It's Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control

[bhsmte]

Not the federal government's job. Not in their mission statement.

Maybe they should make it their job, to improve quality of life for citizens.

 

[Almost there]

It sounds like you're saying that these latest massacres occurred because of the gun debate?

I'm certainly not saying that anyone's going to talk this country into tossing all their guns into the recycling bin (beat them into plowshares, as it were), or that if it were somehow to happen, our problems would miraculously go away... but that's the worst-case scenario that some conservatives always come down to -- "you liberals want to take away our guns!"

But is the topic of more regulations on certain firearms so taboo that it's can't even be openly talked about? How many bloodbaths must we wade through before we're actually willing to at least discuss options -- some of which might include, yes, making certain types of firearms harder to come by?

As a classical Liberal myself (usually called "conservative" nowadays), for me it is about principle. I believe principles must be upheld. Principles are the foundations upon which our government and culture rests and gets its strength. When something like a rare mass shooting happens and people want to look at more gun laws, many of it see it as an attack on our basic principles. That makes it a VERY important issue. Imagine someone saying, "it would drastically reduce crime if we did house to house searches for weapons and drugs." That is a violation of our core principles - and quite unconstitutional.

...as are many of our gun laws. The attitude of the classical liberal is that guns are not the problem. Period. And arguing that they are misses the whole point and brings the character and logical reasoning skills of the person making that argument into question. It makes the person an enemy of freedom, and all that that implies. i.e. it falls into the ol' "those who give up a little freedom for a little security deserve neither."

And any new laws attempting to increase our security in this matter by reducing gun freedom is trading a HUGE freedom for arguably NO incrased security (when examining how many lives out of 330 million would be saved).

So we bristle at the suggestion.

 

[faroukfarouk]

As a classical Liberal myself (usually called "conservative" nowadays), for me it is about principle. I believe principles must be upheld. Principles are the foundations upon which our government and culture rests and gets its strength. When something like a rare mass shooting happens and people want to look at more gun laws, many of it see it as an attack on our basic principles. That makes it a VERY important issue. Imagine someone saying, "it would drastically reduce crime if we did house to house searches for weapons and drugs." That is a violation of our core principles - and quite unconstitutional.

...as are many of our gun laws. The attitude of the classical liberal is that guns are not the problem. Period. And arguing that they are misses the whole point and brings the character and logical reasoning skills of the person making that argument into question. It makes the person an enemy of freedom, and all that that implies. i.e. it falls into the ol' "those who give up a little freedom for a little security deserve neither."

And any new laws attempting to increase our security in this matter by reducing gun freedom is trading a HUGE freedom for arguably NO incrased security (when examining how many lives out of 330 million would be saved).

So we bristle at the suggestion.

There is an Uncle Joe Stalin in many a campaigner's heart, waiting - as if to unconscious psychological stimulus by events - to bureaucratize Big Brother at everyone's tax expense.

 

[Almost there]

Maybe they should make it their job, to improve quality of life for citizens.

Not worth it. Way too expensive both in money and individual freedom. It's a good thing for states to tackle, if they think it's worth the taxpayer's money and loss of freedom to do so. I know a doctor in Seattle was stabbed to death by a homeless guy outside a Seahawks game a couple of decades ago. I don't know i Washington state needs to spend a lot of taxpayer's money for a problem that kills one guy every few decades, though.

The federal government is there to solve "big" problems, like protecting our borders from other governments, or for coordination when criminals cross state borders and leave the jurisdiction of the state where the crime was committed. The rest of it can be handled just fine at the state level.

 

[mark46]

Not the federal government's job. Not in their mission statement.

OK. I acknowledge that there are those in the US that believe that the government should not be involved in any way in healthcare.

The VAST, VAST majority of Americans believe that "the public welfare" includes some role in providing access to healthcare, including mental healthcare. BTW, if this is not a federal responsibility, then this is left to the states and local governments, where the responsibility still remains. OF course, I understand that there are tor libertarians who wish for a new form of government, where the government has almost no role in our lives (Let those who us the roads, libraries, police and fire department pay for these service when they need them).

