Skip to main content

I had a dream that convinced me that somehow we needed to add an amendment to the Bill of Rights that protected people harmed by others who misuse firearms and deny their fellow citizens the right to live in safety.

Thanks for letting me repost this thought here, as no one has bothered to sign the petition when I posted it on my personal blog. Maybe nobody cares? I can still dream!

If you would like to sign this petition, click here:

http://petitions.moveon.org/...

The text I wrote in full is below the fold:

I propose a Constitutional amendment which states:

All individuals in the territorial boundaries of the United States of America and its possessions who wish to own a personal firearm must pass all mandated federal, state and local background checks and pay a $1000 per annum federal licensing fee per weapon. Owners who do not renew their firearm license and undergo an annual background check review will be fined $10,000 for each firearm not in compliance with the law. Persons found to be in possession of an unlicensed firearm whose legal owner cannot be verified will bear full responsibility of paying any and all fines and fees associated with said firearm and must be able to pass all mandated federal, state and local background checks. These federal fees and fines are not intended as a substitute for punishment of criminal or civil laws, and the state or local municipality where the owner/person in possession of the firearm resides retains the right to file criminal and/or civil charges against the firearms owner and/or individual in possession of said firearm for violation of state or local laws.

For every use of a firearm in the commission of a crime and/or physical assault against another person or persons by either the owner or an individual in possession of said firearm—whether or not permission to use said firearm was expressly granted by the owner—the owner of the firearm will be fined $1,000,000. Furthermore, for every instance of permanent disability or death of a victim of firearm violence incurred, the owner of the firearm will be fined $10,000,000. If the legal owner(s) of a firearm used to commit a crime, assault or death cannot be verified, the person or persons found to be in possession of the firearm will bear full responsibility of paying any and all fines and fees associated with said firearm. These federal fines are not intended as a substitute for punishment under criminal or civil laws, and the state or local municipality where the firearm violence occurred retains the right to file criminal and/or civil charges against the firearms owner and/or individual in possession of said firearm for violation of state or local laws.

All moneys raised by the firearm licensing fees and fines for misuse of firearms will be deposited into a designated federal fund that will go toward compensation of property/livestock/pets stolen, lost, damaged, destroyed or harmed during the commission of a crime while using a firearm. Also, moneys from said fund will go toward compensation to the immediate family for any and all wages or income lost by the disability or death of a family member by firearm violence. Moneys raised by the firearm licensing fees and fines will also go toward funding the mental and physical rehabilitation of the victims, friends and family members who have suffered as a result of firearm violence, as well as funds to create information programs to educate and promote firearm safety.

A firearm is defined as any weapon that is capable of propelling a projectile with such force to cause harm or death. Such weapons include hand guns, rifles, and automatic assault weapons. Antique or replica firearms used for display purposes or historical reenactments that are modified so as to become incapable of shooting a harmful projectile will be exempt from the law, provided the owner can demonstrate safety precautions have been taken to the satisfaction of law enforcement officers and accepts liability for any misuse of the firearm under criminal/civil laws.

Firearms owned by the federal government and in the possession of active duty members of the United States Armed Services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard, or Coast Guard) while on sanctioned maneuvers will be exempt from fees and fines, but the possessor of the firearm may be subject to criminal/civil laws. Firearms owned by the federal government and in the possession of active duty members of federal policing agencies while on sanctioned maneuvers will be exempt from fees and fines, but the possessor of the firearm may be subject to criminal/civil laws. Firearms owned by state or local municipalities and in the possession of on-duty law enforcement officers (i.e., police, sheriff or highway patrol) will be exempt from fees and fines, but the possessor of the firearm may be subject to criminal/civil laws.

Firearms owned by private clubs or organizations, incorporated or unincorporated, will not be exempt from the law. The officers or presumed leaders of the club or organization will be considered the owner(s) of said firearms and will be held responsible for the licensing and care of these weapons in compliance with the law. The officers or presumed leaders of the club or organization designated as owners of said firearms will be liable for any and all fees, fines and criminal/civil charges for misuse of the club’s/organization’s firearms by them, their members or others who may take possession of their weapons.

