Despite what lobbyists for gun rights and the gun industry profess, the United States can reduce gun violence of all kinds, and we can do it through gun-control legislation.
There would be no greater tribute to those killed and maimed in Uvalde, Aurora, Orlando, Boulder, Sandy Hook Elementary School and most recently Nashville, Dadeville and Louisville — and every day across the country — than to finally act as a nation to stem this national tragedy.
Like a growing number of American communities, the hindsight of Aurora victims is crystal clear; America must act. State Sen. Tom Sullivan of Centennial, whose son, Alex, was killed during the Aurora theater shooting, is a state leader in pushing past resistance from the gun industry and misguided gun activists.
His pragmatic advice is clear: the money is more critical to the issue than political histrionics.
The once-honorable National Rifle Association has evolved to become a ruthless political arm of the nation’s $21-billion-a-year gun industry. Its clear focus is to ensure the easy and prolific procurement, use and sale of firearms and ammunition.
Over the past few decades, the NRA and similar organizations — including Rocky Mountain Gun Owners — have deviously woven a gun-rights mythology with fierce patriotism. How could it in any way be patriotic to turn firearms on fellow citizens upwards of 100,000 times a year?
These groups prey on unwitting subjects of a vastly expensive and relentless marketing scheme: guns are freedom.
That’s coupled with an ocean of money spent annually on ensuring compliance from obedient and fearful members of Congress and state legislatures.
The NRA mythology is pegged on equating the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, guaranteeing free speech, with the Second Amendment, preserving the ability of citizen militias to help defend the nation against foreign invaders. They have worked tirelessly to persuade Congress and voters that there should be no regulation of firearms in the same way there is virtually no regulation of speech.
The result is a chaotic free-for-all where about 100,000 Americans are killed or maimed each year by firearms.
What used to be the tragic reputation of urban megalopolises like Chicago and Los Angeles, the talk of shootings in the Aurora-Denver metro area are now daily events.
We are killed and wounded by guns at a rate that is 25 times higher than any other developed democratic nation. It is our nation’s biggest embarrassment and preventable tragedy.
Just days after the Louisville massacre, as the TV camera’s poked in the face of Americans just like they’ve done after every other American mass shooting, people said they had no hope anything would change. They said that these massacres are simply the price we pay for our Second Amendment freedom, or our inability to fight back against the mythology.
It is hard to fathom anything more un-American than that cynical despair, and a life further from what most would consider “freedom.”
This is the nation that has conquered space, slavery, Nazi Germany, and the institutionalized discrimination against minorities, women and gays. We can find remedies to this deadly national scourge.
First, we must compel our elected officials to review and decide gun legislation on its merits and not under the crushing political weight of the NRA and other gun-industry lobbies. Their decisions must be in our interest, not that of the NRA and the gun industry.
Colorado is a leader in pressing past the resistance, offering evolving red-flag laws, mandatory registration and other modest steps toward keeping guns from nefarious and mentally unstable people. Guns have become so prolific, they’re easily stolen from car gloveboxes and night-stands by children and others every single day.
Holding gun owners accountable by requiring the same responsibilities we require of car owners and motorists must be a priority.
The nation must not just allow, but compel the Centers for Disease Control and other U.S. agencies to freely conduct firearms research, analysis and policy development. As directed by the NRA, Congress has for decades forbid this.
All firearms must be registered and licensed, and all purchases must include a substantial background check. The licensing must at least parallel what we demand to license car drivers. Scholars have long agreed this is possible under the Second Amendment, even after controversial recent Supreme Court rulings. It’s just been banned by the NRA for years. Annual licensing could ensure training, safe storage and even an annual medical exam to help detect dangerous mental illness. Such licensing would greatly help to reduce the number of weapons legally and illegally carried and used by gangs and other criminals.
And Congress must vastly reduce the quantity of firearms and ammunition now easily purchased and legal that is nothing less than weaponry designed and needed only for military application. Colorado has failed again in that goal, and with the ease of moving these military weapons across state lines, only national legislation can work.
In addition, large quantities of firearms and ammunition should warrant review the same way we require review of amassing any lethal substance or device.
