I think the mindset that it is government's responsibility to cure all ills, solve all problems, provide for all people, is part of the problem. It is impractical, and discourages people to take personal responsibility for their actions, and when things inevitably don't work out....lay that blame, and sometimes violently, onto others.

 

Amen brother. This mentality is the problem today.

For the first time since 1920, the New York Times today published a front-page editorial on gun control. The editorial appears below:

 

********************

 

End the Gun Epidemic in America

 

​It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

 

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

 

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

 

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

 

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

 

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

 

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

 

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

 

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

If I read the report correctly, it could mean that half the stated population is licensed to carry. Obviously that is not correct. That includes many checks. It does show that there are hundreds of thousands in the state carrying concealed, however.

 

 

Actually, I DID read the article. The number in Kentucky accounts also for the number of re-checks for people already permitted. My point, which I'm sure you'll diminish in some fashion, is that if all states were re-checking current permit holders, then maybe a lot of us would feel safer about those who own/carry guns.

 

You are, I'm certain, going to find some sort of excuse to keep poo-poo-ing anything that has any impact on gun ownership. But the reality is that not all states have the same processes, and it most certainly is a concerning issue.

Individually, I do not think either are a bigger threat than the other.

 

ISIS is currently a much bigger threat than any radical Christian group.

 

Though I think more of a threat are people like the attackers from yesterday. It does not appear they had directive from ISIS but used similar beliefs and an admiration for ISIS to justify their attacks. It's similar to Dylann Roof in that they didn't get direction from a group but used that group's message.

 

I'm struggling to think of any terrorist act, mass-shooting, or similar event since 9/11 that happened inside of United States' borders that was ordered by a group. (I could be missing something for sure)

 

The most polite way I can respond to this post is its naive at best or lying on purpose.

 

You come off as an intelligent poster in most cases. But if you really can't see a difference in extremism globally or at home between these religions there really isn't a reason to discuss further because you refuse to see the truth.

For the record, my concerns with people owning guns have nothing to do with objecting to gun ownership. And I'm far more concerned with the safe use and storage of weapons, especially homes with children.

I should have been clearer. I was referring to Commando's post 114.

On gun ownership psychology? I get it. It's a constitutional right that wrongly gets attacked every time someone does something illegal with a gun. Knee-jerk reactions are what the administration and leading democrats are all about. Just look at the tweets made while the situation in San Bernadino was early on. Over the years, I recall plenty of democrats making statements of how they would like to see all guns be illegal.

 

Senator Dianne Feinstein - 1995 : “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”

 

Former top Democratic mayor Ed Koch said he wanted to ban all guns for everyone except law enforcement.

 

Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky said that an assault weapons ban is just the beginning. She also said that a complete ban on handguns could be possible through state and local action.

 

Former Attorney General Eric Holder didn't suggest banning or confiscating guns. He just felt we should brainwash the American people into wanting to get rid of guns.

 

During his time at the University of Chicago, Barack Obama said "I don't believe people should be able to own guns".

 

Maybe it's comments from the left such as these that will help you sort out gun ownership psychology.

Reinstituting the assault weapons ban would be a solid first step to start addressing the insidious firearms problem in this country. No civilians have any legitimate need to own one. Isn't that what Congress wisely thought in 1994? Why yes.

 

Let's just say you are right in that no one needs these guns. You aren't right but let's just say you are .

 

You do understand there is a difference between a need and right?

 

I don't need freedom of speech or a right to privacy to survive. But it is my right in a free country.

 

The use of the term "need" in a discussion about rights is flawed from the start.

For the record, my concerns with people owning guns have nothing to do with objecting to gun ownership. And I'm far more concerned with the safe use and storage of weapons, especially homes with children.

I agree totally. And until this, I had no idea that our state checked my background every 30 days. I think that's taking the lead in responsible ownership for our state to do that. Do you agree?

For the first time since 1920, the New York Times today published a front-page editorial on gun control. The editorial appears below:

 

********************

 

End the Gun Epidemic in America

Yeah, no liberal slant in that article at all. More knee-jerk non-solution nonsense to fan the flames of panic to push an agenda.

Yeah, no liberal slant in that article at all. More knee-jerk non-solution nonsense to fan the flames of panic to push an agenda.

Excellent editorial. And I'm not just saying this to get under your skin. If the NRA (which controls the puppet strings of the GOP congressional delegation) were smart, it would take the lead in introducing new gun-control measures in this country.

 

But, alas, that ain't gonna happen because the NRA itself is controlled by the companies that manufacture and peddle guns and ammo.

Excellent editorial. And I'm not just saying this to get under your skin. If the NRA (which controls the puppet strings of the GOP congressional delegation) were smart, it would take the lead in introducing new gun-control measures in this country.

 

But, alas, that ain't gonna happen because the NRA itself is controlled by the companies that manufacture and peddle guns and ammo.

 

The funniest part about your stance in this thread is that you think the majority of Americans support your opinion and this article.

Let's just say you are right in that no one needs these guns. You aren't right but let's just say you are .

 

You do understand there is a difference between a need and right?

 

I don't need freedom of speech or a right to privacy to survive. But it is my right in a free country.

 

The use of the term "need" in a discussion about rights is flawed from the start.

The "right" to gun ownership doesn't mean that said right is absolute. Even Scalia acknowledges such. For instance, you don't have a "right" to own an illegal sawed-off shotgun. Correct? Eliminating by law large categories of guns and ammo makes perfectly good sense, as the New York Times editorial advocates.

Yeah, no liberal slant in that article at all. More knee-jerk non-solution nonsense to fan the flames of panic to push an agenda.

 

I await their next front page editorial about ending the Islamic Terrorist epidemic in America.

 

Tripe from the NYT, who'd a thunk it?

In an attempt to get back to the thread title, an opportunity, if this can be used as an opportunity to sit down and discus how we can improve to make it at least harder for this with bad intentions from getting guns, what will we need to do? To help keep the bad guys from getting guns or make it more difficult, and at the same time not preventing law abiding citizens from owning guns.

 

I'll start with the lawmaker in Texas, who was against the refugees from coming to the US.. He said that it would be easy for any one of them to buy a gun. If that is true, how can we prevent that from happening? That would seem like it is too easy to buy a gun.

 

How can we work together on this? To at least make it harder for those with bad intentions, those with mental issues, from buying guns?

The funniest part about your stance in this thread is that you think the majority of Americans support your opinion and this article.

You're right -- to a degree. In Kentucky I certainly will not persuade a majority to adopt my position. But that isn't the case in other states. I think the national numbers will move in my direction, but probably not as fast as I would like.