NRA Caves
How did this not show up in this forum (unless it got yanked and I missed it):
-
-
Does this mean I can buy yeti again? -
sounds like a legitimate move to me... i mean we dont live in the 80s anymore, theres a bunch of idiots that like to shoot up places with ARs, change was inevitable
if that means we see a kook showing signs of aggression and mental illness can be halted from getting his hand on a gun im all for it..Comment
-
I wonder how realistic the "legitimate evidence" is going to need to be. What's to stop a ****** off spouse, neighbor, employer etc from using this as a weapon against someone?Comment
-
-
Lmao may be kidding but you speak truthOriginally posted by J Sweet View PostNot on no 11 Bravo salary you cant!
Kidding!Comment
-
Agreed with keeping guns away from the mentally ill...Originally posted by kingranch View Post
To the OP... Not trying to argue or disagree with your sentiment...
Writing is on the wall!! Look at all the antis (school protesters) that will be of voting age too soon!! Change is coming and I don't see it being good for gun rights...
Comment
-
"As Chris Cox explains, it allows a defined group of people (usually family members, school principals, employers) to petition a local court for an order temporarily removing guns from a person who’s made statements or exhibited behavior indicating they’re a threat to themselves or others"
So does their need to be proof the person made statements? Very slippery slope.
They will build big time on this IMOComment
-
Correctly
Nothing.Originally posted by Iehooligan11b View Post
On another forum several people suggested that they could support it, "if it's done correctly." Some suggested that to give an inch is to accept eventual defeat while others have argued that it could be a good tool if not abused. One poster suggested that this can happen to you through involuntary psychiatric commitment. He argued that this is a better alternative because it at least guarantees a hearing in front of a court. And I agree that if it's used correctly it could be a good thing. But therein lies the problem. Would even we agree with the definition of correctly?Comment
-
True. When does anything not eventually end up being abused?Comment
-
Because there are a lot of people on this forum who agree with it. "Rugged individualists" that believe the government can and will protect them through "common sense" legilsation.Originally posted by donpablo View PostComment
-
FBI had what they needed on most of these kooks and did nothing. How are tohose idiots not getting drug through the mud?
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkComment
-
Man, you should hear the horror stories from people in other states where they already have a means for disgruntled ex's to have your guns confiscated. You hear about states where if they're not given back within a certain amount of time they're destroyed. Or instances where people got them back damaged. It's crazy.Comment
-
Quote from the article....I can agree with
Yesterday, while reading a series of outraged responses to the NRA’s shift, I came across a brilliant response from an anonymous commenter. It’s too long to paste here, but the essence was simple. If you’re concerned about confiscatory gun control, the real threat to the Second Amendment isn’t a measure like the GVRO, it’s the increase in mass shootings. Each shooting exacts a terrible toll in human life. Each shooting is a shock to our political system. It’s a shock that unites a nation in grief but also divides it in rage.Comment
Comment