Demand A Plan To Stop Gun Violence (Without Restricting The Law Abiding)

Aurora, CO shooting survivor Stephen Barton victim meekly demands a plan:

I don’t know much about MAIG (Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns), but their purpose statement sounds legit:

Mayors Against Illegal Guns is a bipartisan coalition of more than 700 mayors focused on protecting their communities by keeping guns out of dangerous hands.

I see Boston mayor Menino and NY mayor Bloomberg are the heads of MAIG though, so it becomes obvious that purpose statement conveniently leaves out the sneaky “disarm everyone” twist.

Here’s my proposed 3 step plan in case anyone cares:

  • Create an expedited death penalty in all 50 states to dispose of people convicted of violent crimes
  • Take the restrictions off carry permits (open and concealed)
  • Allow people with carry permits to carry firearms anywhere and everywhere, with a few common sense restrictions which i’ll have to give some more thought to.

Thoughts?

Hat tip: Kenny

39 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

Steve October 4, 2012 at 12:55 am

I’ll do ya one better, just get rid of the conceal permit requirement and allow nation wide conceal carry.

Reply

HSR47 October 4, 2012 at 01:20 pm

Don’t you mean:

“Overrule the idea of needing any sort of permission from the government to be in possession of a firearm and reaffirm that the Second Amendment exists to ensure that right.”

Reply

Phoenix October 4, 2012 at 12:56 am

“common sense restrictions?” you’re as bad as jerry tsai!!!!

kidding, i agree 100% with you, i just know someone is going to mention that.

Reply

ENDO-Mike October 4, 2012 at 03:08 am

LOL yea people hate the word restrictions. Mine wouldn’t be anything ridiculous like “No MP7s unless you have a badge” though. Think more along the lines of no “shoulder things that go up”, because I hear on the news those things are the worst. ;)

Reply

M October 4, 2012 at 01:24 am

MAIG is pretty synonymous with the Brady campaign. If you look at how they plan to achieve their “purpose” they plan to place many more restrictions on law abiding gun owners. I say law abiding because we know that a criminal probably won’t mind breaking a few gun laws along the way.

Both of the mass murders in recent history, Aurora and Phoenix, could have been averted with current laws. For Aurora his teacher/shrink should have filed a report with the ATF. In Phoenix either Giffords or the college that he was kicked out of should have filed a restraining order against him and asked for a psyche eval during that process.

For the record, anyone else feeling like they’re on the edge of going bat shit insane should make sure that they can’t harm others. Letting someone else hold the key to your gun safe until you get your issues sorted out would be a really good idea.

I agree with the sentiment of letting everyone carry because I want to, but it does sound a little bit like the wild west.

Reply

treestump October 4, 2012 at 04:53 am

I’d tell ya to back away from anything MAIG. The mayors involved in that group have a higher arrest record than the concealed carriers they seek to disarm!!!

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2012/01/tn-hcp-holders-are-more-law-abiding-than-maig-members.html

btw, not my blog, just one i read quite often. Keep up the good work mike!!

Reply

Linoge October 4, 2012 at 06:13 am

Do not worry, ‘stump, Mike knows who I am ;). But thanks for reading!

Topically, though, MAIG is NOT on the up-and-up: http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/09/22/dont-let-maig-get-away-with-this-snow-job/. As someone else once said, “Of course they are against ‘illegal’ guns… the only catch is that they have not made all guns illegal yet.”

Reply

Darin October 4, 2012 at 08:51 am

I get the premise behind restrictions on campuses. But how about an upgrade to the concealed license. Instead of the basic “can you shoot the gun” a “can you hit a moving target, do you recognize threats” licenses. Like a gold card or a platinum card. I’m ok with the restrictions if they make sense.

Reply

Max October 4, 2012 at 09:20 am

So what your saying is that you trust the government? Because the reality is that while guns are one of the best tools for self defense they were meant to be used in defense of our liberty against tyranny. And now, because of the massive restrictions on owning guns, we would stand little chance against our own government should it choose to thin the herd.

