The MADD Model Protecting Our 2nd Amendment Rights

Letters to the AmmoLand Editor
Letters to the AmmoLand Editor: Got something on your mind? Let us know and you can see it here.

Gold Beach, OR –-( I listened to a liberal Congressman state that to push for stricter gun control they need a grassroots push like MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.

The more I thought about it, the more I became to believe the MADD model was a perfect model FOR Second Amendment Rights as they are currently written.

What did MADD do to reduce drunk driving?
There was a push to ensure clerks checked the identification of liquor purchasers. They didn’t outlaw liquor nor did they try to limit how much or what kind of liquor people could purchase. Cars were not outlawed nor were they limited on the amount of horsepower of an engine. They pushed for stricter punishments and mandatory punishment for drunk drivers. Law enforcement keeps track of those convicted of drunk driving and the punishment escalates as the law breakers continue their drinking and driving. The other push by MADD was to encourage the public to call 9-1-1 and report suspected drunk drivers.

The bottom line is that they got stricter laws, punishments, and the “see something, say something.”

This is the ideal model for gun violence control. We don’t need to limit the number or types of guns and ammunition law-abiding citizens can purchase. Stricter, mandatory punishment for violations is essential. A felon in possession of a gun cannot be plead down to a misdemeanor and given probation. District Attorneys and Judges cannot have discretion on filing or punishments.

I personally have seen felons picked up for possession of a firearm, let out of jail within 10 days and given probation. Within a month, they were picked up for the same offense and given a probation sanction of up to 30 days. This is an unacceptable situation.

Fixing the background check systems has to be accomplished. If the background information is up-to-date and includes mental health issues, we would keep many guns out of the hands of those most likely to illegally use a gun. Background checks should include gun shows. Even California, with its tough gun laws, admits that they are 40,000 people behind in disarming people who they know have guns and have been adjudicated with felonies or mental health issues.

Finally, the public must be encouraged to speak up and report persons known to be antisocial or mentally ill. Mental health and law enforcement would be required to follow through like they do for reports of drunk drivers. In the vast majority of the mass murders recently, had anyone who knew the person was “odd”, antisocial, or mentally ill reported it and mental health or law enforcement had done a follow-up immediately, perhaps we would have averted the tragedies.

  • 7 thoughts on “The MADD Model Protecting Our 2nd Amendment Rights

    1. We dont need gun controle other than fellons. We need M.A.D. mutecualy assured disstruction. Whe the general population is armed at the same persentage as the crimmanal elamment crime will go down.

        1. Looks like the ‘Spelling Police’ and the ‘Grammar Police’ share a problem with the real Police. In law enforcement jargon it’s known as ‘Response Time’. That article was posted 2 years ago. LOL

    2. MADD would work if the laws were enforced. When I live near a town of 1,500 people and see that someone has been arrested for the 15th time in 2 years for DUI and the judge gives him 30 days or time served, he just goes back out and does it for the 16th time. I see in in the paper every week in the paper of this tiny little town. The laws already on the books are not enforced. No one has thought, yet, to blame law abiding drivers, but it shows up in our auto insurance. What the hell is un-insured motorist insurance? There should be no such thing. These people who don’t have insurance are breaking the laws by driving without insurance, not me. Why should I have to pay for them? They need to go to jail for a long time.They haven’t learned anything because we are footing the bill for them. My son was hit by a driver who had no insurance and my insurance co. said we would have to pay $500 deductible, but the cop making out the report “missed” that the insurance card the woman gave him, had expired. So I said screw the insurance co. and the law. I called the woman up and told her she would either pay up or go to jail for driving with no insurance. She paid. Now they want gun owners to foot the bill for criminals by giving up our rights, while they keep theirs. It ain’t going to happen. As Biden loves to say, “enough, is enough, is enough! The gun grabbers can put any spin they want to on it. We are not paying for what someone else does. They need to stop being coddled by politicians and the media and own what they do!!!

    3. Although, I agree with most of what you said, you have gotten one point extremely wrong. In fact it contradicts most of what you said. It concerns the background check, if the punishment for felons in possession were tough enough & implemented 100% of the time, the need for background
      checks would be mute! The numerous laws on the books need to be enforced period!

    Leave a Comment 7 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *