Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

From The "College Gap" in Marriage and Children's Family Structure by Melissa Schettini Kearney at U Maryland

 

 

 

My first reaction, probably the reaction of many, was "Oh, they did a scientific study and they learned that children who grow up in a stable two-parent family find this to be advantageous? Amazing. Who woulda thought?"

 

Nonetheless, I downloaded the paper, 40 pages or so, and I will read it. Yeah, I had two parents. I am grateful for that, very much so. I am grateful for many things. But I am going to read the paper. Thanks.

[johnu]

The issue here in the USA is Christian Nationalism; these people are actively (and now openly) working to replace our democratic republic with a fascist theocracy. Every other issue is a branch from this mother plant.

Technically the problem is "Fake christian" nationalists. They can selectively quote from the bible (with the exception of Trump whose favorite book is the bible. He does like the old and the new parts) when it seems to suit their purposes but don't live their lives anything close to what the bible says they should. These "Fake cristians" only pretend to be religious to fool gullible people into following them.

[kenberg]

The issue here in the USA is Christian Nationalism; these people are actively (and now openly) working to replace our democratic republic with a fascist theocracy. Every other issue is a branch from this mother plant.

 

This post quoted Pilowski, who quoted Chas, who was speaking of guns. I think the broad condemnation that you assert is too broad to be effective. Why?

 

First, I do not really know what capital C capital N Christian Nationalism is, as distinct from a belief in a Christian God and being supportive of the US. And don't bother explaining because no doubt explanations vary with the explainer.

 

Second, if we are to have any chance of solving the gun violence problem, I hope that the solution does not require religious people to become atheists or require people who are happy to be living in the US to condemn the US.

 

There is no reason in the world why a person cannot simultaneously believe in God and realize that our way of dealing with weaponry is nuts. I expect many people do.

 

If I were called before a tribunal to explain my life choices with irrefutable philosophical precision I would fail miserably. But I can still discuss choices. If a religious person in a discussion says "God says I am right so that's that" then there isn't much to do. But if a non-religious person says 'I say I am right so that's that" then there also isn't much to do.

 

Short version: I hope we can seriously address gun violence. Any effective solution will surely involve much greater restrictions regarding guns. We are more apt to succeed if we keep the focus on guns and not get into discussions of God or Nationalism, with caps or without.

[Winstonm]

This post quoted Pilowski, who quoted Chas, who was speaking of guns. I think the broad condemnation that you assert is too broad to be effective. Why?

 

First, I do not really know what capital C capital N Christian Nationalism is, as distinct from a belief in a Christian God and being supportive of the US. And don't bother explaining because no doubt explanations vary with the explainer.

 

Second, if we are to have any chance of solving the gun violence problem, I hope that the solution does not require religious people to become atheists or require people who are happy to be living in the US to condemn the US.

 

There is no reason in the world why a person cannot simultaneously believe in God and realize that our way of dealing with weaponry is nuts. I expect many people do.

 

If I were called before a tribunal to explain my life choices with irrefutable philosophical precision I would fail miserably. But I can still discuss choices. If a religious person in a discussion says "God says I am right so that's that" then there isn't much to do. But if a non-religious person says 'I say I am right so that's that" then there also isn't much to do.

 

Short version: I hope we can seriously address gun violence. Any effective solution will surely involve much greater restrictions regarding guns. We are more apt to succeed if we keep the focus on guns and not get into discussions of God or Nationalism, with caps or without.

Being in Maryland, you are likely somewhat insulated from the extremes that have taken control of the Republican Party.

My response to our Aussie doc was about why America could not act rationally. My response: the irrational have invaded the political system and are trying to recreate it in their image.

And that is why gun reform is so difficult.

 

If you don't like Christian Nationalist, use American Taliban or simply read Bill Barr's last speech at Notre Dame or the rumbles from Trump's "spiritual adviser ".

