War on drunk driving a model for reducing gun violence
What practical steps, within the protections of the Second Amendment, can we take to reduce mass killings and gun violence? Can such an effort even begin to make a difference in saving lives and preventing heartbreak?
Yes, it can. And we have a model of success to draw upon.
By 1982, more than 21,000 Americans were dying each year in alcohol-related accidents. Yet somehow by 2010, the number of fatalities caused by drunk driving had fallen to 10,228, a decline of more than half. We didn’t solve the problem, but clearly we have made substantial progress. We are saving more than 10,000 lives a year and preventing tens of thousands more from being crippled or maimed. Almost as important, over the years we have prevented tens of thousands of drivers from ruining their own lives by killing people while under the influence.
We did not achieve that progress by banning automobiles. We did not ban alcohol. In fact, no single dramatic change produced the turnaround. It was achieved through a broad, concerted legal effort backed by a fundamental change in what was deemed culturally acceptable
We required automakers to make their products safer, including then-controversial steps such as requiring airbags. We mandated use of seatbelts. We increased the legal liability of bars, taverns and restaurants that over-served customers, to ensure that those making money off the problem had some “skin in the game” in reducing it.
We instituted a national drinking age of 21, which reduced the number of minors involved in alcohol-related fatalities. In Georgia alone, the rate of such alcohol-related fatalities involving drivers under 21 fell by 63.7 percent from 2000 to 2010 We increased enforcement efforts, such as DUI roadblocks. We tightened licensing requirements and also nationalized databases, so that someone stripped of his or her license in one state for drunk driving could not be licensed in another state.
So how do you apply those lessons to gun safety? As with automobiles, you improve the safety of the devices themselves, for example by requiring the installation of trigger locks. (If Nancy Lanza had installed trigger locks in guns kept in a household with an unbalanced young man, she and 26 other people today in Newtown might still be alive.) You ban the sale, use or possession of high-capacity magazines, such as the 30-round mags that Adam Lanza used. And you ban altogether the sale or transfer of assault weapons. If someone wants to sell an existing assault weapon, they can sell only to the government.
As with automobiles, you require evidence that individuals know how to operate certain weapons before they can be licensed to use or possess them. The National Rifle Association points out, correctly, that those who go through gun-safety and marksmanship courses to qualify for concealed-carry permits in many states are rarely involved in crime. Why not extend that successful model to gun ownership in general? (Georgia, by the way, requires no gun-safety training and no evidence of gun-handling ability before granting permits to carry concealed weapons.)
In addition to licensing gun owners, you register weapons. (With some 200 million guns in private hands, the fear of a government effort to go door to door confiscating registered weapons is ludicrous paranoia.) If a registered weapon is used in a crime but was not reported stolen, the person to whom it is registered can be held civilly or even criminally liable. That’s responsible gun ownership, and would curtail the black market substantially.
One of the bigger deterrents to drunk driving is the significantly increased cost of auto insurance for those convicted. Bars and liquor stores with a history of over-serving also have to worry about increased insurance costs. If you make gun owners and sellers financially liable for any damage done with their weapons, you create a market-based incentive to be responsible.
None of those steps violates the Constitution; none prevents honest citizens from obtaining firearms for personal defense, hunting and other legitimate purposes. But together, they have the potential to dramatically reduce the number of deaths caused by firearm misuse.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
693 comments Add your comment
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 19th, 2012
11:01 am
OK, Kammy, tell us what it really means and tells us whether you’re in favor of it or opposed to it.
No.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 19th, 2012
11:01 am
curious — “I doubt even the Constitution grants rights without restriction. Otherwise, I guess we can buy that grenade launcher.”
We are in complete agreement on that point. I’ve posted on that very matter a couple of times earlier in this thread.
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:02 am
“Watch, he’ll start calling you names, too!”
We expect libs to call people names. It’s sort of a crutch for the intellectually inept. They also like to call people “liar” without ever pointing out a lie and/or substantiating that anything was, in fact, a lie.
curious
December 19th, 2012
11:02 am
There are provisions to transfer Class 3 wepons to family members when the registered owner dies.
