We currently have two issues that I believe can be best addressed by the same simple, reasonable, rational approach. Immigration and firearms. In both cases, let’s start by consistently, and diligently enforcing the current, existing laws that relate to these two issues. Honestly, until we can do that, it’s just silly to engage in adding additional laws. The primary benefit to this approach, is that it will allow the true scope and nature of the problem to be known, which means that we can base any next steps on the actual situation rather than a distorted view of the situation. Once we see the results, then we can make targeted precise adjustments or changes to deal with reality, rather than broad sweeping changes based on perception. It may be that there are some minor things that can be easily fixed, once we know the true scope of the problem.
A couple of things to be dealt with sooner. Plug holes in the background check system. Increase the ability of law enforcement and mental health professionals to preemptively separate guns from people who might have mental health issues. Increase security at schools.
Having said that, I personally have no objections to the following.
Increase the ownership age for some firearms from 18 to 21.
Implement a licensing system similar to drivers licensing.
Implement a graduated carry permit system that will be reciprocal across the country, and graduated based on age and skill/training level.
Increase regulation on bump stocks.
There you go, that seems like a reasonable and rational place to start a dialogue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
My objections are these:
1. Unlike other issues where legal adults under 21 are restricted, the right to keep and bear arms is a protected right.
2. I would need to see that licensing idea fleshed out. As it now stands, I don't like the very entity against which our right to bear arms protects us having any authority over our decisions to own weapons. This would cover the permit idea as well.
3. Given that, as I understand it, bump stock accessories are no more than manufactured facsimiles of what can be done in other ways, regulating them is pointless.
1. It is, but that doesn’t mean it’s absolute and can’t be regulated. This seems reasonable, because it doesn’t stop use of the firearms, just ownership.
2. I’m speaking in a general sense and would clearly reserve judgment until seeing specifics. If it didn’t come with an expansion of concealed carry reciprocity I’d be against it.
3. Be that as it may, it’s a good move and is worth considering.
Of course, given the “my way or the hiway” approach from the dems, the entire concept of negotiation is off the table.
1. Actually, I would wager the founders would disagree, otherwise "shall not be infringed" meant something altogether different from what it clearly means to me. Notably, when some speak out against "military grade" firearms, they do so ignoring the fact that the founders felt the citizen should have the same firearms as the military. How else to defend against a despotic gov't if forced to possess only inferior weapons?
2. I still have a problem given the 2nd protects our right to defend ourselves against the very entity that would then be dictating who can or can't be licensed. And as we've seen yet again, the "authorities" aren't perfect. Abuses, incompetence and dropping the ball will still occur. Once again, only the law abiding will suffer.
3. If it accomplishes nothing...which banning bump stocks will do...then it's a pointless and worthless move.
The focus is wrongly directed at weaponry, when it should be trained on security and protection. Weapons are a part of that.
1. Historically the scotus has held that some restrictions are constitutional, I’ll go with it, especially since it wouldn’t prevent use.
2. Which wouldn’t be affected by raising the age of ownership.
3. Probably not, but in negotiations and this sort of thing PR moves have value.
Ultimately it’s moot because there’s no way the left would go for expansion of carry.
1. ...and in doing so, SCOTUS encouraged infringement. It's simply the reality. Most gun laws do.
2. Yes, if the age of those being denied is legal adulthood, which the age of 18 is.
3. I totally oppose any legislation that is based on falsehood. I cannot see how that advances a society, but rather, does just the opposite.
The left can go pound sand if they are outvoted. Reasonable people will have to if not, but reasonable people must persevere and continue fighting the good fight against idiotic and impotent gun laws. The focus should be on security and protection and weapons are a part of that...particularly in the hand of law-abiding citizens.
This is where we differ, I think that there are some minor concessions that can be made, in exchange for greater access to reciprocal ccw and other gains. I also think that the left is so rabid that they wouldn’t actually compromise or negotiate, thereby demonstrating their bad faith. In much the same way that they are demonstrating that they really don’t care about the “dreamers” beyond their perceived usefulness as a campaign issue.
But Craig, my point is that it is all a massive waste of time implementing redundant, impotent, feel-good laws that impede no one but the law-abiding, when the real focus should be on other things, like securing schools with armed personnel. I don't give a flying rat's ass who doesn't like this incredibly reasonable and proven life-saving plan. These buffoons and charlatans need to have their faces pushed deeply into the staggering pile of evidence that demonstrates the absolute idiocy of passing new laws that are no different or better than those already on the books.
An important part of this debate is reminding with a loud voice just what the Constitution is and what it is for, and then more specifically the 2nd Amendment, and how this protection is NOT in ANY WAY the reason for our national sorrow. You're suggestion, while well intended, does nothing but feed the beast of stupidity ruling this debate. I cannot bear it. There is no one that can defend the stupidity, though stupid people will pretend they can. It must not be tolerated if we really care about our kids and innocent people in general.
Again, we disagree. My point is twofold. 1. That it’s possible to actually debate, negotiate, and compromise in certain areas, which will allow gains in other areas. 2. To point out that the left has no interest in honest debate, negotiating, or compromise.
My proposal was not intended to be comprehensive, and it isn’t. My proposal is simply an example of one possible approach that will most likely be rejected by the left.
In theory I agree with you, in much the same way I agree that abortion is always wrong, yet politics isn’t done in a realm of theory. The reality is, that if it’s possible to gain things like reciprocal ccw by negotiating a couple of things that are minor, it’s a conversation worth having.
It's way too early for talk of compromise when facts are still being ignored, dismissed and corrupted in order to push the anti-gun agenda. Said another way, there's no point of agreement as yet, even with both sides claiming to care about the safety of our kids. It's a throw-away line right now, not an actual starting point to get to solutions. Otherwise, I have no problem with either of your two points. But in light of point #2, we must first nail down the goal which must be a bit more defined than simply "stop the killing".
You know, it's truly an indication of Feo's idiocy that he keeps bitching that I haven't suggested a "plan", while he ignores the indisputable evidence to the contrary.
Post a Comment