It’s a very interesting plan, called “sweeping”, because it is more than gun control
Parkland massacre survivors unveil sweeping U.S. gun-control plan ahead of 2020 election
Survivors of the Parkland, Florida, high school massacre on Wednesday released a sweeping gun-control plan that would ban assault-style rifles and take other steps in hopes of halving U.S. firearms deaths and injuries. The proposal included a measure to register more young voters, and the group’s leaders addressed it to 2020 candidates seeking the presidential nomination, urging them to make gun control a top priority.
“We urge them to take a look at this agenda,” Tyah Amoy-Roberts, a former student who survived the shooting, said in a statement. “We cannot allow mass shootings in grocery stores, churches, shopping malls, and schools to be the new normal.”
The former Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students have worked to inspire a sense of urgency about gun violence since they started the national campaign “March for Our Lives” after a former student massacred 17 people with an assault rifle at their high school on Feb. 14, 2018.
First, did you catch it? No? You’ll see more of it. Second, most of those places tend to be gun free zones, where mass killers like to go because few are armed to stop them.
The Parkland student’s plan calls for several hard-line gun control measures, including a national gun buy-back and disposal program, a federal system of gun licensing that requires background checks and annual renewals, and it urges politicians to declare a national emergency around gun violence.
The plan also calls on the government to automatically register all U.S. citizens to vote when they turn 18, a measure that March for Our Lives has pushed in an effort to turn out the youth vote and sway elections to yield tighter gun policies.
And there’s the registration of firearms bit. Most who are pushing expanded background checks have stayed away from discussing that it would require registration, meaning the Government knows exactly what all your guns are, making it easier to take them. Not these kids. Remember, Australia reportedly only saw 20% of guns which were banned, which included most, turned in, because the government didn’t know who had what. New Zealand is having the same problem.
But, then, there’s the registration of citizens to vote. What does that have to do with gun control? What if someone doesn’t want to be registered? This sounds more like it is about politics.
Anyhow, the plan itself is nuts, and has zero change of going anywhere, because it is nuts. Most, like the above from Reuters, have tried to sanitize it
(Fox News) March for Our Lives, the gun control group started by Parkland survivors, announced an ambitious series of proposals that would radically change the landscape of firearm regulations, aiming to reduce gun ownership and gun-related deaths.
The plan announced on Wednesday seeks to reduce gun deaths by 200,000 (or 50 percent) over 10 years, install an apparent czar for gun violence, create a “Peace Corps for gun violence prevention,” and lower the nation’s firearm stock by 30 percent through a mandatory buyback program, according to the group.
Jaclyn Corin, the group’s co-founder, described the plan as a “Green New Deal, but for guns” — a reference to Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s sweeping plan to address climate change.
The above graphic comes from their sorta-plan page. Regarding “a higher standard of ownership”, licensing would be required
For decades, the NRA and gun lobby have focused on a singular goal: to keep the standards for gun ownership dangerously low. To make a sizable dent in reducing gun violence, we need to do the complete opposite: we need to raise the bar for gun ownership and responsibility in America. This begins with what a wide body of research and international precedents tell us is essential to reducing gun violence: a federal system of gun licensing. The facts are clear: a comprehensive system of gun licensing reduces illegal gun trafficking, cuts down on gun homicides, and reduces gun suicides.
In other words, they are going to find a way to deny people from their 2nd Amendment Right. Of course, criminals usually do not obtain a license. Nor own one lawfully.
- A multi-step approval process, overseen by a law enforcement agency, that requires background checks, in-person interviews, personal references, rigorous gun safety training, and a waiting period of 10 days for each gun purchase.
- Annual licensing fees for anyone who wants to obtain a national gun and ammunition license.
- A higher standard for gun ownership, which would start with raising the minimum age for gun possession to 21.
It’s essentially a stealth ban, because Democrats will make it almost impossible for a law abiding citizens to obtain a firearm, much like was happening in D.C. prior to the Heller decision. They also want to give states authority beyond federal law. Remember when Dems stated that states couldn’t go beyond federal law vis a vis Arizona’s SB1070, the illegal alien law? Now they want to change things up for gun grabbing.
Look, it’s not all bad, there are a few good ideas in the plan, but, this is about gun bans, disarming law abiding citizens. They want the aforementioned Heller decision re-examined, meaning, overturned. They want the NRA “investigated”, which is a serious violation of the 1st Amendment. And, of course, suing gun manufacturers, which would put them out of business. And “consumer safety standards”, which would also help put maufacturers out of business, with those few left making a product almost worthless for self defense.
Will any Democrat candidates pick it up and run with it? This plan violates the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 9th Amendments.
So, under the Parkland Snowflakesâ„¢ plan, your right to keep and bear arms would depend upon the approval of other people. Doesn’t sound like much of a right to me!
Exactly. So, in Wake County I would be dependent on a very liberal Sheriff, most of my friends are right leaning, so, I would most likely be denied. But, if I went to a more rural county, things would go OK.
Sounds to me you’d be apt to be “Red Flagged”, Teach. I would too.
In the land liberals would build, seeking a permit would be a red flag… unless you have connections.
Our new sheriff is a big time liberal, hates ICE, refuses to work with ICE. Our last sheriff was an outlier for Wake County, rather right leaning.
I believe that sane people should have access to any weapon they desire and be able to carry a weapon without an ok from authorities. Any effort to regulate weapons is steering the discourse away from the problem. We live in a very violent society and defense is necessary. Our society is violent because of our great diversity and not the availability of guns. I tried to ship my sons gun to him but could not due to silly regulations that only inconvenience the law abiding and not the criminal.
The real problem should be addressed and solutions developed. The problem is the same for homeless and most other social problem we have and that problem is mental health. But as soon as you bring this up, the liberals shut this down.
The good thing about a gun ban would be that, like MJ, heroin, cocaine, etc,; you’d be able to freely purchase a gun on the black market if you knew who to ask.
The legal thing only really hurts people who wish to play by the rules.
In my high school, ’77-’81, you could get MJ or anything just by asking the right kid, so bans really do work, right Libbies?