Gun Control doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment!

Posted in the Independence Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1 Jan 24, 2013
by David Sirota

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/18/gun_control_i...

"After more than a week of residual buzz from radio host Alex Jones’ now famous meltdown during a CNN discussion of gun control, it is worth taking a deep breath and considering the spectacle’s two big lessons, especially now that the White House is pushing Congress to debate firearm legislation.

First and foremost, it was surprising that anyone watching Jones was actually surprised. Yes, his references to Hitler and Stalin and his nationally televised promise of a violent revolution if “you try to take our firearms” was at once offensive and frightening. However, this kind of paranoid lunacy has been the lingua franca of the conservative world since Barry Goldwater first said,“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.”

To know that’s true particularly when it comes to guns, try paying attention to conservative radio, blogs and email newsletters this week in the aftermath of policy recommendations by Vice President Joe Biden’s commission on firearm violence. If you do, you will inevitably be exposed to one or another attention-seeking Archie Bunker espousing the same deranged nonsense as Jones. Sure, that’s disturbing – but it is no longer surprising, except perhaps to a national media and political elite that have no sense of just how corrosive the day-to-day discourse is in so much of the country.

Just as important, though, is the second lesson to come out of Jones’ diatribe – the one about the gun discourse’s underlying message.

Whether it is Jones, a firearms training company CEO promising to “start killing people” if gun regulations are tightened or an outgoing GOP congressman saying “we may have to shed blood (to) preserve our freedoms”— the desire to intimidate is clear. Regardless of the particular demagogue, we are being repeatedly told that in a nation with the industrialized world’s highest rate of gun homicide, those raising questions about our existing firearms laws risk being targeted as a traitors.

Urgent questions, though, must be asked. Some of them include:

How is a U.S. Constitution enshrining a baseline right to bear arms for a “well regulated militia” now seen by many as mandating that firearms be sold in completely unregulated fashion to any lunatic looking to stockpile a military-grade arsenal of assault weapons?

If, as gun proponents typically assert, the Second Amendment is absolute and we therefore cannot regulate, say, assault rifles, does the government have the right to regulate any other weapons? Should, for instance, citizens be able to own automatic machine guns? What about hand-held rocket launchers – is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia right to suggest that they might be constitutionally protected? What about an individual right to own an armed flying drone?

Alternately, if we agree that some lines can be drawn, then doesn’t today’s gun control conversation represent a simple disagreement over where exactly to place those lines rather than a Stalinist assault on the basic right to own a gun?

If gun proponents are correct in arguing that a particular policy – for example, banning high-capacity bullet magazines – won’t on its own solve the problem of mass shootings, does that automatically mean said policy is a bad idea?

Different people will have different answers, of course. A discussion of those differences, in fact, could be constructive, moving the political system to adopt the sensible gun policies that polls show the public supports.

But that exchange cannot occur – much less be productive – under ever-escalating threats of violent backlash. If, as White House spokesman Jay Carney recently warned, America continues watching “arguments over the Constitution’s Second Amendment violate the spirit of its First,” then consensus will remain elusive – and gun violence will likely continue unabated."
anti-gun

Coffeyville, KS

#2 Jan 24, 2013
wow, it nice to read something that needed to be said and is grounded in reality.

the right wing in this country is in the paroxysms of death, foaming at the mouth, descending slowly into madness. at first, i thought it was funny but now it's just sad and scary and i hope the padded cell will hold.
Sven Dracule

Ringgold, GA

#3 Jan 24, 2013
No matter how eloquent a liberal is at speaking or writing, it doesn't change the fact that nearly everything they do and say is based upon feelings not facts. Since the facts and numbers (FBI) surrounding violence associated with firearms, don't support the liberal view, those numbers and facts must at all costs, be dismissed and avoided.
I'm sure that the tens of millions of people murdered by oppressive tyrannical governments such as Ottoman-Turkey (Armenians), Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and occupied Europe, China, Guatemala, Uganda, and Cambodia (PolPok), because they had no way of defending themselves against their oppressive and tyrannical governments, might have a different view of "gun control". Firearm ownership isn't about deer hunting. It is about freedom from oppression as demonstrated in this bit of American history:

http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-...
Abducted

Coffeyville, KS

#4 Jan 24, 2013
I think the government should set an example and destroy all of their guns first. This includes all police officers, SS, fbi, military, etc.

