15 Jan

Finally, a Sensible Gun Control Solution [Reader Post]

                                       

I’ve intentionally avoided this topic since it seems almost every possible angle has been explored, and everyone has some solution that will leave one side angry and for the most part, the other side unsatisfied. What nobody seems to be looking at is a real solution, that can only be found if we strip away all of the rhetoric and look at the fundamentals of what each side really wants:

Conservatives: The right to directly protect themselves, their family, and property from those who would do them harm.

Leftists: The right to indirectly have themselves, their family, and property protected from those who would do them harm.

Yes, both sides’ arguments are far more complicated but I think that both of my statements are at the root of almost all of the debates. So why not find a solution that satisfies the needs of both sides?

We have plenty of housing developments being built in this country – why not begin designating some as gun free communities? And if there is enough demand for these communities we could incorporate gun free townships. The predominately leftist Washington, DC area already has nearby two such planned towns in Columbia, MD and Reston, VA. This would be a perfect region to start another. This would place all of the anti-gun crowd in an enclave where they know that none of their neighbors will be armed with guns, save for local law enforcement. To see if such a planned community could work I would place one other caveat: the gun free zones would not be allowed to have any additional police protection beyond what other communities have. To see if such an experiment could work we need to have an apples to apples comparison. Naysayers would argue that places that already have strict gun laws, like Chicago, DC, or New York have such problems because guns already exist in those communities. Here is a chance to start from scratch. Finally, there is no longer any worry that your neighbor might be one of those crazed gun nuts! And I have a feeling that your gun owning neighbor won’t shed too many tears when you leave.

Given the historical effectiveness of gun free zones, or countries, in declaring such zones to curb violence, what could possibly go wrong?

Here is a chance for the anti-gun left to get what they truly want – freedom from accountability for personal safety while ensuring that lethal force is effectively monopolized by the state. And it can be done in a way that doesn’t restrict the freedom of others. After all, the proponents for gun restriction’s motive is helping people, not controlling them…right?

Cross posted from Brother Bob’s Blog

This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Dumb Laws, Law, Liberal Idiots, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, January 15th, 2013 at 6:00 am
| 978 views

39 Responses to Finally, a Sensible Gun Control Solution [Reader Post]

  1. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 1

    What about safety outside the community—like schools, the mall, church, or just on the street? Or are you also suggesting that people be confined to these communities? Or, is this some kind of satire that is only humorous to right-wingers.

    ReplyReply
  2. Jim S says: 2

    I think it’s a kind of satire only humorous to actual thinkers. ;-)

    My silly notion is to put any registration/ backgrounding under the control of the NRA. With the added caveat that the records can not be accessed by government except on warrant for a specific serial number…. This “let the community regulate itself” approach works for amateur radio…..

    ReplyReply
  3. Scott in Oklahoma says: 3

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity): Answer me this honestly: Do you support the concept of the president using executive orders to circumvent the Constitution? I am not referring solely to the 2nd Amendment, I am also curious if you think it’s a good idea as far as other areas of the Constitution.

    ReplyReply
  4. kevino says: 4

    This is a popular challenge issued by gun-rights advocates, and it exposes the basic flaw in the hoplophobe mentality. Whenever a gun-grabber says, “Guns don’t make us safer.” The response is, “OK, if you believe that, then put a sign on your front lawn declaring that the house is a gun-free zone: there are no guns here.”

    They almost never do. Almost.

    Several years ago a group took up the challenge. They had a graphic artists design nice looking signs; they put together a web site where you could download the signs or order signs; and they had an 800 number of people to call in and get information. It lasted just a couple of months. The web site was taken down, and the 800 number was disconnected. A journalist contacted the creator of the site, who told him that the project was shutdown because something terrible happened to someone who displayed one of their signs.

    They learned the hard way that violent criminals prefer unarmed victims.

    ReplyReply
  5. Ditto says: 5

    @Brother Bob:

    To see if such a planned community could work I would place one other caveat: the gun free zones would not be allowed to have any additional police protection beyond what other communities have.

    As with any planned community, the residents would have the option of enacting an HOA that would be free to hire any additional security (at a cost to the membership of course,) that the membership desires. Of course the real reason Democrats will be against these communities is that it would be logical for these townships to be part of a single voting district, which would make Democrats less able to force their political agenda on others via gerrymandering.