As a society, we must disregard the propaganda and utter nonsense that assault-style weapons serve a needed purpose among ranchers and farmers, or are an important part of recreation.
Colorado Congressman Ken Buck infamously insisted that farmers need assault rifles to control racoons. It’s that ludicrous bravado that Americans disgusted by rampant gun violence must push back against.
For those who faithfully believe they need military armory to protect themselves against an attack by our own government or by foreign agents, we suggest psychiatric care, not military weaponry. The U.S. military and our state militias are not lacking any weaponry to ensure our defense.
All other arguments are nothing but NRA deflections, fearmongering and fatuous complaints.
For those who insist these and other meaningful measures won’t reduce daily gun violence and mass murders, the dozens of free, Democratic nations across the globe that protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen and reasonably regulate firearms are proof that it can be done.
Now would be the time to start.
I am hoping that Reps. Daugherty, Sharbini, Snyder, and Marshall, and the current House and Senate ‘leaders’ read this as they prepare for their primaries. Shame on them.
Terrific! thanks for laying bare the issue here:MONEY. Unfortunately, many well meaning folks have been duped into thinking they would be losing something valuable by restricting gun use to qualified individuals. All that is lost of common sense and the lives of too many of our children. Should we ashamed that we are the only nation in the world where the major cause of death is gun violence? That’s a primary question in my mind.
Your side’s been passing increasingly restrictive gun laws ever since Columbine, each time promising “this will make our communities safer!” and the Front Range continues to be a mass shooting haven. Maybe the problem isn’t the guns, but the area devolving into a toxic, drug-addled, over-scaled toilet bowl in that time.
Re: “common sense”
In 1934, 1938, 1968, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2007, 2018 and 2022 I suspect similar arguments were made for “common sense” when more restrictive federal gun laws were passed. Since all of the regulations derived from these laws are apparently not enough, maybe you can understand the reluctance of gun owners to entertain the idea of sitting quietly and accepting a new barrage. The problem is the real agenda of the people who are leading the charge for more gun control is to ban all guns except for the government and governments (unlike individuals) hold the world record for killing people that don’t agree with them. The reality is implementing expanded background checks or banning semi-automatic rifles (like the AR) or standard capacity magazines has nothing to do with keeping the people safe – it’s about using a horrific crimes like mass shootings to whip lawmakers into an emotional frenzy to goad them into quickly advancing the agenda of gun control irrespective of any facts in more incremental “progressive” steps in order to set a new baseline and move the goal posts to the point where an unscrupulous government would have the option to do what ever they please.
I notice in media of other countries, Russia, China, Germany, France, Canada, how well gun control laws are working all over this planet. What do our Editorial Board know, that no one else on the planet does? In discussion with Police Chief of Hawaii, in 1975, after son had gone to 42 class days, for 1st period, then skipped with buddies, that Chief met with legislators (had copied and sent letter to each) and was scheduled to meet Legislative joint body, to “take tardiness, and school age children control on streets, during school hours) from the Educational”, and give Police Department authority. In visit to Hawaii in 2001, wife and I visited some of the schools, and observed Fences around the sites, with no parking or driving inside that area, though gate and driveway to building, was for delivery of supplies, repairs, cleaning. Closed all other times.
School personnel were responsible, to oversee entrance, or departure of students, or others, through one entrance area. And all visitors were escorted to admittance desk, near that one entrances/departure gate area.
All students ate at school, with cafeteria cards, or bag lunches they brought to school. Students did not leave schools if parents had not called and arranged, but rolls were checked at first period classes, and call made to home, if student was not present, and no prior notice made. CRIME WAS DOWN, AND STUDENTS WERE LEARNING, AND BEING RECOGNIZED, ON JOBS AND COLLEGES, WITH HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF GRADUATES.
If our children, grandchildren, etc. are important to parents and relatives, why do we not have fences buildings without glass doors, or low windows on ground level, and School officials having authority in the educational facility, same as we have for banks, stores, and other facilities. We even have fences around sporting events or facilities, with controlled entrances or departure, with parking vehicles outside or in separate parking areas. .
You are describing a prison.
