After 50 people were shot to death in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, there will undoubtedly be another call for gun control. The National Rifle Association (NRA) will once again rally its membership to fight any forms of control with their tired chant, "They're trying to take our guns away." But are they really?
Like most Americans, I own and drive a car. Before I was allowed to drive a car, I first had to apply for a license. The process involved being of a certain age, then getting a learner's permit, which only allowed me to operate a vehicle with a licensed driver in the vehicle with me. Then I had to go to the state and take a written test. Once I passed it, then I could take a practical test with a state representative in the vehicle. Only after passing that could I get my license.
But that's only part of the saga. Then I had to buy a vehicle and once purchased, I had to insure the vehicle. This insurance was partly to insure my investment but really, it's mostly to protect others, as I have to carry liability coverage. All of this had to be done before I could put my vehicle on the road.
Why can't guns be regulated (controlled) in a similar fashion? First, establish a minimum age for gun users. This would have to be debated. Some would feel that 12 would be old enough, others will say 21. Let's make it reasonable and say 13 but you have to be accompanied by an adult with a license and 18 to go solo. Since 13 is a minor, they would still need the permission of a parent to apply for a gun permit.
Also, anyone with a history of mental illness or a record of incarceration for violent crime would probably not be the best people to be allowed to own weapons. If they have a licensed adult who is willing to accompany them, perhaps there can be a special arrangement made for things like hunting.
Once the permit is received, the permit holders are allowed to shoot with a licensed adult. That adult will train them in gun safety, etiquette and proper handling. All of that will be done before learning to aim and pull the trigger. Also, cleaning the weapon would be taught. Once the permit holder is ready, they can then go and take a written test. This test will demonstrate that they know how to properly handle a weapon.
After the written test is passed, they will then have a practical exam where they will fire the weapon, not showing that they are good marksmen but that they can do so safely. After this, they will properly clean the weapon.
Now they can receive a license but only for that particular type (class) of weapon. If they want another type, that's another test, just like getting a driver's license does not allow you to operate a motorcycle. You have to have a motorcycle license for that.
Finally, when the person is licensed they can purchase a gun in the proper class, but they must also purchase gun insurance. Gun insurance would be relatively inexpensive for things like hunting rifles and small handguns. The insurance would pay for loss of the firearm as well as paying damages should anyone be injured by the weapon. As the weapon increases in power, the insurance increases in cost. While a 22 rifle might cost $25 a year for insurance, an uzi would be $1,000 annually. This doesn't stop anyone from owning one, it just means you would have to really want one.
All guns would have to be recorded and licensed, just as cars are licensed. They would be registered with the state so the owner would be on record. They would have to be maintained and demonstrated to the proper authorities that they were in good working order at all times.
This is gun control. It's not a matter of taking weapons away, it's a matter of making them safer for everyone.
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Monday, July 14, 2014
Israel vs. Hamas
In any conflict there are at least two sides but the most important element is the truth. Getting to the truth can only be achieved when one knows the facts. In the present state of unrest between Israel and Hamas, the facts do not seem to be important.
Last month three Israeli teenagers were abducted and executed. Without any evidence to support their claim, Israel accused Hamas. Hamas has denied involvement but that fell on deaf ears. When the bodies of the victims were found, Israeli citizens retaliated by kidnapping a Palestinian teenager and setting him on fire. They burned him to death. The perpetrators of this crime were apprehended but it is extremely doubtful that they will receive proper punishment for their crime, given that their victim was a Palestinian.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) though now known only as the Islamic State has apparently claimed responsibility for the initial abduction of the Israeli's. ISIL is a jihadist militant group that grew out of Al-Qaeda. They are not Hamas, they are not connected to Hamas and Hamas does not exert any control over them. Yet, Benjamin Netanyahu continues to blame Hamas, even though he apparently knows that Hamas was not involved.
When Israel killed an innocent Palestinian youth, the Palestinians had a right to defend themselves. They did so with rocket strikes against Israel. Israel has retaliated with airstrikes against Palestine. This must be put in perspective. Palestine has launched over 800 rockets and killed no one. Israel has struck over 1,300 times and killed nearly 200. The vast majority of the casualties are civilians. Israel knows this. Israel does not care.
All Americans should be aware of what is going on in Israel. United States Foreign Aid to Israel makes up more than half of the foreign aid to the entire world. We give more money to Israel than to any other country but we get nothing in return. Israel is not an oil-producing nation, so they do not supply us with oil. In two wars that the United States started (Iran and Afghanistan), Israel has not supplied any military assistance. We get nothing for the money we spend.
