Col Hogan wrote:kalm wrote:
I’m a liberal and I’m interested.
#3 - Again in no particular order or priority...ideas that don’t run afoul of the Second Amendment...don’t punish legal gun owners...
From Greg Gutfeld via Zreason.com
Harden soft targets with security and training. Gutfeld notes that this is already being done by a wide swatch of business, entertainment, and political figures, plus many companies and organizations.
If you see something, say something, should be followed with do something. "The punk had a zillion red flags. The FBI were tipped off and blew it." Gutfeld suggests a new motto: See something, say something, do something. Gutfeld explains that part of the problem is that neither of the two main sides in the gun debate trusts the other. "Common-sense gun control" is mostly a euphemism for taking away or harshly limiting gun rights, he suggests, while also implying that gun-rights maximalists are willing to let deranged "creeps" to get weapons as the cost of maintaining their own freedoms. "We need a database" to keep people such as Florida school shooter Nikolaus Boobs from getting guns, says Gutfeld. But as important, he says we need to "tag" people such as Boobs the minute they start acting off. Violation of the database would result in a felony conviction.
Address mental illness seriously. "Bring back psychiatric hospitals," says Gutfeld, who notes that of course they still exist but that they "house less than one-tenth of the people they did back in the '50s."
Re-examine the media's role. "If you look at [mass-shooting] killers, you'll find an interest in those who came before them." Gutfeld argues that the media should not report the names of mass shooters or show their pictures as a way of tamping down such incidents. "We advertise infamy," which he says has an impact.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/18/greg ... otings/amp
Well now we have something to debate -
But what Gutfield is describing is a bit broad, and when you get into the nuts and bolts of it, (Training? What training? Who? Nuthouses? Involuntary committals?) some of it becomes problematic.
Gutfield talks about databases ... that idea is already being pushed by the left in the "no fly no buy" idea. The problem with that is that a judge doesn't put you on that list. People like ME put you on that list, with the click of a mouse. That's not due process.
Committing people takes a judge. Pulling their psyche history takes a judge. In each individual case. And if we make it part of a rubber stamp, say, a domestic violence charge (those vary greatly among the states and encompass some very minor things) or a subjectively viewed threat means you give up your guns...
And too many people are comparing this to the amount of regs and conditions we put on people driving cars - which is not a specific constitutional right. In fact that rabbit hole of reason is very frustrating and indicative of the actual number of people in this country that really dont grasp what the Constitution is
I think the solution lies within what you are talking about, but none of it is free of the due process concerns I am talking about
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
