Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Michael Moore's Latest Idea on Repealing and Replacing the 2nd Amendment

Today I came across this sadly bemusing article regarding Leftist film maker Michael Moore's latest idea.  Of course he misses the entire purpose of why our founders insisted that citizens must have the right to keep and bear arms, and it has nothing to do with sport or hunting.  I suppose it would have been more astonishing if he had understood that fact.  

What is truly sad is that there will be quite a few people that will look at his misguided ideas and think this newly proposed constitutional amendment of his is a really good idea. 

Never mind that most of his ideas will do nothing to change the number of deaths by gun violence, but in many cases will actually exacerbate the problem.  Indeed, many of the cities with the worst gun violence in the nation also have the strictest gun control laws.  I give you Chicago as an excellent case in point, as it leads the nation in gun deaths yet again this year.

Evidently these good folks are still of the mind that evil can be controlled via legislation.  Many of these well-meaning folks are the same ones that insist that we should not judge all Muslims by the terrorist acts committed by a small percentage of those that they claim have perverted Islam.  As far as that argument goes, they are absolutely correct.  One would simply ask that this same courtesy be given to lawful gun owners to not be judged by the actions of the few psychopaths that use guns to commit evil acts.  I won't hold my breath on this.

Regardless, here is the article from The Blaze by Dave Urbanski:

Michael Moore proposes change to Constitution that ‘repeals the ancient and outdated 2nd Amendment’

In the wake of the deadly Las Vegas mass shooting Sunday night, Moore proposed a 28th amendment to the United States Constitution that “repeals the ancient and outdated 2nd Amendment.”
He began his lengthy Facebook post with the following preamble:
“A well regulated State National Guard, being helpful to the safety and security of a State in times of need, along with the strictly regulated right of the people to keep and bear a limited number of non-automatic Arms for sport and hunting, with respect to the primary right of all people to be free from gun violence, this shall not be infringed.”
Moore — noting the Second Amendment was “written before bullets and revolvers were even invented” — said his proposed amendment “guarantees States can have State militias (a.k.a. State National Guards which are made up of citizen-soldiers who are called upon in times of natural disasters or other State emergencies), allows individuals to use guns for sport and gathering food, and guarantees everyone the right to be free of, and protected from, gun violence (i.e., the public’s safety comes ahead of an individual’s right to own and fire a gun).” 
Continue reading...

 At the end of the day, we have a God given right, and I would argue a duty, to protect innocent lives from evil as best we are able.  By disarming law abiding Americans in contradiction to our Bill of Rights and indeed by natural law's right to self preservation, Michael Moore and those that support his wrong-headed idea are creating far more problems than they ever hoped to solve.

As I am already a "life member" of the NRA, I think I will head off to their web site and make a donation in honor of Michael Moore simply to try and curb what little I can of the damage his foolish notion does with regards to his influencing the uninformed and ignorant in our country.

24 comments:

Dave Dubya said...

we have a God given right, and I would argue a duty, to protect innocent lives from evil as best we are able.

This sounds like it could be the preamble to the "Vigilante Code".

It's not just about evil. Mental illness, depression anger, fear reactions, and suicide are just a few other factors that take innocent lives. Who protects them?

I applaud Moore’s suggestion, fantasy that it is. Although he does allow for sport and hunting, I don’t agree with all of it. I love the part of women’s waivers, if indeed, it “has greatly reduced most spousal/domestic gun murders in Canada”.

When we get past the narrow statistics of Chicago, a larger picture emerges. States with the highest concentration of firearms in the population have the highest proportion in deaths by gunshot.

There’s a fairly strong relationship between the rate of gun-related deaths (murders, suicides, accidents) and the percentage of households that own guns: the fewer households with guns, the fewer gun deaths. ..People in states where many households have guns aren’t safer, they’re more at risk. (This is also true on the household level—American Journal of Epidemiology, 11/15/04.)

Many Americans are uninformed and ignorant of these facts. And I am sure Mr. Paine has some enlightening facts of his own to share.

T. Paine said...

Vigilante Code? Really? I am a vigilante if I wish to protect my family from harm from a person with evil intentions? I guess I don't understand your statement, Dave.

Moore's suggestions are tantamount to a gun ban. Sure, you can own guns (of the government-approved type) but you have to keep them in an approved off-home facility. Sure would make it easier to confiscate our guns in such a case, not that our government would EVER do that.

