I am not for crazies
obtaining weapons. I want to keep guns out
of the hands of the long line of lunatics who have engaged in mass shootings. Here
are some questions I have.
Red flag laws may be
able to be applied to minors with some effect – parental control and all. How can they legally be applied to adults? Democrats steadfastly refuse to mandatorily
remove adults living on the streets mired in mental illness and/or drug
addiction. Why would they do anything about it with regard to guns? We know they want a certain amount of gun
violence to promote politics and fund raising.
Don’t even think that that statement is not true. Look at the latest mass shootings.
How long does a minor
who gets “red flagged” have to live under that ruling? My guess is – forever. So a violent outburst at age 14 – maybe calling
a Democrat a racist - means no hunting or sport shooting for you - ever.
Are inner cities,
where mass murder occurs every weekend, going to be under the same scrutiny as
Walmart shooters?
Who gets to decide who
among us is not worthy of 2nd Amendment rights? A judge?
We know conservative judges might follow the law. We also know that Lefty Lib judges are more interested
in politics than justice. I wonder if an
AntiFa d-bag runs across this page and then files a “red flag” against Lex and
then hauls me before a Lil’ Barry The Empty Suit judge, what chance Lex has to maintain
his 2nd Amendment rights?
The cops? I wonder what chance Lex would have in
maintaining his 2nd Amendment rights in a Demo-Dope stronghold like
Baltimore or Caligula, D.C.? The police chief
is appointed by the mayor. In Dayton,
the police chief sees law abiding and responsible citizens owning sporting
rifles as “problematic.” I see a public servant
in open conflict with the U.S. Constitution as problematic.
Psychiatrists? Hmm, are they political? Probably.
Are they like economists where we can find one to support just about any
position? Yes. We see it in courtrooms all the time.
Smart people probably have
a score of more relevant questions about what is essentially pre-crime red flag
laws. We have no fly lists which amount to about the same thing. What’s different here? Well the 2nd Amendment is protected
in the Constitution. The right to fly is not. So there’s that.
We should probably go
slow here. Any decision made in the heat
of the moment is likely to be a bad decision.
A rush to “do something” will not result in good law that will fix the
problem. Whatever the decision is, Rat
establishment Republicans ought to be wary.
Any law they support will not get them a sliver of relief from the
charges of racism and white supremacy from the Dopes and their MSM lap
dog. It will alienate them from their
base. It’s a no win situation.
On a bit different topic,
raising the age to 21 to buy such guns makes sense, but is fraught with contradictions. If we recruit 17-20 year olds to carry such
weapons in the stressful mentally challenging conditions of combat, how can anyone
logically say they cannot have one to defend their home and person?
All of this complicated. I have no confidence that anyone in Caligula,
D.C. is up to the challenge of solving this problem.
Prediction: Whatever the Caligula. D.C BS artists come up with, it will
be ineffective. There will be another
mass shooting and the call will be to restrict more rights of the law abiding. Sadly ReRs will go along.
Toady’s JG rant
Re: JG editorial, “Time
for more than words” of Aug 6, 2019
I cannot believe the
JG used these words “[t]hose who enjoy loose talk and hate-filled tweets” while
they print loose talk and hate-filled letters daily. “Loose talk” like contributors to this page labeling
everyone who supports an America first nationalism as racists white nationalism
– that kind of loose talk?
The unending lies from
the real racists - the Democratic presidential field - who label anyone who
disagrees with them politically on any policy as racist white nationalist –
that kind of loose talk?
When the president
declared a crisis at the southern border, Democrats – as always – declared him
a racist and white nationalist. Now Democrats
agree there is a crisis at the border.
So are all those Democrats now racists white nationalists who engaged in
loose talk when they first denied a crisis at our border?
It is the Democratic
Party that always has been and remains the home for raging racists,
segregationists and white supremacists. From N. B. Forrest – Democrat founder of the
KKK – to Margret Sanger – Democrat racist and eugenicist founder of Planned
Parenthood – to the 20th century’s most racist president – Democrat Woodrow
Wilson – to the hate-filled anti-Semitic pure racism of “the squad” – Democrats
all – the Democratic Party always welcomes racists and then engages in projection
and loose talk to cover their tracks.
By allowing the racist
Democratic Party a platform to engage in loose talk from the Martin Luther King
bust lie, to the Charlottesville lie, to the Covington High lie, to “the squad”
lie, to the current El Paso lie, the JG editorial page is a racist platform dealing
in loose talk for political gain and should be ashamed.
Tuesday,
August 06, 2019 1:00 am
EDITORIAL
Time for more than words
Addressing
terrorism, mental health, gun restrictions all needed steps
On the
Web
The El
Paso Community Foundation has started a fund to help victims of the mass
shooting there.
https://payments.epcf.org/victims
The
Dayton Foundation has created a site to accept donations for the
victims of its city's tragedy.
https://www.daytonfoundation.org/dayton_oregon_district_tragedy_fund.html
“My words fly up. My thoughts remain below,” prayed Claudius,
the unrepentant king in “Hamlet.” “Words without thoughts never to heaven go.”
After the weekend's mass shootings in Texas and Ohio, the
prayers of all Americans are with the victims. Can we move beyond that and look
for ways to make America less vulnerable to these horrific outbursts of
violence?
A tweet Sunday by U.S. Rep. Jim Banks, R-3rd, is a welcome step
in that direction.
“I deployed to Afghanistan as a response to radical Islamic
terrorism,” Banks wrote. “We now face a different enemy that has also emerged
from the shadows but demands the same focus and determination to root out and
destroy. #WhiteSupremacistTerrorism should be named, targeted and defeated.”
Banks' words rang with startling clarity – an indication,
perhaps, of how low our expectations for sensible discourse in the wake of
tragedy have become. Numbed by our collective inability to prevent or respond
to each round of this particularly disquieting violence, we customarily retreat
to our political and cultural corners.
Those who enjoy loose talk and hate-filled tweets have insisted
that rhetoric has no effect on unbalanced individuals at the fringes. Those who
want to see gun laws tightened sometimes sound as though they would forbid
honest citizens the right to defend themselves. Treatment of mental illness is
woefully underresourced, and video mayhem may nurture real-world violence. But
some point to those problems to deflect attention from the dangers of hate
speech and racism.
We have to keep searching for common ground – things we can
agree on that will make life safer for liberals and conservatives, whites and
people of color.
We could, as Banks suggests, reject terrorism whatever its
stripe. As Muslims should reject al Qaida, so fundamentalist Christians should
reject white nationalist groups.
We could continue the search for sensible firearm restrictions
that could deter individuals from quickly inflicting harm on his or her fellow
citizens. Limits on magazine sizes and a ban on semiautomatic rifles have to be
part of the conversation. So does preservation of Second Amendment rights.
Universal background checks on firearm purchases is an area ripe
for broad agreement. Fort Wayne City Councilman Geoff Paddock, D-5th, said
Monday he wants to introduce a resolution in support of the Bipartisan
Background Checks Act of 2019, passed by the U.S. House in February and
awaiting action in the U.S. Senate.
The measure would extend the requirement for federal background
checks on prospective gun purchasers to include transactions between private
individuals. That could prevent felons and those with mental illness from
acquiring firearms but wouldn't infringe on other citizens' rights.
Will these tragedies be a turning point? If not now, when? Maybe
we're all at the point where we could tone down the rhetoric and spend more
time on the things we can agree on.
No comments:
Post a Comment