Tag Archives: Second Amendment

Three Steps For Solving the Assault-Type Weapons Problem

16 Friday Mar 2018

Posted by in Aging, All Rights Reserved, Assault Weapons, Crime, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, Gun Extremists, Mass Shootings, Mental Health, Nevada, Politicians, Politics, Reno, Second Amendment, The Tipping Point, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Some people are saying that assault-type weapons genie is out of the box. Their belief is that the ban on assault-type rifles can never be reinstated. They fear that collection of assault weapons may involve violent confrontations with gun extremists. There is a way out of this mess caused by letting the assault weapons ban expire. It involves three steps.

Designed to Kill Without Aiming – Semi-automatic Mossberg-MMR

STEP ONE:  Reinstate the ban on assault-type rifles

All future sale, trade, and/or gifting an assault-type rifle, including all rifles with an automatic and/or semiautomatic firing function, would be banned in the United States of America. These weapons would not be allowed to be imported, nor purchased outside the United States and brought into the country.

STEP TWO:  Voluntary Surrender of Assault-type Rifles

Any current owner of an assault-type rifle would have the option of surrendering hu’s* weapon to local law enforcement. Those guns would need to be secured or destroyed.

STEP THREE:  Conditions of Ownership of Assault-type Rifles

Condition One:  Registration

Anyone with peaceful intent should be willing to comply with the registration of all assault-type weapons. Those that fail to register their automatic and semi-automatic weapons shall be considered to have a violent intent. They will face stiff fines and possibly prison. Registration will also consist of a background check, regardless of whether one was done when the owner purchased it.

Assault-type weapons cannot be sold to anyone else without approval from the local law enforcement agency. That agency will be required to perform a background check.

CONDITION TWO:  Insurance

Anyone owning a weapon in question must obtain and maintain a one million dollar liability insurance policy. This is similar to the liability policy required to own a car. Failure to do so will require forfeiture of the gun and a significant fine and possibly prison.

CONDITION THREE:  Compliance With the Second Amendment

Per the Second Amendment, an owner of an assault-type rifle must join a State National Guard and submit to regular training and duty as long as they own the weapon. Use of the weapon shall be regulated by that State’s National Guard, including the determination of mental and physical qualifications of use of such weapon.

(*’Hu’s’ is a pronoun meaning ‘his’ and/or ‘hers.’)

Three Myths That Gun Extremist Believe

09 Friday Mar 2018

Posted by in All Rights Reserved, Crime, Donald Trump, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, Gun Extremists, Health, History, Mass Shootings, Mental Health, Nevada, Politicians, Politics, racism, Reno, Russian influence, Second Amendment, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Gun Extremists have been fed a steady diet of misinformation by the NRA. Decades of crafting a lie have resulted in gun owners being one of the most misinformed groups in the history of the United States. When you talk with an NRA gun extremist you hear the following statements:

1.  Gun Extremist’s Myth versus FACT: 

The Second Amendment gives me a constitutional right to own an assault rifle and the government can’t take away my guns.

False. The Second Amendment begins with “A well regulated militia…” That is the focus of the amendment. Everything that is stated afterward is subject to the topic of a well regulated militia. Well regulated clearly means that the government is expected to regulate gun ownership. 

Guns are not trophies

2.  Gun Extremist’s Myth versus FACT: 

The Supreme Court ruled that the government can’t take our assault rifles away.

False. The Supreme Court ruled in The District of Columbia v. Heller that the government can’t ban handguns in the home, providing the person meets the qualifications required to own a gun. The Supreme Court specifically stated that more dangerous weapons could be banned from public use.

In fact, a ban on assault rifles existed from 1994 until 2004 when Congress failed to renew the ban. The ban was constitutionally legal.

3.  Gun Extremist’s Myth versus FACT:

I have a right to defend myself with a gun.

False. If you use a gun to injure or kill someone it must be proven that it was in defense. It is true, that in many states if someone enters your home it is considered allowable for a homeowner to shoot that person even if they are unarmed. The law does not give a person the right to be judge, jury, and executioner.