Congress has the right to enact further legislation to aid the implementation of this amendment such as a gun amnesty program in an established period before the law goes into effect to allow individuals and organizations to relinquish without penalty any and all firearms they do not wish to license.

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

  •  Tip Jar (4+ / 1-)

    Celebrate diversity!

    by Cynthianna on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 03:23:02 PM PDT

  •  Lots of luck with that (13+ / 0-)

    "poll tax" much?

    Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

    by Tom Seaview on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 03:35:23 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for fleshing out the (4+ / 0-)

    thoughts I, too, have had about how to make firearm ownership compatible with the other rights of others.  

    I was wise enough to never grow up while fooling most people into believing I had. - Margaret Mead

    by fayea on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 03:42:42 PM PDT

    •  Eliminate It As a Right (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpotsmuggler, Duckmg, a2nite

      The entire rest of the civilized world handles it that way.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 03:46:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So, who should have the right to bear arms? (7+ / 0-)

        Would mayors have the right to have an armed security detail?  What about former DAs?  Current and former federal lawmakers?

        What about a recent retiree whose home had been broken in repeatedly.  Should he have the right to defend himself?

        Rest of the Civilized World?

        Like Mexico, where citizens don't have the right to bear arms.

        Of course, the Oligarchy somehow secure "waivers" that enable their guaduras to bear arms, as anyone frequenting the Four Seasons Mexico City can attest.

        The working and middle-class in Mexico?  Not so lucky.  

        Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

        by PatriciaVa on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 04:06:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Cynthianna - the "Only Rich People Can Have Guns" (10+ / 0-)

    amendment. What could be wrong with that?

    The reason that your petition didn't receive any positive attention was that it makes no sense. If it was proposed as a statute it would be unconstitutional on its face, but because you have proposed it as a Constitutional Amendment we have the good fortune that it would never receive more than a handful of votes in the House or Senate, nor be approved by a single state.

    "let's talk about that" uid 92953

    by VClib on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 03:56:39 PM PDT

    •  Doing nothing makes no sense either. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpotsmuggler

      I generally take the position that any motion is better than none, and than sitting here blogging about it.

      While it may be imperfect it is a motion. The 'it won't work' preemption (N3?) is so ... well, never mind that.

      I'm rec'ing because she dares to speak up. Good on ya mate, the Aussies would say. Dinkum.

    •  I agree with you. It should have been something (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Duckmg

      that tightens things up even more than this.

      That is what you were suggesting, isn't it?

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 06:19:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Another Regressive Tax that will.. (13+ / 0-)

    ..negatively impact the working and middle-class.

    No Thanks.

    Instead, we should be talking about a constitutional amendment that would impose a graduated tax on wealth, starting at 1% for households with net worth of at least 50M.  Buffet and Ellison would contribute 8% of their net worth to the federal government each year.

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

    by PatriciaVa on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 04:00:07 PM PDT

  •  Dreaming of a better society is good thing. (8+ / 0-)

    But the actions you describe here are too extreme to get anywhere.  I also want to reduce gun injuries and deaths, and in my opinion we need to focus on what works, a combination of better enforcement of existing laws and wider adoption of sensible things known to work.  

    Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

    by Joy of Fishes on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 04:12:54 PM PDT

    •  Whose definition of "known to work"? The whole (3+ / 0-)

      DKOS RKBA faction will swear to you that no such critter is known to exist.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 06:26:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A heartening thing, ops .... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpotsmuggler, ban nock

        ... I am starting to see differences of opinion on some of the contentious issues.  If we really talk and listen to each other instead of yell past each other, might we find some areas of agreement?  A national license that meets the standards of the most stringent states might be do-able.  Improving suicide prevention services.  Closing loopholes in background checks and expanding them to include domestic abusers and others who have demonstrated propensity to hurt people.  

