DOJ Considering Banning Guns From Transgenders
Nope. Nope. Nope. Don’t do this.
A whole lot of nope.
Except it’ll be fun to watch the left all of a sudden give a darn about the Second Amendment.
The Daily Wire learned the Department of Justice has started looking into ways it could prevent people with gender dysphoria from obtaining “firearms while they are unstable and unwell.” Just wow:
The DOJ’s discussions center on the fact that those who identify as transgender suffer from gender dysphoria, a mental disorder, the DOJ source familiar with the conversations shared with The Daily Wire. Gender dysphoria describes the sense of unease that a man or woman may feel if he or she thinks that their biological sex is mismatched with their so-called gender identity.
A DOJ spokesman would not comment on specific measures being considered, but said that a “range of options” is on the table.
“Under Attorney General Bondi’s leadership this Department of Justice is actively considering a range of options to prevent mentally unstable individuals from committing acts of violence, especially at schools,” the spokesman said.
On August 27, Robert “Robin” Westman killed two children and injured dozens when he fired into the Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, MN, during the school Mass.
Westman took his own life.
Westman’s online manifesto revealed a disturbed mind who hated everyone. He also admitted he was “tired of being trans” and hated himself for being brainwashed.
Westman is only the second transgender to shoot up a school.
I sound heartless, right? But the fact that the DOJ is even thinking of taking away a person’s right to bears arms because of the actions of two people is disturbing.
It bothered me to see many of the right screaming to take a trans person’s gun rights away.
The Constitution is clear: no infringing on a person’s right to bear arms.
Just because governments obviously violate the Second Amendment all the time then we should allow it to happen now?
I don’t think so. I despise gun laws.
It’s also a slippery slope. There are way more good guys with guns than bad guys with guns.
Yes, those good guys include real transgender people. Believe it or not, they do exist. It’s a small number, but it’s true. They exist.
Those good guys would outnumber the bad guys even more if states like Illinois loosened their gun laws, but that’s another story.
But also, why stop at one mental illness? I have severe depression and anxiety. At one point I almost went to the hospital. I also regularly spout hatred toward the government and politicians.
I’ve never contemplated suicide or murder. But would that matter? Should someone like me have guns?
I have a better idea.
It seems at least someone in a shooter’s life saw the signs and red flags. How about those people speak up and warn authorities? How about the authorities do something when they receive a warning?
How about we stop the transitioning of minors and caving into a child’s every desire or thought? For goodness sake, Westman’s mom allowed him to legally become a female as a minor.
Want to make a difference? Stop indulging children’s delusions. Pay attention to your child and loved ones.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It’s illegal
Clearly
It is, but Trump does this–the left goes crazy and defends gun right for transsexuals. Trump Administration goes, yeah, your right, everyone needs to be able to defend themselves.
Boom.
Yep, seems reasonable. Trump is, after all, a Master Troll.
Its not for being trans. Its because of a use or dependence on psycho active drugs.
It’s going to be hilarious watching Democrats argue AGAINST a gun ban.
Unconstitutional
No, it’s not. The 2cd applies to everyone with exceptions made for the mentally ill. There is no question people with gender dysphoria are mentally ill.
Ahh, NO.
declare it a mental illness, then we’ll talk.
otherwise… Big Nope.
There are plenty of mental conditions that don’t make people violent or suicidal. The problem with the trans issue is that we’re told by the left that society must pretend these people are the opposite sex for their mental well being. That’s absurd, it doesn’t work, and it puts the onus on complete strangers to be responsible for their mental health. It also removes any obligation for the trans person to get counseling because it’s not “their fault”. That BS needs to end, like yesterday because it creates an entitlement and for some, an anger when they don’t feel society is meeting their needs.
Yes, gender dysphoria is already recognized as a mental disorder. But I’m opposed to the idea of stripping people of their constitutional rights just because they’re confused. If you start letting them do this with the 2nd Amendment, what’s to stop them doing the same with the 1st, or the 4th, or the 5th, or maybe the 13th or 14th Amendment.
Unless there are indications that the person actually poses a legitimate threat to others, or has been adjudicated a mental defective, the government can’t just go around stripping people of their rights just because a judge can be convinced it might, maybe, possibly be a good idea. Certainly not without a shred of proof of wrongdoing.
