Skip to main content

This past Memorial Day I was reading a piece from the indefatigable Charles P. Pierce at The Politics Blog at Esquire about our nation's most recent gun massacre and these words rang as true as a Presbyterian Bell Choir:

"Wayne LaPierre gets paid when his masters sell guns to the bad guys. Wayne LaPierre gets paid when his masters sell guns to the good guys because of the guns he's already arranged to sell to the bad guys. Wayne LaPierre is the strange white man in the Congo who knows where he can get you some AK's. He's the shadowy fellow in the coffee shop in Kabul who knows where RPG's can be had, cheap. He's the well-dressed, silken-voiced operator, sipping his tea on a cool and breezy veranda outside of Bogota, who smiles at you and shows you on the map where you can pick up your order, because it is time once again for you to make war and him to make money. His look is the smooth and shiny black of the vulture's feathers. He feasts on the carrion of nations."

- Charles P. Pierce

Continued below the fold.........

LaPierre is the natural result of a very unnatural evolution of an entity that once was devoted to gun safety and sportsmanship and has now morphed into the marketing tool of gun makers. In other words, the modern NRA's sole function is to market guns. Harken back to the days of yore when pharmaceutical companies couldn't directly market their drugs to you on television - thus allowing you to sit on your couch and self-diagnose your medical problems - gun manufacturers are forbidden this tool. As they should be. Believe me, they would literally kill for the chance to sell you the latest in flesh ripping engineering on your electric teevee machine. I for one don't want to see anyone marketing the killing prowess of an AR-15 in a slick, formulated, dramatic ad during the SuperBowl.

So, we get Wayne LaPierre. He and people like him exist for one reason and one reason only:

To frighten people into buying a product for protection against the people he's already sold the very same product to in the first place.
This is the gun manufacturer's only marketing tool. And it works.

I, on the other hand, I am with the 90% of Americans that believe that common sense gun regulations are not only needed, but needed post-haste.

Here's what I would suggest to a congress that had the interests of the American people in mind instead of on the lookout for an envelope with a check:

If you want to own a gun, fine. Own a gun.
If you want to own an assault rifle, fine. Own an assault rifle.
But with owning this hardware certain requirements should be mandated at the local, state and federal level.

First, if you've been convicted of a felonious violent crime. You're out.
Secondly, if you have a history of mental illness, you will have some hoops to jump through.
Third, if you have a conviction of domestic abuse. No dice.
We would regulate the purchase and ownership of every gun just as we do every automobile.
You can own one, but you have to register it.
Every year.
You also have to license it and pay property tax on it.
Every year.

Every 5 years, you have to pass a test to continue to possess and operate this piece of machinery.
Safety and competence would be paramount.
And last but not least, if you want to open-carry your gun. Knock yourself out. Go right ahead.
Do all of these things. Own, operate, and open carry.

However, none of this happens without proof of at least liability insurance.
Period.

Again, 90% of Americans want these massacres to end.
We as a nation want something done.
Hell, 70% of NRA members want stronger regulations.
This just makes sense.

Wayne LaPierre doesn't' want these things to happen.

Why?

Wayne LaPierre gets paid to sell you guns. That's his job.
He's very good at it and, because he's a sociopath, he has no trouble sleeping at night.

Charles Pierce is right. We are at war with ourselves. And Wayne LaPierre is the arms dealer.

Cross posted from North Iowa Today

Poll

Do you agree with requiring insurance to carry a gun?

59%31 votes
30%16 votes
9%5 votes

| 52 votes | Vote | Results

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

  •  Registration of ALL firearms. (4+ / 0-)

    That is the bottom line.
    Without that, there is no effective gun regulation. There continues to be a thriving black market.
    As for insurance, what insurance company would offer a liability policy for gun owners? And what would it cover? Murders? Manslaughter? Massacres? Hunting accidents? GunFAILs?
    And if it's prohibitively expensive, how long before we government subsidize it?

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Thu May 29, 2014 at 10:04:30 AM PDT

  •  I think you should have insurance to (7+ / 0-)

    even OWN a gun, never mind just carrying it.

