Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
I do agree that we can be cautious, but still expeditious. What I mean is, no typical government bullshit whereby guns are removed for legitimate threat made or whatever on June 7th, first hearing on August 11th, mental health exam on October 1st, second hearing on October 30th, and return of guns after final decisions rendered on December 12th. These cases need to be streamlined and get by all the bullshit red tape - you are depriving someone of their civil liberties every day this drags on. So yes, you can be cautious but still operate in such a way as to say the entire process must conclude in 90 days, or whatever. I just do not want to see this used as a tool by the state to effectively disarm people for years while the system works it out. Figure it out - they are batshit or dangerous or they aren't. If no, return guns immediately, if yes, insane asylum or counseling.
edit: As I said originally this one is super tricky because of all the possible ways this can be used as a tool of the state, a weapon against the populace, or just misused by angry employees, scorned lovers, etc. Tight controls, on the government, are warranted here.
If the people in charge of regulating guns weren't terrified of guns and didn't hate all guns with a passion, this problem would be much easier to solve and reasonable safe compromises would've happened decades ago. But who's gonna listen to a veteran wearing a MAGA hat or even an NRA hat? What would he know, right?
Instead the anti-gun forces count every tragedy as a notch in their belt for more "gun control" against law-abiding citizens instead of "gun confiscation" from crazy fucks who make threats against people and get all gassed up on line to go out and kill people in large numbers. All the gun owners I know, including myself, have no problem with the state setting up reasonable confiscation rules and putting fair-minded people who know something about guns in charge of deciding who gets their guns taken, for how long, and under what terms they get them back.
But, unfortunately, that ain't how our democracy works anymore, if it ever could've worked. Instead we'd get some liberal dyke who's never held a gun deciding which man gets to keep or lose his guns. And sorry, but fuck that.
Disagree. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. Please to be showing where in Constitution does it allow for 'reasonable confiscation' of firearms?
Show me where it says you can essentially ban and register all fully automatic weapons.
It say very plainly "shall not be infringed". Look the fucking word up.
Comments