Yes, that's right Trump has released an actual plan to do actual things, and in this plan he describes how he would like to address the problem of gun violence in the most logical way possible: which naturally and of course is to get as
many guns in as many hands as possible.
And naturally plan is called: PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN because y'know Branding, Branding, Branding!
Bullet Points of the plan:
1. Enforce The Laws On The Books
2. Fix Our Broken Mental Health System
3. Defend The Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners
a) GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS.
b) BACKGROUND CHECKS.
c) NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY.
d) MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS.
If you read this list and feel that Trumps Plan is essentially to start out doing nothing, then address a completely different issue that won't change much, then remove all gun and magazine bans and fail to close the gun show and straw purchaser loopholes, then get as many guns in as many hands as possible including into our military bases and recruiting centers when
the military themselves say they don't need or want them there - I think you'd be right.
But let's see just how right over the flip.
I've done a lot of looking around under the covers of Republican Plans over the years, and I can tell you that just about every time I do it I find that what ever it is they claim that their trying to do, and whatever it is they claim is the reason and rationale for what their doing - something is grossly misinterpreted and switched backward to front.
Every time.
This time is no different. Let me show you what I mean starting with starting with the pre-amble to Trump's document where he explains how the 2nd Amendment is really the First.... of something.
It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights.
Call me silly but I tend to start counting from the beginning, and I would say that our first right is actually this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" The reason that is the very first thing in the very first amendment is because long before this country had a violent revolution people had the
burning need to seek freedom, specifically freedom from a state established religion that used it's state power to denigrate, demean and persecute those who felt and believed differently.
That is the first essential freedom, the ability to think differently, act differently, speak differently than how the state might dictate for you. It's from that inflection point that the rights to worship as you wish, free speech, freedom to assemble, a free press, and freedom to redress grievances with your government if maintained and well established make the right to possess a firearm largely unnecessary except in the most dire, extreme cases.
If you can have a gun but you can't think and speak freely, the gun isn't going to change that situation. Movements that are idea based, freedom based, be they the freedom movement of Ghandi which was accomplished without guns, and the freedom movement of Dr. King which was largely implemented without guns, the freedom movement that bought rdown the Berlin Wall, that ended Soviet Russia and it's iron-fisted control over it's block of nations, the movement that took down the Mubarak regime in Egypt were all done without using guns.
Now I happen to agree with the core reason for the Second Amendment as outlined under the Federalist #46 which is as a last ditch desperate and final effort to fight back against a government that has gone terribly, tragic off base and become a threat to the people itself. But the need to move to that final step can only become necessary if all the key elements of the first amendment have already been eliminated.
So yes, the Second Amendment is important, but heaven help us all if we ever have to resort to deploying it as it was intended.
Enforce The Laws On The Books
We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. The Obama administration’s record on that is abysmal. Violent crime in cities like Baltimore, Chicago and many others is out of control. Drug dealers and gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the street.
All of that is a complete crock. Yes, there is recent rise in violent crime in Baltimore and Chicago, but the fact is for the last 20 years there has been a massive decline in violent crime in cities nation wide. The current surges in violence in a few cities is only something that has been occurring in the last few months and no one, no one,
truly has an explanation for it. Let alone a fix.
The homicide toll across the country — which reached a grim nadir in 1993 when more than 2,200 murders were counted in New York City — has declined in ebbs and flows for much of the last 20 years, noted Alfred Blumstein, a professor of urban systems and operations research at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. Several U.S. cities – including Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Diego and Indianapolis – have experienced a decrease in the number of murders so far this year.
Blumstein said the current surge in murders in some big cities could amount to no more than a blip.
"It could be 2015 represents us hitting a plateau, and by the end of the year, nationally, we'll see that murder rates are flat or there is a slight bump up," Blumstein said.
I really can't think of much worse than creating an entire policy based on something that could be nothing more than a statistical aberration, a
blip, in the overall trend of decreasing crime which has been going on for 20 years. So of course, it gets worse.
Several years ago there was a tremendous program in Richmond, Virginia called Project Exile. It said that if a violent felon uses a gun to commit a crime, you will be prosecuted in federal court and go to prison for five years – no parole or early release. Obama’s former Attorney General, Eric Holder, called that a “cookie cutter” program. That’s ridiculous. I call that program a success.
That program actually still exists, it began not "several" years ago but over 18 years ago in 1997, and still, even after all that time, no one knows if it's really working or not. Via the
New York Times in 1999.
