Why Obama shouldn't lead fight against gun violence

[Wry Catcher]

It's harder to imagine why any civilian would need a semiautomatic weapon. Still, it's a free country, and gun ownership is one of the freedoms specifically cited in the Constitution. Responsible gun owners have a right to their guns. The challenge for the grass-roots gun-safety movement of the future is to focus on the danger posed by irresponsible owners. The goal should be less to ban particular classes of weapons -- such a goal puts the law in a race against technology, a race the law will likely lose -- and more to change the rules defining who may keep a gun.

Prospective gun owners should be required to take serious training and pass a safety exam before qualifying for a license. They should be screened for mental illness and histories of violence, very much including domestic violence. They should be required to buy insurance against the harm done by wrongful use of their weapons, and if that insurance proves expensive -- well, too bad. People apprehended in possession of an unlicensed weapon should face severe sanctions.

Taken from this common sense article:

Why Obama shouldn't lead fight against gun violence - CNN.com

 

[The Infidel]

Maybe we as a nation should address mental illness.
That seems to be what is being ignored so far.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Maybe we as a nation should address mental illness.
That seems to be what is being ignored so far.

Mentally ill persons are citizens and have the usual rights of all other citizens unless they have been determined to be a danger to themselves or others - to make that definition broader would put at risk people like RGS, Warrior and a number of other fools who have posted hysterically on their Second Amendment Rights; Ya know, on reflection, that's not a bad idea.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I agree but its not as if congress wouldn't have to send him any legislation for signature.

Bottom line is that the rw's are being told to keep repeating the same LIE over and over - the president wants their guns.

They know its not true but if they say it often enough, they'll believe it and, for the ($$) R, that's all that really matters. Fear and hate and more fear and more hate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's harder to imagine why any civilian would need a semiautomatic weapon. Still, it's a free country, and gun ownership is one of the freedoms specifically cited in the Constitution. Responsible gun owners have a right to their guns. The challenge for the grass-roots gun-safety movement of the future is to focus on the danger posed by irresponsible owners. The goal should be less to ban particular classes of weapons -- such a goal puts the law in a race against technology, a race the law will likely lose -- and more to change the rules defining who may keep a gun.

Prospective gun owners should be required to take serious training and pass a safety exam before qualifying for a license. They should be screened for mental illness and histories of violence, very much including domestic violence. They should be required to buy insurance against the harm done by wrongful use of their weapons, and if that insurance proves expensive -- well, too bad. People apprehended in possession of an unlicensed weapon should face severe sanctions.

Taken from this common sense article:

Why Obama shouldn't lead fight against gun violence - CNN.com

I think perspective voters should be required to take a civics test to prove they understand the way the government functions.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Maybe we as a nation should address mental illness.
That seems to be what is being ignored so far.

Mentally ill persons are citizens and have the usual rights of all other citizens unless they have been determined to be a danger to themselves or others - to make that definition broader would put at risk people like RGS, Warrior and a number of other fools who have posted hysterically on their Second Amendment Rights; Ya know, on reflection, that's not a bad idea.

They actually still have the right to have guns.

People on the terrorists lists can also buy and own guns in the US - without a background list.

And, thats the way NRA plans to keep it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What the hell is a

perspective voter

??

Is that just a misspelling?

About the op, when will David Frum know and understand that he is way too smart to be a pub?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why Obama shouldn't lead fight against gun violence

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, the president does not want Americans' guns.

Two, gun ownership is constitutional, and regulations of gun technology and those who cannot have them are on the way.

Three, the unhinged need to be incarcerated again and such laws are on the way.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

One, the president does not want Americans' guns.

Two, gun ownership is constitutional, and regulations of gun technology and those who cannot have them are on the way.

Three, the unhinged need to be incarcerated again and such laws are on the way.

And, it is congress who would write any "control" laws.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What the hell is a

perspective voter

??

Is that just a misspelling?

