You don’t have to criminalize them, see “Red Flag Laws”.
JayJay
859
It is true.
Most mass shooters show no definitive signs of mental illness before they go off.
You’re going to find it will be very problematic to cut down on mass shootings by trying to identify who will do them ahead of time.
No it isn’t true. In most cases in the aftermath of the shooting we hear all sorts of “he was a ticking time bomb” stories, stories of numerous encounters with police, serious behavioral and/or drug related issues at school etc.
Perfectly sane, rational, generally law abiding people don’t simply snap one day and decide to shoot up a school or mall.
A “moderate” gun advocate refuses any gun control legislation? Interesting. Well, sounds like you’ve picked your hill to die on. Enjoy the current gun freedoms you have. With your stance, they won’t be here in the future.
There is nothing “moderate” about infringing on the rights of the law abiding, particularly those specifically protected under the BOR.
I get it. To moderates your views are as extreme as those calling for gun bans and confiscation. The majority of Americans favor additional gun control. If only given two polar extreme choices they will favor the opposite extreme over yours. It seems that this is what you and other gun advocates on here want to happen. Americans will have to choose one extreme over the other if not given a middle ground. It won’t be your extreme.
“Infringe” is interpreted by the living and ultimately the majority. It only matters what the people, the legislature and the courts decide is infringement. If you think gun registration is an infringement then good luck. Current legislation and court rulings are not on your side.
And again there is nothing “moderate” about infringing on our protected rights. That is in and of itself an extremist position.
The Constitution was not written merely to be a collection of loose guidelines and suggestions and the sole purpose of the BOR was to put our most basic and fundamental rights completely off limits to the gov’t.
Sorry to tell you this, firearms and firearm ownership are already regulated by the government. So much for that “completely off limits” argument.
And not all regulations infringe on our rights so that is a failed argument.
It is also a failed argument to point to prior violations of our rights to justify future violations of same.
Really?
The NFA regulates the sale and possession of firearms. It limits components, classes and specific firearms and imposes taxes and registration. Seems pretty “infringy” to me.
The GCA adds even more firearms to the list of those regulated, adds FFL and with the Brady Bill, background checks.
Or do those somehow not meet the definition of “infringement?”
As Miller shows the NFA is an abomination and why most of it’s original provisions were quickly overturned.
Again, prior violations of our rights do justify further violations.
Most firearms regulations have nothing to do with form or functionality they have to do with transportation, sale, and storage as well as safety.
Tguns
871
What you fail to recognize is the history of compromise on gun control measures and the continued demands for even more. Your position seems to be that on ever expanding burdens on rights in the name of compromise, how can you possible rationalize that as moderate?
So yes, my position is the moderate, rational position. We have had past compromises in regards to gun control, none of which have provided what the opposition claims they seek. Therefore it is only rational to seek solutions through means outside of the the scope of past failed solutions…that is not only rational and reasoned, it’s moderate. What is not moderate is the extremist ideal of continuing down the same path of proven failure.
2 Likes
What overturned NFA provisions are you talking about? Even Trump’s fancy new Supreme Court refused to hear an NFA case this past June in which individuals were convicted of possessing unregistered silencers and a SBR. Guess Miller isn’t working out like you thought against that NFA abomination.
History is a reflection of past events. Past completed events. Current events are dynamic. Politics are dynamic. Public opinion is dynamic. You can’t simply say, well that’s how it was, that’s how it will always be. As gun viewpoints change both gun owner and gun advocate positions must also change. You can wax poetic until your blue in the face about what was. If you do, someone will make the changes with our without your input.
Tguns
874
It’s simple, let’s say the problem your faced with is a grease fire. Someone suggests pouring water on it to snuff it out. That solution doesn’t work, so the person says to pour more water on it. Again, failure…now the person demands even more water be poured onto it. At this point you should be able to recognize that either the person is some extremist nut more intent on wasting water than they are with dealing with the problem or they’re just delusional. Either way, continuing to pour water on it in attempt at appeasing that person is neither rational or reasoned.
It’s time to pick up a bucket of sand and join the rational.
Tguns
875
Political veiws change, opinions change…but reality is constant. If past solutions didn’t provide the desired results, there’s no rational reason to believe they will now…no matter how much you may wish it so.
JayJay
876
I never said they were.
What I said was…they’d be hard to identify as someone who should be locked away in a mental institution before they did anything violent.
zantax
877
Finally someone rational, we’ll solve this mass shooter thing around the same time we end murder, rape and robbery. I have to think though, it sure wouldn’t hurt to stop giving them what they want, publicity and a public airing of their real or imagined grievances.
