The Bedwetting Gungrabbers Are Out In Force

[Greg]

Have to say I'm with Mark on this one.

So because existing laws are not effectively used, new laws will change that?

We've had WAY too many recent cases where competent administration of existing law would have prevented everything. Making murder illegal twice won't reduce the murder rate.

And also way too many cases where the new proposed 'fixes' would not have prevented the event, but would be very effective at taking away existing rights.

I don't think the answer for govt not being competent at its existing basic functions is to give it more, broader powers and responsibilities.

[MiddleAgedKen]

Dan Crenshaw has been arguing frantically on social media for "better" red flag laws. With all due respect, neither he nor anyone else has anything to sell that I will buy.

[Vonz90]

We can agree to disagree, but the current sets of laws allow innocent people to get their guns confiscated while wanna be mass shooters get a srug. Why would we not want to improve that?

[Greg]

We can agree to disagree, but the current sets of laws allow innocent people to get their guns confiscated while wanna be mass shooters get a srug. Why would we not want to improve that?

That's the RESULT of the most recent set of 'improvements'. I want more of such improvements like I want another hole in my ass.

[Jered]

Dan Crenshaw has been arguing frantically on social media for "better" red flag laws. With all due respect, neither he nor anyone else has anything to sell that I will buy.

Send him a Roman lantern

[Netpackrat]

We can agree to disagree, but the current sets of laws allow innocent people to get their guns confiscated while wanna be mass shooters get a srug. Why would we not want to improve that?

That's the RESULT of the most recent set of 'improvements'. I want more of such improvements like I want another hole in my ass.

+1. And here's the thing, regardless of what protections you add to a piece of excrement legislation, it doesn't really matter since they will enforce it however they damn well please. There's lots of protections in FOPA '86 that are summarily ignored by the powers that be. They're all about enforcing that Hughes Amendment though.

[Vonz90]

We can agree to disagree, but the current sets of laws allow innocent people to get their guns confiscated while wanna be mass shooters get a srug. Why would we not want to improve that?

That's the RESULT of the most recent set of 'improvements'. I want more of such improvements like I want another hole in my ass.

So, imagine what you think it should be and advocate for that. Part of the change could be rolling back some of the stupid that is out there now.

My personal preference is that "red flag" requirements should basically look the same as the requirements to prove criminal conspiracy (or that they are dangerously mentally ill). It should also preempt lower standards of confiscation to go after some horror stories mentioned above. There is a degree of redundancy there, but it tink having a standard legal tool could be useful.

I would also like to see a requirement that if a place is open to the public and makes themselves a gun free zone, they have to have armed security on premises.

[MarkD]

The more I think about it, no. In fact not just no, but fuck no. Because it WILL be abused (as in my NJ example, imagine THAT on a Federal level).

So you have legislation that allows someone to have his guns confiscated if they show themselves to be a danger to themselves or someone else. Fine. Now suppose there's a situation where someone really DOES give his brother a gun to shoot his estranged wife. Oh nos! Now EVERYONE who has a family member going thru a divorce can be legally disarmed, because if it happened once it can happen again, and the combination of gun ownership and family divorce is a danger we just can't ignore.

If you're too much of a danger, to yourself or someone else, to possess a firearm, you're too much of a danger to possess gasoline, rope, knives, bleach, rat poison, a car, hammers, long screwdrivers, wood chipper, angle grinder, in fact you're too much of a danger to be out in public unattended. I keep lengthening the list of things you're too dangerous to possess, but I've know some folks that, if they were pissed at you, you wouldn't want them to have access to pencils or dental floss.

So if the future-ex-Mrs-Jackwagon is REALLY frightened that her husband will shoot her, let her (a) apply for a restraining order, (b) because of a, expedite her own CCW and (c) provide her with free training so she can effectively use the CCW. And violation of the restraining order provides prima facie justification for acting in self defense. If she refuses to arm herself in her own defense, allow her to be taken into protective custody.

Because (as we've pointed out right on this forum SO many times) the gun is just the tool, it's the PERSON who kills, and if the person is determined to harm someone they'll find a way.

[Vonz90]

The more I think about it, no. In fact not just no, but fuck no. Because it WILL be abused (as in my NJ example, imagine THAT on a Federal level).

So you have legislation that allows someone to have his guns confiscated if they show themselves to be a danger to themselves or someone else. Fine. Now suppose there's a situation where someone really DOES give his brother a gun to shoot his estranged wife. Oh nos! Now EVERYONE who has a family member going thru a divorce can be legally disarmed, because if it happened once it can happen again, and the combination of gun ownership and family divorce is a danger we just can't ignore.

If you're too much of a danger, to yourself or someone else, to possess a firearm, you're too much of a danger to possess gasoline, rope, knives, bleach, rat poison, a car, hammers, long screwdrivers, wood chipper, angle grinder, in fact you're too much of a danger to be out in public unattended. I keep lengthening the list of things you're too dangerous to possess, but I've know some folks that, if they were pissed at you, you wouldn't want them to have access to pencils or dental floss.

So if the future-ex-Mrs-Jackwagon is REALLY frightened that her husband will shoot her, let her (a) apply for a restraining order, (b) because of a, expedite her own CCW and (c) provide her with free training so she can effectively use the CCW. And violation of the restraining order provides prima facie justification for acting in self defense. If she refuses to arm herself in her own defense, allow her to be taken into protective custody.

Because (as we've pointed out right on this forum SO many times) the gun is just the tool, it's the PERSON who kills, and if the person is determined to harm someone they'll find a way.

You are very much missing my point, but all good, I guess the current laws are perfect and never abused and no changes could be considered with out destroying their Aristotelian pefection.

[MiddleAgedKen]

I can easily imagine what I think it should be: no law at all. I will work for that, but I will not be a party to the negotiation of "acceptable" infringements.