'Common Sense Gun Control" the guy says....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/14/a-former-navy-firearms-instructor-and-proud-gun-owner-on-why-we-need-common-sense-gun-control.html

The above link is to a piece written by Shawn Van Diver.  Shawn is a 12 year Navy veteran (thank you for your service, sir) has been a police officer on a Navy base, a firearms instructor, has worked in private security, has worked in education and is also a single father.  Shawn also states that he is a gun owner and is all about "common sense gun control", as the title of my piece states.  He also states that he is not "out to grab guns".

I hope you take the time to read his article.  Right now, as we speak, I am okay with a couple of his ideas.  I'd like to sit and think about some of them before I totally commit to being completely on his side.  The one problem I have is, his entire article is written in reference to legal citizens-legally buying/owning guns.  The common sense stops there, if you ask me.  He has left out an entire group of gun owners who obtain their guns by illegal matters.  Criminals.... we are talking about criminals.  There was no "common sense" talk about how to control the "gun owners" who have ill intentions, run drugs, car jack people, rob convenience stores, home burglaries....  Where is the common sense there?  This is the one part of the equation that these people seem to forget.  For one second, do you honestly think that if I, a law abiding citizen gave my guns up that a gang banger in Vegas would do the same thing?  Not a chance!  It won't ever happen.

One thing the guy mentions is training.  I'm a firm believer in training!  I think anyone owning a gun should have some training and spend some time training on a regular basis.  What bothers me about his ideas is making this a legal issue.  The who, what, when, where issues come to mind.  Who would be the governing body that ensures that the training is adequate, what is actually taught, when the training will be and where it will be held.  Something else that comes to mind is, who is in charge after all of this training?  Not everyone is a "range rat" and I myself could certainly use more time at the range.  But all of this training that is being spoken of is easily misplaced if not used often.

Mental health evaluations....  This is opening Pandora's box if you ask me.  I know it seems justifiable to make mental health evaluations mandatory, but under what criteria do we judge someone as being mentally incompetent?  Shawn mentioned that perhaps someone who has been popped for a DUI would be incompetent or someone with other misdemeanor arrests would be incompetent.  I have a problem with that.  Honestly, it sounds like his idea on how to pay for things surrounding the whole issue and that too, I have a problem with.

Honestly, to think that a guy who recreationally smokes a joint every once in a while could be judged as mentally incompetent if he were caught and cited for a misdemeanor, is ridiculous to me.  This particular guy in this particular scenario is not likely to grab a gun and go shoot up the neighborhood or rob the convenience store.  He is far more likely to order an extra-large, double pepperoni pizza and fuck that up in the sanctity of his own home.  The pizza and his diet are all that are at risk here.

Then of course you have Diane Feinstein out in California who made the most insane comment that, "all of our veterans are mentally ill".  Feinstein is ill for making that statement.  First and foremost, she isn't qualified to make such an assessment.  Some of our fighting men and women do come home in horrible shape, both physically and mentally.  War is a shitty, shitty thing and it does horrible shit to otherwise great people.  But very few come home "incompetent".  Very few....  And secondly, in reference to Ms. Feinstein... there is a picture of her circulating holding what I remember to be an AK47 (one of the most demonized guns in the land) in front of a group of people, the magazine planted firmly in the magazine well.... with her fucking finger inside the trigger guard, on the trigger!
So here is one of your "sane, competetent" people doing pretty much everything wrong.  This is just the start of the "flies in the ointment".

Something else Shawn mentioned was "Accidental Discharge Insurance".  Really?  Making every gun owner in the country carry "accidental discharge insurance" on every gun they own?  I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but this sounds like they are testing the waters for some kind of a gun grab.  "If you can't afford the insurance, you'll have to turn over your guns to stay in compliance with the law."  To that I say BULLSHIT.  Why not make it necessary for every human to carry 'accidental I may get shot insurance"?  I'll tell you why not.  Because that is bullshit too (but they are trying to make us all have health insurance).

He also went on to say that a tiered licensing system for gun owners was a great idea and mentioned that it isn't necessary for any individual to own an "arsenal".  His exact words were "....but home protection and hunting don't require individuals to own an arsenal".  Where are you going to draw the line on the term "arsenal".  Where are you going to fix rates on the 'tiered licensing system"?  Will you do this with the amount of guns owned, their caliber or what YOU determine as the guns intended use?  I'll go ahead and call BULLSHIT there too.  Maybe I do think there is a line on what should be acceptable as for how many guns 1 person might own.  I do completely believe that there are ways around that as well.  Create a law and someone finds a loophole. 

Shawn went on to close his piece by saying that we tend to wait until the next massacre before we begin talks about the subject again.  I think there are a lot of reasons behind that.  Importantly Shawn also mentions something about "trade offs".  I've got a great one Shawn.  You give up your guns (because Ms. Feinstein said you're incompetent) and I'll keep all of mine.  How does it get any better than that?