I think the key word for any reform is "responsible" and I'm glad McConaughey hit on it multiple times. If the anti-gun-control crowd want to reflexively resist any new laws that touch upon the possession or use of firearms, the natural retort should be, "How does this impact responsible gun owners?" Some examples:
"Why would responsible gun owners reject the idea that their guns should be locked up when not in use?"
"Why would a responsible gun owner object to sellers doing their due diligence in understanding to whom sellers are providing a lethal weapon?"
"On the issue of alcohol, folks under 21 don't enjoy the presumption that they will be responsible drinkers. Why do they deserve the presumption that they'll be responsible firearm owners?"
If the "cold dead hands" crowd wants to reject common-sense reforms, put them on the defensive on the topic of responsibility instead of making the reformers the ones who have to justify why their reforms don't violate the Second Amendment.
I believe there can be responsible, reasonable gun controls. I also believe 21 should be the age for voting, alcohol, firearm ownership and draft registration. I would make exceptions for military volunteers under the age of 21 once they complete six months of honorable duty.
School safety is a thornier problem. My opinion is that schools are chosen as targets by immature and mentally ill individuals because that is where the most hurt can be inflicted. Many people feel that schools should not be turned into fortresses. I disagree. We should do whatever is necessary to protect these targets.
What is life without our emotions David. When is the best time to address a problem? When the shit hits the fan, or when there is none? Do you honestly believe any actions we take will fix anything over night?
I know you are a reasonable person and i suspect your answers would be along the same line as mine (maybe not). Emotions are the very thing that drive us, inspire us, without them we are tantamount to a card board box. Go for a period of time without mass shootings and see what efforts are made or energy spent to fix these issues. Finally, nothing ever gets fixed over night, all changes are achieved over time. The bigger issue is when states are allowing (as they have been) for these problems to be ignored and exacerbated.
I asked weeks back, after Buffalo, where would we be if the crime bill of 1994 had not sunset ten years later? I got my answer yesterday in a news clip. In 2004 there were 400,000 AR type rifles in the country. Now there are 20 million of them. Imagine if those provisions had remained in play. Would we be where we are today?
Lastly, i heard or read another statistic yesterday regarding recent polling. It claimed that 44% of the republicans polled believed that these types of mass shootings were the price we all had to pay for the right of freedom (gun ownership). It begs the question doesn't it: Is there are number of dead children that is too high, too much?
"Red Flag" laws are the trend of the moment, but they don't have a future. Legally, they are a nightmare of Due Process and Equal Protection violations. We will see a case before SCOTUS before long, and they'll slap it down forcefully.
Raising the age to buy rifles will not likely fly either, since most such mass shooters are above age for purchasing rifles, and therefore subjecting . Including Juvenile records in background checks *might* pass muster, but there's no indication of any effectiveness this would have.
The real purpose of raising the age is to provide a chilling effect on the ability of the gun community and culture to continue to propagate itself as it has always done, with the introduction of responsible young adults into gun ownership. It's in essence a cultural attack, and anyone who would support it might think carefully about the precedent it sets for other such transitional events.
I think the key word for any reform is "responsible" and I'm glad McConaughey hit on it multiple times. If the anti-gun-control crowd want to reflexively resist any new laws that touch upon the possession or use of firearms, the natural retort should be, "How does this impact responsible gun owners?" Some examples:
"Why would responsible gun owners reject the idea that their guns should be locked up when not in use?"
"Why would a responsible gun owner object to sellers doing their due diligence in understanding to whom sellers are providing a lethal weapon?"
"On the issue of alcohol, folks under 21 don't enjoy the presumption that they will be responsible drinkers. Why do they deserve the presumption that they'll be responsible firearm owners?"
If the "cold dead hands" crowd wants to reject common-sense reforms, put them on the defensive on the topic of responsibility instead of making the reformers the ones who have to justify why their reforms don't violate the Second Amendment.
I believe there can be responsible, reasonable gun controls. I also believe 21 should be the age for voting, alcohol, firearm ownership and draft registration. I would make exceptions for military volunteers under the age of 21 once they complete six months of honorable duty.
School safety is a thornier problem. My opinion is that schools are chosen as targets by immature and mentally ill individuals because that is where the most hurt can be inflicted. Many people feel that schools should not be turned into fortresses. I disagree. We should do whatever is necessary to protect these targets.
What is life without our emotions David. When is the best time to address a problem? When the shit hits the fan, or when there is none? Do you honestly believe any actions we take will fix anything over night?
I know you are a reasonable person and i suspect your answers would be along the same line as mine (maybe not). Emotions are the very thing that drive us, inspire us, without them we are tantamount to a card board box. Go for a period of time without mass shootings and see what efforts are made or energy spent to fix these issues. Finally, nothing ever gets fixed over night, all changes are achieved over time. The bigger issue is when states are allowing (as they have been) for these problems to be ignored and exacerbated.
I asked weeks back, after Buffalo, where would we be if the crime bill of 1994 had not sunset ten years later? I got my answer yesterday in a news clip. In 2004 there were 400,000 AR type rifles in the country. Now there are 20 million of them. Imagine if those provisions had remained in play. Would we be where we are today?
Lastly, i heard or read another statistic yesterday regarding recent polling. It claimed that 44% of the republicans polled believed that these types of mass shootings were the price we all had to pay for the right of freedom (gun ownership). It begs the question doesn't it: Is there are number of dead children that is too high, too much?
"Red Flag" laws are the trend of the moment, but they don't have a future. Legally, they are a nightmare of Due Process and Equal Protection violations. We will see a case before SCOTUS before long, and they'll slap it down forcefully.
Raising the age to buy rifles will not likely fly either, since most such mass shooters are above age for purchasing rifles, and therefore subjecting . Including Juvenile records in background checks *might* pass muster, but there's no indication of any effectiveness this would have.
The real purpose of raising the age is to provide a chilling effect on the ability of the gun community and culture to continue to propagate itself as it has always done, with the introduction of responsible young adults into gun ownership. It's in essence a cultural attack, and anyone who would support it might think carefully about the precedent it sets for other such transitional events.