    I heard a retired police officer on CNN the other day saying that every gun owner should be subjected to the same training and psychological tests that police officer have to go through before they are handed a gun.

    I think this a good idea.

    "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~ Edward Abbey

    by SaraBeth on Thu May 29, 2014 at 10:09:23 AM PDT

  •  So many hoops (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose, Neo Control

    Now imagine someone proposing similar hoops........ To vote, or to exercise any other constitutional right.

    Congratulations, your new "common sense regulations" disarmed everyone but the rich and powerful.

    •  Fatal Constitutional Rights? Count 'Em. (3+ / 0-)
      "...disarmed everyone but the rich and powerful."
      How? Via expenses related to gun ownership that the non-rich and powerful can't meet? At least the rich and powerful:

      >  Usually keep to themselves.

      >  Can afford to pay for any damage they may cause.

      How many of the other "constitutional rights" are figuratively attached to devices that can kill people easily?

      How many people are likely to beat someone to death with a voting booth?

      How many people are likely to strangle someone with free political speech?

      How many journalists are going to kill someone (directly) with words?

      How many church steeples are going to fall on your head and cause a fatal wound?

      Etcetera...

      Social justice is part of the implication of loving thy neighbor. - Frances Perkins

      by paz3 on Thu May 29, 2014 at 11:06:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There is no private individual Constitutional (3+ / 0-)

      right to own a gun.

      And I wish gun-nuts would actually do the research instead repeating false propaganda.

      1.  The Constitution was ratified without a bill of rights.  Nonetheless, it included three militia clauses.  This is the first:

      Art. I., S. 8., C. 15.  The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [enforce] the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions.
      This is the second, in relevant part:
      Art. I., S. 8., C. 16.  The Congress shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and discipling, the Militia, . . . reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers [how this is done being stipulated in state constitution and militia laws], and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
      2.  The Bill of Rights was written by the first Congress under the newly-ratified Constitution, and the debates of the writing make clear that the purpose of the Militia was to establish a National Defense, relying on the states' already-existing well regulated militia, which militia was trusted NOT to "take up arms" against civilian self-gov't.  The militia is not an individual, and the Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything.  "We the people" is not "We the individual," or, "I the people.

      3.  Subsequent to ratification of the Bill of Rights, Congress implemented the now-FOUR militia clauses by means of statutes called "Militia Acts".  As the name implies, Militia Acts regulate the subject of the Second Amendment: the militia.

      That being the fact means, also, that the Second Amendment is not a bar to regulation.  That is, it does not protect FROM regulation whatever is said to be "protected" by the Amendment.

      Want to insist that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to own guns?  Then you invite a second set of regulations being added to the first set of regulations that already exists to regulate the possession and use of private guns.

      4.  Congress enacted this Militia Act for the purposes stated:

      Chap. LXV.--An Act providing Arms for the Militia throughout the United States.

        Section 1.  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be provided, at the charge and expense of the government of the United States, thirty thousand stand of arms, which shall be deposited by order of the President of the United States, at suitable places, for the purpose of being sold to the governments of the respective States, or the militia thereof, under such regulations, and at such prices as the President of the United States shall prescribe.
        Sec. 2.  And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to cause all or any part of the arms herein directed to be provided and deposited for sale, which shall, at any time, remain unsold, to be delivered to the militia, when called into the service of the United States, proper receipts and security being given for the return of the same.
        Sec. 3.  And be it further enacted, That the monies arising from such sales shall be paid into the treasury of the United States, and the amount received shall be annually reported to Congress.
        Sec. 4.  And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of carrying this act into effect, the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized to draw from the treasury of the United States, a [577] sum not exceeding four hundred thousand dollars, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
        Approved, July 6, 1798.

      The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 3, 1845., Vol I. (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850), By Authority of Congress, Edited by Richard Peters, at 576.

      In short: Congress arms the militia with public arms.
      The militia doesn't need privately owned guns.

      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

      by JJustin on Thu May 29, 2014 at 11:40:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm pretty sure (at least in many states) (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neo Control, LamontCranston, splashy

    that you are allowed to own automobiles w/o registering them.  

    In that case, you just aren't allowed to drive them on the public roadways.

