a weapon. We require education attendance and vaccines and we should require gun ownership; and if you cannot afford one we should provide one. |
| Posted by: Airandee 2015-10-01 11:32 |
| #4 When will the NRA admit that the policies and laws they drive are deadly? When can we work together to adopt smart, principled solutions to the gun violence facing our country? As a life member of the NRA, I can tell you the NRA is not the problem. They support and defend the 2nd Amendment and promote gun safety. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2015-10-01 09:54 |
| #3 Two, the culture was different. Before the effects of the 'Great Society' and loads of 'free stuff' to attract ballot box stuffers to the urban areas giving cover to outright theft and stealing made legal by having political 'hit' men do the job for you. When you toss aside a few thousand years of societal evolution for hip, urban, modern 'solutions', you end up strip mining and clear cutting the cultural environment. However, it keeps you in power in the short run. Then it becomes an never ending spiral of more control, more power, more authority to keep those hands on the ever diminishing resources, not to mentions one's stock of self importance and grandeur. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2015-10-01 09:27 |
| #2 As an American who remembers the days before all the clamor for gun control by the left, I recall a country that was much safer. What's different? For one, there was not the gang activity in the country that there now is. Two, the culture was different. What does that mean? There was not the road rage that escalated to shooting. People did not seem to be wound as tight as now. There was not the ubiquitous graphic killing and violence that we now have on TV and in the movies. Moreover, music did not have a violent element in it. Three, there was not the disrespect for law and order that comes from on high down to the street level. Four, people seemed to be much better trained and had a healthy respect for firearms. Schools even had rifle clubs where firearm safety and shooting skills were taught. Five, young men were required to serve in the military. Here, there was a certain amount of socialization, growing up, discipline and respect for authority that came about during this period. Also, young men had an investment in the country and developed a patriotism about the country. They also learned firearm safety and proficiency. Six, respect for life has been diminished in the country for some of the reasons mentions mentioned above. We have thrown the baby out with the bath water with regards to an elementary sense of morality. Abortions are now widespread and have demeaned the value of life. The atheists have removed any mention of God in public life. We no longer say the Lord's prayer in school or the Pledge of Allegiance to the country. I could go on and on, e.g. we have allowed sanctuary cities for illegals, we don't require the single language of English which tends to tribalize us and make the U.S. less "united," and the government has become a weapon to be used against the people of the U.S. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2015-10-01 08:45 |
| #1 Licensing, to be renewed every five years with full background checks and mental health screenings, is the first step. Adding a checkbox to a driver's license and another form would make this easy to implement. My driver's license tells folks that I am a donor; it could very easily also indicate whether or not I am a gun owner or authorized to carry concealed firearms. Licensing [and fees] only apply to honest people. Believe me, criminals don't bother with license applications and registrations. Wrong population being targeted again. It's not about guns, it's about collecting fees and control. See 'Planned Parenthood' for further details. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2015-10-01 04:33 |