Skip to main content

Fine, you can have all the guns you can eat because our stupid court system has completely ignored the part of the Constitution which conditions bearing arms on membership in a "well regulated militia". However, where does the Constitution say you can sell weapons? Where does it say you can buy them from any dodgy hillbilly at a flea market?

It is time to eliminate the sale and trade of firearms between private individuals. You can buy as many guns as you wish, but only from a licensed dealer operating within your own state with a physical establishment. They must conduct full background checks and keep accurate records which are audited annually. Sell a weapon to a single ineligible person and your are out of business. Records must be kept on the sale of weapons, ammunition, high capacity clips any and kits which allow modification of a firearm from its factory specs. Mail order sale of guns, ammunition and accessories is banned.

Also, isn't it time we paid attention to the militia requirement? If you wish to own firearms, then you need to belong to a county militia which checks you out just like you were joining the army. You will require the same amount of training in the use of firearms that police and soldiers must endure and be qualified every year to ensure that you have no criminal infractions and are mentally competent to handle and properly use a firearm if needed.

Automatic disqualifiers for firearms ownership are:

1) Any crime involving violence and/or the threat of violence, especially domestic abuse.

2) Any crime involving the improper handling of a firearm.

3) Any crime involving the improper sale of a firearm.

4) DUI

5) Drug crimes involving any drug except marijuana.

Update: The use of a firearm in the commission of a crime must be punished harshly, especially if someone is harmed.

Also, while the first part of my proposal would not have helped in the current mass murder, it would certainly affect the 15,000 plus annual gun deaths in this country.

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

  •  I agree, but note that Lanza's mother did not (0+ / 0-)

    fit into any of the categories you list as disqualifiers, and her mentally disturbed son had full access to her legally owned private arsenal.  

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 06:26:56 AM PST

    •  Good point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wewantthetruth

      Then we must look at access within a home by people failing the criteria.

      Also, can we spend more money on mental health treatment? Almost always overlooked in the healthcare debate (along with dental care).

      •  exactly (0+ / 0-)

        I can hearing people say these guns were legally purchased and registered.........but NOT by or to the asshole who massacred the children.

        The asshole should not have had access to the guns if they were not legally his own and registered in HIS name.

        I would add as a disqualifier, anyone who themselves or anyone in the family is on prescription drugs used to treat an emotional disorder or has been diagnosed with an emotional disorder.

        if you are drunk, you're not allowed to drive a car or fly a plane....do some people do this? sure but in the bigger picture, look at what has been done to reduce drink driving deaths.

        Impossible things are hard to do but does not mean they cannot be done.

        We cannot let those twenty babies have died in vain.

        mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

        by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:30:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You fix things problem by problem. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wewantthetruth

      In this case we need to make sure there's devastatingly serious criminal liability for not securing guns in your possession.  Of course, the putative criminal in this case, Ms. Lanza, is dead, but in the next case he or she might not be and anyone who's potentially in that situation needs to know with certainty that if their negligence leads to a catastrophe they won't be standing in their doorway telling reporters how bad they feel, they'll be sitting jail with no prospect of release.

      You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

      by Rich in PA on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 06:42:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Man, I am glad to read your post (0+ / 0-)

        same thing with parents that buy and let their children play violent videos or watch violent movies/TV shows.

        Hey parents!! Get a clue: say NO! my parents did and it does not make you a bad parent if you do say no.

        mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

        by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:32:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ironically, I don't have a problem with those (0+ / 0-)

          Well, I do, a big problem, but I probably wouldn't make it a matter of criminal law.  Watching violent stuff may or may not make you prone to violence, but being prone to violence isn't a large-scare menace to society unless you have guns.  (Well, or other things, but interestingly enough people aren't allowed to own those things...only guns!)

          You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

          by Rich in PA on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:53:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not really worried about (0+ / 0-)

          violent movies/video games.

          The EU and Australia watch the same movies and play the same video games but do not have our violence problem.

  •  I was wondering how long it was going to take (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster

    before someone looked at ways to prevent more guns from getting to US citizens without technically violating the 2nd.

    However, there's no 'militia' requirement unless you turned back now-established precedent.

  •  I'm on your side, but this ain't right. (4+ / 0-)

    1.  At the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment, "well-regulated" meant "well-functioning," not "heavily restricted."

    2.  While I'm with you on the possible need for increased gun show regulation (though I'm not sure it has anything to do with Newtown), recognize that the "there's no right to sell" analogy has its weaknesses.  Could someone say "there's a constitutional right to receive an abortion, but no one says we have to allow OB/GYNs to perform them" or "freedom of press does not prevent heavily regulated and censored news stands," etc.

  •  I don't see how an exemption for pot makes sense (0+ / 0-)

    considering 'DUI' not only relates most commonly to a legal substance (alcohol), it can also be charged in cases that entail illegal drugs, legal prescriptions, or OTC meds.

    But besides that conflict, I don't understand why a crime involving pot would be different than every other crime that could be termed a 'drug crime'.

    On the other hand, I'd recommend additionally removing the exemptions for penalties against white collar felons, who are still allowed gun ownership.

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 06:38:30 AM PST

  •  I think it's possible to be too clever (0+ / 0-)

    Even I would say that a right doesn't exist if you take away any practical ability to exercise it.  I think the priority should be chipping away at modern interpretations of the right that would be shocking and confounding to the people who established in 200+ years ago ("you dolts, we wouldn't let citizens own artillery pieces in 1789, what makes you think we'd let them own machine guns in your time?"), rather than unsubtle chicanery that trashes the right altogether.  

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 06:45:58 AM PST

  •  As I commented yesterday (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wewantthetruth

    "KEEP" Arms. "BEAR" arms.

    I concede these words, a literal reading of the Amendment, one that Scalia and the rest of the offscoured scum of the Supreme Court insist upon. I AGREE with those mofo's!

    I also note the Amendment is silent on other words:
    "Sell" Arms.
    "Buy" Arms.
    "Trade" Arms.

    (And I recall vividly the main body of the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate commerce, i.e. buying and selling of goods and services.)

    "Buy" Ammunition.
    "Sell" Ammunition.
    "Trade" Ammunition.

    (The original intent of the the Founders of course dealt with home-made ammunition. I readily CONCEDE the right of all citizens to make their own lead ball ammunition, just as the Founding Fathers intended and envisioned. Otherwise, see "Commerce Clause" above.)

    "Register" Arms.
    "Tax" Arms.

    (These are all functions of "well-regulating" a militia. It would be a logistical nightmare for the government to have to provide 87 different kinds of ammunition to a company of 100 in the militia and would make the force useless for defending the "security of the State." (.45 caliber bullets are a lousy fit in a .22 caliber barrels.) Regulating by requiring uniform weapons for use in the militia and using the governmental taxing power to discourage the use of non-standard weapons, the militia can be much more effective because they can all use their weapons and be readily supplied by the state. (Homemade, lead ball ammunition being the obvious exception of course.)

    "License" arms.

    (The NRA opposes this, along with demonstrating gun skills in order to obtain a license, on grounds of "the slippery slope." "It's just the first step for the government to find out who owns guns as they get ready to come an take them away from you...."
         I note millions of Americans carry a driver's license, which they obtained after demonstrating driving skills in order to obtain it. In over 100 years of licensing drivers I look through American history for instances when the government used lists of licensed drivers as the first step toward seizing your car. The "slippery slope" of car licensing, to my knowledge, has not led to wholesale, or even retail, government confiscations of private vehicles. (Vehicles used in a crime are of course another matter. And even there, the government has not defined vehicles as illegal and subject to seizure, only as physical evidence involved in a crime.)

    Just a few thoughts on how and where some terms might fit in a "national conversation about guns" might fit.

    Shalom.

    "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

    by WineRev on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:18:02 AM PST

    •  The transport industry generates (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Utahrd

      about a third of total tax revenue.

      Personal transport vehicles kill and maim far more people than guns in the USA.

      •  Latest (0+ / 0-)

        "personal vehicle transport" deaths in US (2011): 34,677.

        Latest "2nd Amendment object" deaths in US (2011, latest available) (total of homicides, suicides and accidental discharges): 32,163.

        Difference: 2, 514.

        So, "far more people" = 2514, or 7.8%, which for you, equals "far more people"......

        We will, for this year, ignore that "personal vehicle transport" deaths have fallen, again, as they have through the '00s, while "2nd Amendment object" deaths have risen over the same period.

        (Source: 2011 Report, National Vital Statistics, Vol. 61, #6. Pages 41 and 42.)

        And by the way, beginning in 1965, (following the publication of Ralph Nader's book "Unsafe at Any Speed") there has been a concerted, sustained effort to make "personal transport vehicles" safer for operators and the general public. Seat belts, stronger bumpers, safety glass, smooth front ends and dashboards, non-exploding gas tanks, better brakes, radial tires, better suspensions, stronger lights, backing up cameras, self-parking software, road-embedded and snow-plow-able lane markers---just to name a few, have all made "personal transport vehicles" and the roads and conditions they operate in steadily safer, so that the number of fatalities per 1 million miles traveled has fallen 43 of the 46 years since 1965. (SOURCE)

        Pray tell, have "2nd Amendment object" safety courses, 30-shot magazines, the Saturday Night Specials of the 1980s, glass-tipped bullets (tut! tut! The Founding Fathers never used glass for their Second Amendment objects...), police-armor piercing rounds, gun show exceptions to various requirements, lack of pre-sale ballistics registration, mechanical devices that alter "semi-automatic" to merely "automatic" (highly illegal of course and NO ONE EVER does this), hollow point ammunition that splinters on contact to maim and wound more efficiently---just to name a few, have these all made "2nd Amendment objects" steadily safer? Do you have statistical evidence to support your claims?

        In the words of Faux Noise, some people say these things...and I'm just asking the questions...

        Shalom.

        "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

        by WineRev on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 12:21:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Can we regulate guns as tightly (0+ / 0-)

        as we regulate cars?

        You must demonstrate to the state than you have the skills needed to operate a motor vehicle and your fitness is re-evaluated periodically and can be revoked. You must carry liability insurance, keep your car's safety features in good repair and every car must be registered with the state.