    •  Well (0+ / 0-)

      I'm pretty sure anyone can own a vehicle.  And driving is a privilege.  Remind me again what that has to do with constitutional rights?

      •  The diary seemed to be making the point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Neo Control, LamontCranston

        that because automobiles had to be registered, so should guns.

        My point was simply that in reality, automobiles do not have to be registered (so that comparison wasn't really all that apt).

      •  The subject of the Second Amendment is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        i saw an old tree today, Smoh

        well regulated militia.

        It is "We the people," not, "We the individual," or, "I the people".

        The purpose of the Amendment was to establish a National Defense, relying on well regulated militia.

        The Congress arms the militia, therefore the militia doesn't rrely on private guns.

        This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

        by JJustin on Thu May 29, 2014 at 11:42:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What a unique perspective (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kasoru

          Perhaps you should write your govt officials and clue them in.  Or better yet, have your ground breaking theory heard before the court.  I'm sure they'll be relieved to hear that they've had it all wrong all these years.  Who knew that the bill of rights, any of them, were collective rights as opposed to personal rights.  You've done some truly magnificent work, JJ.  I'm prepared to surrender my firearms in anticipation of this new groundswell of marginalization that is taking effect.  All this new legislation that congress is currently considering, regarding "common sense (and reasonable) gun safety measures", must really have you excited, huh?

          •  That "unique perspective" is that the Founders/ (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            i saw an old tree today

            Framers established in law.

            Here's a brief clue:

            AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the Congress enacted a lengthy series of Militia Acts which implement the Militia Clauses in the Constitution.  The are called "Militia Acts" becasue they regulate the well regulated militia -- the subject -- of the Amendment.  As examples:

            The first Militia Clause in the Constitution is Art. I., S. 8., C. 15, and reads,

            The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [enforce] the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions.
            This is the first Militia Act enacted by Congress AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified:
            May 2, 1792: Chap. XXVIII.--An Act to provide for calling fourth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
            The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, From the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 3, 1845, Vol. I. (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1845), By Authority of Congress, Edited by Richard Peters, at 264.

            The second Militia Clause in the Constitution reads, in relevant part,

            Art. I., S. 8., C. 16.  The Congress shall have Power To provide for . . . ARMING . . . the Militia.
            This statute enacted by Congress implements that provision:
            July 6, 1798: Chap. LXV.--An Act providing Arms for the Militia throughout the United States
            Ibid., at 576.

            Again, they are called "Militia Acts" because they regulate the subject of the Amendment -- the well regulated militia.

            That fact further means that the Second Amendment is not a bar to regulation; that is, it does not protect FROM regulation whatever is said to be "protected" by the Amendment.

            The contradiction to the legal history, including all prior SC decisions, is the Heller holding that the Amendment protects a private, individual right.  It does not.

            Howver, gun-nuts reject the Heller holding that gun control is Constitutional, despite the fact that the evidence for that is overwhelming.

            As for your "collectivist" statement:

            The first three words of the Constitution are, "We the poeple".  It is PLURAL.  It is not, "We the individual," or, "I the people".

            Now apply the principle of consistency you parrot to the  meaning of "people" from beginning to end of the Constitution.

            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

            by JJustin on Thu May 29, 2014 at 09:02:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I'm pretty sure you have to register in all states (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      i saw an old tree today

      You may be able to skip stuff like safety inspection and insurance if you aren't on the road.

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Thu May 29, 2014 at 12:38:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think so (0+ / 0-)

        I know personally that for several years I had a couple of non-registered cars sitting in my yard.  

        And then my wife made  me sell them, some guy came by with a flat bed truck and hauled them away.

        I seriously doubt that he registered them either.  Think he probably used them for target practice, nicely making this comment especially appropriate for this diary.

        •  Just because you (and he) did (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Smoh, Roadbed Guy

          Doesn't mean it was legal. Had a busybody neighbor objected to the derelict cars in the yard you might have found out more.
          Or, if you are interested, you could check your state requirement here:
          http://www.dmv.org/...

          “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

          by Catte Nappe on Thu May 29, 2014 at 01:38:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No, farmers don't do it for their farm vehicles (0+ / 0-)

        As long as they stay on their private land, they don't have to be registered or licensed.



