Boy, oh boy. The 2nd Amendment fanatics are going to really go nuts with these
comments.I wonder just how much gun violence it will take for the
rest of the country to tell the far, far, far right gun lovers to quiet down and
accept some common sense restrictions to the unfettered death machines they so
love to acquire and protect.Of course, these means that the vast
majority must take a stand, which is certainly doubtful. The NRA has convinced
us they are solely responsible for our freedoms.
Hooray! Yes! But watch this space. Sensible letters like this one, on this
topic, tend to bring out the worst in people.
News flash to liberals: Criminals will not obey any of your worthless gun laws
and they never will! More gun laws are about as effective in fighting crime as
passing ever more laws against murder or stealing or buying and selling drugs!
Some people will do it no matter what your laws say or how many laws you pass!
In Switzerland it is required by law for every citizen to own a gun and they
have the lowest crime rate in the world! Proving crime is not caused by guns but
is a cultural problem caused in the most part by broken homes.
Patricia,The problem is that we have basically 2 camps when it comes
to guns.You are typical of one type. (i.e reasonable, sensible, logical
restrictions)The other type will counter with the notion that when
the 2nd Amendment states "shall not be infringed", this means that
Anyone can carry Any Weapon, Anywhere.This will be the type that
will blast your post.
2nd amendment, gun nuts? Common Sense?Ha!They will
accept the deaths of Sandy Hook, Aurora CO movies, and Viginia Tech maaacres --
and thousands of others -- all in the name of "Constitutional"
purity...-- while thinking nothing of banning the use of certain
cough syrups, allegy meds, or Muslims right to build a Cultural Center, or
Same Sex Marriage.
No!Don't you understand?Any gun control anywhere is
a violation of the 2nd amendment. If I want to open carry a bazooka, tank, or
atomic bomb, I should!The only way to make the USA safer is for
everyone to open carry an atomic bomb. More guns and any regulation is
Anyone else remember the conservative radio commentator who complained that
victims of Sandy Hook demanding greater gun control like background checks were
making him a victim? Stephen Colbert played it on his show.I saw the
radical nature of some of these 2nd amendment nutcakes. And for them, any
regulation is a violation of their rights.The thing that frustrates
me the most is they act like they're the only ones who love America. In
reality, many of us love America and support the 2nd amendment. People like this
letter writer, who propose sensible common sense ideas.Be prepared
to be blasted today. Any time you touch this topic the nutcakes seem to come out
swinging. This letter will have 30+ posts in about 2 hrs. With comparisons of
Stalin and Hitler, blaming Obama, and countless citations of the Constitution.
With a little research it's easy to see how far afield the right is today
about guns. Not only is the second amendment not about the right to
carry a gun for recreation and self protection (that was an assumed right in the
1700's) but the colonies had gun control laws. They were told where they
could store their guns, how much powder they could have and where it could be
stored, along with how many metal balls they could have. If we
actually went back to the times you could in fact have a gun for hunting and
self protection but there would be restrictions about who could own a gun and
what kind of a gun could be owned. so who's the originalists
here, the right or those who want reasonable gun laws.
Remember when 90+ percent of voters wanted greater gun control?Then
activist repubs in the senate killed it? Remember?I thought we were
a country ruled by the majority? Why is it that we should be ruled
by the majority when it comes to marriage, politicians and judges have no
say?But then we should be ruled by activist politicians and judges when it
comes to guns, the majority has no say?Anyone know?
Guns don't kill people, bullets flying out of guns kill people.Cigarettes don't kill people, cancer kills people.
@Patricia MedinaTell me your proposal, and I'll tell you if I
can support it.
@ NateDid you even read her letter?"It’s time
to ensure that our federal laws apply to all domestic abusers, making it more
difficult for these violent individuals to get guns and do more harm. Expanding
background checks on commercial gun sales and closing loopholes in existing
domestic violence laws will protect people in society."Had you
actually read her letter you would know what her proposal is. This
seems pretty sensible to me. Now the question is, do you support it? A simple
yes or no will suffice. But if you do say no, I want to read your logic.
