- Apr 25, 2006
- Reaction score
Again, thanks for taking the time to reply, Hippie.
Well, I am certainly confused...
Maybe I have misinterpreted your position. But, isn't this exactly what you wrote at the beginning of this thread?
AlaskaHippie said:My "point" is... a call for stricter measures over the purchase and possesion of firearms.
Yet, even if I did misunderstand what you wrote, I have to ask... what need is there for universal firearm registration (which must necessarily be implemented for UBC's to be enforceable) other than to restrict firearm ownership?
To restrict firearm ownership of those who cannot legally own one. How is this a bad thing?
And I know you keep posting that you aren't calling for the ban of any firearms, but why exactly would you feel the need to point out that an AR was used at Sandy Hook, other than to promote its restriction?
I felt the "need" to Rod, because for weeks we have seen folks claim there was NO AR used, and that it was all some kind of governemental cover-up, that the AR was found in the trunk of the car (untrue, it was the shotgun that was in the trunk). Nothing more, nothing less.
So, yeah. I am a little confused about where you stand.
Well, I'm sorry I cannot help you there Rod, as I have posted repeatedly here on where I stand. Unfortunately, too many folks have opted to paint ANYone who doesn't fall in line with the NRA Doctrine as a "Gun Grabber" around here.
But the one thing that you are consistent about is the need for responsible gun owners to keep guns away from individuals that shouldn't have them. And, while that may feel good to say, I don't think it would be as simple or as effective as you seem to think.
A gun safe, with the guns locked IN the safe, and the combination only known by the OWNER of the guns would most certainly have been an effective strategy in the Lanza household.
Barring a court hearing, how would a person know if their child, or roommate, or spouse is actually unfit? Would everybody need to get annual mental health screenings? Would passing such a screening actually keep a kid from snapping because he got rejected when asking a girl to the prom, or because he got picked on by a bully?
Lanza's mom knew he was unfit, and yet she still allowed him access to firearms. Again Rod, I'm not claiming any suggested measures are the keys to Utopia. People will still "snap" and folks will still kill. However I'm not opposed to more stringent requirements that will help keep weapons away from those who would do harm
I would argue that it would not. So, even if you were able to enact UBC's, you wouldn't stop killing sprees. And don't try to insert the silly "if we only save one child it's worth it" argument here. If people were concerned with saving children, they would be advocating for the ban of swimming pools and baseball bats.
Odd that you ask me to refrain from inserting a "silly" argument, and then you offer one yourself. We're discussing the Second Amendment, and the last I checked it didn't cover swimming pools, baseball bats, or lawn darts (oops, those ARE banned)...
We should not restrict the rights of the sane and law-abiding because of the heinous actions of the violent and insane.
Agreed. And since a UBC would not restrict those rights, we agree there to.
Freedom is simply too precious to restrict its only means of defense.
Again, if you are sane, able to pass a background check, and of age, your freedom to own a firearm wouldn't be restricted.
If you want to have a real conversation about preventing gun violence, let's talk about re-opening mental institutions and expanding capital punishment.
I believe I've stated a number of times that those issues also need to be addressed. Funny, that always gets overlooked in the rush to paint myself and others as Gun Grabbers.
So, I'll say it again. It is a multi-faceted societal issue that needs to be approached from a Mental Health, Judicial, Law Enforcement, and Gun Safety perspective.