        Women create the entire labor force.
        ---------------------------------------------
        Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

        by splashy on Fri May 30, 2014 at 10:42:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes as with farm trucks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      i saw an old tree today

      Used to only haul things like hay and other feed, and only driven on the private land of the farmer. Don't need to register them.

      But, take them on a public road, it's another story.



      Women create the entire labor force.
      ---------------------------------------------
      Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

      by splashy on Fri May 30, 2014 at 10:39:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Joeyess- please explain (0+ / 0-)

    Please explain how any of these regulations you've proposed would've stopped Rogers' massacre.  California already has the most restrictive laws in the country.

    •  here's one red flag that would have popped up (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      i saw an old tree today, Smoh

      Elliot Rodger bought two Sig Sauer P226 semiautomatic pistols and Glock 34 pistol legally
      His family said he was diagnosed as being 'a highly functional Asperger Syndrome child' - a form of autism

      •  I understand he saw multiple therapists, one of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joeyess

        which made that diagnosis, some years ago, having some expertise, I think it's unlikely, but that's armchair stuff, consider too that treatment of that condition wasn't effective, so perhaps it was a bad diagnosis

        The other diagnoses have not been made public, I think it's likely those payed a bigger factor

      •  True (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blackhand, Catte Nappe

        But that diagnosis was when he was 7 years old.  Are you proposing that every diagnosis of autism be transmitted to the govt?  Every other mental illness, too?  

        Personally, I'd be in favor of keeping firearms away from EVERY mentally ill person.  As it stands now, the background check prohibits people who have been hospitalized for it.  With more and more of these mass murderers turning out to be mentally ill, that threshold should probably be changed.  If a person is rejected, then they should have an opportunity to have their case adjudicated in accordance with due process.  We don't just take rights, of course.

        Will it stop people from getting treatment?  There's already a bad stigma attached to mental illness.  what about a patients rights to privacy, etc.  

        •  HFA isn't a mental illness (0+ / 0-)

          So it wouldn't have 'flagged', however various personality disorders are (borderline, eg), we can't know if those were known to his family

        •  Question. (3+ / 0-)

          AA, how do you propose to limit this random mass shooting violence.

          If it continues unabated, it will turn this country into an unpleasant place to live, and will put a lot of curbs on people's willingness to go out in public. That will cause a drop in public retail business the likes of which not many people will care for, including many corporations.

          These lyrics (from "Lunatic Fringe" by Red Rider) captures a feeling that will grow in the hearts of those who want to be able to go to school, go shopping, go to a movie, without the fear of being caught up in another "bad guy with a gun" shooting spree.

          Lunatic fringe
          In the twilight's last gleaming
          This is open season
          But you won't get too far

          'Cause you gotta blame someone
          For your own confusion
          But I'm on guard this time
          Against your final solution

          Social justice is part of the implication of loving thy neighbor. - Frances Perkins

          by paz3 on Thu May 29, 2014 at 11:51:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No, it wouldn't (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        i saw an old tree today, Smoh

        Asperger's is not considered a mental illness and would not preclude buying a gun. And CA has provisions to deny purchase to those with  history of mental illness, however that did not prevent Mr Rodger because he had not been hospitalized at a any point.

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Thu May 29, 2014 at 12:45:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  False. (3+ / 0-)

      The most restrictive gun control laws are in Hawaii.  The second-most restrictive are in Massachusetts.

      The law in CA falls short -- unlike in such as Massachusetts, which has mandatory reporting by doctors, priests, and others likely to be privy to "confessions" of threats against self and others.

      But instead of spouting NRA/gun industry slogans, give us an "argument" supporting your notion that, because the laws aren't perfect, they should all therefore be repealed until imperfect humans can devise perfect laws.

      Meanwhile, this is the elemental reality -- even more elemental than the "Wild West" -- Hollowood -- fantasies of glorious gunslingin' shoot-outs in the public streets:

      Every society's paramount concern is to survive and perpetuate itself.  As result, public safety trumps any and all threats to public safety.  Any society will run over any individual or group that stands in the way of that concern.