Even though I support the 2nd ammendment, I think we need some sensible
restrictions on access to guns.Unfortunately, the subject of
"gun control" is as volatile as "abortion rights". Advocates for
both issues refuse to give an inch to the most common sense restrictions. They
see any regulation as the "camel's nose in the tent" where the
other side will continue to push until it gets its way.I find it
funny that so many people who mock the NRA for its hard line stance on gun
rights don't see any hypocracy when they refuse to even consider laws that
restrict late-term or partial birth abortions.
Re: "We must take action and demand change."Must be a proud
graduate of community organizer college. Maybe a classmate of Obama.Just for the record, there is no such thing as a common sense gun-control
measure. Every single so-called common sense proposal risks both abuse by
doctrinaire, true believing disarmists, as well as cynically and illegally
disarming a law-abiding citizen at his/her most critical moment of need.And for what? Nothing, really. It's an acknowledged, unyielding
fact -- there simply is no way to keep guns out of the hands of a determined,
evil person, regardless of their mental state.It's hard for
liberals to admit, but the truth is, laws only deter the law-abiding. They have,
not the slightest effect on lawbreakers or the deranged.
Re: "The thing that frustrates me the most is they act like they're the
only ones who love America."I'm sure the truth about
feckless, reckless gun control laws is frustrating to those who don't love
America, but want to act like they do, as part of their leftist schtick to
disarm and control America and Americans.Make no mistake -- the
poorly concealed gun control agenda is control. Over America and Americans. Pure
"Must be a proud graduate of community organizer college. Maybe a classmate
of Obama."I'll never understand this. Many right wingers
use cheap shots like these at Obama. Yet, if he's merely a community
organizer, why then has he soundly defeated every single republican opponent
he's faced? McCain and Romney were destroyed in their elections by a mere
community organizer.How sad is that?"Just for the
record, there is no such thing as a common sense gun-control measure. Every
single so-called common sense proposal risks both abuse by doctrinaire, true
believing disarmists, as well as cynically and illegally disarming a law-abiding
citizen at his/her most critical moment of need."And this is why
the right wing should just be ignored. Let's move along with
sensible reforms and let common sense prevail. To the right, any gun control is
somehow unconstitutional. I'm sorry, but your views are not
supported by the majority. Land aren't we supposed to be ruled by the
majority? That's what folks like you claim when it comes to marriage. Why
can't it apply to guns?
"Just for the record, there is no such thing as a common sense gun-control
measure."Not if you take them to unreasonable and illogical
conclusions.I can list MANY "common sense gun-control
measures"Illegal to carry a gun on a commercial AirplaneIllegal to be intoxicated in a public place with a gunIllegal for a
minor to possess a gun in a public placeThese are certainly "gun
control measures". Which are not common sense?
Newsflash to Mountainman..."Bank robbery laws will not stop bank
robbers from robbing banks. Therefore, why have such laws?" This is about as
good as your argument gets.Laws that automatically deprive domestic
abusers of their weapons will at least send a message and at best save some
lives. Let's do it.
Gun crazy encourages gun crazies.
@MountanmanHayden, IDNews flash to liberals: In Switzerland it is
required by law for every citizen to own a gun and they have the lowest crime
rate in the world! Proving crime is not caused by guns but is a cultural
problem...7:10 a.m. July 21, 2014========= Mountanman,
1. Switzerland is a Socialist Country.2. Switzerland has a
100% military obligation.3, The Swiss – therefore – have a
100% mandatory background check.4. After their initial enlistment, the
Swiss remain life-long "MILITIA" members [you know -- that silly ignored
part of the 2nd amendment YOUR type conveniently always ignores], and keep their
State issued weapons -- with NO ammo.5. Weapons are heavily regulated --
permits and licenses are required.6. Switzerland BANS weapons to its
criminals and lunatics.7. Agreed about the cultural statement --
Switzerland [and Japan for that matter] have lower crime rates because they have
a better Civil and Social Society with higher standards of living, not because
they have more guns.8. Your fantasy land of make-believe is Somalia,
Go live there.
The notion that anyone and everyone should have a gun, if applied on to the
international world would mean that every nation should have an atomic bomb.
@Mountanman"Criminals will not obey any of your worthless gun laws and
they never will! "Utah's laws on alcohol do not reduce
drinking at all?
Re: "To the right, any gun control is somehow unconstitutional."Yeah, so? And, it's not just the modern right, either.It'd be kinda hard to argue that the Founders had anything in mind other
than freedom from control when they said, ". . . the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."It's only
disingenuous left-wing, progressive gun-control nuts, attempting to further
their people-control agenda, that claim there's some hidden loophole there.