As for the "narrow statistics" of Chicago, the same holds true for D.C. and many jurisdictions in California. It clearly shows the correlation. Indeed, the crime prevention research center shows the huge increase in gun-related murders in England, Ireland, Jamaica and other nations AFTER they institute gun bans. https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

I am sure that the Brady Center would disagree, but even the FBI's own stats prove this fact out.

Burr Deming said...

Let me propose a hypothetical: If you became convinced that innocent lives would best be saved with more gun regulation, would you favor that regulation as a God given duty?

I'm thinking of these words of wisdom:

At the end of the day, we have a God given right, and I would argue a duty, to protect innocent lives from evil as best we are able.

I also wonder about this:

Of course he misses the entire purpose of why our founders insisted that citizens must have the right to keep and bear arms, and it has nothing to do with sport or hunting.

If I read the beginning of the amendment correctly, the entire purpose is explicit. Has to do with well regulated militia. That entire purpose would not involve any other God given right.

I like the phrase "well meaning." It involves accepting the motivations of one's debate opponents as they are presented. Not at all unusual for my friend T. Paine.

I suspect most of those favoring more regulation will be swayed by persuasive evidence that regulation does not result in safety. The key is persuasive. Pointing to the failure of gun regulation in cities or states which are surrounded by other states with little regulation would not qualify.

Instead, try this approach, or most anything written at http://infidel753.blogspot.com/

TB3 said...

Another mass shooting. Another blogpost advocating status quo.

Thank you for at least reminding me that Michael Moore is still around.

T. Paine said...

Mr. Deming, if you could take away every criminal's gun and ensure that governments won't disobey the constitution to enslave its citizens, then I would gladly give up my guns... if I owned any.

As for the 2nd amendment, look at the purpose of it in context, sir. SCOTUS has rightly declared the owning of firearms to be an INDIVIDUAL right. Further, the purpose of the constitutional amendment was such that We The People could defend ourselves. There are myriad writings (far more than two) from our founders specifically declaring this. The verbiage about militias in the amendment was due to the fact that this is how communities protected themselves, whether from Indians, the French, the English or so on back then. It was meant as a means of community protection as we did not always have a standing army or police forces (except in larger cities) for protection.

Further, look at the Bill of Rights. (That is the first ten amendments of the Constitution for those of you that never had civics classes.) Every one of those rights is stipulating something that is secured for the people of the United States. They list our individual rights. If this amendment was simply about the government providing for "a militia" as an adjunct to the army then don't you think this would have fallen under the body of the constitution and not under our individual rights that the Constitution was enumerating in the Bill of Rights, sir?

As for those islands of crime with strict gun control that are surrounded by lawless gun rights states, I think that is a gross inaccuracy, sir. Again, look at the links I provided in my previous comment that shows the spikes in gun murders in nations after bans are instituted.

By disarming law abiding citizens, we simply serve to make them potential targets and victims to the criminals that will not give up or will still have access to weapons, my friend.

TB3, I am not for the status quo either, sir. I think background checks to ensure that felons, domestic abusers, and those that are mentally ill are very necessary. These background checks and laws already exist though sir. What is lacking is perhaps a cross check of the background check tool with databases that we should create that show those under the care of a doctor for disqualifying mental health issues or with a criminal history. Nearly all gun owners I know do not want criminals or the mentally ill to have guns either. We simply need to get better at keeping guns out of those hands.

Majormajor said...

I wonder if leftist Michael Moore would agree to end federal funding to Planned Parenthood and the over turning of Roe v Wade to save millions of human lives?

Somehow I doubt it because it is not about lives it's about the politics.

TB3 said...

And I wonder if the leftist Michael Moore is going to ever make Canadian Bacon 2. That has about as much to do about the topic at hand as Roe v Wade anda reproductive health organization.

T. Paine said...



"I wonder if leftist Michael Moore would agree to end federal funding to Planned Parenthood and the over turning of Roe v Wade to save millions of human lives? Somehow I doubt it because it is not about lives it's about the politics." ~ Majormajor

You are absolutely right, my friend. It is precisely about politics and not as much about saving lives as Michael Moore would lead us to believe.

"And I wonder if the leftist Michael Moore is going to ever make Canadian Bacon 2. That has about as much to do about the topic at hand as Roe v Wade anda reproductive health organization." ~ TB3

TB3 I respectfully disagree, sir. It goes to show the motivation behind Mr. Moore's proposed amendment really isn't as much about saving lives as it is politics. If lives were truly of paramount interest to Mr. Moore, he would also be championing the overturning of Roe v. Wade as it has been responsible for the death of not 59 people, but 50 MILLION innocent unborn children since its passage. The fact that he supports abortion tells us that it is indeed about politics and not the saving of lives. Majormajor's statement shows us Michael Moore's glaring inconsistency here, sir.

TB3 said...

"It goes to show the motivation behind Mr. Moore's proposed amendment really isn't as much about saving lives as it is politics"

Did you even actually read Michael Moore's actual facebook post, or are you just basing this off of the summary from The Blaze? No where in his post does he indicate he is motivated about saving lives. He pretty clearly states his purposes:

"I, Michael Moore, along with all who support an end to this epidemic of gun violence, propose a new Amendment to our Constitution that repeals the ancient and outdated 2nd Amendment"

Furthermore, Michael Moore's opinion on abortion is fairly well known as he's publically discussed that he disagrees with his former church's stance on abortion. However, again, abortion and reproductive health have nothing to do with a discussion on gun control and gun violence. Because you can't really take this debate tactic and say 'Moore doesn't believe in saving lives if he's anti-abortion', because that can be flipped right back around on you. You're anti-abortion, so you believe in the sanctity of life, but you also don't want to actually discuss gun violence, its cause, or how to limit it. If saving lives were truly his motive and you're sticking him with the 'he's for allowing women to have abortions so he's not serious about saving lives' than the inverse can be attributed to you.

You don't care about saving lives, because you're comfortable with the status quo in regards to the regulations on the 2nd amendment. Oh, and I applaud your open mind toward broader background checks and a better system to monitor and log those background checks. It's a shame that opinion needed to be coerced out in the comments section rather than in the main article itself.

"The fact that he supports abortion tells us that it is indeed about politics and not the saving of lives. Majormajor's statement shows us Michael Moore's glaring inconsistency here, sir."

The only thing MM's statement shows us is his uncanny skill at derailing the train of conversation. If he wanted to show us Moore's inconsistency or hypocrisy on the actual topic, he would show us Moore's proof of ownership of the weapons he proposes regulating or pictures Moore gleefully using the aforementioned weapons. But go ahead. Jump off those rails, Mr. Paine. I look forward to Mr. Dubya taking this derailing as an opportunity to discuss your love of the living in relation with BLM... :)

Dave Dubya said...


It's fascinating to see how you two link completely separate issues.

"Pro-life" means a war of aggression is good. That is the same logic.

the motivation behind Mr. Moore's proposed amendment really isn't as much about saving lives as it is politics.

Really? And liberals all want a Stalinist dictatorship too, if we are to believe Cons superior judgment of motives.

This is what assigning motivation to others looks like.

“The motivation behind Majormajor’s and Mr. Paine’s opposition to abortion really isn't as much about saving lives as it is politics. They want to deny reproductive choice and control women, and then deny health care to poor children, while exposing them to more gun violence.”

Of course, turnabout is not fair play for the Right. But IOKIYAR.

Say, didn't one of those Republican hypocrites demonstrate IOKIYAR to vote against abortion for others, then urge your mistress to get one?

As long as you don't get caught, amirite?

"Values". Maybe my hypothetically assigned motivation was spot on after all.



T. Paine said...

TB3, thanks for your comment.

Respectfully, I still disagree with you, sir. I see no inconsistency at all with my values on this subject. I am vehemently against abortion as it kills a human life. I am also for the right to keep and bear arms in order that I may have the means to protect human life, particularly of those loved ones whom I hold dear.

Perhaps you are right though that it would have made for a better article if I had placed my own thoughts about background checks and appropriate databases to screen for criminals and the mentally ill into the body of my article instead of the comments.

Hey, nobody is perfect! Not even us conservatives! :)

T. Paine said...

Dave, your "motivation" statement directed towards me and Majormajor from a Leftist perspective is absolutely in line with what many Left-wingers would absolutely believe. I give you Mr. Mozart as an example over at Tom's blog this morning of this very fact. That is fine. I obviously don't expect him, nor perhaps you, to really understand... let alone see the consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life whether it be from abortion or at the hands of an evil person with a gun.

