You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

2
0

[–] Totenglocke 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

I also don't understand the outrage here about Obama's executive action on guns for people with mental illness. Every time there's a high-profile mass shooting, the go-to line for gun control critics is that it's not about gun ownership, it's about dealing with mental health. So Obama answered their call, and restricted guns to these same mentally ill people they talked about. Now what he did was wrong?

Clearly you don't own guns and thus know little of the left's non-stop war against the Second Amendment starting with FDR roughly 80 years ago. First off, creating new laws by Imperial Decree is wrong and unconstitutional. We have representatives that are elected by the people (and can be voted out of office if they piss off the people) who make the laws and then, if the President agrees with it, signed into effect. The President only has the power to issue orders on the specifics of enforcing existing laws that are ambiguous - he does NOT have the power to make new laws and declare them the law of the land with no debate and no accountability. That's something that a dictator does. Secondly, saying "anyone getting treatment for mental health issues is banned from owning guns" is an absolutely idiotic idea. We need better / easier access / less stigma for getting help for mental issues in this country. Such an asinine law only makes the mental health problem worse because people are then afraid of getting help because doing so will mean permanently losing their rights. Imagine if you were struggling with anorexia and you knew that by seeking help, you'd lose the ability to ever use the internet, read a book / magazine / newspaper, watch TV, or consume media of any kind because a politician believes that media is evil and causes anorexia - you'd be much less likely to seek help knowing the massive loss of rights that you'd suffer as a result of seeking professional help and you'd try to deal with it on your own. We already have vets who are scared shitless of getting help for things like PTSD or depression because some of them have had their guns seized by the government as a result of seeking help - there's even been at least one case of a US vet who had his guns confiscated simply for going to the VA doctor about insomnia. When every part of the government is corrupt beyond measure and has a singular goal of increasing power over citizens (which means ensuring that they can't fight back), you cannot trust them to make the "right" call on such things.

As for your mention of a "slippery slope"? Again, you clearly don't know the non-stop ever increasing violations of the Second Amendment. Here is a fantastic comic explaining how the left has never stopped wanting to take away more and more of the Second Amendment until we've reached the point of today where gun owners are truly saying "FUCK THIS! I want my rights back - all of them!".

Where they will slowly add successively more restrictive laws on guns until it becomes flat-out illegal to own one.

Clearly you've never seen the gun laws of states like California and New Jersey. It's not a "claim" or "argument", it's established fact that every year or so, they make it even harder to own a gun (California is now adding taxes and restrictions on buying ammo, so even once you DO get a gun, it'll be much harder to get ammo to USE the gun).

I'm curious, have you even touched a real gun? Because you seem to be very uninformed about the realities of gun control in the US.

2
-2

[–] DownvoatCrusader 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

First of all Obama issued an executive action, which has no legal power. For it to become an actual law it has to go through Congress. So your constituents will be able to vote on it. Second, it's not a choice between no background checks at all, or background checks that are done so strict that people will fear going to the doctor. I mean would it really hurt to check if someone is a full-on psychopath, cartel member or murderer before selling a gun? You are 100% against any sort of background check and there isn't a middle way you're willing to meet?

0
2

[–] Totenglocke 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Second, it's not a choice between no background checks at all, or background checks that are done so strict that people will fear going to the doctor.

Except that any has a chilling effect on people having to choose between seeking help and losing their rights. Would you support taking away the right to vote of anyone who got help for depression or any other mental illness? What about "if a doctor decides they're too unhealthy", then they lose their right to vote?

I mean would it really hurt to check if someone is a full-on psychopath, cartel member or murderer before selling a gun?

First off, background checks don't stop criminals from buying guns because they don't go to legally run stores to buy guns. So no criminal is prevented from buying a gun. Get that Hollywood bullshit out of your head, right now. That's like your delusion that a person intent on murdering children will walk up to a school with a gun and see a "no guns" sign and go "Aww, dammit. I guess I'll go home and watch TV instead...". These laws only affect the law abiding and the purpose of banning private sales (or as you call then "universal background checks") is to create a list of who has guns so the government knows who's doors to kick down (as we saw happen in New Orleans and Democrat politicians, including Senator Dianne Feinstein, have threatened to do to Americans many times). Secondly, if a person is too dangerous to own a gun, then they're too dangerous to be free. You can easily kill people with a car, knife, bat, etc. Hell, the worst incident of mass murder at a school in US history (the Bath School disaster) didn't involve any "evil" guns, simply some homemade bombs and a baseball bat. Why do you think that guns cause violence or that other forms of violence are OK? It's wrong for a wacko to use a gun to kill someone, but it's perfectly fine for him to stab them to death or set them on fire?

You are 100% against any sort of background check and there isn't a middle way you're willing to meet?

Background checks are unconstitutional. The men who wrote the Constitution didn't stutter, they clearly said that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Supreme Court even wrote a multi-page English lesson dissecting each word of the Second Amendment in the DC vs Heller ruling, thus humiliating anyone who tries to use the "collective right" bullshit. There's two types of adults in the US - those who are violent and cannot be trusted to be free among others and those who are not violent. You don't get to make people into second class citizens based on a whim or secret government lists where saying the wrong thing to the wrong government employee means losing your rights. Contrary to what our current politicians seem to believe, this is not the USSR.

0
0

[–] Rellik88 ago 

So your ok for BG checks for voting?