New York Times Calls for Gun Confiscation on Page One
Using the First Amendment to attack the Second
In a front page editorial, something that hasn’t been done in 95 years, the New York Times is calling for the confiscation of certain kinds of guns and ammunition.
The piece makes no distinction for the motives behind recent shootings. It also ignores the fact that gun violence is declining.
Many Americans are beginning to realize that our country is under attack and that we’re at war whether we like it or not. The fact that the New York Times is calling for disarming citizens makes them look as out of touch as the president they helped elect.
Here are some excerpts:
End the Gun Epidemic in America
All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.
But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms…
It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition…
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
Jonah Goldberg of National Review has compiled a list of things that did not warrant a front page editorial at the New York Times:
The Most Pressing Issue in 95 Years
The Peace of Versailles, Buck v. Bell, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor,* the Hitler-Stalin Pact, the Ukrainian famine, the internment of Japanese-Americans, the Tuskegee experiments, the Holocaust, McCarthyism, the Marshall Plan, Jim Crow, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Kennedy Assassination, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Kent State, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Watergate, withdrawal from Vietnam, the Killing Fields, the Iran hostage crisis, the Contras, AIDS, gay marriage, the Iran nuclear deal: These are just a few of the things the New York Times chose not to run front page editorials on.
But, the “Gun Epidemic” in America? That deserves a front-page editorial. Not only that, it deserves to be bragged about that this is the first time since 1920 they’ve run a front page editorial.
In response to recent suggestions of gun control, Ted Cruz has announced the creation of a Second Amendment coalition:
Proud to announce our #2A Coalition today — the way you stop the bad guys is you have a free and armed citizenry! https://t.co/t8PTdHReet
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) December 4, 2015
CBS News did a report on the story this morning:
Let the editors of the New York Times relinquish their Constitutional rights first.
We the people will defend ourselves as we see fit.
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
First, ban illegal guns.
Second, make life, not abortion. Oh, wait. This is not about millions of wholly innocent human lives.
Third, clinical cannibalism at Planned Parenthood et al… Who wants to live forever?
Nobody was there to stop an Al-Qaeda-style attack, so the solution is to disarm even more law-abiding citizens.
Got it.
For the first time there is actually a legitimate reason to have an assault rifle. The reason? The terrorists murdering Americans already have them.
If you really meant “assault rifles”, terrorists in the USA don’t have them. Nor do crimninals. If you meant the nebulously defined “assault weapons”, such as AR-15s, then what do you mean by “for the first time”? There have always been very good reasons to own them.
NYT: I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part!
Obama: We’re just the guys to do it.
Apologies to ‘Animal House’
But stock in Gun manufacturers, O and company are the best gun sellers ever.
Wanted to buy stock in glock, which I think is perhaps the best company out there, but sadly it is not publicly traded.
Many of the others look overbought unfortunately…I thought about Sturm Ruger but I’m not sure.
I also don’t think sales will go up as much as they did last time Obama tried this because many now realize he is a loud, toothless mouthpiece when it comes to guns and ammo.
Sorry that was Buy stock ,it posted somehow. I say we need to do a better job of criminal confiscation.
As a former LEO, my experience tells me criminals will always be armed. They have their networks and can get anything they want.
Bad guys who will always be armed are stopped by good guys only if armed.
On black Friday, which was in the wake of Paris, gun background checks in the US reached the largest single day number EVER. This is not because the sport of deer, elk and duck hunting is at an all time high.
Methinks I know which side the American people fall when it comes to this debate.
American’s confront evil head on, even if our feckless leaders want to put their head in the sand.
No interest in reading the NYT piece.
Did they actually get into specifics, or was it all “large categories” of this and “certain kinds” of that?
You got it. They also seemed to claim that the civilian (i.e. semiautomatic) versions of “assault weapons” are only barely modified from the military (i.e. select fire) versions, which is just too pig-ignorant for words.
Typical thoughtless hysterics. Outside of newsrooms and campus faculty lounges, does anyone actually read that rag anymore?
