A march for gun control in Hartford, Conn., on February 14. (Photoshop.com/Into_the_woods)
Waging Non-Violence
The measures they are promoting (along with Connecticut Against Gun Violence) have been characterized as sweeping, comprehensive, harsh, drastic (and probably lots of other more profane things). Here are a few:That's pretty much what I've been saying right along.
- Strengthen the assault weapons ban by requiring that all weapons having military features be banned and that existing weapons defined as assault weapons be destroyed, turned in to law enforcement or removed from the state.
- Ban large capacity ammunition magazines of more than seven rounds and that existing magazines of more than seven rounds be destroyed, turned in to law enforcement, or removed from the state. New York State has just adopted a law that established the seven-round limit.
- Require permits and universal background checks on all sales and transfers of guns, including long guns.
- Require registration of handguns with annual renewal. Require an annual fee and annual background check for all handguns owned; require that the owner stipulate that the guns are still in their possession or explain how the gun was transferred to another person; require safety inspection every three years.
- Make gun owners liable for negligent storage if any person gains access to firearms and injures himself or another person or causes damage to property. The violation would be a Class D felony.
- Ban the right of way for transportation of firearms and ammunition bought over the Internet.
- Tax ammunition sales and require a license or permit to purchase any gun or ammunition.
- Restrict handgun sales to one gun per month.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
You and that bunch sing from the same hymnal? And on a clear day, the sky is blue. But you love to yammer about diversity. Look at that group.
ReplyDeleteHave you been saying "no one is going to take away your guns" all along, like the rest of your side? The first two seize and destroy lawfully owned property. I am sure Biden will be there to protest this since he gave us his word that this won't happen.
ReplyDeleteSo,shall we continue in insisting no one wants to take guns from lawful gun owners?
ReplyDeleteYou see, this is an example of inflammatory language. "Taking guns from lawful gun owners," may be technically true under the AWB, but you know as well as I do, it sounds worse. If you were not trying to spin the thing you'd say "taking certain guns from lawful gun owners and allowing them to continue to own most."
DeleteThe bans being proposed do exactly what you refuse to admit is the goal of your movement. Those bans, in many places, would take away a lot more than just "military-style assault weapons," whatever those are. You're also ignoring the large potential for new bans to be added in the future if these current proposals are allowed to become law.
DeleteUntil we can trust you, we will never give any ground. Why can't you understand that?
The reason it's technically true is because that's what it does. What you propose is that we deem acceptable a plan that says, in effect, "we aren't going to take all of your guns, just some of them". Or, to put it another way, "we only want to limit your rights a little more". The problem, as I've pointed out before, is that the gun control movement in this country has had a number of its leaders, supporters and pundits express a desire for far greater civilian disarmament.
DeleteBut, let's go with your language. It becomes something like this: shall we continue in insisting no one wants to do more than take certain guns from lawful gun owners and allow them to continue to own most?
If that is what you believe the law would do I have some questions. Are you willing for that specific language to become part of the law? Are you willing for the law to further stipulate that no further guns will be taken, even if this plan fails to produce its promised benefits? If this law is passed and fails to produce its promised benefits are you willing for it to be subject to automatic repeal? Are you willing to specifically define military features? Since this law, as expressed here, would take from people magazines essential to the operation of firearms not subject to the ban, are you willing for the state to pay for the replacement of the magazines they would be banning? Further, are you willing to replace those firearms for which there no seven round capacity magazines in existence? Are you willing for the state to pay fair market value for the firearms and magazines banned under this proposal?
More questions. How will you define "negligent storage"? What will be in place to avoid placing an undue financial burden on those lower income people who own legal firearms as they try to comply with storage requirements? Can you define the nature of this "safety inspection" including who would conduct it and under what circumstances? Since you propose a tax, what do you see as a reasonable tax rate?
DeleteOne more. Did you, of all people, really just complain about inflammatory language?
DeleteNegligent storage is leaving a gun under your pillow or in the night-stand drawer. When a burglar or a kid gets it, you should be held responsible.
DeleteIf a person can afford a gun and the training required to responsibly handle it, they can also afford a gun safe.
I don't think I've talked about inspections. I think it would be sufficient if the negligent gun owners who contribute to gun theft or gun accidents are punished, in some cases with jail time and in all cases with the loss of gun rights. The rest of you would quickly get the idea.
Is that inflammatory?
I understood you to support the items listed in the original posting. Thus, the questions,most of which you haven't answered.
DeleteAs for what a low income person can afford, your assertion is not necessarily true. It's wrong to tell a person of limited means to wait on providing for his or her self defense until finances improve a bit more.
Given your lack of answers, you'll forgive me if I decline to endorse this plan.
And if they can't afford training and practice at the range, that's OK too?
Delete"We only want to limit your rights a little more," is a perfectly fine way to say it.
It's less than ideal. I'm not convinced less than ideal is sufficient cause to deny someone the means to defend his or her home and family.
DeleteAnd you still didn't answer many of my questions, though when it comes to these or similar questions, you are not alone in that regard. Many anti gun folks have dodged, avoided or ignored such questions when I've asked them. Just like every good faith offer I've made to research multiple aspects of gun control from scratch with a study designed by me and a gun control proponent has been dodged, avoided or ignored.
Delete"We only want to limit your rights a little more," is a perfectly fine way to say it, you said. That's what we've heard every time. Just a little more restriction, just a little more infringement, just a little more "reasonable" limitation.
So, no. No more. Enough is most certainly enough. Enough false promises and faithless guarantees. Enough sacrificing a basic human right, civil liberty and constitutionally guaranteed freedom on the altar of social utility. Enough crying "no one wants to take your guns" when the public and historic record plainly declares otherwise. Enough pretending being a victim is morally superior to resistance. Enough. No more.