 

Here, in Tulsa. a politician has a television ad where he says "I believe" and then out loud he prays while driving, "Lead us out. Lead us out". That is the total ad. His message? Vote for me-I am one of you. I am not one of them. This candidate is endorsed by Senator Inhofe.

 

Ridding us of gun violence will not happen quickly. We should adopt a long-range goal and the start is to rid the political system of the unreasonables.

 

PS: Concerning CN, this is current so you might take a look here: https://www.newyorke...ian-nationalism

[Winstonm]

Technically the problem is "Fake christian" nationalists. They can selectively quote from the bible (with the exception of Trump whose favorite book is the bible. He does like the old and the new parts) when it seems to suit their purposes but don't live their lives anything close to what the bible says they should. These "Fake cristians" only pretend to be religious to fool gullible people into following them.

 

Although true of some (like Trump), the base is totally convinced of their correctness. Unless one was reared in a stark and fundamentalist Christian environment it is impossible to understand that for those, Christian and person is inseparable to the ego. Without the nomenclature, the person disappears. This is a terrifying psychological catch-22, and it helps to understand why reason is eschewed and even condemned because reason contributes to cognitive dissonance which is antithesis to a faith-based life. There are millions like this; they have guns; and they believe America was made for them.

[johnu]

Are you wilfully stupid, or does it just come naturally? When you ban weapons you need to take as many as possible of them out of circulation; they don't just disappear in a puff of smoke.

As the famous quote goes, Chas_NoDignityNoIntegrityNoHonesty is not naturally stupid, he is a self-made man.

[PassedOut]

[*]Take banned weapons (and as many others as possible) out of circulation through deposit, amnesty and buy-back.

Yes! By Jove, I think you've got it! We just respectfully ask the thugs and criminally insane to peacefully surrender their firearms and be nice from now on. That should do it.

Why say things that are manifestly wrong.

What do you gain from it?

My level of sarcasm is directly proportional to the the level of stupidity addressed.

But your 'sarcastic' comment completely distorts the PeterAlan comment that you quoted. And you pulled that one line from his list of proposals to address a serious problem that our country really faces. I get that you disagree with this particular proposal but, as originally written, it is certainly a plausible step--not stupid at all.

 

To me, your use of 'sarcasm' looks like a way to avoid contributing your own solutions and to evade stating precisely why you disagree with this particular proposal. Can we infer that you do agree with the other proposals in the PeterAlan list? If so, why pull this one out for unfair criticism?

 

As a conservative and a life-long owner of firearms, I strongly believe that--for the common good--we need serious measures to reduce number the injuries and deaths by gunshot in our country. Whether correct or not, it is certainly not stupid to hypothesize that a substantial reduction in firearms will tend to reduce those injuries and deaths. Why do you believe that it won't?

[Winstonm]

Whataboutism does not answer questions-it only asks.

[y66]

Remember fossil fuel’s lie that climate action has big costs? “Yes, we should do something about climate but not wreck the economy”?

 

Well, corporate analyst Deloitte says it’s a present value $43 trillion gain to address climate, and a $178 trillion loss if we fail to — a $220+ trillion dollar difference!

 

https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/global-turning-point.html

 

The fossil fuel industry lies for a living, deliberately and purposefully, and they lie to steal from you your future for their present profits, and they lie to hide from you their culpability for the evil they have wrought.

[Winstonm]

But whatabout Hillary’s______.

[y66]

[Chas_P]

we need serious measures to reduce number the injuries and deaths by gunshot in our country

I agree wholeheartedly. The crux of the matter is what should those "serious measures" be?

As a conservative and a life-long owner of firearms

Me too. I still have a couple of shotguns and a few pistols. I have a nickel-plated 9mm Radom that my father-in-law brought back from Germany after his tour of duty there during WWII. Do you really think surrendering yours or me surrendering mine will convince the thugs and criminally insane to surrender theirs?

it is certainly not stupid to hypothesize that a substantial reduction in firearms will tend to reduce those injuries and deaths.

