Good plan. Licenses should require proficiency test. The minimum age to buy a gun should be 25, the same as renting a car.
1
Ironic, isn't it? What is considered an 'ambitious gun control platform' here, in all other civilized countries it would be regarded as essential and reasonable. Most of these countries rarely experience mass shootings. Are we missing something here? How did the NRA become powerful enough to tell the president what to say.
1
This approach is not going to help bring about the gun reform that so many of us are eager to see. It's sad and frustrating to see this rare opportunity essentially squandered. If the Green New Deal fiasco taught us anything, it's the limited usefulness of a broad set of disparate goals, presented without any detailed plans for implementation.
This isn't something Democratic candidates and sitting members of Congress can seize and collectively champion. It's so ambitious, and so vaguely worded in places, even the students behind it suggest that politicians select what they like and leave the rest, ala carte style. Since none of the concepts are brand new, it's hard to see this doing anything but fueling conservative pundits for a few months, and also fracturing the overwhelming consensus that were need common sense gun reform. Because a lot of this falls far beyond the parameters of what many people mean when they use that phrase.
As a gun owner and deeply liberal person who would love to see this legislation pass, I just find this very disappointing.
I surely hope that these young people start running for office and continuing their activism. This plan is the most comprehensive and coherent solution to gun violence that I’ve seen come forward from any of our political “leaders”. I salute these young adults and apologize for the mess-up world we’ve given them. I hope that every Democrat will endorse this plan and kick Wayne LaPierre and his blood money to the curb.
"Most, if not all, of the proposals in the Parkland group’s “Peace Plan for a Safer America” would face opposition from the gun lobby and its supporters in the federal government, who would be likely to argue that the measures would impinge on Second Amendment rights."
I would like the gun lobby and its supporters to point out the passages in the Constitution that would be abrogated by any of the planks of this platform. Where does it say you can't have a higher minimum age for buying firearms? Where does it say guns can't be nationally registered, or even locally registered? Where does the Second prohibit licensing gun ownership? Where does it prohibit limiting the kinds of weapons that can be owned by ordinary citizens? What's wrong with a gun violence prevention program for young people, for crying out loud? Or a national director of gun violence prevention?
Why does the right to bear arms necessarily include the right to buy as many as you want, own as many as you want, and sell as many as you want, of virtually any kind?
Interestingly, the original text of the Amendment implies that weapons capable for warfare are exactly what the Founders had in mind primarily; i.e. the "militia clause". However, by that same token, being able to bear arms suitable for war requires a high degree of regulation and oversight.
2
Its always such a great idea to delegate more power and more control over to a government entity.. maybe if people took more personal responsibility to protect themselves and their own families, and stop relying so much on government to save us, protect us.. Then we would see some real results.. let's face it you guys aren't against guns you want the military and the police and all of the elite ruling class to have armed protection because their lives are so much more valuable than us undeserving subjects that can't be trusted with firearms.. eliminate gun-free zones issue firearm carry reciprocity.. stop talkin about mandatory buyback programs like criminals would participate.. all you're doing is either turning the law-abiding citizens in the criminals with these ridiculous laws, or you're creating victims just waiting to be victimized because they have no means of defense.. and don't tell me to call the police the police usually show up after the crime has been committed to take the report or to clean up the bodies.. if you want to be safe buy a gun train to use it and carry it with you at all times.. it's better to have one and never need it.. than to need one and not have it!
@Slayer you are so scared. I am sorry that for you freedom means that you must have the ability to kill ... a person basically at random for an unknown threat (what will that threat be for you? Might it just be someone you value less than another, that you "feel" threatens you? Like just about every domestic shooting?). When our founding fathers created this law ... it was for us to defend against foreign powers because we had no formal military, at the time, and the French, Russians, Spanish and English were all still a continental threat to our new nation. Many also needed to hunt to eat. Now you believe it is your constitutional right to have guns to kill a random threat on our streets?
1
Bravo to March for Our Lives, who have brought forth sensible and effective policy changes that could help with the scourge of gun violence in the US. They have seen the results of gun violence personally and they can't abide the indifference shown by so many Americans to this grave problem.
Unfortunately our government is owned by and responsive to the gun lobby and the wealthy, but not to the people of this country. I wish them luck, which they will need to fight a rigged and corrupt political system.
5
The NRA claim that a licensing requirement would turn gun ownership into a privilege for the "wealthy elite" is nonsense (as are most of their objections to tighter gun control). It is entirely possible to write graduated fees or other concessions into rules and laws. The NRA also seems to forget that the "right to life" is a right, not a privilege reserved for those lucky enough not to cross paths with a mass shooter.
5
This is an excellent plan that would ensure safety for Anericans and would not infringe on Anericans' rights.
i am so heartened by this group. It is time for us older people to step back and get out of the way, allow the young generation of people such as this group to lead. They are our only hope.