As for the idiot Republican congressman that got caught asking his mistress to have an abortion, I am glad that he is resigning. He should have simply said that he "evolved" in his thinking and is now "pro-choice". I am sure he would have been accepted as a Democrat then.

Just kidding... I think... :)

TB3 said...

Oh, I know well enough nobody is perfect. I'm reminded of my own failings daily!

I appreciate your reasonable response. Since you do not see your own inconsistancy, you can recognize the lack of inconsistancy in Mr. Moore's own proposal using your own experience. Since his expressed purpose for the proposal was to deal with gun violence and not protecting the sanctity of life, there's no inconsistancy. His proposal provides an opportunity for gun ownership and their use. It's a proposal; An idea; A thought on how to deal with gun violence. That's the topic at had. Was there any specifically about what he proposed that you're against? I think it may overreach, but as a conversation starter Mr. Moore's proposal has a lot to bite your teeth into.

Dave Dubya said...

Dave, your "motivation" statement directed towards me and Majormajor from a Leftist perspective is absolutely in line with what many Left-wingers would absolutely believe.

But it doesn't work the other way, right?

So it is fine for cons to assign motivations to liberals, but not the other way around. That is your position.

We got it. IOKIYAR. Or a con. Same thing.

You can deny it, but I claim the same power of defining terms and motivations that you claim.

That concept of "equality" is a tough one isn't it?

I obviously don't expect him, nor perhaps you, to really understand... let alone see the consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life whether it be from abortion or at the hands of an evil person with a gun.

This shows you utterly missed the point of my example of assigning motivations. You also missed the fact those "good guys with guns" in Vegas saved nobody with their guns.

If we didn't have an industry of military-style weapons flooding the country, the death count would be lower. So much for wanting to "save lives".

"More weapons of death mean more lines saved." THAT is sheer lunacy, and disproved by the fact that higher concentrations of legal gun ownership mean higher rates of gun deaths.

Where is the "consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life" when that reality is proven?

Where is that "consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life" when it comes to war of aggression?

Where is that "consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life" when it comes to killing the innocent by unjust death sentences?

Where is that "consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life" in saying "fine people" marched with Nazis?

And for TB3, where is that "consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life" when it comes to attacking BLM as a racist hate group for protesting the senseless loss of life?

See? It's not all about guns and abortion. Those are two separate issues. If you can combine the two, I can add the rest.

THEY ARE NOT ALL THE SAME ISSUE! If they are, then you are selectively anti-life, anti-equality, and pro-death.

In other words, a hypocrite. But I prefer to think of you as "well intentioned but self-filtered in information".

TB3 said...

"And for TB3, where is that "consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life" when it comes to attacking BLM as a racist hate group for protesting the senseless loss of life? "

Like I said. We're either talking about guns, gun violence and gun regulation, or we're talking about anything and everything. If the conversation gets derailed by 'Hur hur, Michael Moore is pro women's issues so he's a hypocrit and negates any opinion he has on the topic of guns' than we get to have more conversations rehashing BLM. Glad, Mr. Dubya, you finished that alley oop I tossed you to punctuate my point.

Dave Dubya said...

TB3.
In the conservative black and white world view, supporting a woman’s right to not bear the child of her rapist means we cannot support innocent, living, breathing, thinking human life anywhere. I think that’s their point. It’s hard to tell, since their definition of words is often their own.

Our lesson here is: Only conservatives may define terms, discern motives, and “support innocent life”, while they support proliferation of military-style weapons, a war of aggression and capital punishment.

(I wonder if they know innocent Iraqi zygotes, embryos, fetuses AND their mothers were killed by their war.) IOKIYAR.

It just makes sense. Or rather, Con-sense as I've termed it.

Majormajor said...

DD,

Pure political B.S.

I guess you don't want to save human lives after all

T. Paine said...

TB3, I understand your point. The subject at hand is about guns and gun control. Abortion and other life issues were not necessarily relevant to the specific issue at hand. That said, I still understand and can appreciate Majormajor's point too. If one truly cares about the sanctity of life, shouldn't that also translate and be represented in our specific positions on other life affecting issues too? This especially becomes relevant if those positions are seemingly at odds with one another.