No reason it can’t be done for all registered weapons.
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2012
11:04 am
indigo,
You’ll have to take up your whining with the gun mfgers.
Welcome to the Occupation
December 19th, 2012
11:04 am
The conservatives are ultimately OK with continuing to be complicit with the conditions that allow events like the 20 slaughtered kids in Connecticut to grow ever more frequent, though it may send a shiver of trouble through the depths of their souls for just a moment, because in the end doing everything possible to prevent the slaughter is 20 young kids is less important than keeping that thumb right in the eye of that phantom enemy, the ‘liberals’.
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:04 am
Well, after getting on here and pounding his chest about people who run away when challenged to debate, it looks like Kammypoo decided to………..
Run away.
Poor little Kammy. Looks like Ben really peed in his cornflakes.
GT
December 19th, 2012
11:05 am
Thulsa Doom it ain’t libs blowing away 20 school kids and more teachers. I don’t know how you define kook but that is a soft word for how I define these gun nuts you bred on that side of the aisle and then you try to defend them with our constitution.
HDB
December 19th, 2012
11:06 am
Here’s an idea that many won’t think about…..
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/would_the_u_s_government_profile_white_men/singleton/
williebkind
December 19th, 2012
11:06 am
“End result is the same: 20 slaughtered bodies of small children that had to be cleaned up and buried in Connecticut. ”
Killed by a liberal from a liberal community! It is a tragedy and horrible.
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2012
11:06 am
“They also like to call people “liar” without ever pointing out a lie and/or substantiating that anything was, in fact, a lie.”- straight from lib debating tactics 101.
JamVet
December 19th, 2012
11:06 am
willie, read my 10:34 to you.
It applies to your 10:58.
And Benji, you too are in way, way, way over your head.
In this day and age, ONLY simpeltons/Republicans deny the basic premise of anthropogenic climate change.
But you know that and don’t care.
Fine by me.
You have become the laughingstocks of not just the country, but the world.
Keep up the good work, Intelligent Designers.
Well, the Obama Recovery calls and it’s time to be a good little capitalist. Then off to the gym and some shopping.
Toodles, all…
williebkind
December 19th, 2012
11:07 am
GT:
Thulsa Doom it ain’t libs blowing away 20 school kids and more teachers”
I challenge that statement! It was a liberal from a liberal community.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 19th, 2012
11:08 am
And just like Pavlov did with the dog, I can make Ben spit foam all over his keyboard.
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2012
11:09 am
“I don’t know how you define kook but that is a soft word for how I define these gun nuts you bred on that side of the aisle and then you try to defend them with our constitution.”
GT, well now there is this tidbit in the constitution called the 2nd amendment. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. It relates to them “gun nuts”.
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:09 am
Liberals claim to be all about science….
And cling to the notion that flimsy evidence of correlation PROVES causation, beyond a doubt.
I guess that’s why they’re not bright enough to provide their own health care, retirement income, jobs, etc….
curious
December 19th, 2012
11:09 am
Too bad many of the conservatives in Congress and here aren’t demanding answers and solutions as they did after Benghazi.
I guess 20, 5-7 year olds, shot multiple times, don’t rate as high as those adults, paid to be in harm’s way, in Benghazi.
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:10 am
Anybody seen Kamchak?
DownInAlbany
December 19th, 2012
11:10 am
Welcome to the Occupation
December 19th, 2012
11:04 am
The conservatives are ultimately OK with continuing to be complicit with the conditions that allow events like the 20 slaughtered kids in Connecticut to grow ever more frequent, though it may send a shiver of trouble through the depths of their souls for just a moment, because in the end doing everything possible to prevent the slaughter is 20 young kids is less important than keeping that thumb right in the eye of that phantom enemy, the ‘liberals’.
Show me where I EVER said I was ok with the slaughter of children or admit that you are a liar!
(works for Fred, I thought, what the heck?)
Erwin's cat
December 19th, 2012
11:10 am
By 1982, more than 21,000 Americans were dying each year in alcohol-related accidents. Yet somehow by 2010, the number of fatalities caused by drunk driving had fallen to 10,228, a decline of more than half.