      Thus, no sane society leaves dangerous substances or objects lying around unregulated.

      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

      by JJustin on Thu May 29, 2014 at 11:53:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So no one is going to answer my question (0+ / 0-)

        Oh, and another thing-  while you were napping, Hawaii became a shall (MUST) issue state in March.  So, my comment still stands.

        •  You asked a question? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          i saw an old tree today

          It appears to me your "question" was not in fact a question, but rather an ideological statement, followed by the usual ideological espousals, with nothing objectively factual to support it.

          In short: as you present you are not here to "discuss" or "debate"; you are here to pump out the consistently and repeatedly refuted propaganda, with which, in view of that fact, it is beyond ill-mannered, beyond rude, beyond boorish, to continue to pollute.  

          One reason for that, of course, is that you aren't interested in any view not yours, so aren't here to "discuss" or "debate" (your gang-busters imperialism indicating that you also don't know how to do either).  Another is that you know you'd only again lose any "discussion" or "debate" because the underpinnings of the view you espouse have no legal or reasoned foundation or merit.

          Your operative presumption is false:

          The objective reality is not either "pro"-gun or "anti"-gun -- the latter being a stubborn oversimplification; actually an unevidenced accusation -- which denies reality, fact, and reason, and should prohibit one having deadly weapons on the grounds one refuses to accept reality and fact, and therefore intractably insists on being unreasonable.  

          More maturely and robustly,  there are those who:

          1.  Are opposed to any gun control whatsoever -- which is obviously unreasonable and should prohibit one getting and or possessing guns;

          2.  Those who support sane gun control, because everyone -- even you -- knows it is necessary in defense and protection of public safety.  They are not opposed to any and all guns, but do recognize that some have purposes limited to, as example, military uses and contexts, and therefore that civilians in our civil society -- who do not live in an armed military war zone -- do not need such guns.  

          And,

          3.  Those who are opposed to anyone having any guns.  This is at least reasonable, because it doesn't result in anarchic gun-based mayhem.

          I'll state these two facts again:

          1.  Massachusetts has the second-strictest gun control laws in the country.  And that stringency is shortly to be increased with some excellent fine-tuning of the law.
          -----
          Historically, Massachusetts not only lead the "revolution"; it also has hundreds of years of knowing the necessities for, and implementing, gun control.  Here's one that's both really basic and obviously essential to public safety, based upon the reality that gun-nuts are not the only citizens who have rights:

           AT A COUNCIL Held at Boston, March 28, 1678.

          Whereas many Complaints have been made, that several Persons have been killed by such as have pretended to have shot at Fowl, birds &c. and that in or near Highways; and many take the boldness upon them, Youths and grown Persons, too frequently to shoot within the Limits of Towns, Orchards, Gardens, &c. with bullets, greater or smaller shot, on pretence of shooting at Marks, Birds, Fowl &c. whereby Persons are endangered to be killed in their Gardens, Orchards, or adjacent Commons; To prevent such inconveniences and mischiefs for the future,

               It is hereby Declared and Ordered, That all or any Person or Persons of what age or Condition soever, that shall henceforth presume to shoot off any Gun or Guns, charged with Bullet or Bullets, Swan, Goose, or other shot towards any Mark or place that the Militia in such Town or Towns have not appointed; or so near or into any House, Barn, Garden, Orchards or Highways in any town or towns of this Jurisdiction, whereby any person or persons shall or may be killed, wounded, or otherwise damaged, such person or persons so offending shall be proceeded against either as Murderers, of Fitch as have wounded or damaged any person or persons in such place or places, shall be liable to answer it, and to make full satisfaction in all respects to such person or persons both for cure and damage; and be also liable to such further punishment as the Authority of the place that hath Cognizance of the offence shall appoint : And where either they be Servants or Youths under their Parents or Masters and shall not be able to make such satisfaction, such Parents or masters shall be liable to make full and due satisfaction in all respects : And the Select men of each town are hereby appointed to fee that this be put in execut[ion.]

                          By the Council. Edward Rawson Secr'

          The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts-Bay.  Reprinted from the Edition of 1672, with the Supplements Through 1686 (Boston: Rockwell and Churchill, City Printers, 1890), Edited by William H. Whitmore, at 349.