However, it is rare that a gun death is a legitimate ‘defensive’ act. In 2013, of 33,636 deaths due to “injury by firearms,” 21,175 (63%) were suicides and 11,208 (33%) were homicides, 505 (1.5%) were deaths due to accidental or negligent use of a gun. We are the most well-armed nation in the world and over 97% of all gun deaths were not because someone killed the bad guy.

David Brooks is Wrong Again on Guns

23 Friday Feb 2018

Posted by in Aging, Crime, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, Honor, Mass Shootings, Politicians, Politics, Respect, Second Amendment, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

David Brooks is an intelligent and reasonable man…most of the time. For some reason, he is completely wrong again on gun control. Once again he has insisted that people of common sense should roll over and let gun extremists take the lead on the gun control debate. WE ARE EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE TODAY BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN NOT ONLY LEADING THE DEBATE, THEY HAVE BEEN TAKING THE DEBATE AWAY FROM INTELLIGENT PEOPLE.

Wayne LaPierre:  This is who has been leading the gun debate…and all the Trumpsters agree with him. We don’t have to respect that.

Can’t Compromise With Stupid

Most things are shades of grey. There are no quick and easy answers and some type of compromise is necessary. Trumpsters have changed that. Trumpsters are so far in the wrong that it is no longer an issue of coming to a compromise with them. The good citizens of this country have been driven back into a corner on major issues that are the foundation of our country and we are tired of being told that the corner is the only place to be.

Gun Control Debate Out of Control

Gun control is an issue that gun extremists have said so many stupid things for decades, that now they expect the rest of the country to just accept their stupidity.

NO! When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns? It was a stupid phrase fifty years ago, and it still is stupid today. Criminals have less opportunity to commit crimes when they don’t have easy access to guns. Gangs can’t commit as many drive-by shootings when they don’t have easy access to guns. Most guns are not used for crime, but rather, they are used to commit suicide. 

To be honest, if someone wants to take a chance that some family member will become upset and kill themselves, they can have a gun in the home. The moment you carry that gun out of the home is when it becomes my business. Weaponizing society gets people killed and that is not acceptable.

What Must Be Done

If you own a gun, fine. You are responsible for anyone that is harmed or killed by that gun. You should be required to carry the same liability insurance on that gun that is required on an automobile if it is involved in an accident and someone is harmed or killed.

And yes, you must license it, pay a yearly tax, and be limited to the number of guns and ammunition you own.

NO! The Second Amendment, nor the Supreme Court says that you can have any kind of gun you want and you don’t have to register them. In fact, they say the opposite. Gun extremists are wrong on the issue and you can’t let someone who is wrong lead the debate. It’s just stupid.

Second Amendment: A Well Regulated Militia

21 Wednesday Feb 2018

Posted by in Aging, Crime, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, History, Mass Shootings, Mental Health, Politicians, Politics, Second Amendment, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A well regulated militia. Gun extremists pretend that the first four words of the Second Amendment don’t exist. They beat people over the head with the Second Amendment using the last 13 words but never mention the part that frames the topic. I’ve even had one gun extremist tell me that the comma after the first four words invalidates them. 

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 Second Amendment

What “Well Regulated” Means in Second Amendment

Ironically, the first four words invalidates the gun extremists position against gun control laws. “Well regulated” is not an accidental phrase. It means that what is being discussed is not only to be regulated, but it is to be closely regulated.

Because it is stated first, it means that everything said after is to be considered within the framework of regulation. The Second Amendment is not about unlimited, unrestricted gun ownership. It is not a mandate to allow anyone to own any weapon they want. It clearly outlines that gun ownership is intended to be under the rule of the government.

Regarding assault rifles, our country had a legal restriction on assault-type rifles from 1994 to 2004. It wasn’t struck down because it was unconstitutional. It ended because a Republican Congress let the law die due to a Sunset provision in the ban.

Gun Extremists

Not what “well regulated” means

Supreme Court Ruling Confirms Guns To Be Well Regulated

Even the Supreme Court ruling that gun extremists like to use to claim unrestricted gun ownership confirms the right of the government to control the ownership of guns. In District of Columbia versus Heller, the Justice Anthony Scalia wrote in the majority opinion:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Majority Opinion “District of Columbia v. Heller”

Justice Scalia builds a creative argument why guns have to be allowed in the home, but he clarifies that home ownership does not mean unregistered gun ownership:

[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

Majority Opinion “District of Columbia v. Heller”

The concept that guns cannot be regulated, nor registered is contrary to the ruling by the Supreme Court. “Well regulated” is the important aspect of the Second Amendment regardless of what gun extremists want to pretend.

