Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

What is your stance on gun control?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
I support the Red Flag law. Anyone who wants to cause harm or threatens to cause harm to others should not be in possession of a firearm.
StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M
@SW-User The biggest problem with red flag laws is they tend to deny the flagged people their due process rights.
SW-User
@StrictSouthernHOH Well yeah because that person threatened to kill someone or kill many.
StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M
@SW-User Those people are still entitled to a hearing before they lose a constitutional right.
SW-User
@StrictSouthernHOH And they can do that, however, their rights to own a firearm or obtain firearms will still be taken away because they wanted to/threatened to cause harm to others. And after so many of these infamous mass shooters have told of their urges to kill as many people to friends, therapists, etc and they do it, then I don’t see anything wrong with the Red Flag Law.
StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M
@SW-User They threatened someone according to whom? The accused has a right to confront his or her accuser and present a defense. That is lost under red flag laws where only an accusation is needed.
@StrictSouthernHOH By the time a constitutionally adequate hearing can take place, the person in question will have already made good on their threat. Witness Buffalo. The young man behind that shooting publicly stated on Facebook that he was going to do it, and even went so far as to describe how he intended getting away with it. When asked by teachers what he meant, he claimed he was only joking. Then he purchased enough weapons and ammunition to carry out his plan.
SW-User
@StrictSouthernHOH According to the person who was threatened by the defendant. That’s what happened to gun control activists and Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg for example. His Mom was threatened by Warren Stanley Bond through mail, he was caught because the stamp he sent traced back to him.
StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M
@SW-User Guilt by accusation violates due process rights. Conduct an emergency hearing first. Then, if the person is found to be a threat beyond a reasonable doubt, revoke his or her right to bear arms.
@StrictSouthernHOH There would not have been adequate time to prevent the Buffalo shooting, had they proceeded as you suggest. Perhaps a compromise might be reached? If someone is publicly proclaiming intent to go to a school, shopping mall, restaurant, or what have you, and begin shooting people, their gun rights could be temporarily suspended until a thorough assessment can be made.
SW-User
@StrictSouthernHOH
Guilt by accussation? The postal stamp is what did Bond in.
The stamp was traced back to Bond who sent the threat. When Bond told authorities he didn’t remember sending the mail, Investigators next gathered surveillance video from the post office that showed Bond buying the same stamp he placed on the envelope with a credit card in his name. He later admitted to sending the mail with the threat, so case closed. So moral of the story, don’t threaten violence on others and you won’t have your firearms taken and possibly spend 5+ years in jail for threatening communication.

[quote]Conduct an emergency hearing first.[/quote]

There’s no such thing as an “emergency hearing”.
StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M
@SW-User Arrest the accused for making terroristic threats before violating half of the Bill of Rights.
SW-User
@StrictSouthernHOH And that's what eventually happened to the man I mentioned, so what are you on about now?
StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M
@SW-User The key word is eventually. It's not just about the right to gun ownership. I have a problem with allowing the government to deny Americans our rights based solely on an accusation or suspicion while denying the accused the right to defend the allegations.
SW-User
@StrictSouthernHOH Um the government does not deny Americans the right to defend allegations. If the defender is accused of unlawfully killing someone, that person has the right to be on the stand and tell their side of the story if they so choose.
StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M
@SW-User Not under red flag laws where the accused is denied his or her rights [i]before[/i] before being allowed to rebut the allegations.
SW-User
@StrictSouthernHOH I highly doubt that.
FlowersNButterflies · 61-69, F
@StrictSouthernHOH It's okay. Temporary restriction is not permanent.

Besides, that gun restrictions exist is well known. NOT allowed at the Capitol, NOT allowed on airplanes, NOT allowed in courthouses, Not allowed where posting say they are not allowed.

Lots of restrictions exist already.