4
I support the Parkland student past and present. I also support anyone who is for gun control and I have called for gun control since I became of voting age 56 years ago.
2
“Kids” didn’t come up with any of these proposals - they’ve been around for decades, devised by Gun Control Inc in the 1980s. The young in secondary schools actually poll less supportive of more extreme gun laws than do adults. When they hear adults say there should be no armed security in their schools, that we should just ban and buy back semiautomatic guns, they are quite skeptical.
Add:
—periodic mandatory psych evaluation;
—mandatory liability insurance, just as in licensing a car.
Personal gun ownership is not fundamental to the ambiguous 2nd Amendment—instead it thinly rests on the landmark 5-4 SCOTUS decision in DC vs Heller (2008) that decoupled private gun ownership from participation in a regulated state militia, an idea contested for two centuries. That decision can, and should, be revisited in light of the gathering storm of gun violence. All it takes is courage...and the will to act.
4
Gun ownership, in particular the 2nd amendment is about a law abiding citizen reserving the right to be your own last line of defense if unfortunately circumstances dictate that.
I have no desire to give up tactical advantage to confront an intruder in my house in the dark over "stuff", and I don't generally carry in public, as I work in areas with ample armed security.
Like most important things - such as fire safety, my armed shelter in place position is already selected for the advantage of my wife and myself, and I am content to call 911 and shelter in place. We live in an area where response can be as long as 15-20 min depending on where the sheriff or state police are at any given time.
If however our shelter position is entered prior to arrival of law enforcement, I want that engagement to be as asymmetric and brief as possible. I prefer if the choice of weapon is left up to me to ensure the above.
Otherwise I don't worry about it much. I practice regularly at the range and maintain my firearms just like I check the charge on my fire extinguishers, verify expiration dates and assure that I am proficient operating them in case they are needed.
1
I can’t wait for all the people my age to die off in order to hand the reins of power to the next generation.
God help us until that happens.
3
@Patricia Brown Really....that's sad... Many of the next generation are clueless...
Really? A yearly license I have to renew and a mandatory buy back of my weapons with a national registry?! I wont be submitting any of my guns to this registry, I wont allow my AR-15 to be bought back, and I wont be getting any license to own my weapon.
Sure, I'll deal with this when I buy new guns, but quite frankly this level of gun control is too far. America is America because our citizens have freedoms that European countries have taken away from their citizens. I dont want the federal government to know what weapons I own, I should be allowed to have the ability to rebel if necessary. Do liberals think that they can defeat the next dictator (and it will happen, its happened for every other society forever throughout all of history, it will happen to us too) with signs and protest? No.
Once the federal government has this registry and prevents its citizens from owning the same weapons the police have, the next dictator will use that registry to send their Gestapo to confiscate by force all weapons. With a cowed populace they will be able to take over this nation and control our lives.
It will happen. It's always happened before, and I intend to fight back when it does. I mean, it could happen as soon as 2020 of Trump decides he doesnt want to give up power. It could happen with any president, and our sick society is likely to produce a dictator soon from the left or the right.
2
@Jacqueline
People have guns because they have power, not the other way around.
The odd thing is how closely-aligned with authoritarianism the people with the guns are, and have been for some time. Almost every position held by the all guns everywhere crowd - from requiring pee tests for welfare recipients to shutting up scientists - is on the wrong side of freedom. When was the last time you ever saw any of them out on the street, standing up for what they believe in, or fighting for the rights of others? During the past two years, there have been ample opportunities for resistance; perhaps if little things like equal rights for all don't appeal to them, surely they could get behind curtailing executive power run amok. I'm sorry to break it to you, but if you're waiting to mount an armed coup, you've already lost. Guns are seductive but their power to kill is nothing when pitted against the hearts and minds of the people. Put away your gun. Vote. Write. Speak out. Practice civil disobedience.
1
Out of the mouths of babes.,,except these young people had their innocence stolen from them by gun violence.
Members of Congress and the president should be ashamed that a bunch of “kids” had to do the hard and thoughtful work of developing a comprehensive plan to reduce
gun violence for them. If our legislators have spines and the will to break the NRA’s pernicious hold on them, they can redeem themselves by voting the major elements of this plan into law. Do I think they have the guts? No. So I hope these young people will take the next obvious step and run for office!
3
This is a plan for gun SAFETY, not gun control. Journalists and politicians should call it what it is! 2nd Amendment rights will not be threatened by this plan!
16
You’re right. Video games are not the problem nor are assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, or giant loop-holes in background checks. Donald says the problem is “mental health” and he ought to know because the N.R.A. told him to say so.
