Gun control....

[NancyM]

akmom -
That is true. Unfair discrimination against people treated for mental illness is rife, all over the world. On the other hand, sometimes it is necessary to "discriminate". Not all discrimination is unfair..

I have to disagree with you SD, all discrimination<I> IS </I>unfair. It's UNJUST and Prejudicial treatment of an human being.

If someone is unfit to own a gun, than that shouldn't be based on discrimination, but on fact. If it's proven in court the way it should be, with the citizens rights and amendments protected, and it's still proven he's unstable, than so be it. He shouldn't own a gun.

But not because an official at the Pistol Licensing bureau got hold of someone's medical record and saw the word 'depressed' , and decided this person should not own a gun. That's discriminatory.

 

[akmom]

What <I>is a tyrannical government after all,</I> when really what we already have is a tyrannical global economy and a tyrannical market, controlled by multinational corporations larger than countries and controlling what we eat, what we think?

Yes, tyranny has a gradient, just like everything else. It's subjective what one person finds tyrannical versus another person. I think the kind of tyranny the framers of the Constitution envisioned was British rule over the colonies. Failure of the British government to address urgent needs in the colonies, and forbidding them to address it themselves. Taking away their representation in the legislature when something doesn't go the king's way. Holding legislative meetings where and when colonists couldn't possibly attend. Making it impossible for foreigners to naturalize, or for colonists to own new land. Hand-picking judges and firing them when they disagree with him. Keeping standing armies in times of peace and expecting the colonists to provide for their needs. Holding phony trials to find British troops innocent if they murder any colonists. Cutting off trade. Taxing them for the benefit of Britain, not the colonies. Preventing them from having fair trials. Burning down their cities and taking them captive and forcing them to fight against their own or be killed. This is what the colonists were facing when they initiated the American Revolution.

Some of those things are now tolerated, in various forms. So I think the kind of tyranny that modern Americans are afraid of is more like 1940s Poland. You should google "Kitty Werthmann," and read her account of how extreme tyranny happened rather swiftly under Nazi rule. There is some controversy over the accuracy of her account, but we all know what ultimately happened, and the exact steps it took to get there are not crucial. In any case, a greater initial resistance in Europe could have prevented a lot of what happened in World War II and prior, so the right of the people to be armed and prepared is essential. What happened then, and what still happens on a smaller scale in much of the world, is not even comparable to the relatively comfortable plight of first-world countries under the influence of powerful corporations. Notice I said "influence," which is not synonymous with "control."

 

[NancyM]

Sounds like a legal nightmare, trying to define the exact psychological parameters which make you eligible for a Constitutional right. And the law cannot be arbitrary and capricious, or a judge can toss it out. So how exactly would these laws define mental fitness, and could it do so without discriminating? I doubt it. Whereas a felony is clearly defined, committing it requires action, and getting convicted involves a due process. Acceptable mental state is difficult to define, beyond one's control, and impossible to prove. (It isn't illegal or even wrong to be depressed, and most of the time not even dangerous.)

Exactly that's my point, without legal parameters many mentally challenged people <I>would</I> be discriminated against. (You live in the U.S. Ak so I think you know it <I>is </I>a legal nightmare,you must also understand exactly how the process goes as well.) And on the other hand, it's a necessary nightmare because those parameters protect innocent people from having their freedoms taken away.

As you probably already know, unless a mentally ill person is ward of a state, or is under the legal guardianship of someone else by law, anyone accused of being unstable to own <I>anything,</I> has the right to argue it in a court of law. It isn't impossible to prove someone is mentally unstable, because documents and doctors can be used as witness. My concern was, if this person was deemed unstable without legal process. Every Citizen has the same rights weather we like it or not. Weather they are unstable in our <I>opinions</I> doesn't mean squat...as you know,you have to prove it.

What about a person's psychological state regarding politics? If you are relatively happy with your government, you're probably less likely to act out, right?

