We all know how you like to think with your feelings instead of the facts, and reacting viscerally to any problem by "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" is ALWAYS the answer, after all it's OBVIOUS isn't it? Well how about a logical, measured first step towards helpful legislation in this matter that might have a snowballs chance in he11 of being passed, that doesn't involve throwing out our constitutional rights which our wise forefathers put into law to protect us from the tyranny that they fought for with their own blood so you (ungrateful though you are) could enjoy the freedoms you enjoy today?
Make it illegal for a person who is officially diagnosed with a psychiatric disease and/or is prescribed psychotropic drugs such as SSRIs to live in a home or apartment in which firearms, licensed or otherwise, are present. There will also be severe penalties for any gun owner who knowingly or otherwise, allows this to occur. This is something that both sides could live with and probably would have prevented this tragedy. Also, make sure that the Background Check system weeds out such individuals from getting approval to possess a firearm.
Our humanity is the only thing that separates us from the Evil that men and women are tempted by in their weakest moments. It is the force of good and light that stands in opposition to the darkness that surrounds us. Liberalism is a beacon in the dark against ignorance and hate.
I agree that mentally disturbed people should not be allowed to possess firearms. The same holds true for people who are addicted to psychotropic drugs or who are convicted felons. However, to criminalize allowing a relative, who may be subject to one of these disabilities, from living in one's home---that is something which even a liberal might not think up. It clearly is violative of the United States Constitution to ban someone from living in your home simply because you happen to own and possess firearms. Lets get sensible regulations, such as prohibiting anyone who is mentally disturbed or who is a convicted felon or addicted to psychotropic drugs from possessing firearms. No reasonable person could want such individuals to have guns. You cannot have reasonable regulations which are consistent with the Constitution to cover every possible event.
I'm afraid reasonable arguments can be made against ANY legislation. In your suggestion above (which as you know, I agree with), there are those who will say that it will prevent some with mental illness from seeking medical assistance, if they know they may go on some database preventing them from owning a gun, possibly for life. SSRIs aren't technically addictive, but they are known to cause suicidal thoughts and behaviors, especially in the 18 to 24 year range. They probably do help some people and allow them to live a more normal life. Just because you criminalize something, doesn't mean the penalties can't be sensibly arrived at so as to make it clear to society that you mean business, but would remain somewhat at the judges discretion. It is clear that some people need to have it hammered home to them what a responsibility they have taken on by having guns in their home or apartment.
So If a family memeber who is "mentaly challenged " but not enough to be institutionalized ,and who can and will and or must live in your home then you as the "Normal" person must then be subjected to this 'NEW" regulation ad infinitum. Nice choice put a loved one away and keep your weapons or keep the loved one and get rid of your weapon or face penalty. These kind of knee jerk reactions are just as bad coming from your end. How about we start at the very beginning with self respect,respect of authority ,civics in school,moral teaching from parents responsibility of acts and finally Punishment commensurate with whatever infraction is commited. FOR CHRISE sakes we used to get on the bus, public transportation mind you, with our 22's and go plinking or shoot rodents down in the meadow in HUDSON county back in the 50's . No one ever gave it a second thought . WHY because of the way we were RAISED!
I agree with you totally, except for the fact that there is going to be national FERVOR, which must be satisfied with some form of legislation. I'm open to a suggestion for some other form of legislation which would have made this incident less LIKELY to have occurred (that's all you can hope for). An "assault weapons" ban and smaller magazines and clips would NOT have stopped this guy. Should we just let them do this without a fight, knowing full well that the massacres will continue unabated?
Any new legislation must also be accompanied by any common sense societal education steps (like your suggestions) that could be taken to make the additional legislation unnecessary in the first place, but those would take many years to have any effect, if ever.
Come up with another legislative suggestion (besides banning guns, censoring video games, censoring movies, banning all SSRIs), that's why I started this thread. Again, they will insist on legislation.
Would be nice to go back to the days of "leave it to #$%$" and "Andy of Mayberry." Some of the best years of our lives. I't is a shame that those days are long gone. Remember all the trust,kindness and common sense? I'm afraid thats gone too.
Sentiment: Strong Sell
I agree with DH the 20 something generation is lost in a video game world and the only hope is the generation behind them will overcome their stupidity.They show no respect for elders or human life for that matter.
I just dropped a liberal from Facebook. I couldn't stand the silly ideas pouring out of her head like a wound. She is not missed. There are addressable issues with gun laws, let's get them sorted out rationally.
Had a car in front of me today. The bumper sticker said "SUPPORT MENTAL HEALTH, OR I"LL KILL YOU".. How unusual, the Bumper sticker next to it said "Romney/RYAN 2012." Very Sick individual, I thought.
Sentiment: Strong Sell
Just tell me why a civilian needs to be in possession of an assault weapon which can unload 15 high powered shots in 2 minutes?
No one is against sporting activity or the ability of reasonable self defense.
You might ask why, when coming into a building where one person has created a disturbance, the police have AR-15s and pistols which have the ability to unload 15 or more "high powered" shots in 2 minutes---or less. The reason is self-protection. The police have such arms because when facing potential deadly physical force, one does not act like Jimmy Carter and bring the least resources to the scene. If you are using firearms for self-defense in your home, and an intruder, or intruders, breaks in at night, you certainly do not want to be in a position where you have run out of ammunition after only a couple of shots with the intruder, or intruders, still in the house. Honest citizens should not be put at risk because politicans, or others who expound on the subject, do not understand basic concepts of self-defense.
What an amazingly ignorant statement. An expert with a six-shooter can unload 18 rounds in a matter of seconds. There is NO SUCH THING as an "assault weapon" its a media-created term. Keep your ignorant piehole shut.
This gets back to what I was saying about how "the genie is out of the bottle". The intent of the 2nd amendment is to protect us from ever being subjected to tyranny ever again, in the awful happenstance where the very government could become the enemy of the people. Don't tell me it can't happen and make me mention Hitler, Serbia, Soviet Georgia......etc. Don't worry, if that happens citizens would still be trying to protect themselves from forces with FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons. That should make you happy enough. Do you think a vast civilian militia armed only with wrist rockets (to use a more extreme example) would be a deterrent and prevent that from occurring? By the way, it only takes 2 seconds to swap out a clip in a Glock or a Sig, which hold 15 and 17 rounds. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. I know you want to.
I would agree on your thoughts that people diagnosed with a psychiatric disease should be banned from owning guns. The ones on meds too. Would cut down on shootings somewhat. Would help IMO.What about the people that are considered normal? Then something in their lives, divorce,job loss, death of a loved one or many other lifes problems. Some people don't get help and some others just can't handle it. If some sick person has their mind set on going ballistic and planning a mass killing, he could care less about fines and jail, because his plan is also to commit suicide.
in that case you better be able to shoot back. Its your responsibility for your safety, and your alone. Nobody can save you, but yourself... And you ban guns, you stop people being able to protect themselves, especially the bad people who can get guns like you can get POT today. Did it stop alcohol from being sold. You libs do not see more than your emotional states allows you. Its so easy to manipulate emotional people.
Baby steps, baby steps. What would you have us do.......live in tubes like in the movie Matrix? That's the only true way to prevent ANYTHING bad from ever happening! The media doesn't have any interest in reporting (or ability to do so) all the lives that are SAVED by concealed carry permits and household protection firearms. The simple fact is that unless you can remove all weapons from the Earth, including the military of course, criminals will ALWAYS have them. That would require divine intervention or meddling by aliens (lol) in our affairs. The genie is out of the bottle, we have to proceed logically from here. Libs only think with their feelings.