These ideas by Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes at the Washington Post are not necessarily that bad. One big problem is that, in Liberal World, when you give them an inch, they will take a mile, then demand another inch. And, since the writer's website, The Trace, is backed by gun-grabber Mike Bloomberg's Everytown, among others, you can expect inches
The most promising option is a national permit-to-purchase, or PTP, policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before buying a firearm. In their recent review of dozens of scientific studies analyzing gun laws, Daniel W. Webster of Johns Hopkins University and Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California at Davis, concluded: “The type of firearm policy most consistently associated with curtailing the diversion of guns to criminals and for which some evidence indicates protective effects against gun violence is PTP for handguns.”Their stats show that a permit system reduces gun violence. I personally have no problem with permits: I obtained one for my handgun. Of course, their version goes much, much further, as we see at the link:
But the PTP system the legislation seeks to create goes further than the standard background-check procedure in place in most parts of the country: Prospective gun purchasers have to apply for their permit in person at a local law enforcement office, have their fingerprints taken, and submit a photograph along with their paperwork. Once a permit is granted, it’s good for five years. Holders who remain in good legal standing would not need to complete further background checks (as gun buyers do now) for additional gun purchases made during that period.So, every five years one must reapply, which would surely require another expensive fee. They want out fingerprints and a photo for a Constitutional Right. And this would all be submitted to the Federal government. On the flip side, if it is a national PTP, then that would mean the permit would be good nationwide, right? Which could create concealed and open carry problems for the gun grabber states.
Let's not forget that the system is ripe for abuse by government weasels, such as we've seen in states like NY and Maryland. And, many of the mass murderers have legally passed background checks.
Individual-level studies also provide support for expanding federal firearm denial criteria to include those with convictions for violent misdemeanors. A 1999 study by Wintemute and two others compared felons who were denied a firearm through a federal background check with individuals who had felony arrests records but were nevertheless able to pass a background check because their arrests had been demoted to misdemeanors. The study found that the group with misdemeanor convictions who were allowed to obtain guns were two to four times more likely to be later arrested for violent or firearm-related offenses. The authors concluded that the “denial of handgun purchase is associated with a reduction in risk for later criminal activity of approximately 20 percent to 30 percent.”There shouldn't be a problem with that. What's the over/under on Democrats wanting to expand the denial criteria?
Finally, in the United States, gun manufacturers are able to design their products without regard for consumer safety. This is largely the consequence of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which gave broad immunity to gun manufacturers and dealers from liability litigation.What of alcohol? It is one of the top drugs on the market. Do we sue Jim Beam and Coors because someone became an alcoholic or killed someone while driving drunk? These gun grabbers want to force gun makers to make "smart guns" and do things which would make the firearm virtually unusable when it's necessary. What if a doctor prescribes the wrong medicine? Do we sue the medicine company?
But let’s assume that this is overestimation and that the combined influence of these policies could prevent only 10 percent of our nation’s more than33,000 annual gun deaths. That would still be the equivalent of preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks, every single year. We don’t need gun confiscation to save lives. We can do that through common-sense gun reform.Of course, this is still mostly aimed at law abiding citizens, rather than those who obtain the guns illegally and use them for criminal activity. None of this would stop most of the mass murders, and would barely make a dent in the "gun crime" running rampant throughout mostly Democrat Party run cities, especially in the Black community....hey, it's almost like the gun grabbers don't actually care that Blacks are offing themselves. Huh.
Crossed at Pirate's Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.
The way to reduce gun violence is not to restrict the ownership of guns. People that shouldn't have them will get them if they want them. If you want to stop mass killings in schools, arm the teachers. If you want to prevent mass killings in restaurants and threatens, make gun free zones aching of the past.
Any infringement is defying common sense.
BTW, if you think a national gun registration is a good idea, you are out of your mind. It'd be the very first list that would be checked off when they start to confiscate.
Second Amendment rights are no more or less special than First Amendment ones. As is frequently said, the Amendment is my Permit. But never forget that the very language of the Second documents a right that is only being recognized, that is to say, the right to a means of self defense and to resist tyranny is a God-given right that no human government can alienate from us.
Speaking of rights, theBuckWheat enjoys the right to publish political and moral opinion while remaining anonymous. Talley v. California (1960)
Frankly, I'm disturbed that ANY CONSERVATIVE AT ALL would use 'common sense' and 'gun policies' in the same sentence, headline, paragraph, thought...
The Second Amendment is the ONLY 'policy' necessary, and the only one that's Constitutional.
When the monkey is flinging poo, you don't FEED THE DAMN THING!
That's it!? The "common sense" solution is to bring back Jim Crow laws!
If you have to have a permit in order to exercise a natural right, it ceases being a right. full stop.
THe whole problem with the gun grabber's definition of "common sense" is that it usually turns out to be nothing more than non-sense.
"BTW, if you think a national gun registration is a good idea, you are out of your mind. It'd be the very first list that would be checked off when they start to confiscate."
Let's be clear: I have no problem with a permitting system. I have a problem with a registration system, particularly at the federal level. But, just for thought, what if someone has a legally registered gun and then commits a violent crime that would disallow that person from owning a gun? If not tracked, that person will slip through the cracks. Just food for thought, because I'd rather no registration.
"Frankly, I'm disturbed that ANY CONSERVATIVE AT ALL would use 'common sense' and 'gun policies' in the same sentence, headline, paragraph, thought..."
Hence the use of the question mark, Martin. It was meant in a strictly sarcastic manner.
The Left wishes to reduce the populace to the status of serfs. Disarming Americans would be a giant step in this direction. The "proposed" gun reforms will not reduce violence or criminal acts. They serve as a means to identify and locate gun owners, as a initial step towards seizure.
Such permits are an abomination. We are headed towards civil war. Prepare for it or be ready for your train trip.
Post a Comment