a reply to: swanne
Firstly, when I was in high school in the early 80's, it was quite common for many of the kids to drive pick-up trucks with a single, sometimes a
double, gun rack in the back window, and yes, they had guns mounted in them. It wasn't an issue, and no one batted an eye about it. The richer kids
who had sports cars from their parents usually had a pistol or revolver in the car, under the seat. Again, it was no big deal.
As has been pointed out in several posts, what needs to be looked at is what happened, and why, that made school shootings the "cool" way to commit
suicide. Afterall, that's a given, going in, they won't come out alive. They know this going in.
It really majorly became an issue starting with Columbine, and goes from there. I am wary of the 'mental illness' angle for many reasons, but if you
have been payiing attention, it is largely linked to healthcare. Part of Obamacare deems that once a person has been treated by medication or
counseling for mental depression, they become ineligible for life, to own a gun. This will exclude a huge number of people, right off the bat, as
depression, at some point or another, will strike almost every one of us. It was a very sly, and sneaky back door way to take away gun rights.
Depression does not magically make one unfit for life, to own a gun. It is absurd.
Secondly, the mental illness push bothers me, because I have always felt that anyone who takes a life, be it by gun, knife, strangling, etc., is
already not normal. Hence, I have always had an issue with the insanity defense. As a child, I would ask my parents repeatedly to explain it to me,
and my stance has never changed. You have to be, on some level, insane, to murder. Period. Screening out these people, that is the hard part.
However, you cannot take away the rights of all just because someone may get, or already have a screw loose somewhere. Talk about Nanny States and
thought police! What if it were alcohol? There are happy drunks, and there are crazy, demented drunks who insist they can drive. So, because someone
may drink and drive, which cannot be pre-screened, we will just outlaw all alcohol. Better yet, we will just outlaw all cars. People have been known
to snap while behind the wheel, and drive head long into another car. Again, something that cannot be pre-screened.
And so goes the slippery slope. Once they start taking rights, they won't stop. So, you lose guns alcohol, cars, next should be knives, because where
there is a will, there is a way. Maybe shovels. Rakes. Who needs lawn mowers. Hey, that guy strangled his wife with an extension cord. Outlaw them!
Instead of taking away rights, address the issue. Stop putting band aids on symptoms. Stop punnishing everyone for the crimes of a few.
Kennesaw, Ga. A law was passed requiring every homeowner that was legally eligible, to own a gun. Guess what? Crime, particularly home invasions and
robberies plummeted. It simply proves that an armed society is a polite society. Criminals don't worry about prison, they don't worry about the death
penalty, especially with most states having banished it.
What criminals DO worry about is running up against soneone that will outgun them. Now how do you do that without a gun? How many innocent lives lost
is enough, after a gun ban and those that obey the laws run up against those armed criminals that do not.
Gun laws, after a point, do no good. The people obeying the laws aren't the problem. Instead of prostitution stings, the police should be focusing on
gun stings. Instead of To Catch a Theif, or Bait Car, it should be concentrated efforts to get ILLEGAL guns off the streets.
As for the government aspect, that's been covered. Enough military will balk at killing their own that they would be using military arms against the
government. It would become a military civil war.
edit on 20-6-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)