Is anyone truly interested in having a civil and productive conversation? [View all]

[Flyboy_451]

Our nation has been the victim of an indescribable act of horror that has left us all in shock. While it is a very emotionally charged topic, I think that most of us would agree that good decisions and policies are seldom arrived at through emotional responses. I propose that we try to act together to find common ground to stand on.

While emotions flared and various groups and individuals lashed out at each other, I have remained silent, waiting for a time when people are willing to speak and act in a civil manner with regard to the atrocity committed this past Friday. I'm hoping that those whose views differ from mine will be willing to work cooperatively to find some real solutions to some of the problems that our nation faces. This is an open invitation to civil discussion and an offer to help resolve problems, rather than simply cast insults. Any takers?


I am, in many ways, the common firearms owner. and in others, not so common. My background in firearms goes back my entire life. I was raised on a working ranch, fathered and loved by a lawman. My brothers and I were introduced to firearms at a young age and they have been a near constant part of my adult life. I began shooting competitively when I was about fourteen years old, and continue to enjoy it to this day. After serving six years in the military, I came home and followed my fathers footsteps in law enforcement, where I have served for the past 17 years. My law enforcement career includes almost twelve years active service with our SWAT team, and almost 9 years as an instructor for both new recruits and seasoned officers. During my adult life, I have witnessed the very best and the very worst of mankind.

I am a supporter of the second amendment, but I, as well as the vast majority of gun owners, understand that this is not an unlimited right. Many, if not the vast majority, strongly favor laws that restrict access to firearms by those that pretty much all of us agree should not have access to them. Restrictions are needed. The question of the limits of that right is frequently what is at question for both sides of the debate. Unfortunately, one of the major failings in the parties of the debate is reasonable and honest discussion. The proponents of 2A rights are often accused of simply blocking any legislation put forth, then they accuse the opposing participants of wanting to dismantle the 2nd amendment. Neither is true. Very often, supporters of 2A oppose laws because they are poorly written due to the fact that many of the people involved in writing the laws are woefully uninformed or misinformed. The 1994 AWB is a great example of this. Unfortunately, if you intend to regulate any item in a meaningful way, a certain amount of technical knowledge is pretty much a requirement. Lack of information or understanding just doesn't make for good policy.

As another poster in a different thread pointed out, the word compromise is often misused in this discussion. One side seems to be expected to do all the giving, with nothing offered in return. So, here is my offer; let's talk about real solutions. Things that actually have a good chance of making a difference, and that have some chance of making things better, rather than paying lip service only.

A few things to consider;
While the numbers are hotly contested, it is possible that half or more of our nation are either gun owners, or at least supporters of 2A rights to some extent.

Gun owners are politically active and tend to be very wary of politicians in general, and Democrats in particular. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it is a reality in this case. Because of this, I think the best way to approach the issue is to enlist our help in crafting laws that are both effective and within the constraints of the Constitution. If you are willing to talk without accusing, and actually discuss options beyond legislation that does little more than waste time and money, many of us are waiting and willing to have that conversation.

Any legislation that bans any firearm of ammunition magazine is not likely to be effective in the near future. What I mean by this is that there are simply so many of them out there, that waiting for them to go away by attrition will be a decades (if not longer) process. This does nothing to address the concerns of another Newtown, Ct. next week, next month or next year. Even if legislation is passed banning their possession outright, the odds of collecting any large percentage of them in current circulation is pretty slim in my estimation. This does not mean that I am taking this off the table for negotiation, only that it will be something that I consider to be of very tiny significance in addressing the problem.

Both sides want something, and both sides want a reduction in not only gun violence, but violence as a whole. Wiling to work together?


I'll start with one of the ideas that has been put forth by several posters. Registration of all guns. I chose this one specifically because it is such a poison pill to many gun owners. This is actually one idea that I think has merit in reducing straw purchases and addresses illegal possession. However, there are some real concerns. One of the better ideas that I have seen put forth on this forum is the equivalent of a Firearms Owners Identification Card that is simply an endorsement on your sate issued ID, with the provision that it be an "opt out" system. I'm sorry, but I don't recall the name of the poster that first put this idea forward. Everyone gets the background check done when they get their ID unless they specifically request otherwise. Anyone without an ID with an endorsement may not own or even temporarily posses a firearm of any kind. I would extend that and say that any person that sells a firearm must record the ID information of the buyer and keep that information for a period of five years.

For those that insist on a non-anonymous registration plan, I ask this. Are you willing to include within that legislation a clause the specifically forbids the use of such a registry as a means of confiscating firearms from owners without due process for violation of law? The penalty for such infractions being severe. I'm thinking minimum sentence of 20 years, 10 million dollar fine, and loss of any and all employment benefits if the guilty party is a government employee or elected official. his would include any release of information for publication and the same penalties would apply to any party that participated in publishing such information.

Let's hear your ideas!

JW