Gender dysphoria is NOT classified as a mental disorder. If it were, those suffering from it would get help dealing with reality.
Instead it is treated as a physical disorder, with attempts to alter the sufferer’s body instead.
The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) disagrees.
It is a disorder and those experiencing gender identity disorder or dysphoria or whatever they call it should receive treatment for their disorder. They should not be subjected to stigmatization or discriminated against, which this proposed action would do.
At the same time, their disorder does not entitle them to any special privileges or allow them to infringe on the rights of others.
If someone experiencing gender identity disorder or dysphoria wants psychological treatment, I encourage it. But they have no business demanding that I, or anyone else, “affirm” their delusions or take part in their fantasies. And certainly not use the power of government to punish someone if they don’t.
If they want to pretend to be what they’re not and play dress-up, that’s up to them and who cares? Do they want to have elective cosmetic mutilation surgery performed on their body? So long as they’re adults and are spending their own money, I can’t stop them and who cares? Do they want to try to change their body chemistry with hormones and other injections? Again, who cares? None of that changes the science or obligates me or the rest of society to play along with their delusions or fantasies, or to pay for it.
What gives the psychiatric manual the rule of law. Its a guide for psychiatrists.. what was once deviant behavior is voted by psychiatrists to be normal behavior. Probably even less valid than the Pediatric Association demanding covid vax for babies. But what we are dealing with, rather than “trans” behavior is the use and maybe dependence on psycho active drugs. Drug addiction is currently a prohibition on acquiring firearms. But throw the word “trans” in there and it becomes a hot button issue. So because of the risk to public safety a person using certain drugs should be and could be prohibited from possessing firearms. Also i suspect if the info was not being withheld from the public, more school shooters will turn out to be “”trans”. Why the secrecy?
“None of that … obligates me or the rest of society to play along with their delusions or fantasies, or to pay for it.”
Until it does.
Now do Red Flag laws…
I have the same objections to Red Flag and Civil Asset Forfeiture laws. Both proceed from the premise that government can deprive people of rights or property without proof of any wrongdoing by the person so deprived, or even that there was a wrongful act. All that is necessary, in most cases, is that a judge must be persuaded that it’s appropriate, and the people who are affected must spend thousands of dollars to maybe recover their rights or property and be made whole.
Civil asset forfeiture laws are an exercise of admiralty jurisdiction. Technically, the owner of the property is not charged, the seized property is charged. In admiralty, the burden of proof is on the property’s owner to show the property wasn’t involved in criminal activity. (If you don’t believe this, google “us vs (some form of property here, like a yacht, private jet, expensive car, etc.)”. Examples are not difficult to find. (E.g., https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/831/221/398386/)
Furthermore, in admiralty, the “judge” is actually a “chancellor,” and the jury’s role is advisory. The chancellor can reject a jury’s “not guilty” verdict and replace it with a “guilty” verdict.
The government downplays the significance of the oar displayed in some courts (e.g. at https://exhibits.nhd.uscourts.gov/30.htm), but it serves a purpose, and is not just an historical curiosity. Its purpose is to give notice to the parties that a court is (or may be) sitting in admiralty. If the “accused” is an inanimate object or otherwise not human, the case is being heard in admiralty. This applies to nearly all federal civil forfeiture cases. Not sure about state cases, but the States aren’t supposed to have jurisdiction in admiralty. I believe that the States’ civil forfeiture processes are unconstitutional because they mimic federal civil forfeiture without having the benefit of having any authority to exercise a jurisdiction remotely similar to admiralty. And this is likely exactly why States’ exercise of civil forfeiture is so odious.
DaveGin, this is almost entirely nonsense.
No, judges sitting in admiralty/maritime law cases are not chancellors, they are US district judges. In most such cases there is no jury; in the few where there is a jury it is not advisory, it’s exactly the same as any other jury.
There is no significance to the oar displayed in one US district court. It serves no purpose whatsoever, and is purely a historical artifact. Every US district court can sit on admiralty cases. That’s where such cases must be heard. And almost none of them display oars. This is some weird variation of the “gold fringe” nutcase theory.
This is wrong. Admiralty cases can be against an object (in rem) or a person (in personam). They’re admiralty cases either way. And in rem cases need not involve admiralty law. Any dispute over ownership of a piece of property is an in rem case.
