It's legal of them to do so. Just tacky as hell

Anonymous wrote:I live by the Constitution. Can you show me your common good argument there? It's more of a socialist principle

Yes, I'm sure you were vigorously defending the plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero. Because you believe in freedom of religion.

So we restrict everyone because we don't know who's mentally ill? That seems rather Orwellian.

For the love of God, let's put to rest the idea that we can know who is mentally unstable and keep guns out of their hands while granting this freedom to everyone else. It is often not possible to predict who will be violent to themselves or others. Time and again we've seen tragedies occur and Monday morning quarterbacking about all the reasons everyone should have been able to see it coming.

Yes, mental illness is part of the problem, but until there are better ways of predicting violence society will benefit from limiting access to firearms.

BTW, I am a mental health professional.

So he should amend it, not use executive order, right? Glad we agree.

You're comparing the those that abide by the Constitution, a document of law and liberty for the individual with the totalitarian regimes of those above?

Do you have ANY idea that those regimes above are the OPPOSITE of a Constitutional Republic?

Anonymous wrote:I live by the Constitution. Can you show me your common good argument there? It's more of a socialist principle

LOL. The "constitution" has been amended many times and will continue to be. You " live your life by it " really ?? As in worship the written word ? I'm pretty sure that that would make TJ squirm in his chair.

The reason: people who are dogmatic often miss the forest for the trees. They also open themselves up to demogoguery. My guess is, like most human beings you pick and choose what you believe in and , at times of personal crisis, you probably sometimes fail to stick to those declared priciples.

I'd say its better to be humble, admit that, and show some flexibility to others point of view.

Societies that expected everyone to rigidly adhere to a written philosophy that could not be changed did not fare so well:

Pol Pot
Stalin
Idi Amin
Jim Jones
Hugo Chavez

General welfare is defined in the Constitution. It's not a 'make it up as you go along' sort of thing. Ditto domestic tranquility.

Anonymous wrote:I live by the Constitution. Can you show me your common good argument there? It's more of a socialist principle

"ensure domestic tranquility...promote the general welfare...."

Keep in mind the Constitution clearly defines those laws

I live by the Constitution. Can you show me your common good argument there? It's more of a socialist principle

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question to the gun enthusiasts around here: Do you see this as a tragedy that could have been avoided? Or just Darwinism in action/one of those bad things that happens occasionally but has nothing to do with easy access to multiple guns?

Who do you feel is ultimately responsible for this tragedy? Let's start there.

NP:

1) The kid himself.

2) The parents, who were too stupid to acknowledge that their son had a problem*, and were hellbent on keeping guns in the house.

*Refusing to wear anything but military camo, and adicted to violent videogames? Yeah, sure. I'd look the other way if my 15 year old did that.


3) The laws that allow such stupid people to buy and keep as many guns as they would like.

First two correct. Third involved changing laws that affect more than this couple. You're assuming everyone is as guilty as these folk were.

Of course we want to affect more than this couple. We aren't going to bring that family back to life. We want to deal with the next couple and their disturbed kid.

Might I ask where you get the power to interfere in everyone else's life? Where does that power end?

Requiring people to abide by laws that protect the common good is not interfering in everyone's life, any more than the aforementioned example of requiring everyone to pay taxes for the "common good." You don't life on an island, PP. You live in a fallen world where your individual rights and freedoms must be balanced with the fact that your neighbor and fellow human being may not be able to handle his.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question to the gun enthusiasts around here: Do you see this as a tragedy that could have been avoided? Or just Darwinism in action/one of those bad things that happens occasionally but has nothing to do with easy access to multiple guns?

Who do you feel is ultimately responsible for this tragedy? Let's start there.

NP:

1) The kid himself.

2) The parents, who were too stupid to acknowledge that their son had a problem*, and were hellbent on keeping guns in the house.

*Refusing to wear anything but military camo, and adicted to violent videogames? Yeah, sure. I'd look the other way if my 15 year old did that.


3) The laws that allow such stupid people to buy and keep as many guns as they would like.

First two correct. Third involved changing laws that affect more than this couple. You're assuming everyone is as guilty as these folk were.

Of course we want to affect more than this couple. We aren't going to bring that family back to life. We want to deal with the next couple and their disturbed kid.

Might I ask where you get the power to interfere in everyone else's life? Where does that power end?

Ask him?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing that stops a 15 year old at 1 am with a gun, when everyone in the family is sleeping is.... What exactly

Well for one, a gun safe might have been a good beginning. They had the thing lying in a closet. Like many "responsible" gun owners, I'm sure they taught their kids to respect firearms. Apparently they were not as successful in teaching their son respect for family, or human life.

Nor is the haed of the NRA, David Keene, whose son fired a gun at a motorist on The GW parkway when he was 21. How did the Pres of the NRA, David Keene, allow his son, who had a history of mental illness, to get acccess to a gun?

Anonymous wrote:
Of course we want to affect more than this couple. We aren't going to bring that family back to life. We want to deal with the next couple and their disturbed kid.

+ 1000