I absolutely agree. However the NRA and too many are acting like liberals and screaming about rights and not owning up to corresponding responsibility. I'm not talking about criminals but about everyday owners who aren't safe or think they're Butch Cassidy or who leave loaded guns for children to find and fire. Too many want to carry their guns in public have no clue as to what responsibility that entails or seem to care. They are egged on by the so called leaders who only think of the $$$ they stand to make. What would be the harm in requiring a safety course before taking possession of a new gun? Even experienced gun owners need refresher courses as do hunters etc.
I don't have time to cut this up so you get it all in one. The parents responsibility doesn't end at 21 when they have produced a looney tune through no fault of their own. It's a gamble. You don't want to crap out then don't throw the dice and wrap that rascal. Freedom isn't measured solely in the right to bear arms but I can guaran damn tee you if they get that one it is a fast track to hell after that. We have to stand firm.
Dear Gru....I disagree. From a societal/legal standpoint, it ends at 18. I understand the point you are making, however, there are influential factors outside parental control and there are medical issues that are not the responsibility or "fault" of the parent. At some point, we have to allow people to raise their children as they see fit unless of course there is abuse or neglect of some kind. If a person can join the military and get blown up at 18 without their parent's approval, then they have the right and responsibility to be considered a full legal adult.
if I hadn't spent so much time there I'd tell you that they don't let the mentally challenged join but you know what I mean. Sure, kids that are ok yes at some point it's time to be an adult. These are birds of a different feather and should never be allowed to roam free. That is exactly how we ended up with @TigerTap
"imagine if"? Do not take counsel of your irrational fears. Stay in the real world, zipperhead. All you would have to do is be responsible for keeping your guns locked up. Does that sound hard to you? You can take a special needs child hunting if you take responsibility for him, no problem. Just don't allow free access to your firearms. WTF is wrong with that?
The challenge here is defining "mentally challenged" under which you will find personality disorders like ADHD and autism. Those folks absolutely join and in many instances, their medical issues make them very good at their job. An ADD afflicted individual may not be good at managing multiple tasks and responsibilities but if you give them ONE, they will be damn good at it. Sniper anyone? Willie Pete expert anyone? What do you/we do with devout muslims? Do they all want jihad at some point or are some "good American soldiers"? Does their devotion to allah and virgins make them a risk? Is their level of commitment a form of mental illness? Should they be denied a firearm? What about any devoutly religious person? Some might consider them mentally challenged. Who makes all these decisions? When you marginalize any group of people, you lay upon them a stigma. The hope I think, is to de-stigmatize mental illness. I would still prefer to pursue a line of thinking and action aimed much further up the chain, than to deny basic citizens their choice to carry.
Nothing wrong with that. It seems we are at an apples / oranges point yet again. You say "responsible for keeping your guns locked up" well just how in the blue hell would you suggest we enforce that without trampling over a stack of privacy issues? Granted, the other side of the slope is equally slippery with that "outdated" constitution and all. Idk, I like the idea of early identification of those with the "coo coo" gene but what the hell do we do with them after that? We can't shoot em but if we aren't careful the crazy bast bastards will shoot us. See, this comes back to that stupid emo movement bullshit and the parents saying "oh they are just expressing themselves" BULLSHIT! You grab River or Rage or whatever the hell he calls himself these days and you kick the white paint off his ass. Then you sit him in front of a few seasons of the Andy Griffith Show, cut his damn hair while he watches and put his punk ass to work. Rinse, lather and repeat until he gets his shit together. See, I just solved this shit. My campaign is officially open.
What privacy issues are you talking about? If irresponsible gun owners fail to keep their weapons secure from known children, felons, or mentally ineligible people in their households, then they are subject to liability. How does this invade anybody's privacy? It's just a clear line, a legal obligation, and a motivation for responsible gun owners to lock up their weapons. Most do it for security reasons anyway, but a law requiring it might save a lot of innocent people from getting killed with one of YOUR weapons. Wouldn't that upset you? If you kept your guns locked in a gunsafe and someone broke it open, then you did your best to comply with the law. If you kept your pistol loaded in a nightstand or your shotgun standing in a corner behind the front door, and your disturbed child shot the playground bullies with it, then you could be held responsible for it. I know its a pain, but it is part of responsibility. I actually have loaded guns laying around my house, but I live alone. When I had girlfriends with children around the place frequently, I locked them up in the garage . . . along with the pornvids and the weed. Don't misquote me, damn it. What I said was that ours was the first Constitution, written for an 18th century situation. It's full of archaic language that no longer means quite what it once did. For instance, "the right to bear arms". It was originally intended to mean the right to own a military weapon for use in an organized militia. At the time it was simply taken for granted that civilians could own civilian firearms for hunting and protection on the frontier. Two and a half centuries later there is wide disagreement on what it now means. Some says it still only means a right to be in a militia and we have no constitutional right to own any weapon. Other thinks it gives us the right to own artillery and raise private armies. Some more modern Constitutions spell these things out a bit more clearly. That is what I was talking about. Not that the ideals of the Constitution are archaic. But the language can certainly be. If we know them, we can keep an eye on them, restrict their access to weapons, get them some mental help, and have a better idea of the kinds of threats of this nature we are dealing with, for planning and enforcement. In some cases we put them in the padded cell for the good of society. Most modern parents could benefit their children by integrating a healthy portion of DI educational and behavioral therapy into their rearing. But it doesn't mean shit when you are talking about mental illness. It affects even well-raised and self-disciplined individuals.