And no, forfeiture has never been limited to federal court. That’s because it’s not necessarily (or usually) an admiralty case.
It USED to be classified as a mental disorder. The American Pychiatric Association realized the money to be made and classified it as a sexual condition. Money to be made.
Its not for being trans. Its because of a use or dependence on psycho active drugs.
Terrible optics. Why turn a fake civil rights battle into a real one?
This is not without precedent. With restrictions, it’s the law now.
https://www.atf.gov/file/58791/download
What they probably can’t do is make a blanket restriction on the ownership of firearms by anyone with a particular psychiatric problem, such as transgenderism.
It’s not that easy to get someone “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution”, and that’s a good thing because with the amount of left wing judges we have, they’d be locking up everyone to the right of Mao.
I believe in ’30s Germany people who adhered to a certain religion were adjudged to be “mental defectives”
No, I don’t think that happened. The “mental defectives” who were humanely euthanized early in the Third Reich were people such as Pope Bendict’s uncle, with actual low intelligence, and thus useless to a totalitarian socialist regime whose watchword was Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz (the communities needs come before the individual’s needs). They were a net burden to the community, which would never get enough value out of them to justify the cost of maintaining them, so they had to go.
When they came to the Jews they never accused them of being mentally defective, but quite the reverse. Jews were too intelligent, and not part of their self-defined “community”, so they were competitors who had to go. Never mind that Jews would have been happy to be part of their community and contribute to it; they decided to define the Jews out, and therefore treat them as enemies.
Allow me to bring a passage, written by Milhouse, to the fore–
This is not a quote from some fascist or national socialist, it’s a comment from the mind of the resident pretend lawyer..
It can be seen, from this, that the wrong ‘mental defective’ was ‘humanely euthanized’
Um, no. He is clearly describing the point of view of the Nazis, not endorsing it.
Azathoth, you should be inhumanely cacothenized. You are not just useless but actually evil.
It is a fact that they were humanely euthanized. These were Germans, after all, their own people. And it is a fact that the feeble-minded are a net burden on the community.
Therefore if you believe the community’s needs come first, and an individual exists only to serve the community, then the logical conclusion draws itself. That is the problem with socialism, corporatism, and other collectivist ideologies. Collectivism is for insects, not for humans. Useless bees are driven out of the hive and left to die. Humans who are net burdens must be cared for; their burden must be borne. Not in expectation of some future benefit to justify it, but because it’s the right thing. You will never get back the resources spent on such people; so if you don’t value them for themselves then those resources are wasted. But that’s OK, because people are their own value.
In fact people are the only thing that is inherently valuable. Everything else is valuable only insofar as it is useful to people. People don’t have to be useful to anyone.
Maybe you’re thinking of how the USSR used to designate anti-communists as psychiatric cases.
I’m a second amendment absolutist.
I believe that each and every law at all levels of government no matter how well intentioned should be struck down as unconstitutional.
Which they *clearly* are.
As to what to do about mentally ill men pretending to be women taking too many hormones to act rationally, I think that insane asylums are a good idea until they can recalibrate themselves.
Otherwise, we all should be prepared to aerate without hesitation anyone who raises a firearm with evil intention.
The problem is mental health and unconstitutional restrictions on god-given rights (screw you, Tim Kaine) not the inanimate objects.
Oops. Each and every *gun* law.
Your original was probably 80% correct.
“gun” was understood
Minor quibble: Westman’s mom didn’t “legally allow him to become a female”, she signed off on a name change from Robert to Robin when he was 17.
BRILLLIANT
ABSOLUTELY
beating and destroying the communistnazi thuggs at their own game
10 thumbs up for this move!!!
Did you know that hearing voices and seeing things are NOT disqualifying impairments for buying/possessing firearms? That’s insane, pun intended.
We have an epidemic of crazy people having access to firearms. While this is likely not a problem that can (nor should) be fixed without Congressional action, it must be addressed before crazy people jeopardize gun ownership for everyone.
Addressed — how?
Congress passed a law that disqualifies active drug abusers (illicit or prescription) from possessing firearms. There’s no reason why people hallucinating, either aurally or visually, or people confused about innate characteristics of their being (like their gender or species) shouldn’t be similarly disqualified from possessing dangerous weapons.
