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 ...
Typical. Using language that defines exactly what they are trying to do is far too...provocative and revealing for them. So they think if they call it something else, it will be more palatable.
Don’t like “homosexual”? Call it “gay” and demonize anyone who uses the accepted and scientifically accurate word.
Don’t like “Liberal” because it too clearly displays a weak minded person who hates America? Begin using “Progressive”.
Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
It is what they do.
After changing the voting age from 21 to 18, you cannot take away Constitutional rights from 18 year olds. This is not a regulation, it's a ban. A regulation only lays out a process for exercising your rights. A ban infringes on your rights.
Why don't you also try to take away the college snowflakes' 1st amendment right to peaceably assemble or speak out in public and then see what happens?
Why not take away 4th amendment privacy protections and 5th amendment due process rights from 20 year olds?
Here is a simple idea that I think will curb school shootings by loner teenagers and is 100% constitutional:
2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Article I Section 8:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;Federalist #29:
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
Here is my solution:
If instructors at the range have doubts about that teenager's mental state, they don't have to issue the certificate. That's a red flag right there. If the instructors don't have doubts and do issue the certificate, all it does is slow down the process and add a third party to the process to observe the character and state of mind of the person seeking to purchase the weapon.
To me, this is no different than flight instructors raising red flags about students who don't want to learn how to take off or land, but just fly in cruising mode. A gun proficiency instructor would similarly look for signs that someone seeking a gun is unstable and alert authorities.
I'm not saying that this is 100% perfect. I can foresee someone going "gun-range shopping" until they find an instructor who is willing to issue the certificate; at least that slows down the process and adds more people into the loop. But I do believe it is constitutional to insert this one step into the process of purchasing a firearm without it becoming a slippery slope to banning guns or building a national gun registry that could be used for door-to-door gun confiscation.
-PJ
These guys just don’t understand the Constitution thingy.
Many on FR are not proficient on the constitution so no rights for them until they pass their proficiency test. I get to make the tests, maintain the data base, and schedule everything.
Uh, short answer——no. Detailed answer——no. Could be me though.
Brooks 🤡🤡🤡
Driving is a privilege, no a God given unalienable right !
David Brooks deep state turd.
Who said, “
The pen is mighty than the sword”?
Language has been weaponized. Sir Henry Wadsworth Longfellow was more correct than he knew.
Brooks is right, sheep will follow if you just tell them what they want to hear, the strong will not!!!!
Mine is the difference between a regulation and a ban.
Even Alexander Hamilton suggested a proficiency test in Federalist #29, which I quoted above.
-PJ
We should rephrase “repeal Roe v Wade” as “abortion regulation.”
Mr. Brooks -- The last I checked, their is no mention of automobiles in the Constitution, whereas the right to bear arms is.
That pesky Constitution keeps getting in the way of liberals but don't worry, they'll keep trying to circumvent it as they have in a number of liberal cities & states.
Why isn’t this infringement? I don’t see that Federalist #29 covers it, and Federalist #29 isn’t in the Constitution?
Who determines what’s “proficient” so the guys who test for it can make a judgement?
What keeps someone with a certificate from buying for the gang?
Who pays for this bureaucracy?
“Senator they aren’t gas chambers. They are aromatic holding pods”.
And the old media will immediately comply the same way they did when Global Warming was changed to Climate Change to help the left save a theory that required the globe be doing something it isn’t.
Token Republicans speak like this to get invited to the right parties.
Attack these media pigs as no different from the Nazis who seized guns from the Jews in Nazi Germany in 1938.
Just as many as don’t know what natural born citizen means.....
Those work so well too. 20 DUIs. Killing innocent drivers and still they drive and repeat offend without a license.
Infringement is excessive burden intended as a backdoor ban. This is not that. That would be like saying that getting your car inspected is an infringement on driving, which it's not (and yes, I know driving is not a constitutional right).Still, the car inspection is proving that the vehicle is safe to operate.
I don’t see that Federalist #29 covers it
Federalist #29 says "people at large... properly armed." I take this to mean armed with the ability to use it. Improperly armed would be having an arm that you don't know how to use. Federalist #29 says "see that this be not neglected." I take this to mean demonstrating the proper arms. Federalist #29 says "assemble them once or twice." I take this to mean proper arms are demonstrated periodically. This can be simplified into a person demonstrating proficiency with a weapon in front of an expert, and renewing it at some future date.
Federalist #29 goes on to say:
if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of armsI take this to mean that the prior statements of the people being properly armed and proficiency demonstrated supports the above expectation that the people would be equal to the standing army in the use of those arms. The Framers would be confident of that assertion because they expected the people at large to be properly armed and observed to prevent neglect.
Federalist #29 isn’t in the Constitution
True, but it's what SCOTUS looks to for original intent. Why not align with it to make their job easier?
Who determines what’s “proficient” so the guys who test for it can make a judgement?
Whatever requirements must be met to own and safely operate a gun shooting range would be acceptable to me to qualify that person to issue proficiency certificates for the guns they sell.
To rephrase your question, what qualifies a mechanic to issue an inspection certificate to renew the registration on your automobile? To me, if the state is satisfied with the qualifications to own and operate a shooting range that sells guns, that person is also qualified to issue a proficiency certificate. It's also similar to getting an amateur radio license, the government accepts other amateur radio license holders as proctors for people taking the license tests.
What keeps someone with a certificate from buying for the gang?
Nothing, except straw purchase laws. The point is to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'm going for an 80% solution, and I think this is one.
Who pays for this bureaucracy?
Probably a small fee for obtaining the proficiency certificate, just like the small fee for inspecting the car separate from the registration fee. The certificate is reusable for multiple purchases of the same type of weapon. In my state, when I take my car in to get inspected, the mechanic looks at my auto insurance card and enters into the inspection system that I have insurance. I don't see it as a burden to show a proficiency certificate to a gun store seller and have them check a box on the purchase order that the buyer has a proficiency certificate.
The regulations would make it a crime to sell a gun without a proficiency certificate, making the seller liable to loss of their business, just like how bars can lose their liquor licenses if they sell alcohol to minors.
The parallels to other regulations are there, the extra burden on the buyer is not excessive, government would not be put in the middle as an obstruction, and all it would do is slow down the process for the youngest or first-time gun buyers until they obtain a proficiency certificate that they can reuse for additional gun purchases.
This is intended to stop the impulsive first-time gun buyer from walking into a sporting goods store to buy rifles and then go to a school to shoot it up. This person would now have to first go to a shooting range, meet the people there, rent a gun, shoot it once or twice, and then get a proficiency certificate before going to the big store to get the rifle. That's all it's intended to do, and it would create a paper trail to help answer the question about who knew about the kid, and were any red flags observed?
That's it... not perfect, but good enough.
-PJ
This is what passes as a conservative these days.
This.👍
As fake as George Will!
No conservative at all!!!!!!
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.