A "common sense" proposal that will piss off both sides

Maybe not conversationally, but legally alcohol is highly regulated - age limits, vendor licensing, time place and manner restrictions etc. (and historically there was prohibition)


While not pressure cookers, post OK City we have a lot more regulation and reporting around fertilizer purchases.
So we can both agree that "highly regulated" doesn't seem to solve the problem?
 
> enforce our current gun laws
> schools need armed security
> total ban on violent "shoot-em up style video games"
> the illegal depicted use of firearms in movies should be viewed the same as violent sex and the film should receive a mature RRR/xxx type rating and revenue taxed at 10%
> total ban on music where the lyrics include violent gun crime or misuse of firearms
The bottom 3 would definitely invoke 1A questions, but since we all agree all constitutional rights are subject to regulation under appropriate scrutiny - "strict" in the case of 1A - these could theoretically fly. But personally, I am a near absolutist on the 1A. In my opinion, it is the one right that fundamentally distinguishes democracy from tyranny.
 
I can't speak for others but here is my problem statement.

First, every day, with guns or not, millions of Americans struggle with unmet mental health needs. Not only these millions suffer, but a large multiple of these millions in the form of spouses, parents, kids, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc also suffer alongside them. Americans can't seem to quit squabbling about far less compelling issues and petty politics long enough to meaningfully address.

Second, some urban areas and some rural areas have lost most social cohesion and any semblance of hope. This drives a concentration of gangs, drugs and associated violence. Economic opportunity is the only viable path out of this mess. But again, neither side seems willing to do the hard work beyond virtue signaling.

But once or twice a year an active shooter brings mental health to the headlines, as does skyrocketing gang violence in major cities. So, I would like to use society's obsession/fascination with these "black swans" to move on broader mental health and economic development initiatives. To bring some supporters along, a mixed bag of gun control tweaks (some a little tighter, some a little looser) might help push the discussion forward since public pressure to do "something about guns" is a powerful political motivator.

Amen. Our society shuns anyone that is less than a brightly burning candle even if there are severe winds blowing around that person. When is the last time a buddy offered up that he was on anti-depressants? Was seeing a shrink? Attending counseling? Was the buddy proud as he mentioned these things? If he was trying to lose weight to make himself better we would encourage him and everyone would be supportive and feel good.

My son is a doctor. Of kids. I think most medical insurance covers 10 or 12 sessions with a shrink. Perhaps each year allows more sessions but he sees some screwed up kids where they might need more than a handful of sessions to get past compulsive behavior or destructive thoughts.

When I was a wee lad I recall fathers beating the crap out of mothers and the local police would not do anything because, you know, Frank had a bad day at work or had a few too many drinks at the bar so was not in his right mind. I saw police cars following drunk drivers with their lights rotating so the drunk would not get hit as drove home because he needed that vehicle for work the next day, right? I have seen married company executive get their secretary pregnant then the secretary is fired for tempting her boss.

Today, the abuser is likely arrested, the drunk is not allowed to drive home and the executive is likely fired and the secretary wins a settlement.

We live among some terrible people. No laws will make them not be terrible people. We also live among some damaged people. We might be able to fix a few of them with some better services available for our friends and neighbors no matter their wealth nor insurance coverage.
 
The bottom 3 would definitely invoke 1A questions, but since we all agree all constitutional rights are subject to regulation under appropriate scrutiny - "strict" in the case of 1A - these could theoretically fly. But personally, I am a near absolutist on the 1A. In my opinion, it is the one right that fundamentally distinguishes democracy from tyranny.
Cool, the point to ponder is why is it cool or okay in music to talk about killing people just for fun or because they made you a little mad?? They wouldn't write about molesting kids? Would they? Why is it socially accepted and why do these songs sell millions of copies???
 
If that was true












 
Why you gotta be hating on Johnny Cash like that?
“And then I shot him full of holes from his nose to his knees and I polished off my little sweet pea!!!”

It’s just so weird how as we get older as a society, we need more rules.
Just seems like it would go the other way.
I guess wisdom doesn’t come with age.
 
“And then I shot him full of holes from his nose to his knees and I polished off my little sweet pea!!!”

It’s just so weird how as we get older as a society, we need more rules.
Just seems like it would go the other way.
I guess wisdom doesn’t come with age.
Damn good song though.
 
Yes, I am listening to myself. My question to you is: Do you even understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and why it was written the way it is? Your statement below makes me tend to believe that you don't.

