First, despite the title of the thread and what the article is about this thread is NOT about red flag laws. If you want to talk about them then feel free to use the link and article that I have provided and make your own thread about it. LINK: DOJ crafts model red flag legislation for states and may require registration for certain guns (msn.com) Now this is a typical leftist move. Changing the definition of something in order to promote their agenda's. They've done it so much that I can't even list all of the ways that its been done.
While I agree that both sides change the definition of something in order to promote their agenda, it is also the nature of things for definitions to evolve as the world does and as technology changes.
Also, it is interesting they tried this back in December and public outcry stopped them. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/boom-gun-owners-win-big-in-atf-reversal Wonder if that will happen again. Kind of kills the idea this was purely from the left though.
There is a difference between definitions evolving and definitions being changed on purpose in order to promote an agenda. Wouldn't you say?
Gun reform should be simple to accomplish and bipartisan, but because both sides have their extremes, we haven't been able to meet safe gun reform that respects the second amendment and the right for law abiding citizens to legally carry. I've long proposed we should follow a Switzerland-like model of having mandatory training as well as mental screenings every 2-4 years(or maybe 6-12 months?) These mental screenings can be held between the doctor and patient, and only given to the government when presented with an actual warrant(you know, how the 4th amendment is actually supposed to work.) This will be a balance between keeping guns out of the hands of crazies, while submitting that even a normal person can have a mentally bad day or two, and go to a psychiatrist for help and not be deemed a public or safety health risk. If we want to promote mental health we need to de-stigimize it, and act as though it's no different from an annual physical exam.
It's what liberals do. They want to demand that you take them super seriously. Except when they say it, it just comes out "supercereal"...
The interesting question is why the DOJ is sticking its nose into someplace where it has no business.
Yeah, only Biden has done that... Trump didn't..... Obama didn't ..... Bush II didn't ..... Bill didn't .....
Federal Law, handgun: The term "handgun" means: (A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; That's an AR pistol.
Congress shall make no law.... and the DOJ has no business "crafting legislation". That's not their job. They are Executive Branch. Either way... once it hits congress, it's unconstitutional.
Yup. By the 4th of July, every gun in the Entire USA (that can fire more than 1 shot) will have been seized. After that, only 1-Shot Muskets will exist (as legal to own). Yup "Dems Bad!" Biden is gonna take yer guns! Bank it.
congress can make laws and has for machine guns and they have banned religious things like stoning people even some words they also ban ex-felons from owning guns so yes, congress can do so
As per usual you fail to grasp the point of a thread. Here's a hint for you. Its not about guns. L2R.
No see the problem is that the left won’t stop. Meaning if there’s a school shooting or something and the pro-2nd people concede on some “common sense” gun restrictions, the next time there’s a school shooting or whatever the left will come back again and demand a few more “common sense” restrictions and the next time and the next time and the next time. So the ONLY way I can see any “common sense” gun restrictions being acceptable by the pro 2nd crowd is a constitutional assurance that if we give ground on some gun restrictions today, no matter what happens in the future, there will be no more restrictions on firearms. Even if there are some horrendous tragedies that occur tomorrow or a year or 10 years or 80 years or 150 years from now there will be no more restrictions on firearms. But we all know that will never happen because some common sense gun restrictions is not the ultimate goal of the left. Insidious erosion of our gun rights until we have nothing left is.
Why is changing a definition of something that was modified from it's original form considered being done for an agenda. One changes, so does the other.
This sounds very reasonable, but for some reason I can't quite put my finger on at the moment, it just seems too messy to be realistic. I think it's the psychological screening.
