Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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?
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.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.
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.Maybe they should make it their job, to improve quality of life for citizens.
Not the federal government's job. Not in their mission statement.
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.
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 are many of our gun laws. The attitude of the classical liberal is that guns are not the problem. Period.
Why would improving mental healthcare, cause people to lose freedoms?
People have the right to be sick, die, and commit crimes without government intervention.Why would improving mental healthcare, cause people to lose freedoms?
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,
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?
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?
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 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.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.
That sounds more like a classical liberal viewpoint, i.g. our founding fathers.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).
There are MANY gun laws. I'm not sure why people keep saying there aren't any just because there are ones we oppose.
Are you suggesting that the government has violated the 2nd Amendment by banning machine guns, rocket launchers, and anti-tank weaponry?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.
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".Why would improving mental healthcare, cause people to lose freedoms?
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).
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).Are you suggesting that the government has violated the 2nd Amendment by banning machine guns, rocket launchers, and anti-tank weaponry?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?