“Lawmakers and their constituents will have to relinquish the notion that any form of gun safety legislation will force law abiding citizens to give up their guns. There is no evidence to support that view. But there is evidence that easy access to guns will continue to be a potential threat to all families and a time bomb for family members who are suicidal or mentally ill.” – Former Vermont Governor Madeleine M. Kunin, Do Something for Gun Safety [via huffingtonpost.com]
So those with firearms can defend themselves from the mentally ill, and you can leave my legitimate gun rights alone. Also, stop calling it “gun safety.” Gun safety is taught by the NRA. Gun *confiscation* is the goal of people like you.
Bingo.
It’s a good idea to raise the differentiations that you state every time this sort of thing gets bruited about: ‘Gun Safety’ is the proper and responsible handling of well-designed firearms in good working order. ‘Gun Control’ is the body of legislative measures taken by government, whether representative or bureaucratic, to limit the availability of, and access to, firearms. ‘Gun Registration’ is the compiling of a listing, in the hands of government, showing the names and addresses of owners of firearms and the makes, models, calibres, and serial numbers of all of the firearms that they possess. ‘Gun Confiscation’ is the seizure that can take place when the government, using its list of owners and their locations, determines that what once was legal to own is no longer so, and therefore must be taken, by force if necessary, to protect the children.
Sound about right?
As long as you ignore the numerous state level AWBs that require that you to do just that.
And 7-round and 10-round magazine restrictions that effectively do the same with respect to a large number of handguns.
“- This message was brought to you by the foundation for legislation will that force law abiding citizens to give up their guns.”
Hurricane Katrina proved that guns can and will be confiscated, when they are needed most for the personal defense purpose for which they were purchased. Registration and confiscation go hand in hand. There are millions of mentally ill people in this country and millions of firearms, yet incidences of mass shootings at their hands are statistically low. Those few whom do go off the deep end usually only do as a result of failures of the system, including the police, so further laws won’t fix anything. As for suicidal people, that is an issue where guns are largely irrelevant. Australian data shows clearly no impact on suicides when firearms were largely outlawed and confiscated from personal ownership. I am surprised that blatant lies are passed off as facts just cause they come from a politicians mouth but that seems to be the norm these days.
Thanks Robert.
Now that song is stuck in my head.
1974 Hues Corporation
http://youtu.be/dndAXxqJbc0
I was hoping someone would do that 😉
I get it. Since “law-abiding” is a scale that slides at whim there will never be a case in which “law-abiding” gun owners have to turn them in or modify them because whatever the “law” is you will “abide” or you’ll simply no longer be “law-abiding.”
Neat Newspeak there.
A world without private gunownership is doubleplusgood! Remember, gun freedom is slavery. BB is watching you!
I’m torn on the use of “law abiding” as well… that’s what the politicians count on as they pass ever more draconian laws. Claiming that it only affects “law abiding citizens” is not a deterrent to them.
“Well sir, why would you not turn in your 10 round magazines… you’re *law abiding* after all, aren’t you?”
We need a better term…
Otherwise Law Abiding Citizens
I think “law-abiding” slides as an effect of sliding “Constitutional vs UnConstitutional” as laws that infringe the right to keep and bear Arms are enacted. I use the term loosely in preference to other terms that are essentially negative, like “”not criminal gun owner”. It is the only positive sounding term I can think of that isn’t too verbose, like “gun owner who obeys the gun laws that he/she cannot ignore and still own guns”, or “gun owner who ignores any gun law he/she regards as UnConstitutional and has a low risk of getting caught”. There’s no fault in using “law-abiding gun owner” and letting the reader infer what they will from the use of the term, but I’m open to anything better that is as useable.
I hope they keep up the rhetoric to keep the PoG pissed off so they show up to vote in the midterms
Taking away the democrat majority will shut this BS down.
Its cute that “gun safety” is the new term for gun control. But then again, I am not surprised when 300K in CA voted for Leland Yee although he sits in jail and dropped out of the race in March, low information voters will believe anything.