Finally, sometimes, I wonder if pro-gun folks are being suckered into a huge game of NIGYYSOB.
Don't flatter yourself pretending that I ignore and avoid your questions because they're so cutting or intelligent or whatever the hell you think. I try to respond to everything that's written here. Sometimes I don't because it's repetitious, some of it's rhetorical, and some of it I just don't get to. But, I don't do that avoiding thing just like I don't abuse the comment moderation thing. But that doesn't stop you guys from accusing me of it.
DeleteMike, I agree completely. My questions were, indeed, nothing special. They were very basic questions. Your reasons for not answering are yours alone. I can't claim to know what they are. My frustration arises from encountering a consistent resistance or even refusal on the part of many to answer even the most basic of questions. Or, if I get an answer, it's of the "we'll address civil rights concerns in subsequent amendments" variety. These same people often express surprise that I won't endorse their proposals simply because they won't answer the questions. Their reasons don't really matter as much as the consistent lack of an answer. The same thing is true of offers I've made to many people to research a question. It frustrates me to have people (not you in this example) 1)say they disagree with research on something related to civil liberties, 2)admit they have no research supported better numbers and then 3)decline to research the question further. Instead, they embrace infringing on civil liberties with scant reason to do so.
DeleteI know other people see things differently and I really do believe that's okay. But I grew up in a newspaper family. You know, a constitutional rights , march for civil rights (my dad, not me...I was but a wee thing), union organizing in the South, our mail was opened before we got it type family. My default position, on all civil rights, is simple. Unless I can be shown a definite, quantifiable advantage to a proposed limitation, and unless those proposing such limitations are willing to answer basic questions and commit, in the language of the proposed law, to no further limitations and automatic repeal if the promoted benefits aren't realized, I will not even consider endorsing the proposal.
Now, to the extent I've allowed past experiences to color my perception of your motives, I do apologize. For what its worth, I've never thought you abused comment moderation.
Wait a minute. Weren't you talking about me personally? Now you're talking about "them."
DeleteMike, I guess I was a little vague. My apologies. Allow me to clarify my point.
DeleteI've asked similar questions and/or made similar offers regarding multiple civil rights issues. The Patriot Act, "free speech zones", appropriate restrictions of police powers, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and, yes, gun rights to name a few. And, in every one of these, I've had some people evade, resist and refuse to answer even the most basic of questions or the suggestion that we could dig deeper and get more facts. My point was that it's not unusual, when talking with people who are willing (and sometimes even eager) to limit civil liberties, to encounter a refusal or resistance to answer even the most basic questions or ignore the suggestion that more information is needed and obtainable with effort. Regardless of the reason, it's frustrating. Your responses, or lack thereof, seemed similar, so I referenced my discussions with other people to explain my frustration with your responses.
It is my contention that if I desire to limit your civil rights but refuse or decline to answer even the most basic of questions, my reasoning and motives are justifiably viewed as suspect. If I'm not willing to answer basic questions about my proposals or those I support, why would you trust me or my motives? The same is true if you try to limit my civil rights.
If I suggest that there are no reliable numbers supporting my position, your position or either position on a given issue, but then refuse to really dig deeper all while speculating vaguely as to what the real numbers might be and attacking the research based numbers you put forth, why would you accept my views on numbers? My reasons for not taking the time and putting forth the effort might be legitimate, but that doesn't lend my arguments or beliefs about the numbers any legitimacy at all.
So, I was (and remain) frustrated with your relative lack of a response. It undermines any legitimacy your position might otherwise have on the proposals in your original posting.
I hope this was clearer, though as I read what I've written, I already want to change it for the "umpteenth" time.
"The Patriot Act, "free speech zones", appropriate restrictions of police powers, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and, yes, gun rights to name a few."
DeleteI oppose all those except gun control.
I still don't know what my "relative lack of a response" has been.
Delete"I still don't know what my "relative lack of a response" has been."
Allow me to refresh your memory:
March 1, 2013 @ 6:36 p.m."If that is what you believe the law would do I have some questions. Are you willing for that specific language to become part of the law? Are you willing for the law to further stipulate that no further guns will be taken, even if this plan fails to produce its promised benefits? If this law is passed and fails to produce its promised benefits are you willing for it to be subject to automatic repeal? Are you willing to specifically define military features? Since this law, as expressed here, would take from people magazines essential to the operation of firearms not subject to the ban, are you willing for the state to pay for the replacement of the magazines they would be banning? Further, are you willing to replace those firearms for which there no seven round capacity magazines in existence? Are you willing for the state to pay fair market value for the firearms and magazines banned under this proposal?"
March 1, 2013 @ 6:41 p.m. "What will be in place to avoid placing an undue financial burden on those lower income people who own legal firearms as they try to comply with storage requirements? Can you define the nature of this "safety inspection" including who would conduct it and under what circumstances? Since you propose a tax, what do you see as a reasonable tax rate?"
Note: You did address safety inspections
Thanks I'll try to keep up better. The other reason I sometimes don't respond is because your questions can be too tedious and overwhelming.
DeleteFor another, I don't like the second person singular. I'm not the government and I don't speak for the gun control movement.
I'm just writin' a blog and sometimes I get exhausted just reading your comments.
Tedious and overwhelming? Really? I'm honored.
DeleteI have to admit, I've never had someone complain about my use of the second person (singular or plural). "I'm not the government and I don't speak for the gun control movement" is a non sequitur. But, to be clear, I just hoped you would be willing to answer basic questions regarding proposals you seemed to support. Regardless, I have an answer of sorts. Thank you.