3
Why all the regulatory gymnastics? Simply ban and confiscate all firearms. The annual check is a great idea. We can't expect people to simply comply. The police can come to your home every year and check for guns, outstanding wants and warrants, unpaid judgments, narcotics and other contraband. And a mental health check. Then we will all be truly safe.
Mr Trump. There is political will for gun control legislation. You just chose to ignore it.
7
Looks like some smart kids are trying to establish a “Well regulated militia.”
Interesting idea!
5
If anyone has earned the right to influence the course of firearm legislation in the USA it is the Parkland students ...... plus countless others subjected to needless bloodbaths inflicted by unsound individuals.
We can't rely on Republicans to heed the winds of change. It's up to Democratic candidates to coalesce around key issues like this.
Gun control is not the rabble-rousing black and white issue that Wayne LaPierre and his ilk make it out to be.
There is a middle road and Parkland survivors are showing us the way.
8
The unilateral disarmament of law-abiding citizens is the ultimate goal of the Democrats.
5
@JDK
The ultimate goal is to stop the slaughter of innocent people.
14
It's a mental health issue only because the NRA insures unfettered access to all weapons by the afflicted.
4
It takes our fearless children to teach us adults and our leaders what it means to lead.
This measure is perfect.
Let us embrace it.
And... while we are at it let us get rid of the NRA, a corrupt organization led by pathetic greedy people like Wayne La Pierre.
8
Now get everyone you know and supports your ideas to get out and vote out the Republican obstructionists and thus cripple the NRA!
9
Laudable but too complicated. Simply repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Then bring lawsuits against dealers and manufacturers after every shooting. I believe it used to be called supply side economics?
3
"And though polls find that a majority of Americans support a new ban on assault-style weapons"
But they sure don't vote like they mean it.
1
Although I would like to agree with Sadie, there has been such a surge in gun purchases every time restrictions are threatened, I think a mandatory buyback is needed to get things in check.
Thanks to March for Our Lives!!!
3
This is what the Framers meant when they wrote "well-regulated" into the Second Amendment.
The "militia" is the equivalent of today's National Guard. If you read The Federalist Papers this is clear as day.
If the Framers could see what was happening with guns in this country now they'd be mortified.
10
The section on assault weapons needs more detail (it always does). What is to be done with the existing weapons? Speaking for myself, I have two guns that would be considered assault weapons, an old Colt AR-15 and a Romanian WASR. I paid for them, are they to be seized? Would I be compensated? I would rather not give them up until all the white supremacists have given theirs up first.
These ideas make so much sense. Let’s vote in the Democrats who will get this done!
5
Overambitious but interesting. Most interesting is that 1) inherent lack of access the poor have to many things matters to republicans only when discussing costs of gun licenses and 2) the party who accuses democrats of trying to dismiss or pathologize actions and behaviors with complex sociological roots rather than just ‘calling evil what it is’ is very interested in having hate be turned into a clinica medical disease
2
Bullets don't kill people. The person that pulls the trigger does.
Our democracy requires a license to fish, to drive, to marry, to become a registered nurse in an emergency room trying to save a dying child from a gunshot wound.
Soldiers carry assault weapons. They kill everything in sight in rapid fire succession. America isn't a killing field. If the time ever comes for another revolution, it won't be guns that save us. It will be the American people.
2
I agree with everything on the list.
But let's add: 100% tax on ammo;
and,
mandatory insurance for each weapon;
mandatory registration of each weapon @ the cost of how much is necessary to register a high-end car;
and,
a specific fund made up with that registration monies, to the tune of 50% of those monies, to be used for the medical costs, keeping homesteads afloat, mental health care for survivors or funeral expenses.
And, may I point out that when Donald J. Trump showed up in El Paso at the hospital where the wounded had been taken, that NOT ONE of those injured would allow him into their room.
They knew exactly who he was --- and he has proved them correct with his caving in to the NRA and swearing to Wayne LaPierre that there will be NOTHING!!!
Parkland Group: You are first-class in all of this.
I thank you, thank you, thank you.
Oh, this war is not over......
7
This group of young people have given more constructive thought to this important issue than many of our legislators. Let’s replace everyone of the Republican legislators in Washington DC with one of these thoughtful young people.
78
@BruceC
Just waiting for one to be 25. Perhaps they can nominate one of their teachers, parents, or older siblings until that day comes. I would vote for them.
7
Let's be realistic. There is zero chance of this agenda ever being adopted. To think otherwise is laughable. With the exception of coast-dwelling liberals, no one in this country is going to tolerate a national gun registry, yearly licensing, or mandatory buy back.
There are reasons why teenagers aren't taken seriously by most adults. Silly proposals like this are a good example.
16
Carl,
Young people have always been behind successful political change.
Think of the civil rights movement, for instance.
19
No one is going to tolerate ... ?
