Posted on 03/03/2014 7:12:49 AM PST by rktman
Much has been said and written in favor of and opposition to gun control since the Sandy Hook tragedy unfolded.
The heinous crime has cracked the half-century-long gun debate wide open, bringing the discourse from the margins to prime time and center stage. On Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden issued a set of gun control recommendations to the president, and I hope, simply, that common sense prevails.
It is not my intention to mitigate the significance of the recent atrocities in any way, nor do I intend to minimize the severity of the events that took place, but I wish to articulate the truth: that Newtown, Conn., is just one of many communities that have experienced gun violence and its carnage.
(Excerpt) Read more at pahouse.com ...
Every "journalist" too.
And every politician's and journalist's phone, p.c., Ipad, walkie-talkie, home intercom system and pet locator ought to be registered and monitered as well.
Since prisons are teeming with a population that alarmingly supports liberalism to an almost certainty, the most “sensible” gun law would be to confiscate weapons from all who support or register as democrats.
Newtown was a case of an IRRESPONSIBLE gun owner allowing their gun to fall into the hands of a person with a known mental illness.
So what’s his point?
God Bless the Broken Road ... We’ve all been there ... Point the Way Northern Stars.
The key parts of his incoherent article:
This includes improved, thorough background checks; detailed, regular mental health evaluations for gun owners and potential gun buyers and similar evaluations for family members who share residency; improved methods of documenting private gun transfers; and, perhaps the most controversial, restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines.
As I prepare to introduce a military-style assault weapons bill in the coming legislative session, I understand that these types of restrictions may not be popular among some gun owners.
But military-style weapons with high-capacity magazines give criminals and other irresponsible gun users the ability to maximize damage, which ultimately results in greater loss of life. Giving civilians access to military-style weaponry is nonsensical given the high propensity of mass murderers to use these weapons to carry out their massacres.
A sensible approach to gun laws dictates that firearms with reasonable recreational, self-defense and sporting uses be protected, but military-style guns are proven to be nothing more than killing machines in the hands of irresponsible civilians.
Let me rephrase what he said.
“While most of the uproar over inflammatory opinions has centered on restriction versus First Amendment rights, I believe that real change will happen only when we reframe the argument in the context of public safety.
“With millions of opinions being expressed each year in the commonwealth, it is in the best interest of all of our residents — including responsible opinion makers — to have free speech laws that are sensible.
“This includes improved, thorough background checks; detailed, regular mental health evaluations for public speakers and potential opinion writers and similar evaluations for family members who share residency; improved methods of documenting who publishes and speaks what and where; and, perhaps the most controversial, restrictions on opinions that are offensive to others.
“A sensible approach to speech laws dictates that conversations with reasonable recreational, political and religious uses be protected, but outrageous opinions are proven to be nothing more than provocative rabble-rousing on the part of irresponsible civilians.”
A sensible approach to gun laws dictates that firearms with reasonable recreational, self-defense and sporting uses be protected, but military-style guns are proven to be nothing more than killing machines in the hands of irresponsible civilians.
Amen!
He keeps using that word “sensible”.
We donna thin’ it means what he thins it means.
Sensible!
What would RATs know about sensible?
We need gun control reform, and that means, no politician, no homowood star, and no body-guards of said should be permitted to possess or carry guns. This is the needed reform in proper perspective.
"Responsible opinionated citizens should welcome sensible free speech restrictions"
"Responsible people of faith should welcome sensible limitations on their beliefs"
"Responsible folks with nothing to hide should welcome a certain sensible amount of warrantless oversight"
It is a citizen’s God given right to have guns, 2nd amendment is really not needed.
Speaking of nonsensical, how am I supposed to defend myself and my family against these mass murderers if you insist on allowing them to be more well-armed than I?
We have a sensible gun law. Its called the Second Amendment.
You do not think our Constitution is sensible sir?
Why do we want to make sure he keeps his seat?
You know, in this "digital age" it shouldn't be all that hard to compile a "citizen's registry" of phone numbers and addresses of repeaters and so-called "journalists".
If they truly want to "serve the public"....well, let them be public figures.
that Newtown, Conn., is just one of many communities that have experienced gun violence and its carnage.
Newtown did not experience “gun violence” No gun got up that day an decided it was going to go an kill children and no gun did so. A evil sick human being got up that morning and decide he was going to go and kill children and he did. If as a public official you do not even understand the problem how can you help solve it?
Is he talking about citizens of Mexico, Holder, and "Fast and Furious"?
You mean in addition to the 20,000 “sensible” gun laws already on the books?
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.