What I’m saying is that any restriction on any weapon is not a good idea for the American people because tyranny will eventually come and we are ill-equipped to face it. Now we must trust/pray/hope that our armed forces are on our side…

Reply

jpcmt October 4, 2012 at 09:37 am

I don’t think he’s thinning the herd or suggesting restrictions, you just need training to carry in public which I’m all for. To get a drivers license, and to drive a car that can be a very dangerous thing, we’re required to do some very remedial training…training that doesn’t help a whole lot, but at least gets you on the road. Like a drivers license, a permit to carry should require some modest training..some basic improvements is what Max is saying to that training..instead of just knowing how to shoot (here in MT a hunters safety course you can get at 12..which teaches how to work a rifle and be a safe hunter, somehow translates to safe handgun handling). I believe a shooting course and testing on local/state laws and some testing on the use of lethal force should be required before getting a CCW. I instruct CCW and I make sure my students know that stuff inside and out so that they’re assets more than liabilities.

I understand you don’t have a right to drive and that you have a right to guns. I also understand that untrained but lawful gun carriers can and do save their lives. But since the state or county does have the say, I think it wise to require such training before someone packs. Nothing wrong with legislating wisdom..even here in 2A friendly MT. There is no restriction in being tested before carrying and it is ONLY beneficial 100% to do so, so why wouldn’t you want that?

Reply

Max October 4, 2012 at 11:38 am

Ok, I suppose I should clarify. I believe that the federal government has no place in gun laws/restrictions, but that the states should have a lot more freedom to choose what kind of laws they have.

Reply

ENDO-Mike October 4, 2012 at 11:42 am

I agree with you on the federal gov. part, but I don’t know if the state having control is the answer either. I think it would remain a lot like where we’re at now, where knee-jerk legislation is made and you end up with more laws that criminals are not going to follow… like what’s happening in California, Illinois (Chicago specifically) etc…

Reply

Max October 4, 2012 at 11:51 am

But at least we have a little more control over our state governments, and there is a much larger capability to become the gun supporting majority in any one state than becoming the majority in the entire nation. That way if you don’t like one states laws (any laws) you can move to one that suits your preferences better or improve the one you have.

The closer you bring the government to the individual the better. <– The ultimate freedom would be self-rule (obviously impossible).

*Conversing with the one and only ENDO-Mike. So cool*

Reply

ENDO-Mike October 4, 2012 at 11:58 am

Yea I definitely see where you’re coming from. That “move if you don’t like the laws” argument is easier said than done for most people. Foreveralones like me with internet jobs can get up and go anywhere, but people with real jobs, wives, kids, mortgages can’t as easily get pissed off every time a bad gun related law that pops up and move.

LOL -> *Conversing with the one and only ENDO-Mike. So cool*

Reply

Max October 4, 2012 at 12:02 pm

Well. I never said it’d be easy, heck people had to die to preserve freedom!

Reply

ENDO-Mike October 4, 2012 at 12:04 pm

I can picture the conversation… “Uh honey… they restricted magazine capacity to 10 rounds here now. Lets prove a point and move!”

Her: No.

haha

Reply

Max October 4, 2012 at 12:18 pm

Basically. I think it’s a good idea to talk about these things with others, even if they are difficult to carry out. Truth be told I would do most anything to improve/preserve individual liberty.

Me: “Uh honey… they restricted magazine capacity to 10 rounds here now. Lets prove a point and move!”

Her: No

Me: GTHO

sorta…

paul kimble October 5, 2012 at 08:54 am

For years I’ve had several friends who are NRA instructors and give a CCW class. Countless times I’ve taken the class as a favor because they did not have enough the minimum number of people required for the class. I’ve been to classes where you shoot, dont shoot, take communial tests, dont take tests and everything inbetween.

I laugh when people suggest that the class is beneficial. It’s just another way to suck more money out of a person. Anybody who believes that taking a few hour long course qualifies an individual as being ready and able to carry a firearm and use it in a self defence situation needs to put down the pipe.

Reply

Darin October 4, 2012 at 11:16 am

I guess the flaw I find in your premise is that returns aren’t going to happen overnight. The same way our freedoms have been ebbed away is how they will return. When people on our side champion no restrictions, no regulation, ever, we lose the argument. Walking towards the goal is better than sprinting and falling down every time. JPCMT your spot on. Most people that want to carry will work through the hoops we have to jump through. If a test and extra training means I can carry anytime, anywhere, I’ll take that everyday.