In my opinion it is. If someone can come up with a way to confiscate (and prevent future purchases of) firearms by those with evil intent I'm all for it. I just don't believe that confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens like you and me is the answer.

[awm]

I agree wholeheartedly. The crux of the matter is what should those "serious measures" be?

 

Me too. I still have a couple of shotguns and a few pistols. I have a nickel-plated 9mm Radom that my father-in-law brought back from Germany after his tour of duty there during WWII. Do you really think surrendering yours or me surrendering mine will convince the thugs and criminally insane to surrender theirs?

 

In my opinion it is. If someone can come up with a way to confiscate (and prevent future purchases of) firearms by those with evil intent I'm all for it. I just don't believe that confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens like you and me is the answer.

 

It seems to be a common belief on the right that the world can be divided into good people and bad people in a straightforward way. Since bad people are presumably willing to break any law, banning guns will only prevent the good people from getting them, leading to a world where only bad people are armed and therefore not really preventing gun deaths (all of which are presumably due to the evil actions of the bad people).

 

But this is not really how things work. A great number of gun deaths are suicides, accidents, or spur-of-the-moment events where people got into an argument and happened to have firearms on hand. None of these situations result from nefarious plans by bad people with mob connections or something -- they're just ordinary people who happen to get depressed or drunk or angry or forget to lock up their weapons where their toddlers can't get at them. All of these sorts of gun deaths are likely to be reduced if guns are harder to get.

 

As for the mass shootings, most of these are executed by depressed loners who aren't likely to have serious criminal connections. Random pissed off 18-20 year olds don't necessarily have the resources to obtain illegal weapons. In any case, if the guns were illegal it would give police one more way to track and prosecute possible criminals.

 

It's true that large-scale criminal or terrorist organisations would still be able to get weapons, but one property of such groups is that they are organised -- and the very fact of this organisation can make them easier for police and security agencies to watch and go after. In any case, a lone "good guy with a gun" is not going to stop Al Qaeda or ISIS -- this requires much larger, more organised, and better-equipped groups like the US military or FBI/CIA.

 

One interesting data point -- when the US Capitol was attacked on January 6th, why did the "peaceful protestors" attack with flagpoles and baseball bats and fists and not guns? Surely many of them owned guns, and some of the white nationalist groups that were present in the crowd are heavily armed and seem willing to use their weapons. Turns out most of the "protestors" left their weapons outside Washington DC because of the city's strict gun laws. Without those laws, we might not have a republic in the US at all any more!

[pilowsky]

It seems to be a common belief on the right that the world can be divided into good people and bad people in a straightforward way. Since bad people are presumably willing to break any law, banning guns will only prevent the good people from getting them, leading to a world where only bad people are armed and therefore not really preventing gun deaths (all of which are presumably due to the evil actions of the bad people).

 

But this is not really how things work. A great number of gun deaths are suicides, accidents, or spur-of-the-moment events where people got into an argument and happened to have firearms on hand. None of these situations result from nefarious plans by bad people with mob connections or something -- they're just ordinary people who happen to get depressed or drunk or angry or forget to lock up their weapons where their toddlers can't get at them. All of these sorts of gun deaths are likely to be reduced if guns are harder to get.

 

As for the mass shootings, most of these are executed by depressed loners who aren't likely to have serious criminal connections. Random pissed off 18-20 year olds don't necessarily have the resources to obtain illegal weapons. In any case, if the guns were illegal it would give police one more way to track and prosecute possible criminals.

 

It's true that large-scale criminal or terrorist organisations would still be able to get weapons, but one property of such groups is that they are organised -- and the very fact of this organisation can make them easier for police and security agencies to watch and go after. In any case, a lone "good guy with a gun" is not going to stop Al Qaeda or ISIS -- this requires much larger, more organised, and better-equipped groups like the US military or FBI/CIA.