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):

    What about safety outside the community—like schools, the mall, church, or just on the street? Or are you also suggesting that people be confined to these communities?

    You must have missed it. Brother Bob did say that these could be “gun free” townships. Townships have their own school systems & police departments that they manage. Nor should there be any reasonable expectation for those outside the community to bear the cost of any additional police protection within it, especially as the whole concept of the pro-gun control crowd is that their utopian gunless societies would be safer.

    I have a name suggestion for the proposed testbed community/township: Victimsville.

    ReplyReply
  6. redc1c4 says: 6

    i live in an upscale portion of Lost Angels, here in Failifornia.

    my neighbors are almost universally anti-gun, and rabidly so. some very well off folks who live on a dead end street felt that the LAPD wasn’t providing enough protection to them, so they got together and decided that what their enclave needed was a private patrol to give them the security they craved.

    except of course, that the same folks who wanted this security didn’t want to actually shell out for themselves, so the perimeter of the patrol area keeps expanding to try and find enough suckers to cover the nut.

    liberals always want someone else to do something for them, whether it’s pay more taxes, give up rights or go without.

    ReplyReply
  7. Kalashnikat says: 7

    The unspoken part of all this debate is that the anti civil rights (anti-gunner) crowd knows that their ideas could never win 2/3 of both houses or 3/4 of the states, so the Constitution will not get changed by this reckless mob that is out to lynch the Second Amendment….
    I’m just calling it as it is….

    ReplyReply
  8. Redteam says: 8

    As was pointed out, we have cities where guns are tightly regulated (legal guns we’re talking here), of course the illegal guns are not regulated at all. I’m not sure how that would be handled in a ‘gun-free’ city. Would each person/car have to be searched prior to someone entering that community? who would do that? Burglaries and personal assaults are usually higher in these cities/communities. If I had to post a sign would I rather it say: Gun Free House, You don’t have to be concerned about firearms in this House

    or: This House is protected by Firearms: There is a minimum of one shotgun in each room, Enter at your own Risk.
    I know which one I would prefer.

    ReplyReply
  9. GAI says: 9

    I think the White House should lead by example. If our schools are ‘Gun Free Zones’ (except of course the schools the elite’s children go to) then the White House should also be a ‘Gun Free Zone’

    You can even sign the petition:

    If the President uses the presence of guns to protect himself then why are the citizens of the USA not granted the exact same right. Since when are there different classes of people in the USA?

    ReplyReply
  10. GAI says: 10

    Massachusetts is a gun ban state. It did not keep the guy from getting shot to death beneath my window in Boston (Mass Ave area) and it didn’t keep my neighbor from becoming a serial killer/rapist.

    ReplyReply
  11. Redteam says: 11

    @GAI: True GAI, laws are only made for law abiding citizens. When lawmakers realize that the laws they pass need to protect law abiding citizens, then maybe they can start to be effective. If they want a possession or use of a firearm law to be effective, it needs to be something like. If you are caught with an illegal firearm, you will serve a minimum of 10 years. If you use a firearm to commit a crime, 25 years. Maybe something like that will be effective. I don’t have the answers, but then it’s not apparent that anyone else does either.

    ReplyReply
  12. FAITH7 says: 12

    The Left consistently cries about peoples “Rights”…..and ‘uses’ our Constitution by consistently twisting it’s straightforward meaning and intent to “fit” their Utopia agenda….truly bizarre and dishonest…let alone immoral… all the while decrying it is an “obsolete” document….Ah, yes, wanting it BOTH WAYS as usual..

    Well, this “Obsolete” [Great] Document, Our Constitution of the United States of America is the one [and only] thing standing between Government Tyranny against the Citizens of this Great Country and no one should ever forget that….[but even this, no thanks to the Left, is now more so than ever, in Jeopardy]

    What kills me about this “debate” is that the 2nd Amendment is a “true” RIGHT guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America….not a right created by virtue of ‘reading into’ and “creating a right” that isn’t really there…. by manipulating the Constitutions words, meanings and ‘intent”….which is something the the LEFT L O V E S to try and do….over and over again…and the greater, long term, impact is most always a lose -lose for everyone…

    More to the Point:
    “The text of the Second Amendment is, ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

    “The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a ‘right of the people.’ “

    “[And] here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgment of the [unconditional right of the people] to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

    “And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.”