13
@Carl
I find your condescension toward these young people appalling. They lived through a terrifying incident and have pulled together to fight to make the change. No one should have to fear going to school, or to any other public place because someone with an assault rifle could come in and kill multiple people in seconds.
12
These young people are in fact far wiser and more mature than all the Republicans in Washington (and around the country). Each and every proposal is a measured step, designed to be both consistent with the 2nd Amendment, as well as reducing gun violence. It should be enthusiastically supported by all Americans, just as 90-95% of all Americans support universal background checks. Guns kill more Americans than die in all our wars; in effect we have a low-intensity but continuous war on our streets, causing endless bloodletting and trauma. It can and must stop.
Bravo March for our Lives... More power to you.
58
Oh, to wishfully replace every current Republican Senator with a student member of “March for Our Lives”. Their comprehensive gun safety plan is what unadulterated sanity on this issue looks like, absent the cowardice of Congress, the corruption of the NRA, the fecklessness of Trump, and the paranoia of Second Amendment fanatics.
35
Should we start by dismantling the NRA? Waaay too much power and control over our congress. Bravo to this group for saying what needs to be done. Boo to our leaders for kowtowing to the NRA.
35
@Kristine
When the first step in curtailing the 2nd Amendment is restricting the !st Amendment rights of those you oppose, you might see why NRA, with 6 million members and a political funding level way down the list, persists and gets stronger every year. You engage 100s of millions who oppose such efforts.
Their goals are laudable but I would not include mandatory buy back. Make it voluntary only and just work on banning assault weapons sale in the future. I would prefer to adopt licensing system we already have for cars. To own a gun, one must be licensed by passing a written test and gun shooting/handling test. The owner also should carry a liability insurance. The license should be renewed om a regular basis. This licensing should not replace universal background check.
2
@Sadie What do you do if the assault weapon owner fails their relicensing? They sell the weapon on the used market despite the ban? Mandatory buy back makes sense at least in that area. The assault weapons will become more valuable over time. Will you have inspections to verify possession of said assault weapon?
@Sadie Automatic assault weapons were banned in the U.S. in 1986. You cannot legally purchase one today.
Here's my altruistic program:
1. Any State could opt out of the federal program, described as follows.
2.There would be no limit on assault/semi automatic weapons.
3. All guns must be licensed and registered and would require a background check to purchase.
4. All ammunition must have a chemical signature that could readily identify the bullet manufacturer. Ammunition must be manufactured in the US.
5. Only farmers, ranchers, the military and peace officers would be allowed to have firearms either in their domicile or on their private property.
6. Hunters and target practice guns could be owned but must be kept permanently at either licensed Fish and Game Clubs, Rod and Gun Clubs or gun/rifle ranges.
7. The minimum sentence for committing a felony while in possession of a firearm would be 20 years with no parole.
8. The possession of a firearm by a citizen of opted-out State in a federally-regulated State would be considered a felony.
2
I think this is a great document to get a national conversation going on gun control, it is something we have needed for a long time. Not all of their ideas will pass, some will be modified, but it is a start. Some ideas I would add:
Consider a national Ammunition ban. Guns need ammunition to work, if ammunition were banned, gun deaths would drop dramatically.
If that is not possible, consider a Barney Fife Law, limit the number of bullets people could buy.
Most crimes are committed by young people, consider raising the age to purchase a gun to 30.
Ban semiautomatic guns. Only manual guns, for example, bolt action rifles, revolvers, pump action shot guns, would be allowed.
These suggestions my not go anywhere but I include them as a way to get a conversation on gun violence started.
2
@Bruce1253 So you want to ban my Remington 1100 that I've been duck hunting with since 1980? No wonder nothing get's passed with gun control, most people don't know what they're talking about when it comes to legal firearms.
@JMC
I am suggesting that business as usual is not stopping the gun violence and we must look at alternative solutions. I am also suggesting things that stop short of a full ban on guns.
The problem being, anytime anyone suggests gun control, from background checks to high capacity magazine bans, they are met with a stone wall. If the gun lobby is not willing to compromise in any way, then there is no point in trying to work with them and we might as well go for the most effective solution: An outright ban on the sale and distribution of all ammunition and reloading supplies and equipment. Let us also gear up for a Supreme Court challenge and if necessary repealing the 2nd Amendment.
People have been trying to work with the gun lobby for years to no avail, at some point you gust have to say, OK we are going to do it my way.
The young adults from Parkland are among the most inspirational citizens we have right now. They belie every ill-conceived stereotype about their much-maligned Millennial generation. They're working doggedly on the effort to minimize gun violence in this country, and have not put forth any unreasonable measures. Not one.
