Skip to main content

View Diary: A New Assault Weapons Ban (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I can get behind what you suggested; it's a start (3+ / 0-)

    I have mixed feelings about the entire problem. I haven't read any suggestions from gun owners although we need them on our side.  

    The 2nd amendment is antiquated & reflects that the law was about oppressing slaves. Free to own people & kill them with a gun is how I interpret it.

    •  Yeah, and to be clear (3+ / 0-)

      I am not a gun owner, but grew up in a hunting state (VT).  So, I am not opposed to hunting, though I am opposed to dumb-ass NY, MA and CT hunters coming up to the forests near my home and blowing each other away.

      I have never again found the source, but I remember reading something a long time ago that in the Vermont woods, you are more likely to get accidentally shot during hunting season if you WEAR HUNTER'S ORANGE.  A good chunk of the hunters from out of state come up to drink and hunt, and trigger simply on are more likely to be seen in hunter's orange, thus more likely to get shot.  Like I said, though, I have never again found mention of the study, so it might be bullshit.

      All I know is that I pumped gas at a rural VT general store in high school...I know how drunk many of the out of state hunters are.

      "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

      by Empty Vessel on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 05:24:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  EV, been there done that. (targeted by others) (0+ / 0-)

        I switched to full camo where legal, and I'll sit still - unseen.

        I've startled a few people, when saying:  I'd rather you not sit here...

        I believe it's better than being the recipient of: "I saw something and fired at it - let's go look."

    •  "I haven't read any suggestions from gun owners... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...although we need them on our side."

      OK, I am a gun owner and here is my suggestion. The main problem as I see it is that people with known mental health problems have access to firearms. Anyone who has repeatedly threatened suicide, threatened others, or actually attacked another person, or is otherwise determined to be mentally disturbed by a competent mental health professional should be reported to local authorities, and denied further access to guns (no guns in the house), and no gun purchases until the problem is resolved. This intervention could be done in a low key way by non uniformed officials. In virtually every mass shooting incident I am aware of there was plenty of advance warning to the health professionals involved, but currently patient privacy trumps public safety. Our laws need to change to treat this problem the way we handle the terrorist no fly list. People can be added to the "no gun list" for good cause without judicial oversight subject to appeal if authorities over step reasonable bounds. The idea that people will refuse to seek mental health assistance out of fear of losing their guns is not a reasonable objection to this approach. In the vast majority of cases these troubled individuals are well known in advance of their tragic actions and this will not change. What will change is their access to guns, and their ability to murder scores of innocents.

      Republicans. Like Romney himself, they have so much and always will, and yet they resent those who have so little and always will.

      by wishbone on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:12:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  good comment wishbone! (0+ / 0-)

        I'd like someone other than a cop to make the determination, even-if it's a Traffic Court judge... and have the appeal process fairly well defined, and not an insurmountable hurdle.

        "The Commissioner of State Police, Sheriff, Chief of Police, 3 Psychiatrists, 2 Social Workers, and a member of the Clergy must agree on your request for restoration."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site