        I saw this earlier today ...  From the "About":

        Warning: Some may find this video disturbing.
        Stop violence again women. Text SAFER to 877-877 to urge your senator to support legislation that will keep domestic abusers from getting guns. #SaveWomensLives

        Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

        by Joy of Fishes on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 07:01:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This will go nowhere fast (8+ / 0-)

    Curious.  Why the exemption for government weapons?

  •  Wrong style for a Constitutional Amendment (10+ / 0-)

    A Constitutional Amendment should be a brief affirmation of a right, not something that looks like a bill brought before Congress.

  •  If you had copied the Swiss system... (8+ / 0-)

    ...of gun ownership you may have a valid case.

    Instead you propose a draconian law that benefits only the 1%.

    A million Arcosantis.

    by Villabolo on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 04:44:41 PM PDT

  •  That's not an Amendment (6+ / 0-)

    That's a law or regulation. Way, way too long for an amendment. And I'm 110% behind regulation of guns - but $1,000/year each for licensing? $10,000 fines? No wonder nobody is signing your petition!

    If you want to do an ALEC type "model legislation" you should start with some of the licensing, registration and insurance requirements used for cars; as a guide to both requirements and amounts.

    (Of course, even modifying to more modest requirements of that nature, you know it won't stand a snowballs chance in hell because of the freak out over any kind of registration or background checking or etc.)

    “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 Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 04:45:53 PM PDT

  •  after you deal with cell phones and medical error (7+ / 0-)

    I'd worry.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 05:11:19 PM PDT

  •  there are many practical things that could be done (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ban nock, oldpotsmuggler

    within the framework of existing constitutional law, starting with universal background checks.  Why not start with that?

  •  The "firearm" description includes trebuchet... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ER Doc, JamesGG, gerrilea

    ...the atlatl, long bows, cross bows, the sling (as in "David and Goliath"), slingshots, spear guns, and blow guns (the kind seen in the movie "Apocalypto").

    It overlooked nail guns, which are akin to semi-automatic blow guns.

    If atheism is a religion, then "off" is a TV channel.

    by DaveinBremerton on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 05:49:23 PM PDT

    •  Hell, it goes even further than that. (6+ / 0-)

      In the days before batting helmets, a pitcher once killed a hitter when a pitch got away from him and beaned the hitter in the head.

      And hitters are injured all the time when they're hit by errant (or not-so-errant) pitches.

      By the standard presented here—"any weapon that is capable of propelling a projectile with such force to cause harm or death"—every pitcher in major or minor league baseball (and quite a few in college and high school) would be required to pay a $1,000/year licensing fee to literally keep and bear their arms.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 07:46:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The stupid burns... n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    notrouble, ER Doc, ban nock

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 07:57:35 PM PDT

  •  NO (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kentucky Kid, ER Doc, ban nock, gerrilea

    I will vote for no one proposing that crap. Are democrats the party of rights of wealth? That would be the only people left with their right under the 2nd with this stupid proposal.

    If the democrats made this a part of their platform it would pretty much insure the only democratic senators would be from coastal states.

    I suppose reinstating prohibition would save more lives. Perhaps we should embrace that too!

    To be first in the soil, which erupts in the coil, of trees veins and grasses all brought to a boil. -- The Maxx

    by notrouble on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 08:46:31 PM PDT

  •  I prefer: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i saw an old tree today

    The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is hereby repealed.

  •  HR - This is what gives Dems a bad name. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ER Doc, Kasoru, ban nock, gerrilea

    It is exactly stuff like this that hangs like an anchor on the necks of dems in gun-familiar states, and should not be shown to the world specifically because proposals like this make it harder to elect more OR better democrats in those states.

    Mike Beebe is a Dem, a PRO GUN dem who has an approval rating HIGHER than 70% for his entire term as governor of arkansas. Pro-spending on special needs students, against social security privatization, expanded medicaid, they have their own obamacare state exchange...