        Historically, traffic fatalities are at an all time low and falling!

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        You cannot compare traffic fatalities to firearms deaths since automobiles are an everyday fact life. The number of people carrying a firearm around all the time is way less than the number of people driving around every day.

  •  Semi-automatic pistols (0+ / 0-)

    would be simple to make.

    Ammo is somewhat tougher to make.

  •  Guns are not the most dangerous (0+ / 0-)

    weapons.

    Guns are not the choice of Palestinian terrorists or Iraqi rebels.

    The Soviet-bloc armies were very fond of RPGs.

  •  Maybe mental health preventive care (0+ / 0-)

    should be free like contraceptives.

    Psychotropic drugs require many doctors visits to find the right drug and the right dosage.

  •  A few months ago (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Utahrd

    a gunmaker was refusing new wholesale orders since it had already sold all its future production for months.

  •  In the 1780's (0+ / 0-)

    most people lived in rural areas.

    People on the frontier needed guns to fend off possible Indian raids.

    The French and Indian War was a recent memory.

    Americans knew about the Deerfield Massacre of 1704.

    The Indians didn't stop fighting to prevent the theft of their land until 1890.

    No well-regulated militia would ever be able to show up in time to prevent Deerfield type masacres, nor did any means such as a telephone exist in 1787 to summon a well-regulated militia.

  •  I would add the following: (0+ / 0-)

    1. Strict limits on magazine capacity.

    2. A 5000% tax on bullets.

    3. Every bullet has to have a unique identifier imprinted on it showing who it has been sold to, that would remain intelligible after impacting a body or an object.

    4. No part of the supply chain in gun manufacturing can occur on a for-profit basis.

    5. If a gun ends up being used in the commission of a crime by someone who is not its owner, the legal owner is automatically guilty of criminal negligence for losing it or failing to take whatever measures were necessary to prevent its theft.

    6.  Accessory to murder charges against everyone knowingly involved in illegal weapons or ammunition supply practices whose merchandise ended up being used in a killing - smugglers, burglars, fences, etc.

    7.  Murder charges against manufacturers who sell weapons to civilians specifically designed and optimized for the commission of mass murder.  Drag their fat corporate asses into a mass-trial like the Sicilian Mafia.

    In Roviet Union, money spends YOU.

    by Troubadour on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:27:08 AM PST

    •  You're suggesting taxing an unalienable right? (0+ / 0-)

      To prevent it's exercise, correct?

      That would be blatantly unconstitutional.  How about we do the same for free speech? Every word uttered costs you $2. or free press, every letter typed costs $1???

      While we're at it how about demanding those of a religious persuasion be charged every time they say "AMEN"!???

      Your #3 is impossible.

      "According to the law, gun sellers were required to send firearms to a CoBIS center where fired shell casings from those guns would be entered into a statewide databank. Assemblyman Giglio notes that the state has spent $32 million on CoBIS since the creation of the program in January of 2001, and not one crime has been solved with this technology"
      Your #5 would then mean the same standard for any item stolen and used in the commission of a crime.  Your car, your laptop, your money!

      #7 More violence and killing to prevent violence and killing...pure HYPOCRISY!

      How about we utilize your #4 for Health Care? Then we'd actually help millions of Americans, not make them into criminals or allow them to grow up without the proper mental health services???

      Now, since no police officer has the duty to protect me, When/if you get your way, You'll be standing guard at my side, correct?

      Or am I to become another number in someone's yearly statistical reporting?

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 05:44:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unlimited amounts of ammunition (0+ / 0-)

        is not an "inalienable right."  People have a right to bear arms for self-defense OR in the context of a militia regulated by civil authority - there's no right to be an army unto one's self.

        In Roviet Union, money spends YOU.

        by Troubadour on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:27:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Okay, you have a right to a free press but we're (0+ / 0-)

          only going to allow you to buy 5 sheets of paper and only enough ink to type on 2 of those pages at any given time.

          The Courts have decided otherwise on your second issue.  We can amend the constitution, making your position valid or try to pass laws that can be challenged until hell freezes over.  Neither option will stop the violence today, will it?

          Nope.  

          We could fully fund free mental health services, we could teach our children how NOT to act on their impulses.  We could teach AND practice peace ourselves!

          Whom decides how "an army unto oneself" is defined?  What's too much writing? What's too much free press? When are there too many petitions for redress?  Can someone not believe in more than one religion? Or a combination of all?

          And BTW, you never answered what your definition of "civilized" was, clearly we have a problem Houston!

          ;)

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 04:41:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm with you on #1 (0+ / 0-)

      But #2-#7 would never survive court challenges even if they somehow became law.

  •  We aren't allowed to search Walmart containers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerrilea

    US Customs is not allowed to open most Walmart containers from China.

    That might cost Walmart 15 seconds worth of profits.  And that's not allowed.

    What's going to happen when the Mara Salvatrucha and 18th Street is willing to pay a few thousand dollars for a cheap Chinese-made gun?

    Well, at lease one of those $9 an hour Walmart distribution center workers will finally have enough money for health insurance.
     

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site