[FONT=&amp;quot]I’m not sure. if the person we’re talking about is psychologically stable, he’s probably less likely to act out when he’s happy. If he’s unstable to begin with, than he’s probably not[/FONT]

Maybe your views are moderate, or extreme. That probably plays into your statistical likelihood of making a political demonstration (such as the Gabby Giffords shooting). Shall only moderates own guns? Maybe you're "extreme" on certain subjects, but not others, such as a teacher who is passionate about educational legislation. Maybe that's an "acceptable" reason for extremism, so it doesn't factor into the risk equation.

I'm not sure what your saying here, but it sounds an awful lot like the same thing I was saying.

See where I am going with this? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You could conceivably "weed out" entire groups of thought by depriving their supporters of select rights, arguing that's it's too risky for <I>them</I> to have. In the case of bearing arms, that would defeat the point of the second amendment.

Yes. you don't have to convince me. None of what I was talking about in earlier posts was actually my opinion. I was expressing why we have certain rights and amendments added to our constitution. (discrimination for one) There are reasons why HIPPA exist, and I know people are discriminated against because of their medical conditions, and I agree with those laws,that our medical records should not be available for our police, or pistol licensing bureau to inspect without proper subpoenas.

I imagine most countries are protected the same way, weather they call their laws/rights an Amendment or not.

 

[akmom]

I wasn't disagreeing with your posts on this matter; I just quoted a snippet of yours for my introduction. Don't know whether that was clear.

 

[singledad]

We do defend democracy in many countries if they ask for our intervention. Maybe you don't get accurate information from your news media, I don't know. I would expect your country is simply looking after it's own interest, why shouldn't America?

Of course America should look after their own interests. They owe that to their citizens. I only object when they claim to be the protectors of democracy in the world and claim to be "establishing democracy" when all they are really doing is protecting their oil supply. But lets leave this debate. I don't think it can be resolved. I won't reply again on this matter since I've seen how ugly it can get.

 

[singledad]

I have to disagree with you SD, all discrimination<I> IS </I>unfair. It's UNJUST and Prejudicial treatment of an human being.

If someone is unfit to own a gun, than that shouldn't be based on discrimination, but on fact. If it's proven in court the way it should be, with the citizens rights and amendments protected, and it's still proven he's unstable, than so be it. He shouldn't own a gun.

But not because an official at the Pistol Licensing bureau got hold of someone's medical record and saw the word 'depressed' , and decided this person should not own a gun. That's discriminatory.

What if that record said "Uncontrolled rage, psychotic episodes, suicidal tendencies, possible danger to himself and/or others" - would denying him on those grounds not also be discrimination?

What if the licensing bureau couldn't get their hands on said record?

What if this person has very few or no close relationships, except with his battered wife who is too scared of him to say anything. What if he is able to project a stable image to the world, leaving his colleagues and neighbors unaware of the fits of rage that happened behind closed doors?

This is what: He will be given a fire-arm license.

Exactly that's my point, without legal parameters many mentally challenged people <I>would</I> be discriminated against. (You live in the U.S. Ak so I think you know it <I>is </I>a legal nightmare,you must also understand exactly how the process goes as well.)

And I, not living in the US obviously knows nothing? Or are you saying that the US administration is so inept that if they are allowed any decision-making abilities, unfair discrimination is inevitable?

As you probably already know, unless a mentally ill person is ward of a state, or is under the legal guardianship of someone else by law, anyone accused of being unstable to own <I>anything,</I> has the right to argue it in a court of law. It isn't impossible to prove someone is mentally unstable, because documents and doctors can be used as witness. My concern was, if this person was deemed unstable without legal process. Every Citizen has the same rights weather we like it or not. Weather they are unstable in our <I>opinions</I> doesn't mean squat...as you know,you have to prove it.

And that is how it should be. And yes, denying someone for something like situational depression would be unfair, and there should be an appeals process. Anything should be able to be challenged in court as a last resort. If I get rejected, I should be able to go to court and make the state justify its decision, or have it overturned. That is why I am happy to be living in a country with an independent judiciary. The courts don't answer to the state - they only answer to the law and the constitution.

I don't see the point of demanding a subpoena though. Accessing mental health records should be a standard part of the process of approving a fire-arm license. Why should more than a written application be required? It just adds more red-tape and another technicality on which sound evidence can be thrown out, forcing the state to grant a license to a potential maniac because one official cut a corner.


