Skip to main content

Yes. I am not for Gun Control. I say NO to Gun Control. When was the last time that you said YES to Car Control. or Food Control or Alcohol Control!

Words matter!

What we need to talk about is GUN RESPONSIBILITY. Like we talk about DRIVE RESPONSIBLY! or DRINK RESPONSIBILY!!!

95% of Gun Owners use their Guns responsibily. With rights come responsibility and putting Gun owners at ease and on our side when we talk about addressing violence control!

1. Assault Rifle ban has to be reinstated. No semiauto AK-47 or M-16 at homes. I like the suggestion that gun ranges have semiautos for folks who want to enjoy blasting 30 bullets in 10 secs

2. Semi-auto classification to be removed: We have only 2 categories. hand guns/shotguns and the like and automatic guns. The rules that apply to automatic guns will now be applied for semiautomatic

3. Mental health report: Like drivers have to renew their licenses, gun owners have to submit mental health report periodically. Whether it is once every 2-years 3 or 4, i don't know

4. Background check is mandatory: NO EXCEPTIONS!

5. Remove current laws that restrict ATF's ability to audit and check dealers

6. Outside handheld guns, all guns should be tracked through national database. All sales will have to be reported. Even those handed down through estates. We do it with cars, we can do it with guns.

So, what do you say? GUN CONTROL or GUN RESPONSIBILITY!

Poll

Do you agree that the current debate needs to be changed to one of GUN RESPONSIBILITY

60%23 votes
34%13 votes
5%2 votes

| 38 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  buying of multiple (5+ / 0-)

    weapons as they do in AZ has to be stopped.  They are straw purchases. The NRA has stopped any kind of restrictions.

    Democratic Free Stuff...Freedom to marry, Freedom of or from religion, Freedom to seek the medical care they want. Republican Free Stuff: Corporate Well Fare, Farm Subsidies, limited Interest on investments, oil and gas subsidies.

    by regis on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:40:24 AM PST

    •  How do you know purchasing multiple guns (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, theboz, fuzzyguy

      is a straw purchase?  When you say multiple, how many do you mean?  Some collectors will buy several guns at once and it isn't a straw purchase.  If a father goes into a store and buys two hunting rifles, one or him and one for his son, is it a straw purchase?  

      Also, lets be truthful, the statement that "the NRA has stopped any kind of restrictions" is not true.  All sales through dealers are required to go through a background check via the NICS system.  Many states require permits to purchase handguns.  Some states have downright draconian gun laws.  How has the NRA stopped these restrictions.

      •  did you sleep through the fast and furious (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skohayes

        debacle?  People who obviously don't have a pot to pea in are buying 20 and 30 assault weapons.  No one follows the buyer.

        Democratic Free Stuff...Freedom to marry, Freedom of or from religion, Freedom to seek the medical care they want. Republican Free Stuff: Corporate Well Fare, Farm Subsidies, limited Interest on investments, oil and gas subsidies.

        by regis on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:33:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  So, you talk about "Responsibility" (8+ / 0-)

    and then the first item on your agenda is a ban.

    How can gun owners show they are "responsible" if they are not allowed the objects you feel are used irresponsibly?

    No bans.

    •  that is the silliest logic I have ever seen... nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      historys mysteries
      •  How so? (6+ / 0-)

        There are millions, potentially tens of millions, of "Assault Rifles" in private hands, yet fewer than 400 people were killed by rifles of all varieties in 2010.

        That means that millions upon millions of people are showing their responsibility every day. Why ban something, under the guise of encouraging "responsibility" when almost all owners of that object are, in fact, responsible with it?

        •  they should never have been available in the (3+ / 0-)

          first place.  That's the problem.  You can take any bad happening in the world and say 'well, that DOESN'T happen the other 99% of the time.'  But it's not that 99% i"m concerned about. It's the 1% where people die.  It would be like the airline industry saying 'well, why should we bother with our regulations on planes since they hardly ever crash'?

          The problem is that the gun lobby has managed to get these things that were never envisioned in the Consitution to become a fait accompli, so rather than reasonable regulation it's seen as confiscation and infringement.

          •  But people DO still die in plane crashes (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            noway2, theboz, fuzzyguy

            We do not respond by banning air travel.

            I am open to discussing regulation, but let's regulate the actual problem: People. Banning firearms or their accessories is a non-starter for me.