If laws stop criminals and terrorists, why do we have crime and terror attacks? History repeated shows that armed citizens stop violent crimes–laws don’t.
Apparently, the NYT wants even more victims.When will they have enough of them?
As has happened in CT and NYS, who the hell is gonna comply? Cold day in hell before I’d encourage anyone to turn in their weapons for the “good of their neighbors. NYT: All the news that’s fit to shit.” LOL
The NYT total disconnect: “F.B.I. is Treating Rampage As Act of Terrorism” and “The Gun Epidemic”
Instead of violating Constitutional rights of Americans by confiscating their legally obtained firearms, publicize that so-called “gun free zones” are really a call for terrorists, or those highly aggrieved, to kill and maim others.
Publicize that America’s “gun free zones” are really “killing fields” for the mentally deranged or persons radicalized in any way!
France has all the gun control that the progressive fascists could want. Yet somehow the insane mass murders, ie Muslims, were able to get plenty of weapons. The only people who were unarmed were their victims.
The NYT conceded that the Paris jihadis were able to acquire all the weapons they wanted despite the fact that France is their wet dream when it comes to national gun control laws. They also mentioned that their gun control wish list wouldn’t have stopped Anders Brevik from killing 77 people in Norway.
But those laws mean those countries are trying, which apparently would make the editors of the NYT feel better about themselves and the good ol’ US of A the next time jihadis massacres scores of innocents.
It was a hot mess of an editorial. The gun grabbers are now reduced to demanding gun control purely for its therapeutic value. It would make the delusional left feel better. The problem of course is that they suffer from so many delusions we could never enact enough gun control laws to satisfy these needy loons.
If you didn’t read the editorial, you didn’t miss much. Think of the fact that they put the editorial on the front page as a cry for help, a sign that deep down they recognize they need an intervention.
Hmmmm. Two days ago, Legal Insurrection had this story:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2015/12/ny-sheriff-after-san-bernardino-everyone-with-gun-permit-should-carry/
Common sense should tell us that if we truly are at war, that we are personally responsible for our own safety and the safety of our families, and that we must be able to defend ourselves at all times, then we must change a few things:
1. Remove the requirement in all of the states to have a government license or permit to carry weapons, both openly or concealed. Several states such as Vermont already have this as their law.
2. Remove all limitations on magazine capacity and other hardware.
3. Remove the taxation and requirement of government oversight for suppressors and full-automatic weapons.
4. Eliminate all gun-free zones with very few exceptions such as locked wards of psychiatric hospitals, jails and prisons.
5. Establish firing ranges and training facilities for the use in voluntary training of the people in the appropriate, safe, accurate and effective use of weapons.
We have plenty of laws enacted regulating the usage of weapons. However, those laws do not stop violence. We have many trained police officers, sheriffs’ deputies and Federal agents, but there are never enough right there where you need them right now. However, we do have you there. What can you do? What may you do? What will you do?
When everyone has to go through metal detectors guarded by armed police officers we can exclude civilian owned guns.
Police, firefighters, and EMTs are rarely “first responders.” “First responders” are the people at the scene of an incident when it occurs; those at the scene have a moral responsibility to defend their own lives and the lives of others in their charge. Everyone else arrives late.
This is very true. It’s why leaders of any youth group are required to have first aid training. It’s why every adult should take first aid training, though I’m against requiring it. Should and must are two different things. It’s why BSA’s fist aid merit badge is a required badge for Eagle.
I’ve been first on a scene before. Having a clue is better then being clueless. Having what you need to do what you need to do is even better.
It’s time for the Federal government to reestablish the militia so that every citizen in good standing is armed and ready to kill crazed mass murderers, ie Muslims.
No need for Congress to act, all able-bodied males already are and always have been part of either the ‘organized’ or the ‘unorganized’ militia:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
Are you crazy? This current Fed has been supplying terrorists and supporting them. They have chosen Muslims over you–in any conflict between Islam and the West, the head of this government explicitly said he will choose Islam. Do you really think the man who wanted civilian brown shirts intended to oppress us is going to form militias in order to defend us? Thats truly magical thinking.
