First sensible argument I have heard in decades for common sense gun laws.

[M]

This article ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/time-for-collaboration-on-g... ) on how to protect gun rights while reducing the toll of gun violence seems to make a hell of a lot of sense. However there would need to be some additional protections incorporated that are glossed over by the suggestions. This intelligent compromise was designed by the two opposing forces from 20 years ago.

One being a director of Centers for Disease Control and Injury Prevention Control, and the other was a Pro Gun Congressional Representative working to dismantle the study, because it was aimed politically at gun control, and not at reducing gun violence. Those people were Jay Dickey and Mark Rosenberg. With Dickey being the Representative and Rosenberg the CDC Director.

While being diametrically opposed to each others viewpoints, they have through the years learned from each other. Both paid the price with Dickey being voted out and Rosenberg seeing his research to prevent violence ignored by the CDC because it was also a successful effort to protect the Second Amendment. Go Figure.

These men met at a 1996 Congressional hearing and were adamantly opposed to each others viewpoints, but eventually came to see that they had differences but they also had shared values. Through their arguments they both have learned much about the opposing viewpoints. Need I mention that they became friends, are both Members of the NRA, and both fully believe in the Second Amendment?

They have come to the conclusion that gun violence research can be conducted with the two Main Objectives of;

1. Preserving the Rights of Law Abiding Citizens as Legal gun owners.

2. Make our homes and communities safer.

Their main thrust is to organize and conduct well structured research to develop technologies that work and identify ways to achieve the objective of protecting Second amendment Rights. They believe our Nation does not have to choose between reducing gun violence and safeguarding gun ownership.

By implication they don't believe that this should be Politicized if we want to get to truthful answers through proper research just like the auto industry reduced traffic deaths by the research that developed the 4 foot barricades dividing traffic. They believe the same type of results can be had with respect to fire-arm related injuries and deaths but preserving the rights of gun owners.

These men are not your typical hard right and hard left zealots like Bloomberg/Obama and the hard right gun rights activists. They both ascribe to the concept of both sides working with each other and respecting each others views. This does not indicate they believe there should be any automatic trade offs, instead it means working to find real world solutions that work, not the common sense rhetoric the Left is currently using as the flavor of the month to impose gun control. The "Common sense" the Left espouses does not protect us, nor does it in any way protect our Second Amendment Rights! Neither does the indiscriminate advocacy for every adult to carry openly everywhere.

Both men believe that funding should be dramatically increased for proper research into gun violence prevention,and that would require an active working partnership replete with respect for both sides of the argument. They have went so far as to suggest that the following language be incorporated into any law for funding;

" No funds shall be used to advocate or promote gun control. " While that language would start to help reassure Second Amendment supporters that the CDC will not use any of the funding for gun-control advocacy. Doing this would eliminate the outright ban on Federal gun violence prevention research, and it does not ban that research either. I feel it does not go far enough to block ant Politicized intervention by gun control advocates into meddling with that research. The research should be driven by Science and not Political Rhetoric. the Science needs to be open to public scrutiny while the study is being conducted, but media or political input needs to be held at bay until the study is completed.

Both the men feel that both sides will have to give up a good portion of their fondly held rhetoric and beliefs to come to a real solution. If that is not done, and done openly, gun violence will continue to increase, and the gun grabbers will win out in the end by using fear tactics, fiat  and spin to advance their agendas.

The rules need to be Clear open to public scrutiny, and hard and fast with the understanding that Politicians will keep their grubby hands off, Gun Control advocates will keep their mouths shut for the duration and Gun rights advocates will have to do the same for the duration of the research. Only after will the subject be open to public debate. The researchers will also have to break down their findings into the language understood by the common citizen.

The Politicians will have to agree with the findings and use them when constructing legislation. I would also advocate both the Gun rights advocates and the gun control advocates launch independent research that parallels what the CDC will be doing, and then when the research is completed they will publicly compare notes in an open public debate over any disparate findings. Doing it this way will potentially be a game changer for both sides of the argument to work out an acceptable compromise. Bear in mind that all researchers must be fully aware of the real meaning of the Second Amendment being the peoples right to be able to defend themselves from their Government first and foremost, not hunting,home defense, etc. et.al.

Let it also be known that I am a proponent of Constitutional Carry and Properly Written Stand Your Ground Gun Laws and against Mandated Gun Free Zones.

[M]

For many good articles read the Mangus Colorado Daily at; http://paper.li/MangusColorado/1412784069?edition_id=1ef55fa0-abd1-...

[charles royer]

Why does their need to be "sense"applied to the second amendment?
It's not for hunting , it's for tyranny! PERIOD!
Senseless killings ,  another subject.

[M]

Basically I saw that article as being about curbing the senseless killings. My way would be to arm and empower every Law Abiding citizen with a specific set of rules and a Stand Your Ground Law.

[Rhodes]

When the laws become tyranny what does it mean to be law abiding?

Is the man that does not violate the the natural laws of the universe , malum in se, but will violate the laws of man, malum prohibita, when they conflict, law abiding?

[M]

Cum lex fit Tyrannidi Repugnantia fit necessarium That is what it means. I may have gotten it a bit wrong since the only Latin I partially know is church Latin.

[Hankelvis]

Each citizen of any age should provide proof of gun ownership to the IRS when they provide proof of health insurance products. Gun ownership should be mandatory for all citizens and gun safety should be taught in public schools starting at K-1. Unions should use part of the 5 trillion dollars they stole from the taxpayers to fund it.

[M]

Hank,

When I was a kid they did have gun safety classes in schools. they were provided by the NRA and the now defunct Director of Civilian Marksmanship Bureau.

[Virginia Foulk]

Really? I suspect you are being sarcastic, because if you are not - I suggest a big NO to that idea.  Though, after some thought, I can understand why you suggest it. I do agree with teaching gun safety for all, starting when young. Using the  IRS - absolutely not.  And would this help stop gun deaths. Eventually, guns would have to be taken away from criminals, and will this keep them from getting ones from their friends, family?

[Hankelvis]

The IRS has no business enforcing unconstitutional health care laws or anything else. I cannot believe I need to explain that point. Government has no business in private gun ownership regardless of the amount of carnage on the streets. The psychiatric community along with mob-owned health insurance companies started dumping all the crazy people into the general population around 1986. It was all about the money. Add illegal aliens and early release prisoners to the mix and you have the liberal agenda for America.

[kevin kiernan]

Schools in Russia have gun assembly lessons...A-K-47

[Virginia Foulk]

When I was in High School - in Madison, NRA had the Eddie Eagle program and our school had it as part of the curriculum.  That was in 1956-1958. Don't know if it was still there later - I graduated in 58. (When I was in middle school, I had 3 little miniature hand guns. I was making a poster - GUNS ARE DANGEROUS. When I went to put them on my poster - any ideas what happened? (Someone stole my guns - I had to draw guns instead.)  I was 12 when my dad had me try to shoot a shotgun - a 12 gauge. He should never have done that - I landed my butt on the ground so hard. That was why the Guns are Dangerous poster.

Anyway, I later learned more about guns  when my husband started taking me hunting. And I was given a 20 gauge shotgun. Big difference.

Even for those not interested in gun use, they and their children should be given a knowledge of the use and the dangers associated with guns. Ignorance is not bliss when guns are concerned. 

 

[M]

Virginia,

Unfortunately it's the uninformed Ignorant Liberals who believe everything their idols the Left wing Movie stars and Politicians say about the evils of guns without even trying to check out what the truth is.