…there is actually nothing inherently wrong in what she said…her observations are accurate…the problem comes in when they wish to restrict my rights, based upon those observations. Not only do you not have that right…and I will never allow it to happen…but it is ineffective when the problem comes to mental and emotional health in America and Western Society. My belief is that the actual percentage of truly mentally ill folks is fairly low (or at least those that cannot function in society)…but we damage so many of our kids through poor parenting and the idiotic competitive conventions of our culture. Perhaps it is not as bad as it was a couple of generations ago, but Western parenting is almost always about absorbing abuse and guilt, taking responsibility, “pulling yourself up by your boot-straps”…all that kinds of gung-ho crap that… “builds a man”, …these lessons in life may be necessary…but in a lot of homes in America…they are usually delivered through the end of a belt, coat hanger or fist as we are growing up to become the damaged souls that we are. I think we damage our kids potential so badly…and the resulting waste of potential and anger throughout their lives..(what a waste)….proper parenting skills and how to raise a decent, productive, happy adult…that is where we should be focusing on…
RJ O’Guillory
Author-
Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family
From the only state that doesn’t bother with concealed carry permits. If they made silencers legal I’d be one happy camper. As it is I’m a pissy New Yorker who can’t even get a pistol license for another year (need to know references for 5 years)
Tell me about it. I seesaw between I f*cking love this state to why do I stick around this commie outhouse? But I’ve come back three times, in no small part to the gun laws, so I guess it’s my home.
They’re not the only state that doesn’t bother with CC permits…
I lived there for 6 years, and yes, the gun laws are, for the most part, excellent. But Alaska, where I was born, raised, and once again reside, also does not require a permit to carry concealed or openly.
Neither does Oklahoma, Wyoming, or Arizona, and with several more states in the process as we speak.
I just checked up on that and all of the states you mentioned do indeed need a permit to carry concealed, not to mention buying the thing. Not trying to be a dick, I just checked their .gov websites and most of them require permits to even get a pistol. VT, nope, anyone can have one.
So VT for the win!
Unless there is imminent pending legislation (which I didn’t bother looking up) VT has the second best gun laws *as far as I’m concerned* (meaning don’t quote me other states because o don’t care, it’s an opinion, therefore factually wrong) other than the stupid ban on silencers.
I need to move back and out of The Empire. After I vote for someone other than Cuomo.
EDIT: Just checked Wikipedia, it says you’re right, so now I don’t know what to believe. Either someone falsely edited Wikipedia (possible) or the state websites are out of date (far more likely)
Paranoid Android,
There are three states that offer but do NOT require concealed carry licenses. Those states are Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming. There is one state that does not offer and does not require a concealed carry license: Vermont. We call all of those four states “Constitutional Carry States” — meaning you can carry concealed handguns in those states without any licensing simply because it is our right to carry and our federal and state constitutions confirm it.
At this point you might be thinking, “If Constitutional Carry states do not require concealed carry licenses, why do those states offer them?” Those states that offer licenses offer them for residents who want to carry concealed as they travel to other states which honor their states’ license. For whatever reason, Vermont does not offer such a license. So a Vermont resident who wants to carry concealed in another state is often screwed. (Note: some states like Florida and Utah offer non-resident concealed carry licenses to people like the residents of Vermont so that Vermont residents can carry to other states — as long as those states honor non-resident licenses. Some states will not honor non-resident licenses.)
Also, I believe Arkansas is now for all intents and purposes a Constitutional Carry state.
Uncommon-sense
Well that makes perfect sense, and explains the discrepancy between wikipedias map and the ccl page of [state].gov websites, thanks.
I can attest for Arizona. The law was passed only a couple of years ago (two?) that makes conceal carry without a permit a right, granted that you are not breaking other laws while doing so. I still, however got a CC permit for two reasons. One is that I frequently travel to PA which reciprocates and two, it makes it easier and quicker for me to buy a firearm when I show the dealer my permit. They still run a background check and I still fill out the form, but I guess it is not as in depth.
Another thing I noticed when I went to get my thumb prints taken for the permit and submit the application to the sheriff’s office, most of the other people getting their permits were overwhelmingly women.