 

One interesting data point -- when the US Capitol was attacked on January 6th, why did the "peaceful protestors" attack with flagpoles and baseball bats and fists and not guns? Surely many of them owned guns, and some of the white nationalist groups that were present in the crowd are heavily armed and seem willing to use their weapons. Turns out most of the "protestors" left their weapons outside Washington DC because of the city's strict gun laws. Without those laws, we might not have a republic in the US at all any more!

You might as well try to have a rational discussion with a sheep.

The answer is always the same: but I want my gun.

 

And yes, they should take away his little piece of nickel plated NAZI memorabilia.

 

 

[johnu]

In any case, a lone "good guy with a gun" is not going to stop Al Qaeda or ISIS -- this requires much larger, more organised, and better-equipped groups like the US military or FBI/CIA.

According to current media reports, 19 local good guy police with guns did nothing to stop a single Uvalde mass murderer, waiting until a federal border patrol tactical team eventually killed the gunman 30 minutes after they arrived at the scene after being told by the Uvalde police chief to not interfere. Who knows how many of the 21 victims might have survived if the first responders had immediately confronted and killed the gunman? Details are still incredibly hazy with many untrue things said starting with the 1st police press conference and continuing up to the last press conference. The Uvalde police chief has refused to talk to the FBI or news media, and a local DA has apparently issued a gag order to prevent law enforcement from talking.

[kenberg]

It seems to be a common belief on the right that the world can be divided into good people and bad people in a straightforward way. Since bad people are presumably willing to break any law, banning guns will only prevent the good people from getting them, leading to a world where only bad people are armed and therefore not really preventing gun deaths (all of which are presumably due to the evil actions of the bad people).

 

But this is not really how things work. A great number of gun deaths are suicides, accidents, or spur-of-the-moment events where people got into an argument and happened to have firearms on hand. None of these situations result from nefarious plans by bad people with mob connections or something -- they're just ordinary people who happen to get depressed or drunk or angry or forget to lock up their weapons where their toddlers can't get at them. All of these sorts of gun deaths are likely to be reduced if guns are harder to get.

 

As for the mass shootings, most of these are executed by depressed loners who aren't likely to have serious criminal connections. Random pissed off 18-20 year olds don't necessarily have the resources to obtain illegal weapons. In any case, if the guns were illegal it would give police one more way to track and prosecute possible criminals.

 

It's true that large-scale criminal or terrorist organisations would still be able to get weapons, but one property of such groups is that they are organised -- and the very fact of this organisation can make them easier for police and security agencies to watch and go after. In any case, a lone "good guy with a gun" is not going to stop Al Qaeda or ISIS -- this requires much larger, more organised, and better-equipped groups like the US military or FBI/CIA.

 

One interesting data point -- when the US Capitol was attacked on January 6th, why did the "peaceful protestors" attack with flagpoles and baseball bats and fists and not guns? Surely many of them owned guns, and some of the white nationalist groups that were present in the crowd are heavily armed and seem willing to use their weapons. Turns out most of the "protestors" left their weapons outside Washington DC because of the city's strict gun laws. Without those laws, we might not have a republic in the US at all any more!

 

 

There is a lot to like in this post and I could add several things but I will try to restrain myself. Laws reflect, or should reflect, the attitude of society. Right now the law is out of sync with a good size chunk of society. There are people who will reach for the gun no matter what the law says and there are people who would never do so. But there are many others who look at the law and say "The law says it's ok so I guess I will take my gun with me to settle this quarrel" but if the law were changed they would say "I better leave my gun at home". And, of course, if they could not even legally own a gun that could be used to kill many people in a short time then many would not. If even the OathKeepers decided to leave their guns in a Virginia hotel because of strict gun laws in DC, that demonstrates that a law can have an effect. Very few people are either a this or a that, and so what the law says matters. Not to everyone, but to most of us. It is both a tragedy and a national embarrassment that we do nothing substantial about this.

 

 

Oh. Recently there was a WaPo article, Becky saw it I didn't, about how the two guys in the Pennsylvania GOP Senatorial run-off were trying to out-brag each other on their enthusiasm for guns. Please voters, please. Show both these guys to the door.

