I’ve watched a half dozen of these webinars and loved them, the “ 240 mass shootings this year” stat is full of holes and it’s depressing to hear you state it like a solid indisputable fact. I wish you’d keep your platform to the topics I so much enjoy hearing you speak about and not mentioning facts that are plainly false. If you’re going to grandstand on political issues at least check facts, please!
About gun control: how about introducing a simple requirement, a reason for having the gun, like hunting, collecting, sports shooting in a club, the militia service (2nd amendment) and put self defense under a burden of proof. Maybe also include competence as in „has been instructed how to shoot safely and properly“ by (hunting licensing, shooting club, militia,…). You‘d pretty quickly (when the riots are over) deny Access to most people that probably shouldn’t own a gun without majorly infringing on proper use cases for guns…
My take on gun control is to limit when someone can access their gun rather than ownership itself. All firearms need to be kept at an approved holder. For examples; a central hunting lodge in a public forest (for hunting), a state militia arsenal (for defense), or at a gun range (recreation). You are allowed to own whatever, but it's held at a location like that and they are legally responsible (at least in part) for making sure that you don't take it off property and are using it for it's intended purpose. If you want to transfer the weapon, it gets sent by special US mail. The most important bit for me here is that it means that there is always at least 2 people involved in allowing a gun to become "active", so someone looking to do violence whether in anger or cold blood needs to convince someone else who has skin in the game that they are intending to use the weapon for legitimate purpose.
I’ve watched a half dozen of these webinars and loved them, the “ 240 mass shootings this year” stat is full of holes and it’s depressing to hear you state it like a solid indisputable fact. I wish you’d keep your platform to the topics I so much enjoy hearing you speak about and not mentioning facts that are plainly false. If you’re going to grandstand on political issues at least check facts, please!
About gun control: how about introducing a simple requirement, a reason for having the gun, like hunting, collecting, sports shooting in a club, the militia service (2nd amendment) and put self defense under a burden of proof. Maybe also include competence as in „has been instructed how to shoot safely and properly“ by (hunting licensing, shooting club, militia,…). You‘d pretty quickly (when the riots are over) deny Access to most people that probably shouldn’t own a gun without majorly infringing on proper use cases for guns…
My take on gun control is to limit when someone can access their gun rather than ownership itself. All firearms need to be kept at an approved holder. For examples; a central hunting lodge in a public forest (for hunting), a state militia arsenal (for defense), or at a gun range (recreation). You are allowed to own whatever, but it's held at a location like that and they are legally responsible (at least in part) for making sure that you don't take it off property and are using it for it's intended purpose. If you want to transfer the weapon, it gets sent by special US mail. The most important bit for me here is that it means that there is always at least 2 people involved in allowing a gun to become "active", so someone looking to do violence whether in anger or cold blood needs to convince someone else who has skin in the game that they are intending to use the weapon for legitimate purpose.
I think you have that backwards. The judge being uncomfortable is never the issue.
Please show us her police report.