You go first. We'll go second. lol

Since: Oct 10

Independence, Kansas

#5 Jan 24, 2013
Katniss: Can you tell us some of your personal feelings about firearms and what regulation they may or may not require? You can post what you want here, but I think the ones that truly want to debate the issue want to know about what you think personally on any given issue.

Yes, I know that there are those posters on Topix that will take potshots at whatever you post here, but that is what a thick skin is for...I'm not saying that name calling and idle threats are right, but that is just the way it is and someone serious about getting their viewpoint across has to put up with some BS to post personal opinions.

Just sayin'... and for what it's worth you do bring up some valid points for consideration...just not ones that many people who post here are willing to even think about...

Personally, I'm concerned about mental health issues, something that no one here bothers to mention much...

Since: Oct 10

Independence, Kansas

#6 Jan 24, 2013
Abducted wrote:
I think the government should set an example and destroy all of their guns first. This includes all police officers, SS, fbi, military, etc.
You go first. We'll go second. lol
This has to be one of the most ignorant posts I have read on Topix...at least this week. Think about your statement a minute. If the Armed Forces destroyed all their guns, what would this country do to defend itself from those who would take advantage of that kind of situation...like China, or even Middle Eastern terrorists?

If the police destroyed all their weapons, the people would be free to rob, loot, steal, rape, pillage, and burn with impunity. The police are entitled to their own personal protection while on the job serving, you, the public...you can't take a knife to a gunfight, and believe me if cops didn't have guns, criminals sure would.

Why post such uneducated crap?

Get some logic behind your arguments for gun ownership; some basis in fact...

“LIVE OR DIE”

Since: Jan 10

Cherryvale

#7 Jan 24, 2013
Indy_Dick wrote:
<quoted text>This has to be one of the most ignorant posts I have read on Topix...at least this week. Think about your statement a minute. If the Armed Forces destroyed all their guns, what would this country do to defend itself from those who would take advantage of that kind of situation...like China, or even Middle Eastern terrorists?
If the police destroyed all their weapons, the people would be free to rob, loot, steal, rape, pillage, and burn with impunity. The police are entitled to their own personal protection while on the job serving, you, the public...you can't take a knife to a gunfight, and believe me if cops didn't have guns, criminals sure would.
Why post such uneducated crap?
Get some logic behind your arguments for gun ownership; some basis in fact...
Regardless of how rediculas it sounds Dick, he has a valid point. What business does a police officer have with owning, let a lone using, an "assault rifle"? If he is going to use it to enforce the laws of the land then what makes him/her any better than Joe the plumber? Police are only to enforce the law, and that means they are not above the law. If we cant have tanks, then why do they get to drive around in armored vehicles? It goes to the status quo of a police state. You have to look no farther than TSA and see how out of control it can get. TSA can grope you but a cop walking a beat can not without DUE PROCESS. Just another example of do as I say, not as I do from Uncle Sams perspective. If we want to envoke "gun control" then we should start with the government and those in power, otherwise, leave the 2d Amendment as it was meant to be. A GOD GIVEN RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN INDIVIDUALLY.

Since: Oct 10

Independence, Kansas

#8 Jan 24, 2013
wally515 wrote:
<quoted text>Regardless of how rediculas it sounds Dick, he has a valid point. What business does a police officer have with owning, let a lone using, an "assault rifle"? If he is going to use it to enforce the laws of the land then what makes him/her any better than Joe the plumber? Police are only to enforce the law, and that means they are not above the law. If we cant have tanks, then why do they get to drive around in armored vehicles? It goes to the status quo of a police state. You have to look no farther than TSA and see how out of control it can get. TSA can grope you but a cop walking a beat can not without DUE PROCESS. Just another example of do as I say, not as I do from Uncle Sams perspective. If we want to envoke "gun control" then we should start with the government and those in power, otherwise, leave the 2d Amendment as it was meant to be. A GOD GIVEN RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN INDIVIDUALLY.
The answer is that police have the right as employees to be as safe as possible in their work environment. If the criminal element are equipped with AK-47's or MAC-9's then the police need the firepower to answer any threat posed by perps while trying to take them into custody. You don't take a knife to a gunfight...You can't match the firepower of an AK-47 and a determined criminal with your 38 cal. revolver.

