Here's the issue- we have a fundamental difference of philosophy. Progressive/Liberal philosophy operates under the belief that human "failure" is the result of asymmetrical social status, socio-economic disparity and social injustice. Conservative philosophy states that individuals are solely responsible for their choices and the subsequent consequences, and this applies to everything from social-escalation and education to moral choices. Honestly, I'm a moderate conservative, recognizing that broken people may be forced into situation they are not emotionally or intellectually capable of handling.TheFriscoKid wrote:Here's the thing - the changes coming are going to happen regardless of what we debate and divide upon.
I've spent $3000 on G&A since Valentine's day in anticipation of those changes.
One thing I find astonishing within this thread is those that bury their heads in the sand and label others as trolls or liberal gun grabbers instead of staying focused on the topic or confronting ideas, opinions and facts they don't agree with.
Many of these same people are the brave 'fight to their death cold dead hands' advocates that become cowards at the mere whisper of an idea that confronts their current perceptions.
This forum would benefit - we would benefit - from having more liberals and democrats and anti-gun people come in and have respectful considerate discussions not with the expectation that either side will change the others mind but from the benefit of understanding the other side and then being able to create strategies and compromises that allow us to keep our guns and allow the majority of Americans to feel safe again.
I believe a good guy with a gun is the only thing stops a bad guy with a gun. But that doesn't address the root cause. What we need to do is try to prevent the number of bad guys with guns before they even have a chance to kill 10 or 20 or 50.
Directly addressing the bolded areas I quoted- about 25 years ago, our Democratic/Progressive bretheren soundly struck down the establishment of a national database containing information on those institutionalized, or criminally charged, on the basis of mental-health defect. Every single time this issue is raised, the response has been that it is discriminatory, unethical, and un-Constitutional.
The argument is only tangentially about firearms. Progressives want totalitarian control. They do not trust individuals with fundamental rights of self-determination. E.g., if you try to kill me, I should not be capable of defending myself because at some point, I might decide to hurt someone. The logical fallacy is self-evident.
If we want to stop bad guys, we enforce the laws we have in place. Establish a national MH database. It should be empiracally-evidentially based ( a whooole other discussion effecting the validity of the DSM). Punishment for violent crime should be swift, sure, and consistent. This is not a new concept (Beccaria). It works. "Rehabilitation," does not.
I disagree with Beccaria's position on capital punishment, as maintaining suitable living conditions for long-term incarceration is unduly burdensome to the victims of criminals, who operate within the functioning society. Be that as it may...