Reply

Max October 4, 2012 at 11:45 am

I understand that too. But, when it comes down to my basic philosophy it’s an all or nothing type of thing. One may not get very far being brash, and I haven’t seen many people try, but I think at some point you have to stand for something solid and concrete and stop beating around the bush in order to defend your position. All we are doing by watering down our ideas is keeping ground. And you don’t win by standing still. I’m 18 and I’m tired of keeping quiet about these issues. I suppose youth is the age of action more than reason…

Reply

Max October 4, 2012 at 11:46 am

Wow, *cringe* my comment is kind of rambling and choppy.

Reply

cc19 October 6, 2012 at 10:45 am

Meanwhile the standards for police keep lowering and they are free to carry anytime, anywhere…

Reply

dave w October 4, 2012 at 09:39 am

but if you take off the restrictions wont people who are nuts and dangerous will be able to carry too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

Reply

TheRealDave October 4, 2012 at 09:41 am

Why does getting shot give someone moral authority and a voice to be heard? Just asking.

Reply

Guywithagun October 4, 2012 at 10:32 am

There are no common sense restrictions. Period.

Reply

Unipeen October 4, 2012 at 10:47 am

Trolling or serious? minimum age, a small amount of training? Those don’t sound like two decent restrictions to you? I like the car license argument jpcmt used in a above comment.

Reply

Rob C. October 4, 2012 at 11:26 am

You forgot the big ones. Convicted felon or mentally ill.

We can blame guns for all crime or hold them up as the solution to all crime. Both are the easy way out; the cosmetic fix. Until we can fix the deeply-rooted problems of poverty, addiction, a pop-culture that glorifies crime/gang life, and our deeply broken education and mental health systems, me and you are gonna have to keep carrying

Stay safe, people.

Reply

Adam October 4, 2012 at 11:42 am

Well F*cking said.

Reply

PJ October 4, 2012 at 03:50 pm

Those are actually two restrictions the Supreme Court noted still apply in the Heller decision. That mentally ill one does bring along a few problems, mainly who gets to decide who’s mentally ill. Moot point really since the system in place is basically “declared legally insane.”

As you pointed out, violent crime is a problem of the whole society and isn’t going to be fixed by any one action. Unfortunately that’s not what politicians want to say so the nation debate, as with so many other areas, is instead focused on something only tangentially related.

In the mean time I think I need to buy more ammo.

Reply

junyo October 4, 2012 at 07:32 pm

As soon as we cut back on making everything a felony.

The problems are intertwined. Poverty and government policy combine to create a legion of capital poor, porrly educated young people with easy access to a business that’s much more lucrative than it should be. The government, which has half a century of understanding that the WOD can’t work, is content to maintain it, because the draconian laws put in place for it are convenient tools for statists. Those draconian laws, make the business even more lucrative, and distort the risk/benefit ratio, to the point where guys who would have made their money illicitly and at some point migrated into society (see Kennedy Family, the) are permanently disenfranchised and marginalized and denied re-entry into ‘regular’ society, and so they create a parallel culture in which they can be accepted as successful. Programs to alleviate poverty are ineffectual, either because of naivete or malice; malice since the appearance of trying to help in the absence of results maintains a class structure that is politically useful for many of the people that supposedly want to ‘help’. And oddly enough, those people vigorously reinforce the disenfranchising laws that disparately impact those same communities that they’re trying to ‘help’.

It’s a fairly massive ball of tangled suck to unravel.

Reply

032125 October 4, 2012 at 02:33 pm

I’m in your camp guy, but don’t expect a lot of people to agree with you. As I see it, if that theater had two or three armed people in it, there might have been an EXTREMELY expedited death penalty. Then again, there probably wouldn’t have been a shooting at all. Crazy isn’t blind, and Holmes may never have attempted a crime of that nature in a more robustly armed society.