You don’t think automobile safety technology improvements had anything to do with that drop do ya? SRS systems weren’t yet implemented until the late 80’s.We likely issue more DUI’s now than ever, so the law isn’t the deterrent
Regnad Kcin
December 19th, 2012
11:11 am
“OK, Kammy, tell us what it really means and tells us whether you’re in favor of it or opposed to it.”
Ben – whenever you lose an argument, you deflect to this. Is this all you’ve got? Sheesh.
Fred ™
December 19th, 2012
11:11 am
DowninAlbany: Perhaps I was a bit harsh. I just get tired of the one size fits all stupid statements which to me indicate a total lack of thought. If you know any counselors or psychologists ask them about using words like all, none, always, and never. Absolutes in other words.
Do I have a hair trigger sometimes? Yeah I do. I am way PAST sick and tired of being called a “libruul” and a democrat because I don’t walk lockstep with that ignorant lying trash that FOXBOTS and folks like Rush spew. Hell, THEY don’t believe that crap either, they just get rich off it.
At times the difference between real people and trolls blurs. I will try to not be such a dick to you and give you more benefit of the doubt. Maybe we can go shooting sometime lol. The trap shooting at Wolf Creek is great……… (hell, they just changed their name.)
http://www.atlantaskeetshooting.com/
MiltonMan
December 19th, 2012
11:11 am
“If someone wants to sell an existing assault weapon, they can sell only to the government.”
And what exactly does the government do with it? Introduce it to a “Fast & Furious” type program???
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2012
11:11 am
HDB,
I’m in agreement with that. Lets put together a racial profile of whoever does the most gun related killing in the U.S. And then lets use that profile. You down with that?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
11:12 am
RGB:
As usual this debate narrows down to emotion vs. reason.
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:13 am
“Ben – whenever you lose an argument, you deflect to this. Is this all you’ve got? Sheesh.”
Ummmm, a couple of points…
1) I didn’t lose an argument (or maybe you can point to one?)
2) Kammy said cons run away when challenged. And then he……ran away.
Kammy has been exposed for what he really is. An intellectual coward. Well, really just a coward. He ain’t much of an intellectual.
Partisay
December 19th, 2012
11:14 am
williebkind
December 19th, 2012
10:49 am
First and foremost you dont need a law just a teacher or Principle will suspend you on the spot. Of course in the Education world most of those are liberals.
________________________________________________________________________________
First off, teachers don’t suspend students. Principals, the administrators, do that. Second, have you any evidence or examples of a student being suspended for “praying” at school? I work in education – yes I’m a teacher – and have never seen it even come close to that.
And I noticed how in your previous example you had the student standning up and holding their arms upward and praying out loud. Do they HAVE to pray out loud, and stand up, for their prayers to be heard??? I think silent prayers work too.
But even it a student did do that, that would be fine, as long as it didn’t disturb the class. It amazes me how you think religion is actually treated in school. At our ballgames, we have a moment of silence and the players say the Lord’s Prayer out loud (not school led – they do it on their own).
But I’m sure you will be posting later how those students were ALL suspended by some liberal teacher!!
James
December 19th, 2012
11:14 am
jay,
Most of what you suggest would be accepted by Americans; however, the requirement of registering existing firearms would be extremely difficult. There is a huge fear … whether rational or not…it exist…that the government would at some point confiscate weapons. Closing the loophole for background checks is a no brainer.
The biggest problem is the mental health issue. In case people are unaware, psychologist are not required to report information into a central data base to track individuals with mental health issues. If mental health professions were required to report to a central data base, those individuals could be prevented from purchasing a firearm. Nevertheless, will individual avoid mental health counseling if they know the information will be reported? This issue cannot be corrected quickly. There is not a quick, fix all solution.
Banning “assault weapons” will never work. The method for defining “assault weapons” is totally flawed.
indigo
December 19th, 2012
11:14 am
williebkind
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Scientists-agree-Humans-causing-global-warming-1227187.php
There’s no more time for your ignorance.
RGB
December 19th, 2012
11:15 am
If guns were outlawed, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman would be alive today.