“the notion that any form of gun safety legislation will force law abiding citizens to give up their guns”. Then stop proposing legislation that forces law abiding citizens to give up their guns!
You don’t need military style weapons™
because You can never stop our tanks and planes™, but don’t worry We’re not coming for your guns™ because We respect the second amendment, but…™
I don’t know where she got that idea. When they outlawed alcohol everyone gave up drinking, right?
I have never seen serious discussion of confiscation. But keeping firearms out of the hands of the certifiably insane is a different animal.
Yes, and it will be a bear to achieve…
It will all boil down to one question: Who gets to define the parameters of what makes someone “certifiably mentally insane”?
If it ever got to the point where they were able to claim Christianity, objection to illegal immigration and mass amnesty, and a desire to own firearms were signs of a serious mental illness…
It is a long read, but a good read. The article is The Brain on Trial
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-brain-on-trial/308520/4/
Here is a portion:
“So researchers tried a more actuarial approach. They set about recording dozens of characteristics of some 23,000 released sex offenders: whether the offender had unstable employment, had been sexually abused as a child, was addicted to drugs, showed remorse, had deviant sexual interests, and so on. Researchers then tracked the offenders for an average of five years after release to see who wound up back in prison. At the end of the study, they computed which factors best explained the reoffense rates, and from these and later data they were able to build actuarial tables to be used in sentencing.”
….
“When you compare the predictive power of the actuarial approach with that of the parole boards and psychiatrists, there is no contest: numbers beat intuition. In courtrooms across the nation, these actuarial tests are now used in presentencing to modulate the length of prison terms.
The problem is there has not been research or funding to do it with some accuracy with the mentally ill.
What the above proves is that you cannot trust the so called “experts” their opinion as was proved was no better that a coin toss. When you use judges, police chiefs or other so called experts you have bias and political opinion in play. There is probably a way to determine through analytics that could help us determine which people should not be trusted. Just as with the sex offenders, there may be an analytical way that throws the bias of people out the window. The problem is that the anti-gun crowd always wants the unfair advantage because they crave control over logic, reason or research.
I am not saying I am 100% sure this will work, but it is worth a try versus other things that have been tried.
Pure semantics. Not “confiscation”, per se, but they continually propose legislation that makes it a crime to own certain firearms that looks scary or to own magazines that hold more ammunition than they have decided you “need”. It’s technically not “confiscation” if you have an option to keep your AR by rendering it permanently inoperable, or if you’re allowed to turn it in rather than have it taken from you by force.
See how that works? Nobody’s coming for your guns – because you’ll be expected to turn them in “voluntarily” or face prosecution.
But let’s be realistic. Anything that’s a ban on ownership of what is right now a perfectly legal item – be it an AR-15 clone, a pistol with a 15 round magazine, or a .50BMG rifle (all of which have come under proposed bans recently) or simply banning the inheritance of certain firearms (which is proposed quite often) is another name for depriving Americans of property they lawfully own – in other words, confiscation.
As to serious discussion of confiscation, I’ve seen it. And consider this sentence:
“Lawmakers and their constituents will have to relinquish the notion that any form of gun safety legislation will force law abiding citizens to give up their guns.”
Doesn’t that imply that taking guns from law abiding citizens has been the intent all along? It’s not an unfortunate side-effect for them, it’s the main purpose. It’s a reason why they ignore all the evidence that gun control doesn’t work (for the purpose of reducing violent crime). The evidence that gun control works for the intended purpose (making it more difficult and risky to legally own firearms) is clear: There is a solid negative correlation between Brady score and private ownership across states. The stricter the gun control, the lower the ownership rate (although there is no correlation between Brady score and violence involving firearms, so again consistent with the idea that gun control affects only the law abiding). Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that she seems to be saying that gun grabbers should give up this intent, but I don’t think they will listen to her.
I agree. Unfortunately, I’ve seen a whole lot of profoundly unserious discussions about it, and a large part of what made them unserious discussions is their refusal to admit they were about confiscation.