Sinclair Reporter Taints Reno NBC Affiliate With Fox News Story…Again

07 Monday Apr 2014

Posted by in About Reno, Branding, Business, Communication, Crime, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Honor, Management Practices, Opinion, Politics, Privacy, Public Image, Public Relations, Traditional Media, Violence in the Workplace

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Kristine Frazao

Kristine Frazao – SBGI News Correspondent

On Friday, March 28, the NBC affiliate in Reno, Nevada (KRNV) again aired a Fox News type report on the 6:00 PM telecast, and this time actually used a Fox News clip. During the ‘A’ Block (top stories,) local news anchor Joe Hart gravely announces:

“….National Correspondent Kristine Frazao reports, some are concerned that this could be a sign of things to come in our country….”

The news clip, manufactured by Sinclair Broadcast Group (SBGI,) which operates KRNV, features Kristine Frazao, who has three years national experience with Russian Television (RT,) and was hired in the past year by Sinclair. She tells the story of a Washington D.C. resident who violated local laws on ammunition ownership, and who had his ex-spouse tattle on him to law enforcement.

Image from MyNews4 video

Convicted Mark Witaschek interview on Fox News and shown on Reno NBC affiliate (From KRNV newscast)

The clip starts with Mark Witaschek, explaining his surprise that he had committed a crime. The graphic with his name on-screen is a Fox News logo and banner, indicating the original source of the story. Frazao did not include an interview or statement from the law enforcement agency involved, nor does she offer any other examples of people charged or convicted of the law that Witaschek violated.

Instead Frazao interviews Emily J. Miller of the The Washington Times; who declares that Witaschek is a law-abiding citizen even though he has been convicted of violating the law in Washington D.C.:

“It’s just an outrageous violation of his rights.”

Miller continues and links this one case to a larger conspiracy without any proof:

“This is a pattern in Washington D.C. and states that are anti-gun, which is to go after the law-abiding who are exercising their Second Amendment Rights….”

Miller, is a Senior Editor for The Washington Times, which has an interesting history and has a strong conservative bias.

Founded by the Unification Church in 1982, The Washington Times was once lauded by Ronald Reagan as the only newspaper that told the truth to the American people. In 2002, Church Founder, Sun Myung Moon stated:

“The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God” and “The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world.”

In March of 2013, the Herring Broadcasting announced that it would team with Miller’s Washington Times newspaper to create One America News, a conservative cable news network to rival Fox News.

Frazao’s uses a source that is as biased as asking a Boston Red Sox fan to discuss the negative aspects of the New York Yankees. By using Miller as her primary source, Frazao betrayed any aspect of responsible investigative journalism.

The final 41 seconds of the news clip, which may or may not have been part of KRNV’s live broadcast¹, does include Emily Tisch Sussman, Campaign Director for the Center for American Progress. Sussman represents a liberal viewpoint; however, during that 41 seconds she is edited down to two sound bytes of four seconds and ten seconds. The rest of the time Frazao speaks for her in a voice over. Of the two sound bytes, it was difficult to determine what questions Sussman was responding to because the editing didn’t seem to match Frazao’s edited-in commentary.

This was at least the second time in one week where Sinclair Broadcast Group’s National Correspondent has presented a story that had an overt conservative bias (See article.)

NEXT:  KRNV does it again. (Read article) TO BE PUBLISHED 7 APRIL 2014 at 6:00 AM

(¹I watched the live broadcast and I don’t remember the last 41 seconds that appears in the on-line clip of the ‘A’ Block. If it was included it would have put the broadcast 34 to 65 seconds longer than the two previous night’s broadcast, and 94 seconds longer than the next two weekday 6 PM broadcasts. At 41 seconds, Kristine Frazao seems to wrap up the piece, and the next 41 seconds could have easily been edited out for time on the original live broadcast.)