Gun control part 2

3 Muzzles

3 Muzzles (Photo credit: ZORIN DENU)

I favor strict gun controls. In fact, I believe that gun ownership by individuals should be made illegal. The second amendment to the Constitution supports the right to bear arms by a militia or national guard. That requirement can be met by keeping the necessary weapons under lock and key in an armoury for use during legally authorized emergencies. Members of the militia/national guard do not need to have access to weapons in their homes.

For sportsmen and women, I would provide target ranges where guns could be rented while in use at the range only. For hunters, I would provide rifles and shotguns for rent only during the various hunting seasons. Once the rental period expired or the season ended, the guns must be returned from where they had been rented.

There are too many guns on the streets in the wrong hands. Privileges that are abused are lost. Too many people in America are losing their lives daily to senseless gun violence. It will not stop as long as we permit some to profit from their sale nor will it stop as long as the NRA is involved in politics.

Please see Gun control | Guns and cigarettes | Firewater | Gun deaths in America

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Gun control part 2

  1. Pingback: Negroes With Guns – John Malcolm

  2. Details are elusive for you. Since it is impossible for you to provide details on this nebulous plan, I find this extremely boring…goodbye

  3. “Legally owned guns “may” be declared on income tax forms..,” And, then again, they may not be declared.

    What about all the ammunition that is private hands too?

    And, how do you get the “undeclared” guns that neither taxing or a reward program uncover? How will undeclared guns be confiscated? The authorities must find them first.

    And, how will you get the “undeclared” guns that street thugs already have now? Do you think they will file a 1040? Get realistic, please.

    Are you back to door to door searches?

    Your proposals are unworkable. How idealistic and impossible to enforce.

    • So you say. I repeat, if the principle of gun control is accepted, then the details will be worked out. Until then, the details are of lesser importance.

  4. “I favor strict gun controls. In fact, I believe that gun ownership by individuals should be made illegal.”

    Well, wonderful, but, as a practical matter, how do you propose to get the guns from 80 million Americans who own them legally now? Go door to door and ask the owners for them? How do you propose to make your plan work?

    And, how do you propose to disarm those who already own them now illegally and use them to commit crimes? Will they line up at the local precinct eagerly awaiting to turn them over to police?

    Gang bangers who “catch” gun charges laugh them off because they just add to “street cred.” And, to armed robbers, getting caught with an illegal gun and doing jail time for it is just a cost of doing business for them.

    The above is reality. Your solution is fantasy. This blog must actually be satire.

    • On the contrary, I am deadly serious. First the principle and then the details. There are several ways of approaching the details, shutting off the supply of ammo is one, taxation is another. Civilized nations don’t need all the guns.

      • “First the principle and then the details.” Yes, but your problem is in the details. How about some answers? Take all the time you need.

        You still can’t or won’t say how you would retrieve all the legal guns currently owned nor the illegal ones either. Lets hear the answer(s). Don’t dodge them. You didn’t give any answers because you have none, so you changed your argument to “don’t need them.” You haven’t really thought this out well at all, have you?

        Shutting off ammo supply? Are you aware that many people already purchase by case lots of 200 to 1,000 rounds. Do you have any idea how much ammunition is already owned by individuals? Millions of boxes. If every current legal gun owner (80 million) owns just one box of 20, that’s 1.6 billion rounds. If it’s one box of 50, that’s 4 billion rounds already out there. Many legal gun owners have more than one box. Ammo purchase is not made like a “just in time” inventory procedure used by Walmart.

        Will ammo owners be rushing to collection points to turn it in? Will someone be going door to door to collect ammunition too?

        Restricting ammunition is just like the failed ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds. Millions of 30 + round magazines were already in private ownership. The proverbial barn door is already open wide.

        Taxation? Taxation is pointless after the purchase is already made.
        However, by the time a tax begins owners won’t be “bothered” by a tax. Even a hint gun and ammunition bans or restrictions will lead to a purchase rush of “biblical” proportions,

      • Legally owned guns may be declared on income tax forms and then the ownership taxed. Illegal guns will be confiscated and rewards paid for information.

  5. Congress can direct the court to change it ruling? No. However, if we were inclined to do so I suppose we could evolve the Constitution to say something to that effect.

    What Congress can do is limit the court’s jurisdiction. See Article. III, Section. 2, Clause 2.

  6. I think praying for anyone is a good idea, I think your interpretation of the second amendment is in error, and I have yet to meet anyone who wasn’t mixed up. So I second the Mad Jewess. 😀

    Do you really think 18th century Americans would let any government, much less the Federal Government, take away their guns away? If that idea does not strike you as preposterous, you are not being honest. Nonetheless, just for fun, I will take you seriously. How did 18th Century Americans view a militia? They saw it as THE PEOPLE TO DEFENDING THEMSELVES. Yes. George Washington led the Continental Army, but in every colony British troops also had to fight locals who used their own guns.

    Beware of playing political games with words. When we destroy the meaning of a word, we lessen our ability to think clearly.

    What is a privilege? Why would the possesion of a firearm be a privilege? Well, if some gave you a gun, then they would be according you the privilege of owning that gun. On the other hand, if you pay for the gun yourself, then you are just exercising a God-given right. In fact, if you purchase a gun to defend yourself, your family, and your community, then you are fulfilling a responsibility.

    When we impose our wishes upon our fellow citizens, we risk violating their rights. To strip a man of the ability to protect himself violates his rights and is just plain wrong.

    • Pioneer times were different. People on the fringes of civilization needed guns to protect themselves because civilization and the law were left behind in the East. Today we are civilized, mostly, and we should rely on the police for protection.

      • For the sake of argument, lets assume you are right.

        Pioneer times were different.

        The 2nd Amendment still says and means the same thing its says when those pioneers wrote it. Just because “pioneer times were different,” we cannot rightly allow judges to arbitrarily change the original meaning the Constitution. When we allow judges to do that, it defeats the entire purpose of a Constitution. When our officials can twist the meaning of the law to suit their purposes, there is no law that restricts them.

        We are “civilized”, but it sometimes seems to me that we are less civilized than the pioneers. To establish a republic requires citizens with sufficient virtue to both respect and abide by the Law. Do we have such virtue? Do we? If not, then perhaps we ought to keep our guns.

      • The amendment still says the same thing, but does it still MEAN the same thing as you believe? Not necessarily. Otherwise, judicial opinion could not evolve over time. Facts change, customs change and peoples’ ideas change. Witness Mitt Romney from one day to another, or one audience to another. If it takes a constitutional amendment to change the 2nd, so be it. I think that it needs to be done. However, I believe that Congress can direct the Court to change its ruling. Opinion differs on this, but I believe that it has been suggested that Congress can tell the US Supreme Court to change its position on Citizens United.

  7. I do not abolutely agree with your point of view, even if, or maybe because, as a native German I am used to much more restrictive gun laws.
    On the one hand, I do agree that the 2nd Amendment is misinterpreted by the gun lobby and that the intention of the framers of the Constitution only had a militia in mind, and not the general public.
    On the other hand, the example of Switzerland proves that members of a national guard can well be allowed to have their guns at home without unlawful kilings arising from that fact. But, as you suggest, keeping the guns in an armoury would even be better/safer. As for private citizens, I would well allow them – after careful scrutiny by and registering with some law enforcement agency – to have a shotgun and/or a rifle at home, but only to be used on their own property or for hunting purposes. I’m thinking of myself here, e.g., who only learned to handle a gun after coming over to the US. I would never ever use it against human beings, but I do like to have it here to, if necessary, shoot (at) wild and dangerous animals that sometimes come to our property and kill our cats and/or dogs.
    And last but not least: I am absolutely against ANY concealed carry permit. Carrying guns in public spaces MUST be restricted to law enforcement people only. Resorting to force is the privilege of the state, and then state only, and not of any member of the public.

  8. Sickening.
    I have prevented being raped b/c I had a gun.
    You are a mixed up individual.
    I will pray for you.

Comments are closed.