Spoons make you fat. What the anti-gun people will never admit is
that the NRA was originally founded to fight the KKK. Something they so
conveniently forgot. Also the first gun control laws that were passed were
passed against Blacks by the KKK.Read it and weep. Have
a nice day.
The only thing that will increase with tighter Gun laws is state sponsored mass
murder. Go look at the gun control blueprint country of North Korea.
Sure, let's let Obama's government decide on who is mentally capable
of having a firearm in his home. At the same time, let's appoint a
government censor to decide who says what and where. Let's pass a law that
no one writes or speaks without getting a permit from the government that
approves the content of that letter or of that speech.Let's
have a government "official" in every press room to verify that nothing
printed upsets anyone and that only the "good news" approved by
government is printed.Let's have the same government that makes
vets wait two years before being admitted into a vet hospital decide who
speaks.Owning and using a firearm are just as protected as our right
to speak and as the right of the media to print or broadcast without government
control. Those who would strip us of one right had better be willing to give up
other rights, because any government who would ignore the 2nd Amendment would
ignore any amendment!
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahThose who would strip us of
one right had better be willing to give up other rights...=======
You have not right to carry your weapons into LDS Temples or LDS
Meetinghouses.So, You'd better forward your comment to
the LDS 1st Presidency...
@Atlas Smashed "Did you even read her letter?"Of course. It
was nearly content-free. Since federal laws already apply to domestic abusers
(along with everyone else), I would like to know what she would change. Expand
background checks...in what way? Close loopholes...which ones, and how? Take
action...how? Demand what change? She provides none of the details.I'd like to know what I'm being asked to support.
procuradorfiscal". . . the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed."And just what does the....say?
Here let me help..in order to maintain a well established militia.Until 2005, in other words for well over 200 years it was well established
that the second amendment meant just what it said..in order to maintain a
militia.It was an amendment to ensure states maintained the right to
have and maintain a militia to guard against a tyrannical federal govt. Now if
you think all you silly fools running around on your own with 30 06's can
fill that role now you may have an argument. Short of that you are plain and
Open Minded Mormon:I have no problem with private property owners
having restrictions on whether or not you can carry a gun on their property. The
church has every right to say "no guns in church".That is
not what gun control advocates are talking about. They want to ban you and me
from owning a gun that we keep in our own homes (as if that might somehow solve
violent gun crimes).I wish we could just make a law that would
somehow keep criminals and mentally ill people from ever getting their hands on
a gun or other weapon. Since that seems impossible, I would rather have a
liberal gun ownership policy with few restrictions than laws that just keep
those who want to protect themselves from getting one.
Pragmatist... You should read what James Madison said about the 2nd Amendment.
Surprisingly it's not about a States' right to arm a militia.
It's exactly about the personal right we all have to keep and bear arms.
I'm not opposed to having to have a federal licence to have a fully
automatic weapon. I think there should be more help for mentally ill persons. I
do think that none of the proposed laws would have prevented Sandy Hook or
Aurora or Virginia Tech.
We have become so numb to the devastation caused by guns in our country that we
no longer realize the shear number of people, including children, who die from
gunshot wounds every day.
Wait a second...let me check.....[10 minutes later]Yep,
just as I thought, There are A-10s WartHogs, F-16 Fighting Falcons, and
C-130 transports up here at HillAFB, and they have a "Minute Man"
painted on their tails, all indicating they belong to individual
"States", as part of their Constitutionally required "Well
Regulated Militia".Self-Appointed Red-Necks with hunting rifles
running around in pick-up trucks are called MOBs!, you know -- the kind
that killed Joseph and Hyrum Smith and ran the Mormons out at gun-point.but, I'm confident America's "well-regulated militias"
can stop any domestic terrorists, like they did in Afghanistan.
JoeCapitalist2Orem, UTThey want to ban you and me from owning
a gun that we keep in our own homes (as if that might somehow solve violent gun
crimes).[No, just back-ground checks, period.IMHO
– I’d also like training, certification, licensing and gun-safes.Just like the "Government" requires of it's own Police and
MILITARY.Grow-up! It wasn’t any Constitutional Crisis to take
“Hunter’s Safety” when I was 12 years old.You guys
say all the time -- if you've done nothing wrong, there is nothing to
hide.Show me, Don't tell me.