 

Sorry, I tried to be brief.

[Winstonm]

You might as well try to have a rational discussion with a sheep.

The answer is always the same: but I want my gun.

 

And yes, they should take away his little piece of nickel plated NAZI memorabilia.

 

Yeah, but whataBAHt?

[PassedOut]

I agree wholeheartedly. The crux of the matter is what should those "serious measures" be?

 

Me too. I still have a couple of shotguns and a few pistols. I have a nickel-plated 9mm Radom that my father-in-law brought back from Germany after his tour of duty there during WWII. Do you really think surrendering yours or me surrendering mine will convince the thugs and criminally insane to surrender theirs?

 

In my opinion it is. If someone can come up with a way to confiscate (and prevent future purchases of) firearms by those with evil intent I'm all for it. I just don't believe that confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens like you and me is the answer.

My dad, also a WWII vet--one who survived the Battle of the Bulge and considered himself fortunate to have done so--gave me my first rifle (a .22 single-shot) when I was in 7th grade. But that was not before he taught me how to use it and not before he instructed me on how not to misuse it. And I knew for sure that if he had ever gotten wind of my misusing it in any way I would no longer have that rifle (to say the least).

 

Later, having kids around (and now grandkids), all our firearms are stored in a heavy safe, inaccessible to young ones: Way too many kids get hold of weapons and shoot themselves or others.

 

Let's look at the text of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Today it seems pointless to go back and forth on whether or not everyone who buys a firearm is part of a Militia. But the words well regulated also appear in the amendment. There is nothing well regulated about an 18-year-old going into a store and walking out the door with an AR-15 style weapon.

 

We require an automobile driver to be licensed and to pass driving tests before receiving an initial license. We require periodic renewals to ensure that the driver can still be trusted behind the wheel. We take away the license of a driver whose violations demonstrate an unworthiness to hold a license. We require additional training and special licensing for drivers of heavy trucks and other special vehicles. We require the registration of a vehicle to establish it's rightful owner. For the common good, we require that the ownership and use of vehicles be well regulated.

 

On it's face, the Second Amendment provides for the well regulated ownership of firearms. I would suggest the following:

 

• 
   
  
• Requiring training and a license to own and use any firearm.
  
• Requiring additional specialized training for a license to own and use an assault rifle.
  
• Requiring periodic renewals of any firearms license.
  
• Requiring all firearms to be registered to their licensed owners.
  
• Revoking the license of anyone misusing a firearm.
  
• Confiscating the firearms of anyone without a license or who loses a license.
  

Given the proliferation of firearms already in the US, these regulations would need a year or so to be phased in. But implementing these measures would allow us to distinguish very quickly the good guys from the bad guys. The bad guys will fight against establishing and abiding by these regulations. The good guys will work (and vote) to put them in place.

[Chas_P]

On it's face, the Second Amendment provides for the well regulated ownership of firearms. I would suggest the following:

 

• 
   
  
• Requiring training and a license to own and use any firearm.
  
• Requiring additional specialized training for a license to own and use an assault rifle.
  
• Requiring periodic renewals of any firearms license.
  
• Requiring all firearms to be registered to their licensed owners.
  
• Revoking the license of anyone misusing a firearm.
  
• Confiscating the firearms of anyone without a license or who loses a license.
  

Given the proliferation of firearms already in the US, these regulations would need a year or so to be phased in. But implementing these measures would allow us to distinguish very quickly the good guys from the bad guys. The bad guys will fight against establishing and abiding by these regulations. The good guys will work (and vote) to put them in place.

I'm not opposed to any of that. I'm not sure how practical it is, but it looks good on paper.

[kenberg]

I think it is very important for people such as PassedOut, and hopefully I am included, to contribute to this conversation. It's not as if we dissolve into a pool of Jello the moment a gun is mentioned, but we are up for discussion on the serious problem that we have.

