1. Sorry, Joe, I don’t think that legislators who put their party before their country are hardly rational. There is little common ground between Sen. Cornyn and Sen. Murphy because I have watched them for a while. I also disagree that this is simply a political issue when it is mostly a corruption issue. The NRA owns these senators because they bought and paid for them.

    1. Please read this!
      Everyone agrees there is a need to protect the general public from individuals armed with high-capacity weapons. For the last two decades we have seen an escalation of attacks by people armed with weapons of military capacity, assault rifles only one example. In the meantime, the Second Amendment has been often cited as the document establishing the right for citizens to own arms. There have been many interpretations by various individuals of what those rights entail. The most extreme view is there should be NO restriction on owning guns because the Second Amendment says so.
      Here is the entire second amendment:
      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed on.”
      As the first thing mentioned in the Second Amendment is the intent to have ‘regulated’ people under the canopy of ‘Militia’ able to defend the nation, a precedent is set to specify gun ownership under this canopy of the militia as an agent of national security.
      A militia as defined by the dictionary is: “a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to be called on in an emergency; a body of citizens organized for military service.” It is impossible to be a “well organized” anything without regulations, which the Second Amendment gives the government the right and obligation to do.
      Militias have been an integral part of our nation’s defense for a large part of our history up to this day. No one can deny the effect they have had on our history and personal outlook of the individual being involved in our defense. With that said, in the past their effectiveness came from the serious efforts citizens put into organizing and coordinating their efforts with the government in times of crisis. The greatest examples of home grown American militias were made in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Even Teddy Roosevelt organized the famous ‘Rough Riders’ as a militia.
      Things have changed since the Second Amendment was written. There can be no doubt that there are now weapons for different things, just like most tools. There are guns to hunt that are designed to be effective for different size game, conditions and purposes. Any knowledgeable hunter is aware that having the right gun is crucial for success. Assault rifles with high capacity clips and rapped fire, often able to be made fully automatic, are not chosen by serious hunters. Pistols with massive clip capacity are not the gun of choice for hunting. Automatic weapons of any kind are simply not for hunting or even sport. Armaments simply have become specialized.

      It can be agreed there are guns for hunting and sport and guns for killing and injuring people. Weapons that are only designed for killing and injuring people should fall into the ‘military category’ and thus should be considered military equipment. Within the frame work of the Bill of Rights Second Amendment the government should, and there is a powerful argument for being required to, address these weapons under the canopy of militias.
      By making a uniformed policy governing militias, there can be passed provisions to address all such weapons that fall into the military category and still protect the individual the right to “bear Arms”, even military ones. By requiring all military level weapons to be under the canopy of militias, there can be an accounting of these weapons and their owners. This would uphold the Second Amendment and fulfill the government’s responsibility to regulate them for the nation’s defense and protection of its citizens.
      By requiring anyone who presently owns such military weapons to form a militia, provisions can be made to know how many weapons are available for national defense while giving the proper status to their owners. The membership of the militia can vary from one or more.
      Here is what’s being proposed: issue permits to anybody who request one and give instant approval to the applicant as soon as it is properly filled out and filed with the government for a nominal fee. In that permit there is to be a list of all military grade weapons and whoever is authorized by the militia to use them included by named. The amount of ammunition and support equipment is also inventoried. If, in the future, any properly permitted militia wants to add to their arsenal a simple form listing the weapon(s), ammunition or support equipment added is required to be updated by the vendor. This will provide instant documentation of the purchase to the government’s data bank.
      Included in the militia provision members need to participate in training exercises on a regular basis. These training exercises should be done with other militias. This will economize training while at the same time coordinate vital resources and personal connections in the community for a unifying effect. These training sessions can, and should be, coordinated with the regular military and reserves, again to improve and perfect readiness. Being involved with each other will eventually bring attention to any individual or group that is displaying troubling tendencies. Such regular training will be a requirement for a militia to keep its permit. Any militia who does not, or cannot, meet the required terms called for under the regulations can lose their permit. In the case of an individual not able to give proper supervision of the weapons they can be stored at a secure armory, supervised by adequate security.
      Safety training can be emphasized, ‘real time’ training can be both participated in and observed to improve the skills of militiamen and provide crisis training to people right in their own communities. Twice a year field training; twice a year class room training would be a good start. Requiring that every militia has to have a running list of inventory that is to be made available for review by anyone asking, government employee or private citizen, will allow for transparency. Being transparent should be a part of these militias because they will be a part of the community.