No.
When our default reaction to any problem is that we must need a new government program to fix it, we’re in big trouble.
I’d like the Federal government less involved in issues of personal and community defense, not more. “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.” Let’s remember that.
What I mean is that Federal government can support the reestablishment of the militia. This would make state laws about conceal carry irrelevant and to encourage everyone to join with subsidies to pay for weapons, ammo and training.
The Obama Administration has the worst record in history of prosecuting federal gun law violations. They let most offenders walk with probation or time served, to go out and sin no more (uh-huh), then complain we need new laws to ignore?
Also, gun homicide is at a 22 year low, odd time for a front-page emergency spectacle – unless NYT is just desperate to help Democrats survive the public backlash.
But on the other side of the ledger, what with Fast & Furious they have the strongest record of any administration in history of committing federal gun law violations.
Both US and Mexican federal gun law violations, BTW.
Prohibition and 1911 drug bans are a good basis for what will happen under gun prohibition/confiscation. Illegal drugs became more powerful and beer and wine side-stepped for the “hard stuff” and narco gangs and organized crime flourished. I am waiting for the real “weapons of war” to be unleashed in this country by jihadists… real assault weapons, plastic explosives and RPGs. With a porous border left open to funnel in future Democrat voters, not hard to imagine ISIS, AQ and Iranian Quds forces already in the country… armed, trained and ready. San Berdoo was semi-pro at most… just imagine the real “JV” team in action. Alos… stip away Black gun violence from the statistics and the US is really down the list on violence.
What the hell is wrong with the progressives? Do they want another civil war? That is what they would have if they tried to confiscate. The last time that happened over 630,000 Americans of a population of 30 some million died. Do they want to see 7 million die to advance their totalitarian fantasies? It is not hunting or self protection that is driving record gun sales but rather the ravenous quest for total power emanating from the prog Borg. They need to stop before they get a lot of people, the vast majority of whom will be them, killed.
Before San Bernadino was known to be terrorism, I saw a tweet from a progressive asking what the moral difference would be in bombing the Nazi Reichstag while Hitler was speaking and bombing the NRA headquarters with Wayne LaPierre inside. A clever way of urging assassination while plausibly denying it.
The next day the New York Daily News compared Wayne LaPierre to terrorists on its cover.
This isn’t rational debate. They are inciting hatred. They will have blood on their hands if someone acts out on their hateful rhetoric. I think they will be fine with that, as long as they aren’t held legally liable.
Loretta Lynch is standing by to prosecute such incitement!
Oh, wait…
No, she isn’t. She said the first amendment protection of speech doesn’t cover actions inspired by such speech. Which is obviously true.
Hillary said at a campaign event recently that we should consider doing what Australia did. People wondered if Hillary misspoke. Did she understand that the Australia plan involved removing guns from private hands? If she understood the details of the Australia plan, then that means she wants to go further than Obama and Democrats attempted in their failed attempt at gun control.
For example, after Sandy Hook, Diane Feinstein wanted to ban certain kinds of scary looking guns that have cosmetic features like pistol grips and flash suppressors, but I am not sure her bill would have gone so far as to confiscate guns with those features with a buy-back. I think she wanted manufacturers to stop producing the scary looking guns, but the ones already owned by individuals would still be legal.
Now we know Hillary probably did not misspeak. I suspect The New York Times wrote this editorial because Hillary plans to make gun confiscation a major part of her campaign.
The Obama years have been devastating for this country, and the damage will reverberate for decades to come. But one positive results is that the Democrats have lurched so far to the left that they’re openly talking about the oppressive fantasies that they’ve only pursued secretly in the past. The lines have been more clearly drawn.
We’ve seen how thoroughly the Democrats have been destroyed at the state and Congressional ballot boxes in the past couple of cycles. I’m cautiously optimistic that once the Black Jesus Spell is broken, the Dims will be similarly destroyed in the next few Presidential elections. Will the Republicans have the intestinal fortitude to actually fix what’s been broken?
If I could “like” this comment more than once, I would.
