The rightful cry of Second Amendment advocates has long been that laws should keep guns out of the hands of criminals or those who are bent on violence, and refrain from broadly punishing law-abiding Americans who do not pose a risk to themselves or others. [More]No, that's been the cry of preemptive surrenderers like Amy Swearer. That she is being given a prominent seat at the table speaks more to manipulation by connected sellouts than anything else. I'd never even heard of her until recently-- now she's the go-to authority for congressional testimony and supposedly representing gun owner interests? Who made that call?
There are no "good" Intolerable Acts. And how would one go about narrowly "punishing law-abiding Americans who do not pose a risk"?
More to the point, what's she going to talk Republicans into surrendering next?
Anyone too dangerous to be trusted with a gun is too dangerous to be trusted without a custodian. And making that determination will require real due process.
Noting who fills her feed bag, I'm with Mr. Jinx.
[Via Mack H]
4 comments:
I offered her a chance to explain herself over at Zelman Partisans. Her only response was to tell me to listen to a 57 minute podcast, which turned out to be her debating John Lott. Lott raised every point I had, and she evaded answering.
“An unfortunate reality is that almost all mass public shooters were able to legally purchase their firearms despite very clear indications of dangerousness.
In some cases, official actions could have and should have been taken under existing laws to disarm these individuals, but the vast majority simply had not committed a disqualifying criminal offense or reached the threshold of mental instability necessary for an involuntary civil commitment.”
We must challenge the concept of the “very clear indications of dangerousness”. It appears that the basis of red flag laws is incorrectly justified by the proponents because of hindsight bias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias
Other biases that lead to suspect conclusions:
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cognitive-bias-2794963
Deprivation of civil liberties because of what someone might do is a dark alley into which we do want to wander.
This is why I have repeatedly cited the Americans with Disabilities Act as a powerful weapon against these unjust laws.
But (almost) no one seems to pay attention.
David,
Consider these Americans who declare that NO Red Flag law is acceptable:
"Conservative Leaders Tell Congress No Red Flag Laws"
* https://www.conservativehq.com/node/31101
[SNIP]
It would be a mistake to enact red flag laws, or encourage states to do so, when these laws clearly do not address the problem of mass shootings, but instead put the enumerated Second Amendment rights of Americans at risk.
Conservatives stand strongly opposed to the passage of red flag laws at the state or federal level.
=======================
Good for them.
Post a Comment