“The result is a chaotic free-for-all where about 100,000 Americans are killed or maimed each year by firearms.”
It’s notable that Perry is now including firearm-related injuries to increase the body count, since the long-employed use of counting all firearm-related deaths is inevitably met with the reality that most of the deaths are actually suicides, not assaults.
Meanwhile, per the CDC, “Excessive alcohol use was responsible for more than 140,000 deaths in the United States each year during 2015–2019, or more than 380 deaths per day.” Where’s the catastrophic affect from Perry and the Front Range marxists on the dangers of alcohol use? Oh, that’s right–alcohol’s something they enjoy indulging in (along with other drugs), therefore it gets a pass, despite the fact that alcohol use can no doubt be traced to numerous gun violence incidents as well.
All deaths are equal, but some are more equal than others. If the left really cared about public safety, they’d be calling for the repeal of the 21st Amendment, rather than these performative spectacles on gun laws where they claim “don’t worry, we got it right this time!”
But this is not about the Second Amendment Mr. Orphan! You are talking about the Eighteenth, and the Twenty First Amendments! Please review your Constitution! Or we could just remember the lesson of the history of the “Roaring” twenties. When we make a Law to Prohibit something, it does not make the something go away. It simply goes underground to the Black Market, where only people willing to break the law have access to the something, and the sellers make such incredible profits they are willing to kill people to protect their market share. Alcohol is, as you say, a “something they enjoy indulging in.” Guns, even if you only ban the scariest-looking ones, are a something that’s a life-or-death matter!
So, what’s the ‘right’ number of gun deaths in your estimation?
The same number of alcohol deaths that you consider acceptable.
Re: “Second Amendment, preserving the ability of citizen militias to help defend the nation against foreign invaders”
Not true. The purpose of the Second Amendment is clearly stated in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights where it says “The convention of a number of states having at the time of their adopting of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse, of its powers that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”. Note that when the Second Amendment was written, every weapon was a weapon of war, there were no restrictions on the private ownership of weapons by law abiding, private citizens and the citizen militia (i.e. the people) were equally matched with the Continental Army. After all, if they weren’t equally matched, it would be pretty hard to deter or “prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the government’s powers – so in reality, the citizen militia of today should have the same firearms as the current US military. Unfortunately we are no longer equally matched because we have let our gun rights be eroded by buying into this notion if we just compromise to accommodate the people who – for whatever reason – don’t like guns they will quit trying to take away our gun rights. History has shown that no matter how much we compromise, it’s never enough so we need to stop compromising.
So you advocate for private ownership of tanks, missiles, fighter jets subs, etc wow.
You don’t need armaments to cause a lot of damage with a tank or a plane. The Killdozer and 9/11 are elegant proof of that.
Re: “So you advocate for private ownership of tanks, missiles, fighter jets subs, etc wow’
Civilians can and do own military grade weapons under the provisions of the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) and you don’t hear about any of them being used to commit a crime. However in some cases the owners have to comply with federal, state, and local ordinances regarding the transportation and storage of explosives. The only things I am aware of that are specifically outlawed are WMD’s by treaty and machine guns manufactured after 1986 and that law was passed by Democrats using unethical means and the SCOTUS has never ruled on its Constitutionality. Nevertheless, according to the BATF there are currently 175977 fully automatic, legal, pre-1986 machine guns in civilian hands and I can find only one that was used in a crime since 1934 and that was by a police officer using his personal MAC-11 submachine gun to murder a suspected drug dealer in an unauthorized drug raid on September 15, 1988 in Dayton, OH
The once-honorable National Rifle Association has evolved to become a ruthless political arm of the nation’s $21-billion-a-year gun industry
They “evolved” in the 1970’s when it became obvious that the intent of the people preaching gun safety really wanted to ban all guns from private ownership. Specifically, In 1976 a gentleman by the name of Nelson Shields said the following “The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal.” Nelson Shields was one of the founders of Handgun Control Inc which is better known under their current “re-branded” name as The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. In 1987 another gentleman by the name of Josh Sugarmann said regarding so called assault weapons “The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” In a Jan/Feb 1994 interview in Mother Jones Magazine he said, “To end the crisis [gun violence], we have to regulate- or, in the case of handguns and assault weapons, completely ban- the product…. We are far past the where registration, licensing, safety training, background checks, or waiting periods will have much effect on firearms violence.”
