(08-29-2018, 08:58 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(08-29-2018, 08:04 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: Consider just a ban on the mentally ill from owning firearms. What happens when someone in charge decides that anyone who takes an antidepressant is in that category? Or anyone who has ever taken an antidepressant? Or a sedative. Or ... It's very easy to get practically the entire citizenry into a "mentally ill" basket.

Don't think it could happen? How about the no-fly list? There is no accountability to that list, you can't appeal it. Ted Kennedy was on the no-fly list. Of course he could get off the list since he was a ruling class person above the law, but ordinary citizens are screwed.

The first statement highlighted is ludicrous fantasy or severe paranoia. Take your pick. 

As for the next bit - People are in fact able to be removed from no fly lists. There is a process and it is slow, but it happens frequently. 

You are trying to make exceptions to the rule into "the rule."  I'm sorry, but it's a weak stance that you've taken here.

---

(08-29-2018, 06:41 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: "Expressed interest in" is to mean they have openly stated they want to ban those guns. They can know they'd be unsuccessful, but several have also said that they would ban them if they knew they could get the votes. You can't simply dismiss that because they're saying they first need legislation because they're saying they would if they could get that legislation. 

Clinton said what would moderate her to more people. She's also the one that said she has a public and private view on gun control. Clinton, by the way, said by email that she would close the gun show "loophole" by executive order. So, it isn't quite implausible to believe that they would supersede legislation through executive orders given the chance.

I wouldn't say I live in fear. I just believe that it isn't unreasonable to believe democrats want to take your guns. There have been enough of them to openly state this opinion. I also don't think it'd be outright confiscation.

As usual, I appreciate your perspective.  You make good points even if I disagree with the degree of plausibility.

You admit then that the "process" is slow.  Going back to my original post in this thread, what protections are there for law abiding innocent people to prevent them from being added to "a list"?  You can call me paranoid all you want, but the reality is I am looking out for your rights, my rights, our kids rights and even their kids rights.  You speak of checks and balances and being confident in them, yet when I am asking about those very protections you suggest I am paranoid.  Is it too much to ask for caution?  Is it too much to look at unintended consequences?  Is it too much to look out for law abiding citizens rights in the current zeal to protect us from mentally ill individuals?  Finally where is the zeal to enforce the current laws on the books that are not being followed?

---