So you say you want to keep guns out of the hands of the seriously insane. Fine. Makes sense. What are we going to do, then, when we become aware of a seriously insane person in possession of a firearm? I’ll give you a hint: it starts with “c”. So you are, in fact, talking about confiscation- ultimately most gun control is. The real discussion is about the scope and circumstances of confiscation. That’s what a serious discussion would look like – not just this pretense that it’s all OK because all these other tactics to reduce legal gun ownership, backed with the threat of confiscation, are technically not confiscation.
Why do you think that? In some states laws were recently passed that mandate confiscation. When the law requires that you give up the gun or go to jail, that is confiscation.
“the certifiably insane” have ALWAYS been the first of the tyrants’ victims. PLEASE don’t take that giant leap down the slippery slope to confiscation!
“Cop Block” also has a few choice words about “law-abiding” here:
http://youtu.be/cElTyqJkMEw?autoplay=0
As a Vermonter, I’d like to point her to the firearms laws (or lack thereof) and accompanying violent crime statistics for the state she governed…
“I cannot support access to deadly guns for people who have criminal records, who are guilty of domestic violence, or who are dangerously mentally ill.”
This is were the logic train jumps the track and a well meaning person cannot grasp that a criminal doesn’t care about a law, access to guns, MOM’s or any other group, nor civil rights…except the ones needed to get a free lawyer.
Politicans take smack when out of office and not accountable to voters. Note to self VOTE
If I have a birdshead grip H&R Protector 12g with a sawtoothed carbon steel muzzle clamp, is that still military style or too gauche for them?
Relinquish the notion? Perish the thought.
Does Vermont have a lot of gun control? Or crime for that matter?
Remind me.
Having dealt with a.number of mentally ill persons, if they are on & stay on the proper meds & have been diagnosed “Correctly”. They are perfectly functional members of society. Still shouldn’t be armed. The un or wrong diagnosed or non-med compliant are used by the anti 2A people to justify the fundraising & BS they spout. They want everyone but the rights of them & others of there kind abolished. Even some want the security they hire to turn in weapons with them. Having met a few personally found them all hypocrites.
Sorry lady but the long term goal is to have the people relinquish their firearms. Want evidence? Look across Lake Champlain.
You would really serve better madam to sell all your stuff and hire a team of folks to feed the hungry children. Or better still give it to Saint Jude’s. You have a right to speak but not to pretend you are so capable to teach the people something you know nothing about. You know full well that is how you got your money, buy breaking laws and the sweat of children. Where did you get the idea we care about your bias, overlordship ideas anyway?
It would be nice if “gun safety legislation” was never mis-used. Unfortunately, the Canadian experience is that it’s merely a Trojan horse for the confiscation that they so desperately desire. Oh, and making owing guns a burden and a hassle with over-zealous “safe storage” and transportation requirements. Want to take your pistol to the range? Better get an “Authorization to Transport” allowing you to do so, and don’t stop on the way. Want to take it to the gunsmith? ATT. Want to take it with you in the wilderness? Better get permission, (you can’t, unless you are doing some very specific tasks and can prove it to the RCMP). Want to get a handgun with a barrel under 4.2″? You can’t.
For safety.
History gives us plenty of examples of a common authoritarian strategy: 1. Deny what you’re doing even as you do it. 2. Then, having accomplished your goal, give a moral justification for what you have done. Works every time.
“Sensible gun rules” = gun confiscation = loss of freedom, liberty, and dignity . End of issue.
“But there is evidence that [emotional imbalance] will continue to be a potential threat to all families and a time bomb for family members who are suicidal or mentally ill.”
You’re welcome.
Meh…how old is this woman? I thought Vermont was a pretty safe place. Of course the gubmint wants to confiscate your guns, land ,$ , freedom. They’re already doing all of the above. It’s only paranoia if it isn’t TRUE.
Ahh. I get it now. The problem we’re dealing with here is the dreaded “data loophole.”
Basically, if they don’t want to see it, it doesn’t exist, therefore loophole.
As as society, we need to work to keep this information from slipping through the cracks. Why, there oughtta be a law….
Jeezum crow, I’ve lived in Vermont my whole life and even I had forgotten about her. This is the best the antis have?
