you mean red flags as in police called to Nicolas Cruz house 40 times over a span of a few years? Or the hit list for this clown, who was expelled then let back in. Or hateful and threatening shit posted on hate sites by hateful people.
Nope, those dudes check out. A red flag to me is the guy down the lane that stubbed his toe and screamed out "[uck fay] you mother[uck fay]er" to a random goat. That guy is a major red flag. Having a "rape and hit list" and fantasizing about inflicting violence? Nah, that's good. Side-bar... did anyone catch that this guy's ex-girlfriend is on Medium writing a piece about their relationship to propel her fledgling journalism career?
Judges. Treat it like orders of protection, assume it’s true, stop the sale and require a hearing within some reasonable amount of time, say 5-10 days. If you absolutely must have a gun within 5-10 days, I’d say that you probably don’t need a gun for 5-10 days. Better, allow anyone to anonymously report / flag anyone, and they won’t know until they attempt to buy a gun and are denied the purchase. From that denial, they must have the chance to get before a judge no longer than 5-10 days and explain how it’s bogus, and should be lifted. Add some extra steps / scrutiny if any one named person reports you or any more than 5 people report you in a year. I absolutely believe that there are people who know, or at least have some sincere and well-founded inkling, that someone is at least capable of this sort of violence, and just don’t know what to do with that information in a proactive way, or until after some tragedy occurs. Give people the opportunity to speak up, either named or anonymously.
Also, absolutely hammer those gun owners who recklessly lend or fail to properly safeguard their guns from making it into the hands of those who commit these acts. By “hammer” I mean, hold them just as legally culpable as the person who pulled the trigger of the gun they gave them / didn’t keep from them.
There are a lot of people that think a locked car or home is sufficient safeguard. Because why wouldn't it be?
I think that would be a sufficient safeguard, if someone had to commit an unlawful act to gain access to and use it. Responsible gun owners should maintain positive control of their weapons at all times, is my only point. I’m thinking of the uncle or whomever allowed the Charleston Church shooter to have unfettered access to his guns.
There are people out there that would say it's my fault if someone broke into my house, and stole my gun, I should be responsible for any crime committed with that gun. I say, if I have my gun sitting on the counter and my kids start playing with it, one of them accidentally shoots the other, yes, I should be responsible, but not some dickhead breaks in and steals it and I'm on the hook for him robbing and killing 10 people.
https://start.att.net/news/read/art...uthern_california_stabbings-ap/category/news+ 4 dead from a knife. 4 dead is mass killing?
I just read a post on Instagram, I was laughing my ass off, then abruptly stopped, because it's true. Bernie Sanders would let the people that just killed all of these people vote.
his position is that voting rights are not something that can be revoked. pointing to Charles Manson doesn't change that. it can be disorienting when someone takes a principled position.
I don't believe that someone that is currently incarcerated should be allowed to vote, no more than have the right to bear arms. Now, I am all for reform of once you have done your time, you should be allowed to resume that right, as you have paid your dues to society.
A principled position which stands on the opposite end of common sense is nothing more than a dumb position.
Yes. Just answering the question of where in the Constitution it talks about taking away people's rights. And I just now saw the word "voting" in your original question. You edited that in, didn't you! It wasn't there when I first read the question! I swear!