    And Mike Beebe is POPULAR and is PRO GUN.

    Arkansas:
    Open carry AR15 / shotgun / rifle
    Carry handguns in public
    No permit needed to purchase
    No magazine limits
    No assault weapon ban
    No local towns allowed to go harsher

    The things on this site that are similar to this diary are the sort of things that harm the party's efforts in gun-familiar states.

    MLK never really took back these words - "Maybe we just have to admit that the day of violence is here, and maybe we have to just give up and let violence take its course. The nation won't listen to our voice - maybe it'll heed the voice of violence."

    by JayFromPA on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 01:20:08 AM PDT

    •  We should abandon gun control 'cause Arkansas? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emelyn, i saw an old tree today

      I guess this is because most polling shows Colorado trending Democrat despite the NRA theatrics in the state last year.  Now we've moved on to Arkansas?  

      Sure Jay.  Whatever you say.

      “The purpose of our lives is to add value to the people of this generation and those that follow.” – Buckminster Fuller

      by TheFern on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 10:00:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Colorado dropped a ballot initiative this year (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea, blackhand

        To repeal the allowand of carry on campus. In fact of of your own RASA friends "cringed" when they heard groups were trying to put it on ballot.

        Fucking hilarious that we hear gun control wins elections hands down- but they need to be strategic and good thing pro control items get shit caned because help needs to be given to some districts. But remember- gin control wins..

        Except when it don't.

        •  Apologies- FLAP member not RASA (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          But really 2 peas same pod...

        •  Mag limits, Background checks. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          i saw an old tree today

          Already passed.  This was supposed to spell doom for statewide Dems, but they're currently polling better than the Repugs.  Let the R's hang themselves with gun idiocy.  Dems should remain firmly behind the gun control policies spelled out in their party platform.

          “The purpose of our lives is to add value to the people of this generation and those that follow.” – Buckminster Fuller

          by TheFern on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 10:59:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Vast majority of D's in the Senate and House (0+ / 0-)

            support Israel against Hamas. Better run over to I/P and start waving that purity troll flag around.  Let me know how your purity crusade works for ya.

          •  Truly frightening...to say the least. (0+ / 0-)

            Your link and the sources quoted are a bit dated.

            Right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation
            We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.
            Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012
            What is our current "Party Platform"???  Wasn't this published prior to the Colorado Recall?
            Reauthorize assault weapons ban, close gun show loophole
            We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.
            Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.18 , Jul 10, 2004
            Didn't we legitimately lose the Presidency, House and Senate?
            Strengthen gun control to reduce violence
            Democrats passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent. Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks. We should require a photo license I.D., a background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun. We support more federal gun prosecutors and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime.
            Source: 2000 Democratic National Platform as adopted by the DNC , Aug 15, 2000
            Slippery slope...OBVIOUSLY.

            And to be clear on this last point.  All crime, including violent crime has gone down over the past 30+ yrs.

            Why then has the argument/meme been transformed into:

            "The majority of the civilized world...."

            As posted in this diary thread itself????

            -----------

            And what our "Party" fails to mention SINCE 1992, we NOW have the largest incarcerated population in the "civilized" world.  Giving the MIC & Prison Industrial Complexes their chattel, in-perpetuity.

            This crusade has bankrupted us and turned a third of Americans into criminals while turning our cities into war zones and creating a permanent violent sub-culture.

            Problem-Reaction-Solution.

            -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 Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 02:13:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Care to link to a more current platform? (3+ / 0-)

              Since you seem to have a problem with my data?  The crusade against firearms has "bankrupted us and turned a third of Americans into criminal"?

              I'd ask if you were serious,  but why bother.

              “The purpose of our lives is to add value to the people of this generation and those that follow.” – Buckminster Fuller

              by TheFern on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 02:40:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  2102 version is a great start! (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TheFern, reflectionsv37

                "We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms."

                "We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation."

