Well, I guess that’s one interpretation
While Tennessee voters are protective of gun rights, most agree stricter rules are needed.
A new Middle Tennessee State University poll released Wednesday showed 69% think it’s more important to “protect the right to own guns” than to control gun ownership.
But 85% support laws to prevent people with mental illness from buying guns. And 83% support background checks.
November 11th, 2015 at 10:27 pm
Sounds reasonable. Guns are not for half-wits or the perpetually anti-social.
November 11th, 2015 at 10:29 pm
That’ll teach me to click the link first. Yes, that’s the regular MFM misleading headline.
November 11th, 2015 at 11:37 pm
“85% support laws to prevent people with mental illness from buying guns. And 83% support background checks.”
Don’t know about “support”, but I’d say about 100% acknowledge such laws. You know, like
4473 11(f) and NICS?
November 12th, 2015 at 7:41 am
I’m beginning to worry that perhaps this mental illness issue, while a valid concern in and of itself, is being used as a bugaboo to get people in general on board with attempts which will compromise our rights. After all, how could one, in good conscience, argue against laws meant to prevent these people obtaining weapons?
The problems are that incompetent legislatards will use this goal as an excuse to push any of their pet restrictions, regardless how inappropriate the connection, and that mission creep will get us to where the desire to own a firearm is prima facie evidence of the very mental illness that makes one an improper person. You know there are people out there that would be overwhelmed by hormones to have that done, and that as few of them as there are, they have sympathizers in high places.
It’s unfortunate when one of these overmedicated, underdisciplined scrotumnecks does something (that’s made) sensational, but the fact is, the more of us there are and the closer together we are, the more we’ll see of it, even if the rate isn’t increasing. Most of the time, these events would be less sensational if someone was just there to stop it, but that doesn’t further the narrative, so it doesn’t make the news.
Even more unfortunate is this attitude that’s grown up that if we ban enough things hard enough, and these pesky eloi can be made to stay in line, we’ll be able to hermetically seal ourselves away from any pain or discomfort.
November 12th, 2015 at 9:17 am
I think there’s an “oppositional defiant disorder” and I recall seeing an article where it was suggested that should be applied to those who were “anti-government”. That’s often applied to those who insist that the government be restricted to its Constitutional delegated powers and not violate or infringe ALL of the Bill of Rights. In other words, it could be that anyone who is pro Constitutional government would be defined as “mentally ill”.
November 12th, 2015 at 10:39 am
Well, if you look at Nanny Bloomberg, his police department was placed under federal supervision for violating the Fourth Amendment — the stop and frisk policy. “You cannot have just one [Constitutional violation]” if you’re a control freak.
November 12th, 2015 at 10:42 am
Steppenwolf recorded a song almost 50 years ago call “Ostrich”. Some of the lyrics are as follows:
You’re free to speak your mind my friend
As long as you agree with me
Don’t criticize the fatherland
Or those who shape your destiny
‘Cause if you do
You’ll lose your job, your mind and all the friends you knew
We’ll send out all our boys in blue
They’ll find a way to silence you
Kinda like whats going on now, huh.
November 12th, 2015 at 11:06 am
wildbill, it’s the same with the song, Monster”. I was a big Steppenwolf fan back then. As you may know, most of those songs were written by lead singer, John Kay, who had escaped from East Germany in his youth. The last I heard, he lives in my area of Middle Tennessee, near Franklin. Looking back, those song lyrics were basically libertarian and “isolationist” re: the then,Vietnam War.
November 12th, 2015 at 11:38 am
The “But” in that second paragraph makes me think of “My Cousin Vinny” “..yet, you were not wearing your necessary, prescription eyeglasses!” I read it, and I hear the same intonations…it makes me snicker.
dandy
November 12th, 2015 at 1:24 pm
“Guns are not for half-wits or the perpetually anti-social.”
I am disappointed in seeing so many people fall for this. Maybe “shocked” is not too strong a word.
The very people you want to keep from deciding who may and may not own a gun, you’re willing to grant the ability to decided who is mentally unqualified to own a gun.
November 12th, 2015 at 4:38 pm
Sounds like many support the laws we already have, not stricter laws.
November 12th, 2015 at 5:06 pm
But the alleged 83% who support “background checks”, which we already have, could be ignorantly persuaded to support “universal background checks” between private persons. And how would that be enforced without violating the 4th and 5th Amendments and creating gun registration? I’m sure many would support violating those rights–when it was someone else and say, “if you have nothing to hide” , “what does it matter”?
November 12th, 2015 at 6:14 pm
I support background checks.
The ones we already have.
November 12th, 2015 at 9:24 pm
If background checks are such a panacea, they should be required, along with psychological and economic means testing, before “allowing” anyone to keep and bear children.
I mean, after all, what better way to keep kids out of the hands of the mentally ill and those who are unable to provide a caring and nurturing environment thereby preventing the creation all these broken people that are the root of our societal problems and crime.
There is no “constitutional right” to have kids as there is no mention of it at all nor even in the Bill of Rights. It is all for the “common good.”
/snark
November 13th, 2015 at 9:08 am
@ Muzzle Blast,
Re: “There is no constitutional right”:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. –9th Amendment
More importantly, the rights of the People are declared rights, whereas the government may do nothing without delegated powers which is stated in the 10 th Amendment. The greater delegates to the lesser.
November 13th, 2015 at 10:45 am
@ Ron W,
You know this. I know this (hence the /snark). However, given today’s legal system, not to be confused with a justice system, unalienable rights only exist theoretical abstractions in the mind.
November 13th, 2015 at 4:48 pm
@ Muzzle Blast, I overlooked the /snark, so yes, I agree.