Just keep flushing them out.
Democrats standing up for criminals again I see.
Well yeah. The gangs might fight back. Law abiding folks are much easier to deal with.
Ha haaaa! THAT’S the way to do it. Target FredocRAT constituents.
Holy moley.
So this means, that the street gangs who perpetrate so much gun violence, would be exempt from any legislation on this subject??? Really????
Nobody should ever lose their Constitutional rights because their name was put on a list without due process.
The definition of "gang member" or "terrorist" can be expanded quite easily.
Dammit Republicans! What more do you want!? RUN with this!
Insane.
Gang bangers are a special demographic of gun owners that probably lean to the left so they will be exempted from gun laws to the extent it’s feasible. It’s predictable given that gun laws are intended by the Democrats to punish political opponents but really have nothing to do with public safety.
Undeniable proof their intent isn’t deterring crime or “gun violence”. This is the hill we die on.
Current Democrat Party needs to be politically destroyed by the American voters and totally revamped from top to bottom. Obama laid the groundwork for the sociailist/communist, tyrant, Despot, Dictator, Orwell “Big Brother” (the Democrat Party) to mature and grow, while he directed the activity to get rid of our POTUS, Trump with his criminal cohorts in the DOJ, FBI and National Security sectors!!!
Does anyone really believe that the likes of James Comey, James Clapper & John Brennan, etc. did these criminal acts on their own...never, Obama ordered/authorized them to proceed...folks...the big fish, even bigger then Hillary Clinton was and will always be Barack Hussein Obama & his crimimal, buddy, Joe Biden. End of story!!!
And...the truth will soon surface....the birds will always sing to protect their own behinds!!!
They just want a Red Flag law that only applies to gun owners and other conservatives.
Absolutely needed red flag for older mom with young children who admits mental health issues and problems dealing with anger!
Her two guns, and maybe her children need to be taken away.
It’s for the children!
Yeah, that’s you, Alyssa Milano!
And they are REALLY opposed to targeting everyone with current or recent use of psychiatric drugs. That would be 100% of the mass shooters of the past 3 or 4 decades.
It would also red-flag the entire Democrat Party plus 20 million other assorted affiliations, for a total of 80 million mind-controlled zombies.
The primary concern with red flag laws is who defines and identifies the “red flag.” Period.
When a person is exhibiting behavior that an objective person would deem as threatening to themselves and/or others, the majority of people see it as reasonable to remove firearms and make it difficult for them to acquire firearms. That ability pretty much already exists with “safekeeping” laws/policies and the background check system.
There is NO DOUBT in my mind that many on the left would view membership or participation in conservative groups as a “red flag.” They demonstrate this over and over. This type of legislation leads to a social credit score assigned by big brother or those in power at that particular time. It is fraught with risks and it would likely be abused the next time an administration like the last one is in power just as they abused our intelligence apparatus to include the FISC to domestically target opponents.
This is a very bad idea. Period. I do not want “deranged” individuals who threaten others to have access to firearms, but my definition of “deranged” is far different than theirs and I do not see any way to fairly enforce it as it is likely that only 1 in 1000 (likely much smaller percentage than that) individuals who display whatever “anti-social” behavior is defined as in any given moment would go on to be a homicidal maniac.
It is impossible to be certain who that one person is and impractical to remove the rights of 999 for the actions of 1. A bedrock principle of our justice system. Furthermore, a lack of legal access to firearms by that 1 is unlikely to deter them from acting on their sick impulses - they can simply choose another weapon.
If we are serious about addressing the 1 person, the appropriate action would be to place them in a mental hospital, not to deprive the “non-conforming” of their rights or naively think if we remove one “tool” such as a firearm we can prevent such acts. Firearms are here to stay.
Objectively, this proposal will only make the situation worse and not improve public safety in any way. Well-meaning people who know little about firearms or who have not rationally analyzed this proposal are foolishly going to trade freedom for knee-jerk emotion. The left is full of such ideas and beware of any politicians (to include the GOP) who think this is a good idea.
In fact, I would expect many judges to see it the same way as I do so in the end this is a feel-good talking point that is largely impractical and incompatible with our constitution.
Thanks for the heads-up. I wrote to my rep, suggesting that we red-flag gang bangers in Chicago as a test case. Let’s verify that the corrective action works. (That seems to be a huge hole in a lot of government ideas ... verifying that the action is successful, seeing where the money went, anything like that. It’s mind-boggling.)
Democrats promise low-information voters everything under the sun to stay in power, not that they actually intend to follow through with their promises.
The problem that Democrats have with following through on their constitutionally indefensible gun-control laws for example, is that they cannot let low-information voters find out that gun control laws are ineffective, evidenced by Chicago.