We should be required to submit a resume and character references in order to own a gun. Why not? Why shouldn't we have to apply to own something that can potentially take an innocent life?
First, I'm not talking about taking anyone's guns away – unless they're illegal. I am talking about making guns that are rapid fire illegal, and then yes, everyone who owns one would be required to turn it in for some kind of monetary "reward." Here's a stat shared by a South Carolina congressional candidate: When Clinton banned assault rifles in 1994, mass shooting deaths dropped by 43%. After the ban expired in 2004, they shot up by 239%. With statistics like this, how can anyone argue against a ban? This time, make it a ban that does not expire. Forbid even the manufacture.
Gun ownership needs to be taken as seriously -- no, more seriously -- than driving a car. After all, you can always take a bus. But you should not be able to take a bus loaded with weaponry. You do have to get a photo ID to drive and it needs to be renewed every eight or so years, because you could become OWI in the meantime. Even operating while intoxicated isn't as bad as buying guns so you can shoot people.
I read the other day about a woman who was stuck in a traffic jam in CA and started shooting her handgun at other cars. Imagine that. Road rage is real, but usually you just have to worry about a fender bender. Did that lady think someone wasn't going to report her by her license plate?
So of course you need to get a license on that weapon to have it properly registered in your name. Do you? Guns can so easily change hands. But if a gun is registered to you, then no matter who uses it to kill people, YOU are responsible. Yes. Accept that. And there are ways to get guns where you don't have to register them. No one who sells you a gun currently cares about your mental health, or what you want it for.
We have to stop allowing concealed weapon or open carry laws. We have to stop. Because we cannot tell what any single individual carrying a gun is planning to do. Oh yes, they say, they're exerting their 2nd Amendment rights. No, they're not. There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment about walking around with a gun. People who lean on that amendment forget when it was written, and why. It was so each state had an active militia to protect against a "federalist" government. They were afraid the Brits might come back and try to re-exert influence again. Period.
On the other hand, if only concealed carry were allowed, then criminals might think twice, not knowing who might be carrying a gun and ready to shoot back. The only thing that makes sense is concealed carry. Then, too, the average citizen doesn't have to be made nervous or frightened seeing people walk around with these big guns. But the problem with concealed carry is the same -- what are they planning to do with that gun on their person? And how does any cop who confronts any traffic offense know who or what he's facing?
With concealed carry, every public building should install metal detectors -- don't worry, they'll get pretty cheap -- and anyone who enters a building with a gun needs to show his carry license, before going about his business. It can be a kind of silent alarm, so that if there is a shooter in the building, they won't hear it go off and quickly scurry off to another public building to shoot up.
Gun owners also need to be aware that they will very likely not ever get the drop on anyone intent on doing harm. Why? Because in a public place, you don't go there that day expecting trouble. The shooter does. The shooter is ready. You're not. So who's going to out draw who? You might be able to take him out after he's killed a few, but not before.
Finally, before I get to the resume part, think twice about needing a gun. I never have and never will. Instead, I prefer to live my life in a way that I'm not seen as a threat to others, and I hope you do, too.
Anyway, here's my step-by-step plan for someone who wants to get a gun.
- They need to be gainfully employed. Seriously, they want to do a background check on someone in order for them to get a gun already, don't they? Make sure they have and can hold a job. The people who don't or haven't are more likely to turn suicidal, hold a grudge or become vindictive.
- They need character references. Now just to be sure we understand this, these character references will need to be contacted, each of them, to make sure they are legitimate. They will need to testify to this person's personal character, first on paper, and then on the phone—and if necessary, in person. The potential gun owner might be divorced, but he should be a willing partner to the divorce, and pay child support. And if there are any red flags in any of these five references, then get more references. Some of the questions these references must answer are related to the person's mental stability, and answers need to be consistent, and not sound coached.
- I think it's necessary that the person be over 25, at which age you can drive a rental vehicle. But if the person is aging, it could be important that they not have Alzheimer's and their eyesight isn't going. I know that the aging population is at higher risk, but we don't want them to be a risk to others, or themselves.
- They need a clean record. Squeaky clean. Never arrested for drunkenness, never hit a cop, they don't speed (indicates stress), absolutely nothing in their past record. As with resumes for jobs, they have to give past names used, past addresses, past jobs, social security number, driver's license number, whatever it takes to verify a clean record. This is a must.
- The renewing of the license, too, is not a DMV-speedy event. It's a week-long process, where the record is obtained for the past year to make sure their record stayed clean. If they have even one accusation of George-Zimmerman-itis, the gun is taken away.
- Before they're allowed to take the gun home, they need classes. Lots and lots of training. They need to know how to put the safety on, and where to keep the weapon so that the kids don't get it but they can get at it in the event of burglary.
- Finally, they need this last bit of advice. "You will likely never, ever shoot it. Get used to that idea."
Now let's look at what Biden is proposing. These are all in the form of executive action currently, which would have to be made into law to have any real impact.
- to propose a rule within 30 days to stop the proliferation of so-called "ghost guns," or makeshift weapons that can be constructed at home or that lack a serial number. These kits will be treated as firearms.
- directing the Justice Department to issue a proposed rule within 60 days that makes clear a device marketed as a stabilizing brace, which effectively allows a pistol to operate as a short-barreled rifle, is subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act
- Bipartisan Background Checks Act, would expand background checks on firearm sales, closing a gun show and online sales loophole. It passed the House with the support of eight Republicans
- the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021 would close another loophole dubbed the "Charleston loophole," which allows gun sales to proceed without a completed background check if three business days have passed, by extending the background check review period from three days to 10. The loophole is named because it is linked to the 2015 shooting in Charleston during which a white supremacist was able to obtain firearms that killed Black churchgoers.
- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., have introduced a new bill that would revive the ban [on assault rifles]. "It was the law for the longest time. And it brought down these mass killings. We should do it again," Biden said.
- Strip manufacturers of protection from lawsuits by repealing PLCAA (2005); as it stands now, it can only be sued for defective merchandise.
- Red flag legislation will allow police and family to petition courts to remove firearms from people who may present a danger to themselves and others - the Justice Department would do this immediately to allow the states to enact this legislation but the federal government would need Congress to pass the law.
- Contributions to community violence program in the last stimulus program.
- Biden appointed a director to the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Division, which has been an empty position since 2015. He needs confirmation.
The most controversial of these is the repeal of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), put into effect under GW Bush. This prevents the gun manufacturers from being sued, except if the weapon has a defect, or if they knowingly sold to someone for criminal activity. But this law also prevents the manufacturers from adding extra safety features, such as child locks or making them harder to steal. For instance, you can have a fingerprint ID on a phone; why not on a gun? There are those who say that making them responsible for how these weapons (meant to kill people) are used illegally is like making Ford responsible when people drive drunk. If you do make them responsible, wouldn't training and better background checks be a part of the sale? If someone drives drunk, and is killed, there is other culpability that can be enforced, unlike with weapons; if you are the victim, you can, for instance, go after a friend who let them drive drunk. It's called culpable negligence. I think since that PLCAA is so recent, it should go, and along with other measures noted above, manufacturers will start acting more responsibly in these measures.
Let's hope Biden can get this done, and soon, while we have a Democratic Congress. Some of the above information taken from