My foster father should NEVER have had a fire-arm, but he had a legally licensed pistol. His records were never checked, or were ignored. I'm not sure what the process was here, pre-1994. After his death, the records were subpoenad and they contained some really revealing information. I don't precisely recall what - my memory is a bit vague. But he should never have owned a gun and he did. He should never have been approved as a foster parent, but he was.

Do you know what it feels like to have the barrel of a 9mm pressed against your cheekbone?

I do.

I was an innocent child. My right to a safe home should have trumped his right to own a weapon.

They should have checked his records.

Edited to add - what's with the bold?

 

[akmom]

That all sounds like an attempt to deprive a person of their rights before a crime is committed. That's just not how it works here. A person is innocent until proven guilty, and as such, they have a Constitutional right to bear arms. Criminals don't. Once they are proven guilty in a court of law, or by their own plea, then they are stripped of this right. All this talk of inspecting medical records and interviewing family and friends is an attempt to predict who is going to be a criminal, but thankfully that's just not how it works. No one gets to label you a criminal until you commit a crime.

Do you know what it feels like to have the barrel of a 9mm pressed against your cheekbone?

I do.

I was an innocent child. My right to a safe home should have trumped his right to own a weapon.

They should have checked his records.

What records? Criminal records? In the U.S., such a person wouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Pointing a gun at a child would be considered at least fourth-degree assault here, so if he was caught, tried and convicted, your foster father wouldn't have been allowed a gun (here). He'd have a criminal record that prevented that.

I only object when they claim to be the protectors of democracy in the world and claim to be "establishing democracy" when all they are really doing is protecting their oil supply.

I know you don't want to debate this, but I wanted to clarify that I wasn't depicting the U.S. as heroic for this, nor suggesting pure intentions, or even condoning it. I just think that a lot of countries know that the U.S. would intervene if they plummeted into a brutal dictatorship, so they don't necessarily need their citizens armed to stop them. And yes, there are also countries who do not fall under the U.S. radar. But the ones that do... can't really be used as examples of democracy flourishing without gun rights, because there's more to the picture.

 

[singledad]

What records? Criminal records? In the U.S., such a person wouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Pointing a gun at a child would be considered at least fourth-degree assault here, so if he was caught, tried and convicted, your foster father wouldn't have been allowed a gun (here). He'd have a criminal record that prevented that.

I don't know what records. He had not been convicted of anything, but there were documents proving that he was a dangerous and unstable man - that is all I know. I don't remember more than that.

Yes, if he was caught, tried and convicted here, he would also have gone to prison. But one - he was dead by then and two - that wouldn't have help me at all. But those documents - whatever they were - allowed his murderer to walk. And for that I am glad.

I don't suppose we'll ever agree on this, but I believe that prevention is better than cure. I believe that allowing someone who is proven to be unstable is irresponsible and unfair towards his future victims. You are not convicting him of anything. Not being able to own a gun isn't exactly an unbearable hardship

 

[cybele]

I would like to just quickly point out that the US does have a monopoly on media. Many, many countries have American news, American newspapers and American magazines in popular circulation. Not to mention the whole internet thing we are currently using.

The "maybe your country doesn't provide accurate information" style argument is pretty redundant.

 

[akmom]

Yes, if he was caught, tried and convicted here, he would also have gone to prison.

Then it seems the problem was that they ignored evidence of a crime, rather than using it to convict him. Do we really want some unaccountable entity reviewing records and making their own judgments about a person's rights? Or do we want to try that same evidence in a court of law, with standards and accountability, and administer the whole package of justice? I vote the latter. If there's evidence that someone is dangerous, then run them through the entire legal process, don't just take away their gun rights and call it good. And if someone hasn't done something criminal, then we shouldn't be assuming anything about them, because there's no way to predict who will commit crimes, and it's unfair to label someone a future criminal or deprive them of rights that others have.

It sounds like lazy justice is being used as an excuse to invade people's privacy and prejudice certain conditions. Wouldn't it be better to just follow through and enforce the laws we already have in America?

