G. Chateauvert: Standing up for gun owners

I would like to take this opportunity to thank state Rep. Steve Wood and Sen. Garrett Mason for once again standing up and supporting the law-abiding gun owners in this state.

These two proudly protect and support the Second Amendment and the true meaning of it.

I cannot imagine what this state would be like if were completely controlled by the knee jerk reactionary party (also known as Democrats).

I find it extremely offensive that they would use a horrific tragedy like the Sandy Hook shooting to further advance their gun grabbing agenda.

Do the Dems have no shame? Is there no depth to which they will stoop?

They tell us that they are trying to protect us from murderers, rapists and thugs who would do us harm and the best way to do that is to tell the criminals who among us own guns and who don't (i.e., the Bangor Daily News).

We need more representatives like Steve and Garrett who will fight for us, not kowtow to the likes of Nancy Pelosi.

I, for one, am proud to have them as my state representatives and look forward to voting for them again.

Glenn Chateauvert, Greene

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

CRYSTAL WARD's picture

selling out

Do the republicans have no shame? Selling out to the NRA, the propaganda /advertizing arm of the Billion dollar gun and ammo business.
The kneejerk republican reaction to common sence reforms only feed the gun and ammo business million and millions of dollars in profits. What is being protected --the second amendment or the profits of the gun and ammo companies.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Even if the gun does not

Even if the gun does not cross any state line?

FRANK EARLEY's picture

Man, did I miss the boat or what?????????????

How did I miss all this bonding with other gun owners? Out of fifty-five posts to this one letter, why haven't I once felt the urge to vent my anger at the possible loss of my gun? I guess I kind of feel left out. I've been a gun owner, carrier, and what ever else it is you can do with a gun, for thirty five years or so. I don't own any hunting rifles, I used to own assault rifles in High School. Evidently we used to think it was exciting to sneak up on an unsuspecting junk car at the quarry. We used to like the bang and how much of the metal one shot would remove. We used to shoot down enemy trees for fun. Since that time I have grown out of that, sold my assault rifles, and basically went on to live a pretty uneventful life. Not once since I was in tenth grad have I been unarmed. I never thought much about it. I had a permit to carry for a few years because I needed it. Personally I don't care who knows or doesn't know that I am armed. In all these years I have never had the notion that somehow, a Government conspiracy is after my gun. It won't happen. I have seen this same behavior at least twice before. In the end, everything was normal. as it will be this time. The bottom line is, I don't allow myself to feel threatened. Simple as that. Now I'm going back to my boring life.........

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Standing up

What I really wish is that responsible gun owners would stand up and support those of us who are getting killed on a regular basis by people who should not legally have the right to own a gun. Nobody has to use the victims they just have to care about them. There is no debate that more guns mean more death. There is no debate that criminals have been denied guns where background checks are done only to go and get one where they are not. There is no debate that the Supreme Court has ruled that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited and that the government has the right to deny criminals and those who are unstable the right to own guns. There are just bad laws and bad enforcement. As I read about the discussion as to how to make Route 4 safer I noticed that nobody recommended removing speed limits since people were ignoring them. Instead they want lower speed limits and more enforcement because PEOPLE ARE GETTING KILLED. Gun owners need to stop navel gazing and look around at what is happening in the real world.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

“What I really wish is that

“What I really wish is that responsible gun owners would stand up and support those of us who are getting killed on a regular basis by people who should not legally have the right to own a gun.”

If you are that afraid, just stay in your house. If you think there is a gunman around every corner, well, you need counseling.