There’s a pretty good bit of typical anti foolishness going on in this thread right now:
America ‘Has Become a War Zone’
Easy access to firearms in that state doesn’t seem to be a problem. So what was her point again?
Perhaps Mz. Clueless Kunin should take a hard look at how “gun safety laws” in California are making it increasingly difficult to obtain firearms before making comments based on nothing.
senility and dementia in the elderly is sad.
In Japan, it’s easy access to trains, to the point that it is so common for suicidal people to jump in front of trains that the transportation companies send a clean-up bill to jumpers’ families. But they haven’t banned trains, have they?
One of the first things a newly inaugurated POTUS does is create and sign an Executive Order regarding National Emergencies that gives himself permission to declare Martial Law, suspend the Constitution, seize any personal property that might be needed to provide for the “common defense” and re-locate Citizens, as needed. So, basically, a fear of gun confiscation is soundly grounded because it is already on the books a la post Katrina New Orleans. Who declares National Emergencies?
So, it’s kind of moot and naively befuddled for this woman to talk about gun owners giving up a concern about gun confiscation when it is already part of Emergency Planning by the Fed. In the meantime, the Government can count on the vast majority of us not running amok with our guns, allow and “Tut…tut” the tiny percentage who do run amok, pacify the Public by making speeches and promises, allowing the gun grabbers to output their rhetoric, keeping everyone distracted with meaningless fights over a host of political and social issues and deceived that “all is pretty much well” and “we’re doing everything we can to fix whatever isn’t well”.
We keep our guns because the Government does not see sufficient risk to itself to warrant any costly, bloody outright confiscation schemes, has already made detailed plans and preparations for its own survival, and regards the few thousands of people who get killed yearly in gun-involved violence as an “acceptable” figure.
I have read Ms. Kunin’s statement four times and it still doesn’t make sense to me. (She seems to contradict herself.) Did Mr. Farago mistype her statement in this article?
Oh, now I get it. Here is the part that flummoxed me:
“Lawmakers and their constituents will have to relinquish the notion that any form of gun safety legislation will force law abiding citizens to give up their guns. There is no evidence to support that view.”
When Ms. Kunin said “There is no evidence to support that view.” I thought she was saying that there is no evidence to support the view that “gun safety legislation” will reduce the frequency of criminals using firearms as their weapon of attack. I was trying to see her as making an honest statement. That shows my bias! (I expect people to make honest, truthful statements.)
Instead, Ms. Kunin is rebuking our assertion that “gun safety legislation” is about confiscation — claiming there is no evidence that “gun safety legislation” will confiscate firearms. Now that is one whopper of a lie. Anyone who claims that gun grabbers are NOT trying to confiscate firearms needs look no further than the statement of Senator Feinstein and the recent New York SAFE Act.
I always make an ass out of them and assume the worst for politicians.
Unfortunately — our ex-gov has not taken the time to read (?) the laws of 2 of our border states — NY & MA….
THE question for Vermonters is: IGNORANT statement or LIE?
I don’t know….
In the mean time VT has the LOWEST gun murder rate in the US:
0.3 per 100K pop
Similar to Canada and Scandinavia — WITHOUT correcting for our high gun ownership rate.
Lol Vermont has the lowest murder rate in the US and arguably the least amount of gun control. Kind of funny.
They keep saying those words. I don’t think that means what they think it means.
Gun control and its newspeak cognomen, “gun safety,” are absolutely designed to take guns out of the hands of peaceful, law-abiding people. The only questions are how they propose to go about it and how long they’re willing to wait for the desired result.
To them, we’re just criminals that haven’t happened yet.
“Lawmakers and their constituents will have to relinquish the notion that any form of gun safety legislation will force law abiding citizens to give up their guns.”
Until they change the laws and law abiding citizens are criminals?
UGHHH
Another victim of Early Onset Alzheimers. Seems like most of them contribute to HuffPo.
“relinquish the notion that any form of gun safety legislation will force law abiding citizens to give up their guns.”
Once gun “safety” stops inevitably ending in confiscation, I’ll relinquish the notion that it inevitably ends in confiscation.
Comments are closed.