 

[NancyM]

I wasn't disagreeing with your posts on this matter; I just quoted a snippet of yours for my introduction. Don't know whether that was clear.

I thought that, but sometimes it's hard to recognize the tone of a person's post. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[NancyM]

Of course America should look after their own interests. They owe that to their citizens. I only object when they claim to be the protectors of democracy in the world and claim to be "establishing democracy" when all they are really doing is protecting their oil supply. But lets leave this debate. I don't think it can be resolved. I won't reply again on this matter since I've seen how ugly it can get.

You should say what you 'really' mean than SD, regardless of what you see or read about us, most Americans aren't psychic mediums and can't read your mind..

Nancy has left the debate!

 

[singledad]

Do we really want some unaccountable entity reviewing records and making their own judgments about a person's rights?

No, not an unaccountable entity. That entity should be held accountable for their decisions and be open to be challenged. As I've stated repeatedly.

So you propose that we give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and if someone who it could have been flagged as unstable goes on and commits a crime then we wring our hands and say how sad it all is, and how predictable, but nothing could have been done?

I'm sorry, but on this we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that sometimes the one has to make sacrifices for the good of the many.

You know what? If I were to apply for a fire-arm license, I'm 99% sure I'd be declined. Why? Mental health history - courtesy, at least in part, of above-mentioned foster father. I don't blame the authorities. I blame him, and my father, and everyone who didn't lift a finger to help me when I was a kid. And the blithering idiot who looked at my foster father's record and still thought it was a good idea to give him a fire-arm license, let alone still approve him as a foster parent...

I think I should now step back from this debate too. It is becoming way to personal and I am getting uncomfortably close to revealing information I don't want on an open forum.

 

[singledad]

You should say what you 'really' mean than SD, regardless of what you see or read about us, most Americans aren't psychic mediums and can't read your mind..

Nancy has left the debate!

Oooh sarcasm. That'll teach me!

I said exactly what I meant. Read it again.

 

[NancyM]

What if that record said "Uncontrolled rage, psychotic episodes, suicidal tendencies, possible danger to himself and/or others" - would denying him on those grounds not also be discrimination?

What if the licensing bureau couldn't get their hands on said record?

What if this person has very few or no close relationships, except with his battered wife who is too scared of him to say anything. What if he is able to project a stable image to the world, leaving his colleagues and neighbors unaware of the fits of rage that happened behind closed doors?

This is what: He will be given a fire-arm license.

And I, not living in the US obviously knows nothing? Or are you saying that the US administration is so inept that if they are allowed any decision-making abilities, unfair discrimination is inevitable?
It is a necessary evil, because allowing that access will protect innocent people from having their lives destroyed, or even ended.

And that is how it should be. And yes, denying someone for something like situational depression would be unfair, and there should be an appeals process. Anything should be able to be challenged in court as a last resort. If I get rejected, I should be able to go to court and make the state justify its decision, or have it overturned. That is why I am happy to be living in a country with an independent judiciary. The courts don't answer to the state - they only answer to the law and the constitution.

I don't see the point of demanding a subpoena though. Accessing mental health records should be a standard part of the process of approving a fire-arm license. Why should more than a written application be required? It just adds more red-tape and another technicality on which sound evidence can be thrown out, forcing the state to grant a license to a potential maniac because one official cut a corner.


My foster father should NEVER have had a fire-arm, but he had a legally licensed pistol. His records were never checked, or were ignored. I'm not sure what the process was here, pre-1994. After his death, the records were subpoenad and they contained some really revealing information. I don't precisely recall what - my memory is a bit vague. But he should never have owned a gun and he did. He should never have been approved as a foster parent, but he was.

Do you know what it feels like to have the barrel of a 9mm pressed against your cheekbone?

I do.

I was an innocent child. My right to a safe home should have trumped his right to own a weapon.

They should have checked his records.

Edited to add - what's with the bold?

What if that record said "Uncontrolled rage, psychotic episodes, suicidal tendencies, possible danger to himself and/or others" - would denying him on those grounds not also be discrimination?

What if the licensing bureau couldn't get their hands on said record?

