Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tRidiot" data-source="post: 2066595" data-attributes="member: 9374">Ok... here's another question... since the answers (at least the people willing to admit/post their stance) seems to be pretty unanimous.What if it were incremental? Seriously...What if they passed down an order tomorrow that said we need to ask (repeat ASK) for gun owners with a known, documented and credible history of mental instability to turn in their weapons peacefully? I'm not talking people who are taking Paxil or Zoloft for some mild depressive symptoms... I'm talking people who may have made suicidal threats or gestures in the past, but have committed no overt criminal acts or been convicted of a felony which would make them already ineligible for gun ownership. I'm saying people who could and have been easily labeled by both law enforcement and the medical community as people who run a significant risk of becoming someone who "could" turn into another mass shooter? Obviously, those who have a criminal history of violent behavior should be looked at very closely... but I'm saying the next step down the ladder... in terms of potential, but not yet any overt action.Would you support asking them to turn in their weapons peacefully, and if they refuse potentially getting a court order, and then eventually forcibly taking steps to criminalize them and remove their guns?It's a very, very slippery slope, and incremental measures have been shown to be highly effective in the past for achieving the same goals without the sudden public outcry.Think about it...</blockquote>

Verification