Since police can not know what kinds of situations they will get into on any given day, they are justified in preparing for the worst. As criminals have upped the ante, police units have had to equip themselves with more means of protection when faced with the task of taking a fugitive into custody. Legally, one hasn't put a person under arrest until they have been put fully in the control of the arresting officer. This is hard to do when the person you ar trying to arrest is taking potshots at you with a MAC-9 or worse.
An armored vehicle is for the officer's personal safety...what are they supposed to do, walk up to the criminal with no gun, barechested and say that they are under arrest? Being a cop nowdays is not the "Andy of Mayberry" thing that it once was.

The TSA does not bother me one bit, because it is a security issue for the passengers on the plane. Who wants a terrorist in a plane at 35000 feet with a gun? If TSA can manage to keep guns and bombs and knives off of flights in the US then so be it...if you don't want searched, then drive...it's a free country. Personnally, I like to drive, it's a great way to see this great country of ours.

Oh, and the right to bear arms is not a God given right, it is a right granted by the 2nd amendment of our precious Constitution...one I have sworn to defend, the same oath you took...an oath that both of us as retired military personnel are still obligated by because we accept retired pay and are both subject to recall. Never forget that, and we will get along just fine, buddy...

Since: Oct 10

Independence, Kansas

#9 Jan 24, 2013
By the way, Wally, the "assault rifles" used by police officers are not owned by the individual officers; they belong to and are accounted for by the agency that they work for. They are issued to the officer so that he or she may do his or her job safely, and for no other purpose.

There are no Storm Troopers in our country and every LEO is held to a high standard of accountability for their actions, both as a group and individually. One does not "get" to use "assault rifles" without receiving the proper training in their use and safety and knowing the rules of engagement.

“LIVE OR DIE”

Since: Jan 10

Cherryvale

#10 Jan 24, 2013
Indy_Dick wrote:
<quoted text>The answer is that police have the right as employees to be as safe as possible in their work environment. If the criminal element are equipped with AK-47's or MAC-9's then the police need the firepower to answer any threat posed by perps while trying to take them into custody. You don't take a knife to a gunfight...You can't match the firepower of an AK-47 and a determined criminal with your 38 cal. revolver.
Since police can not know what kinds of situations they will get into on any given day, they are justified in preparing for the worst. As criminals have upped the ante, police units have had to equip themselves with more means of protection when faced with the task of taking a fugitive into custody. Legally, one hasn't put a person under arrest until they have been put fully in the control of the arresting officer. This is hard to do when the person you ar trying to arrest is taking potshots at you with a MAC-9 or worse.
An armored vehicle is for the officer's personal safety...what are they supposed to do, walk up to the criminal with no gun, barechested and say that they are under arrest? Being a cop nowdays is not the "Andy of Mayberry" thing that it once was.
The TSA does not bother me one bit, because it is a security issue for the passengers on the plane. Who wants a terrorist in a plane at 35000 feet with a gun? If TSA can manage to keep guns and bombs and knives off of flights in the US then so be it...if you don't want searched, then drive...it's a free country. Personnally, I like to drive, it's a great way to see this great country of ours.
Oh, and the right to bear arms is not a God given right, it is a right granted by the 2nd amendment of our precious Constitution...one I have sworn to defend, the same oath you took...an oath that both of us as retired military personnel are still obligated by because we accept retired pay and are both subject to recall. Never forget that, and we will get along just fine, buddy...
I politely disagree. "We hold these TRUTHS to be SELF EVIDENT that we are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of happiness." I believe in order to exercise my God given right to LIFE that I have the LIBERTY to defend it by all and any means neccessary. If a cop in my service has these priveledges then how much more am I entitled to these same protections and precautions in order to exercise my rights, given me by God. The government did not give me life, they did not give me liberty and they will not dictate what makes me happy nor my pursuit for it. Therefore they have no authority over these things unless I relenquish them: and I DO NOT. The government is there soley for the purpose of SERVING the people, not to LORD over them. Our founding fathers saw fit to include the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" for a reason. Tyranny and usurping authority over the weak and strong alike is neccessary in order to justify thier own sense of authority. I DEMAND the liberty and freedoms that were given me by my God and Uncle Sam nor anyother has the right to infringe upon these unless it imposes an intrusion over that of another. I do not see my owning a high capacity magazine as an intrusion over those who do not have one. I do see it as an intrusion over my liberties if my government and law ENFORCEMENT officers are exempt from this ban. How would you respond if POT were allowed for Federal employees and LEOs and was against the law for us mere citizens. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If any restrictions should be handed out it should be to put the LEASH back on Uncle Sam, not his OWNER.
Hmm

Independence, KS

#11 Jan 24, 2013
Katniss258 wrote:
Nice copy/paste, but if you read the 2nd Amendment you see that there are commas to separate each underlying right, within the Second Amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Notice there are two guarantees within that statement. One being a well-regulated militia, meaning the Federal military or State backed militias. The second being the right of the citizens to own guns, because The People are the government, at least they're supposed to be. We're the last fail-safe against enemies, foreign or domestic. I have tried to understand the reasoning of the other side of this debate, but it's hard to when they don't listen or study history.

Since: Oct 10

Independence, Kansas

#12 Jan 24, 2013
wally515 wrote:
<quoted text>I politely disagree. "We hold these TRUTHS to be SELF EVIDENT that we are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of happiness." I believe in order to exercise my God given right to LIFE that I have the LIBERTY to defend it by all and any means neccessary. If a cop in my service has these priveledges then how much more am I entitled to these same protections and precautions in order to exercise my rights, given me by God. The government did not give me life, they did not give me liberty and they will not dictate what makes me happy nor my pursuit for it. Therefore they have no authority over these things unless I relenquish them: and I DO NOT. The government is there soley for the purpose of SERVING the people, not to LORD over them. Our founding fathers saw fit to include the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" for a reason. Tyranny and usurping authority over the weak and strong alike is neccessary in order to justify thier own sense of authority. I DEMAND the liberty and freedoms that were given me by my God and Uncle Sam nor anyother has the right to infringe upon these unless it imposes an intrusion over that of another. I do not see my owning a high capacity magazine as an intrusion over those who do not have one. I do see it as an intrusion over my liberties if my government and law ENFORCEMENT officers are exempt from this ban. How would you respond if POT were allowed for Federal employees and LEOs and was against the law for us mere citizens. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If any restrictions should be handed out it should be to put the LEASH back on Uncle Sam, not his OWNER.
Better check your copy of the Constitution again, Wally...the words "We hold these TRUTHS to be SELF EVIDENT that we are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of happiness." are not in the Constitution, but rather the Declaration of Independence...The Constitution is our guarantor of freedons and is one of the laws that governs us...The Declaration of Independence was merely a message to King George III that we we sick of his brand of crap and we weren't going to take it anymore and follow with a list of problems that we had with his line of thinking...

Better take that Constitution Class over in Cherryvale that you were promoting...I am familiar with the document in question, are you? Remember, I am your friend and I don't need a lecturette from you about my Constituional rights and responsibilities.
wally515

Neodesha, KS

#13 Jan 24, 2013
You must have missed my point in my disertation. I was trying to explain, NOT LECTURE, that I am endowed by my creator well before my government ever granted me any rights. My government has no authority over my God given rights. They only have authority over those rights and priveledges they have the authority to grant. They do not have the authority to grant me LIFE or LIBERTY or the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. They do have the authority to grant me those listed in the Bill of Rights and I ceede their authority to do so and dictate the terms for those rights. the purpose of this "debate" or "discussion" is to determine to what extent and under what circumstances they have the authority to modify those rights. I put forth that the congress has no authority to change or modify a right granted under the Bill of Rights without modifying the the words of the current BOR. it currently states the 2d amendment "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" so any law in violation of that is mute and unenforceable. just my view though.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14 Jan 25, 2013
Indy_Dick wrote:
Katniss: Can you tell us some of your personal feelings about firearms and what regulation they may or may not require? You can post what you want here, but I think the ones that truly want to debate the issue want to know about what you think personally on any given issue.
Yes, I know that there are those posters on Topix that will take potshots at whatever you post here, but that is what a thick skin is for...I'm not saying that name calling and idle threats are right, but that is just the way it is and someone serious about getting their viewpoint across has to put up with some BS to post personal opinions.
Just sayin'... and for what it's worth you do bring up some valid points for consideration...just not ones that many people who post here are willing to even think about...
Personally, I'm concerned about mental health issues, something that no one here bothers to mention much...
[My replies are having trouble posting today, sorry if this double posts]

Maybe people avoid the mental health issues because it's such a confusing and complex subject. There isn't even a complete or reliable psychological profile of the mass murderers yet. What experts do know - that they're usually white males, narcissistic, feel they've been victimized in some way, and with the younger ones, are obsessed with guns and/or violent video games and movies - isn't much to go on. They usually do their planning and stockpiling in secret. There may or may not be red flags among their friends and relatives. So it's going to be a hard road for us to single out the most dangerous of the mentally ill, or come up with solutions within the mental health system. For certain, we need more study and research.