 

[bhsmte]

Not worth it. Way too expensive both in money and individual freedom. It's a good thing for states to tackle, if they think it's worth the taxpayer's money and loss of freedom to do so. I know a doctor in Seattle was stabbed to death by a homeless guy outside a Seahawks game a couple of decades ago. I don't know i Washington state needs to spend a lot of taxpayer's money for a problem that kills one guy every few decades, though.

The federal government is there to solve "big" problems, like protecting our borders from other governments, or for coordination when criminals cross state borders and leave the jurisdiction of the state where the crime was committed. The rest of it can be handled just fine at the state level.

Why would improving mental healthcare, cause people to lose freedoms?

 

[LostMarbels]

It sounds like you're saying that these latest massacres occurred because of the gun debate?

No. I understand that point of view. What I meant is Trump is pro 2nd amendment, and if they can not go after him directly they may choose to harm his supposed followers: White Conservative Christians. Country music concert. White Baptist church. Which are by all means labeled as racist nazi bigots that must be gotten rid of just like the regime they follow.

And these bigots won't give up their guns... I'll show them! kinda thing.

I'm certainly not saying that anyone's going to talk this country into tossing all their guns into the recycling bin (beat them into plowshares, as it were), or that if it were somehow to happen, our problems would miraculously go away... but that's the worst-case scenario that some conservatives always come down to -- "you liberals want to take away our guns!"

Well, they do... not buts about it. Liberals would be dancing in the streets if they abolished the second amendment.

No?

But is the topic of more regulations on certain firearms so taboo that it's can't even be openly talked about?

I think any topic can be discussed. I do not, however, think any action against the constitution should be taken without the consent of the American people.

How many bloodbaths must we wade through before we're actually willing to at least discuss options -- some of which might include, yes, making certain types of firearms harder to come by?

This is the point I made in the first question.

16 dead... give us your guns. 7 dead.... give us your guns. 120 dead..... GIVE US YOUR GUNS!!!!!! How many do we have to kill before you stop this?

 

[mark46]

...as are many of our gun laws. The attitude of the classical liberal is that guns are not the problem. Period.

So, perhaps we might be better off if everyone has access to machine guns, grenade launchers and anti-talk weaponry. After all, if we need NO gun laws,

 

[Aldebaran]

Why would improving mental healthcare, cause people to lose freedoms?

In order to force people to receive mental healthcare who need it, they would have to be able to dig into everyone's privacy. How else are they going to know if you or I are in need of their care of our mental well being?

 

[mark46]

Why would improving mental healthcare, cause people to lose freedoms?

People have the right to be sick, die, and commit crimes without government intervention.

 

[Aldebaran]

So, perhaps we might be better off if everyone has access to machine guns, grenade launchers and anti-talk weaponry. After all, if we need NO gun laws,

There are MANY gun laws. I'm not sure why people keep saying there aren't any just because there are ones we oppose.

 

[bhsmte]

In order to force people to receive mental healthcare who need it, they would have to be able to dig into everyone's privacy. How else are they going to know if you or I are in need of their care of our mental well being?

Any type of healthcare requires a person to share personal information with their doctor, so they can best assess what is best for each patient.

You give up personal information when you get a mortgage, but i guess maximizing health is not important to some people.

 

[mark46]

In order to force people to receive mental healthcare who need it, they would have to be able to dig into everyone's privacy. How else are they going to know if you or I are in need of their care of our mental well being?

Wow.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the government (state or local) could support tax deductions for mental health costs and funds to support healthcare directly (such as Medicaid).

The GOAL is decreasing mental illness, not have the government assess and treat mental illness. Individuals should choose their doctors and their health care, within certain cost frameworks. The government can assist us, including doing thinks such as supporting local health clinics and mental health clinics (common 50 years ago).