Guns? We need a knife ban! By now you’ve heard that some poor muzzie got claustrophobic on the Tube in London, pulled out the scimitar he just happened to have, and got a little out of control. He said something about Syria, but you can never know the real reason why this happened.
So, assault knives have to go. Butter knives are OK. Maybe steak knives, too, if they have a rounded tip.
No kidding — this is an actual quote: “A member of the Met Police later confirmed that the suspect remains in custody as police try and figure out a motive behind the gruesome attack.”
But in any case, the answer is clear: London needs more knife control and knife-free zones. All residents of Great Britain should probably be limited to sporks, to be on the safe side.
You think you’re joking about the “knife control and knife-free zones”? Here’s a pic showing Victoria, Aust. police regulations that I got from the comments at Market-Ticker:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?getimagenr=115934
Most of us on this forum would be criminals there, just by carrying our usual pocket-knives!
Speaking of which, Karl has a great editorial “Logic and the Lack Thereof” which should be read by all, and spread:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230946
Should someone have to show proficiency to use a gun before buying a gun?
The gun makers and NRA could subsidize so that getting a license is not prohibitive.
Is that asking too much?
you bet your ass, OS26, it is….!! Unless of course you are willing to undergo proficiency training prior to exercising your right to vote. 😀 😀
Well, lots of people say that there should be a more stringent approach when it comes to voting.
Why is it a problem for people to properly learn how to use something that is dangerous, just like it is necessary for other dangerous things?
You have not demonstrated sufficient proficiency to be allowed to exercise your First Amendment free speech rights. Specifically, the part about engaging your brain before allowing your fingers to touch a keyboard.
I would most definitely require you to get a license before permitting you to express yourself in public ever again.
There’s a fundamental difference between voting and owning a gun. Voting is a civil right that derives from the nature of society and the government it constructs. Firearms ownership (the ownership of any weapons, really) is a human right within the penumbra of the right to life – if you have a right to your life, you must also have a right to defend it, and the right to the tools necessary to effectuate the defense.
If government denies you the right to vote, this does not mean that government will necessarily become oppressive. But if it does become oppressive, you can then use your right to arms to resist the oppression. However, if government denies you your right to arms, the ability to vote become effectively meaningless.
If given a choice between retaining the right to vote and retaining the right to arms, only a gullible fool would select the right to vote. Government may only do to an armed citizenry that which the citizenry permits. Government may do what it wills to an unarmed populace. In the former situation, your opinion still matters, even if you can’t vote. In the latter situation, at best, your opinion matters only as much as government is willing to abide by it, and at worst it doesn’t matter at all, even if you can still vote.
Stalin was right….without recourse it is who counts the vote that determines the outcome.
The “stringent” approach to voting means you get to vote only once per election, in the precinct where you are registered.
Democrats obviously have strong objections to that principle.
The problem is, who decides what courses one has to take and how much they cost (you can bet some government crony will get the contract – licensing scams offer fantastic opportunities for graft and corruption), and who decides when one is “proficient” enough to be “allowed” to exercise their Constitutional rights (does having an “R” after my name mean that for some strange reason, I’ll never be deemed “proficient enough” by The Powers That Be?)
Gun makers have no money of their own except what they get from gun owners (through sales). The NRA has no money of its own except what it gets from gun owners (through membership dues). So basically you’re asking gun owners to subsidize a new Federal government bureaucracy to limit the rights of gun owners.
Yes. Yes, it is.
It is built into the price of the gun.
If people wanted to devise proficiency standards, it does not seem far-fetched that it could be agreed.
I did not say it would be a federal bureaucracy either. Why make that assumption? That happens too much. A local gun club could do it, actually. It’s just making sure people know what they are doing.
Interesting to see the responses given, which do not seem very persuasive.
I am somehow not surprised that anyone who could imagine that requiring someone to demonstrate prodiciency before allowing them to exercise an enumerated right would find counterarguments unpersuasive.
Since you’ve already missed the entire point of rights, which existed prior to and independently of the Constitution, the government, and shall not be infringed.
