Posted on 11/23/2014 7:19:19 AM PST by Second Amendment First
How many shootings will it take before we adopt common sense gun control? A former Navy weapons instructor lays out the simple steps lawmakers can take to make us all safer.
Last week, there was yet another campus shooting. This time, it was at Florida State University. The exhaustingly predictable cycle of mass shooting, recycled talking points from all sides, proposed legislation, insider lobbying, stagnation, and loss of public interest is about to begin and has been repeated far too many times in recent memory. Face it: the gun rights debate in this country is stale. In May, I talked about how both sides are wrong and said that we need to have some common sense. Today, I am calling on lawmakers to have some damn courage.
If you feel, like the fringe gun lobby does, that my 6 year-old son's life is less important than your right to own whatever firearm and ammunition you want, then say that. Don't hide behind meaningless rhetoric or claim you're ready for action only to back off when the NRA comes knocking. That being said, if you believe—along with a clear majority of Americans of both parties—that modest regulation of weapons designed for the sole purpose of killing humans seems reasonable, that's a pretty easy public position to take.
And before you jump to assumptions, know that I'm no hippie. As a former weapons instructor in the U.S. Navy, I own guns myself—and I want to keep them. However, I believe that our society is overflowing with lethal weapons and that we must take action to prevent more dead kids. Mass shootings are on the rise. Children are dying. When will it be enough to actually do something? Who has the courage to do the right thing—money from special interest groups be damned?
If you feel, like the fringe gun lobby does, that my 6 year-old son's life is less important than your right to own whatever firearm and ammunition you want, then say that. I'll make it easy for lawmakers. Here is the first common sense step for what we need to do, at the state level, to maintain our constitutional right to bear arms while arming ourselves with the tools to be safer in public.
Licensing, to be renewed every five years with full background checks and mental health screenings, is the first step. Adding a checkbox to a driver's license and another form would make this easy to implement. My driver's license tells folks that I am a donor; it could very easily also indicate whether or not I am a gun owner or authorized to carry concealed firearms.
Before you tell me how I am violating your rights by proposing a record of gun owners, note that the constitution does not say that you have the right to bear arms and not tell anyone. We regulate chemicals, elevators, airplanes, and financial transactions—and none of those are specifically designed to kill anyone.
The next step is requiring 40 hours of training prior to license approval. I’m here to tell you that there is little value to having a firearm if one is cannot employ it tactically. I’m not saying we need owners to be trained to the level of Navy SEALs or SWAT teams, but if you claim to want these weapons to protect your home, then you should at least have a baseline knowledge. The training hours should jump to 80 hours for a concealed carry permit. This training should be done by the government to ensure consistency and quality control and should be covered by the tax on ammunition.
And finally, to pay for the licensing process and training as well as the background and mental health screenings, we can add a modest tax to ammunition sales (think five to ten cents per round—a manageable amount). This way, the costs are spread amongst those who wish to own guns.
My hometown city charter calls out public safety as the number one priority; many politicians around the country say the same thing, and I'd like to see them put their money where their mouths are. The question is pretty simple: do your lawmakers have the courage to protect you?
Call your state senators, your assembly members, your mayors, and your city councils. Tell them that you want to protect your kids. You want to protect your communities. Hell, you want to protect yourself. Tell them that, with the stroke of a pen, they can improve safety for their constituents and side with the clear majority of Americans.
And if they try to run you around or brush you off, remember to ask them if they think the right to own as many firearms as one wants without anyone else knowing about it is more important than the lives of America's children—including yours and theirs.
Because the government does everything so well. /s
Dear Lord, what is this man drinking?
The shooting was not the result of guns it was the result of gun control: specifically the gun-free zone policy that disarmed the victims and presented an easy target for a killer.
I see someone’s mommy didn’t give them enough attention growing up.
Guess he’s a different kind of Vet than me. I seem to remember swearing to uphold the constitution (warts and all). I suppose things have changed since 1967. Dear gunny. STFU and LUTFA!
He is more predisposed to an irrational fear for his 6 year old son’s life than he is in being free. It’s a canard all liberals use - the children. It is the cause of some of they most egregious thefts of personal freedom affirmed to us by the Constitution.
Frankly, as a former vet myself, he can take his Navy arms instructor stuff and stick it up his ass.
Any Questions????
The gun threat to his 6 year old son is a symptom of the problem....but its not the problem. The problem is the decline of the culture...the loss of moral absolutes. And those aren't because of guns....they are the result of liberals.
Military instructor means one thing. Lived the childlike existence of life on a military base. The worst effect military life has on some people is their desire that the civilian world should be a very close copy of life on base. They love being the block monitor, are prigs about association rules etc.
Sorry swabby, no dice on your plan. Your 6 year old had no right to a magic bubble of what you think is safety. FU and the admiral, I don’t live on base. Go paint something.
Well, I’m a Navy vet, and I disagree. So there.
"From 1999 through 2010, a total of 46,419 deaths from unintentional drowning (including boating) occurred in the United States, an average of 3,868 deaths per year."
There is no constitutional right to either a car or a swimming pool, so let's ban them! It would be more than 3 x more effective than banning guns!
None of the plethora of anti gun legislation has stopped one person who is bent on mass murder.
At least if there were one honest person with a gun at the scene of a mass shooting, he may have a chance to to stop the shooter before he has done a lot of damage.
Alright, Shawn VanDiver, I'll say it. Our right to own whatever firearms and ammunition we want is more important than anyone's life -- your 6 year old son's, yours and mine included. And if you are a veteran and a red blooded male, you should think about such important matters and not merely feel about them. Feelings are fickle, and must be tempered with reality through rational thought. Man up!
Now ask who should be be armed and who should be disarmed.
And don't try to say it can't happen here. We are at most one generation away from tyrrany and considerably less at this moment.
I don’t care what his background is, this guy is a dick and his “suggestions” are ludicrous. Even suggesting a 5-10 cent tax per round on ammunition (and calling it manageable) is a non starter from my point of view, and tells me that his suggestions are best ignored by any sane citizen.
Purely a gun grabbing loser who is simply regurgitating ideas that have no use outside of infringing on the Second Amendment Rights of Americans, IMO.
Free men and women don’t need to ask for permission to exercise their natural rights.
Please note my tagline.
We should tell this guy to go back to medical school and get a degree in psychiatry. Then he can comment on all of the mass shootings (that don’t involve Muslims.)
Vielen danke, mein Furher!
Books? Yes he has. Communist manifesto, Das Kapital, 0bama’s autobiographies, Mien Kampf.
His plan however is ironically regressive. All these restrictions would hurt the poor who could not afford all the taxes and training.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.