                 

                 "...reinstating the assault weapons ban
                and
                  closing the gun show loophole"
                This is from one state's 2014 platform:
                 
                 Strengthen efforts to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals,
                  strictly limit access to firearms for those with a record of domestic violence and/or mental health issues,
                  require that all stolen, lost, or misplaced firearms be reported to law enforcement immediately,
                  Continue to support the common sense ban on deadly assault weapons.
                And then adds,
                "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed." DDEisenhower
                You're right, that poster should have stopped there and not taken the trip back in time.
              •  Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was hoping (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blackhand

                you'd have a more recent version of our party's platform on guns and the 2nd Amendment.

                I've never seen our policy compiled as that link showed.

                It wasn't meant to be taken personally, unless you formulated it for our party.

                At Democrats’ Request, Even Mike Bloomberg Is Giving up on Gun Control

                Mitchell observed that Bloomberg had previously appeared to be “single issue focused on guns at the risk of jeopardizing Senate for Democrats.” TIME Magazine reporter Mark Halperin confirmed that Bloomberg not only resisted pressure from the two highest ranking Democrats in the Senate, but also former President Bill Clinton, who asked Bloomberg to temper his enthusiasm for attacking politicians who oppose stricter gun laws if those politicians happen to be Democrats.

                -cut-

                Message received: the most important public policy challenge of 2013 was not all that important after all, at least when directly balanced against Democratic control of the upper chamber of Congress.

                -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 Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 08:54:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So no more recent examples of the platform. (0+ / 0-)

                  Apology accepted.

                  As to this newer deflection:

                  Bloomberg deciding to listen to the Democratic leadership and not attack marginal Dems in red areas is smart politics and constructive to the cause.  I view this as a positive development since both the party and the deep pocketed interests working hand-in-glove will no doubt be more constructive to their common interests.  That the Democratic leadership was afraid of Bloomberg attacking Democrats as being soft on guns would lose them seats speaks volumes.  

                  “The purpose of our lives is to add value to the people of this generation and those that follow.” – Buckminster Fuller

                  by TheFern on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 09:35:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I didn't understand it that way... (0+ / 0-)

                    If Bloomy attacked us he could divide our party and the marginal support we have in "red" states.  The only thing keeping us in power is the fact the Republicans suck and have no viable contenders, it's not because the voters support gun control.

                    His "one issue" dogma would hurt us.  And I've always believed and understood that.  The gun issue aside, if we put all our eggs in one basket, we're toast.

                    -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 Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 11:21:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  While I understand your sentiment, isn't it better (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DaveinBremerton, blackhand

      to know what many actually want in our party???

      Bring it out in the open.  Let's have that public discussion.

      Maybe we can guide our party and it's platform in ways to keep them from shooting themselves in the foot, again?

      The zealots clearly have control of the microphone, at the moment, it's time we took it away from them.

      The battle over gun control cannot be dictated by the federal government or our national party leadership.  We will lose seats and control.

      -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 Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 02:23:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh, please. (5+ / 0-)

    I didn't have to read past the first sentence to realize that this is yet another diatribe that equates criminals with gun owners and tries to place the blame for violence and crime committed by the former on the latter.

    It is absolute bullshit and it is a prime example of why I, as one who does not own guns and does not have a personal dog in the gun control fight, stand steadfastly opposed to gun control.  

    The author does more harm to the gun control movement than any gun owner ever could.

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

    by blackhand on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 02:45:14 AM PDT

  •  Despite your good intentions, (0+ / 0-)

    I'm going to have to very strongly disagree with what you're proposing. Increasing fines for firearm misuses that cause death or injury is alright with me.

    However, that $1000 per year per gun tax will only punish innocent gun owners and drive gun left/moderate gun owners into the arms of the far right. Such harsh fees imply that gun owners are guilty until proven innocent, a mentality which seems to be growing in popularity among some gun control activists. That probably isn't your intention, but I'm worried that's how people will see it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site