Bravo to our Congressman Seth Moulton for his stand on gun control. Visible, out front, fearless and easy to understand.
It will take many voices rising amid the continuing slaughter of Americans within our own country to achieve reasonable gun control.
Everybody must rally in order to turn the tide.
I think of the World war I era posters to rally broad swaths of the population to the cause, especially the notion that some sacrifice must be made in order to defeat the enemy.
Sacrifice is Patriotic.
The Gun lobby is built on the notion that U.S. government is the enemy. A campaign for gun control must attack this paranoid premise.
I think of something along the lines of:
Loosey Goosey Gun laws don’t protect anyone!
And a drunk goose with an armful of weapons exiting a gun show.
Do your part, Criminals and terrorists won’t register guns. You can! Insist on it.
Uncle Sam, baby.
The message needs to be simple and clear.
It is a falsehood that the government is going to take away your guns.
But rather than argue that, patriotism should be put in step with gun control, in order to displace NRA paranoia.
In addition, I’m struck that gun people are really indulging a fetish. It’s an obsession. Maybe pointing that out will diminish it.
I write this post to invite brainstorming. I think the effort should be graphic, social, video, logical, constant and unrelenting.
And it should invite law abiding citizens to follow the law as a matter of good for the country.
If your greatest sacrifice in the face of a bloodbath is helping prevent criminals and terrorists from unfettered access to guns, then that is no sacrifice at all.
Any graphic hands care to brainstorm some illustrations?
Trouble with the photos showing up, if anyone could point me in the right direction, would be much appreciated.
Our native image hosting system is not working. You’ll need to post them elsewhere (Google Drive, flickr, etc.) and then link to them from there.
Got it. Thanks
Because I have an actual WW1 poster I’d like to put up to remind people to stop romanticizing this. It was from a show of posters at the Athenaeum.
It promoted, rather than discouraged, gun ownership.
I really love the graphics from the war campaigns. They did advocate a lot of things: Joining the service, work, gardening, conserving sugar, eating chicken instead of beef…
The theme that I thought could transfer in the gun control debate is the larger, Do you part, or Do your bit, as the British urged. As in, how much sacrifice is it really, not to have a 42 round magazine. It’s a small sacrifice. And maybe it needs to be framed that way. We must make some sacrifice, in the spirit of a `well regulated militia’ to attempt to staunch the bloodshed in the county. And there should be an acknowledgement that any single step is not going to solve the issue. That everyone must ~Do Your Part’
NOT that this would translate with the no-quarter gun crowd, but it could resonate with the larger group that consistently poll in support of some and reasonable gun control.
I think the effort to voice support for gun control should be more graphic, more comic, more commonsense than what you get from lecturing politicians. At the very least, any message of support for some gun control should not be limited to politicians and stricken families. Those are messages from where we expect to hear them. That’s what I was trying to get across, not romanticizing those old graphics
Hoping this works, never had good luck with anything graphic here. And because it was from all sides, it had many POV’s.
http://www.bostonathenaeum.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/over-here-wwi-posters-from-around-the-world
I think the paranoia is too ignrained to be addressed, but the regulations can become more systematic so as to be almost invisible.
The Hell’s Angels, for example, are riding highly regulated power-controlled state-inspected hogs on their way to Biker Week, and they still feel free.
Register the machines and license the operators.
You do not need to register a car (unrelated you want to bring it on the road)
You do not need a license to buy a car
I can sell my car to anyone without a background check
My drivers license is good in all 50 states
A car is legally useless without being registered.
You do need a license to operate a car.
I’m fine with licenses being valid across state lines providing that there is some consistency.
So it may not be a perfect analogy, but it’s a good start. Yes,, I would include background checks for guns that aren’t required for cars.
– My car has a VIN number that can be referenced and crosschecked by anybody anywhere in any state.
– There are very stringent reporting requirements cars that are bought and sold to ensure that ownership records (by VIN) are maintained.
– The last owner of ANY vehicle used in any crime (or involved in any traffic mishap) can be identified in seconds.
We would do well to maintain such information about guns — and especially about those who buy and sell them.