Now I am sure Michael Moore can rationalize his gun control stance with his pro-choice stance and not see any inconsistencies or contradictions there whatsoever, just as I can justify my pro-life stance and articulate why our right to own and bear firearms to protect life is indeed consistent. I know our friend, Mr. Dubya, has some disagreements with this, and such is his right.

As for the specifics of Michael Moore's proposal, I think his idea of us having to keep our weapons at some approved facility away from our homes is a non-starter and defeats the purpose of having a firearm for self defense. Next, while I can appreciate his intentions in wanting to check for permission with former partners' consent before owning a weapon, I think that also is a non-starter. If there were matters of domestic abuse involved, then by no means should a person be able to pass a background check; however, a former partner could nix one's gun ownership for no valid reason other than spite otherwise.

I think Mr. Moore looks at gun ownership from a sport and hunting aspect that sometimes gets abused by sick or evil people. He doesn't look at the real reason why the founders made our right to bear arms the 2nd amendment to the Bill of Rights. Most of the historical context of why that right should be inviolate is lost on many of our well-meaning gun control friends. They think such things could never happen in America, and yet the 20th century is replete with authoritarian governments coming to power and disarming their citizenry prior to other horrible abuses then ensuing.

Contrary to the hyperbole from some, I don't advocate us having grenade launchers, flamethrowers, and tanks owned by private citizens. But by the same token, I do not have a problem with a 15 round hand-gun magazine either. As I have said in the past, the proliferation of firearms throughout our nation's history is such that by severely restricting them or banning them now would only ensure that the good law-abiding folks are the ones that turn in their weapons. This essentially makes America a "gun free zone" just like Sandy Hook Elementary and the Mandalay Bay Hotel were in which evil armed men can then prey upon us with extreme prejudice.

T. Paine said...

"So it is fine for cons to assign motivations to liberals, but not the other way around. That is your position." ~ Dubya

Huh? I am not sure where you got that notion. Regardless, Leftists have been assigning motivations to conservatives just as often as it has been reciprocated from the Right, sir. Surely you don't honestly think otherwise, do you?

"...disproved by the fact that higher concentrations of legal gun ownership mean higher rates of gun deaths." ~ Dubya

No sir, it does not. I have already provided you with data and links proving that your statement is not true, Dave. It isn't from the Brady Center though, so I am sure it is not valid for you. :)

"In the conservative black and white world view, supporting a woman’s right to not bear the child of her rapist means we cannot support innocent, living, breathing, thinking human life anywhere." ~ Dubya

If a unique innocent human life is created at conception, which is scientifically inarguable, then how does my not want to see that life destroyed, even if conceived by the pernicious and evil act of rape, make my pro-life stance inconsistent, Dave? That doesn't mean that I don't have any sympathy or concern for the woman that is raped. On the contrary, I have nothing but. This is why rape is such a heinous crime and should be punished with life in prison, in my opinion. Oh, and by the way, I don't agree with the death penalty either, just so you know I am being consistent there. And before you go off half-cocked, that doesn't mean that I am against a cop or even myself from having to use deadly force as a last resort in order to protect innocent life.

Oh, and by the way, extending the debate to fallacious arguments about conservative supporting wars of aggression and the killing of Iraqi's, embryos, and their zygotes is akin to Majormajor extending the debate to include abortion. In essence you just did what you griped about Majormajor doing, sir. I guess consistency is also your hobgoblin too, huh? :)

Dave Dubya said...

That is fine. I obviously don't expect him, nor perhaps you, to really understand... let alone see the consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life whether it be from abortion or at the hands of an evil person with a gun....extending the debate to fallacious arguments about conservative supporting wars of aggression”

See the projection? It’s OK for cons to extend the debate and incorporate abortion into a discussion of guns protecting lives. But, whoah! What gives liberals the right to include other loss of innocent lives by guns?

And what is fallacious about conservatives supporting wars of aggression? Did Saddam cause 9-11? Saudis did it. Bush's war based on lies for crony profit was open aggression.

I think we have conflicting definitions of words and reality here.

If I may distract us back to the actual subject:

I don't advocate us having grenade launchers, flamethrowers, and tanks owned by private citizens. But by the same token, I do not have a problem with a 15 round hand-gun magazine either.

We agree. (Bells ring! Trumpets blare! The Chorus sings!)

I would still feel better with background checks, registration, and safety certification though.

I have no problem with keeping a gun for self-defense. And I still say nobody needs 30 round mags and automatic rifles for it.