            •  no--we respond by increasing regulation and (3+ / 0-)

              oversight.  I wasn't talking about the ban (although I see no reason why we as individuals need this kind of firepower.)

              The problem is people + guns.  Don't play the guns don't kill people game--it's a farce and you know it.

              Bad people without guns are less good at killing as bad people with guns.

              •  How will the AWB keep bad people from getting guns (0+ / 0-)

                ?

                •  And, to be frank... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  noway2

                  People are the problem. Not the guns. People are the ones in poverty. People are the ones who are mentally disabled.

                  Good people with guns have proven themselves to be almost universally responsible and trustworthy.  

                  •  Profiting off of SELLING guns to those (bad) (0+ / 0-)

                    people is morally reprehensible.

                    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                    —Spike Milligan

                    by polecat on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:40:40 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  well, yes, if you have a society with all guns (0+ / 0-)

                    and no people then yes, the murder rate will go down.

                    Guns STRONGLY enhance people's capacity to not only kill--but to kill instinctively.  And to kill more people at a time, and at longer range.  

                    •  They do, (0+ / 0-)

                      That power comes with responsibility, and many people demonstrate that responsibility every day. Rather than restrict access to items, and half-assedly at that, why not try to keep just the irresponsible people from obtaining guns?

                      •  profiling who is going Reto be violent--aside from (0+ / 0-)

                        criminals--is exceedingly difficult.  You don't need to know much about psychology to realize that--despite all of the cries to come up with 'mentally ill registries' or whatever....

                        we don't have an irresponsibility net, unfortunately.  We can try--but gun regulation (I don't like the term 'control' either) has got to be at the forefront of the issue.

              •  And regulating the good people with guns (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theboz, fuzzyguy

                will have little, if any effect at stopping the bad people with guns.  As unfortunate as it is, there is no regulation, ban, or law you can pass that will prevent tragedy and crime.  Since you can't deal with the real problem, you want to lash out at the innocent?

                •  oh poor innocent you. Look-- I have a license (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FloraLine

                  for a Class C vehicle, right?  aka a car.  Do I feel that I've been violated because I have go through  more tests and training to drive a truck?  Or a tank?  

                  The real problem is that we have a hyper violent society--EQUIPPED WITH THE MEANS TO PERPETUATE THE HYPERVIOLENCE.  I'm not capitalizing to yell at you--I'm capitalizing for extreme emphasis.  Those means are the guns.   I don't advocate to take 'em all away either...but they have got to be limited/regulated--because this country is fucking chaos.

                  •  And those who are saying no training, no nothing (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fuzzyguy, annakerie

                    are a small subset of the gun owning population.  It is certainly true that some say that the 2nd-A is the only "permit" they need.  I am not in that camp.  Rather, I understand that some places, like schools, are considered sensitive.  What I am saying that the idea that just because a few individuals are nuts we should flat out prohibit everybody is ludicrous and it is clearly not working!  Lets establish some standards and let those who are willing meet those standards to carry in places.

                    Also, we need to consider what exactly it is we are regulating and what we are trying to achieve by it.  It seems to be a tacit assumption that additional regulation of the citizen with a gun permit is somehow going to reduce crime.   I don't believe it.  I think it is an emotional reaction based upon the desire to to something, anything, and it is the first thing that a few politicians with agendas have been after.

                    It also bears repeating that by focusing on these bans you are causing those who are both impacted and involved, who by extension may have some of the best suggestions to offer to do nothing but work to oppose you.

                    If you want real solutions, stop shouting nonsense.

                    •  the Brady Campaign isn't an on-the-fly organizatio (0+ / 0-)

                      n--they've been at this for years.  decades.

                      Yeah, there's definitely some ban-everything overreaction.  I don't subscribe to that either.  But the solution to gun violence sure as hell isn't more gun violence--that's what the NRA would like you to believe.  The very notion that W. LaPierre would actually say that that line about 'the only thing that can take down a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' is one of the stupidest things I've heard in 25 years of following politics.  

                      Why is it so damn oppressive to have to earn, say, a license, a more stringenet background check, and say a training certification in order to own a semi-automatic rifle?

                      I don't think you have to 'ban' everything--but you do need to demonstrate that you're capable of owning it.

                      •  In regards to your statement: (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        bevenro
                        Why is it so damn oppressive to have to earn, say, a license, a more stringenet background check, and say a training certification in order to own a semi-automatic rifle?
                        In an environment where exact words matter, this is not what is being called for.  What is being called for is a complete ban, which is an entirely different animal.

