I have a better idea...
Instead of playing the name games...
Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....
What crap is that?
Let me guess you want the killings to continue...
No. Some of your conservative brethern see nothing wrong with mass killings and simply say there is nothing we can do to solve the problem. Just ask them.
Nah I don't give a **** about them...I am so sick and tired of reading this on the news
What is your answer candy?
We have to stop them
Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight." It will take a generation or two.
First, you simply accept that the 2nd Amendment will not be going anywhere. The framers put in place an unassailable fortress around the Constitution. The only successful assault on the document was to revoke an amendment that prohibited alcohol. The resulting increase in violent crime along with a great depression (the country could use a drink about that time) resulted in a favorable atmosphere. Also, an amendment passed by the same folks who were going to repeal it a few terms later didn't seem so egregious as trying to overturn the works of Madison, Monroe and Washington. As crazy as the whole episode with the 19th amendment was, there are lessons to be learned from there. The first step in reducing the gun play that is resulting in so many campus slaughters is to reduce the need for guns in the first place. This is a binary tract that goes for those who perceive a need for self-defense as well as those on offense who follow the Larry the Liquidator mindset of "They have theirs so I have mine". Larry was talking about lawyers of course. The actual quote from IMDB is "They're like nuclear warheads. They have theirs, so I have mine. Once you use them, they **** up everything." I would imagine that those who use guns daily are of several mindsets but most would probably fall into Larry's camp of rather not using them and risking a felony sentence therein than simply acquiring what they want through other means. I'm sure there are numerous psychopaths who love inflicting pain and torment as well but in general terms, I think a majority would rather just show you they are armed and prefer not to pull the trigger.
We are at a similar cross-roads today with marijuana and other controlled substances. The violence on our city streets is not over purse snatching or punks stealing bicycles. The "real money" is in dealing drugs so the real violence is in dealing out misery to anyone who dare infringes on your turf and tries to take the money from you.
So first and foremost is to legalize some of the drugs that are causing the spike in violence.
This move in and of itself will have 3 effects. First, it allows the armed constabulary to focus more on drugs that are more dangerous such as heroin, crack, methamphetamine, and cocaine. It will stand to reason that the police will be more successful when their focus is not diffused. Secondly, the number of players will be reduced. Not everyone who is dealing pot will "shift" into doing the other four either due to opportunity, territory, infrastructure, or simple seriousness of those drugs compared to merely "getting baked".Lastly, the resulting reduction in violence will cause some who are thinking they need to buy a gun not to. This is important later.
The next step is legislative. Oh boy. It involves attacking supply and demand.
Under DHS Directive 5, the head of DHS can declare something a national emergency. It needn't be a hurricane, typhoon, earthquake, terrorist attack, etc. The language goes like this:
The Secretary shall coordinate the Federal Government's resources utilized in response to or recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other emergencies if and when any one of the following four conditions applies: (1) a Federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested the assistance of the Secretary; (2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed and Federal assistance has been requested by the appropriate State and local authorities; (3) more than one Federal department or agency has become substantially involved in responding to the incident; or (4) the Secretary has been directed to assume responsibility for managing the domestic incident by the President.
The DOE could act under the first condition. POTUS could act under the 4th.
Anyway, it goes on to read in the annex #16:
16. The Secretary shall develop, submit for review to the Homeland Security Council, and administer a National Response Plan (NRP). The Secretary shall consult with appropriate Assistants to the President (including the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy) and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and other such Federal officials as may be appropriate, in developing and implementing the NRP. This plan shall integrate Federal Government domestic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery plans into one all-discipline, all-hazards plan
Congress can (and of course should) be brought on board. In the same way costs are inferred with licenses, insurance, and bonding at the State level, federal laws can be passed to require gun makers to carry what amounts to a license with each gun purchased by Dick's, Sporting Goods, Cubela's, Bass Pro Shops, etc. Lets say the license today is $1,000 per firearm. So for a Dick's location to stock it's shelves with 500 guns, that one location has to outlay $500,000 additional dollars.
Sorry.
