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. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
You assume wrongly, I thought you told us that you were NOT a left winger. I'm so surprised... anyway, I am talking about the radical left wingers who can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag. You do have some good points once in a while.
The point is that everytime this gets going again, someone from the left (is that you?) makes the claim that NO ONE wants to ban guns which we know is an absurd argument to make. So then a retreat happens, it becomes NO ONE in power wants to ban guns and we find a quote from some democrat (never a republican) politician who says that they want to ban guns. The retreat continues, NO ONE wants to ban ALL guns which was never really the argument but okay. If you can ban one type of firearm then you've set the course for banning other types of guns. We all know how much the left (was that you?) wants to ban magazines, semi-automatic handguns, semi-automatic rifles, and what they love to call "assault weapons".
So wherre does that leave us? We on the right claim that SOME politicians, spokesmen, and activists have the goal of a total ban on guns by means of creeping legislation and judicial activism. We on the right feel that if you want to ban yourselves from owning guns, good for you. We support you on this. However, if you want to at some later date want to obtain your own firearm for whatever reason that you first must atone for your sin. I suggest that you be forced to walk naked down the steps of Independence Hall while the people pelt you with feces and rotten fruit. We'll hose you off afterwards and invite you to the gun show/party.
