Quote:
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
Yeah, we go through this every few weeks and someon on the left always says that NO ONE is in favor of confiscation of guns. I'll even grant that no one in leadership is in favor of gun confiscation. Then it gets modified by someone saying that it is not all guns that should be confiscated but only some guns. Here we go again.
In the state of Washington they have a proposed bill going to be voted upon. It will allow the state to confiscate guns from those that they deem to be irresponsible or unreliable (they have yet to make a real definition). It is being hyped by Gabriel Giffords who a is close personal friend of Hillary Clinton.
So for all the leftists, here is a state that wants to power to confiscate guns from a newly created class that has nothing to do with crime (interesting, isn't that?) but more to do with percieved mental problems (but not necessarily rising to the level of an illness). I don't think the argument of the left can be put forward anymore.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-confiscation/ |
First, I assume that I am the primary person on the left to whom you are referring. Let's assume that is correct.
Second, I can't believe how incorrect many of your statements are.
I have always made such a statement about a politician proposing a law banning handguns in the U.S., not among a small subset of the population in a single state.
Here is what is being proposed in Washington:
"The orders — “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” — would be similar to California’s Gun Violence Restraining Orders, inasmuch as they would allow “family or household members” to petition a judge to order the temporary confiscation of firearms from another family member or person living in the household."
Yes, very subjective. But you have overlooked in my opinion, the exact wording in the proposed protective order. It is important to point out that this would be a "protective order" which would be brought about by "family or household members", not simply a person outside the home but someone who is very familiar with the situation, and the confiscation would be "temporary".
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this protective order. Subjective yes, but since the determination of whether or not the person in question is "irresponsible or unreliable" is being done by someone very close to the person in question, and the protective order is being approved or denied by a judge, and the confiscation would be temporary, I am fine with it.
JD, people like you have been consistently making statements that guns should not be banned but they should be kept out of the hands of people who are more likely to commit crimes. This protective order would attempt to do just that, on a temporary basis.
An addition -- a woman in the family lives in Austin and most definitely owns a handgun. Over the years her mental health has declined to the point where no one in the family would trust her with a gun. So shouldn't concerned family members, hoping to protect the woman from hurting either herself or others, try to confiscate the handgun(s)? She is now in a home for people with mental problems.
Gabriel Giffords open to gun confiscation