The Justice Department, long an adversary of the N.R.A. over gun control, has held back from recommending Project Exile as a cure-all, and a panel of Federal judges in Richmond has criticized it as a Federal intrusion into state matters. But Philadelphia and Rochester have adopted the program, and more than a dozen other cities are considering it.
Still, not everyone is convinced that Project Exile is the appropriate means to attack the gun problem. In a recent court opinion, all three judges of the Federal District Court here characterized the program as ''a substantial Federal incursion into a sovereign state's area of authority and responsibility.''
And the Justice Department has remained reluctant to promote it as a national solution to gun violence.
Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder said recently that department officials ''take issue with the notion that there is a cookie-cutter approach to reducing gun violence.''
Mr. Holder also said the department had sent additional Federal marshals, agents and prosecutors to make Exile successful.
Deputy Attorney General Holder? Yes, that's right this statement was made 16 years ago during the Clinton Administration long before Holder became Attorney General. And he wasn't saying that
he thought it was a "cookie cutter" approach, he said "department officials" felt that way about it. The point is that this project was really just the brainchild of local U.S. Attorney at the time along with a couple ATF agents and one from the F.B.I., and not that Holder was personally against it he noted that the DOJ had sent additional resources for it.
Mr. Schiller conceded that more Federal agents had been sent to Richmond. But he said the only Federal participants dedicated to Project Exile outside of the United States Attorney's office were two agents on loan from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and one from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Others say the involvement of the N.R.A., which has opposed Federal gun control laws, has tempered the Justice Department's interest. The rifle association has contributed $125,000 to Richmond's efforts for advertising and marketing programs, and has lobbied Congress to get $2.3 million for programs in Philadelphia and Camden, N.J
So this is the NRA'a idea of how to fight gun crime, and the way they decided to do it is to Federalize these crimes using the
A.T.F. to double-dip on other arrests when there happens to be a gun present. A guy caught with cocaine gets one sentence by the state, but with some cocaine and a shotgun it becomes a Federal Case only because the local prosecutor decides to make it one. Normally I would expect the NRA to run screaming away from the ATF on anything, but then since that organization has been shown to have a tendency of
Target Minorities over manufactured drug crimes the reasons for the NRA being on board with this become a bit more clear.
It's an extension and acceleration of the Drug War, but using the ATF instead of the DEA with a healthy does of propaganda to scare the gun users away. And clearly if we just frighten all the criminals all our problems will just go away the way they did with 3 Strikes and Mandatory Minimums already.
Or Not.
Why does that matter to law-abiding gun owners? Because they’re the ones who anti-gun politicians and the media blame when criminals misuse guns. We need to bring back and expand programs like Project Exile and get gang members and drug dealers off the street.
Yeah, that's a great plan but did you know that the vast majority of Gun Deaths in the U.S. are
not from "Gang Members and Drug Dealers". The majority of Gun Deaths in America are in fact: Suicides. Via
Pew Research.
Suicides by gun accounted for about six of every 10 firearm deaths in 2010 and just over half of all suicides, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Since the CDC began publishing data in 1981, gun suicides have outnumbered gun homicides. But as gun homicides have declined sharply in recent years, suicides have become a greater share of all firearm deaths: the 61% share in 2010 was the highest on record. That year there were 19,392 suicides by firearm compared to 11,078 homicides by gun (35% of all firearm deaths). The rest were accidents, police shootings and unknown causes.
And before we get to gangs, what about the impact of
guns on domestic violence?
Guns increase the probability of death in incidents of domestic violence.1
Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005.2
Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.3
Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.4
A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm.5 In nearly two thirds (64.5%) of the households that contained a firearm, the intimate partner had used the firearm against the victim, usually threatening to shoot or kill the victim.
Also
In 2000, in homicides where the weapon was known, 50 percent (1,342 of 2,701) of female homicide victims were killed with a firearm. Of those female firearm homicides, 1,009 women (75 percent) were killed with a handgun.
More than five times as many women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance (605) than by a stranger (113) in the year 2000. Additionally, while firearm homicides involving male victims were mostly intra-gender, 95 percent of female firearm homicide victims were murdered by a male.
Domestic violence against women is ar disturbingly common occurrence in the United States. Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) indicate that from 1993 to 1998, women were victims of violent crimes by their intimate partners an average of more than 935,000 times a year. During this period, intimate-partner violence comprised 22 percent of all violent crimes against women. Although firearms are used in a relatively small percentage of domestic violence incidents, when a firearm is present, domestic violence can and all too often does turn into domestic homicide.
