Stop treating gun ownership as sacred

[KillShot]

This is no longer a debate. It is no longer two sides throwing words at each other about what the Constitution allows.

It is time now for a serious national discussion about who can buy a gun, who can keep a gun and how to keep guns out of the hands of people who would shoot up a crowd, killing six and wounding a U.S. congresswoman.

It is time for us to stop using the Second Amendment as an excuse to be dangerous. That is the only way we can stop a kid from taking a gun to school, leading to one student being shot in the head and another being shot in the neck.

And it's time for a serious conversation about mentally ill people in America, even when they are part of other populations that include homeless people, poor people, gangs or science clubs.

Questions for us

The thing that struck me most about the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and the killing of U.S. District Judge John Roll and five others in Tucson, Ariz., 13 days ago is that people knew something was wrong with accused killer Jared Loughner. Some classmates worried about the odd performances he gave in school. One friend said he showed Loughner a gun that he kept, allegedly for protection around the house.

It wasn't for protection.

In the coming months, Arizona prosecutors will prove that Loughner was lucid and deliberate as he walked up to a Safeway store and shot 19 people, some point-blank.

The atmosphere will be different in Los Angeles, where authorities arrested a sophomore who took a gun to school, a gun that "accidentally" went off when he put his backpack down on a table in health class.

There, authorities will have to figure out why a 15-year-old had a gun, why he would take it to school and what to do about two children being shot.

But we all have questions to ask ourselves, too, all of us on both sides of the gun issue. Can we have a conversation about what's necessary and what's not, about what we absolutely cannot allow and what the law allows?


The real reasons

On Wednesday, doctors at University Medical Center in Tucson called Giffords' recovery "a miracle."

She is.

Fewer than 5% of victims with similar head wounds have survived.

This week, her mother told the world, Giffords untied her husband's tie, looked at photos on his iPad and looked at a large-print edition of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone."

Hate visited Tucson, visited Gabby Giffords, and she defeated him.

But what about the next time, the next person, the next kid?

There are no absolutes in the gun debate, except this: If we don't stop treating gun ownership as if it were sacred, as if America is not allowed to regulate it, then we will continue to have more shootings -- both deliberate and accidental.

And when they happen, there will be no need to argue whether the impetus was politics or hate rhetoric or curiosity or stupidity.

Because we know that the real reasons people are being shot is because of the unnecessary proliferation of guns.

_____________
Source - Freep

 

[ExSniper]

"There are no absolutes in the gun debate, except this: If we don't stop treating gun ownership as if it were sacred, as if America is not allowed to regulate it, then we will continue to have more shootings -- both deliberate and accidental.

And when they happen, there will be no need to argue whether the impetus was politics or hate rhetoric or curiosity or stupidity.

Because we know that the real reasons people are being shot is because of the unnecessary proliferation of guns."

What a moron. Loughner did not shoot these people "because of the unnecessary proliferation of guns," he shot them because of his own particular hatred/dementia/sickness. If everyone in the State of Arizona carried a gun or if there were not a single privately owned firearm in The USA, sick people would still find ways to kill others.
I could build a case that the media and their glorification of murderers is to blame for many of the mass killings that take place. Would this reporter for the inappropriately named Free Press agree that we should limit freedom of the press? If I were to claim: "There are no absolutes in the free press debate, except this: If we don't stop treating the free press as if it were sacred, as if America is not allowed to regulate it, then we will continue to have more shootings -- both deliberate and accidental.
And when they happen, there will be no need to argue whether the impetus was politics or hate rhetoric or curiosity or stupidity.
Because we know that the real reasons people are being shot is because of the unnecessary proliferation of news articles that turn these villians into cult heroes."
If we want to live in a free country and enjoy the blessings of liberty then we must be prepared to deal with individuals who choose to misuse that liberty to the detriment of all in our society. If you want total safety then all you have to do is stop treating liberty, all of our freedoms, as sacred and allow someone to regulate every aspect of our lives. Of course, everywhere that has been tried the people have lost their liberty and fallen under the total control of a dictator.
Rather than argue about guns, why don't we just quickly and severely punish the perpetrator. Don't give him front page headlines, don't even mention his name. Simply report that "the defendant" was given a fair and speedy trail and a quiet and humane execution.

 

[DutchWrangler]

Why did Cain kill Abel?

 

[Billybob]

Apparently the founding fathers thought they were sacred.

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
-- John Adams
 

 

[oklaccer]

The one problem with all gun laws is that they will only affect the law abiding citizen, who is not the problem. In all the mass shootings, there were numerous laws broken or numerous incidents to cause alarm before the shooter ever set foot in the kill zone. More laws and more restrictions will do NOTHING to prevent another shooting.
As far as gun ownership being "sacred" it doesn't take much research to see that the founding fathers thought it so. Remember, the rights enumerated in the bill of rights were given by God and acknowledged by the Constitution. A biblical argument can be made to arm everyone. Just before He was crucified, Jesus told his disciples to take with them a sword, and if they didn't have a sword, to sell their coat and buy one. The modern day equivalent of sword would be a handgun.

 

[dugby]

I don't like it.

:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

Apparently the founding fathers thought they were sacred.

And that it was only the governments job to guarantee "inalienable" rights and not "Grant" any of them to the citizenry. Our right exists whether govt allows it or not.

 

[DutchWrangler]

And that it was only the governments job to guarantee "inalienable" rights and not "Grant" any of them to the citizenry. Our right exists whether govt allows it or not.

Exactly. To bad most people are unable to grasp this concept. I've had to educate my Canadian wife on "natural law" as it's completely foreign to her, especially in regards to the right of self preservation and bearing arms.