So when you buy a gun for $299.00; it will cost you $299 + $1,000 license for that particular gun. Don't worry; it's transferable.
Increase the costs of weapons to reduce the overall supply; over time.
Okay, so now Jane Doe has a $299 pistol and a $1,000 license. That $1,000 is invested in that State's employee pension program. The returns start accumulating immediately through compound interest. However, it is capped at a return of, let's say, $10,000 in 10 years. A 100% return rate per year sounds really high but most pensions (including mine from Texas) matches contributions at 200% or so. Jane's license is appreciating.
So 3 things happen here:
1. Jane (being a responsible gun owner who shops retail) is likely to keep her gun because she's making a killing on the investment. This shorts the chances of her selling it.
2. If the gun is stolen, she reports it immediately to cash in the $1,000 policy. Appreciation didn't happen since she didn't hold it for the full 10 years.
3. Most importantly, at the end of 10 years, she can sell her gun back to the Federal Government for whatever they are paying for it ....likely not that much admittedly...but she can use the bond to buy another weapon OR she can cash in the bond for $10,000 cash (plus the initial investment of $1,000). So she walks out of the ATF/State Police office with $11,000 in her purse. She may wish to keep the bond however (or transfer it at a price she demands) to whomever willing to pay her price AND who passes a background check. Governments being governments, the costs of the policy will increase over time so in ten years, the initial investment may be $2,500 making a $299 gun's price $2,799. So you may wish to keep the $1,000 "bond" and use your $10 K to buy a new cool gun and "only" increase it by $1,000. Or simply keep the gun and the policy and do nothing.
Needless to say a FBI/State Police forensic check will be one against bullets recovered to see if there a match to any crimes as well.
Create a market-driven motivation to limit the mobility of guns through the society.
Other ideas for using market forces could be increasing the match from 100% per year to 150% during a buy-back program so if you're 5 years into your ownership history, the State may offer you a period where you can "cash in" for $5,000 to $7,500 so you walk out with $6,000 (5K + your 1K original outlay) or $8,500.
Enforcement needs to be front and center. I would do the following: If you brandish a weapon or indicate you have a weapon during commission of a crime (not defending), it is a federal rap. So if you are making terroristic threats to your ex-wife saying that you'll go home and get a gun and kill her; that is now a federal crime under this statute. And the federal rap comes with no parole. Tell the clerk at a 7/11 you have a gun during a robbery....you get the State robbery charge for however long it lasts then when it's over, you get a federal gun rap. The State lets you out after 3 years of a 10 year sentence, Uncle Sam and his prison goons scoop you up to start your federal sentence. Use a gun in a murder, life in Fort Collins or other fed pen; no parole.
Sell a gun without the policy at a gun show, at your home, or out of your trunk. Boom; federal crime.
Steal a gun from anyone (policy or not), Boom; federal crime.
Use the Bureau of Prisons printing plant (if there is one) to print a gazillion posters detailing the sentences and the fact that if you're sentenced to 9 years, 3 months, 8 days, and 37 minutes you'll serve 9/3/8/37 (7 states away BTW)and put them in every school, gun store, shooting range, etc....
Create an atmosphere to where there are real consequences for gun crimes; not the current slap on the wrist.
Beef up background checks to include interviews with randomly flagged applicants.
Appoint armed guards at each campus. Get rid of the strength coach for the football team and hire some guards
Form partnerships with local gun clubs including the NRA to spread awareness. If they don't want to participate; that's cool but I think most would.
----------------
Anyway, what will happen over time is this: Increased prices lower sales. Lower sales mean less units produced. This reduces overall supply. Creating a market driven model whereby responsible gun ownership is monetarily encouraged and awarded (at the same time creating another penalty for dishonest actors to suffer) will stop the mobility of firearms through the society. Enforcing current laws and enhancing penalties for gun-involved crimes will result in bad actors and their guns being removed from circulation also. Additionally, decriminalizing (and thus removing the violence associated with) some drugs will push the "casual suppliers" out of the market.
when you look up the word liberal and educate your self, come on back and join the party! Liberals are not totalitarian dictators...that is more in line with those identifying themselves as conservatives.