Hence your call to infringe upon them. Again, it makes far more sense to bar you from exercising your First Amendment free speech rights considering the low purpose you use it for.
First off, if some ijuts want to shoot themselves accidentally, let them exercise some Darwinian selection and do it.
Secondly, proficiency tests wouldn’t do anything to stop bad guys.
Thirdly, many places do have proficiency testing that is optional for adults (and any sensible adult should consider some form of training for their own well-being) and mandatory proficiency testing for minors.
Applied for a concealed permit in California. The written test was rigged….”do you participate in “quick draw” contests?” Definition of a “side arm… knife, hatchet, handgun… their answer only the gun… so much for history. Bottom line refused because I should be able to avoid danger. Local doctor witnessed gang murder. Was going to testify. In court house stranger gave him an envelope with all info on he and his family with threat. He asked for concealed permit for protection for trial… denied. So…. proficiency and need? Good luck.
Interesting to see the responses given, which do not seem very persuasive.
What sort of persuasion would you consider appropriate? You haven’t proposed anything of substance … unless you’re trying to claim that criminal misuse of firearms has something to do with lack of proficiency.
I agree with “oldschool.” I also think that before you’re allowed to believe in God, you should be required to say a prayer and have it answered (within three days), or your application for your religious belief will be denied.
I don’t think there’d be a lot of opposition to such a requirement, and it might even be a good idea, but what’s its relevance to the topic? Surely you must realise that such a requirement would do absolutely nothing to reduce crimes, terrorism, or public shootings, etc. After all the problem with criminals or terrorists is not that they don’t know how to use a gun!
I couldn’t bring myself to read the NYT article. Did they mention the now-famous “Bullet Button,” the thing you press to turn an ordinary lawful AR-15 into a FULLY AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON? 😀
“Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership…”
Um… Aren’t they already outlawed? The San Bernardino shooter modified his AR to automatic fire. That is illegal.
Apparently not that as BATFE determines whether a firearm can be readily converted to fully automatic. If so… not approved for general sale and since 1986.. no new machine guns can be purchased. They seem to have changed the lower receiver to accept detachable magazines which is against the law for such new rifles presently… it was illegal in either modification or in receiving the guns from someone else. They bought the handguns and went through the Ca state background check, waiting period and if recent through a safety course. As Sen. Barbara Boxer just said… reasonable guns laws work… just look at California. If that statement wasn’t so painful, it would be a bad joke.
The New York Daly News has run front page editorials, but I never saw this in the New York Times. The Daily News says this is first front page editorial in the New York Times since 1920. It struck me as that the New York Times was moving down-market – or they are at thir wit’s end, and freightened almost of what people could do.
They didn’t propose confiscating anything except the most powerful rapid firing guns. Of course, by definition, only law abiding people would turn them in, so it would take about 10-15 years till you really saw a difference. But you could stop new manufacturing or new sales.
I do believe that the manufacture and sale of most powerful guns – and that means anything that could shoot more than 6 bullets without reloading – anything that was not on the market 30 or 60 years ago – should be stopped and that the police shouldn’t be allowed to buy them either, with rare exceptions.
The Second Amendment, as interpreted in Heller, doesn’t require that any military weapons be available to the general public, but only that was is widely available, like to the police, be made available.
I have actually about six different ideas. That one is number 4.
I do believe that the manufacture and sale of most powerful guns – and that means anything that could shoot more than 6 bullets without reloading – anything that was not on the market 30 or 60 years ago – should be stopped and that the police shouldn’t be allowed to buy them either, with rare exceptions.
Sammy, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The era of six-shooters was over a long time ago. 10-16 rounds are now standard. And no policeman will agree to be restricted to six rounds per magazine.
Yes, era of the six shooter has long been over. As in, since the Civil War when some Union cavalry units adopted the Henry rifle. The rifle you “load on Sunday and shoot all week.” It was a 16 shot lever action rifle. The .44 rimfire cartridge it fired was pretty weak, OK for killing a man as long as he was close but too weak for deer hunting (although it it was used with indifferent success for that purpose). But if we’re going to adopt the inane idea that a powerful rifle can shoot six or more times without reloading then the Henry rifle was definitely powerful by that standard.
