I imagine that providing everyone - not just those who want access to guns - with adequate mental health care would benefit the public. But that’s far cry from what you’re proposing. You’re not suggesting that we just offer it and help whatever walk-ins we get, your proposal is to make it a mandatory condition for gun ownership. That’s the part I object to. Do you really not understand that or are you just trying to play coy?
That’s not a middle ground. Do you know who originally proposed universal background checks? The NRA. There’s no reason they shouldn’t be required of everyone selling guns, not just the people who describe themselves as being in the business.
The usual objection is “But what about Granpa passing down his hunting rifle to his grandkid?”. If he wants to give the kid his rifle, fine. Why would he be selling it?
Because the Founding Fathers were a bunch of amateurs who had no idea how to write a Constitution. To be fair, there weren’t a lot of precedents to learn from at the time, but the end result is still that they did a pretty poor job.
And they were written by committees who had different agendas, many that revolved around slavery. The reason the 2nd is such a mess is that the original draft by Madison was then picked apart by a committee who made a series of changes that rendered the thing nearly incomprehensible, especially to anyone who is just reading the thing without the historical context or having read things like the Federalist Papers to give it some context.
Its been a while since I red the full amendment, but as far as I am aware, there is nothing that says where the people are allowed to keep them and when they’re allowed to bear them.
The idea is that it could be a win for everybody. Weapons are available to everyone who is willing to prove they are capable and committed to safe and responsible gun use.
I doubt anybody rational would think the government is coming to get their guns. I specifically stated the plan would take decades, and the plan isn’t to round up all the guns, but rather to phase out private ownership in favor of communal ownership.
I wouldn’t say it took a lot if thought. Took me maybe half an hour to type the OP, which I wasn’t in a hurry to complete, and I got the idea for a well regulated militia directly from the 2nd amendment.
It seems logical to have the armories pay for themselves. Different armories could use different business models, and the market would go with the best model.
I dont feel its one sided, i feel like it is the best solution for society, disregarding partisan politics altogether. Despite my username and fairly liberal attitude, I feel like an effective idea is an effective idea, regardless of which ideology is more passionate about it.
Yeah, I can’t imagine where they’d get that idea.
Ahhhh, now I see.
Yes, but over time the amount of guns will diminish. It could take 300 years before the program is fully implemented, but 300 years from now Americans could have a very different outlook on firearms, and I believe this plan will help change that outlook in a positive way
The therapy isn’t intended to prevent gun violence by catching the crazies before they shoot someone. Sure, some people may be denied the right to use the weapon outside of the armory based on the therapist’s recommendation, but the main point is to encourage people to talk about their feelings with someone trained to listen. I believe this would help lower the instances of people grabbing a gun in an emotion fueled frenzy and shooting someone.
This does quite a lot actually. Ammunition would be strictly controlled off premesis, which can limit the amount of victims in an eventual case. The aforementioned therapy can help to prevent people from coming to a murderous solution altogether (see my future post to shodan for cites). By the time guns aren’t freely available, people may even have a different outlook on firearms use and possession, further lowering instances. If someone is fantasizing about mass murder or suicide, just the smallest speedbump in the process can cause the person to think about what they’re doing and decide that the reality if their fantasy is not worth the trouble and just stick with the fantasy.
I agree that rifles and shotguns should be more obtainable than handguns and automatic weapons, especially the farther from civilization you are.
The idea isn’t necessarily to put one entity in charge, but rather to have the federal government establish reasonable guidelines and then have the state government and local communities establish regulations that are voted on by the people in the community. Only local militia members will be allowed to remove firearms from the armories to prevent people from travelling to an area with more relaxed gun laws to obtain a firearm for the purposes of committing a crime elsewhere. Finally, the armories themselves are allowed to operate under a regulated free market, with auditing to make sure they are following the guidelines. Auditing can be done by both governmental and private entities.
That’s the idea. Several decades for public opinion to gradually shift.
And the problem is identifying which gun owners are problematic. It seems like the Las Vegas shooter was a legal gun owner right up until the day that he wasn’t.
I mean, I like guns. I think they’re fun and useful for shootin and killin. I think everybody should be allowed the chance to use them. However I also believe that my right to not be shot is more important than the right for any barely trained adult to carry a personal firearm at all times. (I understand the constitution doesn’t make this distinction. It is a personal opinion.)
I feel like if the pro-gun crowd would be open to a solution other than letting the gun problem sort itself out, they would see that this plan stands to change our attitude on firearm use, and allow more Americans access to a greater variety of firearms in a controlled setting. In the unlikely event of a foreign or domestic government takeover, all members of the militia would rally at the armory to put their training to use.