 

In the case of my own dad, he was 18 at the end of the first world war. I don't know if they would have taken him. Probably at 18 they would have, but he did not join. He considered it after Pearl Harbor, but as I understand it my mother used 2-year-old me as an argument not to do so unless he was drafted. At age 41, he wasn't drafted. He worked in a defense plant during the war. One way of putting it, he was prepared to serve but did not just rush out there and say gimme a gun, gimme a gun. My own approach was along those lines. I finished high school in 1956 and was considering the navy, but I got a scholarship and enrolled at the University of Minnesota, taking a student deferment. When most all student deferments were canceled in 1966 I believe I took my physical as instructed. I was 1-A, but I was also 27. Some headed off to Canada, I stayed put, with the idea that I would serve if drafted but by then Viet Nam was looking like a really bad idea and I was not going down to the draft office clamoring to join up. Make of it what you will.

 

I can imagine some people, because of the environment that they live or work in, might find a gun useful. Hopefully, they can change that environment. But danger is sometimes unavoidable.

 

I would add one more item to PassedOut's list. I think everyone who owns a gun, a firearm of any sort, should be required to learn relevant laws regarding the use of that firearm. Yes, there are times that you are permitted to use a firearm in self-defense. But way too many people interpret that right far too broadly. Something akin to "Well, the guy stepped on my toes on the bus so surely I was entitled to shoot him". Or perhaps a more realistic scene: In some conflict, a guy who does not have a gun would look for a peaceful solution. A guy with a gun sees no reason to look for a peaceful solution since it's hey, if things get tough, I have a gun.

 

We have to get away from this adolescent tough guy mentality. Being tough can at times be a very useful trait. But being reasonable is much more often a much more useful trait.

[Winstonm]

 

 

On it's face, the Second Amendment provides for the well regulated ownership of firearms. I would suggest the following:

 

• Requiring training and a license to own and use any firearm.
• Requiring additional specialized training for a license to own and use an assault rifle.
• Requiring periodic renewals of any firearms license.
• Requiring all firearms to be registered to their licensed owners.
• Revoking the license of anyone misusing a firearm.
• Confiscating the firearms of anyone without a license or who loses a license.

Given the proliferation of firearms already in the US, these regulations would need a year or so to be phased in. But implementing these measures would allow us to distinguish very quickly the good guys from the bad guys. The bad guys will fight against establishing and abiding by these regulations. The good guys will work (and vote) to put them in place.

I would like to concentrate on twos parts of your post. One, why allow assault rifles at all? It is not as if there is no precedent for limiting the types of weapons that can be owned, namely automatic fire weapons such as machine guns. As I pointed out in another post, the rights in the second amendment cannot be infringed, which means removed entirely, but there is nothing about abridging (reducing or limiting) those rights, which is stated specifically about first amendment rights such as free speech and freedom of the press. The frothers who argue that gun rights are to protect against our government are as stupid as they are nutty - the right was intended to arm a militia to safeguard a fledgling government.

 

Two, I would argue, though, that it is not bad people who don't want gun regulations but immature people, and they, like most adolescents, want no regulations on anything they wish to do. Their world is a fantasy of Bay Watch and Gunsmoke with a little 007 thrown in for good measure. I'm unclear how one requires mental maturity, though.

 

Myself, I have a 12-guage Remington pump shotgun and I have 00 buckshot, I don't hunt. I don't take the gun out of the house. I am not against gun ownership. I have no problem licensing this weapon or taking a test to own it. But then, I don't have any problem living in a modern society.

 

 

 

 

[PassedOut]

I would add one more item to PassedOut's list. I think everyone who owns a gun, a firearm of any sort, should be required to learn relevant laws regarding the use of that firearm.

Yes, I think that getting a license to own and use a firearm should requiring passing a test, just as we require for getting a driver's license.