Time for a Fact-check:

There’s a fairly strong relationship between the rate of gun-related deaths (murders, suicides, accidents) and the percentage of households that own guns: the fewer households with guns, the fewer gun deaths. ..People in states where many households have guns aren’t safer, they’re more at risk. (This is also true on the household level) American Journal of Epidemiology, 11/15/04.)

People with access to more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates—as much as 114 percent higher than states with lower gun ownership rates.

• A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data found that for every one percent increase in a state’s gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.

• Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as safe-storage requirements or assault-weapons bans.

Sources: Injury Prevention and gun ownership (British Medical Association) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (deaths)

TB3 said...

Thank you for the reasonable response, T.Paine. And thank you for digging into Mr. Moore's proposal. Just like any and every bill or proposal submitted in our Congress, it never (or very rarely ever) remains intact and identical to the original submission. Mr. Moore's proposal, were it to eeeevvvvver hit the floor of the Congress, would end up looking totally different than what he proposed. That's the nature of our system. Like I said; It's a starting point for conversation.

The spousal waiver, though the intent is in the right place, I don't see this being feasible unless it's under very specific situations. I agree with you that if there's a history of domestic abuse, that should show up on a strong background check and prevent someone from exercising their right to bear arms.

I also agree with you regarding the gun storage provision he suggests. I believe that's unreasonable, but I do believe in proper firearm storage. I just don't think that warrants federal enforcement through a constitutional amendment. If improper storage results in the unfortunate, I hope existing/future law would adaquately punish and properly dispense justice to the offender.

I do think his third point should be explored more. Biometrics would be a great tool to help combat gun violence by those who do not own the gun they intend to use to commit violence. I'd love to see some research or studies on this. Also the sci-fi nerd in me finds this appealing. This is the whole 'The bad guy recovers the hero's gun, tries to shoot the hero and fails because it only works for the hero' scenario.

I like his point about mental health, but it's kind of out of place in a gun regulation bill. I do think more than lip service needs to be given to mental health in our country. Serious, adult conversations need to be had about mental health and how to deal with it in both regards to owning guns and in a broader sense as well. Many problems could be addressed with stronger mental health solutions. But I don't think it needs to be in an amendment replacing the 2nd Amendment.


"As I have said in the past, the proliferation of firearms throughout our nation's history is such that by severely restricting them or banning them now would only ensure that the good law-abiding folks are the ones that turn in their weapons."

And speaking of hyperbole; Unless I missed it, I didn't see anywhere in Michael Moore's proposed amendment that indicated that guns would need to be turned in. Banned does not equal confiscation. Though these conversations often result in one side saying that their guns are getting taken away.
Though I'm not naive enough to believe that someone wouldn't try to get that through congress, the reality is we're not going to have government stooges coming to take our guns. I would, however, expect to see government gun-trade-in programs for banned weapons. I imagine existing ownership of theoretically banned weapons would be grandfathered in.

I think it's very important these kinds of conversations happen, so I appreciate you taking the time and effort to have it. All too often they get derailed, and it's too important to backburner for the same he said, she said and whataboutism that typical political/societal conversations degenerate into.

Dave Dubya said...

Would you look at that.

After our straying back to the subject, Mr. Paine finds two consecutive liberals agreeing with him.

Cheers, gents!

T. Paine said...

Dave, I simply pointed out that you were griping that Majormajor extended the debate to include abortion. You then turned around and extended the debate with even greater non sequiturs of "wars of aggression" and so forth. I was merely pointing out that you were doing what you railed against Majormajor for doing. Or were you merely thinking that since he can do it, so can you? It doesn't really matter to me either way, sir.

"I would still feel better with background checks, registration, and safety certification though." ~ Dubya

Background checks are already required in every case, even gun shows, with the lone exception of sales between private citizens on a non-commercial basis. I do think those background checks should be more stringent and attached to updated databases regarding a person's status as a felon, domestic abuser, or mentally illness. Gun registration is dangerous and a non-starter with me. That is the first step to confiscation. I think safety and training are always excellent ideas; however, I don't want the government mandating this as it will also require a defacto registration again.

I am heading out on vacation so I will make sure to provide a bunch of research that refutes your stats when I get back. Cheers!

T. Paine said...

TB3, you have some very good comments that deserve more attention than I can provide at the moment. I will address these when I return from my trip. Cheers!