If you look at the data, you are not suicidal, you don’t run in a gang, then you have little to worry about.
For you own health, put your fear in perspective.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Who is safe

You are correct my house is safe. So in your mind that means it does not matter that children in this country are getting killed in school, on the way to school, in their beds.... It's OK that college students routinely are warned of shooters on campus and kids working at fast food places are routinely killed for the change in the registers. People are shot in movie theaters, in subways, at the mall, at the post office and at the grocery store but at least my house is safe. Women are shot nearly every day in their houses in domestic disputes and people are shot at their workplaces but at least my house is safe. And that doesn't even touch the majority of gun deaths which occur as suicides. You are correct I do not plan to do myself in but what of my relatives, or friends or their children. Most of them have guns in their houses and maybe I care that they not do anything rash. And finally a police officer is killed every other day in this country and as a good citizen maybe I should care about that. There is nothing safe or sane about living in a bunker or in having a bunker mentality.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Yet, some 300 Million people

Yet, some 300 Million people move about the US each day, many without the fear that you have.

You’ll get more done if you focus on the problem people rather than people who don’t cause any problems.

 's picture

I want to thank you...

...for telling us how dangerous the State of Maine is with all those murderers, rapists and thugs. No wonder no company wants to move to Maine. If I were from different state, I wouldn't want to bring my family in a state where every household needs a gun for protection. I don't understand why all those murderers, rapists and thugs want to stay in an armed camp like Maine.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Wood..dy, On the flip side,

Wood..dy,

On the flip side, how many Mainer’s are begin gun down in the streets each day?

 's picture

Exactly.

We need guns to kill them before they kill us.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Woody, Is your statement a

Woody,

Is your statement a threat?

Perhaps law enforcement should evaluate you!

 's picture

No.

I read in these opinion columns every day why everyone needs guns to protect themselves from everything from a break-in to the president sending in troops to take away guns. I need protection, just like you.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

So you oppose gun legislation

So you oppose gun legislation to keep your right, correct?

 's picture

My right...

...to do what?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

From your own words: “I need

From your own words:
“I need protection, just like you.”

 's picture

I'm beginning to think...

...you don't want me on your side.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Not really.

Not really.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Do you read the Journal much,

Do you read the Journal much, Bob? Seems almost everyday there's a rape, a homicide or a theft reported. Maine is 'safe', but only in relative terms to the rest of the country.

 's picture

No, No.

You misunderstand. I agree with you. This is an extremely dangerous state and everyone needs a gun to protect themselves from...whatever. Other people and businesses need to stay away. You can't walk down the street without being mugged, raped or murdered.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I feel sorry for you if you

I feel sorry for you if you are that scared to live. You would never survive outside of Maine; it is too scarey.

 's picture

From what I read here...

...this is a scary place to live. Isn't that what you've been saying?

Jason Theriault's picture

Give me a break.

I am sick of guns being glorified as some sort of bastion of republic. Like the only thing standing between a dictator rising up is is Glenn here and his AR-15. It's just stupid on so many levels.

Name one reason why guns should be less regulated than cars?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

You are correct. We don't

You are correct. We don't need to regulate guns more than we regulate cars!

MARK GRAVEL's picture

In summary:

1. I don’t need a background check to buy a car.
2. I can sell my car to whomever I want without an intermediary.
3. I can give my car to whomever I want.
4. I can loan my car to whomever I want.
5. There are no restrictions on the type of car I can own.
6. I don’t need a license to buy a car.
7. I don’t need to register a car that I buy.

AL PELLETIER's picture

And if I meat all that criteria

it's pretty certain I own (or have in my possession) 6 AK-47's, 10 AR-15's, 20 plus 30 round clips, a few hand grenades and 3 pressure cookers because I'm a nut!

MARK GRAVEL's picture

"Meat" - I say you are a

"Meat" - I say you are a ham.

One thing is beleivable, you are a nut.

Perhaps you could have spent this time more wisely.

AL PELLETIER's picture

OOPS! actually prime rib

I spend 20 minutes a day writing in this forum. You appear to spend 24/60/60/7 with your ass glued to your key board.
Perhaps I misspelled, (as if you haven't"), but ,unlike you, I do spend my time more wisely. Hazel.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

BTW, think mobile devices.

BTW, think mobile devices.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I thought my comment was

I thought my comment was funny.

Zack Lenhert's picture

Cars are plenty regulated...