Today, crazy people are only barred from possessing firearms (under fed law) if they’ve been committed to a mental institution. An incredibly TINY percentage of legit insane people are ever committed today, even temporarily.
If someone is not crazy enough to be committed, that means they’ve been adjudicated not to be a danger to themselves or others. If so, on what grounds should they be disarmed?
its the SUPPOSED sane people causing the problems by not incarcerating the known criminals
by dropping charges especially gun related charges so that the criminals can LEGALLY purchase weapons to put a further twist on how to make guns illegal for the good people to own
the more carnage..the more the lefty wins
they are willing to sacrifice not only children but this country to obtain total control
thats not an opinion that is a fact
I made this comment in early 2018 here in these very interweb pages:
Let’s imagine “gun free zones” are abolished. Let’s further imagine that this results in a precipitous drop in the number of mass shootings, possibly eliminating them entirely in schools. What would be the fallout from such a turn?
The wind would go out of the sails of the anti-gun movement.
This is why they can’t contemplate any solution to gun violence other than gun control – they fear that alternative ideas may actually prove to be solutions, and, having largely abated the problem, would leave their agenda without the traction it needs to advance. Right now, that traction comes from mass shootings, particularly in schools, and all of the latter take place in gun free zones.
The left says the NRA encourages mass shootings, but it’s the left’s anti-gun agenda that benefits from them. So who is encouraging them, if by no other means than discouraging experimentation with alternatives to gun control? The left is not interested in solutions to “gun violence,” it’s interested in gun control. They don’t care if gun control doesn’t solve the gun violence problem because their goal isn’t safety, it’s “control.”
a problem I see is that under a controlling administration (such as the one led by Barry Soetoro) “gun free zones” would have the likelihood of multiplying like rabbits
like that!
If loosely-defined “crazy people” are barred from gun ownership, then the Left will make sure we are ALL defined as crazy.
It’s already happening; how many times have you heard a Lefty say someone was crazy for not believing in Climate Change?
Suddenly district court judges will start making pro-2A rulings.
We already had the one out of Chicago that ruled that an illegal immigrant was within his rights to carry a firearm and discharge it on a city street in “self-defense”… in a city where actual US citizens cannot carry a gun without being specially licensed by a city government that does not issue licenses on days that end in Y.
Precedent for that in LA — they’ll impound a drunk driver’s car UNLESS the person is an illegal. Illegals, the city council decided, need their vehicles to get to work.
As much as I would like to see the crazies not have weapons, I still think this is a bad idea. A better idea would be to go forward with DJT’s plan to re-establish insane asylums. If you cannot be trusted to be around other people, you certainly should not have a weapon. I’m sure there are those that would disagree with disarming inmates though. If you are committed to insane asylum, do you then become a committee of one?
Yep. If someone has been shown to be a legit danger to themselves or others due to mental health problems then put them into a mental health facility and keep them there until their behavior changes. If someone with a mental issue/problem isn’t enough of a threat to be involuntarily committed to a mental institution by society then that same society shouldn’t be attempting to limit their liberty short of that.
BTW:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The officials we elect and the gov’t officers they appoint on behalf of the electorate are responsible for day to day supervision and periodic oversight of program management but, as with every other issue, ultimately ‘We the People’ are responsible for doing so in our Republic. Jefferson had some keen insights and recommendations on the aspect of ultimate responsibility and how to nurture our Liberties in order to preserve them.
the major problem I see is that insane asylums could possibly develop into (concentration) camps
its the politics of it!
so the left insists that even the minorest of “infractions” sets off the emotions and could cause harm to the self esteem or more of one of their protected
that is an admission of the true frailness …the emotional state that will/could leave that person to self harm or ( they wont say this) harm others
this move now puts lefty in the crosshairs of truth…not THEIR “my truth” but the actual truth about the excuses made by lefty for their criminal brethren
There have been a number of cases now when someone with psychiatric issues has acted out with firearms. This presents a problem. In general society is better off if unstable individuals aren’t armed. On the other hand no one can trust the government to ever do the right thing and at the right time. So we have an issue. We have to either accept that there are going to periodically be mass killings or we have to remove firearms from those we know are unstable. (Ideally a removal would be only temporarily in nature but knowing the government….)
