Posted on 05/28/2022 1:35:40 PM PDT by rktman
On Friday’s “PBS NewsHour,” New York Times columnist David Brooks said it’s possible to persuade some people by rephrasing gun control as “gun regulation. Like, we have driving regulation, we have cars, and we regulate the cars.” And stated that there are things like raising the age limit to buy a gun from 18 to 21, background checks, red flag laws, and having unique codes for firearms like the password on a phone “that can be done that are just normal, because we do them for cars.”
Brooks stated, “I think there is the possibility of changing the way we talk about this in order to get people who are winnable, and that’s not to phrase it as gun control, we’re going to take away your guns. That’s to phrase it as gun regulation. Like, we have driving regulation, we have cars, and we regulate the cars. And there are all sorts of things you could do that are kind of like what we do with cars.”
He continued, “Like, we could raise the age limit at which you buy a gun. It’s — this kid was 18. You could raise it to 21. That would make a difference. Background checks, the red flag laws. If you see somebody in your orbit who is suicidal or something, you can go to law enforcement and make it impossible for them to get guns. There are a whole series of things. Somebody made the point — I think it was my colleague Nick Kristof — that if you — if I lose my phone, and you pick it up, it’s basically useless to you. Because you don’t have my code. Why can’t guns be like that?”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”
Seems to me a lot of people on this forum would view all that as infringement, but come to think of it a lot don’t think deeply about the meaning of infringement any more than they think deeply about the meaning of “the right of the people to keep and bear arm”.
I’ll credit you with thinking rather than giving a knee jerk response.
I think I agree with Brooks so long as we can have media regulation where I control what he says and everybody else for that matter.
Again, nope. But, just some of us.
Thanks for giving the opportunity to expand on my thoughts. I wish you were able to do the same.
-PJ
What good would a “universal background” check do?
The killer bought the guns legally.
Someone mentioned that his juvenile records were sealed, which would have prevented him from buying a firearm if they were known.
Is that true?
If so, stop coddling juvenile killers, release their names, and punish them as adults. And put their criminal records in the database.
I knew it was going to be a controversial post to many, but I tried to ground it in the words and intents of the Framers.
I'm trying to give people a bone to chew on, to be the basis of more thought on the matter, in a way that is consistent with historical thought by the Founders and Framers.
I'm not trying to appeal to the knee-jerk absolutists, and I'm also not trying to imply that there aren't lines that I'm not willing to cross, too. But if we don't want the current head-banging from the left and right to continue ad infinitum, then someone has to offer something of a compromise that is solidly grounded in Constitutional thought, as well as solve just one problem -- not many problems -- just one problem, and not be so onerous as to be a sledge hammer solution to a fly swatter problem.
I think this can be that kind of a solution that people on the left and right can coalesce around, but it's going to take more than monosyllabic grunts to have a meaningful debate on the matter.
But that's just me.
-PJ
Regulate guns like cars?
Decree that they get more bullet velocity with less powder.
Decree that they lower the decibels, use ‘mufflers’.
And car regulation is also onerous
Car ownership is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution and is therefore a law of Man.
The RIGHTS prescribed in the Constitution is a firmament from God even if there never was an actual written Constitution. Rights are simply enumerated by Man of that which has always existed.
I appreciate your efforts but I don’t believe “they” would ever negotiate any sort of “compromise” in good faith. Their track record is pretty dismal. To my little pea brain, the framers used the federalists papers to arrive at and submit the final assesment of the debate/discussions and the words they wrote down are the ones intended.
Just as an aside, I don’t know if you saw the link I’ve posted before to ‘their’ “PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE THROUGH EFFECTIVE MESSAGING” guide. If not here’s the link:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf
Honor the fallen on Memorial Day.
Start with a proficiency test (for a nominal fee, of course) in order to get a voter ID card. Make it renewable every for 2 years. Make people show it in order to exercise a Constitutional right.
See how that flies.
I know that both sides have become entrenched by politics into their positions, but I won't let that stop me from offering suggestions for alternative solutions.
Also, thanks for the link. I haven't seen it before but I'm reading it now with my morning coffee.
-PJ
You’re welcome. Different folks, different view points. Some valid some not. Keeps things interesting for some.
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.