| || |
March 13, 2013 - Rick Burdt
I've been trying to figure out the logic behind disarming law abiding citizens to protect them, but I keep coming up short, I just don't get it. Governor Cuomo actually claims his new gun laws are "common sense measures". I'm sure the criminals out there just love him for his new laws, I bet he's got their vote next year.
Recently, he went on a passionate rant and stated, to a cheering anti-gun crowd, that it didn't take ten bullets to kill a deer. This is his way to convince people that it's okay to circumvent the second amendment but the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. What bothers me is that even though I don't agree with many of his policies and actions as governor, I do not doubt that he is smart enough to know exactly what he said and how it does not apply to our rights. The only reason I can think of that he made this statement, and similar others, is that he is, quite literally, hoping to play on the ignorance of the people who elected him.
The new requirements for mental health experts to report patients who, they believe, may be exhibiting signs that they wish to hurt themselves or others is absolutely ridiculous and will only cause such incidents to go up. The mental health expert would be required to report these people to authorities, who would then check a database to see if they own a gun. Next, there is a good possibility they could lose their license and their guns. Whatever happened to doctor/patient confidentiality? It's hard enough to get people with mental health issues to consult a professional. If they fear that they may lose their guns, which many consider a source of personal security, the chances that they will actually seek the help they need just reduced drastically. If a therapist did as required by law and reported on a patient which led to them losing both their license and guns, who do you think is going to be high on his list if he decides to acquire an illegal firearm and act out on his frustrations?
This is more about government control than it is gun control. If this was about saving lives then why did they not outlaw box cutters after 911? If they really believe that less bullets will save lives, why didn't they limit the amount of diesel fuel you could purchase after the Oklahoma City bombing? It's interesting how there were no firearms used in the two biggest attacks on American soil but anyone can buy thousands gallons of fuel and as many box cutters as they want without fear of government retribution.
Accidental deaths caused by firearms. This is yet another banner the anti-gun folks like to wave. I would suggest to them a "common sense measure" that would save more lives, cost less to fight and would not infringe on our constitutional rights; swimming pools. More people die each year in back yard swimming pools than from accidental gun deaths by a wide margin. All it would take is a city/town ordinance to outlaw that dangerous backyard pastime.
If stricter gun laws reduced gun crime, then why does Chicago, a city with one of the strictest gun laws, have one of the highest gun crime rates?
If we keep allowing elected officials to continue to try to infringe on our rights, what is the next thing they are going to try to control? Maybe, they will try to control how much soda we can drink. Oh, wait........
Post a Comment
News, Blogs & Events Web