Cars are plenty regulated... and most people are not against more safety regulations.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Guns too are regulated for

Guns too are regulated for safety, perhaps cars are regulated more so. See guns are not relegated less then cars. QED

MARK GRAVEL's picture

So you need a background

So you need a background check to buy a car? NO.

So I need a waiting period before I can drive my car of the seller's lot? NO.

Do I need to see a FFL dealer to sell my car? NO. I just sign the title and it is up to the buyer to register.

You are right, we should not have to treat guns with more regulation than cars.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Guns don't pollute the

Guns don't pollute the environment.

Andrew Jones's picture

A well maintained road

A well maintained road system, being necessary for quick transportation in a free state, the right to own and drive cars shall not be infringed?

 's picture

OK, the dumb are more prevelent than I thought

Gun grabbing agenda???? Name one person who has such an agenda. Paranoia in the extreme is demonstrated by this letter and suggests that we all need to be protected from people who suffer from this obvious mental illness.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

1. Dianne Feinstein is on

1. Dianne Feinstein is on public record saying she wants to confiscate guns.
2. New York is not confiscating guns - http://marketdailynews.com/2013/04/15/department-of-homeland-security-co...

 's picture

Mark, you have to get off the lunatic fringe web sites.

1. Only California is currently removing firearms from people who are convicted of felonies or have been adjudged mentally ill.
2. The article you linked to is a rumor started by a nut and guaranteed to be true by a conspiracy generating web site. It has not credibility.
3. States have the authority to remove firearms from disqualified individuals for as long as we have had disqualified individuals. And its correct for states to do this. The alternative is what we have now - murderous lunatics on the prowler.
4. This is not confiscation. California is removing firearms from people who have been adjudged in full conformance with the due process of law as disqualified.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

All that you need to do is to

All that you need to do is to read how effective California law is....

"California unable to disarm 19,700 felons and mentally ill people"

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/29/local/la-me-california-guns-2013...

 's picture

Absolutely true

And nothing speaks better to the overwhelming need for the resources to cut that figure to zero.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Zero – what color is your

Zero – what color is your utopia?

Andrew Jones's picture

Senator Dianne Feinstein

Senator Dianne Feinstein

 's picture

No, she doesn't

Even is Mark's famous video she says she "wished" there were no guns. She said nothing about taking guns away from anyone. She supports measures to restrict people from buying certain guns not taking them away. Now I think that's dumb, silly, and useless because of how she defines "certain guns". But she has been forced into that language by the Supreme Court and their language in the Heller and othe decisions.
No one that I know of or have heard has on their agenda the confiscation of firearms i.e. the taking of firearms by due process of the law by the government without compensation

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Dianne Feinstein in 1995: "I

Dianne Feinstein in 1995: "I would have confiscated guns if I could have gotten the votes."

Just google it. I lived in CA in 1995, and I heard it from her own mouth....

 's picture

And I'm certain that's true.

But its a "wish" not a proposal. She didn't have the votes and she doesn't now have the votes. Hell, she can't even get a background check approved by 90% of Americans and 80+ % of gun owners passed.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

You say that no politician is

You say that no politician is trying to confiscate guns. Is she not trying?

Do you think if she had the votes, she would not follow through?

You are splitting hairs.

 's picture

If she had the votes I'm certain she would

but if I had the votes, a great deal would be different. Its not splitting hairs. Its recognizing reality.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

It's been said that the truly

It's been said that the truly erudite refrain from referring to the lower echelon of mammals as 'dumb'.

Andrew Jones's picture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?

David  Cote's picture

From my perception of the Senator's words...

