Posted: 12/19/13 01:44
by Dave Mindeman
The anniversary of the Sandy Hook shootings has come and gone. I imagine the pain of Newton welled to the surface once more, while the rest of us cannot even begin to make comparisons in regards to our own feelings vs. the deep, deep sorrow of theirs.
I won't even try.
But advocates of gun safety need to rise to the occasion once more. In Minnesota, last legislative session, an attempt was made to put together some real common sense changes to gun regulations. That attempt wasn't talking about taking away anybody's guns. It wasn't restricting assault weapons. It wasn't asking for registration. Nothing of the sort. Yet, it was slapped down as Constitutional infringements.
Going into next session
there is talk of trying once more. And it is coming from law enforcement as a means to protect the public. Yeah, law enforcment - the hard core "anti-gun" people
.....The so-called "prosecutors package" of laws includes measures making it a felony to knowingly give a gun to a person prohibited from carrying a gun; it would prohibit felons from possession ammunition and include certain domestic violence offenses as "crimes of violence" -- that way a person convicted of one of these crimes would face tougher penalties for getting caught with a gun.
OK. Let's try to be rational and look at these new laws on their face. How can anybody object to them? If a person gives a gun with the knowledge that he or she is prohibited from having it, why does that no follow as pure common sense? Personally, I have to wonder why it is not already a felony. And mixing domestic violence and weapons? Why do we not already make gun possession in such cases a means of putting these characters away?
It is like gun advocates want to defend violent criminal behavior? Is that now part of our constitutional rights?
I still cannot understand why gun advocates fight universal background checks.....Gun control advocates say they will push again to expand background checks on gun purchases to include private sales. Currently in Minnesota, a person can buy a gun from a private seller without going through a background check, an exception known by some as the "gun show loophole."
I don't care it you are selling a pistol to your brother - a background check should follow any sale. Each and every one of them. Gun shows, trade shows, antique shows, family gatherings, Craig's list, or an ad in the weekly fishwrap.....if a weapon sale occurs, a background check should be front and center.
That is not infringing on anybody's rights. Argue it all you want - if you own a weapon, a background check should have been involved. If you are a law-abiding citizen (as all the gun rights advocates claim to be), then you have nothing to fear from a background check.
Yeah, I know the drill. Criminals will always get the guns. Gun thefts and gangs put too many weapons out there. But really, building up your own private arsenal is just as crazy. How many guns does one person need to protect him or herself?
I understand the hunters and recreational shooters. Even though I don't get it, it is still your right to do what you want. But guns are dangerous. They are not toys. And to utilize common sense restrictions to make everybody safer is not a personal attack.
We have to think clearly and rationally on this. The Second Amendment is a freedom, but it was never meant to be an anchor dragging against a common sense approach to public safety.