Subject: Gun control
Wet's comments are in red
These are the proposals from 2000 of the new Attorney General, Eric Holder, on gun control. Curious if you would support these.
-----
I want to add my voice to those who are calling on Congress to finally -- to finally -- pass these very common-sense gun measures.
First, to require child safety locks for all handguns that are sold (My understanding is that this was done and every hand gun sold comes with a trigger lock). Second, to ban violent juveniles from ever having the ability to own guns. (Gun ownership is a right. If they were tried and found guilty as adults I would have no problem with them losing that right as is the case today. As a juvenile it is difficult to allow the sins of the past follow into adulthood.) Third, to pass the president's handgun licensing proposal, which requires safety certification for all handgun purchasers. (I would not support that. Most users will take some kind of hunter/safety course but to mandate it would be difficult for me to support.) Fourth, to support research in smart-gun technology, which can limit a gun's use to its authorized owner. (Yes but again I would not mandate it. Rather I would provide tax incentives to those manufactures that would pursue that technology. I would also send all government business their way. If it were mandatory it could create an economical hardship. I prefer to see the carrot rather than the stick in this instance.) And finally, to close the gun show loop hole by requiring a background check for all gun purchases at gun shows. (This makes excellent sense, and I have always supported that idea as do most reasonable minded firearms owners.) (One thing I have learned in my 10 plus years of service is that you CAN’T LEGISLATE COMMON SENSE.)
Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence. We need these common-sense measures and we need them now.
Photo by Joseph Robertson, Creative Commons license
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
I support the Second Amendment because I support the Constitution. It's a part of the Constitution, so yes, let's protect the whole thing, not just the parts that I think are important. But I don't really get why the right is so fixated on guns.
ReplyDeleteI can understand hunters wanting to continue their favorite pastime. They enjoy the outdoors, they enjoy the thrill of the hunt, they've invested a lot of money in it, they like the idea of trophies and/or providing meat for the table. But it goes way beyond that, because I don't think most gun owners are hunters. I'll look for statistics on that.
I think it even goes beyond the slippery slope argument, that banning the really bad weapons, armor piercing bullets, assault weapons, etc. will result in the long run in banning all guns. We've had laws against sawed-off shotguns and fully automatic weapons for years and there's been no harm to gun owners.
I thing there are two schools of argument. The first is to provide personal protection from criminals. The second is to provide protection against the government. I can see the first, but I think the second is just obsolete in today's environment. Protecting yourself from the government leads down the path of Ruby Ridge, and I don't very many gun advocates support that.
Here's a comment from a Ruby Ridge-type from Confederate Yankee. I think there are a lot of gun supporters like this:
ReplyDelete-----
[A]n armed citizenry is a protection against mass murder by Marxist Socialist politicians - the most genocidal politicians on the planet, perhaps.
See, I used to call those guns "AR's" for "Assault Rifle". But that's not really what they are. They're "C&BS". "Check & Balance Systems".