          Re-read that, taking note of the fact that those who drafted the law were able to recognize lying.

          And another:

          Passed at the Session begun and held at Boston, on the Fourteenth day of October, A.D. 1713.

                                CHAPTER 6.

          AN ACT TO PROHIBIT SHOOTING OR FIRING OFF GUNS NEAR THE ROAD OR HIGHWAY ON BOSTON NECK.

            Whereas the limbs and lives of several persons have been greatly endangered, in riding over Boston Neck, by their horses throwing of them, being affrighted, and starting at the firing of guns by gunners that frequent there after game; for preventing whereof for the future,--
            Be it enacted by His Excellency the Governour, Council and Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same,
            [Sect. 1.] That no person or persons, from and after the publication of this act, may presume to discharge or fire off any gun upon Boston Neck, within ten rods of the road or highway leading over the same, on pain of forfeiting and paying the sum of twenty shillings for each
          gun so fired or discharged, one moiety thereof to be to and for the use of the poor in the said town of Boston, and the other moiety to him or them that shall inform, complain and sue for the same; to be recovered
          before the court of general sessions of the peace within the county, or before any one or more of her majesty's justices of the peace out of court.
            [Sect. 2.] And, for the better conviction of persons offending against this act, it shall be lawful, to and for any freeholder, to arrest and take into custody any gun so fired off, and render the same to one of the next justices in Boston, in order to its being produced at the
          time of tryal.  [Passed October 23; published November 2.]

          Massachusetts-Bay Acts and Resolves, 1692-1714, at 720.
          -----
          There is still no "gun-grabbing" in Massachusetts gun-control law, though we all understand that those who shouldn't have guns know they shouldn't, so correctly assume that they won't be allowed to have them.  And there is that small faction of functionally-illiterate gun-nuts who refuse to accept the law as it actually is, preferring to misrepresent it based solely upon law- and history-illiteracy intractably held, "enhanced" by making shit up and out-and-out lying.

          It could be said that Massachusetts is "must issue": one "cannot" be denied a handgun permit if one is able to jump through all the hoops.  What those hoops do, though, is "force" the person contemplating getting a permit to think it through step-by-step; to look at the requirements, including that one know what one is doing, and compare that with real or imagined need or reason for having a permit, and recognize that in most instances the need isn't actually there.

          But the hoops are there, and the majority -- all 51 constitutions establish majority rule as the rule -- doesn't see a need for every childishly irresponsible chickenshit bullying jack-leg Tom, Dick, and Harry and crackpot to "open carry" and all the other prima facie stupid, and petty, fetishments which, as far as the 90-plus majority -- both in Massachusetts and nationally -- is concerned can take themselves to the NRA/gun industry Lunacy Laboratory of Georgia.

          The one significant lack of gun control that adversely affects public safety in Massachusetts is that which allows guns bought legally -- or illegally -- in other states to be brought into Massachusetts illegally, against both the law and the vast majority that wants that subversion of the rule of law to be prohibited by more than state law.  That will be cured by Federal anti-trafficking laws and enforcement of them, all the intractably history-, law- and civility-illiterate ideological crackpots notwithstanding.

          The majority in a state has a right of self-defense against stubborn ideological Moronism; and the right to establish that self-defense as law, as did the Founders:

          An Ordinance Respecting the Arms of Non-Associators.