MiltonMan
December 19th, 2012
11:15 am
“Too bad many of the conservatives in Congress and here aren’t demanding answers and solutions as they did after Benghazi.
I guess 20, 5-7 year olds, shot multiple times, don’t rate as high as those adults, paid to be in harm’s way, in Benghazi”
Good God. Nothing like blaming the cons for the murder of these innocent kids in a very, very liberal state that have some of the toughest gun laws in America. Also, just ignore the fact that the liberal governor refused to pass a mental health/illness law in the state that possibly could have locked up this nut.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 19th, 2012
11:16 am
How funny, the little boy who claimed that there were MARTA bus drivers earning over $100k in salary (not OT, etc) and yet has never provided evidence and just made it up, is challenging others not to run away.
stands for decibels
December 19th, 2012
11:16 am
Someone mention Bork?
Rude Pundit’s already done a touching obit. And yes, it is on-topic.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
11:16 am
“Stevie Ray, you’re correct about those “defensive gun use” statistics being total BS. I may eventually do a whole post on this question, but for the moment, let’s handle it in comments.”
Jay:
Please do that post and refine those “wounding/shooting at” statistics in a FACTUAL manner.
Then after you have done that please include:
1) The number of times a perpetrator was stopped from committing a crime because someone “pointed” a weapon at them.
2) The number of times a perpetrator was stopped from committing a crime because
he “saw” someone with a weapon ready to defend themselves.
3) The number of times a perpetrator was stopped from committing a crime because
he “thought” someone might have a weapon to defend themselves.
Thank you in advance.
indigo
December 19th, 2012
11:17 am
Welcome – 11:00
100% correct
You said it better than I could.
Fred ™
December 19th, 2012
11:17 am
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:02 am
“Watch, he’ll start calling you names, too!”
We expect libs to call people names. It’s sort of a crutch for the intellectually inept. They also like to call people “liar” without ever pointing out a lie and/or substantiating that anything was, in fact, a lie.
+++++++++++++++++
Calling me a lib was a lie. That was easy. But for the post you refer to? He said:
Let me throw this out there to all of you advocating the licensing of guns. You want to license guns and or gunowners, but, you fight against voter i.d. laws.
I advocate licensing guns and I NEVER fight against voter ID laws. He said ALL OF YOU. It is obviously a lie is it not? When you say something that isn’t true it’s a lie right? Huh? Come on now, man up and admit you were wrong.
Crap, what am I doing/ you won’t admit anything, you just troll and I’m stupid for playing your game. Meaningful discussion is NOT what you seek here. Quite the contrary, you seek to disrupt any meaningful discussion.
Where’s my sign?
curious
December 19th, 2012
11:17 am
Milton man
No blame, just wondering where the outrage is.
If we do nothing and it happens again, then I say blame is in order.
Kamchak - "Socialism" is just a code word for "fear," the monster under you bed ~ Kamchak
December 19th, 2012
11:18 am
Anybody seen Kamchak?
I’m right here, Ben.
Socialism — BOO!
Are ya skeeered yet?
Redcoat
December 19th, 2012
11:18 am
I wonder if our elite will want their security without firearms? Come on elite, set the example…..give peace a chance!……
DownInAlbany
December 19th, 2012
11:18 am
Fred, just for the record I don’t watch Fox News (anymore) and have NEVER listened to Rush. As far as the “absolutes”…I know all about them. I’ve been married for 30 years and should probably apply that wisdom when posting here!.
I agree with the “librul” vs “conservative” names we each get tagged with.
I can’t afford the Wolf Creek’s of the world. Heck, we have a skeet thrower mounted to a piece of scrap plywood that we shoot over the pond because the targets are not good for the lifestock! So, if you are ever down this way…
Have a good one!
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:18 am
“Calling me a lib was a lie.”
LMFAO
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:19 am
“Are ya skeeered yet?”
No.
Another episode of one-word answers to stupid lib questions.
Fred ™
December 19th, 2012
11:19 am
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:04 am
Well, after getting on here and pounding his chest about people who run away when challenged to debate, it looks like Kammypoo decided to………..
Run away.