Choose.
I choose dangerous freedom and arm myself accordingly. There’s also option C, remove those who are unstable from society until they can behave.
So your saying you prefer to lock people up who are unstable as opposed to taking their firearms away. Bold strategy Cotten. I suppose though that some unstable could kill using tools other than a firearm.
It makes sense. We have plenty of laws on how long we can keep PEOPLE locked-up, and for what reasons, but when it comes to taking guns from people who have done nothing wrong, there is no upside to giving them back — so they don’t. They fight it tooth and nail.
Good point.
I am hesitant but I am also concerned. I would propose a idea where the government could legally stop most transsexuals from (legally) purchasing or possessing firearms.
That is: declare the typical medications used for sex-transitioning “controlled substances.” The law allows weapons prohibitions for people using controlled substances. Note that this would not prevent doctors from providing the Transexuals with prescribed medications.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-there-persons-who-cannot-legally-receive-or-possess-firearms-andor-ammunition
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-there-persons-who-cannot-legally-receive-or-possess-firearms-andor-ammunition
The substances in question are perfectly legitimate medicines for the opposite sex. You can’t declare substances controlled for one sex but not the other. There’s just no legal infrastructure for that.
Yes, you can. “Cross-gender hormones are a scheduled drug”. See?
And just like that Democrats support the 2nd amendment 😂😂
There is a name for this. It’s called “Trolling The Left”. Trump is an absolute master of it. Apparently Bondi has picked it up from him.
This is an own goal. Not sure why Trump’s DoJ is pushing this nonsense.
You haven’t been paying attention.
Let’s rope off some land and put on a show, from the Canadian border down to Mexico…it might be the most potentially gross thing we could possibly see.
Bring a firearm, forget a knife. Fight to win and avoid more strife.
A tree is in need of refreshment.
Not a bad idea. A person that thinks and acts like he something he’s not has to be mentally defective. Treatment is clearly indicated.
That’s a “slippery slope” and definitively not a good idea. Opens the door to banning an entire other class of high-risk people, like “veterans,” for example because someone determines that they are high-risk for possibly committing a crime with a gun. Exactly down the path that has been mapped out by the Anti-2nd Ammendment types. By all means, ban specific transgender individuals from owning or accessing guns – AFTER they have been assessed and due process has happened, but not because they “Might” committ a crime.
A a society, it is far better that we scrutinize the drugs that they, and others have been prescribed to see if that is the commonality amongst murderes, mass and otherwise over the past 30+ years.
Codrea’s Law: “Anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian.”
Back in the days of the Founders, just your being free and out on the street was prima facie evidence that you were in possession of all your rights. None of this, “We have to frisk you for a gun because you may have a felony record.” If you had a felony record (and were lucky enough to have made it back onto the streets instead of imitating a plumb-bob) you had served your time and owed nothing more to anybody.
Today, the government has turned the streets into extension prisons (and extension hospitals). This places “felons vetos” on everyone else’s rights because free men can no longer rely on the presumption by authorities and other citizens that they are free men.. Everyone on the street must now be treated with the presumption that they are invisibly legally less than free (or sane). It has poisoned society.
If you want to keep a gun away from a person, you can’t concentrate on controlling the availability of the gun. The only effective solution is to control the availability of the person. You put him in confinement somewhere where he can’t obtain a gun, or at least into the care of a watchful custodian. And even that best strategy isn’t a sure strategy, because motivated prisoners still manage to get guns despite all personal quarantine and goods embargo.
Gun control ratchets only one way. When crime takes a normal fluctuation down, they say, “See? Gun control is working.” When it then takes another normal fluctuation up they say, “More gun control is necessary.” Nobody is ever asked to prove that gun control made a difference either way, same as “we need more money for our schools because they are failing.” And you end up with statistics clearly indicating that the places with the most gun control (or school funding) are accumulating worse actual results than other places.
The current estimate of the US population that experiences hallucinations (with some degree of regularity) is an eye-watering 7% to 15%.. My wife, who’s worked as an ER physician at a Level 1 Trauma Center for 30+ years, thinks that number is appreciably higher in ‘urban’ America. But, let’s say the conservative estimate of 7% is more accurate. That means there are no less than 23M Americans who have varying degrees of difficulty discerning the reality from THEIR reality. To put that number in perspective, there are currently < 2-million American incarcerated.