And how many Gang Homicides are there?
Via National Gang Center.
The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged more than 1,900 annually from 2007 to 2011
It's quite literally a 10 to 1 ratio.
19,392 Suicides per year compared to 1,900 Gang Homicides which is only slightly higher than the number of women who are killed by their spouses/significant others (1,342) using a gun every year. If gangs are such a dangerous issue that we have to start twisting and overriding state law, why isn't domestic violence based murders just as vital an issue?
And just what is it, pray tell, that Trump would do about the suicide [or domestic abuse] issues exactly? Well, something... kinda.
Fix Our Broken Mental Health System
Let’s be clear about this. Our mental health system is broken. It needs to be fixed. Too many politicians have ignored this problem for too long.
All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue. We need to expand treatment programs, because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they just need help. But for those who are violent, a danger to themselves or others, we need to get them off the street before they can terrorize our communities. This is just common sense.
"Get them off the street before they can terrorize our communities?" What exactly is he talking about here? Is he suggesting that people who show signs of mental illness should be
involuntary committed for "public safety" without a hearing or the benefit of due process?
Is this just going go around and locking up all the "crazies" while deporting all the "illegals" all part of a 2 for 1 deal? I actually agree that there were indeed warning signs in several of the recent mass shootings we've seen, in several cases action was taken (Loughner & Virginia Tech shooters both taken out of school for issuing threats) but what didn't happen next was that the weapons these people had access to were not put under a weapons restraining order after a hearing and judicial review - as has been recently implemented in California - to protect both that persons Constitutional Rights and the public. This law extends the Federal Protective Order Gun Ban (1994) and the Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Gun Ban (1996) which prohibits gun possession by someone subject to a domestic abuse restraining order or misdemeanor domestic abuse.
And it's interesting that he says he wants to expand mental health treatment programs, because that happens to be something he's also said he's directly against and plans to repeal.
Attitudes and understanding of mental health care issues are changing in the United States, in part due to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Moving into its second year, we are seeing a shift in utilization and accessibility to behavioral services that benefit millions of Americans and can save millions of dollars. For those involved in delivering this care and to an estimated one in 17 Americans facing a serious mental health illness, this is welcome news and one that was overdue.
...
This year, an estimated 3.7 million Americans with significant mental illnesses now have coverage and access to care through the insurance exchanges or extended Medicaid — they have moved from the shadows and into needed treatment.
But other well-known provisions of the ACA translate into mental health-related benefits. Given that teens and young adults encounter higher levels of behavioral issues (half of all mental health and substance abuse begins before high school and 75 percent develop before age 24), the under-26 provision allowing parents on their policies to continue providing coverage to their underage children has extended coverage to an at-risk population. Considering the cost of untreated mental illnesses on individuals, families and society, providing care to young adults will not only improve the quality and productiveness of lives but also save money.
So it's one thing to say you're going to "extend care" but the real question is "How" and also who or what is going to
pay for it because if Obamacare is repealed and/or the Medicaid expansion is shutdown many people
won't be able to afford the care Trump is saying needs to be extended.
GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice.
I'm going to actually agree that the effectiveness of the 1990's assault weapons ban wasn't really proven, but the magazine capacity issue is very practical for dealing with a mass shooter by giving people an opening where that person has to stop and reload. It was during that reload period that unarmed people were able
take down Jared Loughner during his attack on Rep. Gabby Giffords.
So Trump would ignore that, and then not only allow fully automatic capable weapons with giant clips, he would override state carry laws literally everywhere. Not much of "States Rights" position there.
NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state.
Again, States Rights go By By.
I can't possibly imagine what might happen with hundreds of thousands of fresh new gun owners - with concealed weapons - all over the nation who've just lost their mental health coverage from the repeal of Obamacare who just might resort to suicide, or worse get some payback on someone like their spouse or the boss who offended or annoyed them and then commit suicide. Oh wait, yes I can.
BACKGROUND CHECKS. There has been a national background check system in place since 1998. Every time a person buys a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer – which is the overwhelming majority of all gun purchases – they go through a federal background check. Study after study has shown that very few criminals are stupid enough to try and pass a background check – they get their guns from friends/family members or by stealing them.
So yes, people do often get their guns from friends or family because
their is no law against being a gun straw purchaser. Drug cartels and criminals don't really need to steal guns unless they can't afford to buy them second hand from someone with a clean record who can pass the background check. Or buy them at a gun show.