About the op, when will David Frum know and understand that he is way too smart to be a pub?

Let me guess, you never have typos.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Prospective gun owners should be required to take serious training and pass a safety exam before qualifying for a license. They should be screened for mental illness and histories of violence, very much including domestic violence. They should be required to buy insurance against the harm done by wrongful use of their weapons, and if that insurance proves expensive -- well, too bad. People apprehended in possession of an unlicensed weapon should face severe sanctions.

Most if not all of these measures pose an undue burden on gun ownership, resulting in a de facto ban – and although courts in certain jurisdictions have upheld such measures, I would oppose the above policy on the Federal level.

In essence, the state may not restrict or preempt a right because of the possibility someone might abuse that right, or otherwise act in an inappropriate manner.

There is no just cause to compel a prospective gun owner to be subjected to a mental health screening absent evidence of mental defect; despite what some might think, wishing to own a gun is not a sign of mental illness.

There is no evidence that mandatory training and safely exams reduce gun violence, and one should not be compelled to buy insurance or incur any other type of expense in order to exercise a Constitutional right.

The first paragraph of the commentary is perfectly reasonable, where gun owners indeed bear responsibility for their firearms, and are prepared to sustain punitive measures should they violate a given gun law or policy - only after they’ve been afforded due process, not before.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Maybe we as a nation should address mental illness.
That seems to be what is being ignored so far.

Mentally ill persons are citizens and have the usual rights of all other citizens unless they have been determined to be a danger to themselves or others - to make that definition broader would put at risk people like RGS, Warrior and a number of other fools who have posted hysterically on their Second Amendment Rights; Ya know, on reflection, that's not a bad idea.

Which includes the right to due process, absent in the OP proposal.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's harder to imagine why any civilian would need a semiautomatic weapon. Still, it's a free country, and gun ownership is one of the freedoms specifically cited in the Constitution. Responsible gun owners have a right to their guns. The challenge for the grass-roots gun-safety movement of the future is to focus on the danger posed by irresponsible owners. The goal should be less to ban particular classes of weapons -- such a goal puts the law in a race against technology, a race the law will likely lose -- and more to change the rules defining who may keep a gun.

Prospective gun owners should be required to take serious training and pass a safety exam before qualifying for a license. They should be screened for mental illness and histories of violence, very much including domestic violence. They should be required to buy insurance against the harm done by wrongful use of their weapons, and if that insurance proves expensive -- well, too bad. People apprehended in possession of an unlicensed weapon should face severe sanctions.

Taken from this common sense article:

Why Obama shouldn't lead fight against gun violence - CNN.com

I think perspective voters should be required to take a civics test to prove they understand the way the government functions.

Thanks for sharing, I know not what exactly you mean, but I'm pretty sure it's fully partisan and fully supportive of whatever the right wing propagandists tell you what to believe.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Prospective gun owners should be required to take serious training and pass a safety exam before qualifying for a license. They should be screened for mental illness and histories of violence, very much including domestic violence. They should be required to buy insurance against the harm done by wrongful use of their weapons, and if that insurance proves expensive -- well, too bad. People apprehended in possession of an unlicensed weapon should face severe sanctions.

Most if not all of these measures pose an undue burden on gun ownership, resulting in a de facto ban – and although courts in certain jurisdictions have upheld such measures, I would oppose the above policy on the Federal level.

In essence, the state may not restrict or preempt a right because of the possibility someone might abuse that right, or otherwise act in an inappropriate manner.

There is no just cause to compel a prospective gun owner to be subjected to a mental health screening absent evidence of mental defect; despite what some might think, wishing to own a gun is not a sign of mental illness.

There is no evidence that mandatory training and safely exams reduce gun violence, and one should not be compelled to buy insurance or incur any other type of expense in order to exercise a Constitutional right.

The first paragraph of the commentary is perfectly reasonable, where gun owners indeed bear responsibility for their firearms, and are prepared to sustain punitive measures should they violate a given gun law or policy - only after they’ve been afforded due process, not before.

