Last week, Senator Barbara Boxer introduced the Save Our Students Act. The central element:
allow the federal government to reimburse Governors who want to use National Guard troops to help ensure that our nation’s schools are safe
Yes, what we should do is spend Federal dollars to put soldiers trained for combat on battlefields around the world in our nation's kindergarten classrooms. I don't know about you, but I've always imagined my children happily playing dodgeball in the shadow of camouflaged, kevlar wearing and helmeted soldiers carrying M-16s.
In reacting to the NRA's lunatic perspectives on school safety, the 21st, Senator Boxer press release included these lines:
The NRA is now calling for stronger security at our schools. They should endorse my legislation, which would fund security upgrades for schools and trained law enforcement personnel to protect our kids.
As Senator Boxer put it, ""Is it not part of the national defense to make sure that your children are safe?"
Yes, Senator, it is but that doesn't mean that we should be tanks in every school parking lot.
Truth be told, Senator Boxer has proposed and mentioned a series of gun control and gun control-related measures since Newtown.
Here is what I think we must tackle – and we can do it without violating gun rights:
First, we must take weapons of war and high-capacity clips off our streets.
Second, we must ensure that local law enforcement is involved in reviewing conceal and carry permits.
Third, we must close the gun show loophole so background checks are conducted.
Fourth, we must keep all guns out of the hands of the mentally ill – and get them the help they need
And finally, we must keep our schools safe by utilizing all of the law enforcement tools at our disposal.
That last almost certainly includes, for Senator Boxer, the "Save Our Schools Act" funding for putting soldiers in the classroom.
This legislation reads like the worst of name games. If I had to predict what a "Save Our Schools Act" from Senator Boxer would include, this might have been a teacher education program, reimbursed college tuition for service in disadvantaged schools/school districts, a major school infrastructure program, and/or a massive greening the schools program but not something to take our tax dollars to put armed soldiers in the schools on a regular basis.
With this legislation, Senator Boxer seems to be projecting the NRA. This is insanity on so many levels -- morally, politically, fiscally, etc ... The idiocy of this is truly striking. With the crassest political take, it is hard to believe that her constituents/supporters like this.
Perhaps (PERHAPS) this would make sense if it were directly tied to a deal that:
1. Put a licensing/registration fee on all weapons (perhaps based on clip size) to pay for these costs (plus enough there to pay 100% of health/societal costs from gun violence along with resources for next ...)
2. Created a national registry of guns -- perhaps w/exception of true hunting weapons (shotguns with a few shells, hunting rifles w/less than a six-shell clip, ...)
3. Legislated a mandatory buyback/destruction program for all automatic weapons -- with some very limited exceptions -- as was done (with great success in Australia)
Instituted mandatory gun safety training along with mandatory locks for weapons (cabinets/such) for all weapons
4. Repealed all 'concealed weapon' carry permits for all but police (+ very limited exceptions)
5. Etc ....
Truly, what America wants for our children is for them to go to school in an armed camp, with someone carrying an automatic weapon watching them as they do PE.
Note: In other news, a bit more on the mark, Senator Barbara Boxer recently announced the formation of a climate change clearinghouse
Comments
I thought you knew...
The NRA wants the US to be just like Syria.
no, not Syria, they want the apocalyptic world of Mad Max
The gun enthusiasts who are bitching the most about their 2nd Admendment Rights are most likely the ones that see themselves surviving a hippie zombie apocalpyse.........ever watch that show Doomsday Preppers???? Yeah..........your 'right' to own a gun is not outweighed by my 'right' to live safely in the same neighborhood as your crazy ass...........
Making gun ownership expensive.
If you're going after guns because they are dangerous, then we need to go after other things that are dangerous too. Let's raise taxes on alcohol so that the drinkers so that the consumers of alcohol can pay 100% social/health care costs from alcohol-related accidents, violence, and illness.
I hear a lot of ideas about restricting gun rights, but aside from a ban on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity clips, most of it seems to be about making gun ownership expensive and difficult. If you are going to place restrictions on any of our constitutional rights in the name of making us safer, you need to demonstrate that these restrictions will actually make us safer.
They did raise taxes considerably on cigarettes,
so there is a model.
They did.
It's always easy to go after someone else's "vice". According to the CDC, there were 11,493 firearm homicides in 2009. In the same year, 15,183 people died of alcohol-related liver disease and 24,518 people died of alcohol-induced deaths (excluding accidents and homicides). Another 10,228 people were killed in car accidents caused by alcohol use.
Restricting gun rights? No, trying to enact public safety.