So anyway can you please shut up now, Sammy? Reading your drivel is embarrassing, sort of the internet equivalent of being stuck in the same subway car with a drunk homeless guy while he urinate all over himself.
anything that was not on the market 30 or 60 years ago
Others have said it … but maybe you should start believing it. It’s painfully obvious from sentences like this that you haven’t the slightest hint of a ghost of an idea of what you’re talking about.
Sears, Roebuck was selling such guns over a century ago; look at those old catalog reprints which were all the rage a few decades ago. I have an Evans carbine made in the 1870s which holds 34 cartridges in a helical magazine. The 1907 Savage pistol (the advertising blurb was “10 Shots Quick”) was popular, at least judging by the quantities I still see in gun stores. Then there was the 1896 Mauser pistol with the ten shot magazine … well, they only made something over a million of those before production ended in the late 1930s, so maybe you don’t think that counts.
the idea of a citizen’s militia, still part of the law of the nation and I’m certain every state, including liberal NY, “2. The unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied male residents of the state between the ages of seventeen and forty-five…” pretty much means that citizens should have access to most common military weapons carried by infantry.
There are other names for unarmed citizens. Slaves. Serfs. Peasants. Subjects. Which do you choose?
I wouldn’t have any official training.
What I would have is a gun license, like as driver;s license, which says nothing about owning or not owning any cars or number of cars, that would be acquired if 10 citizens, at least 3 of the opposite sex, certified taht the person who wanted a gun license would not use it for criminal activity and knew how to use a gun properly, or would learn, and was capable of preventing the gun from being stolen.
It might be acquired automatically – if someone had aprevious record of gun pwnership, except that still 10 people would have to say it’s OK with them. all of these crime have happened where theer very few people, in any, who knew that someone had gunsd or what they were doing with them.
There would be some kind of incentive or penalty, I haven’t figured out what, so that people wouldn’t lie or say that for money. And some incentive to report a change in circumstances. If someone lost a person, they could substitute another. This either would prevent crme, or give a short list of co-conspirators, and how many people would want to be on it??
“It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.”
George Washington
If I may be so bold as to add to George Washington’s thought – It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition that someone else may abuse it.
I demand to know the names of the ten citizens (at least three being of the opposite sex) who gave you permission to comment on this blog.
Idea Number 2: Repeal the law prohibiting lawsuits aganst gun manufactiers and gun dealers if the gun is used in a crime. Perhaps limit liability to cases where the gun is used in a crime within 3 years of the sale. Encourage tghe purchase of insurance.
I was hoping with a name like yours you would fear a police state rather than embrace one. Maybe add a provision where anonymous accusations can be lodged with the police that can result in immediate suspension of gun ownership without due process? It worked well for the Gestapo. You are, in reality, wishing for the rule of the jungle where strength, numbers and size rule and you are dependent on bureaucracy to protect you. The police are only there for the general public safety and not ones personal protection. The only way to survive in the jungle is imprison oneself at night and stay in the shadows during the day… or… make yourself too dangerous to be challenged. I know you really care about the issue and really have tried to think of good ideas but there are people out there who have no desire to care about you… just what they can take from you.
People like Sammy believe they know best and think the government is a tool meant to permit the “best and brightest” to control everyone else. Maybe it’s not his fault. Most of us were taught that we have a system of “self-government” in which everyone is encouraged to use government to control his neighbors, rather than being taught that we have a “system of self-government” under which “everyone governs themselves.”
In part I think his misunderstanding is due to lack of basic firearms knowledge. The Stoner AR design dates to the late ’50’s. It is a varmint class round. Semiautos date from before 1900. Bring a peaceful man only wanting peace doesn’t mean bad things will not come ones way. The major premises of gun control are mistakenly wrong. It blends wishful thinking with lack of reality. Every law is perfect until passed then as it fails they admit it wouldn’t work and another “first step” is needed. He probable has never been exposed to anything but bad news about firearms. He is not a fellow traveler but could easily fall into the category of useful idiot and not realize it. Also, avoiding the reality that Islam has always had a violent nature and continues to pressure the West in a slow motion jihad makes the NYT a useful idiot for the loss of Western Civ.