They deserve to be heard. They deserve to be heeded. They deserve to have their way against the corrupt, moneyed interests of the NRA and their wholesale-purchased politicians. Their persistence is so admirable that sometimes I must remind myself that they go about this work despite being trauma survivors themselves.
It's difficult to reconcile living in a society where a lobby group whose end-product is often death wields excessive voice and influence against a collective of optimistic young people who survived having their school shot up. But one day the NRA will be a memory, and the Parkland survivors will hold positions of power. I hope the present is just their training camp.
26
Admirable. They left out education. Requiring first-time purchaser or returning purchaser acquiring new gun for collection to participate in a class to learn and demonstrate the proper use of the gun. At the very least, the instructor might recognize worrisome behavior.
The NRA was originally known primarily for promoting the safe and proper use of firearms.
And to @David Godinez, they will be...
3
Considering what is happening in our country, all of these proposals are reasonable reactions to gun violence. When will the shame of blocking solutions become too great for our so called leaders to bear? How much blood is enough? Thank you to March for Our Lives for their efforts. Keep up the good work!
16
Sorry, but until we ban all semi-automatic firearms, gun-related deaths and life-altering woundings will only increase. Banning and buying back all semiautomatic firearms will absolutely, dramatically, measurably reduce firearms deaths and woundings.
Dylann Roof fired 71 shots from his semiautomatic .45 caliber Glock that had 13-shot magazines. That means he went through nearly six magazines. It takes a split second to remove and replace a magazine.
Now . . . imagine that all he had was a .45 caliber revolver (not semiautomatic). Ever tried re-loading a revolver quickly? At worst, he would have gotten off six shots and been stopped while reloading; at best, he would not have attempted his attack in the first place.
The American people have spoken. Follow the example of Australia. Ban and buy back all semiautomatic firearms.
8
@NorthernVirginia So I'll ask again, does that mean you'll ban my semi automatic Remington 1100 shotgun that I've used to duck hunt with since 1980?
@JMC wrote: “does that mean you'll ban my semi automatic Remington 1100 shotgun that I've used to duck hunt with since 1980?”
Yes. That is exactly what that means. But with the money that you get from the buyback program, you’ll be able to buy a Remington Wingmaster pump and still have money left over.
1
Across this country, let’s all put pressure on our elected officials to represent what the majority of people want! If not, vote them out! We can’t be beholden to the NRA anymore! Enough!
This needs to be a central issue with all the Democrat candidates as well.
Thank you Parkland youth for continuing the fight!
9
Let's listen to the kids. As a teacher who is on the front lines as well, I want to point out that we too have rights. The right to go to work or to school without getting killed might be a nice right. (The right to go out to a restaurant, or club, to a mall or a movie, to a place of worship, or to any of the other places one might want to go, would be great too.) It's not JUST about people's right to own a gun. It's not. We have free speech and as a citizen and as an English teacher I completely support that, but guess what, we still do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded place and incite panic and cause mayhem. It seems to me we have forgotten common sense in this argument. Yes, I am fine with the 2nd amendment, but not to the exclusion of other's rights to safety, particularly when those others include children. Our forefathers did not envision assault style rifles, magazine clips with 20 plus rounds and bullets that could pierce armor. That is the truth, and every member of the NRA knows it. Why this group somehow is more important that the rest of us is unknown to me. We need to let our children know, that above all else, we value them, their lives, their futures, ahead of anything else. Without them our nation has no future. Let every member of the NRA justify to me how they would be okay sacrificing the lives of their children for their guns--I want to hear them do that. This insanity needs to stop. That's the bottom line.
75
@Eva Lockhart
When a 6 year old is shot in the back in a bouncy house at a Garlic Festival, I am for removing the Amendment that sponsored his death. He had the right to attend first grade and grow up with his siblings. His father had the right to go to his graduation and meet his grandchildren. This amendment needs to go.
12
@Rebecca I have the natural right to keep and bear arms too. Freedom is not free. What is the use going through life without freedom anyways? Give me liberty or give me death! This great nation was not founded by cowards willing to live on their knees. The kid was just unlucky. Let's not make irrational decisions based on that though.
I agree with all of their recommendations, but would add: limit on amount of ammunition purchased in a month; safety training in the use of firearms tied to licensing and registration; background checks done for gun show and private sales.
Law abiding citizens should have no problem with any of these, although they will trot out the old slippery slope argument. My right to be safe when I go to church, to school, to a movie or mall or just walking on a street shall not be infringed because someone else needs to buy a gun.
Now we just need to see if any of our government leaders have the spine to support the 89% of citizens who demand sensible gun laws.
9
Great ideas. I will write national officials requesting of these proposals. Big ideas, go bold. Good luck young people.
