HERE'S a simple test to determine where you stand on gun control:
Q: Should convicted violent criminals be allowed to carry pistols or assault weapons?
Q: Should children be allowed to carry loaded guns to school?
Q: Should psychotics, drug addicts, drunks or bitter weirdos be allowed to carry hidden guns into your church, your workplace, your favorite restaurant, your children's playground or public arenas and government chambers?
If you answered no to any of these questions, then you favor gun control for those circumstances. You support gun control laws.
That's what the gun debate is about: trying to protect Americans from this country's horrifying rate of firearm murders - around 12,000 per year, much higher than in any other advanced nation. It's a struggle to find sensible, workable solutions for America.
Right-to-bear-arms advocates are overjoyed because conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Washington's extreme law, a total ban on gun ownership - a ban that never really worked.
But last week's ruling doesn't mean that every self-styled Rambo can begin prowling with an unlicensed pistol concealed in his pocket. The District of Columbia v. Heller decision specifically lets cities, states and counties continue imposing controls to save lives.
HERE'S a simple test to determine where you stand on gun control:
Q: Should convicted violent criminals be allowed to carry pistols or assault weapons?
Q: Should children be allowed to carry loaded guns to school?
Q: Should psychotics, drug addicts, drunks or bitter weirdos be allowed to carry hidden guns into your church, your workplace, your favorite restaurant, your children's playground or public arenas and government chambers?
If you answered no to any of these questions, then you favor gun control for those circumstances. You support gun control laws.
That's what the gun debate is about: trying to protect Americans from this country's horrifying rate of firearm murders - around 12,000 per year, much higher than in any other advanced nation. It's a struggle to find sensible, workable solutions for America.
Right-to-bear-arms advocates are overjoyed because conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Washington's extreme law, a total ban on gun ownership - a ban that never really worked.
But last week's ruling doesn't mean that every self-styled Rambo can begin prowling with an unlicensed pistol concealed in his pocket. The District of Columbia v. Heller decision specifically lets cities, states and counties continue imposing controls to save lives.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that justices "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country," adding:
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Scalia wrote that the Heller ruling doesn't unleash "dangerous and unusual weapons" such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, bazookas, grenades and others not typically used for home defense or hunting.
Long guns used by hunters aren't much of an issue in America's murder dilemma. And licensed, registered pistols owned by law-abiding, sober people cause modest concern. The real problem is millions of illegal pistols in dangerous hands. The Sacramento Bee commented Monday:
"The powerful National Rifle Association has consistently opposed common-sense laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and Congress has done the NRA's bloody bidding."
Conservatives in Congress, terrified by the gun lobby, once forbade the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to trace pistols used in crimes, and threatened to jail police officers if they revealed gun trace data. That's spineless madness.
Now that the Washington decision is locked into America's rules, guaranteeing individual gun ownership, national, state and local leaders should follow its specifications to impose sensible safeguards against gun murder.
Post a comment
I believe your suggestion was sincere with good intentions. Due to keystroke limitations, I will try to answer your questions.
The licensed dealer who sells the firearm keeps your personal info, not the gov. Referenced laws: The NICS check info to approve purchase must be destroyed within 24 hours; no national database allowed per Federal law TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 44, § 922; Firearm Owners' Protection Act (1986); Gun Control Act 1968.
City of Chicago attempted to gain all info maintained on sales and ownership from BATF (they do keep national database on firearms/bullets used in crime) in order to prosecute manufacturers. It failed. Who else would want to know the names and addresses of every American gun owner...people who want to steal them, to use the info for political purposes, for legal actions, marketing monitoring, and the biggest one of all...it would be national registration which is the necessary condition for confiscation. It can happen here.
How do they keep track of private sales now? Whats to stop them from "abusing" your personal information currently? The government already has all of your personal information (they GAVE you your SSN) and easy access to the original gun sale. Who would the gov't share your info with? How would they abuse it? WHY would they abuse it? What laws do you speak of? All serious questions, mind you.
Your scheme for the database I assume would include the address of the purchaser? Perhaps their Social Security number too? I assume all private sales would have to go into the database too, otherwise the government would only have a record of the original transaction. It might be a good idea to require every owner to update the database every year too huh? And, if a firearm owner failed to do any of these requirements, there would be heavy criminal penalties applied.
Wait a minute...wouldn't only the non-criminals abide with these requirement? In other words, every citizen who is law abiding will be in the government's database as firearm owners; plus what they own and where they live. That certainly would be an interesting data for the government to have...and to share. Because of the likely abuse of this personal information, a number of laws have been passed prohibiting the federal government for maintaining any database of legal owners. And that is good.