"Red Flag Laws" Coming To A State Near You? (Shootings in Southaven, El Paso & Dayton)

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

This is what is going to happen. The Left are going to say more gun control. The Right is going to say No. There will be a week of ruffled feathers on both sides. Legislation will be introduced but will die in the Senate. Then another week of ruffled feathers. Afterwards will follow an indeterminate period of time where we have "moved on" from these shootings until the next one.

Thoughts and prayers.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Can't believe I actually agree with you on something. I'm a supporter of the 2nd amendment and I also support common sense gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of psychos.

Somebody must have turned on the AC in hell.

originally posted by: Arnie123
This is a mental health issue.

Except for the fact that it isn't. There are millions of people with mental health issues and while it's true that all mass shooters (obviously) are mentally ill, the vast majority of mentally ill people are not mass shooters. How does this happen in your world where mental illness is 100% guaranteed to cause a mass shooting in every case?

a reply to: underwerks

But the problem is the words "common sense" goes in one ear and right out the other when you are dealing with a radical agenda or political ideology.

I can't see how anyone can support a law that would restrict freedoms based upon "muh feels".

a reply to: AnakinWayneII



" The El Paso, Texas gunman who murdered 20 at a Walmart on Saturday was shouting "pro-Trump" and "anti-immigrant" statements, according to reports, and police are investing an anti-immigration manifesto left behind online. "


www.newsmax.com...


Gee , a Nationally Reported Incident that Reflects Poorly on President Trump . Coordinated Shootings in Texas and Ohio . The LEFT Continues to Lie and try to Destroy America ...

a reply to: underwerks

The funny thing about this is it’s a old argument .

Because of the hyperbole from both sides .

Many people are treating it like it’s something new .

Red flag laws aren’t new 17 states have them or have versions of them going back to 1999 .

The conservatives just need to watch for “mission creep” from your side . Lol

a reply to: Fallingdown


I'm surprised it hasn't already been challenged, because it presumes guilt.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: underwerks

But the problem is the words "common sense" goes in one ear and right out the other when you are dealing with a radical agenda or political ideology.

What's considered radical here?

I think if there were mandatory safety courses and regular mental health safety checkups on suspect owners of guns that would probably stop a lot of mass violence.

I hate to say it, but America in 2019 isn't the America the founders were dealing with when they wrote the constitution. Some things will have to be changed with time. I know that's a scary proposition for a lot of people used to how things used to be, but that's the reality of the day and age we live in.

I wonder if the people who wrote the constitution would have included the 2nd amendment as is if psychos had been murdering crowds of people left and right.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Every sworn complaint presumes guilt .

Take now as an example. If I swore out a complaint that you hurt my feelings.

You would have to go before a judge and receive due process . 🤪

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: DBCowboy

Every sworn complaint presumes guilt .

Take now as an example. If I swore out a complaint that you hurt my feelings.

You would have to go before a judge and receive due process . 🤪

But I should not be punished, nor my rights restricted until guilt can be determined.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I can't see how anyone can support a law that would restrict freedoms based upon "muh feels".

You can't? It's easy. All you have to do is see that people think with their emotions. Which is kind of what the Bill of Rights was designed to defend against. The people who wrote it were betting that it would not be possible to cause the vast majority of people to become irrationally bent on voting against their own rights. They obviously did not foresee the current state of things.

It turns out that strong emotions tend to make people behave irrationally. And therefore, if you show someone an apparent injustice and you give them a "Make this stop" button, they're gonna press it.

a reply to: DBCowboy



That position would mean you are abdicating abolishing emergency protection orders for domestic violence and psychiatric holds for potential suicides ? Because that’s the statutes RFLs are based on .

I said I wasn’t going to debate this because it’s endless. My mind is made up and so was everyone else’s .

But I threw everyone a loop because underwerks agreed with me and I replied .

My bad


From this point forward I’m whistling past the graveyard .

Take it easy





BTW

If I got the emote wrong on my last post. The reply was meant as a joke .

20,000 gun laws in this country, why should I believe 20,001 will suddenly stop mass shootings?

Second... that's all I got convince me that 1 more will suddenly fix this.

originally posted by: BlueJacket

originally posted by: DBCowboy
OMG!

Shootings by bad people!

Let’s restrict freedoms!

You know, thats all this is, in a nutshell isnt it? 100 million other guns in this country DIDNT shoot anyone last night.

Whats that percentage?

Not only that it's perception. How many multiple victim shootings in Chicago this weekend? Explain how red flag laws work with illegally owned guns. Explain why we only hear about specific shootings. Explain exactly how quickly a red flag law can remove the weapons. Is it up to the police, a judge or prosecutors. Explain what qualifications are needed to make the determination. Explain how red flag laws protect the community when the shooter does NOT telegraph their intentions.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: subfab

originally posted by: Grimpachi
In my opinion, it entirely depends on how these laws are written and the standards that are set where weapons are taken away and to be given back.

To lose of standards and the law will be weaponized by anti-gun nuts to disarm the populace for the most minor of infractions or unfounded claims. I do think it should be an option in some well-defined parameters but I am leary of the state abusing such power.

what about all the divorces that are not civil?
i can already see a spouse using something like this to poke at the other spouse.
** poof **
your guns are gone.

I am thinking more about cases of suicide. I also said I am worried about this being weaponized which includes the point you made. I had an inlaw that committed suicide and all the signs were there beforehand but there wasn't an option available to remove his guns at least not a legal one. There also wasn't a strong enough case to have him committed.

I am not completely against some form of law that can temporarily remove someone's guns if there is a clear set of guidelines that will prevent such actions from being abused.

i can see your point here.
not sure if it can be done without the law being used in a manner not intended though.

The Nazis took away the Jewish right to own arms as they judged them as not competent enough to own them.
"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"
Most likely attributed to George Santayana

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Functioning as a version of a restraining order, the red flag policies grant law enforcement

I do not like this. They should never have this power.

or in some states, an individual in a relationship with a gun owner

This I agree with. My loved ones can make a better more informed judgement about my mental health. Much better than a stranger ever could.

I understand the laws. It is to protect yourself and others. If someone was Baker Acted (involuntary committal) if a judge ruled that they had to give up their weapons till they completed a court ordered program or they were cleared by medical personnel I have to say I am for it.

The problem is how easy it is to have this done to you. I have a very good friend who found out his wife was cheating. She left the house and was afraid. She called the police and said he had a gun in his mouth and was suicidal. They show up and take him in 'based' on her story. He goes away for 72 hours. When he gets out they show up for all of his weapons. He is now fighting to get them back because he never actually did anything but based on someones words he lost thousands in firearms and his own protection from his crazy ex. THAT is the slope that has to be watched.

These shootings would have happened no matter the gun laws. It is not the gun laws. That gun did not wait 23 years, walk up to these schmucks and say lets go kill some people.

Where is the statement from the parents? In Ohio for god sake the sister was shot dead but they will not identify her companion as far as I know till now.

It is not drugs, video games, D&D or heavy metal music as has been blamed in the previous 4 decades..they are the product of their environment.

Guns save lives too...

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: AnakinWayneII


The moment your rights are taken away for that "hateful" social media post that put you on the 'threat list'....

Is the moment you will realize too late.

When will they get all internet user information and back track through all the backups. Ever made a threatening post on any web site then you are threat. I can see this going to the federal level