I know we want to end mandatory minimums and perform more rehabilitative justice, but I strongly feel anyone who purchases, sells, or uses a gun that is then used in a crime should be criminally liable and subject to incredibly harsh penalties.
We also need to have a federal law to close the gun show loophole (cause of 60% of the murders in Chicago), national gun registry and an end to second and third party transfers. I think these are a lot more likely to be effective and possibly amenable to enough Republicans to get passed this term. Harsh tough on gun crime sentencing paired with greater power and authority to law enforcement to combat gun crime and terrorism. Maybe add it as a rider to the next defense bill and force it into law that way. Debating assault weapons is waste of time next four years since proposals are dead on arrival and only would help avoid 1% of all gun deaths in the US.
Suicise prevention and actual mental health policy would reduce 30%, and I think we could reduce 60% of the rest with the harsh sentences and federalize approach to law enforcement and licensing. The NRA would still oppose any of this, but we can win over enough Republicans and police unions to combat them.
but I strongly feel anyone who purchases, sells, or uses a gun that is then used in a crime should be criminally liable and subject to incredibly harsh penalties. ?
not sure what “uses a gun that is then used in a crime” means.
If we are going to make society safer with some gun control (and I think some is reasonable) we should also look toward making society safer by punishing those who use guns in the commission of a crime.
If you rob a store using a firearm how about a thirty year minimum sentence?
Dear NRA,
U.S. Intelligence
is not your enemy
No Fly, No buy
…but want to note that some, notably jconway IIRC, have raised concerns about the accuracy of the no-fly lists and how that might affect one’s rights in this area.
Though to be clear, I oppose it strictly on civil libertarian grounds. If it were up to me, no citizen outside of law enforcement would have access to most of these kinds of weapons. I think we may see a breakthrough on federalizing gun crime sentencing and reducing high capacity rounds. I’ve seen conservatives embrace these concepts, so maybe it shifting in the right direction. Either way, there is only one candidate left with a consistent record of action in support of this issue and she will have my vote.
NT
Or they are just meaningless cheerleading. And David, I don’t CARE if you agree with the SC decision, we need to work with what is there. A lot of people think the same about Roe v. Wade, and you regard that as settled law.
Here is a thought – why not limit gun ownership only to US citizens instead of residents? It would be a start at limiting ownership, as automatic Constitutional rights are for citizens of the country which has that Constitution.
I am aware that the Orlando shooter was a citizen. What I am suggesting is a start at defining who is eligible for gun ownership.
He knows it’s a third branch of the legislature and the decisions it makes are political. Your side wants Roe overturned and has never recognized it as settled law precisely since it’s not in actuality. The anti-Roe side is just one vote away currently which is why they would rather risk Trump’s nominee over the pro-choice Garland.
Similarly, our side wants Heller and Citizens overturned which is why it’s so important we elect a Democrat to see those outcomes. It also ensures the SSM decision isn’t reversed. As a former clerk he probably knows better than most how political a lot of these decisions are. It’s unfortunate, and I used to admire textualism for its seeming objectivity and apolitical nature, but in reality, any legal philosophy on the bench is politics by other means.
I want a better court that is less politicized, but the reality is it’s always been a political body and that will not change in our currently polarized climate.
SCOTUS is absolutely NOT a third branch of the legislature, though I think Madison once entertained the idea of automatic review of all laws for constitutionality by the Court upon passage. They can only decide, but are not required to, a specific case or controversy brought before them that has worked its way through the system. (There is very little original jurisdiction.) Also, I’m not as cynical as you are to believe that it is entirely about policy preferences (see Roberts on health care) and of course Congress has powers of appropriation and oversight, not to mention initiating bills on merits alone, that the Court has nothing to do with.
And I actually do find Robert’s to be quite principled in his application of his philosophy to how he decides cases, he is a lot more process oriented than outcome oriented like Brennan or Scalia were.
But let’s be real, our side routinely votes against qualified justice who would overturn Roe and their side votes against justices had would overturn Heller and Citizens or protect Roe. It’s a nakedly political confirmation process that speaks to the naked political power the court holds as the final arbiter on important issues. It’s disingenuous for porcupine to suggest that Heller has to be respected as precedence when it’s unlikely a right wing majority would respect Roe. It’s a zero sum game. It shouldn’t be, but neither side has an incentive to change or compromise since the stakes are too damn high for the respective stakeholders the parties purport to represent.