I think the extreme narcissism could be a key element here. Their low esteem makes them seek almost constant recognition and reward. That's why I think the media has had a hand in these terrible events. There's way too much media coverage, and that is just what some of these killers want. Even if they die, they know they're going to be remembered doing exactly what they want to be remembered for.

I know it won't ever happen, but I'd like to see the public and media get together with an experiment: for 1 year, no coverage. No names, no faces. Just to see if the number of killing sprees decrease. It flies in the face of the 1st Amendment, but we're in the process of doing the same with the Westboro "Church". Whether that "church" remains active or not without much media coverage, we don't know yet. Time will tell.

What are your thoughts on the mental health questions, Indy Dick? Do you think Obama's gun control policies addressed them enough?
hey muffin cake

Independence, KS

#15 Jan 25, 2013
Katniss258 wrote:
<quoted text>
[My replies are having trouble posting today, sorry if this double posts]
Maybe people avoid the mental health issues because it's such a confusing and complex subject. There isn't even a complete or reliable psychological profile of the mass murderers yet. What experts do know - that they're usually white males, narcissistic, feel they've been victimized in some way, and with the younger ones, are obsessed with guns and/or violent video games and movies - isn't much to go on. They usually do their planning and stockpiling in secret. There may or may not be red flags among their friends and relatives. So it's going to be a hard road for us to single out the most dangerous of the mentally ill, or come up with solutions within the mental health system. For certain, we need more study and research.
I think the extreme narcissism could be a key element here. Their low esteem makes them seek almost constant recognition and reward. That's why I think the media has had a hand in these terrible events. There's way too much media coverage, and that is just what some of these killers want. Even if they die, they know they're going to be remembered doing exactly what they want to be remembered for.
I know it won't ever happen, but I'd like to see the public and media get together with an experiment: for 1 year, no coverage. No names, no faces. Just to see if the number of killing sprees decrease. It flies in the face of the 1st Amendment, but we're in the process of doing the same with the Westboro "Church". Whether that "church" remains active or not without much media coverage, we don't know yet. Time will tell.
What are your thoughts on the mental health questions, Indy Dick? Do you think Obama's gun control policies addressed them enough?
""""It flies in the face of the 1st Amendment""" " You speak of infringment of the first amendment, yet you advocate for the infringment of the second.. So what you're really saying is you don't like the second amendment!

Again I will say it to you... The Bill of Rights, is the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of what agrees with your individual opinion.
The Bill of Rights were written for everyone, not just you..
America is a Republic, not a Democracy where majority rules. The Bill of Rights protects an individuals rights from the masses. Even if a majority dis-agrees. Do/can you comprehend this?

We all have opinions, we all have personel beliefs, we all have religious views that differ, the Bill of Rights are there to protect us all! I don't agree with abortion, or homosexuality, or legalized marijuanna, or lots of other things, they go against my OPINION, and beliefs, but I love MY freedoms you may not agree with but that doesn't give you the right to take them, any more than it gives me the right to take yours. America is a great country, it is never going to be perfect, but would be much better, if everyone would stop infringing on everyone elses rights!
hey muffin cake

Independence, KS

#16 Jan 25, 2013
Our political arena sways from Republican, to Democratic through the years, one party wants to take this away, one party wants to take that. If OUR leaders would all study the constitution, prior to being elected, if we taught the constitution in schools, we may not always be having these national divisions. Republicans, and Democrats alike need to learn compromise and unity.

I have lived almost 5 decades, and I have never seen our politicians so divided, I have never seen people so divided. Its sickining, and sad. I am ashamed to be a registered republican, and would also be ashamed to be a registered Democrat! "Can't we all just get along"?

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#17 Jan 25, 2013
hey muffin cake wrote:
<quoted text>""" "It flies in the face of the 1st Amendment""" " You speak of infringment of the first amendment, yet you advocate for the infringment of the second.. So what you're really saying is you don't like the second amendment!!
So, you prefer all the coverage of the WBC? The public and the media found a way around the 1st Amendment to deal with this "church", but they're not violating it. And it's a GOOD thing, not bad. The People - we - wanted it that way.

See, Indy Dick? This is why I no longer enjoy debating in here. You're talking about one thing, in this case the mental health system, then some idiot comes in (WHOOSH! Must be a little over his head), and tries to pick apart something else on some other subject, just to make someone look stupid.

