Idaho elects a Rapist and he also gets a gun

Over and over some people spit out ‘government’ as if it were a bad word.

But ‘governments’ are made up from our fellow citizens – ‘government’ covers every civil servant, police officer, everyone in the military and everyone elected and they are not all seven foot tall lizards from Alpha Centauri whatever the conspiracy theorist might say.
This use of ‘government’ its seems to me is a trick used by right wing libertarians because so many Americans have been indoctrinated by right leaning propaganda to boo whenever ‘government’ is mentioned.

My desire is not for ‘big government’ or ‘small government’ it is for good governance and as shown a number of times right wing libertarians don’t seem that interested in that, preferring to clutch to ideological delusions that they seem unable to defend from criticism.

The US has an ‘elected government’ so isn’t any flaws in it down to those that elected people into government? It seems to me that some sneer and blame ‘government’ for being ‘bad’ when the true problem is a dysfunctional political system that allows ‘bad’ representatives into power, it would seem then to me that the solution would be to try and fix the political system so elections get ‘good’ or at least better representatives into power. People that have decent ideas that stand up to scrutiny and wish improve the system.

 

I'm not going to read your whole post STP, because I'm guessing I know what it says, but I just want to point out that I've never described myself as a liberal, that's all you.

 

First off I don't know many Liberals who are anti-gun ownright, the overall concensus is anti-gun ownership for those who are mentally ill and are guilty of some crime that shows they are reckless towards respecting other people's rights to to life, liberty, and property.

Going back to the specific here, I raise a point of information in the quick summaries:

1. I can't speak for the DC woman who was shot by police for hitting a temp. barracade.

2. I'm sure a lawsuit will be filed for the wrongful home invasion, and these types of situations are what the Founders intended the court system for. So Constitutional freedoms should be protected here. All I see in this instance is a mistake, and proof that despite all the "surveillence" police do, they're still making epic failures in execution of policies.

3. While certainly that boy who got shot by police (I think this was in California) is tragic, it is not unlike many other similar cases where a "weapon looking" like item caused someone innocent to get shot.

I do know that the police in this case told him to drop it, and he didn't do it immediately, instead turned around, and police being human, reacted as such to what they thought could've been an escalation in violence. It's a sad story, but I don't see a irrational reason for the actions that was designed to infringe of freedom just because police were prideful or throwing their power around.

Oh man it's way back there.

I'll summarize the argument:

I proposed consistent federal/national, backround check system screening for mental illnesses, and criminal past run-ins with the law involving violence that would stop a gun or ammo purchase from ANY gun sale licensed business or individual to individual or online.

I can't remember the thread at the moment, but it was an extensive debate, in response to last year's Sandy Hook tragedy.

 

That's too funny. The dumb libs, Want 'strict' gun laws and to fuck with the constitution as they see fit. But the dumb son of a bitches couldn't get the laws we have now in place to pick up more and look deeper?
LMFAO, That's funny, Pass the 'blame' like usual, Bush's fault, He has the balls to take the 'blame'.

They are the ones who fucked up. They want more bullshit, Why didn't they take what they have now? For the time being its something they could have tightened up on, But yet slip away like usual and they cause a fuss when it don't 'suit them'.

On a side note, Herd Toronto elected a crack smoking drunk as an elected official. A 400lbs Andy Dick to run the show, Nice! WTG!

 

monkir

Thanks for this; it makes your point clearer

Your proposal seems sensible, rational and reasonable but it seems to me that a lot of pro-gun thought is based on certain mentalities and attitudes that often seem emotionally grounded, like fear of their society and distrust of authority. So often being sensible, rational and reasonable isn’t enough for many of them.

[edit]

here is a bit of a theory i have -

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.