Smasharoo wrote:
That would be the ideal, but unfortunately the only people that could really do anything have decided that the only options to solve the problem are MORE GUNS or NO GUNS, both of which are pants on head retarded.
Yeah, no. NO GUNS leads to lower murder rates, not really disputed in any serious way.
NO GUNS is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment. So unless you are actually seriously advocating for a repeal of the 2nd amendment, supporting, praising, or even suggesting this as an option is moronic and a complete waste of everyone's time.
Which is presumably what he was talking about. There's a massive excluded middle where the only options are no guns and more guns. There is literally no one in opposition to creating regulation that can prevent truly disturbed people from being able to obtain guns (that would be the "less guns" option). The problem is that anytime this is suggested the "no guns!" crowd can't help by push for restrictions that apply to everyone, or slip in their own pet gun control, and thus ensures that the other side opposes it.
The saddest part is that I'm quite sure that the "no guns!" crowd does this purely for the political advantage it gets them. They know nothing will come of it, but by proposing tough gun control (while claiming they're just trying to prevent the last crazy guy's gun spree), they get to make their base happy, and drum up support by demonizing those "evil gun owners who want to help mentally disturbed people own guns!". It's a political fabrication, but in the meantime nothing actually gets done that addresses the real problem at hand.
Heaven forbid someone actually propose a clean and workable piece of legislation that actually addresses the health care concerns at hand rather than over extending it into a broad attack on the 2nd amendment. Because we can't do something that might actually work, right?