Everyone is a law abiding citizen up until the moment they’re not.
My proposal is that the best solution is for strict regulations that combat a number of factors that I believe lead to gun violence. Any law is essentially a position or multiple positions intended to be enforced. I think the only difference is that people will refuse to agree with this position based on ideology and a fear of being vulnerable, rather than how it would benefit of harm society. And its not like i ever said “this is the way it will be and there shall be no compromise.” I just listed a quick outline of how the idea could benefit both sides of the debate, even though many who disagree with me will overlook the net benefits in favor of focusing solely on the effects they feel are negative.
Deer hunters?
Ted Nugent.
Can somebody show me examples of some left leaning whackjobs regarding gun control? I can’t think of any, however I’m sure dems must have made some wild claims and have tried to pass laws gun rights people would classify as gun-grabbing.
I agree with you about sensible gun control. I currently vote in favor of such policies. Up until late last year I believed only handgun possession, or at least concealed carry should be restricted, while hunting weapons should be available in areas with a certain population density( meaning rifles are available in more remote areas, and shotguns available anywhere slightly rural.).
Now I believe that it would be better for society if we strictly limit possession of all weapons, while still allowing the public to operate a local militia and (relatively) freely use guns for legal purposes. (Regardless of what current laws allow, this is my submission for the solution with the greatest net benefit for society. Many people are saying this would never happen, which I agree with. That has nothing to do with whether or not this is a good idea that allows both sides of the debate to benefit.)
The federal, state, and local governments would just provide the regulations, and could assist with enforcement unless anybody has a better solution on how to enforce the regulations.
The firearms don’t need to be collected, they can be voluntarily stored by the militia members, or purchased by the armory. If a citizen wants to purchase a private firearm that isn’t grandfathered in, they could do so through the armory. Depending on the weapon, they would be able to check it out freely for legal reasons.
If you already have guns, you would still have them for home defense. Part if the appeal to gun enthusiasts should be the fact that the only real effect on them would be slightly stricter regulations on new firearms only. It makes it slightly more difficult to purchase a new firearm, and impossible to keep that new firearm for home defense. It stands to reason that if such a law were going to be passed, people would have ample time to purchase plenty of firearms for home defense if they believe it to be necessary. A federal limit on the amount or type of firearms isn’t necessary to the plans effectiveness, it would just help to ensure that the amount of firearms on the street goes down more quickly and our cultural views on keeping firearms in our homes change at a faster rate.
And I don’t think the problem is that we can’t agree on reasonable controls, I think the problem is that a lot of money is spent trying to convince people that any sort of government control or regulation is bad when regarding guns.
Just re-read your OP. Your proposal there would get called “gun-grabbing” by a lot of people.
Or you could read the NYT - To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment or posts by various other Dopers. Here is an excerpt from the Boston Globe (in an article titled, I note, “Hand over your weapons”) from a few months ago:
I think that is a great idea, however those weapons are fun to shoot, and I believe all Americans should be allowed to do so responsibly. Plus, they would be effective in one of those Red Dawn or gun-grabbing situations, and I think my plan allows and encourages the average citizen to have greater access to the proper training to be effective in that or any scenario where they might have a firearm.
Also, confiscation was never in my plan. Nobody would enjoy that. My plan allows entropy to take care of the guns. Plans like yours could also be used to help speed up the voluntary collection process.
Yeah the title was mainly to get people to actually view the post and engage in the sharing of ideas. I understand the likelihood(or rather how unlikeliness) of any part of my plan being considered at any point in the foreseeable future but I still believe this is the foundation for an extremely successful solution.
No, hopefully the firearm you currently own, (or the one that you would likely purchase if such a law were ever a reality) is closer to you than the intruder. A firearm is a reactive measure of defense. If you are truely worried about your family, you should be pro-active in protecting them. It is much safer for you, your family, and your property, to take measures to make your home a less likely target for a dangerous intruder in the first place. Plus, it’s less messy.
And as far as a mugger, you should just give them your stuff. Any good self defense instructor will tell you that. Trained fighters and CCW holders have been killed because the real world is not ‘Deathwish’. Besides, muggers usually target people who look vulnerable, especially ones that aren’t paying attention. Just being aware of your surroundings is more effective than believing you’ll be able to spot the threat, ready your weapon, and decide to fire with enough distance for a gun to be preferable to a knife in a self defense situation. Besides, if you have the disposable income to purchase a firearm, you probably have enough in the bank to cover whatever this straw mugger would take. Plus, there would be the opportunity for a burgeoning new mugging insurance policy to protect you and your assets.