The Arms Export Control Act states that the United States may stop aid to countries which use U.S. military assistance for purposes other than “legitimate self-defense.” Palestine has a right to retaliate when Israel burns one of their children alive. Israel cannot correctly call their current actions against Palestine "self-defense." As such, the United States should immediately withdraw all military assistance from Israel until such time as Israel agrees to enter into peaceful negotiations with Palestine. Such negotiations must include an immediate cease-fire, releasing Palestinians held as prisoners without the benefit of due process and returning land illegally seized from Palestine since the agreement of the borders in 1967.
Israel is killing innocent Palestinians and the United States is supporting that effort. When will the people of this great nation stand up for those who are being oppressed by our allies?
Last month three Israeli teenagers were abducted and executed. Without any evidence to support their claim, Israel accused Hamas. Hamas has denied involvement but that fell on deaf ears. When the bodies of the victims were found, Israeli citizens retaliated by kidnapping a Palestinian teenager and setting him on fire. They burned him to death. The perpetrators of this crime were apprehended but it is extremely doubtful that they will receive proper punishment for their crime, given that their victim was a Palestinian.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) though now known only as the Islamic State has apparently claimed responsibility for the initial abduction of the Israeli's. ISIL is a jihadist militant group that grew out of Al-Qaeda. They are not Hamas, they are not connected to Hamas and Hamas does not exert any control over them. Yet, Benjamin Netanyahu continues to blame Hamas, even though he apparently knows that Hamas was not involved.
When Israel killed an innocent Palestinian youth, the Palestinians had a right to defend themselves. They did so with rocket strikes against Israel. Israel has retaliated with airstrikes against Palestine. This must be put in perspective. Palestine has launched over 800 rockets and killed no one. Israel has struck over 1,300 times and killed nearly 200. The vast majority of the casualties are civilians. Israel knows this. Israel does not care.
All Americans should be aware of what is going on in Israel. United States Foreign Aid to Israel makes up more than half of the foreign aid to the entire world. We give more money to Israel than to any other country but we get nothing in return. Israel is not an oil-producing nation, so they do not supply us with oil. In two wars that the United States started (Iran and Afghanistan), Israel has not supplied any military assistance. We get nothing for the money we spend.
The Arms Export Control Act states that the United States may stop aid to countries which use U.S. military assistance for purposes other than “legitimate self-defense.” Palestine has a right to retaliate when Israel burns one of their children alive. Israel cannot correctly call their current actions against Palestine "self-defense." As such, the United States should immediately withdraw all military assistance from Israel until such time as Israel agrees to enter into peaceful negotiations with Palestine. Such negotiations must include an immediate cease-fire, releasing Palestinians held as prisoners without the benefit of due process and returning land illegally seized from Palestine since the agreement of the borders in 1967.
Israel is killing innocent Palestinians and the United States is supporting that effort. When will the people of this great nation stand up for those who are being oppressed by our allies?
Monday, December 11, 2006
--Ann Coulter's December 6, 2006 Article
You have to enjoy reading Ann Coulter's columns, if you enjoy reading fiction. If you're looking for facts, then you might want to look elsewhere. Take, for example, her December 6 article where she says:
Now that Democrats have won the House, they can concentrate on losing the war. Despite all the phony conservative Democrats who got elected as gun-totin' hawks, the Democrats will uniformly vote to dismantle every aspect of the war on terrorism.
Ann is actually looking at two different things here, so let's clarify them; the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Note that these are not the same thing. The war in Iraq is a war that was started by the Bush administration against an innocent country based on phony intelligence that Iraq was harboring Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). It is important to state here that in over three years of the war, no such weaponry has been found.
The war on terrorism culminated on September 11, 2001 when the World Trade Center was attacked by Muslim extremists in a plot largely supported by Osama bin Laden. Since she includes this in the same paragraph as the war in Iraq, I must assume that she is referring to terrorism in that country, as opposed to terrorism here.
In Iraq, the terrorists we're fighting are ones we created by attacking their country, but are these all truly terrorists? Consider, for example, the same situation reversed. If Iraq were to attack and occupy the United States, and U.S. citizens armed themselves and began fighting back, would we be terrorists? No. We would be freedom fighters, therefore those Iraqis who are fighting against the occupying forces are not terrorists. Those Iraqis who are killing other Iraqis, however, ARE terrorists, but they are terrorists whom we created.
Now to get back to Ann's ridiculous comments. First she says that Democrats will concentrte on losing the war. This, apparently, in opposition to the Republicans who are already losing the war, they simply refuse to admit it. The Republicans had the silly idea that capturing Saddam Hussein (a deposed leader) would somehow end the war. This didn't happen, of course. Saddam was captured, but the war didn't end.
Let me take an aside here to say that Saddam's capture probably did not happen as we have been lead to believe. Long before American's heard the "We got him" speech, the following was already released in the Kurdish media:
Saddam Hussein, the former President of the Iraqi regime, was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A special intelligence unit led by Qusrat Rasul Ali, a high-ranking member of the PUK, found Saddam Hussein in the city of Tikrit, his birthplace. Qusrat's team was accompanied by a group of US soldiers. Further details of the capture will emerge during the day; but the global Kurdish party is about to begin!