Gun rights? What exactly are gun rights? Making something more expensive is not, indeed, the same thing as making it unavailable. Are cigarettes unavailable in New York City? No, they are available to all who can afford to pay. I'm not interested in subsidizing or using the government to make someone else's hobby cheap. Want to own guns? Great! Just pay for the 'right'. No 'right' is absolute. The government can and does regulate speech - ever heard of 'pirate radio'? No one is seriously proposing that homes be raided and guns be pried out of the hands of weeping gun owners. Regulating the sale of an item is not the same as making that item unavailable.
2nd Amendment = Gun Rights
Would you have a problem with poll taxes then? Why not make voters reimburse the government for the cost of casting their ballot?
what 'gun rights' are enumerated in the 2nd admendment?
Can you legally own an automatic rifle? A sawed off shot gun? Are you against these restrictions too? You want poll taxes? How did you leap from 'gun rights' to poll taxes?
I've already said that I support
a ban on semi-automatic weapons.
And no, I don't want poll taxes. But if the government is going to charge money to offset the cost of the constitutional right to bear arms then why not charge money to offset the constitutional right to vote?
you know the act of voting is regulated, right?
You know the government does use taxes to pay for election, right? I do not understand your arguments or your insistence on false equivalencies. Cigarettes = guns? Ok, society has heavily regulated the right to smoke. Second hand smoke is a real hazard for those around smokers, therefore, laws have been enacted to restrict a person's exposure to another person cigarette smoke.
Second hand gunfire is a real danger to those around a person shooting a gun. You seem quite willing to accept regulations on virtually every other activity. so why not guns? Dangerous activities are regulated. Drinking is restricted by age, place, time, etc. Heck, there are even dry counties in this day and age. Smoking is remarkably regulated. Time to regulate another dangerous activity: owning and possessing firearms.
It is regulated.
So are car ownership and driving, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and gun ownership. Aside from the drinking age, I can't think of any regulations in those areas I would strenuously object to. I absolutely do object to many of the regulations on voting. I think it should be far easier.
I also do not oppose further gun restrictions. The assault weapons ban that died in 2004 seemed to be effective in reducing gun violence. However, I do object to making gun ownership more difficult and expensive merely because some might think that "its too cheap" or that "guns are dangerous". If you are going to restrict someone's constitutional rights, you have to demonstrate a compelling social interest in doing so and you have to show that this restriction will actually make people safer.
110000 people a year are shot - that's a compelling reason
Gun violence is increasing, not decreasing. That is a compelling reason to regulate the possession and ownership of guns. Every other activity you have mentioned is regulated in the public interest. Gun violence in America has reached obscene levels. A parent has the right to send their child to school and expect that child to be safe. I have the right to see a movie, attend church or go to work without being shot.
A compelling social interest to regulate guns is demonstrated 300 times a day, every single day in America.
708,000 people are injured in alcohol-related car accidents.
Is that a compelling reason increase regulation of alcohol consumption?
I believe that you have the right to see a movie, attend church, or go to work without being hit by a drunk driver, no?
I think we agree more than we disagree
I'm not sure if you're being contrarian for the sake of argument or if you feel that your right to own a firearm is now in jeopardy. You have said that you are for the ban of assualt rifles and high capacity magazines. You seem to conflate the drunk driving/smoking/any other dangerous activity with firearms. The CDC website states that 10k people died last year as a result of alcohol related car accidents. Your link just takes me back to Boxer's statement so I'm not sure where the 708k figure is derived. However, your argument seems to be this: Look, people die of falling in showers and all sorts of things, are you going to regulate those activities too?????
As I demonstrated with your other examples, smoking, alcohol and other inherently dangerous activities are currently regulated by the government. You keep moving the goalposts. Let me state as uneqivocally as possible: Yes, the government should regulate dangerous activities. I am for the government regulating the sale of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. Say, there should be an agency for such activities.........
There are nearly as many firearms in this country as there are citizens. They need better and more effective regulation.
I'm not contrarian for shits and giggles.
And I'm not a gun owner. I believe very strongly in our constitutional rights and I think that any law to limit those rights must pass a very high bar. It must be essential to make us safer. And some of the proposals I have seen mentioned here seem more like feel-good measures that would punish law-abiding gun owners and do nothing to stop gun violence. But hey, it's not my vice, right?
I keep bringing up alcohol because alcohol kills more people than guns. And the justification for all the regulations being thrown about seems to be that "guns are dangerous". Well, alcohol is even more dangerous. Why don't we regulate that too!? The reason we won't is because alcohol is more popular than guns. It's easy to call for higher taxes and fees on guns when you aren't a gun owner. But try telling the American people that you are going to raise alcohol taxes to reimburse the government for the money wasted on first responders and emergency room personnel because drunk people are irresponsible.