Poor little Kammy. Looks like Ben really peed in his cornflakes.
++++++++++++++++++
Your desire for “victory” is sad. Kam lives in the sticks and his connection is slower than your thought processes. It takes him a while up there in hillbilly land to refresh.
I know that’s tough for you to understand, but try because it will make your silly crowing look less stupid to the rest of us.
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2012
11:19 am
“If we do nothing and it happens again, then I say blame is in order”
And who will you blame if we do something…and it happens again?
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:20 am
“I wonder if our elite will want their security without firearms?”
Oh sure. They’ll enroll their kids in public schools too.
stands for decibels
December 19th, 2012
11:21 am
first we had:
kook liberals
[...]
the kooks start foaming at the mouth
[...]
Kammy has been exposed for what he really is. An intellectual coward. Well, really just a coward.
and then the coup d’ merde:
We expect libs to call people names. It’s sort of a crutch for the intellectually inept.
Like you said: “you can’t make this stuff up.”
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 19th, 2012
11:21 am
As usual this debate narrows down to emotion vs. reason
This from a poster who uses only fear and emotions without reason as he cries out….Wolverine! As if the second amendment was intended to fight our own government, police, soldiers, Natl Guard and other citizens when at some unclear point with undefined events creating a tyrannical govt as if every nut case does not create their own little whine about tryanny and what constitutes it…
Of course, he also claims to believe everything he reads in news reports…..
too little time
December 19th, 2012
11:21 am
“If you make gun owners and sellers financially liable for any damage done with their weapons, you create a market-based incentive to be responsible.”
Hmm.. fantastic idea Jay. Let’s expand that:
If you make the food companies and the obese financially liable for their heart disease and diabetes, you create a market based incentive eat responsibly.
If you make welfare recipients (including food stamps, welfare and the earned income tax credit) financially liable for any additional children that they have while receiving government support, you create a market based incentive to behave responsibly.
Shall we hold pool manufacturers, public water utilities, and pool owners responsible for all drownings?
Shall we hold car manufacturers and parts companies responsible for the acts of drunk drivers?
Shall I continue, or is the absurdity of the proposition clear enough for you? Holding the supply chain for a “thing”, that may be good or evil or neutral, responsible for it’s subsequent use leads to severe unintended consequences. Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it.
Redcoat
December 19th, 2012
11:21 am
Democrats/Liberals are in charge of labeling and defining……..
JamVet
December 19th, 2012
11:21 am
“Flimsy evidence”.
HUGE LOL!!!
Gawd help me but I truly do love reading such staggering stupidity and unabashed lying from this Republican.
Now, I am out the door…
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 19th, 2012
11:22 am
Ben – whenever you lose an argument, you deflect to this. Is this all you’ve got? Sheesh.
Regnad
Ben has been chasing me around with this sh*t ever since the days of CT’s old blog. I enjoy making him spew foam
Regnad Kcin
December 19th, 2012
11:22 am
“If guns were outlawed, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman would be alive today”
RGB – is your point that outlawing guns (which no one is proposing), would not stop every murder in the world? Well, thanks for your input, I guess. Out of school on winter vacation, I take it?
HDB
December 19th, 2012
11:22 am
Thulsa Doom
December 19th, 2012
11:11 am
Doomy…the problem with profiling is that it makes several assumptions that….in many cases…aren’t in evidence!! The article would lead one to believe that those that need to be profiled in situations like this are primarily white men….but would white men allow themselves to be profiled in such a manner?? Doubtful….but white men want black men to be persistently profiled under the guise of crime prevention!! That’s why…IMHO…profiling DOESN’T work!! There has to be another methodology at work here……..
curious
December 19th, 2012
11:22 am
Doggone
We, collectively, as a Nation.
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:22 am
Fred, why don’t you let little Kammypoo grow a pair and speak for himself.
stands for decibels
December 19th, 2012
11:23 am
Hmm.. fantastic idea Jay. Let’s expand that:
Blogspot.com is ready when you are.
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2012
11:24 am
“We, collectively, as a Nation”
We, collectively, as a Nation would not be guilty. Why not just blame yourself?
