tailgater wrote:
But if congress can pass something through both the house and senate, and if the president can sign it into law, that would speak volumes for our desire to unite the country.
Who are you and what have you done with Tail?
But, seriously....I agree with the OP. As I have said in other posts, I fully support legislation that would limit magazines, strengthen background checks and maybe some sort of red flag stuff.
That last seems more tricky to me than it looks on the surface. For one, it requires very localized enforcement, so maybe it doesn't belong as federal legislation...IDK. But as someone always in the gray, I have trouble conceptualizing how we address mental health....and mental health with regards to tools to do harm. The mental health spectrum just seems pretty fluid, if not arbitrary...even within an individual. It would be nearly impossible to apply pure objectivity to an assessment, I'd think. Even the motives of the one's calling attention and/or assessing will affect the judgement. And...if it is determined that 'someone shouldn't have a gun'...what does that accomplish for the individual? Does it come with some sort of mandated 'treatment'? Do we take aware their scissors, too? How do we prevent bs narking? If I call the white coat guys to say "TW is nucking futz; take away his guns", am I held accountable if he finds (and pays off?) some doc that says he's normal?