But wait, there's more. This is only accounting for Americans suffering from hallucinations. There are plenty more people who suffer from profound psychiatric/psychological impairment that manifests itself in other ways…like gender dysphoria and many who have multi-comorbidities, like this latest school shooter clearly did. We have a problem with insane people. Our additionally complicating problem is it's almost impossible for people who don't work in healthcare or law enforcement to fully comprehend how big that insane people problem is. We simply do not have anywhere near the resources to give every person who shouldn't have access to firearms, a guardian nor do we have nearly enough places to institutionalize them. We're going to need to think outside the box.
In my little town, I can name 4 men right off the top of my head who experience hallucinations. I just passed one on the way to the grocery store earlier, holding an animated discussion with his invisible friend.
Sure he wasn’t just using a Bluetooth earpiece with his cell phone?
I once saw an Asian woman pacing back and forth in front of the police HQ I worked at. She was shouting in Chinese and gesticulating wildly. Took me a few minutes to realize that she was using an earpiece with her cell! But she sure looked nuts.
Or build a bigger ‘box’ to house them. I’d wager a substantial portion of the prison population and the local jail revolving door population have significant mental health issues. Some of these are fixable but some ain’t. For example lots of folks seem to display ODD (oppositional defiance disorder) which presents as anger/irritability with, arguing and defiance towards authority figures. ‘He disrespected me’ ‘I’m not getting out of the car’ and so on. Go down a rabbit hole of traffic stop videos that should have been no more than a citation but the driver/passenger decides they don’t have to do want the LEO requests. Simple crap like handing over DL, Registration and IN even when they have all those and they are valid. Instead they refuse, get increasingly belligerent, get told to exit, refuse that and end up with a smashed window, tased and/or pepper sprayed, dragged out, put on the pavement, cuffed and stuffed.
That IS fixable. They can plead guilty with a suspended maximum sentence but put them into a residential anger, emotional control program. They leave when they demonstrate they can be trusted to ‘act right’ without backsliding for a substantial period of time and not before. If they ‘crash out’ while there and put hands on anyone or throw a tantrum then those charges and the time are added to the original sentence and they go Prison to serve 100% of it.
Chain link fences, GP medium tents, cots, a set of sheets, a blanket, some porta potties a few trailers for classrooms, some basic tools to make a garden, a shower trailer and were all set. Their problem doesn’t require any more care than a good Drill SGT can deliver. No need to coddle them, that’s how they got this way.
Or we can just partition off a state to hold them all.
Gavin…?
Gavin…?
Gavin…?
Manhattan Island like Escape from NY?
Marijuana use is associated with higher likelihood and severity of schizophrenia. Many in the urban population treat marijuana as if it were tobacco.
Speaking of using the streets as “extension prisons…”
SO much to unpack in this story! Final shooter’s two homicides were quite likely legal… except for his gun rap…
And, on what authority will they do this?
Even redefining transgenderism as a mental health issue on the NICS form would not have much to stand on.
I do not know the answer but people who decry any attempt to control guns from unstable people are unreasonable. Should we just sit back and watch the next one? Is there no way to prevent mental and drug influenced people from having guns? The founding fathers never considered such problems and it is up to intelligent people to come up with something that works. The “Slippery Slope” nonsense cannot prevail when it comes to schools and children. It’s a hell of a lot better to take a person’s guns away then to see a school full of kids shot up. The person can always appeal his gun removal but the kids don’t get a second chance.
If Joe Blow is Cray Cray enough to his firearms confiscated then he is Cray Cray enough to be involuntarily committed.
Remove the irresponsible people from the midst of the rest of society by placing the criminals into prison and the dangerously insane into mental institutions.
Agree. In an industrial society, there are many things that can be (mis)used to injure or kill people, if someone puts their mind to it. The only way to prevent this is to address the person, NOT the tools.
inspectorudy, it shouldn’t matter to you if the kids are killed with a gun, a large SUV, or 5 gallons of gasoline. Dead is dead, and you can’t keep ALL the dangerous tool away from people who might misuse them, unless you separate them from the rest of us.
