Trouble in America

So, in a fit of nostalgia I've been watching A-Team clips on YouTube, and I noticed something. Except for the rare eps with corrupt cops, mob bosses or military dictators, the villains are overwhelmingly.... libertarians.

Hmm.

But they haven't been proven a threat? Just not physically and mentally capable of safely handling a firearm.

The same as people not medically able to handle a motor vehicle. Yes they would be a massive threat behind the steering wheel, so don't get that, but it's not a reason to unnecessarily take extra freedoms away.

What age should people be able to own and carry a gun from? 18? 16? 14? Should anyone under that age never be allowed to leave the eyesight of a guardian?

That is the ONLY way this country ends up. Ever. I have resigned myself to it. Fools elected by fools in the petulant hope that the power will be used to fuck with people they dislike. The only realistic hope is to minimize their ability to inflict themselves on me and mine.

That sounds like they have proven themselves a threat, and you expect the rest of us to accept that risk in deference to their quality of life.

So you're in favor of all unsupervised kids carrying.

Absolutely not. See the second half of my post that you cut off.

I'm in favor of parents dealing with their own goddamn crotch fruit. I have no obligation to that subject.

In both cased you describe someone you know to be dangerous, without admitting they are dangerous. Sounds exactly like allowing a second grader to function as an adult. I do not wish to live in a society tailored to those needs.

OK, then we will find you a chaperone.

They're gonna be the ones funding your Social Security.

Not counting on that even existing by the time I am eligible. I will likely work for my supper until the day I drop dead.

With UA becoming so obviously unhinged, it's a wonder he hasn't been locked up himself.

So you're in favor of people released from psychiatric hospitals carrying.

I am in favor of never releasing anyone who represents a proven threat of violence.

so people committed for hearing voices, so long as they haven't any history of hurting anyone, should carry.

No, they should live under the constant supervision of someone who can be responsible for keeping them away for dangerous items.

We did away with that during the 60s and 70s. Set them FREEEEE! Get with the program.

Are you in favor of giving them housing, food, and a babysitter?

Under the strict condition that my freedoms are never constrained by the low standard they set for personal conduct.

Your taxes will pay for it. That's gotta sting.

I'll pay for nuthouses and prisons as a tradeoff for not being fucked with until I do something wrong.

And curtailing the freedom of those held there for no other reason than being off their meds.

It is possible to keep people unable to fully participate in society ( for whatever reason) safe without being a prison or some other variation of inhumane treatment.

I agree, but how do we do this without gun control?

I know someone personally who is not violent at all. But, I seriously question his ability to live on his own. and while he isn't violent, I definitely would not provide him with a gun.

I would sleep much easier if I knew there was some sort of facility in which he could live freely but still have constant supervision - and not by me.

So, that's where I am coming from.

UA's argument is that everyone should be "not allowed to walk the streets" which is basically the same thing, just worded differently.

So, what is it that you agree with and what does it have to do with gun control. Because ... while I understand UA's POV, I'm not sure what your argument is.

I agree with: "It is possible to keep people unable to fully participate in society ( for whatever reason) safe without being a prison or some other variation of inhumane treatment."

I also agree with: "I definitely would not provide him with a gun."

I don't agree with: "If I can't trust you to own a gun, I'm NOT trusting you to walk the streets as a free man."

Are you suggesting we lock people up that are "unable to fully participate in society," humanely?

There are plenty of people I wouldn't trust with a gun by virtue of their lack of knowledge about guns and gun safety, but are otherwise extremely competent individuals. And they themselves would be the first to acknowledge that they shouldn't use, and don't ever want to use, a gun.

I don't know why UA picked guns as his standard, but it comes across as some weird macho thing.

Ok, it looks like the sticky point here is the difference between "lock up" and "provide a safe place"

No, I do not think people should be "locked up", but I do think they should have a place that they *can* be away from the detrimental effects of society (stress) but still be able to come and go as they please.

Your squeeze is suggesting we curtail their literal freedom so his gun fetish can go unfettered.

Is that how you feel?