7
Realistically this is overly ambitious. In fact it is a fantasy. The Parkland group is right to seek reform but this is a bridge too far. National registration of firearms and license requirements for guns and ammunition aren't gun control. It is Communist government control of a former Democracy. The Parkland group needs to understand history and the reasons behind constitutional rights to own firearms. James Madison in The Federalist Papers took note that one of the greatest reasons the Americans were free and would remain free from a king or other despot was the right of American citizens to be armed. America set itself apart from European monarchies noting that control of firearms made government more powerful than the people it governed. Ownership of firearms by the general population made the people more powerful than the government or a king. And that according to Madison was the reason Democracy could and would survive. Thus far Madison has been right.
Also, during World War I, Germany offered inducements to Mexico to invade the United States and open a second front. The Zimmerman Telegram is well known to historians. Less well known is that Mexico briefly contemplated the invasion and one of the great several reasons Mexico gave for not attacking is that "Millions of American citizens are well armed and would engage in a guerrilla war that would ultimately prevent take over."
The Parkland group needs to understand history and the constitution.
13
@Jay
"National registration of firearms and license requirements for guns and ammunition aren't gun control. It is Communist government control of a former Democracy."
Really??? So is the fact that you have to take courses, pass stringent tests and pay a fee for a driver's license a communist plot too?
13
@Jay
Yes, it is a fantasy. And no, the students don't understand how our constution works or seem to care.
2
@Jay--perhaps the Mexicans didn't retaliate for other reasons as well. They certainly had many reasons to attack us--we have, historically, perpetrated many attacks on their lands, their people and their culture in general. We are fortunate that they have always been such good neighbors. The reality is, even with the current drug cartels, would there be such sales if our citizens were not such good buyers? Spare me the platitudes about American exceptionalism--we are not better than every nation we now want to vilify. Would there be an ISIS if we had not started a pre-emptive and pointless war in the Middle East? Would there be a heavily armed theocracy in Iran if we had not helped boot out the democratically elected leader there and installed the autocratic Shah? We often use our military, now comprised primarily of the urban and rural poor, to do dirty work power seeking politicians want them to do. We put our soldiers in harm's way, and then fail to take care of them when they come home. All our military doctrines are suspect since post WWII. Our weird love of guns is what we need to figure out...why do so many more people here die of gun induced injuries than in any other developed nation in the world? That is the million dollar question.
9
Outstanding! I support all of your ideas.
24
Just like the opioid epidemic , the proliferation of guns are an epidemic , directed at the American public by those who manufacture these products in order to reap more profits . The former are being held accountable and it is time for the latter to also be held accountable . How much money is enough ? Trump is but their puppet as is the despicable La Pierre . The mass shootings will continue just as people kept dying from opioids . The NRA officials equivocate falsely , claiming it will warp the second amendment and make it just for the elite to own guns is simply not true . Assault type weapons just do not belong in the hands of civilians ; designed for the military , they should stay there . Guns are a major epidemic .
39
we should all be as brave as these young adults!!!
26
@Sally McCart
And persistent, too! These brave young people at the forefront never give up.
3
" ... the measures would impinge on Second Amendment rights." An amendment from a time of flintlock weapons and which refers to an "organized militia" in no way authorizes today's civilian ownership of military grade weapons capable of killing dozens in a minute or less.
"It is way past time that elected officials take immediate action to address the public health epidemic afflicting our nation and leading to the death and wounding of our fellow Americans as a result of gun crime ... In less than 30 days, there have been five tragic shooting incidents ... The common denominators among the incidents ... are assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines ... There is no legitimate reason to have weaponry designed for combat on our streets ... " (Art Acevedo, Chief of the Houston Police Department, 19Aug2019)
14
@Steve Kennedy By this logic do you think the 1st amendment shouldn't apply to things that weren't around in 1776? Radio, TV, the internet, cellphones? Or you do think rights are rights?
2
@Steve Kennedy--thank you for the excellent quote--we are endangering our police forces if we don't do anything to combat the crazies with assault weapons.
2
@KM Of course not. the *method* of communication is irrelevant to the right of free speech. But you do give a good example of "false equivalence".
1
So? They haven't been elected by anyone to do anything. These are just opinions, nothing more.
7
I could never understand how any human could get his/her "jollies" by fondling and shooting any firearm. yes, yes, it's their 2nd amendment right and until our representatives decide to do scholarly research and discover the origins of why our founding fathers wrote this into our constitution and why it is time to amend it, we will find more and more deadly abuse of it. to the survivors of any death by guns, my heart aches for all of you. to the Parkland youth who have suggested these changes I applaud you. the time to bring down Wayne La Pierre, the NRA and Trump has arrived.
23
*Note to the stagnant, pathetic Republican Congress - who shrink back from "Doing Anything" about reasonable Gun Safety measures... the energy and drive of these youthful survivors of the Parkland massacre ought to put you all to shame.