In 1988 in response to an NRA comment about criminals always being able to get handguns Sugarmann also said “The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns”. On 11/4/99 he said in a NYT interview “A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls — such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines — and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns. Real gun control will take courage. In the long run, half-measures and compromises only sacrifice lives.” Josh Sugarmann is currently the head and founder of the Violence policy Center and was one of the founders of The Coalition to Ban Handguns which is better known under their current “re-branded” name as The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. While the names and tactics of these organizations may have changed, the goals and a lot of the personnel remain the same.
Hooray for Nelson Shields and Josh Sugarman! Voices of reason.
Jim, you never answered my question: how many firearm deaths and maimings would you consider acceptable?
Re: “Hooray for Nelson Shields and Josh Sugarman! Voices of reason”
I guess it depends on your point of view. I see those people as vessels of deceit otherwise they would be honest and get Congress to start the process to repeal the Second Amendment
Re: “All firearms must be registered and licensed”
Note it would only apply to law-abiding citizens – all criminals would be exempt because of the Haynes v US SCOTUS decision in 1968
Re: and all purchases must include a substantial background check”
If the totality of what is really desired is universal background checks on all gun transfers, the answer is simple and easy – give anyone free, anonymous, public access to the federal NICS background check database of persons prohibited from owning firearms and then tell private sellers if you sell or give a firearm to someone and don’t retain something that documents you did a favorable NICS check on the buyer, you could be held liable if they commit a gun-related crime. There is no reason to get the government involved any further in the process unless you have other goals in mind like a federal registry of all firearms.
Re: “annual medical exam to help detect dangerous mental illness”
There are 2 problems with this. First, mental health issues aren’t necessarily present at the time of an evaluation and lots of mentally ill people “present well” – i.e. they are good at hiding their true personality unless it is inadvertently revealed in a psychotic break or crisis situation. The second problem is there are no objective criteria for a mental health evaluation. As is evidenced in court trials, you often have “experts” who disagree and reach completely different conclusions. When this ambiguity is married to regulations written by unaccountable bureaucrats and used by people who are trying to ban all guns from private citizens it would make it extremely difficult if not impossible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm.
Re: “Such licensing would greatly help to reduce the number of weapons legally and illegally carried and used by gangs and other criminals”
The US DOJ did study in 2004 that interviewed criminals serving prison sentences to determine where they got their firearms. In that study 37.4% said they got their guns from private sales or transfers from “family and friends” which didn’t require a background check. This begs the question – what are the scruples of the family and friends of a criminal? I don’t know what new law you could pass to close a loophole that would force likely witting family members or criminal cohorts to run background checks on other criminals when all the parties involved will probably ignore any relevant laws. Note, in the same study, another 40.0% said they obtained their guns illegally (which obviously didn’t require a background check) while only 0.8% said they got their guns from gun shows.
Facts remain: most firearm fatalities and maimings happen between people who are known to each other, and most people who commit mass shootings by guns have no criminal records.
Re: “Facts remain: most firearm fatalities and maimings happen between people who are known to each other, and most people who commit mass shootings by guns have no criminal records”
I responded to this further down the thread
Re: “compel the Centers for Disease Control and other U.S. agencies to freely conduct firearms research, analysis and policy development”
This is currently allowed under current laws. There is not a ban on “research” but there is a ban on advocacy for gun control. Specifically the law states “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control” (Google public law 104-208 and look at page 245). An example of this “advocacy” that lead to this restriction is in the 1994 American Medical News interview with Dr. Katherine Christoffel, head of the “Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan”, a CDC-funded organization who said: “guns are a virus that must be eradicated… They are causing an epidemic of death by gunshot, which should be treated like any epidemic…you get rid of the virus…get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of deaths.” Another example is from the then head of the CDC – Mark Rosenberg – “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly and banned.”
They were right then, and they are right now.
