reply to post by phantomjack
I'm not really sure that anyone could be politically defined by this issue alone. It's a lot like the abortion issue, in that both sides of the
argument make some very valid points, which makes one realize than quite often there is no "fix-all" answer to the problem.
While I totally agree that we should make every effort to insure that people who are mentally unstable don't have easy access to guns, I too fear
that "definition creep," (as some here have called it) could end up allowing the statute to be over-utilized.
On top of that, someone who is mentally stable today, may not be tomorrow. I'm not a psychologist nor have I had any training whatsoever in
understanding human behavior but it's my belief that most people who are "mentally unstable," were not born that way. So I have to ask my self,
"is this really the answer to our problem?"
As a gun owner, I believe in the right to gun ownership. On the other hand, I believe that "assault weapons" should be highly restricted. The same
way that bazookas, land mines and hand grenades are kept out of the public realm, it's just common sense.
I've been hunting for over 45 years and in that time, I have never once needed the ability to fire over 3 rounds without reloading in order to
achieve my objective. I have hunted ducks, geese, quail, dove, turkey, pheasant, chuckers, rabbits, deer, elk, hogs and even bear. Never once have I
needed anything like a 15 round magazine, much less a weapon that could empty it in just a few seconds.
And I don't buy into the argument that the "people" have the right to these weapons to insure their ability to fight off a tyrannical government.
In a true democracy, the power is held within the people's hearts & minds and not in the weapons they possess. Even the citizens of Egypt figured
that one out.
After all, that's what is supposed to make us different from the rest of the world, the fact that we resolve our differences in a peaceful,
democratic method. There are 300 million of us and it shouldn't takes guns to get our point across, at least not in America.
I know many will say that we no longer have a democracy, but rather a "corporatocracy" where money and corporate mentality rules the day and I would
tell them that while I agree with their assessment, these powers can't be defeated with guns.
In order to defeat them, (or remove their influence) you have to "disarm" them. Their weapon is money and the influence it brings in the halls of
Congress. So, if you really want your government back, it's going to take the political will to remove the money from politics. Owning more guns
won't get that done. On the other hand, repealing the "Citizen's United" SCOTUS decision, outlawing paid lobbyist and instituting a system of
public campaign financing just might.
That's my opinion and I am a bona-fide gun owning liberal, progressive, democrat or whatever you want to call me, Just don't call me a republican or