468
Comments (55)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
TheMadManDidItAgain 1 point ago +1 / -0

This could have been prevented.

Nah. It's possible that maybe that individual sale of that individual firearm on that individual day at that individual location to that individual person could have been prevented... regardless, the dude was going to get a firearm, regardless of what laws are in the books. Do you honestly think the kid would be like "welp, looks like I can't purchase a gun to carry this out... it was a nice try."

To think this could have been prevented shows how well propaganda works.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
TheMadManDidItAgain 1 point ago +1 / -0

Drugs is a different topic, it has it's own issues and situations. For example, there's nothing in the Constitution about drugs, but there is something in the Constitution about firearms.

Why try to discuss drugs when the issue you bring up is guns?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
TheMadManDidItAgain 2 points ago +2 / -0

would reduce the probability that they commit mass shootings

It would reduce it 0.0%. It might even increase it. I have no proof of that, just a thought. Think about it... suppose somebody is considered 'paranoid' and wants to purchase a gun to help protect them and their family. If they were denied purchase of a gun, don't you think that would exacerbate their situation and make them feel more justified for shooting people up, specifically those who are trying to prevent them from purchasing a firearm? In other words, it will make a 'high risk individual' feel more justified to commit this crime.

Or the person who has full intentions on doing the crime... it won't stop them at all, they'll just get a weapon through other means... friend, family, theft, on the street... it's not like it's hard to do. It may even give them more time to plot... give them more time for their crazy to come out and figure out how to take out even more people.

Owning a firearm is a natural Right, meaning we are born with it. It's not contingent on anything else. The only exception is if you have violated somebody else's natural Rights, then you lose this as a natural Right.

You are also trying to conflate issues, and ignore valid reasons. You are trying to say "prevent a high risk individual from buying a gun legally" while also indicating that you cannot use the Constitution as a reason against this. I mean... that IS the reason against what you are saying.

I'll play your game of analogy... it's like saying "Give me one reason why it's bad to eat McDonalds everyday... oh, and you can't use health as a reason."

Either you believe in natural Rights, or you don't. The Constitution does not grant us Rights, and it seems like you are coming from it at that angle. The Constitution actually LIMITS the government on what it can do. The Constitution doesn't give us our Rights (we are created with them)... but it prevents the government from abusing humanity. Yet, you're advocating for that.

I hope you have an awakening on how evil what your are suggesting actually is.