General Categories > Laws and Legislation

Reply from Ben Sasse

<< < (2/3) > >>

depserv:
Lanza didn't buy a gun; he got one from his mother (before killing her with it).  His case reminds us that unless all of us are disarmed criminals and crazies will still be able to get guns.  other cases remind us that even if all of us are disarmed, as in France, criminals will still be able to get them.  And other cases yet remind us that even if gun control actually worked and only government and those who guard rich people had guns those intent on committing mass murder would not be deterred from doing so, because the biggest ones have all been committed with things other than guns.

Dan W:

RageTherapy:

--- Quote from: depserv on September 10, 2016, 06:06:48 PM ---Lanza didn't buy a gun; he got one from his mother (before killing her with it).  His case reminds us that unless all of us are disarmed criminals and crazies will still be able to get guns.  other cases remind us that even if all of us are disarmed, as in France, criminals will still be able to get them.  And other cases yet remind us that even if gun control actually worked and only government and those who guard rich people had guns those intent on committing mass murder would not be deterred from doing so, because the biggest ones have all been committed with things other than guns.

--- End quote ---

Even *if* gun control worked it wouldn't matter.   Self-defense is a RIGHT.  Owning firearms, if you do not misuse them, IS YOUR RIGHT.   It is the means by which a man or woman can defend themselves from others on a more equal playing field than physical prowess and is an essential tool for hunting, for sport and perhaps survival if the times and situation merit it.   Imagine if ancient civilizations banned fire to prevent arson. 

Of course, we are so decadent of a society, in the west, that we're well on the way to that.  http://www.snopes.com/2015/06/22/save-a-life-surrender-your-knife/

GreyGeek:

--- Quote from: depserv on September 10, 2016, 06:06:48 PM ---Lanza didn't buy a gun; he got one from his mother (before killing her with it).  His case reminds us that unless all of us are disarmed criminals and crazies will still be able to get guns.  other cases remind us that even if all of us are disarmed, as in France, criminals will still be able to get them.  And other cases yet remind us that even if gun control actually worked and only government and those who guard rich people had guns those intent on committing mass murder would not be deterred from doing so, because the biggest ones have all been committed with things other than guns.

--- End quote ---

You're right, I had forgotten that.  The point still is that people suffering from the effects of SSRI withdrawal account for essentially ALL of the mass shootings in the last couple of decades, with the exception of those committed by Muslims because they felt obliged to adhere to their religious tenets.

It is astoundingly stupid to "surrender your knife to save a life", especially since the life that will be saved would be that of the aggressor, who would kill again after being released from a lenient sentence.   Those "raise awareness" folks are just virtue signaling from what they think is a higher moral ground.  Keep it up and they'll be signaling by decomposition from six feet under.

depserv:
I think the Sasse letter looks good.  There is a caveat though to any expansion of what constitutes a mental defect that renders a person unable to legally own a gun:

It was established long ago that the insane should not be armed, but the problem is in defining what constitutes insanity, and how broadly the definition should reach.  Obama has proven that he would like to disarm as many sane people as he can, and will be as ruthless as he can toward that end.  Hillary is no different. 

So who among patriots would want a government run by a traitor like them being the one to define what constitutes a mental health problem serious enough to deny a person his right to be armed?  They will use any excuse they can find to disarm as many people as they can, and their use of political war strategies shows that they will disarm their ideological opponents if they can find an excuse to do so.  Obama's failure to do this is not due to any lack of effort on his part, but rather the result of loyal Americans defending their country from his aggression.

But if an Obama or Hillary had the power, we could see something like this: anyone who disagrees with the government is mentally defective and a potential terrorist, especially the right wing extremist (as in one who believes that the Constitution is and ought to be the law, and that it means what its words and authors say it means); for public safety, that citizen shall be denied his right to be armed (pending reeducation).  Or maybe those found guilty of the expression of certain thoughtcrimes, namely the ones deemed insensitive, micro-aggressive, racist, sexist, heterosexist, uniculturalist, Christian, and psychologically oppressive of the poor, as in hinting that some of them might be poor of their own making.  Anyone opposing the disarming of these groups is stopping government from taking the sensible gun control step of keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people.

Given many things said by Obama, Hillary, and many others like them, this is not as much of an exaggeration as it might seem.  And in fairness I should admit that I think liberalism is a form of insanity, and it might make sense for liberals to be disarmed (and also kept away from sharp things, matches, etc.).  I would not want that written into law though, because unlike liberals I support the law, and I'm not a bigot like they are.  Liberal bigots, on the other hand, have proven over and over that they will do whatever they can to get their intolerance and hatred written into law.
 
Those duped into supporting gun control now could just as easily be duped into supporting broad definitions of groups deemed not emotionally sound enough to be armed, though it would have to be worded and presented right in order to be sold to them.  And it would come in steps as these things usually do, with no step as big as the difference between what we have now and the possibilities I suggested.

So while keeping guns away from the insane is a good idea, it is very important that our legislators be very careful in how they define insanity, and it is important that any such definition not be left up to unelected bureaucrats.

Senator Sasse seems to be fine as far as defense of the 2nd Amendment goes in any case.  What I don't like about him is his insistence on not supporting Trump (unless that has changed and I missed it).  Trump was not my first choice, but the next president will either be him or Hillary (unless something changes, which is unlikely).  So not supporting Trump is de facto support for Hillary. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page