            Whereas the non-associators in this state have either refused or neglected to deliver up their arms according to the resolves of the honorable Continental Congress and the assembly of Pennsylvania, and effectual measures have not been taken to carry the said resolves into execution:
            [Section I.]  Be it therefore ordained by the authority of this Convention, That the colonel or next officer in command of every band of militia in this state is hereby authorized, empowered and required to collect, receive and take all the arms in his district or township nearest to such officer which are in the hands of non-associators in the most expeditious and effectual manner in his power, and shall give to the owners receipts for such arms, specifying the amount of the appraisement; and such as can be repaired shall with all possible dispatch be rendered fit for service, and the value according to the appraisement of all such arms, together with the repairs and transportation, shall be paid to the officers by the treasurer on the order of the council of safety for the use of the owners and defraying the charges.
            [Section II.]  And be it further ordained, That the same arms shall be appraised by any three reputable freeholders appointed by the commanding officer; but if the owner of any arms shall neglect or refuse to apply for such money within six months the same shall be applied towards the repairs of the arms; and the colonels are hereby authorized to draw for the necessary sums of money for the purposes aforesaid on the council of safety.
            [Section III.]  And it is further ordained, That the colonels aforesaid shall arm the associators with the said arms and keep an account to whom they are delivered and return the same to the council of safety; and every associator shall be answerable for such ares of the value unless lost or destroyed by some unavoidable accident or in actual service.
            [Section IV.]  And be it further ordained, That in case any arms so collected shall not be worth repairing, the same shall be laid by until such time as may be thought proper by the committee of the county to return them to the owners.  

          Passed July 19, 1776.

          Statutes at Large of the State of Pennsylvania, Vol. IX.

          That initiative originated in the Continental Congress, which is the equivalent of our Federal Congress.

          2.  Hawaii has the most restrictive gun control laws, and your irrelevant pronouncement that it became "must issue" -- if true; you substantiate nothing -- is irrelevant: the legislature is not going to disrupt or undermine their strict established system of gun control laws with a sudden spurt of lunacy.  There will be strict hoops through which to jump which those who shouldn't have guns won't be able to jump high enough to navigate.

          Instead of asking "questions" which are actually ideological declarations couched as "questions," do either one or the other of the following:

          1.  Present whatever "case" you believe you have -- but substantiate it with legal authority which is legitimate, which is not out-of-context snippets, and which includes full citation to source/s.  If you can't do both -- not only one, or the other -- then,

          2.  STFU, or take it out in blowin' on a forum of True Believers who exult in sub-rational echolalic talking in tongues.

          This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

          by JJustin on Fri May 30, 2014 at 04:08:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I guess you didn't bother to read the question (0+ / 0-)

            As asked, how would the proposals in this diary have stopped Rodgers' massacre?  Pretty simple.

            •  The "proposals" in this diary? I've responded on (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              i saw an old tree today

              point:

              In Massachusetts, as example -- and this seems to be a lack in the CA law -- there is mandatory reporting.  (We know Rodgers' mother, and perhaps father also, attempted to do this.)

              If a person specified in law -- doctor, mental health professional, clergy, legal professional -- is witness to a patient or client's "confession" of an intent to harm oneself or others, the law mandates that that be reported to the defined authorities, under penalty of fine for not doing so.  It is an exception to the right of patient or client confidentiality, which right is otherwise controlled by the patient or client.

              Had that been done in Rodgers case, and that information put into the background check database -- as the Massachusetts law manadates -- he would have been either prevented buying weapons, or those he had would have been confiscated.

              If you are such an expert on "gun" law -- and not only instead on "rights" in a lawless vacuum -- then you should know those facts without having to ask.

              It isn't much of an adjustment in the law to make it mandatory.  Without such an exception to the law of confidentiality, of course -- with such lack of gun control -- there would be no way to intervene and prevent death-by-gun of innocents.  

              Gun-nuts, being unreasonable, are opposed to saving lives, even when that can be done with relative ease.

              This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

              by JJustin on Fri May 30, 2014 at 07:09:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He was reported (0+ / 0-)

                He was reported.  Law enforcement responded.  They didn't need a law to compel them to check his name with the NCIS database.  They just didn't.  And they didn't find that he was a danger, to himself or anyone else.

                •  Pay attention: (2+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Brecht, i saw an old tree today
                  Hidden by:
                  Angryallen

                  He was reported.  Law enforcement responded.  Law enforcement is not qualified to diagnose.

                  Now reread what I wrote:

                  If the CA law limits the "check" to law enforcement -- to those not qualified to diagnose -- but does not mandate that those who are qualified to diagnose do or be part of the "checking," then the law can be changed to make that necessary.

                  And, yes: the law can be changed to make it mandatory to then add a person to the background check database, if that is not already the law.

                  The problem with consistently playing stupid is that the stupid becomes habit.

                  This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                  by JJustin on Fri May 30, 2014 at 10:01:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site