    “It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges [Don't forget the Progressive/Liberal Left] who decide that the Second Amendment [doesn't mean what it says it means] – [but means whatever "they" say it means] in their Orwellian doublespeak ?”

    Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor ?”

    You can read in full – very interesting and unbiased here: THE UNABRIDGED 2ND AMENDMENT – http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

    Stop taking away “OUR” [True] RIGHTS bit by bit..which are GUARANTEED to US!

    ReplyReply
  13. Scott in Oklahoma says: 13

    @Redteam: The penalties you cited are already law. Illegal possession of a firearm covers under-age, possession by convicted felon and some other criteria, penalties run from 5 to 10 years with some minimum mandatories in some states. Use of a firearm in the commission of a felony is a separate offense and almost always charged in homicide, armed robbery, big narcotics possession and kidnapping cases, by itself it carries big penalties in most states as well.

    Bottom line, criminals don’t care about what laws they break, nor the penalties. There’s always a deal to be made if they get caught, and they never believe they will get caught. It isn’t the tool, it IS the criminal.

    ReplyReply
  14. I say, in the 80 thousands and plus AMERICANS BRANDED WITH THE NAME FELON,
    THERE ARE HUMAN BEING WHO ARE LABEL UNJUSTLY,
    THEY HAVE MADE A MISTAKE NOT VIOLENT, NOT HAVE HURT ANYONE, JUST BEING CAUGHT ON AN ILLEGAL ACTION BY IGNORANCE OR JUST BY BEING THERE WITH A FRIEND WHOM THEY DID NOT KNOW TO BE A THIEFT, OR OTHER MINUS ILLEGALITY,
    THEY NEVER THE LESS PAID THE PRICE AND NOW FREE AMONG CIVILIENS,
    AS AMERICANS DESERVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR FAMILY BY HAVING A GUN,
    THEY DESRVE A JOB BEFORE ANY IMMIGRANTS AND ILLEGAL OF COURSE, THEY HAVE STUDY AND HAVE THE MBA FOR MANY AND ARE BRIGHTER THAN ANY FOREIGNER, AND MOST OF ALL
    THEY LOVE THEIR COUNTRY AMERICA, AND DESRVE A PLACE AND A LIFE IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY,
    SOME OF THEM COME FROM THE DEEPER ROOTS THAN MANY OTHER, THEY BELONG,
    AND ARE PROUD, THEY DON’T WANT HAND OUT THEY WANT A DECENT JOB,
    BECAUSE THEY ARE DECENT HAVING PAID THE PRICE FOR THEIR MISTAKE.
    THOSE ARE NOT PERVERT, NOT THE MURDERER, NOT THE GANSTA, NOT THE ONE WHO HURT OTHER,

    ReplyReply
  15. Redteam says: 15

    @Scott in Oklahoma: Scott, yes, you’re right. Someway the burden has to be on the criminals to obey the law. I don’t have the answer. Unfortunately society doesn’t either. I listened to that Pompous Ass, Piers Morgan saying “Great Britain doesn’t have guns, no one has a gun, not even policemen” but then he said Britain has 30-40 gun deaths a year. So obviously ‘they do have guns’. How can using firearms be stopped in crimes?

    ReplyReply
  16. Redteam says: 16

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, one felony that should not be overlooked is the use of a firearm. (of course, Age, should always be a consideration)

    ReplyReply
  17. Scott in Oklahoma says: 17

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, I took great pride in my due dilligance when it came to prosecuting my cases. I can say with 100% certainty that the people I put in prison, felons if you will, were guilty and deserved probably a heavier sentence than they got. That said, if someone really wanted to, I believe they can petition the governor to have their rights restored after serving their time. I spent a lot of time as a detective specializing in gang investigation, putting away the hardcores.

    ReplyReply
  18. Brother Bob says: 18

    One point I just thought of that I should have included in the post – can we start calling lefties who won’t advertise their own homes as gun free zones “2nd Amendment Chickenhawks”?