Here are some statistics from MADD:
And the CDC:
This is from Wiki Answers (which cites U. S. Dept. of Transportation and the N. H. Department of Safety as its sources):
as I have said over and over, alcohol is very regulated
Your continual reference to alcohol seem more a deflection from the real issue of effective gun regulation than a legitimate point. So it does seem you're being contrarian for 'shits and giggles'. Alcohol is extremely regulated. The manufacturing, distribution and consumption of alcohol is regulated by the federal, state and local governments. No one has said ban guns. No one has said ban alcohol.
The point that I and others have made is that the regulation on guns is not effective. The regulation on alcohol consumption in America has led to a stead decrease in deaths and injuries. Regulation is working.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 32,885 people died in traffic crashes in 2010 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,228 people who died in drunk driving crashes, accounting for 31% of all traffic deaths last year.
Since NHTSA began recording alcohol-related statistics in 1982, drunk driving fatalities have decreased 52% from 21,113 in 1982. Since the inception of The Century Council and our national efforts to fight drunk driving, drunk driving fatalities have declined 35% from 15,827 in 1991. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2011)
Regulation of alcohol has proved effective. Regulation of gun ownership can have the same effect. The number of people being shot in America is increasing, not decreasing. So, it seems that more regulation is the answer, not throwing up our hands and saying, well it will never work so why bother. The regulation of alcohol has shown that it is possible to DECREASE both the number of deaths and the number of injuries that accompany such products as alcohol.
Perhaps
doubting the sincerity of my beliefs is a deflection of your own?
hey! look over there! alcohol!
once again you try to change the subject. We must change laws for everything else and then finally get to guns. If there's anything dangerous besides guns still left, get that first, then guns last.
Guns are dangerous? Alcohol! Not guns, not now. Alcohol....or something else, but not guns.
I never said "not guns, not now".
I've said elsewhere that I think a ban on semi-automatic weapons is a good idea. I'm also pointing out that there is a double-standard when it comes to safety.
What about texting? Studies show that texting while driving...
...is actually more dangerous than driving while drunk. So, should we increase taxes on text-capable cellphones by 100%? Or better yet, just outlaw the damned things?
Don't I have the right to weave my way home from the bar without fear of some idiot head-oning me while texting "OMG??
Excellent point, texting while driving is in fact regulated
Yes, an excellent point. Your point is that when society sees an individual's activity as dangerous for the rest of society, that society will then agree to regulate said dangerous activity, correct?
Texting while driving is now being regulated and criminalized. Gun ownership is not an inalienable right in which society can place no restrictions.
I thought this was interesting. A bit of investigative
journalism. I do see the points against it, but I have to admit that I like the fact the the NRA got pissed over it. I assume they'll try to
craft legislationbuy legislators to stop this from happening again.New York Journal News Publishes Gun Owners' Names In Westchester, Rockland Counties
And as far as any danger of publishing the addresses where the guns are housed, it wouldn't hurt and in fact it would help if those people took greater security measures to keep their guns locked up and safe and sound where they should already be.
you know alcohol is heavily regulated, right?
I'm not sure if any other legal item is more regulated than alcohol. It is illegal to make one's own 'hard liquor'. There are exceptions for making your own wine and beer, however, booze is still illegal.
The regulations we have on guns now have failed to keep the public safe. It is time to look at regulating the ownership and possession of firearms. Gun owners seem reluctant to participate in a meaningful way in this conversation.
I'm aware that alcohol is regulated.
So is gun ownership.
indeed, and that regulation has been a massive failure
Gun ownership is, indeed, regulated. However, the number of gun owners (as a percentage of the population) is decreasing, while at the same time, the number of guns in society is increasing. That translates into more guns concentrated in fewer hands. More people are being shot every year. Obviously, the regulations that currently exist have failed to reduce gun violence. Time to look at new regulations.
In comparison,
alcohol regulations have been an even greater failure. Is it time to look at new regulations on alcohol too?
can't get your link to work
Incorrectly prepared alcohol can kill a person. I'm not too fond of the idea of unrestricted sale of alcohol. What is the gist of your link? What sort of new alcohol regulations do you have in mind?
I linked to a comment I wrote above.
Here it is:
Oh man, not here too.
people arguing for gun rights here too? FUCK
Is there nowhere in America where you can avoid gun rights activists and people shooting the shit out of one another?
I am weary of it.
Hey ranger
Yeah it's bound to happen. That is one of the things we tried to build into this place, all opinions are welcome and everyone should expect to be challenged when taking a firm stand on any subject. We are not monolithic and we should never be. The difference in the conversation taking place here as opposed to at others is it stays respectful and the personal isn't allowed.