Re: “They were right then, and they are right now”
No, they were wrong. “Guns” are not a virus. They don’t harm anyone unless a person points it at someone and pulls the trigger.
Re: “100,000 Americans are killed or maimed each year by firearms”
According to the CDC, in 2019 there were 38355 deaths from firearms and most were suicides while 14414 were homicides. If someone wants to ki11 themselves it’s a matter of individual choice where the person can pick the time, place and method and an argument can also be made that an individual’s life belongs to them exclusively and not you, the State or anyone else. In addition, suicide is not illegal at the federal level or in any state I can find and some states allow assisted suicide. Note also that the number of suicides committed with firearms (23941) was about equal to the number committed by other means (23570) so as long as there are other options, it’s not clear that restricting firearms would have any effect on the number of suicides.
Homicides are a different story. 14414 people murdered with firearms in the US works out to about 39 people per day. These are the “word doctored” figures the news media and anti-gun folks like to publicize because people relate to the magnitude of those numbers and it sounds like a lot of people until you realize this is out of a population of 330 million Americans. In that context, it works out to about 1 person out of every 23,000 people being murdered with a firearm. Dwell on the magnitude of your individual significance next time you are in a stadium with 23,000 people and you will realize these events are rare. It is also estimated there are 109 million gun owners in the US which means on any given day 108,999,961 gun owners didn’t ki11 anyone yet because the news media magnifies these relatively isolated and infrequent events to the level of an epidemic, the anti-gun folks answer is to take the guns away from people who harmed no one The number of firearm homicides will never be zero – so if you think 1 person out of 23,000 is unacceptable then given the fact that deranged individuals and murderers are an intrinsic part of the human race and we currently live in a free society, what number of illegal firearm homicides would ever be acceptable to you to the point you would say “we don’t need any more restrictions on the private ownership of firearms”?
So, what’s the ‘right’ number?
Re: ” So, what’s the ‘right’ number?”
Keep reading
Re: ” We are killed and wounded by guns at a rate that is 25 times higher than any other developed democratic nation”
It depends on how you define the narrow field of “other developed democratic nation” and note in the US with an estimated 109 million gun owners with 434 million guns and billions or trillions of rounds of ammunition – if legal gun owners were a problem, you would know it and there would be a lot more than ~15-20000 firearm homicides each year
Re: ” We can find remedies to this deadly national scourge”
The problem you have is that in 2016 (for example) there were 667300 violent criminals in state prisons and 20900 in federal prisons. This works out to a total of 688200 or about 0.214% of the US population which means that about 1 out of every 466 people in the US that have been caught have no qualms about ignoring whatever laws you pass and killing or injuring someone and the gun is often their tool of choice. So the bottom line is (1) The human race in the US produces a few bad individuals prone to violence who just refuse to play by whatever rules you promulgate and until you find some way to identify these individuals and the courage to permanently eliminate them from society, innocent people are going to be killed (2) Because of these bad individuals, bad things happen every day to people who through no fault of their own were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Criminals will always have guns if they want them. If worst comes to worst they will be smuggled into the US from Mexico inside a bale of marijuana or shipment of fentanyl and sold on the black market.
Most of the guns used in criminal activity in Mexico come from the USA.
Re: “Most of the guns used in criminal activity in Mexico come from the USA”
Only the ones that can be traced because they have serial numbers. Sounds like another good reason to secure the Border. And many of the fully automatic ones and other heavy weapons come from the US government that were given or sold to the corrupt Mexican military.
Re: ” First, we must compel our elected officials to review and decide gun legislation on its merits”
Or you could start by enforcing the laws already on the books and insist empathetic judges and DAs quit allowing people who use or possess a gun illegally to plea bargain away the illegal firearms offense. The feds are one of the worst offenders when it comes to enforcing laws. Straw purchases and lying on the 4473 form you have to fill out for a background check to purchase a firearm is a felony punishable by 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine – yet in 2010 76142 people failed the background check, 4732 were deemed worthy of prosecution and only 62 were referred for prosecution. Another thing you could do since most of the gun homicides are caused by gangs or repeat offenders is to advocate for a law that would impose a mandatory death sentence on any recidivist with a violent criminal history that uses a firearm to commit a crime regardless of childhood upbringing, economic impoverishment, mental health, age, IQ, ethnicity, $ex or gender identity.
