Post view

A secular humanist weighs in on (Sigh) "Gun Control"

When the Constitution was written:

Infant mortality rate was high and sickness was usually a death sentence. Superstition was wide spread. Most people worked on or owned farms. The south had wealthy plantation owners who’s land was worked by slaves of African descent.

The education was primarily for boys and girls were raised to care for the household and family and only the very wealthy went to college.

Women, slaves and poor men could NOT vote or hold public office and were also largely illiterate. The middle class men voted but hardly held public office. Wealthy men held most of the power in politics and the society at large was mostly male dominated.

Couple married young and tried for large families since that was to be the “Social Security” of the time, but since infant mortality was commonplace this was difficult.

Most of medicine was not very effective, and doctors were rare poorly trained and viewed with low esteem by the general populace.

Houses were heated with fireplaces and had no plumbing.

Religion was strongly embedded in American society where people were implored to say daily prayers and attend church services every week.

In the second amendment it states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I’m not sure why we cannot work on the concept of “Gun Control” without swinging completely to the left “All Guns should be illegal!” to going completely to the right “The right to bear arms means I can privately own tactical assault weapons and a grenade launcher if I want!”

I had started talking to several people on social media (Probably my first mistake) regarding the recent events with mass shootings and how they Might be “Lessened” in the future. I am a “realist” by nature and I get that if I had used “Prevented” I would just be dreaming. My goal was not to halt guns, just make them more difficult to obtain for the mentally unstable . . . I mean it sounded innocent enough. The only thing I could see coming from the “Right” was to increase guns, and make them even EASIER to get a hold of. I mean it was right in line with more guns means the ability to protect yourself from the gunmen/gunwomen doing the mass shooting by shooting them first . . . This was literally the only thing the right was willing to discuss . . . I said “What about a psyche evaluation for all people interested in purchasing a firearm?” I was told I was being an idiot . . . So I tried again “Okay, what about connecting nonspecific informational ‘Triggers’ in someone’s Medical Records to reflect possible mental issues?” –

To clarify

A physician or psychiatrist would fill out a field and check a box that the person they are treating cannot own firearms or live in a home where firearms are present. This would triggers a “Flag” when the person goes to purchase a firearm so that the seller IS BLOCKED from doing the transaction. The caveat is that this same trigger would be enforced for anyone the person lives with. The exact reason to the seller is unknown, thus protecting the person’s right to privacy afforded by HIPAA but certain criteria’s are upholded to ensure that person is not allowed near firearms. This wouldn’t have to be permanent and could be applied for the time an individual is on pharmaceuticals that has possible side effects of severe mood swings and/or depression. Also, a Doctor prescribing these types of medication HAS to inform the patient that they will need to remove firearms from the premises once they start them.   

Again, I am not unrealistic with these concepts “Fixing” the problem 100% . . . I am looking to lessen the problem. Even if we only saw the result of it stopping one mass shooting, the lives saved would be the pay-off I would have hoped for.

What we have to take into consideration, is that most of the people with mental issues were either locked away or kept AWAY from guns, or more likely was a rarity in colonial times. And the weapons that people had the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS with were muzzle loading flintlocks . . . Try and pull off a mass shooting with a muzzleloader . . . one inaccurate shot (The lead balls weren’t weighted very well so often times they NEVER flew straight), and then a mob of students and teachers tackling you while you tried to reload ball, gauze, gunpowder, tap it down with rod, prime the flint cock back and fire . . . The founding fathers had no idea at the killing machines humans would invent later on down the later line to shoot each other with . . . had they had a trip to the future, you can bet they would have made previsions to that amendment to better regulate and inform on the intent and meaning. To say otherwise is ignorance trying to rationalize owning what you WANT to own versus what you need to own. -

To clarify

– I realize that one’s right to bear arms should come close to “Matching” what others will own as THEIR right to bear arms for protection.

Before we let a person drive, many places require that they take drivers ed, they have so many hours supervised. They take a written test and then they drive with a qualified professional or a law enforcement officer (in most cases).  Then, that person is probationary terms where a violation can lead to losing the privilege of operating the vehicle. Why do we do all of this?  Because we a placing an individual behind the wheel of a device that could potentially kill someone.

I understand the concept of the “Slippery Slope”, and that most people fear that one regulation opens the tsunami to a veritable flood of regulations to follow . . . but mental health issues are not going away, and not EVERYBODY should have the right to own a firearm.

So . . . how do we make it more difficult for the wrong people to possess weapons that can kill another individual so easily.

Spoiler alert, the answer should never be arm more people to kill them first because that isn't really the world we want to leave our grandchildren . . . is it?

Darkmajinn 20.04.2018 3 111
Order by: 
Per page:
  •  Walter: 
    It takes quite a bit to offend me. I understand and respect your beliefs as I do everyone else’s.
    0 points
  •  Walter: 
    I enjoyed reading this and I had no difficulty maintaining an open mind. I always enjoy other’s opinions and beliefs.
     20.04.20181 replies1 replies 
    0 points
Post info
Everyone has to be Somewhere . . .
20.04.2018 (89 days ago)
0 votes
Lifestyle (3 posts)
Politics (1 posts)