And it will continue to spread. As long as we allow it to, it will keep infecting everywhere it goes.
I have stated that the idea itself has merit, but the problem is how to implement it in such a way that gun-owners' rights are protected.
While how these laws are written and implemented is important, IMHO it is more important how they can be misused, abused, convoluted, etc. to fit the anti 2nd Amendment agendas of the leftists gun grabbers/haters.
Red flag laws are not, will not, and can not be constitutional. Period.
I think the concept of red flag laws is flawed at the core.
If your neighbor is showing signs of being "not right" and you fear he could be a danger to himself or others, just taking away his access to one of the myriad things he can use to hurt people, and then feeling like the danger is gone, is very limited thinking.
We've just seen the damage that can be done with a vehicle in Moore, and a few years ago in Stillwater, and in other countries. And of course there's poison, sharps, blunt objects, etc.
The focus needs to be on the root cause, which is the person's mental state.
We need so many changes in the area of mental health that it looks overwhelming, so we just focus on the tool that the gun haters want us to focus on. That's the easy way for us to feel better.
Of course we need more mental facilities, research, removing the stigma, easier pathways to get help, etc.
It's much easier to take away the gun that the media and gun haters wants us to focus on, and violate the person's right to due process, than to do anything that would really help.
If your neighbor is showing signs of being "not right" and you fear he could be a danger to himself or others, just taking away his access to one of the myriad things he can use to hurt people, and then feeling like the danger is gone, is very limited thinking.
We've just seen the damage that can be done with a vehicle in Moore, and a few years ago in Stillwater, and in other countries. And of course there's poison, sharps, blunt objects, etc.
The focus needs to be on the root cause, which is the person's mental state.
We need so many changes in the area of mental health that it looks overwhelming, so we just focus on the tool that the gun haters want us to focus on. That's the easy way for us to feel better.
Of course we need more mental facilities, research, removing the stigma, easier pathways to get help, etc.
It's much easier to take away the gun that the media and gun haters wants us to focus on, and violate the person's right to due process, than to do anything that would really help.
A six year old does not have the maturity to do many things, one of them is to own a firearm. Not a good comparison.
A felon has already demonstrated he does not follow the rules of reasonable society; no voting, and no firearms for him.
The husband should be brought up on charges. And if you take his guns out of the house then the wife has no means of self defense.
Who gets to decide who would be put in a mental facility? Perhaps the same person you're advocating would be allowed to decide if a person's guns should be taken away.
Mass shootings are one small, VERY small, result of poor mental health. The media and gun grabbers want you to believe otherwise.
The solution is to fix the underlying problem. Putting a bandaid on a person with cancer doesn't help.
A felon has already demonstrated he does not follow the rules of reasonable society; no voting, and no firearms for him.
The husband should be brought up on charges. And if you take his guns out of the house then the wife has no means of self defense.
Who gets to decide who would be put in a mental facility? Perhaps the same person you're advocating would be allowed to decide if a person's guns should be taken away.
Mass shootings are one small, VERY small, result of poor mental health. The media and gun grabbers want you to believe otherwise.
The solution is to fix the underlying problem. Putting a bandaid on a person with cancer doesn't help.
I'd say mental illness is the problem. But that's a pretty big basket. More specifically I'd say it's the desire to hurt others.
My personal pop-psychology explanation is that they want to communicate the pain they're in and the only way they know to do it is to hurt others, so they will feel the pain too. And this doesn't account for the psychopath types.
Poor parenting , genetics, bullying, medications, so many things that could be causing it.
It's a big gray, fuzzy, mess of a thing, with no easy fix.
What would even be the first step? I think acknowledging the problem, saying it outloud, from our leaders, would be a good first step.
Look at climate change; how much energy, money, etc. is being thrown at that to change the public mindset, even to the point of exploiting that autistic child Greta. And now the meat-is-bad message is being rolled in the climate change messaging.