What if this person has very few or no close relationships, except with his battered wife who is too scared of him to say anything. What if he is able to project a stable image to the world, leaving his colleagues and neighbors unaware of the fits of rage that happened behind closed doors?

This is what: He will be given a fire-arm license.

And I, not living in the US obviously knows nothing? Or are you saying that the US administration is so inept that if they are allowed any decision-making abilities, unfair discrimination is inevitable?
It is a necessary evil, because allowing that access will protect innocent people from having their lives destroyed, or even ended.

And that is how it should be. And yes, denying someone for something like situational depression would be unfair, and there should be an appeals process. Anything should be able to be challenged in court as a last resort. If I get rejected, I should be able to go to court and make the state justify its decision, or have it overturned. That is why I am happy to be living in a country with an independent judiciary. The courts don't answer to the state - they only answer to the law and the constitution.

I don't see the point of demanding a subpoena though. Accessing mental health records should be a standard part of the process of approving a fire-arm license. Why should more than a written application be required? It just adds more red-tape and another technicality on which sound evidence can be thrown out, forcing the state to grant a license to a potential maniac because one official cut a corner.


My foster father should NEVER have had a fire-arm, but he had a legally licensed pistol. His records were never checked, or were ignored. I'm not sure what the process was here, pre-1994. After his death, the records were subpoenad and they contained some really revealing information. I don't precisely recall what - my memory is a bit vague. But he should never have owned a gun and he did. He should never have been approved as a foster parent, but he was.

Do you know what it feels like to have the barrel of a 9mm pressed against your cheekbone?

I do.

I was an innocent child. My right to a safe home should have trumped his right to own a weapon.

They should have checked his records.

Edited to add - what's with the bold?

As usuall, you've misunderstood my previous post SD..

I said I was in objection to allowing authorities the <I>power</I> to control my rights (by searching my medical records) <I>with out</I>, <I>I </I>repeat, <I>without</I> taking the <I>necessary</I> legal actions first. Otherwise MINE/YOURS and OUR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS MEAN NOTHING.

I believe I said the medical records <I>should</I> be viewed as part of the licensing bureau's investigation, BEFORE they give a gun. The part you misunderstood is in the way I stated they should obtain the records, the authorities need to go through channels to get to them by subpoena (like anyone else)

I also stated mentally ill people SHOULD NEVER own a gun. But the <I>only</I> way they should have that right <I>taken away from them</I> and be determined mentally ill, is to have gone through the legal process. Someone has to prove it. (I suppose this wouldn't make sense in war torn countries, or in countries where the right to bare arms isn't <I>Statuted </I></SIZE>[/FONT][/SIZE]</SIZE>[/FONT]but it is here, and it's what we talk about. )

No, I never had a gun held against my face, and your foster father was something less than scum, but in 2009 my beautiful and gentle nephew was murdered by a hand gun shot in the back and left for dead alone and scared in a dark street. That image will always haunt us. So I have experienced what horrors occur when guns get in the hands of the wrong people

But I still defend my right to privacy. In this case mine and my family's medical records not to be accessed with out
1. our consent.
2. with out legal process if we don't consent.
as it should be for everyone.

Maybe it's just an American thing after all. I don't know.

 

[bssage]

Jeeez you guys are killin me.

I am sleep deprived so gotta sleep. New years resolution is not to post when I am over tired.

Everybody Remain calm set your keyboards and mice down and step away from the computer.

Really a lot of good points made. On both sides of the fence. Most I believe have reasonable answers. Please try and keep open minds.

 

[akmom]

So you propose that we give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and if someone who it could have been flagged as unstable goes on and commits a crime then we wring our hands and say how sad it all is, and how predictable, but nothing could have been done?

Yes, that is how our legal system works. We are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The philosophy is that it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to let one innocent person be wrongly convicted. There is always a risk. But anything else would be a police state, and that carries its own problems.

No, not an unaccountable entity. That entity should be held accountable for their decisions and be open to be challenged. As I've stated repeatedly.