Fred ™
December 19th, 2012
11:25 am
Show me where I EVER said I was ok with the slaughter of children or admit that you are a liar!
(works for Fred, I thought, what the heck?)
BOOM BABY!!!!!!!!!!!! Now you see. When folks write absolutes they by definition HAVE to lie. So now don’t do it in your writing. I try not to, but I get caught out every once in a while.
You see, when you start thinking about not using absolutes, then you START thinking harder about what you are writing. When you do that you have a tendency to see that what you were GOING to write sounded pretty stupid (Like Welcomes notion that “cons” want to kill little babies).
Ha, I’m getting you to open your mind. my work here is done today.
MiltonMan
December 19th, 2012
11:25 am
“Milton man
No blame, just wondering where the outrage is.
If we do nothing and it happens again, then I say blame is in order.”
Bush absolutly did nothing; Obama could have attempted to extend/renew the 1994 AR ban but did not put any effort into this but now is all of sudden interested??? Nothing like having a reactive vs. proactive government.
HDB
December 19th, 2012
11:25 am
“If guns were outlawed, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman would be alive today”
Better recheck that….Nicole Simpson had her throat slit; she was almost decapitated….and Ron Goldman was persistently STABBED to death……guns weren’t a factor here!!!
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
11:26 am
MiltonMan:
“If someone wants to sell an existing assault weapon, they can sell only to the government.”
And what exactly does the government do with it? Introduce it to a “Fast & Furious” type program???”
As I posted previously today, that was one of the more ludicrous positions that Jay took in this thread.
Congress can pass an “assault weapons ban” (as they have before) and it will probably (if reasonable) pass Constitutional muster.
However, banning the sale of a product that is now LEGAL I believe would be similar if not identical with the prohibition problem years ago. That can only be done with a Constitutional Amendment because to “ban the sale of what is now a legal product” would be unconstitutional.
That’s why under the old law banning the new manufacturing of “assault weapons” there was (to my knowledge) no ban on the sale of existing ones.
In general, “ex post facto” laws are unconstitutional.
“In the United States, the Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10.”
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
“Definition: The legal term ex post facto (”after the fact”) generally refers to laws or other mandates that are passed to restrict behavior that was, when practiced, entirely legal.”
Jay
December 19th, 2012
11:26 am
Ben, grow up. Discuss issues, not personalities.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 19th, 2012
11:26 am
Doom — ““They also like to call people “liar” without ever pointing out a lie and/or substantiating that anything was, in fact, a lie.”- straight from lib debating tactics 101.”
Bookmarked for future use.
Regnad Kcin
December 19th, 2012
11:27 am
too little – an issue with your argument is that, in each case you posit, you’re citing an unfortunate side effect, not the purpose of the object/product in question.
In the case of assault rifles, their sole purpose is to kill a lot of people, quickly.
Now, I’ don’t know enough about this proposed “liability” idea to know whether I like it or not, but your knee-juerk reaction suggests that you’re not open to any kind of debate on these issues. That’s cool, but please try to use a more rational argument.
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:27 am
“Ben has been chasing me around with this sh*t ever since the days of CT’s old blog. I enjoy making him spew foam”
Kammy,
The entire blogosphere has seen you for what you really are. But don’t worry. In kook libland, you’ll still get a trophy, just like all the other losers.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
11:27 am
Oh Jaaaaayyyyyy:
In general, “ex post facto” laws are unconstitutional.
“In the United States, the Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10.”
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
“Definition: The legal term ex post facto (”after the fact”) generally refers to laws or other mandates that are passed to restrict behavior that was, when practiced, entirely legal.”
getalife
December 19th, 2012
11:28 am
cons are kooks and proud of it.
When they stop being kooks, we can start taking them seriously and we are a long way from that.
Erwin's cat
December 19th, 2012
11:28 am
people don’t misspell words…pencils do!
heck even the auto correct on my phone can create a bigger misunderstanding my misspellings
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 19th, 2012
11:29 am
Jay:
“Ben, grow up. Discuss issues, not personalities.”
There are many others on here you need to admonish since you have picked on Ben.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 19th, 2012
11:29 am
Kam lives in the sticks and his connection is slower than your thought processes.
Ben is as slow as dial-up. I like that, Fred.
Actually, I just back in late last night. Text me and we’ll meet up for a beer or three.
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:29 am
Jay,
Seriously.
Read back a few posts. JamVet called me a dumbass, several called me a liar, etc. I absolutely don’t care what names they call me, I’m fine with it. Just curious that I’m the one you seem to have a problem with, that’s all.
Jay
December 19th, 2012
11:29 am
Scout, you don’t have the slightest idea of what you’re talking about.
curious
December 19th, 2012
11:30 am
MiltonMan
“Bush absolutly did nothing; Obama could have attempted to extend/renew the 1994 AR ban but did not put any effort into this but now is all of sudden interested??? Nothing like having a reactive vs. proactive government.”
Usually things/laws happen as a reaction to some event.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 19th, 2012
11:30 am
Someone is trying to practice law again without their license. Perhaps they need to learn how ex post facto laws are interpreted…..
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 19th, 2012
11:31 am
YELLOW CARD!
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:31 am
Here you go Jay…
JamVet
December 19th, 2012
10:26 am
So by all means, I encourage you to sit on your plump arses in the stands and b*tch like little old women.
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:33 am
Here you go, Jay…
JamVet
December 19th, 2012
10:37 am
Benji, you do play the role of clown well, but you really could use something else to expand on your dumbass role here.
GT
December 19th, 2012
11:33 am
Williebkind if he is one of us I turn him over no defense for what he has done. I take away his right to bear arms and I don’t cower behind an amendment. If I can do anything to save the next set of children your gun lobby is frying right now I will do it, including dying myself. Screw this fighting foreign wars of no consequence here is a war that affect our country and you cower away from it. Where is the bravado the swagger you show against made up enemies when you have a boat load of them right here in this country you could unarm today?
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:33 am
Jay, I’m really busy, but if you need help moderating your blog, I might be persuaded.
Jay
December 19th, 2012
11:33 am
LSD was legal in this country for 30 years. Did they have to pass a constitutional amendment to make it ILLEGAL?
It’s a profoundly silly argument.
Welcome to the Occupation
December 19th, 2012
11:34 am
A mother with four gunshot wounds to the head, administered by her son on his way to gun down little children at the nearby school.
20 young children lie dead at the school.
Profits still look good for the gun makers and their Wall St./private equity owners.
Hold all these images firmly in your mind, conservatives. They belong together like America and apple pie.
Don’t be mad that we point out these connections, good liberal-haters. Just accept them as belonging together and go about your business. You can’t have one without the other and the “market” has clearly spoken, right?
RF
December 19th, 2012
11:35 am
“because at the end of the day, the liberals must be defied, that’s the important thing.”
Well that about sums up the discussion here…
Just as a car is a dangerous thing that we have insurance to cover, how about we make gun owners add a rider to their homeowner’s policy or buy a separate policy to cover the guns in the household?
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:35 am
Here’s some more, Jay…
JamVet
December 19th, 2012
10:34 am
I have noticed that you are an idiot and an inveterate liar.
How do we address this, willie?
curious
December 19th, 2012
11:35 am
Jay,
how about a vote on whether or not Ben should be banned?
Joe Hussein Mama
December 19th, 2012
11:35 am
0311 — “In general, “ex post facto” laws are unconstitutional.
“In the United States, the Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10.”
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
You misunderstand. In this case, an ex post facto law would criminalize PAST activity, making you liable for the past purchase of something that was legal at the time.
Making the sale of such weapons illegal NOW would force you to *retain* the weapon, but you’d be unable to sell it. That said, such a law wouldn’t be ex post facto, because it’s not concerned with what you did *before* the law was passed.
Rick C
December 19th, 2012
11:35 am
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801, what about the controlled substances act, and every drug that has been made illegal?