Personally I can see the points being made in both sides of the conversation and even they probably both understand that the changing of opinion isn't going to happen on these pages. What will, is and has happened here is others have been exposed to a point of veiw that they may have not of thought of up to that point.
What's beautiful is we all have the same objective and that is to improve the world and by discussing these things we make that step to do so.
Well said.
We can agree to disagree but respectfully.
I have several relatives scattered throughout the country who hunt. I hate that they hunt, but they do, and so they have weapons to hunt. I think they it's perfectly fine that they have those weapons for their stated purposes. The rest of the weapons capable of mass killing within a short amount of time? No, no way.
I think maybe in these discussions that we have to be more specific about the weapons, and I don't mean the name of them, I mean what they're capable of and what they're used for.
I had a friend earlier today that pointed out
that if people need more than a few shots probably need a marksmanship class anyway.
I fully support the right to own guns but I also fully support any legislation that forces the owner to be a responsible one. I also agree that the problem that exists with alcohol related deaths should also be addressed and involved in the conversation if only to point out the hypocrisy in the way America approaches the heat of the moment situation.
It's a tough conversation and passions run deep from both sides of the argument but I honestly beleive it is one that we as a country must have.
But no one is talking about taking your
family's hunting rifles or shotguns away. People have used the "slippery slope" argument in the past to fight against banning military style weapons. They argue that if the AR 15 or AKM are banned, the Remington 700 is next. So, nothing is done because everone thinks that a person who wants to hunt should be allowed to have a rifle/shotgun to do it, and every person has a family member who hunts. It effectively derails the conversation about sensible gun regulation.
You are exactly right
I call it the "hey look a squirrel argument". Most people with any common sense realizes that is not even what those of us want when we say regulation, but it just doesn;t make any sense that people need military style weapons or those as Lynyrd Skynyrd sand made for killing you or me. The gun show loophole, buying guns on line, consistent backqround checks that are actually enforced, and yes addressing the mental health issue in America and how we deal with that. There are so many sensible things that can be done that will have zero effect on the legitimate hunters and protect all gun owners in general.
But yes it needs to be discussed and not just in the heat of the moment. I mean just look around many people have already moved on and won't discuss it again until the next tragedy.
Yes.
We can disagree without being assholes toward each other.
I guess you're talking about me?
Let's put this in perspective. I'm hardly a gun nut. Not only do I not own a gun, I've never even fired one. I support reinstating the assault weapons ban, and I'm willing to consider other measures that will reduce gun violence.
Are you replying to me?
Sorry, I can't tell.
No.
To ranger995.
I didn't call you a gun nut
I didn't think gun enthusiast is a derogatory term, people classify themselves that way. I meant you no offense by it. I have gun enthusiast in my family. I don't think they are nuts, but I do disagree with them very strongly.
You say you want to ban assault weapons, which would require more regulation than we have right now, but then you argue very strongly for not having anymore regulation because of alcohol.
So, which is it, more regulation is good or ineffective?
Oh, I knew what you meant.
My point was that, yes, there is at least one person here who is a strong supporter of the second amendment, but I'm pretty mild when you compare me to true gun nuts who support "Stand Your Ground" laws and want kindergarten teachers carrying weapons.
I have no problem with reinstating the assault weapons ban, though I don't think its going to do much to make us safer. And I don't necessarily think we need to regulate alcohol anymore than we already do. The point I'm making is this. Some of the remedies that I have read here seem to be unnecessarily punitive. Measures such as limiting the number of guns a person owns and raising license fees isn't going to make us safer. It seems more like taxing somebody else's vice.
I raised the alcohol issue because some people have defended these unnecessarily punitive gun measures because "guns are dangerous". Well, by any reasonable metric, alcohol is even more dangerous. If these punitive gun measures are being proposed because you want to make people safer (regardless the source of the danger) then why don't we see such enthusiasm for more regulations on alcohol use?
long answer, no..........short answer........no
Hey, Ranger995. Stupid question: Were you in fact an Army Ranger? Just curious cause I served on active duty and I have a lot of respect for anyone able to make it through Ranger training.
Yeah, we disagree on gun regulation but we're mostly doing it in a polite manner. It's more a discussion than an internet brawl.
Hello,
I was a paratrooper and a graduate of US Army Ranger school, but I did not serve in the 75th Ranger RGT. People who have served in the 75th would tell you that I am Ranger qualified, not a Ranger. I honor their sentiment.
very impressive accomplishment
Now you're a Mayan expert. Wow, you enjoy setting the bar high for yourself, eh? Well, your contributions here are very much appreciated.