Again, you need to understand the 2nd Amendment. Here's an example:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So here is the militia that the 2nd Amendment refers to. There are two classes of militia, Organized and Unorganized. Every US citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 fall into one of these two classes.

"A well regulated militia"... As written in the late 18th century "well regulated" was understood to mean "well supplied", that is to say had modern weaponry and equipment at his disposal. That definition has not changed. That means high capacity magazines, along with the most popular sporting rifle in America. "being necessary for the security of a free state"... This was to ensure that there was recourse to an oppressive government - such as what we endured during the American Revolution. The founding fathers wanted to make sure that the people were never allowed to be subjected to a government that oppress the people by taking away their weapons (see: "The Shot Heard Round The World"), "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Again, see "The Shot Heard Round The World".

So, back to my "common sense" gun violence ideas, I have a very good understanding of what I'm saying. I want every criminal to wake up in the morning thinking "Is today going to be the last day of my life? Am I going to mug the wrong guy, otherwise known as THEY GOOD GUY WITH A GUN?". They will no longer have their soft targets such as these ridiculous "Gun Free Zones" to prey on. And if they do still feel the urge to try and harm, injure, or kill someone they better think twice because if they are caught and convicted - they're off the planet. AND I'M FINE WITH THAT. Why wouldn't you be?
So……there is a line now

“Arms” could be anything from a rock to a nuclear weapon.

You can’t own a nuke now, so are your rights being “infringed”?

The Constitution is and always has been a living, breathing, amendable idea

The second “amendment” wasn’t there to begin with.

I’ll ask again, are we breaking the 2A by not allowing every citizen access to nukes?

HC mags, semi autos, etc can all be debated
 










You didn't answer my question...
 
Cool, the point to ponder is why is it cool or okay in music to talk about killing people just for fun or because they made you a little mad?? They wouldn't write about molesting kids? Would they? Why is it socially accepted and why do these songs sell millions of copies???
I agree there is ugly stuff out there, and I am not saying I like it, but, "you can take my typewriter out of my cold dead hands" ;)
 
> enforce our current gun laws
> schools need armed security
> total ban on violent "shoot-em up style video games"
> the illegal depicted use of firearms in movies should be viewed the same as violent sex and the film should receive a mature RRR/xxx type rating and revenue taxed at 10%
> total ban on music where the lyrics include violent gun crime or misuse of firearms
Who would pay for this? These are extremely costly things to apply, even costlier monitor and enforce
 
So……there is a line now

“Arms” could be anything from a rock to a nuclear weapon.

You can’t own a nuke now, so are your rights being “infringed”?

The Constitution is and always has been a living, breathing, amendable idea

The second “amendment” wasn’t there to begin with.

I’ll ask again, are we breaking the 2A by not allowing every citizen access to nukes?

HC mags, semi autos, etc can all be debated

That's why. You can "own" one, you just can't get the nuclear material.

But you already knew that.
 
100% agree. I hate the FFL process.

For ease of use, I wish we had a nationwide licensing system that was recognized by all states. All license holders would be issued an ID and then the ATF would provide a limited user portal accessible via an app on your phone. I want to sell a gun to ElkFever2, you show me your license, I scan your QR code your profile pops up as "cleared", we do our transaction. I'd make it an opt in system, if you don't want to participate that's your choice you do the old FFL system.

MA has a pretty brutal licensing process, all said and done my biggest beef with the system is that at the end of the day there is no benefit other than the ability to "exercise my constitutional right," IMHO with that process, including the interview with the Mass Firearm bureau agent, I should be able to order a rifle on europtics and have it delivered to my house.

Current gun processes are stuck, by design, in the 1950s. I think gun owners could benefit from updating laws and regs.


These was definitely my opinion as well, though now I'm wondering if it's correct. Certainly we see other types of attacks around the world, and in the US... but they still aren't at the scale of US mass shootings. For instance if you aggregate Europe, you don't see parity between truck/poison/explosive/knife/ etc attacks with US shootings. In the US context we might, maybe it's a cultural thing?
There was a good April 2018 opinion piece in Politico by Jon Stokes called A Gun Nut's Guide to Gun Control That Actually Works. It outlined, in detail, a system essentially identical to what you proposed. Including hypothetical arguments from "both sides" and rebuttals to them.

I've always thought the piece made an exceptional amount of sense.
 
Back
Top