This wouldn’t lead to a police state, to the extent that this prevents it, because the ownership of guns would still be widely distributed…and not even the police are united.
That would be a bad idea. Especially anonymous. Especially since it could be a would-be attacker who lodged it. You need a system of checks and balances.
Should knife manufacturers be held liable any time a knife is used in a crime?
Should baseball bat manufacturers be held liable any time a baseball bat is used in a crime?
Should car manufacturers be held liable any time a car is used in a crime?
Can I hold your keyboard manufacturer liable for your egregious and painful mangling of the English language, not to mention your crimes against reason?
The law protecting gun manufacturers from blatantly frivolous suits was passed because there was an organised and well-funded campaign to bring such suits with the express purpose of driving them into bankruptcy. Why would you remove that protection? Such suits are self-evidently frivolous, and nobody even considers bringing similar suits against car manufacturers. If judges would automatically dismiss them on filing, and impose sanctions on those filing them, then the law preventing them could safely be repealed. But the experience is that they didn’t. The judges were in on the conspiracy and deliberately allowed the suits to proceed. So Congress acted, as is its job.
There’s ways to do it without destroying the possibility of lawsuits totally, which I think can be very useful. I would combine this with insurance, and I would have strict liability up to a certain dollar amount, and further proof of real negligence required if more was sued for.
My thesis is that gun dealers know how to reduce the probability of their guns being used in a crime, and they certainly know how to increase it.
I would also maybe outlaw – declare null and void – any kind of settlement where gun manufacturers or dealers agreed to any specific change of policy. Only an insurance company could prssure them to do anything.
I would set no or few regulations and rely on insurance companies to police things.
Maybe if no insurance was available, there’d be protection against lawsuits. Since sales to police departments and security companies would also be stopped if a business was shut down, there’d be an incentive by all sosrts of people not to let things go too far.
I understand one of the arguments against lawsuits is that stores could not protect themselves by asking more questions of some potential purchasers to make sure they are genuine, and have a non-criminal purpose.
So I would make some aspects of the Civil rights laws inapplicable. This is Idea number 3:
Set strict limits on the applicability of the Civil Rights laws to gun sales While no company could have a blanket policy excluding persons in certain categories from buying a gun from them, they could profile them to the extent of subjecting them to greater scrutiny, and they could not be questioned about that in any lawsuit.
This is no more than say, checking to see if an Austran born around 1915 was a Nazi, or did something during the war, or even wondering about Arnold Schwarzeneger. (Born 1946) You use Bayesian analysis to decide whom to query.
But you don’t stop short, and just write off a whole bunch of potential customers.
I agree. What we have here is an epidemic. And as such, I propose an immunization program. As you know, immunizing someone against an epidemic involves infecting them with a much weaker form of the illness. With that in mind, the CDC should begin rounding up the entire populace of San Bernardino and innoculating them with the following:
Ownership of a small caliber rifle and/or pistol
Several hours of hunter safety lessons
Ten or more hours of range time per year
A random selection should also be given a concealed carry lesson plan and holster
For those of you who say “You’re kidding?”
I say, “Well, you started it first.”
The CDC’s idea of immunization would probably be to shoot everyone. Just a little bit, with a nice small bullet (you know, small … like, say, .223), to inoculate them against kinetic lead poisoning.
Good time to mention here that firearms safety and use USED to be taught in public schools. Our local high school has an unused shooting range in the basement dating from those days. It would be hard to safely train young adults now in school to safely use firearms. Because it’s unlawful to bring them on school grounds. Funny thing about that also. Bach when schools taught firearms use and safety, kids didn’t go around shooting each other.
I remember those days, “gospace” I carried my rifle into my school, down the hallway, stowed it in the “cloak closet” for use later in the day in our basement NRA range. 🙂