Go watch an “old-timey” farm show in operation. Pre-OSHA was a great time to be alive. And charging-in with a chainsaw rarely ended well. If one thing changes, EVERYTHING changes.
If someone can’t be trusted to have all of their rights, they can’t be trusted to be in public unsupervised. If someone can be trusted to be in public unsupervised, they are a free man and deserve all the rights of a free man. The slippery slope argument is deserved.
Also, harden schools. Schools should be fortresses. Hard to shoot up a school when you never make it past the front door. While public schools are a relatively new invention, the people who founded this great country were known for carrying guns to church in case of attack. They’d be asking “why aren’t you bringing your guns to school to protect kids?”
If they can keep you from asking the right questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.
The question is not “how to we control unstable people from getting guns?”
The question is, “how do we stop Democrats from continuing to make it illegal for potential victims to possess the effective means of defending themselves from those other people at the time they go hot?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
As I see it, better to have 20K a year killed by allowing guns than 20M killed by allowing a despot to have full power. “Gun control” in the form of Authoritarianism has always been worse, everywhere and everytime they have tried it, past, present, and future. The reason that Dems are letting crime run rampant now is that down the road they want to use it as an excuse to enact draconian measures to elimate the real problem, which to them, is conservatives. For every police position that has been eliminated in Portland, they have added two private security positions, who as far as I can tell are not answerable to anyone. There have even been reports of territory clashes between the private security people on the streets downtown, where they seem to number 1 in 10 when i cruise through. Some gangs wear neatly pressed uniforms. The Dems are quietly eliminating a public force and replacing it with a private one to be used at their discretion, patterned on the Russian Oligarch model of private armys. I see interesting times ahead.
I wish I knew what the answer was. There are excellent points/observations on both sides. Yes, we most clearly have an incredible number of people who are at odds with sanity and probably none of those people should have access to firearms. But, anything we do, like streamlinging the ‘red flag’ laws or expanding asylum access and capacity, will absolutely be abused in the future. How do I know? Because we had these things once before and they were horribly abused, just ask Rosemary Kennedy, a woman of incredible wealth and privilege who had her frontol cortox disembowled by her ‘loving’ family. Safely managing our clinical (and potentially criminally) insane is an enormous problem with a dearth of acceptable and effective options. Schools should definitely be fortified. That’s probably the place to start, for now.
One thing we shouldn’t be doing is adopting a more persmissive legal attitude towards drug use, including marijuana. Much of our mental health crisis is initially driven by drug abuse.
The Founders designed a system of rights that covered precisely such eventualities.
Progressives deliberately hobbled those rights with artificial “gun-free zones,” and now want to “have a conversation” about how to fix the problem they created… WITHOUT removing their hobbles that created it in the first place.
Well, screw that.
If we get our heads out of our assess and give free men back the rights they are entitled to, the problem evaporates.
Maybe a distinction without a difference, but many therapists and MDs will tell you that drug use often results when a person has a mental health problem and the drug use is an attempt by the afflicted individual to “self medicate”.
I agree entirely though that a permissive attitude toward drug use, including marijuana, is counterproductive in dealing with mental health.
An old mentor at Hopkins used to refer to medical marijuana as a factitious treatment for factitious disorders. He had a way of “cutting to chase.”
My take. Trump Troll Level: Galactic Grand Master. He put out this proposal full well knowing it would make lefty heads go Full Scanners.
Absolutely. He has maneuvered the left into either arguing against gun control or for the absolutely laughable position that the tr@ns are mentally stable.
What a move. I have liberal friends now defending the 2nd. This is unbelievable.
Just more proof that leftist are incapable of learning due to their Mental Illness. I mean Trump has been doing this to them for what 10 years now and they still don’t see it.
Some of you folks still don’t get Trump. He IS the master troller getting the looney left to go on record supporting the 2nd. He’s also calling out the deranged trans folks using murders committed by trans people using guns.
It’s like betting and calling in poker.
Please don’t take Trump at face value, he’s playing 3D chess and many of you are playing 2D checkers.
Gender dysphoria is the only delusional mental condition that is treated by forcing the rest of the world to go along with your delusion!
In other words, it is nonsense!
I love me some Left on Left violence. But at some point the popcorn starts to take a toll on my aging gums. I need to find some sugar-free gummie worms if this keeps up.