Search found 2 matches

by chasfm11
Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:39 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Breaking The Gun Control Stalemate (Article)
Replies: 55
Views: 6252

Re: Breaking The Gun Control Stalemate (Article)

To start a real discussion, this would be a good place
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... john-fund#
National Review Online
December 16, 2012 4:00 P.M.
by John Fund
Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that “gun-free” zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work.
by chasfm11
Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:06 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Breaking The Gun Control Stalemate (Article)
Replies: 55
Views: 6252

Re: Breaking The Gun Control Stalemate (Article)

XinTX wrote:There won't be a real 'discussion' on guns in the US until we can have an intellectually honest discussion. And we haven't been able to have one on this subject in decades (at least), it not the last century. It needs to start with the fact that the 2A is in the Constitution NOT to guarantee us a 'right' to shoot squirrels, but as a bulwark against tyrrany. The entire framing of the Constitition was toward that end. If resistance against a tyrranical government by speaking truth (1A) didn't work, they tyrant wouldn't push too far due to the very real check of armed resistance. But we as a nation have forgotten that. And NO, I'm not calling for some sort of insurrection, just pointing out the origins and purpose of 2A. It is rooted in the events in Concord. There is no reference to 'legitimate sporting purpose' in 2A. Heck, back in the Colonial era a lot of towns had a canon. The 'government' didn't own them. They were frequently bought by the townspeople who chipped in to get one in order to deter attacks on the town.

And I doubt anyone here believes that if the antis get some of their so-called 'reasonable restrictions' on guns that they'll be happy and go away. Ain't gonna happen. If you give them EVERYTHING they want, then when the next incident happens (and it will) they'll say they didn't go far enough and want more, until they achieve their goal of a complete ban.

And I also have trouble now saying this should be in the hands of 'mental health care' people. Now that government, via OZeroCare, has essentially taken some level of control over the national health care system, it wouldn't be too hard to add people to 'the list' of people who are prohibited from owning firearms.

But the problem with freedom is that sometimes it creates a mess when people make bad choices or do stupid things.
The problem is that we haven't had an intellectually honest discussion on any topic in that same period. Environmental Protection? Global Warming/Climate Change? Debt? Taxes? Spending? Drugs? Immigration? You pick a subject and either the facts are manufactured to fit the agenda or the dialogue is pure emotion and laced with divisive rhetoric. For too long, the silent major remained silent and now those who have any reason have been outnumbered by those who refuse to think at all. Politics has always been a dirty business but somehow, it has sunk to new depths of immorality. Without some sort of a moral compass, things like an assault weapons ban, without any sort of basis for it develop a groundswell. The subprime mortgage crisis had its roots in a few people demanding mortgages for those who should not have them and the groundswell pushed it from there. Guns are not an isolated topic at all.

Return to “Breaking The Gun Control Stalemate (Article)”