Skip to main content

View Diary: There IS an end run around the 2nd Amendment. Let's do it and #EndTheSlaughter. (309 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This would never make it through Congress (7+ / 0-)

    Even if the Democrats controlled both chambers.  It certainly won't get the support of the populace.

    Anything that is simply punitive and designed to stamp out a culture that you disagree with is going to be doomed to failure.  Solutions need to address the problem of violence and it's causes.

    "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

    by blackhand on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:48:10 AM PDT

    •  It's not punative. It's regulation designed to (0+ / 0-)

      abate a Public Health Safety issue.

      Just like if a plague occurred, wouldn't we expect the Government and the CDC to find a way to cure people and save them?

      The mass murder by gun in America IS a plague.

      Every Right, even the 1st Amendment of Free Speech, is subject to reasonable regulation.

      I'm not suggesting that bullets be banned, only that they be regulated so as to discourage criminals from attempting to use them in the commission of crimes, and to prevent those who are mentally unfit from acquiring the ability to commit mass murder via licensing and yearly renewals & microstamping and/or Taggant for powder, so that whomever purchased the ammunition could be held responsible if it's used to kill someone else.

      How is any of THAT "punative"? And the only culture it's designed to "stamp out" is the one made up of criminals and the criminally insane. Which you should support, I would think.


      "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

      by Angie in WA State on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 06:06:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  re: " use them in the commission of crimes" (0+ / 0-)

        Are you saying that we're having a problem identifying, catching, and prosecuting those that are committing murder?

        so that whomever purchased the ammunition could be held responsible
        You want to hold people responsible for a product that they may have purchased, when it is not in their control, if it is used in a crime.

        "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

        by blackhand on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:03:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why yes, I do. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blackhand
          You want to hold people responsible for a product that they may have purchased, when it is not in their control, if it is used in a crime.
          You purchase a product which is deadly to others, you should be required to store and manage it safely. If you don't you should be held responsible when bad things happen.

          Let's say an energy company stores it's ashy waste from mountain top mining in an unsafe way, and an accident spills that waste into a river and contaminates it and thus poisons the water supply of a nearby town. Should that company be held liable for the damage and possible deaths which may result? I believe they should.

          It's the same with guns and ammunition. Those who choose to exercise their Right to own them should be held responsible when something happens and those items cause the death of an innocent person later on, if the purchaser fails to maintain them in a safe fashion.


          "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

          by Angie in WA State on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:45:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I understand what you're saying (0+ / 0-)

            You raise a good point,  People should be required to store and manage their guns responsibly and safely.  I absolutely concur with you 100% here.

            This is not the same as holding someone legally or financially liable for the crimes committed by another person, which is what I was questioning in my previous comment.

            This is also where the waters get murky.  What constitutes sufficient in terms of responsibility?  For example, according to the police reports the shooter in OR defeated the security measures on his parents weapons.  In fact, most commercial gun safes and lock boxes can be defeated as plenty of you tube demonstrations will attest.  

            I believe it is a federal law that firearms be stored in a manner that they would be inaccessible to a minor.  What about a person who does not have children or have children visit?  What would constitute sufficient?  What if they sell the gun through legal and proper channels?  What if their house is burglarized?

            Things really get difficult when we consider cars and "gun free zones".  Take for example a person with a concealed carry permit.  They've been through the background check process and had at least some training (whether it is sufficient is another issue).  It is unlikely that this is the type of person who is going to be the problem, at least any more than police officers become the problem.  It happens, but it is pretty rare.  This is also the type of person who would comply with "gun free" zone regulations.  This person then leaves a gun in their vehicle where it is less secure and more easily stolen, even in a lock box.  Which is less safe, them carrying their gun in a secure holster on their person or leaving it in their car to create an illusion of safety?

            There really is something to the need to enforce the existing laws.  How often have we heard "they had a rap sheet a mile long?" when a criminal makes the news?  How many criminals are already known to the legal system?  When the courts and jails are a revolving door what kind of results should we expect?

            "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

            by blackhand on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 05:01:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site