The video below is an example of what we discussed earlier. If one side of the gun debate has to claim Dirty Fucking Hippies and no-guns-ever pacifists, then the other side has to claim this guy:
More fun here:
This guy is not helpful. High comedy and a laugh-riot, for sure, but not helpful in the Great Gun Debate.
Considering the recent debates on gun laws and school safety in the United States, I looked up a few figures to aid us in our debates. Feel free to use or abuse them as we move forward.
Some of the data may surprise you. For example, I expected accidental deaths to be a higher percentage of the totals among death of children due to firearms.
Moments ago National Rifle Assoc. Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre (dickhead, liar, fucking wing-nut) held a press conference regarding the recent mass shootings.
LaPierre made a couple suggestions for combating violence in our schools, including: improved mental health treatment (good idea) and putting a cop in every school (maybe an OK idea, but my estimated cost $9.88 billion annually).
Shorter LaPierre: Please protect American kids from my target membership.
He also proposed a great new slogan, soon to come to a pro-NRA bumper sticker near you: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,”
Effective immediately, the new slogan will replace: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
LaPierre video here.
Making this the most poorly timed presser ever, another seemingly random shooting took place while LaPierre was speaking. 3 are dead. Details unknown.
News story link here.
Where do we go from here? The regulations I propose below are what I think we should consider. I have not given much thought to what might already be in place or where it bumps up against the 2nd Amendment.
1) Personal Responsibility.
Having personally witnessed a great deal of stupidity when it comes to handling firearms, I have always thought we need strict penalties for irresponsible behavior. In the case of the Newtown shooting, the rifle used was purchased legally. As far as I know, there would be no penalties for the woman who owned it allowing her mentally ill kid access to the weapon. (Had she lived.) If your kid gets a hold of your gun, especially if someone is hurt because of it, you should serve time. Once a Michigan legislator had a handgun drop out of his pocket in the middle of a committee hearing. (If the urban legend is true.) There should have been a penalty for his stupidity as it endangered others. I have personally seen a parent hand rifles to their 10-year-old and let them run off and have fun. Maybe this one is already illegal?
In my experience people have acted as if the rights provided by the 2nd Amendment means freedom from responsibility. If we do nothing else, we need to change that mindset. That is definitely not how I was raised around firearms.
2) Capacity.
I would support a strict limit on magazine capacity. Capacity should be limited to the single digits. Since I have limited knowledge of firearms, I think of hunting shotguns with a four-shell magazine and handguns with something more reasonable than a 10 + magazine capacity. In a recent editorial in the LA Times, a judge who sentenced Congresswomen Gabby Gifford’s assailant and the killer of 6 others said: “Bystanders got to Loughner and subdued him only after he emptied one 31-round magazine and was trying to load another.”
3) Ownership limitations
I would support a limit on the number of weapons you own. Sorry if it infringes on your hobby or fun collection, but your arsenal is unnecessary in a civilized society. Take up stamp collecting. Let’s debate this one.
4) Certain weapons banned.
There should be a ban on certain weapons based on their technical performance. As Smitty says: guns are killing machines. We have a constitutional right to a certain level of killing machine. I am not sure you could argue we have the right a mass-killing machine. I have little doubt we could come up with a list of impermissible characteristics based on their technical performance.
5) Call me a gun-grabber.
Banned firearms, clips, etc. should be bought back by the government at a higher than market price. I don’t support grandfathering existing weapons from restrictions as was done previously. It sounds like Australia has a model for this program. I would like to learn more about it.
6) Ammunition Sales Ammunition sales should be limited.
I am betting this one would be difficult to enforce. I recently read that once you obtain a gun permit in Israel, you are issued your only supply of ammunition. Interesting concept. Liquor sales are controlled by state government. Why not other items?
7) Better and more widely used background checks.
I need to better understand private sale regulations, but this is what I think... Background checks should be instantaneous, reliable, applicable to all guns sales, and include the private sales of weapons. You should need to obtain a purchase permit with your background check before you buy a weapon in a private sale. If you sell a weapon privately without obtaining a copy of said check, you should see a penalty. This would also require a better involvement from mental health providers and would require a discussion about mental illness and confidentiality. I know people can still obtain weapons illegally, but that is no excuse for handing weapons to the mentally ill or to those with a violent background.
I know that we have had lengthy and interesting debates on gun rights in the past, so I will add a new wrinkle to the discussion...
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago) ruled unanimously that the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment didn’t apply to states and municipalities. It only applied to the federal government, which is why D.C. couldn't ban guns (they are a national territory and not a state). The decision yesterday was National Rifle Association of America v. City of Chicago, and it upheld a Chicago ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits.
Here is the link to the article...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awIn1M4tWxi8&refer=worldwide
I think this is good news. I am sure Steves and others will disagree. I invite you to read the article and provide your thoughts. I will concede, though, that this is not close to over and I am sure the Supremes will want to weigh in to this one!
© Blogger template On The Road by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009
Back to TOP
