Trotting out another vet for 'common sense'

[elsie]

All of the classic anti-gun solutions are in this piece. It almost sounds like he was handed a script. The only redeeming part seems to be that most of the comments are trying to point out the fallacies in his statements.

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-owner-case-gun-control-094500740--politics.html


elsie

Read More

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

More direct link.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-on-why-we-need-common-sense-gun-control.html

Some highlights,

Requiring licenses and negligent discharge insurance would be part of common sense reform. Much like vehicles—which are also key pieces of personal property that can take lives when they are operated irresponsibly, firearms should require a license to own and operate. A tiered licensing system could apply to different types of weapons. Insurance could cover any damages caused by negligent discharge, and skyrocketing rates might prove discouraging for repeat offenders.
Prudent limits need to be imposed. We should consider putting a cap on the number of firearms purchased for personal use. Allowances could be made for licensed gun dealers, but home protection and hunting require don't require individuals to keep an arsenal. At the very least, misdemeanors such as DUIs, drug charges, and white-collar crimes should be added to the list of crimes that preclude offenders from owning firearms.

A tiered licensing system could apply to different types of weapons? Would my insurance cover a smart gun malfunction that stops me from using it when I need it the most?

 

[ocarolan]

Apparently Shawn J. Vandiver is a member of Illinois Women for Compassionate Immigration Reform:

<broken link removed>

Additionally, last year he wrote an editorial criticizing Republicans for the Pay Our Military Act:

http://www.sddt.com/commentary/arti...Our+Military+Act+is+just+a+trick#.U3QLuvldXiM

 

[Stomper]

Just another meatsack-toolio who couldn't find his arse with BOTH hands and a map.

 

[Kevinkris]

the first article was clearly written by someone who makes plenty of money. i myself would not be able to afford to own a gun if he got his way. its bad enough that a S&W .38 spc is $400 (much of the cost due to regulations already), it would cost me more to continue to own it every 5 years plus monthly insurance costs. just ridiculous. on top of that, im still saving up to buy that gun.

 

[AMProducts]

My take away from this article:

It seems what NRA members, and gun owners around the country who oppose "common sense" reforms are missing in all this, is firearms ownership has always been intended to be a past-time and privilege granted only to the rich, it is clear that while firearms don't kill people, the poor and other dangerous minorities (minor drug offenders, those convicted of DUI, and all those who are disproportionately affected due to skin color or socioeconomic class) should be prevented from owning firearms so that all of us will be safe from mass shooting incidents that claim fewer lives than dog attacks.

I am glad Shawn VanDiver is on the case, upholding his oath to protect the country from threats both spurious and imagined. His concerted effort into putting forward a rational call to action harkens back to the efforts of some other patriots, like the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), in much the same way Tipper Gore and her army of dedicated and politically connected fussbudgets were vexed by an evil industry who was set on peddling filthy language and rebellion to the youth of America, practically guaranteeing that the youth would pass through their teenage years listening to music their parents objected to and dressing funny, and loudly disagreeing with their parents at every turn. (Much like every previous generation since the dawn of humanity)

We are fools not to see his wisdom, after all, it takes vision, strength and integrity to propose a new federal agency with broad regulatory powers and an annual budget of up to 2 billion dollars per year. Thus far, his is the most reasonable proposal on gun control I have ever read. To not take this sensible action immediately does nothing but ensure the freedom to kill by the next young man who the most powerful drugs psychiatric science had yet developed were unable to make meaningful alterations to (Adam Lanza, Jared Laughner, James Holmes) or worse still, by some disillusioned ex-employee (Christopher Dorner).

Given the strength and frustration it takes to put your foot down and finally say "Enough is Enough!" I feel empowered to create my own agenda to bring about meaningful reform, and I want to inspire you all to enjoin with me, in being People with Mouths for Sensible Free Speech Control (PMSFSC).

In order to achieve this, we must start by mandating licensing and background checks for anyone who wants to use their mouth for anything other than eating and breathing, further, ownership of a mouth should depend on psychological and criminal background checks that have to be performed every year. As we all know, using ones mouth to say things that others find objectionable is dangerous, and the use of one's mouth should require insurance commensurate to the amount of damage and bodily harm it can cause. People who have been convicted of drug offenses, DUI, ogling women, talking in class, or expressing unpopular political views should have the use of their mouth removed permanently.

Tragic assaults on public decency by people with loud and ignorant opinions are only part of the problem in the US. Any good guy with an opinion can turn into a bad guy with any freudian slip, or misunderstanding by the hearer. It's time we prioritize the debate on mouth control and see some results

 

[Stomper]

That is one of the best displays of poignant (and relevant) internet sarcasm I have read in quite a while, BRAVO!

BTW- you forgot to mention an "internet rider" for that insurance policy.

 

[waglockfan]

bubblegum this guy, bubbleguming tool.

 

[1337BaldEagle]

I love how universal background checks and requiring evaluation every five years was his "good first steps" and soon after he wants every gun owner to carry ND insurance and have to renew a license to own.

Obviously not a real gun owner.

I love how he tries to compare cars to guns. Ironic since you don't need a ODL to buy a car, you don't even need an ODL to drive a car on your own property, you don't need insurance to drive a car on your own property, you don't need to registrar to drive a car on your own property. Don't compare guns and cars, I will smack that argument down every time.

Eagle

 

[Three Bars]

Once again I'm reading thoughts from someone who is so indoctrinated in the progressive way of change that he has no idea of the danger, and evil in his writings.

Rather than refute the stats that we all know are not the real truth, as that would be a waste of time, I'm going to address the hypocrisy of all gun restriction.

Why is it that I must pass a background check to purchase a firearm? Pass another background check to have a concealed permit? and jump through all the hoops to be "a legal firearm owner".

To my way of thinking, why am I having to establish my innocence prior to owning a firearm?

In a country where our legal system is predicated on citizens being innocent until proven guilty, this background nonsense seems backwards from the original intent of the law of the land.

But, this whole world seems upside down now a days.

 

[AMProducts]

You're probably just conflating your strawmen, don't you see how right he is? Just think about all the jobs that would be created through the bureaucracy of a new background check and registration department, it could have it's own czar and everything!

It would be so great if all gun owners everywhere would realize the strength it takes to stand up to the gun lobby and demand bigger government, with more inefficiency, deficit spending, and probably it's own military style assault force. Don't you realize guns are not the answer, control is!

 

[semperfi68to70]

Well, you learn something everyday. I did not know the Navy had firearms instructors. I did not know the Navy had firearms. I thought that was what we were for!

 

[AMProducts]

navy has rifles... most of them are 5-16"