What is “sensible gun reform?” Who says it would work, even if someone could define it? (Dave Workman)
A Democrat running to unseat a Republican Iowa congressman is making headlines for being prohibited from speaking to an upcoming gathering because of her foul mouth, but there is one other thing about her campaign that might set off alarms among Hawkeye State gun owners.
She is for “sensible gun reform.” An email request for clarification of what constitutes such “reform” has gone unanswered.
A look around the Internet reveals all kinds of ideas about “sensible gun reform,” which is one of those phrases that translates to gun control. It might simply be another substitute for the term “gun control,” as is “gun safety” and “gun responsibility.”
Five years ago, Think Progress published a list of five possible “gun safety” regulations that might have been implemented in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, none of which would have prevented the massacre. Those proposals included
- Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees.
- Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns.
- Mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen.
- Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older.
- Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence.
Sandy Hook killer Adam Lanza used his mother’s legally-purchased firearms after he murdered her to take them from the home.
Just over a year ago, the Daily Kos ran a piece that talked about “sensible gun control.” It focused largely on ammunition, limiting the amount someone could keep at home, and how many rounds a magazine could hold. The Daily Kos also suggested this:
“Licenses and registration. You must get training and buy a driver’s license to operate an automobile, shouldn’t we do something like that for guns? We already have some gun registration laws that I’m sure can be improved upon. You need to go to a driver’s education class, pass a written exam and pass a driving exam before you can get a license to drive a car. You need to go to hunter’s training classes before you can get a hunting license. You need to register your car before you can drive it and you need to register you guns before you use them. So, you need a driver’s license, why not a shooter’s license? You go to a qualified range with qualified instructors and qualify with the weapons and earn the license. Then, I think, you need to show said license to buy weapons, just like showing your license to drive. I think that having the “shooter’s license” to buy a weapon would alleviate some of the problems with gun shows and private sales and would be easier to implement. Show your license, buy your weapon and it gets registered to you. It would make it easier on law enforcement to determine a legally owned weapon from an illegal one. Confiscate the illegal ones!”
But other advocates of licensing and registration are now feverishly opposing national concealed carry reciprocity. If we are to treat gun ownership (a civil right) like driving (a privilege), then licenses and registrations must be honored in all 50 states, Second Amendment advocates contend.
Perhaps there is nothing “sensible” at all about “sensible gun reform.” But that is the dirty little secret of gun control schemes. They penalize and inconvenience the wrong people, don’t keep guns out of the wrong hands, and there is no evidence to suggest that they have ever prevented a crime.
Maybe that’s why so many gun rights activists oppose such schemes.