Jim, most homicides happen between people who are known to each other. Very few of the murderers who commit mass shootings had a criminal record.So, that kind of blows your blather about ‘…most of the gun homicides are caused by gangs or repeat offenders.’ You filled the comments page with your screeds but have not said, in all your math, how many gun deaths a day are acceptable. What’s your number?
“Jim, most homicides happen between people who are known to each other.”–Yes, Gene, most gang members tend to know each other, what’s the problem?
Without gangs, gun violence levels would plummet to European levels.
“You filled the comments page with your screeds but have not said, in all your math, how many gun deaths a day are acceptable. What’s your number?”–You clearly think 380 alcohol deaths a day are acceptable. Why do you want so many people to die, Gene?
Re: “Jim, most homicides happen between people who are known to each other”
80% are committed by criminals that by law cannot legally own a firearm so they would qualify as repeat offenders. I don’t know if they know they people they murder but I’m not sure why it’s relevant.
Re: “Very few of the murderers who commit mass shootings had a criminal record… So, that kind of blows your blather about ‘…most of the gun homicides are caused by gangs or repeat offenders ”
And mass murders involving innocent civilians are rare. The Gun Violence Archive (GVA) – an anti-gun organization with an agenda that is often quoted by the mainstream media – claims there were 610 mass shootings in 2020 when the FBI statistics said there were 40. The difference is the GVA calls them “mass shootings” and the FBI calls them “active shooter incidents” and excludes gang and drug and other criminal related shootings and the news media exploits the ambiguity and leaves a false impression by claiming the FBI doesn’t have a definition of “mass shootings”.
Re: “how many gun deaths a day are acceptable. What’s your number?”
I like, most sane people, would like it to be zero – but that is not going to happen when at least 1 out of 466 people in the US are convicted violent criminals so I’m okay with where we are unless you can find a way to lower it without punishing or “infringing” on 109 million legal gun owners who have harmed no one.
So what’s “your number” and tell me how you are going to get there?
So, you’re immune to data. Using facts to counter your arguments is like trying to teach a pig to sing.
You haven’t countered a single thing he said with data, just appeals to emotion, which is all the gun grabbers have.
Re: ” So, you’re immune to data”
“Immune” to what data? The only “data” you have presented is in the form of general statements
Re: “Using facts to counter your arguments is like trying to teach a pig to sing”
What “facts” am I ignoring that you are you talking about”? And you didn’t answer my question – specifically ” So what’s “your number” and tell me how you are going to get there?”
If you want to treat guns like cars, I’m all for it.
1) I can buy a car without any permission whatsoever from federal, state or local governments from anywhere – a dealer, a private party, a police auction, etc..
2) I can own as many as I can afford.
3) I can buy as many in a month as I wish to.
4) I can sell one to anyone, a minor, an ex-con, or even a drunk. No background check required.
5) I can sell a car for cash, and leave the title transfer to the buyer.
6) I can give a car away to literally anyone.
7) If I don’t drive it on public roads, I don’t have to register it, license it, or insure it.
8) With a state issued driver’s license I can drive any of my vehicles anywhere in America, without worrying about being arrested in CA, CT, MA, NY, or IL.
9) My vehicle can be of any capacity, horsepower, torque, etc., capable of any speed made possible by the state of the art, and I can completely tune it for performance
10) I can buy the fastest car I want manufactured after 1986 (unlike the fastest shooting gun) without additional background checks, a payment for a Tax stamp, 6-8 months of waiting, and a requirement for approval from local law enforcement…which can be refused on a whim.
11) I can own a “silent” car, such as a Tesla, without special tax stamps, criminal background checks, permission from local law enforcement, a wait, and then I can drive it wherever I want.
12) I can buy gasoline in bulk and have it delivered directly to my house even if I live in CA
13) I can loan my car or parts of my car to anyone anytime and anywhere I want without a background check
Re: ” requiring the same responsibilities we require of car owners”
If you want to treat guns like cars, I’m all for it.