There seem to be those foolish enough to tell us that private property owners
are somehow agents of the government when those private property owners tell us
that we cannot take our firearms on their property. PRIVATE PROPERTY owners
have the right to decide what to do with their property. The government has no
authority to tell a private property owner what to do with his property
(although many agencies of government have assigned themselves that right). The
4th Amendment guarantees that we are to be secure in our property. Those who
use their 1st Amendment rights to demand that we give up our 2nd Amendment
rights have no problem with government dismissing our 4th Amendment rights.Freedom from government oversight or control is a fundamental plank in
the American platform. The Constitution allocates to the Federal Government 17
duties. It specifically forbids the government from infringing on our right to
keep and bear arms. No matter what 2nd Amendment abolitionists think about the
Supreme Court ruling that tells us that we do NOT need to be part of a militia
to keep and bear arms, that ruling has been made.
"The government has no authority to tell a private property owner what to do
with his property"Totally ludicrous Mr Richards.Who
stops your next door neighbor from deciding to open a gas station in his front
yard or a nudist colony in his back yard?You are grossly mistaken if
you believe that you can do anything you want on your private property."No matter what 2nd Amendment abolitionists think about the Supreme Court
ruling that tells us that we do NOT need to be part of a militia to keep and
bear arms, that ruling has been made."My My how selective you
are. That same ruling states the following:(2) Like
most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to
keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever
purpose.You cant hide behind the supreme court when it suits you and
ignore them when it doesn't.
Procura, you just proved that the comment you are trying to rail against is 100%
Airnaut -- that was an EXCELLENT reply to mountanmanThank you.
Procura -- but you failed to include the other half of the Second Amendment.Why?
Re: "Until 2005 . . . it was well established that the second amendment
meant just what it said..in order to maintain a militia."Not
true. Note even close.Disingenuous liberals hate to admit it, but no
court seriously advanced their unsupportable 2d Amendment position -- that the
first 2d Amendment clause somehow limits the scope of the second -- until
FDR's 1934 National Firearms Act [which was, at its base, his response to
an attempt on his life in 1933].FDR's packed Supreme Court
cynically embraced this disingenuous, progressive self-delusion in the 1939
case, US v. Miller, abandoning judicial restraint, and turning all previous
decisions on their heads. It took until 2008 for the Supreme Court to officially
recognize and reverse the error though, at least as early as 1997, it had
questioned Miller's nonsensical mandate.Other than that single
anomalous, politically-motivated 1939 case, and its fallacious progeny, American
Constitutional law has always been, as DC Circuit Judge Silberman wrote in
Parker v. D.C. , "The Amendment does not protect 'the right of
militiamen . . . ,' but rather 'the right of the people.'"
procuradorfiscal: "It's hard for liberals to admit, but the truth is,
laws only deter the law-abiding. They have, not the slightest effect on
lawbreakers or the deranged."I went searching for a reasoning
and found a tautology instead. Agreed, in part-- lawbreakers do not obey laws.
Any dictionary would have told me that. Indeed, laws against evidence tampering
and influence peddling have not seemed (allegedly) to deter some prominent
attorneys. If that is the case, then why have laws at all? Why not rely only
on our innate moral compasses to ensure social harmony? It seems obvious that
laws do have some deterrent effect, although not always to the desired degree.
I suppose procuradorfiscal, to be intellectually consistent, would back repeal
of 30-1-2(5) UCA, because gays are just going to get married anyway, right? And
maybe dispense with food safety laws, because restaurants will serve what they
want to serve, coliforms and all. Caveat emptor.I don't have a
problem with the "common sense" proposals (closing the gun show
loophole, disarming abusive spouses that are subjects of restraining orders).
They aren't going to interfere with our ability to fend off tyrants.
Those on the right, who argue there can be no restriction on the right to bear
arms, are just as mistaken and misinformed as those on the left, if any there
be, who argue that the government could prohibit all forms of arms. As JoeBlow
pointed out, SCOTUS has recently so held. We already have plenty of legitimate
restrictions on who can't bear arms (e.g. felons, minors, lunatics, etc.),
and only the extremists would argue those restrictions are unconstitutional.
