And trying to appease the folks that want you to restrict our freedoms is foolish.
Firstly, they won’t ever be happy until there is a complete ban on private ownership of firearms. Secondly, do you really think that doing this will in any way help your position with those who opposed you? They didn’t vote for you, they will never vote for you, and, indeed, they despise you and all that you stand for. Pandering to these people will alienate the folks who DID support you, who DID vote for you, and, (if you don’t step on your wedding tackle too many times between now and the election) will likely vote for you again.
If you wish to fix things to prevent the sort of shooting that happened in Parkland, Fla, fix the mental health system, fix HIPPA so that mental health issues can be reported to the NICS database. Get people with mental health issues off the street and into places where they can get help and where they, and society, will be protected. Fix things so that cops can report, and get evaluated, those individuals who are disturbed, in order that they can be addressed and, if needed, taken out of society for safety, theirs and ours.
But don’t piss on those who are your supporters for short term political gain. Don’t bend to those who oppose you anyway….Stand there and be a leader.
Where are these facilities where those with mental health issues can go to "Get people with mental health issues off the street and into places where they can get help and where they, and society, will be protected." How will these places be funded? Should government get involved in paying for those with mental 'health issues'? Paying for their treatment? Paying for the health care employees? Paying for the facility overhead, drugs, etc?
Seems we just recently had a huge 'victory' by the Republicans, Tea Party-ers, and conservatives to repeal the Government's 'interference' into our personal lives as it pertains to healthcare. Innit funny how many folks don't want the gub-mint to spend money on other people's problems, but if those same folks would somehow be inconvenienced, well then, spend away.
I'm in my 60's. I remember 4 of the mental health facilities that were scattered around our tri-county area. I also remember they stopped accepting people and eventually closed down in the early 1980's because 'big government is the problem'. The president at the time, some guy named Reagan, pushed for the reduction in federal spending, which resulted in cuts in funding to the states for many areas including mental health facilities. When the states could no longer count of federal funds, they had to cut back. One area was a reduction in those mental health facilities, in addition to other areas.
Gun owners (my self included (.380 Walther and .30 cal carbine)) can stand hard core against the current backlash, or they can soften the stance and work to alleviate the impact of the gun control enthusiasts. That's up to each individual. The problem, as I see it, is keeping weapons out of the hands of those that should not have them in the first place. That will cost $$$.
Flame away.
Dale
I like how "I am a firearm Owners" always tell us what kind….I doubt you are a Second Amendment proponent…..
But, you are correct re: Mental health.
I'd rather have people put away that medicate 'em into insensibility (on the taxpayers dime anyway) and still not fix the issue for society. Much like we incarcerate people to protect society, we should fund mental health institutions just like prisons.
So, A question though:
What, exactly, do you think we, as gun owners/Second Amendment proponents should do? How much, exactly, should we give up? I mean, how much *MORE* should we compromise? every time we have, the left has taken that as the standard, stepped across the line, and demanded another "compromise". Then they do it again (look up the cake analogy by LawDog…. In fact, here it is: https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/.
So what (or how) should we "Soften"? Seriously. Explain. What, exactly would, you have us, as gun owners, do?
As I've stated before, Bert, I don't have all the answers. I'm not that smart. But one area, in my opinion, would be for the NRA to agree to not allow those who've been diagnosed with a disorder (depression, anxiety, bi-polar, etc) to possess a weapon. I not up on all the details, but I believe I've read where the NRA fought the Obama administration to allow those with the disorders to keep their second amendment rights.
This probably would not have prevented the latest massacre. But it is someplace to start. Stronger background checks is what I would like to see. Checks that automatically allow a bypass of HIPPA laws if someone tries to purchase a pistol, rifle, shotgun, musket, however you'd like to define a gun. Again, this would not placate those radicals who advocate no weapons at all; those people are in the extreme, just like those that won't budge on they're rights to own AK's, AR-15's, silencers, drum magazines, etc. But I think it would be sensible to the 80% of responsible adults who do abide by the laws and not take arguments to the extreme.*
You asked for my opinion, so I gave it.
Dale
*The 80% statistic is something I made up. Don't hold me to it, the actual percentage may be higher or lower, I don't know.
Dale,
No. Out of the question. There are people who can manage that sort of mental or emotional struggle and those who can't. Those who can still have a right to property, and self-defense, and shouldn't be forced to choose between getting help and losing their rights forever. Only those who are demonstrably mentally incompetent should be unable to own weapons. They should also be hospitalized permanently and be unable to vote or own property or drive. The process of legally adjudicating mental defects should be difficult, because it is and ought to be no small think thing to legally infantilize an adult. In sum, it should be easy to get help and hard to permanently lose one's rights.
Dale:
You are incorrect when you stated " I've read where the NRA fought the Obama administration to allow those with the disorders to keep their second amendment rights."
What Barry and his folks wanted to do was to take ANYONE who asked for help with getting Social Security or Veterans benefits to be declared incomptetent…..Which was why they fought so hard against it. Also, they wanted to change the definitions of mentally incomptetent, but only on a case by case basis, which is why the NRA opposed that.
Please, I understand you read things through a Liberal lense, but get your facts straight.
Again, if you are too mental to be able to own a weapon, then you should be incarcerated AWAY from society to protect bot you and society as a whole….pick one, competent, or not.