I get where you're coming from; they're going to make these laws so we should participate to minimize the damage to our rights as much as possible. I think that gives credence to a flawed message, that guns are the problem.
My personal pop-psychology explanation is that they want to communicate the pain they're in and the only way they know to do it is to hurt others, so they will feel the pain too. And this doesn't account for the psychopath types.
Poor parenting , genetics, bullying, medications, so many things that could be causing it.
It's a big gray, fuzzy, mess of a thing, with no easy fix.
What would even be the first step? I think acknowledging the problem, saying it outloud, from our leaders, would be a good first step.
Look at climate change; how much energy, money, etc. is being thrown at that to change the public mindset, even to the point of exploiting that autistic child Greta. And now the meat-is-bad message is being rolled in the climate change messaging.
I get where you're coming from; they're going to make these laws so we should participate to minimize the damage to our rights as much as possible. I think that gives credence to a flawed message, that guns are the problem.
Disclaimer: IANAL
Convicted felons do not have the right to own or possess firearms or ammunition as the law stands today.
I have to assume that here, you are referring to a child (a person under the age of majority in their locality) having sole, autonomous possession and control of a firearm. AFAIK, they do not have such a right at this time. If a child "owns" a firearm, it has to be under the supervision and control of an adult who has the right to own or possess the same firesrm.
If the abuser has had any convictions for domestic abuse or has a current restraining/protective order then they are barred from owning or possessing firearms or ammunition.
Depending on the situation, either a medical professional or a judge. However, in those cases where a judge decides, the defendant is represented by counsel--which is missing in virtually all Red Flag laws.
While you may be technically correct that "there is nothing unconstitutional in the concept of these laws," are you honestly willing to accept the lack of representation for the defendant in the Red Flag hearings? Colorado's law has already been perverted by a vindictive woman to attempt to disarm the police officer who had to stop the threat the woman's son presented to him as he charged the officer with a drawn bayonet. Thankfully, the judge rejected this bogus lawsuit. (1)(2)
"The solution"? I fear that there is no "silver bullet" (pardon the pun) for solving mass shootings, no matter what the civilian disarmament industry claims otherwise. However, Red Flag laws will do little to reduce the numbers of mass shootings. They are not designed to do that. They are designed to deny rights to people for no other reason that the unreasoned fear of firearms.
Convicted felons do not have the right to own or possess firearms or ammunition as the law stands today.
I have to assume that here, you are referring to a child (a person under the age of majority in their locality) having sole, autonomous possession and control of a firearm. AFAIK, they do not have such a right at this time. If a child "owns" a firearm, it has to be under the supervision and control of an adult who has the right to own or possess the same firesrm.
If the abuser has had any convictions for domestic abuse or has a current restraining/protective order then they are barred from owning or possessing firearms or ammunition.
Depending on the situation, either a medical professional or a judge. However, in those cases where a judge decides, the defendant is represented by counsel--which is missing in virtually all Red Flag laws.
While you may be technically correct that "there is nothing unconstitutional in the concept of these laws," are you honestly willing to accept the lack of representation for the defendant in the Red Flag hearings? Colorado's law has already been perverted by a vindictive woman to attempt to disarm the police officer who had to stop the threat the woman's son presented to him as he charged the officer with a drawn bayonet. Thankfully, the judge rejected this bogus lawsuit. (1)(2)
"The solution"? I fear that there is no "silver bullet" (pardon the pun) for solving mass shootings, no matter what the civilian disarmament industry claims otherwise. However, Red Flag laws will do little to reduce the numbers of mass shootings. They are not designed to do that. They are designed to deny rights to people for no other reason that the unreasoned fear of firearms.
Yes! Self control. Impulse control.
Living honorably is not held up as something to aspire to anymore. Quick and easy, tit for tat, put others down to make me look good; our values are all askew.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
How many of you guys are loosing your hair or are bald.- Latest: CutBaitNBlowSh*tUp4ALivin
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
