25
Comments (8)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
1
Ic3D 1 point ago +1 / -0

Seems like this is OK but like the article says is just missing the metal health aspect. If we have red-flag laws and someone is identified by them, then they are given mental help that seems like a good thing no? While they are undergoing treatment they maybe shouldn't have a weapon of any kind?

I don't really have a hard stance on this but I do agree with Dan, leaving weapons in the hands of people not getting the help they need is bad.

2
Those_Who_Wander 2 points ago +2 / -0

The issue is that the person being targeted by the flag law is robbed of due process. Until a citizen commits a crime and is arrested and convicted, they have all the rights of a citizen. Have you seen Minority Report? Did you miss the point? Also, "Mental instability" is not a crime and is extremely subjective. Imagine if some lunatic like Harris or Bernie were in power and declared that being a Trump supporter was a sign of mental instability and violence, or {insert any political opinion} and Boom! Take everyone's gun and implement.

1
Ic3D 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ya fair enough. I would be in favor of a good system with checks and balances instead of taking all the warning labels off and letting people have at it. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear.