Gun Control...I's say this isn't political..but an issue that shd be discussed ..Now

hammer1

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 17, 2002
7,791
127
63
Wisconsin and Dorado Puerto Rico
Do you like Eggplant ??



A school in Mississippi is on lockdown as I type this. When will enough be enough? 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?

How many shootings will it take before we adopt common sense gun control? A former Navy weapons instructor lays out the simple steps lawmakers can take to make us all safer.

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.

In May, I talked about how both sides are wrong and said that we need to have some common sense.

Today, I am calling on lawmakers to have some damn courage.

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. Don't hide behind meaningless rhetoric or claim you're ready for action only to back off when the NRA comes knocking. That being said, if you believe--along with a clear majority of Americans of both parties--that modest regulation of weapons designed for the sole purpose of killing humans seems reasonable, that's a pretty easy public position to take.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
73
Boston
"Today, I am calling on lawmakers to have some damn courage"

Not going to see that for awhile.
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
I already have a background check done on me every time I purchase a firearm
And a 10 day waiting period
I'm cool with a more strict check, but how far do you go?

"
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."

Chemicals airplanes elavators and Financial transactions are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution

The 2nd A is a right
Taking an elavator is a,luxury

5 to ten cents a round?
Thats 5 bucks for a,box of 9mm. 10 bucks for

a box of. 22. If you can find it

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
*

* During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.[37]

*
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
21,758
1,031
113
Jefferson City, Missouri
Seems to have worked out okay in other countries that have banned guns. Facts just aren't your thing.


Female homeowner opens fire on persistent intruder

9/11/15| by Jennifer Cruz




Dayton home invasion
When officers arrived on the scene, they found DeBrandon Jurrod Dickerson, 22, lying on the ground, deceased from a gunshot wound to the chest. (Photo: Dayton Daily News)

A 22-year-old man from Detroit is dead after he broke into a Dayton, Ohio, home just after 3 a.m. Wednesday and came face to face with the homeowner who was armed with a gun.

The 46-year-old woman, who did not wish to be identified, called 911 after she heard someone outside then glass from one of her windows shatter, but the intruder, who was later identified as DeBrandon Jurrod Dickerson, could not get into the house from that window because the homeowner had metal security bars installed just last month after another break-in, Dayton Daily News reported.

Dickerson was persistent and climbed up a pillar at the front of the home and broke a second-floor window that did not have metal bars. The homeowner heard the man coming through the second window and hid in a bathroom. But when Dickerson approached the woman inside her home, she shot him in the chest.

The suspect then fled from the home, leaving the same way he entered before jumping off of the roof and running down the street. Dickerson, who was later determined to be staying with his cousin just a few blocks over, left a trail of blood behind him, according to a report from WHIO. He was found lying on the ground a short distance from the home and was pronounced dead at the scene.

Police said there is reason to believe that Dickerson did not act alone, and also confirmed that Dickerson had only been in the city for about a week. Court records show Dickerson had a misdemeanor history of larceny and theft.

There is reason to believe that Dickerson may not have acted alone, authorities confirmed, and also stated that, although the incident is still under investigation, initial evidence shows the homeowner acted in self-defense.

The homeowner said she has seen too many break-ins at her home. In fact, there was another one just last month and that is what prompted her to get the security bars. Altogether, she has been targeted five times in the last 11 years. And this was not the first time she has shot an intruder either. In June of 2013, she shot a teen who kicked in her back door. The teen later showed up at an area hospital and he and an accomplice were promptly put in police custody.


Would you take the gun away from your wife in the same situation?
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
I already have a background check done on me every time I purchase a firearm
And a 10 day waiting period
I'm cool with a more strict check, but how far do you go?

"
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."

Chemicals airplanes elavators and Financial transactions are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution

The 2nd A is a right
Taking an elavator is a,luxury

5 to ten cents a round?
Thats 5 bucks for a,box of 9mm. 10 bucks for

a box of. 22. If you can find it

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

I'm a gun owner too and for many years was a licensed FFL dealer.

I probably don't own as many guns as you do, but I'll bet I burn more ammo.

I want to be able to own guns for hunting and shooting clay targets.

I don't have a "home defense" gun. In fact I NEVER allow a loaded gun in my house or car. What protection I need is provided by the Sheriff, locks and a large dog.

I have absolutely no problem if the authorities know what guns I own, and I have no problem if I'm required to have a license to own them. I already have licenses to drive a car, to practice my profession, to hunt and fish. I obey the requirements of those licenses, and they can be taken away if I fail to adhere to the rules.

If a LEO wants to stop me to check my driver's license, or my hunting license, I have no problem with that. In fact I WANT them to do just that, to keep unsafe drivers and hunters in check.

If a LEO wants to ask me if I'm carrying and have a registered, licensed gun, I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with that.

Guns are just fine for most folks, but for some, no.

I say let any LEO have the right to ask if you are carrying, to see your license, and to do an instant background check. That's a five minute inconvenience for me, but will get the guns away from many of the bad guys.

Nearly all gun killings are done by perps with unlicensed guns. We can make a dent in that without taking guns away for responsible people.
 

REFLOG

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 17, 2002
6,899
68
0
63
The Dogpound
If a LEO wants to stop me to check my driver's license, or my hunting license, I have no problem with that. In fact I WANT them to do just that, to keep unsafe drivers and hunters in check.

If a LEO wants to ask me if I'm carrying and have a registered, licensed gun, I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with that.

Guns are just fine for most folks, but for some, no.

I say let any LEO have the right to ask if you are carrying, to see your license, and to do an instant background check. That's a five minute inconvenience for me, but will get the guns away from many of the bad guys.

Nearly all gun killings are done by perps with unlicensed guns. We can make a dent in that without taking guns away for responsible people.

Agree!!! :0074
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top