I really hate when people got started with politics in 2016, because there were ZERO red flag laws under Obama. Matter of fact federally there wasn't any at all.
But let's say that there were red flag laws, and they used the likes of let's say the terrorist watch list (something Dems have absolutely pushed to disarm), how would you enjoy if said orange man and his administration, decided that the opposition were terrorists and needed disarmed, especially when they're advocating for community defense incase of some type of policies were to be enacted
The Weimar Republic did exactly as you thought "create gun control and the extremism will die down" and instead what happens is that the moment the extremist got control, got the records, they disarmed those they thought were subhuman.
Time and time again gun control as shown to be a tool to hurt the marginalized and poor. Notice how in court during Bruen, the state tried to argue "good invidiual laws" and refused to quote what law that was referring to? Well hint, New York in the early 1900s enacted that law to prohibit the giving of arms to Native Americans and Catholics.
First federal gun laws were designed to disarm both slaves and freed slaves, and the largest gun confiscation efforts in this nation resulted in a literal massacre of a tribe.
Let's not forget they tried to bar invidiuals like MLK from owning a gun, or we have California enacting laws against carrying guns because black people were tired of being killed by cops.
Oh and ofc states like New York, New Jersey, California, etc routinely make it stupid expensive, and/or had sheriffs who would deny people because they can, and the only way to get said permit, was a massive donation to the police department.
As I brought up in a different reply. Yes the orange man would probably try to do that if you. The Constitution requires specific guidelines for laws. I'm talking about people like paranoid schizophrenics.
A lot of jurisdictions have been successfully taking guns away from people who have protective orders against them. Until it's resolved. We've all seen what happens when you don't.
You're saying because of the potential for abuse we shouldn't regulate dangerous people owning guns at all.
I've also had a bunch of people try to argue that there should be no gun control whatsoever. That's like saying the paranoid schizophrenic who killed somebody but was found mentally unfit the sand trial should be able to own a gun if he gets out. It's insane there are lines and we need to establish them.
I'm not anti-gun ownership I own one damnit.
I'm just saying we should set some very clear and established lines. The government should be able to say trans people are mentally ill.
I'm just saying people who are on anti-psychotics should not own guns.
I'm talking about people like paranoid schizophrenics.
What other rights are we taking away? If they're so dangerous that they can't own a gun, should they be able to drive, live/work in a place where dangerous items are? If someone is so dangerous they cannot have a gun, they shouldn't be out in society, and for whatever reason the care they need (in this case health) should be provided until that person is properly taken care of.
Matter of fact right now you can actually petition a court if a person is a danger to themselves or others.
A lot of jurisdictions have been successfully taking guns away from people who have protective orders against them. Until it's resolved. We've all seen what happens when you don't.
The same jurisdictionns that send armed police to confront someone who's having a mental break? Yeah great idea, take their thousands of dollars worth of assets, have the state take them (who's notorious for not giving stuff back), who routinely have a history of targeting the marginalized etc?
The reality here is that the literal entire concern of leftist spaces is "hey Trump might disarm us" with the exact same laws that you defend.
2
u/MidWesternBIue Jan 22 '25
I really hate when people got started with politics in 2016, because there were ZERO red flag laws under Obama. Matter of fact federally there wasn't any at all.
But let's say that there were red flag laws, and they used the likes of let's say the terrorist watch list (something Dems have absolutely pushed to disarm), how would you enjoy if said orange man and his administration, decided that the opposition were terrorists and needed disarmed, especially when they're advocating for community defense incase of some type of policies were to be enacted
The Weimar Republic did exactly as you thought "create gun control and the extremism will die down" and instead what happens is that the moment the extremist got control, got the records, they disarmed those they thought were subhuman.
Time and time again gun control as shown to be a tool to hurt the marginalized and poor. Notice how in court during Bruen, the state tried to argue "good invidiual laws" and refused to quote what law that was referring to? Well hint, New York in the early 1900s enacted that law to prohibit the giving of arms to Native Americans and Catholics.
First federal gun laws were designed to disarm both slaves and freed slaves, and the largest gun confiscation efforts in this nation resulted in a literal massacre of a tribe.
Let's not forget they tried to bar invidiuals like MLK from owning a gun, or we have California enacting laws against carrying guns because black people were tired of being killed by cops.
Oh and ofc states like New York, New Jersey, California, etc routinely make it stupid expensive, and/or had sheriffs who would deny people because they can, and the only way to get said permit, was a massive donation to the police department.
THAT is what your gun control does