1) I can buy a car without any permission whatsoever from federal, state or local governments from anywhere – a dealer, a private party, a police auction, etc..
2) I can own as many as I can afford.
3) I can buy as many in a month as I wish to.
4) I can sell one to anyone, a minor, an ex-con, or even a drunk. No background check required.
5) I can sell a car for cash, and leave the title transfer to the buyer.
6) I can give a car away to literally anyone.
7) If I don’t drive it on public roads, I don’t have to register it, license it, or insure it.
8) With a state issued driver’s license I can drive any of my vehicles anywhere in America, without worrying about being arrested in CA, CT, MA, NY, or IL.
9) My vehicle can be of any capacity, horsepower, torque, etc., capable of any speed made possible by the state of the art, and I can completely tune it for performance
10) I can buy the fastest car I want manufactured after 1986 (unlike the fastest shooting gun) without additional background checks, a payment for a Tax stamp, 6-8 months of waiting, and a requirement for approval from local law enforcement…which can be refused on a whim.
11) I can own a “silent” car, such as a Tesla, without special tax stamps, criminal background checks, permission from local law enforcement, a wait, and then I can drive it wherever I want.
12) I can buy gasoline in bulk and have it delivered directly to my house even if I live in CA
13) I can loan my car or parts of my car to anyone anytime and anywhere I want without a background check
Re: ” The U.S. military and our state militias are not lacking any weaponry to ensure our defense.”
Note that according to current US law, 10 USC 246 there are 2 types of militias – organized and unorganized. The National Guard is part of the organized militia and everyone who is not in the organized militia is in the unorganized militia and the unorganized militia does not have the same “weaponry”.
Re: ” reasonably regulate firearms”
In 1934, 1938, 1968, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2007, 2018 and 2022 I suspect similar arguments were made to ” reasonably regulate firearms” when more restrictive federal gun laws were passed. Since all of the regulations derived from these laws are apparently not enough, maybe you can understand the reluctance of gun owners to entertain the idea of sitting quietly and accepting a new barrage. The problem is the real agenda of the people who are leading the charge for more gun control is to ban all guns except for the government and governments (unlike individuals) hold the world record for killing people that don’t agree with them. The reality is implementing expanded background checks or banning semi-automatic rifles (like the AR) or standard capacity magazines has nothing to do with keeping the people safe – it’s about using a horrific crimes like mass shootings to whip lawmakers into an emotional frenzy to goad them into quickly advancing the agenda of gun control irrespective of any facts in more incremental “progressive” steps in order to set a new baseline and move the goal posts to the point where an unscrupulous government would have the option to do what ever they please.
Re: ” Congress must vastly reduce the quantity of firearms and ammunition”
Even if all the “firearms and ammunition” could be banned, there are plenty of other methods available to murder a lot of people thanks to the internet – i.e things like pipe bombs (San Bernardino), pressure cooker bombs (Boston), propane tank bombs (Columbine High School), truck bombs (Oklahoma City), exotic battery bombs (Austin, TX), Molotov cocktails (Arapahoe High School), gasoline cans and a match (Happy Land fire on 3/25/90), heavy truck or SUV crashing in to a crowd of people (Nice, France and Waukesha, WI), RV bombs (Nashville, TN) home made flame throwers made from plumbing parts and gasoline (nowhere – yet) and any pressure vessel filled with shrapnel and gun powder manufactured the same way it has been since the 6th century that will momentarily confine an explosive pressure wave.
Re: “we suggest psychiatric care”
After reading this article I could make the same suggestion about people with anxiety disorders pertaining to firearms
You need to see a counselor
You need to not be such a passive-aggressive priss.
Re: ” You need to see a counselor”
Why?
Deal with your hatred, gun fetishment, and anger.
Deal with your rampant neuroses.
Re: “Deal with your hatred, gun fetishment, and anger”
Interesting since you know nothing about me personally. Unsubstantiated personal attacks seem to be your strong points
The Dems blame the NRA, yet most of the mass shootings are liberal Democrat shooters(I count the gang ones too), people wouldn’t even need so many guns if there wasn’t Democrat tyranny.