Anyway, muffincake, yes it's all true! I advocate for the infringement, if not the downright violation of ALL our rights! Doesn't matter what right we're talking about! That's what I stand for! I don't care about guns, dead kids, dead soldiers families, or anything other than undermining American rights.

There, does that make you feel more justified now?

Now can we get back to the MUCH more interesting subject of mental health? You have any intelligent thoughts about that, Muffincake? Yeah, didn't think so.

Since: Oct 10

Independence, Kansas

#18 Jan 25, 2013
Katniss258 wrote:
<quoted text>
What are your thoughts on the mental health questions, Indy Dick? Do you think Obama's gun control policies addressed them enough?
Well, way back in the late sixties and early seventies when courts were ruling on whether mental health patients in state hospitals rights were being usurped, the Federal government set up several programs to see that the former patients got treatment and medications as they were mainstreamed into society. Unfortunately, there was very little oversight in the program and the funds were given to the states to administer. Most states looked at the combined savings of closing institutions and free Federal funds and did something else with the monies that were to be spent on patient care. The built highways, paid off bonds, tried to attract industry, etc. The monies did not get spent on the people that it was supposed to be spent on. Consequently, starting in the seventies many larger cities started seeing an influx of homeless people, many of which were people in need of medications and regular treatment for mental health issues.

Without regular counseling and medications many of our mentally ill citizens can not hold down a job or even function well in society. They are constantly in trouble with the law because they can't hold a job long enough to even get money to eat on so they must steal to exist.

We have let these people down. Many, with proper regular medication and counseling can maintain a normal life; without the medications most drift back into a sociopathic existence that can only lead to trouble.

We need to identify these people and make sure they get the proper medications and counseling...and not just for six months, but for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, their is a stigma attached to mental health issues and no one wants to admit that they are mentally unhealthy and no one wants to put that stigma on them either. Another factor is that when the patient is medicated properly, they are OK, and when they feel OK then they feel like they do not need the medicine any more and they go off their meds.

We need to as a society, make sure that meds are taken by those who need them. In an institution, that is easy; out in the real world, it will be a daunting task, but one that must be done or we will continue to pay for it with incidents like mass shootings, subway incidents and other mayhem.

Your thoughts...?

Since: Oct 10

Independence, Kansas

#19 Jan 25, 2013
Katniss258 wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you prefer all the coverage of the WBC? The public and the media found a way around the 1st Amendment to deal with this "church", but they're not violating it. And it's a GOOD thing, not bad. The People - we - wanted it that way.
See, Indy Dick? This is why I no longer enjoy debating in here. You're talking about one thing, in this case the mental health system, then some idiot comes in (WHOOSH! Must be a little over his head), and tries to pick apart something else on some other subject, just to make someone look stupid.
Anyway, muffincake, yes it's all true! I advocate for the infringement, if not the downright violation of ALL our rights! Doesn't matter what right we're talking about! That's what I stand for! I don't care about guns, dead kids, dead soldiers families, or anything other than undermining American rights.
There, does that make you feel more justified now?
Now can we get back to the MUCH more interesting subject of mental health? You have any intelligent thoughts about that, Muffincake? Yeah, didn't think so.
If it doesn't relate to what you were discussing, just let it go and don't respond...no one is obligated to respond on anything. Remember that.
Beaner

Coffeyville, KS

#20 Jan 25, 2013
Over the years my only thoughts when it came to gun control was to make sure I used both hands to aim properly before shooting.
Indy your post#18 is right on the money concerning mental health and it's relation to violence in society. Very well stated and thought out in my opinion. I do not recall seeing any portion of the gun purchasing paperwork dedicated to: Is the individual trying to purchase the weapon in need of any prescribed mind altering medication or has a need for medication to allow them to function without a disposition to violence. This new proposed legislation would do well to include provisons for that for all new gun buyers. Just my opinion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Independence Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Don't buy Coffeyville Journal anymore 39 min Secrets 1
homeowners beware 6 hr Ralph 46
City Cops 9 hr ghost town coming 54
Kobach's dirty trick 11 hr Indy_Dick 13
Texas Sheriff Issues ISIS Warning About U.S.-Me... 12 hr double ott 14
JC Penny building 13 hr felonindy 15
The Mural Downtown is FUGLY 14 hr future 104
Montgomery County Chronicle (Jul '10) 22 hr Ralph 24
Justice for Pete - Arrest and charge Josh Hasti... Fri felonindy 62
•••
•••
•••

Independence Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Independence People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Independence News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Independence
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••