Same for type of arms (e.g. machine guns, bazookas, shoulder-held RPG's,
missiles, etc.). So the issue is whether a restriction on gun
ownership by persons in domestic disputes (what the letter writer is proposing)
is a reasonable restriction within the framework of the 2nd amendment, as
interpreted by the Supreme Court. I don't think SCOTUS has ruled on that
specific issue, and until it does, the rhetoric, by those on the extreme right
in particular, is simply sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Mountanman: "Criminals will not obey any of your worthless gun laws and
they never will!"What a specious argument. Criminals by
definition do not obey whatever laws they break; that's why we call them
criminals. So if the fact that a person does not or may not obey a particular
law means that we should not have that law, then we might as well do away with
the entire criminal code, so long as there is one person who might break one of
the laws. No murder, no theft, no rape, no assault, no battery, no DUI, no
nothing. Can you say anarchy?
Now we some who seem to not understand that there are many levels of government.
They don't seem to understand that LOCAL government applies LOCAL zoning
laws and that if we move into an area that has passed LOCAL zoning laws that
limit the use of property, that we are required to obey those laws; however, if
the city tries to pass zoning laws after we own property, that city is in
violation of the ex post facto provision that does not allow a law to be passed
after the fact (ownership limitations) without our approval. In other words,
our use of our property is "grandfathered".Ignorance of
civics leads some to think that if they shout loud enough that their loud voice
will somehow become law. The 2nd Amendment allowing citizens to
keep and bear arms has been ruled to be constitutional. Those who do not
believe in the Bill of Rights will argue otherwise, which only shows their
contempt for our Constitution.
The mocking, epithet filled, thoughtful lunacy, of cynical, disingenuous,
feckless, reckless, doctrinaire, true believing, armist nuts attempting to
further their agenda is entertaining.Please continue.
uncommonsense; ""The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall
not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."
(James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) "Is
that what you mean? There are other quotes where Madison speaks of the right of
Americans to bear arms as a differentiator between them and other nations.
Remember I'm not saying Americans didn't or don't have the right
to bear arms. In 2013 the National Archives launched a searchable
database of the writings and papers of six key founders including Madison. A
search for the phrase "bear arms" produces 153 mentions. All yes all
are in the context of the military. So I don't know what you are
specifically referring to but context is everything.
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahThere seem to be those foolish
enough to tell us that private property owners are somehow agents of the
government when those private property owners tell us that we cannot take our
firearms on their property. PRIVATE PROPERTY owners have the right to decide
what to do with their property. ===== Hypocritically,
YOU want Government getting involving in;PRIVATE couples
bedrooms, PRIVATE persons marriages, and PRIVATE Women's
own bodies.But -- You're still good with GW Bush's
trampling of Privacy with his Patriot Act?!
There are some who think that our present Supreme Court has no authority to
rule. They would probably say that living prophets are not entitled to reveal
the word of God if that "revelation" does not agree with the law as
written by Moses (not withstanding the fact that they openly rebel against the
law as written by Moses).John Robertson is the Chief Justice. What
he rules overrides the writings of anyone who came before him. That is the
nature of a Republic. Those who want gun control will search for a founding
father who wrote something that THEY find acceptable, as they reject the ruling
that comes from our current Court. That probably know better than to do that,
but they just don't care. They ignore the law, unless the agree with the
law.Our Country cannot servive unless those who oppose law become
willing to sustain the law. Those who foolishly rebel against the Constitution
also rebel against America.
@ pragmatistferlife"A well regulated militia, composed of the
body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a
free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8,
1789])""Trained to arms." That would be nice. A
training requirement. And how about giving a woman a few stats before she
agrees to allow her husband or boyfriend to bring a gun into her home. I'm
thinking of the ones that will tell her that, if that gun is used on another
person, it's more likely than not to be used on her and it's likely
that the perpetrator is going to be her mate.Gun restrictions,
training, licensing: None will stop the killing. They'll "just"
When the 2nd amendment was framed, it was designed to protect states from a
tyrannical government, period. It was written in such a way as to assuage the
concerns that states had about federalism. This was the crux of the arguments
that took place when the Bill of Rights were written...the protection of states
while uniting them as one nation with common goals, laws, and ideals.Well-regulated seems to be the key word that is forgotten by many gun
advocates. That seems to be pretty simple language...well-regulated means
trained and monitored, overseen and molded. To me that doesn't in any way
suggest frivolity with an idea that anyone without a record can carry a gun
wherever they want, for whatever reason, and without any measure of training or
organized structure. NOTHING Madison ever spoke regarding the 2nd amendment
would suggest otherwise. The words well regulated, and militia are there for a
reason and not to be taken lightly.
