A thought on “Red Flag” laws

The DNC led anti firearms coalition seems to be pushing for enhanced Red Flag laws…allowing someone to claim that a person who own firearms is a danger to him/herself or others in the household or community.

Now, while the idea may or may not be a good one, I have an issue with the whole idea…

If a person is “Unstable” or “Dangerous” or “Violent” and a danger…then shouldn’t they be evaluated and sequestered (locked up) until we determine if they are a danger?

Lots of things can be used as weapons…..to hurt people.

Cars, knives, fire, poison, acids, clubs, etc.

If there is enough evidence to question as to the state of mind of the person involved for the court to order to remove his/her firearms from his home…shouldn’t he/she have a more thorough evaluation so that he/she can’t be a danger to family or society at large?

Change my mind.

2 thoughts on “A thought on “Red Flag” laws

  1. Red Flag laws are not meant or intended to “prevent” any violence or deaths.
    When you look at Soros DA’s letting violent criminals go free, they aren’t serious about stopping the violence. They don’t care about the absolute chaos in the inner cities. That’s were they could do the most to stop violence and crime.
    Red flag laws are part of the “the process is the punishment” idea. Take away someone’s legal guns and make it almost impossible to get back.
    Hey Democrats…….FUCK YOU !!

  2. they want to declare anybody that owns a gun unstable by virtue of the fact that they WANT to own a gun. circular logic/catch 22. then they can take the guns and lock us up, seize our assets etc. really, these people are jealous little twits that covet what everyone else has.

Comments are closed.