So the overwhelming majority of people who go through background checks are law-abiding gun owners. When the system was created, gun owners were promised that it would be instant, accurate and fair. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today. Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it.
I would agree with this, except for one thing. Privacy. A persons mental health records
are not public information and with good reason. If their mental health situation has been shown to be a danger, and due process is followed, sure, put them on a "no buy guns" list. But only after that, not before.
MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS. Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless.
Yeah, that's not how the
Military feels about it.
NASHVILLE -- The U.S. Defense Department wants armed volunteers who are showing up across the country to guard military recruiting centers following the July 16 shooting rampage at two facilities in Chattanooga to stop, citing potential "security risks."
...
"While we greatly appreciate the outpouring of support for our recruiters from the American public, we ask that individuals not stand guard at recruiting offices as it could adversely impact our mission, and potentially create unintended security risks," Cook said. "We continue to partner with and rely on first responders for the safety of the communities where our service members live and work."
And they had good reason to be concerned about "unintended security risks" because
that actually happened.
Christopher A. Reed, 28, of Lancaster, was charged with discharging a firearm in the city limits, and was issued a summons to appear in Fairfield County Municipal Court on Tuesday, according to the police incident report.
Reed told the officer who responded that he was standing, holding his AR-15 rifle in front of the military recruiting station to guard the personnel inside when someone approached him and asked if he could take a look at the weapon. Reed agreed to show him, and while he was trying to clear the ammunition from the weapon, he accidentally fired into the asphalt pavement.
And the Military doesn't want to arm
their domestic bases either.
WASHINGTON — The Defense Department on Wednesday came out squarely against giving weapons to every service member on a domestic military installation despite a growing clamor in Congress for such a step in the wake of the Tennessee shooting rampage.
...
“We do not support arming all military personnel for a variety of reasons,” Davis told reporters at the Pentagon. “(There are) safety concerns, the prohibitive cost for use-of-force and weapons training, qualification costs as well as compliance with multiple weapons-training laws.”
The reason for this is actually quite simple, just because you have a weapon doesn't mean you have the training and experience to use that weapon effectively against a determined opponent.
A former Special Operations officer, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly about armed forces’ training, said many service members lack sufficient skills to carry loaded weapons.
“If you’re going to be involved at recruiting centers or protecting the public, you should be able to fire at least 84 percent of your rounds into a life-size target at 25 yards,” the officer told McClatchy.
These are in fact, not unknowable things. Skill, experience and training can be documented and not everyone in the military is always combat ready and qualified on a particular weapon. People have studied this and the situation is
even worse for civilians without training.
But new research from gun experts at Mount St. Mary's University examined just how effective any average "good guy with a gun" can be. They found that when it comes to effective self-defense with a firearm, there's a gap between certain gun rights rhetoric and the facts.
The study, commissioned by gun reform group National Gun Victims Action Council, placed people with varying levels of gun expertise in a firearms simulator and taped how they acted in self-defense when confronted by virtual armed criminals.
After 77 volunteers, including police officers, had passed through the test, the researchers concluded that the less training and familiarity with firearms each possessed, the more stressful they found the experience and the more likely they were to fail the scenarios.
Let's just recall that after Jared and Amanda Miller were kicked out of the Cliven Bundy compound for being "too radical" and they decided to go on their Anti-Government rampage starting with the assassination of two Las Vegas Police Officers they actually did run into a "good guy with a gun" as they tried to hide out in Walmart.
That's when they killed him.
The pair then migrated to the nearby Walmart, where a gun-carrying customer, 31-year-old Joseph Robert Wilcox, tried to take down Jared Miller. But police say Amanda [Miller] blindsided Wilcox and fatally shot him at close range
So in summary Trump's "plan" is to basically have everybody with guns everywhere (except for drug dealers and gangs re: Black and Mexicans) without any real significant fixes to the holes in the background check problems, and maybe some treatment for mental health, or maybe not, or maybe a big "round up of the nuts" while we escalate the drug war and mass incarceration on the sly which really won't have any real significant positive impact on the greatest source of gun deaths (ie: suicides). Also domestic violence gun deaths? Bah humbug.
This "plan" is governing by myth and anecdote, it would be a total disaster. So, naturally we can expect the MSM to totally ignore it an instead obsess on some other shiny, hairy object. Like "He's-a-Muslim-Gate".
Vyan