Originally Posted by A.Nonymous
I don't think anyone is a fan of the mentally ill owning weapons. That's something we would probably all agree on. As it is though, there's no database containing the names of everyone who is "mentally ill". Let's say I actually run a gun shop and someone comes in to buy a gun. I run a background check (no problem with that) do I then have to do a psych evaluation on the person to see if they're "mentally ill" or not? How do I as a business owner make that determination? I'm not even close to being qualified.
I understand where you're coming from here but I have to stand up for the rights of all the people diagnosed with a mental illness who would NEVER do something like this. Aren't we kind of stereotyping them here by saying none of them should EVER be able to own a gun. I mean, I'm not a fan of someone who is mentally ill having a chainsaw either but I don't want laws preventing them from owning them.
Should we just lock all of them in a padded cell because of the possible future crimes of a select few. I mean, isn't ANYONE who is capable of serial or mass murder (and many other crimes) considered mentally ill? Or do we just call them evil? Is there a difference? I think there is.
So just because Lanza was mentally ill doesn't mean his horrific act was due to that illness. Perhaps he was simply evil.
I don't agree with taking away constitutional rights from people because they are handicapped. All of these laws seem to steer toward an unattainable sense of utopia where we can forsee and prevent each and every possiblity of misdeed by passing laws that make it impossible to commit the deeds.
That just doesn't work. The criminal mind will always come up with a new way to commit crime and the previously passed laws than only cause a greater and greater burden to the good natured law abiding citizen. New laws are like antiviruses. The code gets written in hindsight trying to solve problems of the past. Then they slow down and restrict your system constantly trying to prevent the same instance from happening again. But they never stop the next big thing from invading your daily life suddenly to cause a catastrophe.
And then the answer to that event is always the same: let's just add some more code (which just makes it all the more restrictive)
And the President uses the phrase, "if it saves even one life..."
Actually, I'm not willing to give up my liberties just to save a life, or even many lives. I don't buy the guilt trip. My conscience is clean. Their blood is not on my hands or yours. Don't let the liberals trick you into thinking these tradgedies are your fault because you believe in protecting your freedom.
"Anyone willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security."
-who said it?