                        With respect to the term, "more stringent background check", I would like to engage this line of discussion as I think it has some real merit.  In fact, in many ways this concept has been floated about the gun community in slightly different form for quite a while now: interstate and national permit reciprocity.  

                        The current standard is that the states get define the requirements for owning and carrying a gun in public.  A few states have what is terms constitutional carry, meaning anyone who isn't prohibited by statute may carry.  At the other end, you have areas like DC where you must demonstrate need, and specifically register the exact gun that will be carried etc.  Most states are somewhere in the middle.

                        In my state, you need to take an approved 8 hour class that covers both safety and use of force laws as well as a hands on portion to demonstrate proficiency.  I would be curious as to how this compares to law enforcement certification as a possible measuring stick.  Personally, I think more training is a good thing and I don't have a problem with it, but I realize that some will, especially if it is mandatory.   To this, I think that the answer is that we need a minimum standard for basic carry and then allow optional, additional certifications that enable one to remove various restrictions, such as the ability to posses in school environments.  This way, those who care have a path and the valid concerns of safety may be addressed.

          •  According to your logic (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy

            We would be banning an incalculable number of items.

            When a plane crashes we look at what went wrong and find ways to improve the system.  We don't eliminate the planes.  

            Just because you don't agree that people should be able to own semi-automatic rifles doesn't mean that you should be able to tell someone else that they can't.

            •  you keep falling back on the same reasoning: (0+ / 0-)

              X might not work, and even if it does, it only tackles a small amount of the problem, therefore X is useless so we're stuck.  

              That's completely loopy.

              Plus there's all sort of things that you 'can't' own (without appropriate regulations/paperwork/training/procedures)  You can't have plutonium.  You can't have drugs.  You can't have alcohol if you're under 21.  You can't have a lion.  You can't have unexploded ordnance.  Lots of stuff.

              •  More to the point, you can't own... (0+ / 0-)

                ...a Thompson submachine gun without a special permit. They and all other fully automatic weapons were "banned" after they became the weapon of choice in the mob wars of the Prohibition era. I put "banned" in quotes because you can still buy a fully automatic gun, but you have to jump through serious hoops to do it. This allows collectors and serious hobbyists to continue to own such guns - but they have to prove they are responsible. That's what we're asking here - you must prove to the satisfaction of society at large that you will behave in a responsible manner with your guns. And there are lines that can, and should, be drawn. I support expansion of background checks and closing of the gun show loophole for all guns, and restricting ownership of anything above a 6-shot revolver, 3-shot rifle and 3-shot shotgun in the same way fully automatic guns are restricted now.

                I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

                by ObamOcala on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:03:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Ditto, no bans. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neo Control, theboz, fuzzyguy, annakerie

      Stop talking about bans and lets start having a discussion of the real issues, like what to do about crime and how to deal with criminals using guns.  Lets also talk about ways we could improve the system to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.

  •  I say your ideas won't pass (5+ / 0-)

    and will cost the Democrats.

    No thanks.

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:01:00 AM PST

    •  Stop hiding behind Democrats. (0+ / 0-)

      You do not speak for the vast majority of Democrats.

      Have you spoken one word of empathy, compassion or condolence for the victims of gun violence? I have been watching the comments since Sandy Hook, and I have not seen a RKBA member exhibit any honest internal reflection or basic human response.

      Speak for yourself, not on behalf of Democrats, if your only objective here is to clutch your weapons to your ice-cold heart, without regard for those of us who are actual victims of gun violence.

      Think before you fire here.

      "Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope." ~Robert F. Kennedy

      by Agent99 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:08:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Like the idea until I read (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deedogg, noway2, theboz, fuzzyguy, annakerie, VClib

    what you actually had in mind.

    Bans on assault rifles is a terrible idea and one I won't agree to.  All long rifles combined account for less than 400 deaths per year yet their are millions of them in circulation.  I would say that people are already responsible with assault rifles statistically.

    Further, you want to ban my pheasent hunting shotgun simply because it is semi-auto as well.  You are losing more and more potential responsible gun owners because you are banning what they already use responsibly.

    Total non starter.