 

[LostMarbels]

So, perhaps we might be better off if everyone has access to machine guns, grenade launchers and anti-talk weaponry. After all, if we need NO gun laws,

I think what many do not understand about the 2nd amendment is that its purpose is for the citizenry of America to be able to preserve the constitution and fight a tyrannical government. The amendment is there so the people are always armed against the police state.

 

[Almost there]

OK. I acknowledge that there are those in the US that believe that the government should not be involved in any way in healthcare.

The VAST, VAST majority of Americans believe that "the public welfare" includes some role in providing access to healthcare, including mental healthcare.

I don't think it's "vast", much less, "vast, vast". In fact, I think a LOT of americans think the problem regarding health care is that the government got TOO involved. This is one reason there is a call for letting companies sell insurance across state lines. But I've been insurance free for almost four years now, saving well over $1,000 every month in premiums (I'm old) and getting health care out of pocket for very low cost.

BTW, if this is not a federal responsibility, then this is left to the states and local governments, where the responsibility still remains. OF course, I understand that there are tor libertarians who wish for a new form of government, where the government has almost no role in our lives (Let those who us the roads, libraries, police and fire department pay for these service when they need them).

That sounds more like a classical liberal viewpoint, i.g. our founding fathers.

 

[mark46]

There are MANY gun laws. I'm not sure why people keep saying there aren't any just because there are ones we oppose.

I agree. I submit that some current gun laws reduce violence and deaths. I submit that EXIST gun laws that would also reduce violence and deaths.

Your position seemed to be that "gun laws aren't the issue" as if gun laws do not or cannot affect violence. I disagree with this position.

For example, I believe that there would be more deaths if machine guns and grenade launchers were generally available without any background checks or permits. Of course, we need to enforce laws that exist. However, my POINT is that guns laws can help.

We have many federal laws. Enforcement would help. Suing those who sell guns illegally might help. Relatively minor changes or additions would help, at least IMHO. Very little is federal responsibility (although automatic and semiautomatics are, as well as removing the guns sho loophole for background checks). Much more is state responsibility (permits for carrying).

 

[mark46]

I think what many do not understand about the 2nd amendment is that its purpose is for the citizenry of America to be able to preserve the constitution and fight a tyrannical government. The amendment is there so the people are always armed against the police state.

Are you suggesting that the government has violated the 2nd Amendment by banning machine guns, rocket launchers, and anti-tank weaponry?

 

[Almost there]

Why would improving mental healthcare, cause people to lose freedoms?

Two ways. First, any taxpayer money spent takes away from the citizens. Taking away your money takes away freedom. Second, any laws attached to it will cause people to have to jump through legal hoops that didn't exist before. And those hoops are always "One size fits all".

The government also doesn't have the money. It's a little like a family that is broke and buried under a mound of debt wanting to spend more on lawn care when they can't even afford the electric bill.

 

[Aldebaran]

I agree. I submit that some current gun laws reduce violence and deaths. I submit that EXIST gun laws that would also reduce violence and deaths.

Your position seemed to be that "gun laws aren't the issue" as if gun laws do not or cannot affect violence. I disagree with this position.

For example, I believe that there would be more deaths if machine guns and grenade launchers were generally available without any background checks or permits. Of course, we need to enforce laws that exist. However, my POINT is that guns laws can help.

We have many federal laws. Enforcement would help. Suing those who sell guns illegally might help. Relatively minor changes or additions would help, at least IMHO. Very little is federal responsibility (although automatic and semiautomatics are, as well as removing the guns sho loophole for background checks). Much more is state responsibility (permits for carrying).

I agree with you about enforcement. The NRA takes the same position. Instead of creating even more laws, we need to enforce the current ones.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Are you suggesting that the government has violated the 2nd Amendment by banning machine guns, rocket launchers, and anti-tank weaponry?

An analogy might be about the 7 year old whose father wanted her to be a solo pilot, and thereby assert rights for freedom of transportation and association (or something like that).

She took off and tragically crashed.

One can be in favour of deregulation and freedom, without abolishing all boundaries.