    ReplyReply
  19. Scott in Oklahoma
    hi,
    yes I believe you,
    and I would very much have your opinion on the ones who came
    at the POST
    name : DO FELON DESERVE….I must warn you it has over 400 comments, it capture my attention
    from the beginning, there are many stories we don’t have any reason to not believe,
    and the most evident is the fact that society have shun them out of the job market like leprosy,
    it’s heart breaking for some, please check it, I would believe your opinion and answer to help them,
    they are all finish with their punishment, most of them are highly educated ready to work
    and start a new life, but the companies don’t hired them, even if they are clean from many years
    they are for life branded in some search web like GOOGLE, THIS IS TRAGIC
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  20. The only new laws we need is one that says you cannot infringe upon Americans constitutional rights!

    ReplyReply
  21. “Sensible”… Ha, what a joke!

    ReplyReply
  22. ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ says: 22

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):

    Funny you should ask. That’s exactly how I feel about states like MD, NY, NJ, etc.; where I’m not allowed by law to carry the weapon I use to protect myself in 2/3 of the country.

    ReplyReply
  23. SouthernRoots says: 23

    @ redteam - If you are caught with an illegal firearm, you will serve a minimum of 10 years. This is nice, except that government can make you instantly liable to have an “illegal” firearm, such as New York did yesterday.

    ReplyReply
  24. more of divides, they succeeded on this one,
    watch the criminals move in free to take any thing,

    ReplyReply
  25. SouthernRoots
    they will ad felons to the list of many thousands

    ReplyReply
  26. kevino says: 26

    @GAI:

    Massachusetts is bad, but not that bad. Many town will not allow you to have a pistol permit, but you can easily get a firearms id card that will entitle you to acquire a shotgun. Not as ggood as a handgun, but it’s better than defending your home with a knife or a golf club. For home defense, get a short (18.5″) barrel and consider putting a light on the front. Do not use a rifle: flash, blast, and over penetration make it ineffective. Also, a 12-guage is not a requirement: consider a 20-guage. It has as much muzzle energy as a .44 magnum, and it’s easier to control — especially for your wife.

    And practice, practice, practice.

    ReplyReply
  27. Kevino
    THAT WAS GOOD ADVICES,
    THANK YOU

    ReplyReply
  28. Redteam says: 28

    @SouthernRoots: I’m talking about the US Constitution, I don’t think individual states should be able to change gun owner qualifications.

    ReplyReply
  29. Redteam says: 29

    @kevino: If an intruder were attempting to enter my house, I think they would be much more deterred if they knew I were pointing a shotgun at them than if it were a pistol. But I prefer to own both.

    ReplyReply
  30. johngalt says: 30

    @Redteam:

    I don’t think individual states should be able to change gun owner qualifications.

    Under the Constitution, they cannot.

    Article VI

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    Meaning, that unless the particular law follows directly what federal law holds, or abides by the US Constitution, a State cannot limit the rights of a legal citizen of the US, more strictly than federal law and the Constitution allows. This has been used in several cases in the past to strike down State law, including some 2nd Amendment issue cases.

    If you have rights under the Constitution of the US, those rights cannot be abridged, or infringed upon, by any State within these United States.

    ReplyReply
  31. johngalt
    hi,
    could it be that he is making a lot of blah blah and those signatures on the gun topic,
    to cover up what the other topic is being study by his many lawyers,
    which is even more dangerous than the today signatures,
    that is the destruction of the 14 amendment ,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  32. johngalt
    I just saw from TURNER OLD MOVIES THE OLIVER CROMWELL LIFE STORY,FROM ENGLAND,
    IT A MUST SEE FOR ALL IN THE POLITIC, THE ELECTED TO HIGH OFFICES,
    I am very impress of it’s story , that’s why I came to recommend it,
    he had the last KING OF ENGLAND BEHEADED FOR CORRUPTION AND TREASON ON THE PEOPLE
    AND COLLABORATOR IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO START AN ARMY TO FIGHT HIS CITIZENS
    WHO HAD TURNED AGAINST HIM, HE DEMOTED THE CORRUPT PARLEMENT FOR WRONG RULING TO HURT THE PEOPLE,
    HE TOOK OVER AND RULE FOR 5 YEARS UNTIL HE DIED,
    AND THE NEW KINGDOM OF ENGLAND BEGAN AGAIN IN A WELL TAKEN CARE COUNTRY WHICH OLIVER LEFT RICH AND EDUCATED AND UNITED
    WOW, NOW IT’S TALKING TO YOU , AND TO ALL AMERICANS,
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  33. Redteam says: 33

    @johngalt: but they do it, New York just passed a new assault weapon(supposedly) ban. I don’t see how one state can control my rights to gun ownership if the state I live in gives me a right. If I have a concealed weapon permit in Georgia, I should be able to go anywhere in the US with that permit and weapon. If I can’t, then there has been a law passed that restricts my right to own and carry a gun, as a US citizen. I think the law should be changed to require EVERYONE to own a gun.