The inconvenient fact is that our right to Keep and BEAR arms have been
increasingly restored over last several years and more citizens are now free to
carry firearms in more places since the year 1900. Yet, homicides, including
homicides with firearms, as well as all other violent crime have been decreasing
since 2006. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership
after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time
firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, citizen
disarmament zealots and organizations predicted that there would be a
corresponding increase in homicides and other violent crime. However, the U.S.
homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010,
and 4.7 per 100,000 in 2011 and 2012. In addition, two recent
studies found that firearms homicides have dropped 49% since 1993.We
don’t need any further restrictions on our Constitutional right to keep
and bear arms.
Question for the Libs. Who is going to define when someone can't have a
gun? Has the abuser been to court and been convicted for domestic violence?
Has the mentally ill person been deemed as mentally ill and that determination
been sent through a court for ratification and potential action? Has the
assaulter been to court and been convicted? Where is the line drawn? Just
because they are charged or going to a shrink, who makes the determination that
they can't possess a firearm? And if found not-guilty or found to be
mentally regular, then do they get their firearms back? I know that these are
hard questions for you Libs.Frankly in my experience, everyone has
character flaws that some would make them insane in certain situations. Are we
going to prejudge someone because they have a character flaw but otherwise are
peaceful law abiding citizens? Frankly I'd rather see guns out of the
hands of alcoholics or drug abusers.
The "Best" Gun control you can have in this society is very simple, it
does not deny the rights to own or carry guns, and it is definitely will reduce
crimes committed with guns.It feeds both the Liberal and
Conservative values and guess what? It is very common sense.Stop
trying to pass gun control laws, they won't work.Stop passing
inane number of laws...DO enforce the laws as written on our books
both on the state and federal laws to the FULLEST if a gun is used in the
commission of the crime.So example:If dude A robs a store
using a gun as a weapon, then the state willForce the local US Attorney to
charge the dude with any Federal laws he has broken.Once convicted, he
will then be tried for any State laws he has violated.IF convicted,
then the two sentences can not be concurrent, meaning that if the dude gets 5
years federal and 5 years state.... He serves 10 years total, no off for good
behavior or any of the stuff.... make the person pay for his crimes.
BTW, legitimate restrictions such as those convicted of a crime or judge to be
nuts by a court are fine. Same with private entities such as the church having
restrictions is fine also. Personally, I know people that pack in the temple
all the time. If no one knows they have the gun, then I personally don't
care and why would they? The temple isn't going to implode. I personally
don't take mine into a temple. I've packed in church before and my
Elders Quorum President packs also as well as others that I know in the ward.
If no one knows, then no one cares. And BTW, no one knows because we don't
say anything about it. The bishop knows that we sometimes pack and doesn't
appear to be concerned. No one is getting ex'd for packing in a sacred
place. It is discouraged but there are no "don't do it or else"
rules in place. If no one know that I have a weapon, then no one cares nor are
they concerned. Sorry.
I read where a man tried to buy a gun at a licences dealer and was denied by the
back ground check system permission to buy a gun. Why? Because when he was a
kid he got in a fight with his brother in the front yard and a cop came by and
stopped the fight. He was charged and convicted of domestic violence.Obviously a person should not be denied their right to have a gun just because
they have a domestic violence conviction. If a person is dangerous and has a
pattern of violence, they should be in prison for public safety sake.
If hoplophobes weren't so constantly on record as declaring they would
really like to disarm Americans completely, maybe we might be more inclined to
trust their protestations that it's just about "common sense"
restrictions, and not an effort to eliminate the right to bear arms by degrees
through the back door.They are just not trustworthy people. So
they're not trusted. Simple, really.
Since several demographics that vote Democratic have disportionately high rates
of gun crime, I propose we start by imposing these "reasonable
restrictions" just on them, and leave the rest of us alone.If
that seems to work out, then we can expand the policy. How's that?