What I said is that once on the Court, the justices do not have the same function as legislators do. Sometimes their decisions result in a law being set aside, which is as it should be, but their first duty is to decide the case or controversy before them.
And BTW, I was speaking of BMG’s David.
What I was suggesting was a law that could work within the existing court decision that ownership is a Constitutional right. I would suggest that such a Constitutional right is designed for citizens of the nation defined by that document, and gun ownership should be limited to US citizens.
What do you think about that?
I’m not at all comfortable with the idea that some of the other enumerated rights might be available only to citizens. Then again, you might be able to claim the restriction as part of what it means for the militia to be well-regulated. Of course, we do have non-citizens in our armed forces which frankly has always surprised me.
The constitution already uses the word “citizen” to indicate provisions that the framers intended to be restricted to a citizen.
The Bill of Rights very specifically does NOT use that language, and rightly so. It isn’t hard to imagine what Donald Trump and the GOP anti-immigration brigade would do to, for example, green-card holders who dared to say ANYTHING with such a precedent.
The Second Amendment should, in my opinion, be discarded in the same way that other obsolete language has been discarded. We no longer restrict voting to males, and no longer allow slavery. We should similarly no longer allow unrestricted ownership of weapons.
…were changed by amendment to the Constitution, a process open to anti-gun activists.
So why don’t they propose an amendment?
…but I suspect many feel that is still a bridge too far politically. Besides, amending should be a last resort. Much better to try something that only needs majority votes in both chambers and a presidential signature rather than 2/3 of both chambers plus 3/4 of the state legislatures.
Shoes.
Dildos.
Guns.
What’s your fetish?
…but is a Red Sox cap the best he could do for headgear?:)
…is that you are using logic & reason while they are using emotions and feeling. It’s a waste of time.
I was at a town hall debate a few years ago and the subject of “smart guns” came up; a gun that will only fire in the hands of the single owner.
Some guy stands up and says, “Smart guns? Those are stupid guns! If my house is under attack and my weapon is somehow useless to me because I’ve been hit and lost the use of my hands, my wife is unable to pick up the weapon and return fire!”
Really. That was his argument. We live in Franklin Massachusetts and this guy’s brain has him living in Somalia or a re-run of “Red Dawn” with him filling in for Patrick Swazey.
…as arguing with a Sanders supporter who hasn’t accepted the results of the primary yet:)
(Sorry, couldn’t resist!)
and I’ve now moved on to pushing the presumptive candidate to the left, to support labor, and to cut the ties to Wall Street that control her actions.
Try to keep up with what I am doing. I’ve moved on.
I see owning a gun as a sign of personal weakness. I don’t mean this just in a Freudian “what are you come saying for” way. Nor do I only mean it in a “trying to put some control on a complex world” way. But owning a gun makes your home and community less safe. It means that there is something so inadequate about you that you would rather see people die than give up this object.
I think it takes a stronger person to live their life without these talismans. Let’s talk about people strong enough to live their lives without depending on them.
There are people who own guns for hunting, for target shooting, and in rural areas for “varmint management” (I have family and friends in West Virginia who are radical peace activists and vegans who, nevertheless, need to keep a shotgun at-hand to stop woodchucks from destroying their gardens).
I might add that none of the aforementioned groups need high-capacity magazines, assault-style weapons, armor-piercing or dum-dum ammo, and so on. The hunters I’ve known have no objection to background checks and agree with most or all of the proposals that the NRA has so successfully blocked.
I enthusiastically agree with you regarding gun ownership for “self defense”.
I can agree with anyone who wants a gun for the fun, excitement, mechanical interest and so many other reasons, but “protection” (from harm) is not one that adds up.
In the majority of cases, a gun is never used to hurt or protect and typical American citizen (rare exceptions noted). In a small number of cases, that gun will be harmful to the owner, either by accident or illness…..and in an even smaller number of cases (and this is key), that gun will protect the gun owner from real harm in a way that no other devise can provide.
So buying a gun simply for “protection” ignores the reality that the harm one is concerned with actually increases slightly because of the gun.