Reply

Arm3nian October 5, 2012 at 12:02 am

Thank you!
Second that kid pulled a gun out, there should have been 30+ pointed right back at him!
That being said. Let’s say you are a cop responding to a domestic violence gone south. Now you are dealing with a dude who just killed his wife, now he doesn’t care what happens to him and he has a full auto AR in one hand and a MP7 in the other… Just saying…

Reply

dave w October 4, 2012 at 11:00 pm

methinks stephen should have planned to watch a movie at a cinema where someone would have been able to pull a gun out of their giant popcorn and save his ass.

Reply

paul kimble October 5, 2012 at 09:53 am

I’ve carried for 10+ years, never had a permit in any of the states I carried in and never will. The government doesnt give me the right to bear arms nor to they have the right to place restrictions on it. Requiring a permit to carry is akin to a jim crow era poll tax. All the permit proves is that individual can pay for a “training” class, processing fees and fill out some forms. Most people wouldnt stand for restrictions being placed on free speech and I’ll never understand why they accept restrictions on firearms. Accepting and abiding by these regulations is an admission that the government DOES have the right to impose these restrictions on you.

Is carrying without a permit illegal? In most states yes it is but at one time or another the government said slavery was legal, alcohol illegal, driving over 55 MPH illegal, women have no right to vote, blacks were 3/5th’s of a person and thats just scratching the surface. History has shown that the government has and continues to impose laws and regulations on the people that are contrary to their best interests. The only thing thats ever reversed these decisions is good people standing up for whats right.

Will carrying concealed in contrary to what the government says ever cause me problems? Possibly, but since the dawn of man it’s always been dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. No matter the consequences I feel strongly that what I’m doing is right and if I’m persecuted for that then so be it. I believe that any individual who would accept restrictions on the basic right to defend themselves from aggression and/or tyranny would accept restrictions on ANYTHING. As always you are entitled to your own opinion on the situation, this is mine and I’m not alone.

Gen John Stark said it best: “Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst Of Evils.”

Reply

jpcmt October 5, 2012 at 12:52 pm

Well you can be an appeasing slacker like the rest of us and carry lawfully while trying to fight for those rights you discuss, or you can stick to your standards and risk losing your gun rights. Either way, the fight you’re fighting is not going to be won by yourself and your individual stand against tyranny. Might as well fight the smart fight.

Reply

CapitalistPig October 5, 2012 at 07:04 pm

I don’t see how risking jail time is fighting the good fight, but to claim the smart fight is taking the positions of your opponents is flat out ridiculous. From where I sit in Arizona, it looks like you want use the government to guarantee your revenue stream, even if that means advocating restrictions on my right to carry.

I believe people who want to carry should get training, and if they don’t, they face huge personal risks.

Reply

paul kimble October 5, 2012 at 07:42 pm

It’s not something I’m willing to compromise on. Most people have a point where they say enough is enough, mine’s just a bit before most. Also in the 3 states I spend most of my time in 1 does not require a permit to conceal and the penalty in the other 2 is a misdemeanor.

The thing is my gun rights can’t be taken away as they are inalienable. The government did not give them to me nor did anybody else. As long as I’m not at room temp or in gitmo there isn’t any way to prevent me from buying or possessing a firearm.

In reality if I had the misfortune of being charged I might have to go see a magistrate and worse case bond out but before the court date arrives my lawyer would have it taken care of. So worse case I might be temporarily inconvenienced but playing their game and winning would be sweet justice.

Even without a excellent lawyer unless you are a habitual shithead with a record you wont get any jail time over a misdemeanor. Hell the whole situation is so absurd the government just exempts themselves and their operatives from the rules. First paagraph of 18 USC § 925

Reply

Saxon October 5, 2012 at 09:33 pm

There are various problems in our society that lead to wanton crime. But most of them can be solved with a simple crackdown on the 100% confirmed guilty. Todays surviellance, and forensic technology allow for far more certainty of guilt than in the past. I believe this capability should be used to deliver swift and harsh punishments on those who are confirmed guilty of particulary heinous crimes, and straightup death penalty for first time offenders. Lets face it, The Quaker penal system doesnt work. Brutality gets attention, how many Aurora shooters would there be if they knew they were going to be burned at a stake?

Reply

mcswan October 9, 2012 at 11:34 am

Death penalty should definitely be used.

Deuteronomy 17:6
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death .

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: