Gunman near UCSB kills 6 people, injures 7

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

MRA?

Men's Rights Activist(s) - men on the Internet who think they're oppressed because they have to hold the door open for women.

The only thing sillier than men who think they are oppressed because they are expected hold doors open are women who think they are oppressed because someone holds a door open for them.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Anyone have a link to the Manifesto? This is a new form of ressentiment to me.

And an old form of pretentiousness for you since this is the second time I've seen you use that term since your return.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And yet he bought the guns legally.

Not surprising. We don't enforce the gun laws on the books. We write new laws that don't fix the problem.

Keep in mind that I say the following as a supporter of the right to bear arms.

Since as far as I am aware, no existing gun law was broken before he went on his shooting spree.  Nor were such laws broken in the case of Newtown.  So bringing out the canard that we need to enforce the existing laws before even daring to consider anything else is really really not helpful.  Now if you actually have something to say that pertains to this particular incident, please do so.  However, the enforce meme exists only to delay doing anything, and not just with gun issues.  So unless you have something relevant to say, either shut up or go on Fox News.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Keep in mind that I say the following as a supporter of the right to bear arms.

Since as far as I am aware, no existing gun law was broken before he went on his shooting spree.  Nor were such laws broken in the case of Newtown.  So bringing out the canard that we need to enforce the existing laws before even daring to consider anything else is really really not helpful.  Now if you actually have something to say that pertains to this particular incident, please do so.  However, the enforce meme exists only to delay doing anything, and not just with gun issues.  So unless you have something relevant to say, either shut up or go on Fox News.

It is illegal for mentally-ill individuals to purchase firearms. This individual is clearly mentally ill. Therefore, we are not enforcing the laws we have on the books, and this is basically Jared Loughner Part II, though, we do not have a failed military psyche evaluation on Rodgers record.

People who are crazy generally don't realize it, so it is not as if he was intentionally breaking that law, and even if he was, there is no way that existing law however stringently enforced would be able to make people self-diagnose.  Apparently his doctors didn't consider him dangerous enough to warrant entering his name into the relevant database.  That the existing law did not prevent him from acquiring a gun suggests that access to guns needs to be more generally limited.  Do you propose having everyone who wants to buy a gun first go through a mental health exam and be proven to be 100% sane?  Shall we also require a new exam each time someone buys ammunition or another gun?  How about certificates from a psychiatrist to be allowed to attend a gun show?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you propose having everyone who wants to buy a gun first go through a mental health exam and be proven to be 100% sane?  Shall we also require a new exam each time someone buys ammunition or another gun?  How about certificates from a psychiatrist to be allowed to attend a gun show?

No, but I think as a bare minimum requirement, the federal government could at least require all federal agencies to report to NICS. Hopefully the private sector will follow soon afterward.

Hopefully?  Leaving aside the fact that your suggestion would have done nothing to prevent this particular incident, the idea that the private sector would voluntarily do as you suggest is so laughable that one must consider you either inhabit a libertarian fantasy land or—as is more likely since you sport a blue and not a yellow avatar—you simply don't want any additional gun regulation whatsoever under any circumstances.  I could respect someone who forthrightly put forward that opinion, especially since I'm dubious of additional regulation myself, but I can't respect someone who hides behind the weaselly "enforce the existing laws" meme even when the situation is not one in which better enforcing the existing laws would have accomplished anything.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why should I have to state the blatantly obvious to qualify my opinion? I'm not hiding behind "enforce the existing regulations". Refusing to enforce the mentally-ill restrictions have been the origin of most of our recent high profile shootings, though, enforcement could not have stopped Adam Lanza.

What restriction was violated in this case?  Are you arguing that seeing a mental health professional for whatever reason should automatically disqualify one from owning a gun?  Yes, in hindsight, whoever he was seeing possibly could have done more, tho that assumes that the problems he evidenced when that professional saw him was something that should have caused him to be judged a danger to himself or others.

You keep bringing up something that has not been demonstrated, that this gunman's observed behavior before the shooting was indeed sufficient before he bought his weaponry that some existing regulation was violated and then wonder why I think you are hiding behind the "enforce the existing regulations" meme.

Improperly written gun laws introduce the specter of more danger, like the AWB in 1994, which led to massive importation of pre-ban equipment and growth of gray markets gun shows. Arms dealers, particularly those of the anti-government militia persuasion, were made wealthy and powerful by ill-conceived gun control regulation. If you're writing gun legislation, pro or con, you're still dealing with firearms, and the unintended consequences could be deadly.

I agree that any proposal needs to be carefully considered, but you've been arguing we don't need to consider anything right now except enforce existing laws when it hasn't even been shown that a refusal to do so was a contributing factor in this case.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The NRA has also said they support background checks; guess what happens whenever people try to enforce them or enact them?

If you want the government to enforce something, you have to actually let the government make efforts to enforce it. It's like how the Right will often say "Look at how many taxes we have? We don't need to raise taxes; why can't we just enforce what we already have on the books!?" and then quietly work to undermine any effort to hire more people in the IRS so people can actually do just that. It's garbage. It's lies. If you want people to enforce the gun control laws already in effect in a harder fashion you need to hire more people (and hire the right people) to do so. If a bill was brought up specifically for that purpose it would get voted down as well.

It's reasonable to allege conspiracy, when one party has something to gain. Please explain to us how these rampages by the mentally-ill are in the best interest of the NRA and gun-owners. Even the gun and ammo manufacturers, who usually benefit from a spike in demand after tragedies, are not particularly interested in this kind of political exposure.

It's simple enough to explain why they might benefit.  Both the NRA and the gun and ammo manufacturers gain from their being a degree of controversy.  If there were no controversy, fewer people would feel the need to be an NRA member and without a perceived potential threat to gun rights to encourage people to buy more more while they still can, the gun and ammo manufacturers would have lower sales.  Obviously, they don't want so much controversy that something actually gets done, but having just enough to stir the pot is very much in their interests.