Skip to main content

View Diary: Sen. McConnell Posts 'Hilarious' Facebook Photo Following Gun Vote Defeat (227 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh please. (0+ / 0-)

    I've posted multiple times that the mentally ill and the parents of the mentally ill must be disarmed if everyone is really serious about preventing another Newton. Those posts have basically received as many HRs as recs. I have zero confidence that all parents of Aspergers kids will be forcibly disarmed, and you know that's true. The ACLU would probably file suit for discrimination.

    Of course felons should lose their 2nd amendment rights, but Adam Lanza wasn't a felon, and no bill being discussed would have disarmed his mother.

    As for magazine limits, I have no constitutional issue.  But if the next school shooting by a similar individual only kills 5-10, don't pretend you will be satisfied with the harm reduction.

    •  I most certainly would feel better if the body (0+ / 0-)

      count were kept to 5-10 because the gunman had to change clips more often because we have examples here and in Aurora, Colorado where large clips and not having to change them as often yielded higher body counts.  We know what could happen, and this would be a case that would support the idea that smaller clips allow for fewer people to be killed.

      I would not be happy that 5-10 people died, but I would be happy it was only 5-10 instead of 20+.

      I can see why you'd be frowned upon for advocating the "forcible disarming of the parents of mentally ill", as that has never been brought up by lawmakers and certainly never inserted into bills.  Adam Lanza's mother, since she had concerns over her son, should have taken steps to protect herself and one way would be to secure her guns where Adam couldn't have accessed them.  He may have killed her in another way - my guess is knives would be available, but the knives would not have then allowed him to go kill 26 innocents at the school.  

      People will figure out ways to murder if they try hard enough.  All we're trying to do is to figure out ways to prevent mass murders of innocents and guns are the way most people try to do that.  The logical step is to see a problem and work on ways to fix it.  Your way seems to not limit guns until/unless someone commits a crime and by that point at Newtown, as in Colorado in Aurora and Columbine, it was too late.  My way would be to limit the availability and efficacy of those guns so that mass killing sprees would be much harder to carry out.

      •  You contradict yourself (0+ / 0-)

        Why should guns have been locked away from Adam Lanza if he hadn't done anything wrong?  Because he was mentally ill?  If you think that was correct for him, why is it not correct for all of the mentally ill?  Why should they not all lose their rights. That includes their parents, for can they be trusted to always secure their weapons?

        The alternative is innocent until proven guilty, but then as you say, it's too late. So you have to disarm them first, but how, and for what?  These are questions that must be answered.

        See, Adam Lanza wasn't a child, he was an adult who owned his own weapons that were bought for him. Should Adam Lanza have failed a background check simply for being mentally ill?  Should his mother have failed one because her son is?  Or is that discrimination against innocent people?  And by what right could Mrs Lanza disarm her adult son without due process?  Note that many here don't want to even define Autism or Aspergers as mental illness.

        Either all are presumed innocent, and tragedy is a price of freedom, or we disarm all mentally ill as a precaution, without waiting for them to snap.  And without waiting for a mother dragging her feet.

        •  OK - you win. Guns for everyone with no (0+ / 0-)

          restrictions.  Happy now?  Probably not.  I'm through trying to show you my logic, and I am done trying to understand yours.

          •  Innocent until proven guilty (0+ / 0-)

            And yes, Constitutional rights for everyone unless deprived of those rights theouh due process. That's my only logic.  I find the use of Newton to scream for background checks to be disgusting, as the Lanzas would have passed. Unless you want to go on record as saying every individual (and parents) with Aspergers should fail.  But as you said, that's not being debated. Where's the logic in your position?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site