If that's not enough, the rest of the country's 90% who also want safer gun rules, will see you won't have to make that decision after the next election. You don't deserve to call yourselves Representatives of the people. See ya!
14
I believe this was discussed with then-Vice President Biden when he visited with the students right after the shooting.
1
@William
Pence was VP when the Parkland Shooting occurred or is my sarcasm detector on the fritz right now?
@William You mean Vice-President PENCE, right after the Parkland shooting (Feb 14, 2018). Oh wait, Pence was mute and invisible - no wonder you forgot he existed...
Speaking as a gun owner, the list here is reasonable overall, and long overdue.
One nit I would pick however, is that I have yet to see a definition of "assault guns" that would be legally or practically viable. They are functionally no different than other more conventional semi-automatic firearms that no one is worried about as a policy matter. You can make a laundry list of scary, but basically aesthetic features that can be readily altered by manufacturers to "comply".
For that reason, I think the focus should be on banning high-capacity magazines, which from a technical point of view are the real culprits in mass shootings. They are also easy to define with little or no ambiguity, and therefore also make it easy to enforce such a ban.
The alternative would be to ban rifles with external magazines altogether. Personally, I'm fine with that and all hunters should be too. But it would be a lot harder I suspect to build political support for this among gun owners ready to get behind stricter regulations -- and yes, there are many of us.
14
@Petersburgh wrote: "They are functionally no different than other more conventional semi-automatic firearms that no one is worried about as a policy matter."
Difficult to believe that no one is worried about other semiautomatic firearms. Semiautomatic handguns brought us the massacres of Long Island Railroad, Virginia Tech, Tucson (Gabby Giffords' wounding), and Charleston.
By contrast, John Hinkley had a .22 caliber revolver when he tried to kill Reagan. The result? Four wounded, no reloading.
Banning and buying back all semiautomatic firearms, including pistols, will absolutely reduce the deaths and woundings in this country.
3
@Petersburgh Yes, please define "assault style weapons", I say this because there are a lot of people out there who think it's legal to buy a fully automatic assault weapon, AK 47.
As for magazine size, a small 5 capacity clip on a semi automatic hunting rifle extends out of the bottom of the rifle, would that be banned as well.
I'm a gun owner and I agree with the need for better comprehensive background checks, red flag laws etc., but there needs to be more education about the firearms you want to ban or control. When I hear college educated professionals telling me they think you can buy a fully automatic assault rifle at Cabelas, that's a problem as well.
3
@NorthernVirginia All semi automatic weapons? Does this include shotguns used for duck hunting that can hold a maximum of 5 shells depending on what state you live in? Where I live the maximum is 3.
1
This looks like a good list: it falls short in some senses, but it's a good start.
2
I like every part of this plan, especially the mandatory buy-back notion except this, to wit:
"A new multiple-step gun licensing system, overseen by Washington, that would include in-person interviews and a 10-day wait before gun purchases are approved. Licenses would need to be renewed annually."
This one is/could be fraught with all sorts of bias, mismanagement and abuse. Who would conduct these interviews? Would this mean a new federal agency? How would its leadership be established? How would its employees be recruited? What qualifications would they need to possess? What criteria would be used to determine whether a license would be granted? How long would the process take? Who would establish these criteria? Man, this one really scares me. This one is not needed to get rid of all assault weapons, and will probably meet with the most resistance from responsible gun owners. I would oppose this without reservation. Full disclosure: I neither own nor desire to own any type of assault weapon. My favorite hunting weapon is a Single-Shot Ruger #1.
6
Good!
Now it's up to the Democrats to make this a core campaign issue and force Republicans to defend their opposition to all of these very sensible ideas.
26
It's possible to modify ammunition so that it won't fire semi-automatically or automatically, but can be used as single rounds. That is all that any hunter or target shooter needs.
Because ammunition gets used up and must be replaced, limiting the kind of ammunition that can be sold to civilians is a feasible way of preventing these massacres. It is more feasible than trying to control weapons that exist in large numbers and will remain functional for more than a century.
5
@Jonathan Katz
It is not possible to modify ammunition in that way. No way at all.
2
@Jonathan Katz wrote: "It is more feasible than trying to control weapons that exist in large numbers and will remain functional for more than a century."
. . . and yet, Australia banned and bought back all semiautomatic firearms.
1
We need to ask everyone running for elected office where they stand on these reasonable gun safety measures. If they won't commit to supporting the proposals these young people are promoting, then they should not receive our votes.
19
Our gun laws are an incomprehensible mosaic of laws which utterly fail in their mission to deter gun violence.
We need FEDERAL GUN CONTROL which requires that all guns be issued Certificates of Title like with cars, that they be Federally registered, and that gun owners be required to maintain liability insurance with high deductibles to indemnify people harmed by their guns. Limit the number of guns that people may own to some reasonable number.