That would be putting the burden of proof on the accused. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. You don't have to prove your innocence; it is presumed. Instead, the prosecution is the one who has to prove your guilt, and the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." And if they want to do that using medical records, then they have to get a duces tecum (like a subpoena, except for documents instead of testimony). To get that, they must present "probable cause" to a judge; meaning, they must have a reason to suspect you of a crime, in order to gather that evidence, and must convince a judge that it's a reasonable suspicion. They can't just go digging through your medical records. Nor is wanting a firearm considered "probable cause" that you're involved in crime. It's simply exercising one's right bear arms, which our Constitution forbids be infringed. Now, they don't need a subpoena to ask friends and family if you are mentally unstable. And if those questions lead them to believe you are dangerous, then that would probably suffice as "probable cause" to investigate you, at which point a judge might grant access to medical records. But to require citizens to give them up automatically, in exchange for a guaranteed Constitution right, would be in violation of HIPAA (medical privacy laws in the U.S.).
　

I think I should now step back from this debate too. It is becoming way to personal and I am getting uncomfortably close to revealing information I don't want on an open forum.

I can appreciate that. And I don't want to prod you on the details of your own bad experiences with firearms. But I will say, it sounds like your foster father should have been more vigorously vetted. I have no problem with investigating people who wish to be foster parents. Foster parenting is not a Constitutional right in the U.S., so the background checks, home inspections, interviews and investigations are tolerated. If you don't like it, then you don't apply to be a foster parent. But owning firearms here is a right, so you don't have to go out of your way to prove fitness. Rather, the government has to go out of its way to prove unfitness. I think guns are important for so many reasons that I'm glad it's this way. And mass shooting are relatively rare.

If we were to force citizens to prove their fitness on all matters involving danger, we'd never be able to keep up. The DMV (government entity that issues driver's licenses) issues licenses to any one who is old enough, passes a written test on traffic laws, and demonstrates competency on a road test. (For the record, I wouldn't mind a similar requirement for gun owners to pass a gun safety course.) We don't dig through their medical records or interview their neighbors to try to predict whether this person has a drinking problem, or a rage problem, or poor decision-making skills, or is clumsy and reckless. We let them get behind the wheel and risk making all those mistakes, and then revoke their licenses after the fact. And a LOT more people are killed by car accidents than guns.

 

[NancyM]

Jeeez you guys are killin me.

I am sleep deprived so gotta sleep. New years resolution is not to post when I am over tired.

Everybody Remain calm set your keyboards and mice down and step away from the computer.

Really a lot of good points made. On both sides of the fence. Most I believe have reasonable answers. Please try and keep open minds.

lol Deep breath taken, mouse slowly being placed down. sheesh

 

[bssage]

Pardon me for asking, but I am actually quite puzzled by this, as an outsider not from USA. So - what <I>actually </I><U>is</U> the point of the second amendment?

It's so the people can rise up against a tyrannical government.

Different people will interpret this in different ways. There are plenty of links to search this topic. The way I interpret the actual text. Is we have the "right to bear arms" For defense, Hunting, Sport, and to ensure the federal government is not the only one with arms. I dont understand it as a enabling right to turn against the government or in other words an offensive tool. But rather a defensive tool. Enabling us to protect ourselves if need be. It does also spell out the need for state militia's to be maintained separately from our federal forces. Saddly enough Jeremy is make no mention of "Muskets only"

With all due respect, I don't think America cares about defending democracy in other countries.
From where I stand, it looks an awful lot like America is simply looking after it's own interests.

With all due respect. War is an expensive proposition. It would not serve anyone to provide support when said support could serve to destabilize our own infrastructure. So to gain popular support (and funding) yes it is most likely that some benefit would have to be demonstrated to show value to the action other than just being a charitable act. We do have varying levels of involvement in many other less publicized conflicts around the world. From support: to actual involvement. With varying levels of value to us as a nation. I don't have the stamina to research them all. My personal opinion is that most that we have become officially involved in have involved either a benefit to our safety or security (yes includes oil) and some component of democracy.

To my knowledge we do not invade other nations: plant our flags: and make them abide by the laws of the USA. I think in many cases we try to influence the directions these nations will move forward But this is not at all new. Nor is it specific to the US.