[PassedOut]

I would like to concentrate on twos parts of your post. One, why allow assault rifles at all? It is not as if there is no precedent for limiting the types of weapons that can be owned, namely automatic fire weapons such as machine guns. As I pointed out in another post, the rights in the second amendment cannot be infringed, which means removed entirely, but there is nothing about abridging (reducing or limiting) those rights, which is stated specifically about first amendment rights such as free speech and freedom of the press. The frothers who argue that gun rights are to protect against our government are as stupid as they are nutty - the right was intended to arm a militia to safeguard a fledgling government.

 

Two, I would argue, though, that it is not bad people who don't want gun regulations but immature people, and they, like most adolescents, want no regulations on anything they wish to do. Their world is a fantasy of Bay Watch and Gunsmoke with a little 007 thrown in for good measure. I'm unclear how one requires mental maturity, though.

 

Myself, I have a 12-guage Remington pump shotgun and I have 00 buckshot, I don't hunt. I don't take the gun out of the house. I am not against gun ownership. I have no problem licensing this weapon or taking a test to own it. But then, I don't have any problem living in a modern society.

In fact, I do believe that allowing the ban on assault weapons to expire was a mistake, nor do we own an assault weapon here. But I drew my list of firearm regulations to parallel existing motor vehicle regulations--regulations already familiar to most everyone and accepted by most everyone. In my experience, that basic approach of drawing familiar parallels makes any proposal easier to understand and tends to reduce unwarranted fears of change.

 

I think it more effective to say something like, "Let's regulate guns just the way we do cars," than it is to say (as Beto O'Rourke did), "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." For one thing, every item on my list is clearly constitutional. Confiscating weapons that were legally purchased--even if I disagree with the law--is more problematic. Including such a proposal on that list is bound to generate opposition to the entire list--and understandably so.

 

Given the disastrous policies promulgated by NRA-financed politicians for many years, we simply won't be able to solve this problem overnight. But that does not mean that we should give up now.

 

And yes, there are immature people who resist regulations of all kinds--including those for motor vehicles. But there are also bad guys who wish to preserve an option to shoot others for purposes of revenge, crime, or insurrection, with a reduced risk of detection.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, I have a somewhat different view about a lot of this.

 

I don't have a real issue if people want to own assault weapons or even, hypothetically, a machine gun.

 

However, I don't think that people should be able to carry these or even have them at home.

If you want an AR-15 or an AK-47 or whatever then it lives at the gun range and it doesn't leave the gun range.

 

Same with pistols in almost all situations.

 

If you want a weapon for home defense (and you want to keep it at home) then get a shotgun

If you want a weapon for hunting (and you want to carry it around when you're hunting) then get a bolt action rifle or a shotgun.

 

If its easy to hide and it throws a lot of bullets quickly then you don't to carry it around.

 

I can potentially see an argue that some people might be allows to have a six chamber revolver or some such.

I'm genuine torn on this.

[Winstonm]

In fact, I do believe that allowing the ban on assault weapons to expire was a mistake, nor do we own an assault weapon here. But I drew my list of firearm regulations to parallel existing motor vehicle regulations--regulations already familiar to most everyone and accepted by most everyone. In my experience, that basic approach of drawing familiar parallels makes any proposal easier to understand and tends to reduce unwarranted fears of change.

 

I think it more effective to say something like, "Let's regulate guns just the way we do cars," than it is to say (as Beto O'Rourke did), "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." For one thing, every item on my list is clearly constitutional. Confiscating weapons that were legally purchased--even if I disagree with the law--is more problematic. Including such a proposal on that list is bound to generate opposition to the entire list--and understandably so.

 

Given the disastrous policies promulgated by NRA-financed politicians for many years, we simply won't be able to solve this problem overnight. But that does not mean that we should give up now.

 

And yes, there are immature people who resist regulations of all kinds--including those for motor vehicles. But there are also bad guys who wish to preserve an option to shoot others for purposes of revenge, crime, or insurrection, with a reduced risk of detection.

I see your well-made point and I wonder if that and Richard’s idea could be combined. You may continue to own legally purchased asssult rifles but they must be stored in some type communal facility but ban future sales of such weapons,