Like with cars, require prospective gun owners to demonstrate proficiency and mental competence plus impose strict, vicarious liability upon gun owners for their direct or otherwise negligent conduct in connection with their guns. Leave a gun lying around unsecured and someone gets access to it, you're in trouble.
As far as bullets go, the eggs I buy are imprinted with a traceable code. Do that with bullets so we know who is buying them and in what quantity.
This will not eliminate all gun violence but it will cut it back and provide at least some compensation for victims. As far as I can see, none of this in any way conflicts with that pesky 2d Amendment which would, of course, stay in full force and effect.
Presently we have a patchwork of gun legislation in 50 states which is ineffectual. You can still get a gun in a state with lax firearms laws and take it anywhere you want. If states, to meet their own needs, want to impose laws that are more stringent than the Feds, like with booze and drugs, fine.
32
@MIKEinNYC You apparently cannot distinguish between rights and privileges.
1
@JDK
You have the right to Free Speech but you may not yell "fire" in a crowded theater. By the same token, you have a right to own a registered gun but not under any circumstance. You should need to demonstrate competence and responsibility, financial and otherwise, as stated above.
3
I support this list and Peace Plan 100% and will do everything I can to endorse, persuade, and promote the plan. Thank you.
2
“Democrats want to take radical steps in violation of the Second Amendment.” Yes, yes they do. I appreciate the authors for being explicit. The choice is between what we have now or that basically no civilians have guns like it is in Ireland. Now that the choices are clear maybe we can stop obfuscating and finally have a debate.
1
And the children shall lead them. Bravo. Funny thing they're ahead of their elders in reducing Global warming as well. Now if they would just vote!
33
The list is quite reasonable, and carries little political risk for politicians who support the reforms in most states. I doubt anyone supporting these reforms would have it cost them their office, to me this looks strictly about whether the NRA and gun industry continue to buy influence from those politicians who wrap themselves in the flag and then act against US citizen's interests as if they were a foreign entity.
60
A buyback conducted at or near MSRP for guns and magazines over 10 or 15 rounds and bumpstocks, you know that there are many out there, would be okay with me even though the rifle and magazine buyback would impact me. I don’t like the annual licensing idea unless it was very cheap and on a per owner basis.
Deeper background checks and red flag laws (applied appropriately and not maliciously) are fine too.
The 2nd amendment whether de facto or de jure implies a personal ownership right which can be regulated without being regulated out of existence.
10
@Malcolm, right. So you 2 are in a discussion. That is more progress than the Senate is even willing to BEGIN. There is every reason to include gun owners in this debate. I also think nothing is stopping responsible gun owners from joining the safe gun ownership movement or voluntarily turning in their high capacity magazines right now. Why wait on Congress?
5
@Kevin Sorry, I sold any firearm traceable to me through the FFL system in a private transaction. No, I don’t have a bill of sale. Don’t believe me? How will you prove it, by searching my house?
1
I am a gun owner who has shot recreationally since I was a little kid. (I was first trained at camp in an NRA certified riflery course, back in the days when the NRA's primary mission was gun safety.) . And looking at the list, I think that every item is both reasonable and will help reduce gun violence in this nation. There's no political will because the small majority of gun enthusiasts are very vocal but they remain a small majority. If the large majority of us who favor stronger protections lean on our elected representatives, they will either do the people's work or we should vote them out of office.
187
@Rosies Dad Several of these items are unconstitutional burdens on the Second Amendment.
1
@JDK. That’s your opinion. I disagree. That’s my opinion. It’s also my opinion that the 2A applies to keeping and bearing a sword and a musket if you are part of a well regulated militia because those were the arms of the day in 1791 when the Amendment was ratified. (Because as Justice Scalia was known to say, the Constitution should be interpreted as it would have been on the day the words were voted on.)
10
@Rosies Dad
I’m a gun owner too - perhaps one of those “small majority of gun enthusiasts” you mention. You and your “large majority” have had the freedom to vote and elect those who support your views. But a majority shouldn’t expect to suppress the rights of the minority. That’s not how the USA works.
Go, kids, go! We support you one hundred percent.
101
Is the gun lobby & it's supporters comprised of the majority of Americans? I would suggest if not, that they be told that they are A PART of a democracy.
26
@Hilda they are also a part of a constitutional republic which protects certain rights (such as speech, due process and the right to bear arms, among others) from infringement by the government and emotional populist movements
8
@Hilda Yes. The vast majority of the NRA's funding comes from membership dues that are provided by its members (duh). Despite what some might like you to think, the NRA does not receive as much funding from various gun manufacturers as one might think.
5
Does $55m from Russia count as member dues?
3