At the risk of sounding niave. I think we do some good. I really want to believe that.

We have all seen the movies and read the books. Can and does is this system leave the door open for corruptions? The answer would clearly be yes.

I think you should also look back at why this came about. And how we learned this. This aid or assistance to other countries I believe was born from our own. When nations stepped foward at a time when the States needed that assistance. This is not our invention. Nor is it only a US mandate.

To me, it's not even the worst, in terms of being outdated.

When you can influence the entire population through mass medias, education and religion, control 99% of the economy or use sound and microwave "non-lethal" mass dispersion canon, who cares about your population having <I>guns</I> ? Can the US citizen even get to the point where they would <I>want</I> to rise up against a tyrannical government?
What <I>is a tyrannical government after all,</I> when really what we already have is a tyrannical global economy and a tyrannical market, controlled by multinational corporations larger than countries and controlling what we eat, what we think?

While you are correct to a point. It would be nearsighted to not believe this was not achieved at least in part to the controls we have in place. To remove the checks as they are no longer needed. Would simply allow history to repeat itself. Much in the way labor unions have been considered obsolete. IMHO it is there very presence that allows us to consider them obsolete. And thinking that big business would (or governments) "do the right thing" without them is IMHO shortsighted.

I'm sorry, but on this we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that sometimes the one has to make sacrifices for the good of the many.

Actually that means we agree. We just disagree who the "few" and who the "many" are. We are saying we don't want to take away the rights of the "many" to serve the "few" . You are saying we should sacrifice the rights of the "few" to serve the "many". We are saying the same thing with a simple perceptive shift. We view the "many" as all Americans You are defining the "many" as the victims of our lack of gun control. We are defining the "few" as violently mentally disabled. And you are defining the "few" as gun owners.

What I think is lost in translation is that. We dont want to forgo any right we have. We can see the writing on the wall that giving up a right: is a slippery slope. If a case is made to give up our right to bear arms. Then we can see slick arguments in the wind that would diminish our right to free speech ect ect ect.

I hate to use this as an argument but I am gonna do it anyway.

The big move in the states is making things difficult for the smoker. Why not? Its unhealthy and expensive to the public. It is a nuisance So they tax and tax and tax some more (up to 700% in some states). Its known as a sin tax. Hard to argue because it is unhealthy. They have a very defensible position. But here is the deal. Now we have established that its ok to have a unregulated sin tax on something unpopular. Next up? They are going after soda pop. Hot dogs are on the list. Fast food yep its gaining support also. Where does it end. After all its a "SIN" tax. Who's definition of sin are we going to use as we move forward as a nation? (If you missed it this is in support of my "slippery slope theory")


Most Americans can see how this could apply to our rights as citizens. We can see how if we eliminate our "right to bear arms" The forces to bear could simply move there resources to the next "right" on the list. You think free speech would not be in jeopardy I am sure there are already a group working on restrictions. Do you wonder why: even though some poster's to this thread who don't even have guns. Who don't ever anticipate getting a gun. Are defending that right?

If we want to see this thread add value. We should look at ways that are actually achievable to improve the issues of responsible gun ownership. Looking at taking it off the table is futile. I say the gun community needs to step up to the plate. They need to be more proactive in putting responsible safeguards in place. There are a ton of opportunities for them to "self police". Vendors of ammo and guns could go a long way toward improving the situation. Improve locking technology. Make affordable safes. Don't make the most destructive ammo the least expensive to buy. Cole and I shoot 100% of our target shooting with 22 hollow points. Why do I need a hollow point to shoot a piece of paper or tin can? I don't. Its half the price of regular ammo. How does that make sense?

My point is that there are a lot of realistic changes that can be done right away without government intervention. Spend some of that campaigning money on ad's and resources to inform and educate on mental illness and guns. Make it hard to ignore the fact that you have kids and no safe. Or a family member with illness and access to guns. If we don't accept our share of responsibility and act on that. I am afraid someone will.

 

[NancyM]

That was very nicely said bssage and I thank you for it.

You covered all bases concisely on a subject that has a lot of technical jargon. and lots of complicated explanations. Good job..