Partisay
December 19th, 2012
11:36 am
There have been MANY things that were legal that are now illegal. A constitutional amendment to make them illegal?? I think not…
Fred ™
December 19th, 2012
11:37 am
I can’t afford the Wolf Creek’s of the world. Heck, we have a skeet thrower mounted to a piece of scrap plywood that we shoot over the pond because the targets are not good for the lifestock! So, if you are ever down this way…
LOL Until I went to Wolf Creek this summer, that is the only way I had ever shot skeet myself. The pond is a great “clean up tool.’
I’ll take you up on that offer if I can fish the pond too. There isn’t’ anything worth fishing here.
(I procrastinated again, decided to have a bowl of beans and cornbread before going off to do my chores
)
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:37 am
Welcome, did you hear anybody argue in favor of guns based on economic/profit issues? I haven’t. All the arguments I have heard were based on Constitutional principals.
Jay
December 19th, 2012
11:37 am
No, Ben. I don’t need your help. Perhaps you should go start your own blog and you can moderate both of the people who will read it and comment there.
Doggone/GA
December 19th, 2012
11:37 am
“how about a vote on whether or not Ben should be banned?”
How about a vote on whether or not we think your scroll wheel is broken?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 19th, 2012
11:37 am
how about a vote on whether or not Ben should be banned?
This blog is not a democracy but a benevolent dictatorship, but in any case I would vote “no”.
john
December 19th, 2012
11:39 am
so according to bookman they guy that prevented the massacre in san antonio was playing john wayne. thank GOD he was there with a gun instead of unarmed like bookman would prefer.
getalife
December 19th, 2012
11:40 am
Biden takes the lead on guns and a MADD program is coming.
Like with drunk driving, it was all fun and games until the children got massacred.
indigo
December 19th, 2012
11:41 am
Many Blacks are so filled with hatred that they will “stick it to whitey” every chance they get.
Many cons are so filled with hatred that they will “stick it to the libs” every chance they get.
This sort of blind hatred leaves both groups vunerable to manipulation
by powerful, intelligent and sociopathic groups who cultivate and direct this hatred for their own selfish interests.
Unfortunately, it’s next to impossible to convince these Blacks and lib haters that they are being used and are nothing more than tools for these sociopathic groups.
Thomas Heyward Jr
December 19th, 2012
11:42 am
By the way……some States forbid DUI checkpoints.
.
….salute……………….
.
but anyway—-Hillary Clinton, the lead Presidential Democratic Party candidate, wants to ban all guns in America.
She is considered by those who have dealt with her, as a little more than just a little self-righteous.
At a recent rural elementary school meeting in north Florida, she asked the audience for total quiet. Then, in the silence, she started to slowly clap her hands, once every few seconds, holding the audience in total silence. Then she said into the microphone, “Every time I clap my hands, a child in America dies from gun violence.”
Just then, a young voice, with a proud southern accent, (probably Johnny) pierced the quiet…
“Well stop clappin dummy——
Ben Shockley
December 19th, 2012
11:43 am
Jay
December 19th, 2012
11:37 am
“No, Ben. I don’t need your help. Perhaps you should go start your own blog and you can moderate both of the people who will read it and comment there.”
Nah, I like screwing with the kook libs on your blog. Thanks for the offer though.
Oh…nice double standard on the name-calling, by the way.
DownInAlbany
December 19th, 2012
11:44 am
Fred ™
December 19th, 2012
11:37 am
I’ll take you up on that offer if I can fish the pond too. There isn’t’ anything worth fishing here.
The fishing used to be really good, but, the lack of rain has the ponds at an all time low (forgive the “all” there, haha) and the water is about as clear as spring water!
Corbin Sharpe. Baby Boomer...and Ban the Gun Thug!
December 19th, 2012
11:44 am
“how about a vote on whether or not Ben should be banned?”
I’d vote “No”, too. I like having Ben around. Whenever I’m feeling down, I get to remind myself at least I’m not him…good for my moral, don’t cha know?
GT
December 19th, 2012
11:45 am
Ben Shockley your type have proven you don’t know what the truth is, so to judge any man on something you lack yourself is a foolish proposition. You have found loopholes and rearranging the voting of American citizens to hide your reality challenged lives but this great country overcomes ,that what we do best. We made room for nuts and liars even you Mr. Shockley, even you.