RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
fadskier said:
With respect, I am a pro-2nd amendment conservative that just happens to not own a gun. These Democratic sponsored proposed laws do not seem to be that big of a deal to me and actually, quite reasonable.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-va-sheriff-we-will-not-enforce-unconstitutional-gun-control-laws
Can someone who is opposed to them explain the other side? Maybe I am missing something.
Agree with you fadskier. I am a second amendment guy (who owns guns) but see no problem with more extensive background checks and "red flag" laws.
Biggest problem is presuming good faith on the part of law enforcement. Last cycle, George Soros spent $750K in a Democrat primary in San Antonio.....to unseat a Democrat incumbent in favor of a social justice warrior. Laws like this in the hands of bad faith are a weapon against the 2nd amendment, particularly "red flag" laws. Problem with red flag laws? Define crazy. Define hate speech. Depending on the definition, YOU could have your guns seized without due process, just because a single neighbor is scared of you and the DA is a gun-grabbing ideologue. VERY slippery slope.
Mandatory background checks on ALL transactions is a pointless and intrusive and unnecessary regulation that only infringes on rights of law abiding citizens. Two guys on a deer lease together can't trade weapons without involving law enforcement? A grandpa can't leave (or buy) a weapon for a grandson without a background check? Is that really a reasonable regulation? If we have a problem with gun violence, is that really a good use of law enforcement resources? Have transactions like that EVER been the source of a weapon used in a mass shooting? Why then, are they being proposed? (answer: there is an agenda here.)
All of these regulations infringe on the part of the population which is NOT the problem. (law abiding citizens.)
None of these regulations will do anything to stop the gun problem de jour. Used to be Saturday Night Specials. Now, it's ARs. Tomorrow it will be something else. Gun grabbers will always have a reason why others shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Might even be because those others are conservatives. Look at how the media reported the Virginia demonstrations as manifestations of white nationalism. And that's supposed to make me more reasonable? They want me to compromise on gun rights while inferring that I'm a white nationalist for liking my guns and wanting to keep them?
Heller reserved the power for govt to enact prudent regulations. How could banning the #1 selling rifle in the country be prudent? Really? The most popular gun in the country kills less people per year than hammers and so we have to ban it? And I'm supposed to treat such a suggestion seriously?
None of these regulations address the primary problem of de jour (mass shootings). Not. One. That's because the real problem, the root cause, is mental illness. We used to put crazy people in mental hospitals. And that was a mess. So we liberalized....made it much harder to involuntarily commit people, to keep committed people in custody/treatment, etc.... That was a reasonable way to address what had become an affront to the individuals' right of liberty. But, 4 decades down the road, we can see that we perhaps went too far...that we need to re-think the problem...that maybe the sweet spot is at least a few steps backwards.
But we can't address that. Because it's a distraction from rolling back gun ownership rights.