common sense proposal

Felons, the dangerously mentally ill, perpetrators of domestic violence - these people have not only demonstrated their unfitness to own a weapon, they've been granted due process to contest the charges or claims against them. There is no arbitrary state action. There is no collective punishment. There is, rather, an individual, constitutional state process, and the result of that process is a set of defined consequences that includes revoking the right to gun ownership.

Now, let's back up for a moment and apply this reasoning to our contagion of mass shootings. Time and again mass shooters give off warning signals. They issue generalized threats. They post disturbing images. They exhibit fascination with mass killings. But before the deadly act itself, there is no clear path to denying them access to guns. Though people can report their concerns to authorities, sometimes those authorities fail or have limited tools to deal with the emerging danger.

What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to "do something" after they "see something" and "say something"? I've written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it's carefully and properly implemented.

It's called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.

-------------------------
It's a democratic hoax

Interesting. Glad you quoted an excerpt instead of trying to explain it yourself.

But as we've seen with Nikolas Cruz, who's accused of killing 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, even if someone is displaying warning signs of violent behavior, they're free to purchase and possess firearms if they've yet to commit a crime and haven't come into contact with the state mental health system.

Red flag laws aim to fix this by giving family members and law enforcement officers the ability to petition the court to temporarily seize the firearms of someone believed to be at risk. If a judge is convinced that the person poses a danger, they can quickly order them to surrender their firearms. Within a few weeks, the court holds a full hearing on whether the restrictions should be dropped or extended for up a year. The gun owner has opportunities to petition to have their weapons returned.

As per gutless spineless mooker:
duhhhh.....
Flippity floppity easter bunny

-------------------------
It's a democratic hoax

Guess I spoke too soon. Back to your meth riddled rambling.

What do flip flops have to do with me stating from day 1 that I support reasonable gun legislation that will actually accomplish something more than making people feel better?

I await your methmouth response.

I bet that most mentally ill people who own weapons of warfare probably bought them before diagnosis.

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

So what can be done about that? Aside from what was in the linked article being applied to current gun owners as well. Like maybe temporary confiscation until they are stable?

Edit: clarifying

Would have to be some gun grabbin involved to work.

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

Some gun grabbin' is in order under the circumstances.

This toxic masculine fantasy of taking on government tyranny with small arms is a bad 1980's movie plot and has no place in a modern democratic republic.
I bought into it myself for many years, but it has cost countless lives.

-------------------------
Capitalism is based on the ridiculous notion that you can enjoy limitless growth in a closed, finite system.

In biology, such behavior of cells is called "cancer".

So how do you propose that citizens, if necessary, defend themselves from their own government? Or at this point are you just throwing your hands up in the air and saying it is not possible, so fuck it?

By voting; participation in democracy is the greatest threat to tyranny we have.

But look at it this way, we have a volunteer military. They aren't Prussian mercenaries hired by a king to suppress the population.

They and the National Guard are our "militia". If you can bring yourself to imagine a Federal government completely out of control and in defiance of the Legislature and Supreme Court, the military would not carry out illegal orders.

But I would still hold open an option for ownership of AR type rifles, I'd just have extreme vetting, including psychological evaluation.

You're a military guy Mike, would you have carried out atrocities against the American people if ordered to do so?


-------------------------
Capitalism is based on the ridiculous notion that you can enjoy limitless growth in a closed, finite system.

In biology, such behavior of cells is called "cancer".

Fair point and no, absolutely not.

lil mookie wants to engage in another of his endlessly wandering distraction diatribes....what a riot
Guess he must have gotten "hare" triggered......
Now: back to the efforts to find a solution to the endless needless slaughter of innocents. This National Review proposal sounds pretty plausible.
Getting it past the kooks in our state legislature: probably not.
Time to vote em out, this has gone far enough



-------------------------
It's a democratic hoax

Sorry, I don't speak methmouth and neither does google translate. Can you try again in english?

Just months before Nikolas Cruz killed 17 at his former high school in South Florida, the host family who had taken him in immediately after his mother's death warned local law enforcement that the 19-year-old had "used a gun against people before" and "has put the gun to others' heads in the past," according to records obtained by CNN.

ample, multiple red flags
In a private Instagram group chat, confessed school shooter Nikolas Cruz repeatedly espoused racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic views and displayed an obsession with violence and guns.
"I hate jews, ni**ers, immigrants"
Racism was a constant theme in the chat group, which was called "Murica (American flag emoji) (eagle emoji) great" -- a name it was given by Cruz.
The hatred he and others in the group espoused met little resistance from its active members. In one part of the group chat, Cruz wrote that he hated, "jews, ni**ers, immigrants."
He talked about killing Mexicans, keeping black people in chains and cutting their necks.
There are hundreds of racist messages, racist memes and racist Instagram videos posted in the group.
One member even joked about Cruz's particular venomousness, saying that although he hated black people, too, he didn't "to a point I wanna kill the (sic) like nick."
Cruz said he hated black people simply because they were black; Cruz hated Jews because he believed they wanted to destroy the world.
After one member expressed hatred for gay people, Cruz agreed, saying, "Shoot them in the back of head."
"I think I am going to kill people"
The bio on one of his Instagram accounts read, "annihilator."
At one point in the chat, he wrote, "I think I am going to kill people."

But: this is not enough to do something under current law apparently.
the perfect chumpf supporter....


"....trolling down the bunny trail. flippity floppity:
easter's on its way"

-------------------------
It's a democratic hoax