Posts: 424
Threads: 259
Joined: May 2013
Reputation:
164
I have an honest question on gun control.
In light of recent events, why does the left argument always go to more laws and not stricter enforcement of existing laws. I mean the right side is/has/ and always will demand that the current laws be better enforced so why not do that for a few years and see where that gets us? why not use the existing laws to full extent possible and then look to create new ones as the situation demands? I think the new laws would be better accepted if existing laws were proven to be a failure.
I heard that yesterdays gunman stabbed his neighbor earlier this year... that has to be a felony doesnt it? first off how he isnt in jail is beyond me... maybe its a liberal california thing, but I have to think stabbing somebody should warrant a felony jail sentence. with that felony he can no longer own, posess, or use firearms... it was reported by several citizens in that are that the whack job has been shooting off thousands of rounds of ammo lately... so if he is a felon, he isnt trying to hide his gun posession. he shouldnt have been walking the streets let alone owning guns and shooting up innocents.
I would also say that if a person is to mentally unstable to stay in the military... they likely shouldnt own firearms either, no way the fucker in Texas should have ever been able to own a damn gun.
MOVED.
Inappropriate location.
Quote: @"Mike Olson" said:
MOVED.
Inappropriate location.
i had beat you to it.
Quick draw ok this liberal is outta here!
To answer your question: because the goal (for liberals) is not to save lives. It is to control them.
Quote: @"pumpf" said:
To answer your question: because the goal (for liberals) is not to save lives. It is to control them.
I dont know if that is true here, if they really wanted to enact more laws, then obviously enforcing the existing ones would be a means to an end wouldnt it. use the existing laws to show that gun control through legislation works, but they dont push for that... just more laws with no teeth except to make law abiding gun ownership more difficult.
I'm about as "left of the foul pole" as they come, but honestly I don't think stricter gun control laws would do anything to quiet the storm of anyone intent on doing harm to others. Also, I am a firm believer in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I think freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly are good things.
Although I personally don't own any weapons, I support the second amendment, and the rights of individuals who want them, assault rifles included. I don't "pick and choose" what I like about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A criminal intent to do harm...will find a way. More legislation is not the answer IMO. My liberal views reflect primarily on educational practices and unemployment resolutions. Personally would rather have the government use my taxes for schools and assistance for those who need it than bombs, but I digress...
To draw a parallel. I've taught now for about 30 years at the secondary level. It has been my pleasure to work with many wonderful people in that time. Every once in a while there is a teacher who commits conduct violations...and it makes all teachers look bad. It's tough to find people who care about your kids education as much as their parents do, but once in a while a few slip though the cracks. Districts do all they can through paper screening, University transcripts, interviews, observations, but bottom line is there are a few bad apples in the bunch.
OK....have at me!
Quote: @"Vanguard83" said:
I'm about as "left of the foul pole" as they come, but honestly I don't think stricter gun control laws would do anything to quiet the storm of anyone intent on doing harm to others. Also, I am a firm believer in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I think freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly are good things.
Although I personally don't own any weapons, I support the second amendment, and the rights of individuals who want them, assault rifles included. I don't "pick and choose" what I like about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A criminal intent to do harm...will find a way. More legislation is not the answer IMO. My liberal views reflect primarily on educational practices and unemployment resolutions. Personally would rather have the government use my taxes for schools and assistance for those who need it than bombs, but I digress...
To draw a parallel. I've taught now for about 30 years at the secondary level. It has been my pleasure to work with many wonderful people in that time. Every once in a while there is a teacher who commits conduct violations...and it makes all teachers look bad. It's tough to find people who care about your kids education as much as their parents do, but once in a while a few slip though the cracks. Districts do all they can through paper screening, University transcripts, interviews, observations, but bottom line is there are a few bad apples in the bunch.
OK....have at me!
whats to have at? you stated your position without attacking (belittling, demeaning, etc etc) somebody else in the process... I salute you. ( thanks!)
so what do you feel would be a good course of action to try and minimize these mass acts of violence? I agree that you cant stop crazy, but I am open to a discussion on how to minimize the act and reduce the frequency.
Don't know that I can adequately answer because I haven't investigated the depth of current gun laws, background checks, existing loopholes, etc. but I think it's like trying to stop the tide. Whatever inadequacies that exist in background checks, certainly there are more capable people than I to TRY and resolve the issue. But I don't want MORE restrictions on what I can and can't do, who my daughter can and can't love...Nonetheless, if the motivation is there to kill someone / group, it's gonna happen.
My brother is a 30 year veteran of the Marine Corps and struggles with PTSD. I CAN tell you that the VA mental health professionals are woefully understaffed. He has a short fuse, and has difficulty moving forward from conflict. Not sure of those available in the private sector, but I think it's a disservice that someone can't get the support needed before someone resorts to killing. There should be a free (told you I was a liberal) service for those struggling with mental health issues, dependency, abuse, etc. Problem is people often dont recognize their own issues before rash action.
Wish I had the answer, but like trying to fight the tide
Quote: @"Vanguard83" said:
Don't know that I can adequately answer because I haven't investigated the depth of current gun laws, background checks, existing loopholes, etc. but I think it's like trying to stop the tide. Whatever inadequacies that exist in background checks, certainly there are more capable people than I to TRY and resolve the issue. Nonetheless, if the motivation is there to kill someone / group, it's gonna happen.
My brother is a 30 year veteran of the Marine Corps and struggles with PTSD. I CAN tell you that the VA mental health professionals are woefully understaffed. He has a short fuse, and has difficulty moving forward from conflict. Not sure of those available in the private sector, but I think it's a disservice that someone can't get the support needed before someone resorts to killing. There should be a free (told you I was a liberal) service for those struggling with mental health issues, dependency, abuse, etc. Problem is people often dont recognize their own issues before rash action.
Wish I had the answer, but like trying to fight the tide
mental health is a sticky one, we all know that there are people that need help, but the people that need it say they dont need it and until they are proven by professionals to need it... how do you infringe on their constitutional rights to things like gun ownership? what comes first... the chicken or the egg? how do you get these PTSD sufferers to seek the help they need... regardless of who is paying?
as far as gun control in terms of mental health... if the soldier in texas was discharged with mental issues... that cat was out of the bag, he should not have been able to purchase a gun until his mental status has been restored IMO. the part I have trouble with regarding mental health issues preventing gun ownership... what is to prevent liberal mental health professionals from further their political agenda and slapping issues on everybody they come in contact with to kill gun ownership for many? and since pretty much every damn person is suffering from something... what becomes a disqualifying issue? should a person whose mental issues are under control via medication be considered fixed and be allowed to buy firearms?
|