It sounds like Feinstein is targeting assult weapons, not standard issue rifles and handguns. Now I'm sure there are a few people that would love to see all guns vanish completely. Certainly that will never come to pass but it still interests me why someone wants to own an AK-47? Surely no one NEEDS to own a gun like that, except for those with sinister designs. As a citizen who has, and who will never own a gun I do believe certain regulations designed to protect the general public from gun owners who are irresponsible and possess a record which demonstrates that irresponsibility. For example, in addition to convicted felons I believe a total gun ban should also be enforced to include people convicted of assult, domestic violence, child abuse and those convicted of crimes involving narcotics, either possession or distribution of. In that scenario, unless you've been a bad boy or girl, you'd have nothing to worry about, right? Like automobiles, guns need to be regulated since neither are "toys", although I've heard a few gun owners refer to their gun collection as toys, and it's that cavalier attitude that concerns mequite a bit. It's an attitude that should also concern the responsible gun owners among us who do respect the meaning of responsible gun ownership consists of.

Andrew Jones's picture

Feinstein targeted assault

Feinstein targeted assault weapons in 1994 and 2012 because she knew she didn't have the support to go after all firearms. The woman believes that nobody should own a gun, and that is ironic because she carries one herself.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

David, You need to read her

David,

You need to read her recent Senate bill to see how she defines an assault-weapon. Under her definition, the Ruger 10/22 is an assault weapon.

I don’t see why someone needs to own a snowmobile, but I do understand what freedom means. Therefore, I respect the right of others. Doesn’t Maine have more injuries from snowmobile accidents than guns annually?

“Like automobiles, guns need to be regulated since neither are "toys"”
Let’s explore this analogy:
1. I don’t need a background check to buy a car.
2. I can sell my car to whomever I want without an intermediary.
3. I can give my car to whomever I want.
4. I can loan my car to whomever I want.
5. There are no restrictions on the type of car I can own.

I’ll agree, there should be no more restriction on guns than there are on cars.

Zack Lenhert's picture

In your analogy you're not

In your analogy you're not driving on any public roads legally if you don't register your car. You need special licenses to drive certain vehicles. There are LIMITS to how fast you can drive your car.

Sounds like you have a problem with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Congress is granted the right to regulate commerce... which is what buying and selling a firearm would fall under. Zero constitutional issues.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

You can drive any vehicle at

You can drive any vehicle at any speed on private property. If you disagree, show me the law that prohibit such behavior.

Perhaps you are confusing interstate commerce with intrastate commerce. The federal government can control one, but not the other.

 's picture

Commerce Clause is sometimes over used

But I agree. There is no Constitutional problem as long as you do not confiscating firearms.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Not so, see District of

Not so, see District of Columbia v. Heller

“...struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. "

There comes a point where regulations do in fact violate the constitution even though they are not outright confiscated.

Zack Lenhert's picture

...the portion struck down

...the portion struck down was so because it could not be covered under the commerce clause. It has nothing to do with the transfer of goods.

Background checks and registration would be constitutional under the commerce clause.

 's picture

Agree

Like your comments often.
Using the Common Clause just makes me nervous because its been abused too often. Some looney right-wing justice may rule that it must be interpreted in a much more restrrictive sense. And they have talked about it.
Licensing and registration are Constitutional under the commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, the taxation power, the 2nd amendment, and a long list of other reasons. In fact, I can't think of any reason it would be considered unconstitutional. If you can pass a law barring certain classes of people from possessing firearms, you can certainly ask the rest to provide information proving that they are not a member of those classes.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Yet, this certain class of

Yet, this certain class of people still get guns..... so much for you common [sense] clause...

 's picture

I'm going to abstain from criticizing your comments

in the future.
You must live in a fictional, but perfect Randian world where Howard Roarks and John Galts wander the earth doing good only for themselves. A world where businessmen and women do no wrong and government does no right even when its populated by the same businessmen or women; where perfectly rational geniuses voluntarily agree on how to act in their own self-interest which never conflicts with anyone else's thus not needing government, laws, or constraints. A beautiful world only found between the pages of a Randian novel.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Here we go again. Just

Here we go again. Just because one says we don’t need any more gun laws, the pendulum is swung to saying we don’t need any laws.
I’m not use way anyone uses that form of argumentation.

Here are some examples:
1. We don’t need more gun laws – oh, so you want no restrictions on guns.
2. We don't need more gun laws - oh, so you are okay with kids being shot.
2. We need smaller government – oh, so you don’t want any government.

Perhaps that is the only rebuttal if someone does not fold to the prevailing view.

Person: Jonathan, would you like more potatoes.
Jonathan: No thank you.
Person: Oh, so you don’t like potatoes.

The pendulum rebuttal in action.

 's picture

I agree

But what I propose licensing of owners of semi-automatic firearms and registration of the semi-automatic firearms has been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1939 and will be again.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Time will tell. However, I’m

Time will tell. However, I’m confident the democrats will try to push too much, which will open any legislation to constitutional challenge. That is just their nature.

I will be on the opposing side.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Correction: ...even though

Correction: ...even though guns are not outright confiscated.

 's picture

I agree the AWB is silly, ridiculous, unworkable

But it was forced on Feinstein by Supreme Court decisions.
And your example is not very good. You can buy a car without a background check, but you can't use it without a license if you want to remain law abiding. The license is much more than a background check; you have to prove that you can operate the vehicle safely and that you know and understand the laws governing its operation.
If you sell your car, you have to notify Motor vehicles and the town you live in. The car is registered to you. If you transfer it, you have to transfer the registration through the government.
If firearms were regulated through the NFA you would be licensed and the firearm registered just like your car. At the point you were licensed you shoul be able to buy any firearm you wish just like a car.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

All False....

“You can buy a car without a background check, but you can't use it without a license if you want to remain law
abiding.”

False. One can drive a car without a license on private property.
Your statement is more akin to wanting to drive a car on public streets (or carry a weapon in public - aka CC), you need a license – done.

“If you sell your car, you have to notify Motor vehicles and the town you live
in.”
I can only speak to the state in which I reside. That statement is false. This is called release of liability, so you are not responsible for citations if the buyer fails to register the car and gets cited. While it is wise to do so, it is not mandatory. A signed bill of sale we suffice in the case you don’t file the release of liability and the buyer does not transfer registration. Check your Maine law, it is likely the same.

“If you transfer it, you have to transferthe registration through the government.”

False - That is the buyer’s responsibility. Moreover, if I only use the car on private property, one need not transfer registration. For example, you buy an old pickup to use on the farm.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

6. I don’t need a license to

6. I don’t need a license to buy a car.

If assault-style weapons are so bad, then we need to ban them from law-enforcement and the military.

 's picture

Because they are so bad precisely to fit that mission

you mind is wandering.

 's picture

While its true; no one NEEDS an AK-47;

they are fun to shot. The issue here is that gun rights advocates are being used by the gun manufacturers to maintain and expand their business with the unintended consequence that dangerous people have ready access to dangerous firearms that increase the lose of life during their criminal activities. While the government is prohibited from confiscating firearms, there is every reason to believe that regulating firearms and the folks that own them is reasonable even to the owners. The NFA of 1934 has kept fully automatic firearms largely out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill for almost 80 years. There is every reason to believe that it would do the same for semi-automatic firearms in the future. The general population should not be held hostage for the convenience of a few.
No transfer of firearms should occur without a background check. Owners of firearms should be required to submit to a background check every year and anyone convicted of a felony or adjudged to be a danger to himself or others should be required to turn over their firearms to the police (not family or friends).

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Question: How many people are

Question:
How many people are killed in the U.S. from being shot with an AK-47 each year?

 's picture

I expect its very low maybe zero

That's why I don't agree with the AWB or the approach from which it sprang.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

“There is every reason to

“There is every reason to believe that it would do the same for semi-automatic firearms in the future.”
You are not thinking clearly. Fully automatic weapon ownership was never prolific, so you did not have millions of fully automatic weapons in people’s hands.

There are millions of semi-automatic weapons in the hands of Joe public, they will not give them up.

Lastly, why don't we say that no one really needs:
1. a boat.
2. a car with a V8.
3. a snowmobile
4.......

All of which are not necessary and case harm.

 's picture

I don't agree with the "no one really needs" argument

Its as silly as the AWB.
I know that there are about 150 million semi-automatic weapons. I know that it cost the Caadian government at least 2 billion dollars to register 7 million rifles with a 70% error rate some years back. I know what bringing semi-automatic firearms under the NFA is likely to cost and the inconvenience that it will cause. But that pales in comparison to the cost both in money and lives that not registering them has cost.
And a comparison between a snowmobile and a semi-automatic firearm is as silly as the AWB

MARK GRAVEL's picture

.

case -> cause

Jason Theriault's picture

Addiction

It almost sounds like an addiction.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Perhaps it sounds like

Perhaps it sounds like freedom ringing.

Who the hell are you to dictate?

TIMOTHY OLEHOWSKI's picture

Who the hell are you to dictate?

Sounds like you're getting emotional.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Is is not a valid question?

Is is not a valid question?

 's picture

Who's dictating

I am offering my opinion; not dictating to anyone. Its not freedom ringing; its church bells ringing over the dead. Far too many people think license is freedom. Its not. We all live in a society. We all are or should be constrainted by the law. Only when we are can we be free.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Like liberalism, you mean?

Like liberalism, you mean?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Dr. Savage says Liberalism is

Dr. Savage says Liberalism is a mental disorder.

 's picture

Now he's a credible spokesman

or maybe not. Paranoia, racism, and hatred are generally not the attributes of sane people.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

To one degree of another,

To one degree of another, these are attributes and behaviors of humans. We could say that you have a paranoia to gun ownership, a hated for semi-automatics.

 's picture

Oh contrar

I own, use, and enjoy semi-automatic firearms. I like fully automatic firearms. I just recognize and you don't that the cost in lives and fortune that comes with their misuse requires action by society in protection of societies constitutional right to live and liberty.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Freedom and liberty comes

Freedom and liberty comes with a price. Always has, always will.

That said, altering freedom for 130 Million does not seem to make sense for such a small group. There are alternatives.

According to the CDC, about 56% of annual gun deaths are due to suicide. I assure you that very few, if any, have a chance to fire a second round. Your semi-automatic ban will do nothing for them.

Perhaps I could support a background check like in the Senate bill, but did not agree with the remain bill.

 's picture

A break

If you and I agree that a universal background check is needed, then its the right that has gone too far in rejecting the most reasonable and common sense proposal not the left pushing too far.
Who is your small group. The deaths of 30,000 a year is a wound to all of society.
Licensing/registration that would bring gun owners in front of police/government officials every year and would result in identifying more mentally ill people and thus provide an opportunity to reduce suicides. We license car owners and we register cars as you noted.
Most of what needs to be done is not firearms measures; but people measures. Much more focus on the mentally ill, violent radicals, criminals. We as a nation spend far too little on mental illness when 20% of the public suffers some form of mental illness and 5% suffer a serious (debilitating) mental illness. Combine that with semi-automatic firearms being available for anyone and you have a dangerous situation that threatens the rights of everyone especially gun owners.
As you know I oppose the AWB as silly, unworkable, impractical. I support the magazine limits but only if they include buying back high-capacity magazines now. I think that suggests that you and I, from extremely different points of view, agree on 2 of the three major proposals (pass one and defeat the other). They, except the AWB, must therefore be reasonable, modest, centrist compromises which have almost universal support.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

P.S. I already exposed the

P.S. I already exposed the fallacies with drawing an analogy to cars.. You are beating a useless horse.

Zack Lenhert's picture

...so we can count on you to

...so we can count on you to not cite the number of deaths caused by vehicular accidents in any gun debate?... or is the analogy only OK when it benefits you?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I said that I could support

I said that I could support background check at the time of purchase - that is it. You go too far with yearly registration. The Sandy Hooks of the world are far and few in between; it only accounts for less than a couple hundred (if that many) deaths. This program simple costs too much in freedom and dollars for the return. Remember, living is full of risks and you cannot protect everyone all the time. It is simply the cost of freedom. Most of the annual gun deaths are do to suicides and gang activity. The former is best solved withing the family, the later through policing gangs.

You lose lots of people because you go too far. That is why some 90% support background checks, but reject legislation due to all the other crap.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I said that I could support

I said that I could support background check at the time of purchase - that is it. You go too far with yearly registration. The Sandy Hooks of the world are far and few in between; it only accounts for less than a couple hundred (if that many) deaths. This program simple costs too much in freedom and dollars for the return. Remember, living is full of risks and you cannot protect everyone all the time. It is simply the cost of freedom. Most of the annual gun deaths are do to suicides and gang activity. The former is best solved withing the family, the later through policing gangs.

You lose lots of people because you go too far. that is way some 90% support background checks, but reject legislation due to all the other crap.

 's picture

I thought you'd say that.

People change. The law abiding citizen today is the mass murder of tomorrow. Lonsa would have passed a background check in December. By the way some people have said that Lonza stole the weapons he used. He did not. The gun safe was in his room. He had the combination. His mother bought the guns for him. But she got worried and instead gave him the money to buy his next gun.
Your analogy with cars works. License the user; register the car. We re-register every year. Its not unreasonable and it adds to the safety of society. A licensed owner can use any car, can sell, loan, use any car or light truck. Minimal hassle. Could be done at a state or Federal level. I'd rather see it done at a state level because at the federal level its too big a programming job to be done well. There is no loss of freedom. Any licensed user can buy any gun at any time (initial registration could be done when the gun is purchased at the dealer's business). Only criminals, traitors, and terrorists lose their freedom to buy guns (3000 people on the terrorist watch lists did purchase firearms under the current non-system).
Most isn't all. And suicides are often because of the family not inspite of them. Family can only help by getting the mentally ill proper treatment and that's very difficult now. I have a paranoid schizophrenic brother living in a house with two dozen firearms. That's a dangerous situation. But today there is nothing that can be done about it.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

“I have a paranoid

“I have a paranoid schizophrenic brother living in a house with two dozen firearms.”

And you should not be able to force your beliefs on anyone. If you cannot convince/educate someone, then that is it.

 's picture

First, I haven't and I don't

The idea you can keep a society together through voluntary agreement is truly utopian. Failed every time in groups of just a feww hundred who tried.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

“The law abiding citizen

“The law abiding citizen today is the mass murder of tomorrow.”

This is a function of the human condition. Taking away all the sharp objects because someone might go off the deep end is very, very shorted sighted.

It is like thinking utopia exists. No guns, let’s use pressure cooker bombs instead,..., etc. Get the message?

“(3000 people on the terrorist watch lists did purchase firearms under the current non-system)”

Law enforcement cannot even enforce existing laws, so the solution is more laws. Just ask yourself why didn’t the FBI and DHS pickup on all the red flags the BM bomber was throwing? It is because they cannot watch everyone. Adding more laws that force law enforcement to monitor law-abiding Joe public is really going let them focus on the bad guys... I don’t follow your logic, but you do love more government, so I understand from where your solution comes from.

 's picture

You must not be listening

I have never proposed anything that will "take away all the sharp objects". My proposals are about using existing law to make us safer. They would not diminish in anyway the number of firearms. They would simply provide trackability of firearms and verify that the users of firearms are responsible owners and not prohibited people once a year. I add no laws. I expand the definition of dangerous weapons in the NFA by adding semi automatic firearms to the already there fully automatic firearms. No one would moniter law-abiding Joe public; Joe Public would be required to register their guns and license themselves once a year - 20 minute task. They could do it when they register their cars.
While the Fed's have the constitutional authority to adopt my proposals, I think its best done at a state level precisely because the FBI and DHS do such a poor job. But we don't know how many red flags the BM bombers were throwing. Could be limited to just going to jihadist websites which is perfectly within their rights.

GARY SAVARD's picture

Yours or his?

Yours or his?

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...