The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Obama: AK-47s belong on battlefield, not streets

jeepstrapped · July 29, 2012, 01:30 PM

First, to clarify my position. I think the gun laws we have are already too stringent. For example, we should be able to purchase sound suppressors without the rigamarole we have to put up with now. Also, it should be incumbent on NCIS to notify individuals of why they were declined the purchase of a firearm, not the other way around like it is now. For that matter, I don't see the reason for having to transfer a firearm from one FFL in one state to another FFL in another state to purchase a firearm, we are already going through the NICS check, so why does it matter which state I do the paperwork in? There are many more things that I think are totally outrageous that infringe on our rights, but by now you should get the idea of where I stand on these issues.

The reason we are defending against statements like the AK-47 crack is that we have set ourselves up as constantly being in the position of defending, rather than being proactive on these issues.

For example, in an interview after the Aurora shooting the Governor of Colorado stated that this was a mental health issue not a gun control issue. I for one agree with him, as well as agree with other people that make this connection.

I think instead of isolating ourselves into defending gun rights we should be proactive in looking for solutions.

Not that I am comfortable with the idea, and this is entirely speculation. If it turns out that this kid has a mental health issue and was on some prescription medication that has side effects including aggresiveness and violence, for example Luxol. We should be making the focus of the issue instead be how mental health care failed. Why wasn't this kid admitted to a mental health care facility, why didn't the psychiatrist fail to observe the behavior change that led to this.

I will admit, for a while I thought it may be a reasonable solution to prevent people with mental health issues, specifically personality disorders that lead to violence and agression wither on their own or as a result of medication, be prevented from owning firearms. However, that would not have stopped this kid from setting off the bomb in his apartment. The only way to have stoped him would have been to remove him from society, which the system allows for by being admitted into a mental health care facility where he can't harm anyone.

In a nutshell, the reason that we are constantly defending gun rights is that we fail to be proactive, and making an issue of, the real causes as well as how the current system fails in these situations.

So, my $.005 is that until we, and by we I mean the political right as well as members of the political left that support gunrights, and organizations like the NRA, start being more vocal about the failings of mental health care in instances like this we will always be playing defense and our gun rights will slowly erode.

July 29, 2012, 01:30 PM	#169
jeepstrapped Senior Member Join Date: March 22, 2009 Location: SD Posts: 141	First, to clarify my position. I think the gun laws we have are already too stringent. For example, we should be able to purchase sound suppressors without the rigamarole we have to put up with now. Also, it should be incumbent on NCIS to notify individuals of why they were declined the purchase of a firearm, not the other way around like it is now. For that matter, I don't see the reason for having to transfer a firearm from one FFL in one state to another FFL in another state to purchase a firearm, we are already going through the NICS check, so why does it matter which state I do the paperwork in? There are many more things that I think are totally outrageous that infringe on our rights, but by now you should get the idea of where I stand on these issues. The reason we are defending against statements like the AK-47 crack is that we have set ourselves up as constantly being in the position of defending, rather than being proactive on these issues. For example, in an interview after the Aurora shooting the Governor of Colorado stated that this was a mental health issue not a gun control issue. I for one agree with him, as well as agree with other people that make this connection. I think instead of isolating ourselves into defending gun rights we should be proactive in looking for solutions. Not that I am comfortable with the idea, and this is entirely speculation. If it turns out that this kid has a mental health issue and was on some prescription medication that has side effects including aggresiveness and violence, for example Luxol. We should be making the focus of the issue instead be how mental health care failed. Why wasn't this kid admitted to a mental health care facility, why didn't the psychiatrist fail to observe the behavior change that led to this. I will admit, for a while I thought it may be a reasonable solution to prevent people with mental health issues, specifically personality disorders that lead to violence and agression wither on their own or as a result of medication, be prevented from owning firearms. However, that would not have stopped this kid from setting off the bomb in his apartment. The only way to have stoped him would have been to remove him from society, which the system allows for by being admitted into a mental health care facility where he can't harm anyone. In a nutshell, the reason that we are constantly defending gun rights is that we fail to be proactive, and making an issue of, the real causes as well as how the current system fails in these situations. So, my $.005 is that until we, and by we I mean the political right as well as members of the political left that support gunrights, and organizations like the NRA, start being more vocal about the failings of mental health care in instances like this we will always be playing defense and our gun rights will slowly erode.