The problems with your analysis is doing so violates the Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution, to wit: "The Congress shall have the power To ... provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States ...". Of course any citizen should be provided due process and isn't that what background checks and waiting lists provide?

Your response?

 

[Harry Dresden]

It's harder to imagine why any civilian would need a semiautomatic weapon. Still, it's a free country, and gun ownership is one of the freedoms specifically cited in the Constitution. Responsible gun owners have a right to their guns. The challenge for the grass-roots gun-safety movement of the future is to focus on the danger posed by irresponsible owners. The goal should be less to ban particular classes of weapons -- such a goal puts the law in a race against technology, a race the law will likely lose -- and more to change the rules defining who may keep a gun.

Prospective gun owners should be required to take serious training and pass a safety exam before qualifying for a license. They should be screened for mental illness and histories of violence, very much including domestic violence. They should be required to buy insurance against the harm done by wrongful use of their weapons, and if that insurance proves expensive -- well, too bad. People apprehended in possession of an unlicensed weapon should face severe sanctions.

Taken from this common sense article:

Why Obama shouldn't lead fight against gun violence - CNN.com

the guy isn't much of a Leader ....so why would anyone think he can Lead in this?....

 

[Harry Dresden]

It's harder to imagine why any civilian would need a semiautomatic weapon. Still, it's a free country, and gun ownership is one of the freedoms specifically cited in the Constitution. Responsible gun owners have a right to their guns. The challenge for the grass-roots gun-safety movement of the future is to focus on the danger posed by irresponsible owners. The goal should be less to ban particular classes of weapons -- such a goal puts the law in a race against technology, a race the law will likely lose -- and more to change the rules defining who may keep a gun.

Prospective gun owners should be required to take serious training and pass a safety exam before qualifying for a license. They should be screened for mental illness and histories of violence, very much including domestic violence. They should be required to buy insurance against the harm done by wrongful use of their weapons, and if that insurance proves expensive -- well, too bad. People apprehended in possession of an unlicensed weapon should face severe sanctions.

Taken from this common sense article:

Why Obama shouldn't lead fight against gun violence - CNN.com

I think perspective voters should be required to take a civics test to prove they understand the way the government functions.

Thanks for sharing, I know not what exactly you mean, but I'm pretty sure it's fully partisan and fully supportive of whatever the right wing propagandists tell you what to believe.

....you believe whatever the Left Wing Propagandists tell you to believe.....so how the hell are you any different.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup.

One, the president does not want Americans' guns.

Two, gun ownership is constitutional, and regulations of gun technology and those who cannot have them are on the way.

Three, the unhinged need to be incarcerated again and such laws are on the way.

And, it is congress who would write any "control" laws.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Regulations are not an undue burden when the lack of them endangers public safety.

Regulations of technology and registration are constitutional, end of story.

 

[bripat9643]

It's harder to imagine why any civilian would need a semiautomatic weapon. Still, it's a free country, and gun ownership is one of the freedoms specifically cited in the Constitution. Responsible gun owners have a right to their guns. The challenge for the grass-roots gun-safety movement of the future is to focus on the danger posed by irresponsible owners. The goal should be less to ban particular classes of weapons -- such a goal puts the law in a race against technology, a race the law will likely lose -- and more to change the rules defining who may keep a gun.

Prospective gun owners should be required to take serious training and pass a safety exam before qualifying for a license. They should be screened for mental illness and histories of violence, very much including domestic violence. They should be required to buy insurance against the harm done by wrongful use of their weapons, and if that insurance proves expensive -- well, too bad. People apprehended in possession of an unlicensed weapon should face severe sanctions.

Taken from this common sense article:

Why Obama shouldn't lead fight against gun violence - CNN.com

That's all a violation of the 2nd amendment, moron. What part of "shall not be infringed" do left-wing imbeciles like you not understand?