So, the Democrats are not concentrating on losing the war, we're facing the reality of a war that we've already lost. We're looking at ways of getting out of this conflict with the minimum amount of damage, and possibly some shred of dignity, something the Republicans have completely stripped this country of for far too long.
The rest of her article deals with terrorism, and the idea of waterboarding terror suspects, something she is obviously in favor of, as opposed to most human beings who see that as torture and don't see a need for torture. Ann lives in a different world. She mentions September 11 five times in her article, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed nine times, yet she never mentions Osama bin Laden at all. This seems odd in an article that deals with September 11 and terrorism against the United States, until you remember that Ann is not interested in facts. What Ann is trying to do is obfuscate the truth to further her own thwarted agenda.
So, Ann, let me put this simply so that even you can understand it. We, the American people, do not believe in torture. Period. To say that it's okay to torture those who would torture us goes against our sensibilities. As a professed Christian, I'm suprised at that hypocrisy coming from you. Jesus did not allow an eye for an eye, yet you support it. Interesting. We, the American people, do not see a need to torture anyone, even our enemies.
We, as a people, also realize that the mastermind behind 9/11 was Osama bin Laden, but you don't mention him because he's still at large, and that would be admitting to the world that the Republicans failed to get their man. Such an admission would be a show of honesty, and that's not something we've come to expect from Ann Coulter.
Now that Democrats have won the House, they can concentrate on losing the war. Despite all the phony conservative Democrats who got elected as gun-totin' hawks, the Democrats will uniformly vote to dismantle every aspect of the war on terrorism.
Ann is actually looking at two different things here, so let's clarify them; the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Note that these are not the same thing. The war in Iraq is a war that was started by the Bush administration against an innocent country based on phony intelligence that Iraq was harboring Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). It is important to state here that in over three years of the war, no such weaponry has been found.
The war on terrorism culminated on September 11, 2001 when the World Trade Center was attacked by Muslim extremists in a plot largely supported by Osama bin Laden. Since she includes this in the same paragraph as the war in Iraq, I must assume that she is referring to terrorism in that country, as opposed to terrorism here.
In Iraq, the terrorists we're fighting are ones we created by attacking their country, but are these all truly terrorists? Consider, for example, the same situation reversed. If Iraq were to attack and occupy the United States, and U.S. citizens armed themselves and began fighting back, would we be terrorists? No. We would be freedom fighters, therefore those Iraqis who are fighting against the occupying forces are not terrorists. Those Iraqis who are killing other Iraqis, however, ARE terrorists, but they are terrorists whom we created.
Now to get back to Ann's ridiculous comments. First she says that Democrats will concentrte on losing the war. This, apparently, in opposition to the Republicans who are already losing the war, they simply refuse to admit it. The Republicans had the silly idea that capturing Saddam Hussein (a deposed leader) would somehow end the war. This didn't happen, of course. Saddam was captured, but the war didn't end.
Let me take an aside here to say that Saddam's capture probably did not happen as we have been lead to believe. Long before American's heard the "We got him" speech, the following was already released in the Kurdish media:
Saddam Hussein, the former President of the Iraqi regime, was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A special intelligence unit led by Qusrat Rasul Ali, a high-ranking member of the PUK, found Saddam Hussein in the city of Tikrit, his birthplace. Qusrat's team was accompanied by a group of US soldiers. Further details of the capture will emerge during the day; but the global Kurdish party is about to begin!
So, the Democrats are not concentrating on losing the war, we're facing the reality of a war that we've already lost. We're looking at ways of getting out of this conflict with the minimum amount of damage, and possibly some shred of dignity, something the Republicans have completely stripped this country of for far too long.
The rest of her article deals with terrorism, and the idea of waterboarding terror suspects, something she is obviously in favor of, as opposed to most human beings who see that as torture and don't see a need for torture. Ann lives in a different world. She mentions September 11 five times in her article, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed nine times, yet she never mentions Osama bin Laden at all. This seems odd in an article that deals with September 11 and terrorism against the United States, until you remember that Ann is not interested in facts. What Ann is trying to do is obfuscate the truth to further her own thwarted agenda.
So, Ann, let me put this simply so that even you can understand it. We, the American people, do not believe in torture. Period. To say that it's okay to torture those who would torture us goes against our sensibilities. As a professed Christian, I'm suprised at that hypocrisy coming from you. Jesus did not allow an eye for an eye, yet you support it. Interesting. We, the American people, do not see a need to torture anyone, even our enemies.
We, as a people, also realize that the mastermind behind 9/11 was Osama bin Laden, but you don't mention him because he's still at large, and that would be admitting to the world that the Republicans failed to get their man. Such an admission would be a show of honesty, and that's not something we've come to expect from Ann Coulter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