    •  Wow, ONLY 400 deaths per year... (0+ / 0-)

      ...yes, by all means then, if we're ONLY killing 400 people a year with rifles, then let's not do anything. Because, you know, 400 needless deaths, 400 devastated families, that's nothing to worry about. Never mind that within days, one specific type of gun was used to snuff out the lives of a few first graders and two firefighters - at Christmastime, no less - and never mind that this one specific type of gun is really only useful for sending a large number of human beings to heaven or hell in a short amount of time, which, of course, makes it a macho and badass thing to own, we shouldn't ban that gun (or at least make it as difficult to obtain as a fully automatic weapon), because hey, there are millions of them out there that aren't being used (at the moment) to take out kids and firemen. Apparently the deaths of 400 innocent people is insignificant compared to your right to play with your big boy toys.

      I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

      by ObamOcala on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:16:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My point is that (0+ / 0-)

        most gun violence isn't caused by assault rifles.  Shotgun's and handgun's account for most of it yet many here are insisting that I give up my AR and not my handguns/shotguns/less scary long rifles.

        This is a political thing at this point and really serves no purpose to protect anyone from anything.

        You do realize that the 400 deaths figure accounts for ALL long rifles, right?  Since most are caused by bolt action long rifles, we can further see that AR's account for a tiny fraction of gun deaths in America.

        This entire witch hunt points to folks who truly wish to ban all weapons and that is obvious.  You included.

    •  Same here. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annakerie, jung123

      I'm a democrat but I'd vote against any of my reps that voted for something like that.

      I wouldn't be opposed to banning the production or sale of big clips.

      Wouldn't be against closing the gun show loophole either.

      Would for sure be for increased funding to make the instant check system more inclusive.

      Would be ok with putting a tax on so called "assault weapons" designed to discourage impulse buys.

      However wouldnt' really be for banning guns even certain types. An AR15 with a small clip is no more dangerous than a hunting rifle.

      •  An AR with a small clip (0+ / 0-)

        is less danerous then a hunting rifle although AR's are hunting rifles.  I use mine exclusively for coyote hunting by the way.  A .223 round is perfect in size to cause minimum damage to the hide afterall.  The big boy hunting rifles would explode the little coyotes damaging them badly.

        I think many here think an AR is a big caliber rifle which is laughable.  In Minnesota, you can't even hunt deer with them because the state has deemed a .223 to small a caliber to get the job done on big game and I agree with them.

  •  YES to car control. MADD worked wonders at (0+ / 0-)

    lowering the acceptable blood alcohol levels that drivers could have.

    YES to food control -- I want my food to be safe and the FDA and Agriculture department need to be properly funded to do their jobs.

    YES to Alcohol control because I don't want minors to be able to buy it and drive -- too many kids were able to get it in my generation and being able to sue a bar for serving someone who is already drunk has helped save many, many lives.

    Which of the Merchants of Death do you represent?

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:36:40 AM PST

  •  I'd say one of the first responsibilities ought to (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    noway2, theboz, fuzzyguy, VClib

    be to refine your terms of reference. For example:

    1. Military grade AK-47s and M-16s are selective fire assault rifles (machine guns in BATF-speak). One selection is full automatic (i.e. one trigger pull, many bullets). Weapons with this characteristic have been prohibited from sale to or possession by civilians since about 1934 (revised in 1968 [PDF]), except under extraordinary registration, licensing and taxing rules. Conversion of currently sold AR-15 style semi-automatic firearms to permit full automatic fire has been physically impossible without their reclassification as a machine gun since the 1980s (see ATF Rul. 81-4). There is nothing obscure about this.

    2. If "The rules that apply to automatic guns will now be applied for semiautomatic [guns]", under the 1934 law this would prohibit the sale of the vast majority of handguns now sold in the U.S. and many, many rifles. Of course, that may be your objective.

  •  What about the other 5%? 5% of 283M is a LOT! (0+ / 0-)

    Just take me out and 'shoot' me.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:38:36 AM PST

  •  I too agreed with you, till I read (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon, theboz, fuzzyguy, KVoimakas

    what you actually intended.  The talk of bans, both "assault weapon" and magazine capacity limits needs to stop.  It's continued focus is doing nothing but preventing a real earnest conversation from beginning.  I think that the a major part of the focus really, absolutely, needs to be about gun responsibility.  

    The vast majority of gun owners are responsible.  The data speaks volumes to that effect.  In America, we don't punish responsible people because of the actions of a few.  This concept has been held up as a crucial underpinning of our legal and judicial system in our country since the beginning.

    If you want to win peoples hearts and minds, if you want to bring about a culture change, you need to do it by means other than alienating them.

    Stop calling for bans and start calling your politicians and tell them to cut it out too.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site