    ReplyReply
  34. Redteam says: 34

    Wait a minute: this can’t be right! The new New York law limits magazines to 7 rounds, the same as everyone else. Now they say that’s a mistake and they will correct it and make it 15 rounds for current and RETIRED law enforcement officers. What the hell? How does a ‘RETIRED’ law enforcement officer rate more rounds than I do? These people are crazy…..

    ReplyReply
  35. Ditto says: 35

    Crazy? Hard to say, but it is clearly an unconstitutional regulation if a “retired” law enforcement officer is allowed a bigger magazine. There is no guarantee that a retired law enforcement is any more trustworthy or “mentally stable” than any other citizen.

    Note: a reminder to California, New York and Illinois: In McDonald v. City of Chicago, The SCOTUS held that state and local governments are just as restricted by the Second Amendment as the federal government is. With the consideration that the law applies equally to all, by modifying it’s recently passed law in regards to “retired” law enforcement officers, it sets a high likelihood that at least this portion will not pass a Constitutional test. The SCOTUS has yet to drawn a line of just how far the Second Amendment may be infringed upon by gun control legislation.

    ReplyReply
  36. Scott in Oklahoma says: 36

    @Redteam… as a retired law enforcement officer, all I can say is “I got mine” :-)

    @Ditto… I’m not sure if New York, California and Illinois are in the same country as Olahoma and others out here in flyoverland.

    ReplyReply
  37. I have to put this somewhere, so here it is;
    AN SPCA LOCAL HAD TO EUTHANIZE ALL THEIR CATS WHO WHERE FOR ADOPTION,
    BECAUSE THE ALL HAVE BEEN FOUND POSITIVE ON A FLUE LIKE VERY INFECTIOUS DIDEASE
    CALL PANLEUKOPENIA VIRUS IS THE FELINE EQUIVALENT TO PARVORIUS FOR DOGS,
    THE CATS VIRUS AFFECT ALSO FERRETS AND MINKS, THIS ONE NO THREAT TO DOGS,
    AND COULD BE TRANSMIT FROM ANIMAL TO ANIMAL AND TO HUMAN TO ANIMAL,
    THE SYMPTOMS LIKE THE COMMON COLD, THEN MORE SEVERE SIGN OF ILLNES THEY CALL THE VET
    WHO ORDER ALL TO BE EUTHANIZE
    THE VIRUS CAN SURVIVE FOR LONGER THAN A YEAR IN CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTS
    IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO END THE PROPAGATION AND TO CLEAN ALL THE SHELTER WITH ANTI VIRUS SOAP LIKE DISENFECTANTS CLEANER, AT LEAST 3 TIMES.
    THE VACCINE IS NOT FOOLPROOF THEY SAY.
    EVEN with the proper shots, cat can still pick up the virus

    ReplyReply
  38. JIM MESSINA IS RALLYING ALL THE OBAMA FOLLOWERS TO
    A NEW ORGANISATION FOR OBAMA’ FOLLOWERS TO A PUBLIC SHOW OF POWER,
    HE SAID THAT ,WE DON’T KNOW ABOUT THE NEXT PRESIDENT BUT WE ALL ARE FOR OBAMA,
    SNIP

    WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU, IF YOU HEARD ABOUT THEM LOOKING IN TO THE 14 AMENDMENTS TO BE NEUTRALIZE, SO TO KEEP OBAMA ON THE THRONE ALONG WITH ALL THIS CROWD OF DEMOCRATES OBAMIST

    ReplyReply
  39. there is a talk about banning the bible for the inauguration,
    what’s a matter? is OBAMA afraid to swear on the BIBLE AN OATH THAT HE WILL BREACH,
    TO FIX HIS AGENDA,

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>