      Every county could have a citizen director providing assistance to any militia requesting it. A director could organize volunteers to provide community support, such as use of land for training or food provided while training. The director can help coordinate with the military and reserves to share resources and be a channel to connect everyone together in time of a crisis.
      After a given time, say two years from being announced, anyone holding military grade weapons or ammunition without a properly submitted permit is outside of the law and can be subject to arrest and weapon seizure. At the same time if a properly permitted militia wants to add to its arsenal it should be able to apply for military surplus at reduced rates as long as the military deems supplies are needed in the area for national defense. That could open the door for a greater variety of support equipment to be an option for the militias to have on hand in case of emergency.
      Of course the deployment of any Militia would only be within the borders of the USA.
      Our nation has had a long standing tradition for the last 240+ years to have and maintain healthy local militias. Continuing that tradition while adjusting for obvious changes is logical. Having a well-organized force of citizens could take the pressure off some of our military and give something for the President to show the rest of the world as an asset for national defense. The militias can be a place where veterans can share their training and experiences with people who have never experienced war.
      ‘We the people” have a lot of potential to influence the nation; this is just another way to make sure our presence is felt. We cannot have Democracy without the Demo, the people, involved. Knowing where the most powerful weapons owned by civilians are and helping their owners become as effective as possible defending the nation while providing a means to control their use is the aim of this proposal. Our forefathers wanted us to be able to defend ourselves. Having a “well regulated Militia” is one of the best ways to insure defense of citizens while keeping these powerful weapons out of the hands of unstable people or groups.
      Keeping the whole amendment in context gives us the base to establish regulations to benefit us all.

  2. Basically what I hear from one side is that we have to learn to accept mass shootings and children dying to “keep freedom” so instead of passing laws of comprehensive background checks, comprehensive training, and sensible reforms, I guess we need to just get used to it. Unfortunately nothing will change. I myself am a gun owner, and gun lover. But not everyone should have a gun.

    1. @GA Raise it to 25. Mental illnesses such as schizophrenia very often present by the early 20’s. It’s science.

    1. ummm, I have been voting for 40 years and it has changed nothing…it really is of no consequence who we elect. Especially is representation is what you think you are choosing…you are not doing that,as far as I can tell.

    1. Because your definition of “fix” is probably highly oppressive and unconstitutional.

    1. @Emsley Wyatt But so is restricted by government and controlled and trained militias of the government. That’s in the Constitution too. It was never meant to be a single person or unsupervised groups making up their own militia’s. It was always to be government run and government supplied militia trained against foreign Insurrectionists against the United States back in developmental America.

    2. @Justan American Hi, after reading your comment I was thinking would it not be easier just to have the State Governor “call on the militia”, which would automatically force all gun owners into the state national guard, state defense force, or coast guard. It sounds like you are re-inventing the wheel. Those militia groups already do what you are suggesting and were created from the second amendment.

    3. @Dark Knight if the SCOTUS were politically disposed to support the gun manufacturers.. one might define well regulated that way. And it has. But you will argue to the grave that WELL REGULATED MILITIA is a meaningless phrase. Because you have to … to defend your quaint view.

  3. Joe Manchin has said he would do anything in his power to help implement common sense gun legislation. Except of course break the sacred filibuster.

  4. Headline: “‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.” -The Onion

  5. Amen! As a long time gun owner, I yearn for the days of yore when there were background checks, you couldn’t keep a loaded gun in the car, permits and training were required for concealed carry, no open carry, no assault weapons ( and they are weapons). People still had guns but there were restrictions.

    1. @33 None no what? it’s true, what was the definition of an assault weapon then? Look it up

    2. @Cool Cat you can still buy ar15s and ak47 during then, they are lying to you. As long as it didn’t have a threaded barrel and adjustable stock. If you are a gun person you would know that

    3. @Justin Abroad in the mid 90s Woolworths sold SKSs
      Strange how all of a sudden thete is a huge jump in mass shootings.

  6. I appreciate SE’s evolution on this issue. Perhaps the first solution could be Congress outlawing political contributions from gun manufacturers and gun lobbies to political campaigns. When someone like Mitt Romney takes any money from the NRA we have a morality problem in Congress. Why are corporations and lobbying groups able to give large amounts of money to politicians, but individuals are limited in the amount they can give? If corporations are people too then they should be held to the same limits as the rest of us. When these people aren’t bought and paid for maybe they’ll put actual people instead of paper people first. If dead children shot to bits don’t become the primary motivation for politicians, then they are the ones who are dead inside. And if America voted their conscience instead of their tribe, maybe more of us would not be killed by opioids, COVID, and gun violence.

    1. @Mel Gillham Oath of office? They still support their Dear Leader, who pissed all over his oath of office as soon as he took it!
      Oath of office.. how quaint!🤣😢

    2. @Mr. Mag Nificent You justify the existence of the SHOW LESS button. Fake first premise… and then you build a house of cards sounding logical.

    3. @Mr. Mag Nificent Did you watch this segment by S E Cupp. Your reply is not to her commentary which blows your boat out of the water… but I can see you will fume and filibuster til you walk into the wrong… grocery store… theatre concert park school. Nice disguise Mr Reasonable.

  7. I remember my gun-owning uncles & cousin’s back in the 60’s & 70’s. Gun ownership wasn’t a culture. Gun’s we’re the most dangerous tools, to be handled rarely & with respect. The gun didn’t make the man – it enabled him to add food to the larder. So many have allowed themselves to be manipulated by political and financial operatives – who don’t give a da** about their constituents. The powerful are not in danger of being gunned down in the grocery store. Nor are their privately schooled children in danger. They stoke the masses with fear, rage, & grievance – & take it to the bank.

    1. Guns & ammo being anything less than an affordable convenience store item is a loss for the money making gun industry, plain and simple.

    2. That’s why it’s so sad to see the family Christmas card w guns—by members of the legislature.

  8. I’m in the same situation and of the same mind, a vet a hunter, gun owner who thinks that if you can’t pass a background check, that you’ve already shown yourself to be a danger to those around you, we’re not giving you the responsibility of gun ownership. I am also one of many who see no need for military weapons in the civilian world. If you feel the need to have military grade weapons to defend yourself, you are very likely on the wrong side of the law.

    The easiest solution I see is to Rewrite the machine gun act to include all military style weapons.

    You can still have them, but you have got to pass an intensive background check and prove that you have a need; ie that you are in law enforcement or a military contractor.

    1. @David Reynolds Places like Switzerland dont restrict guns and they haven’t had an incident since 2010, which was rare and they made changes immediately that obviously worked.
      I agree, there is no reason to walk down the street with rifles and kevalar…that is gun nut “look at me” crap. Concealed carry only and only if licensed.

    2. @Justin Abroad In the good ole days we didn’t sit on are a$$e$ and play shootem up bang bang games on the computer all day long. We went out and worked., because our parents wouldn’t hand us everything like yours probably have, You have so much to learn I hope one day you get there. You may be the problem.

    3. @Scortd Swiss gun laws are restrictive on high capacity magazines and concealed carry permits are fairly rare. Gun culture is basically military service, hunting and target shooting. There isn’t an emphasis on carrying weapons daily or home defence. It’s a far healthier relationship with guns.
      You also must remember that Switzerland is a very wealthy country with universal healthcare. People will get help.

    4. I agree with everything you’re saying, but the other side would say if you give an inch they’ll take a mile. They’re claim isn’t based on any real info though. Plus most home defense situations have used pistols or shotguns. I think less than 10% use rifles and of that I bet barely any have used an assault rifle or an AR-15.

  9. I’ll believe gun owners care about gun violence when I start to see significant amounts of fear from Republican lawmakers for not doing anything about it. Until I can see that fear in their eyes of losing their seats, it’s all talk.

  10. I appreciate your view on this issue, responsible gun owners want this legislation in place. You’re right they need us!!✌🏼

  11. “A real interest in change, without people who represent us motivated by politics and special interests ” she says….. That is the most supportive statement for Progressives I’ve heard her say, without hearing her say it.

  12. I’m now staggered, I have to hear a gun owner who at least has an inkling to take even such minor steps to reduce the US carnage. I have to accept the US will NEVER join the rest of the civilized, 1st world in this matter.

  13. Finally! An intelligent take by S.E. Cupp!


    We DESPERATELY need to REVERSE “First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti”, US Supreme Court, 1978!

  14. Thanks, SE. I really wish someone in the NRA or the GOP would explain why hate groups and lone wolf psychos constitute a well-regulated militia.

    1. 2nd ammendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      The idea of a well regulated militia stems from the late 18th and early 19th century when the US had no standing army. A militia was needed to defend the country when attacked. Once the US had a standing army the idea of a militia became obsolete. A Militia was no longer “necessary for the security of a free state”. Once the militia became unnecessary the guarantee of gun ownership became obsolete.

    2. @NYOB Unknown Thank you. The functions of a militia have long since been taken over by state police and national guard units.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.