(08-30-2018, 09:11 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 08:53 PM)copycat Wrote: 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?

I'm sorry if I offended you. Wasn't my intention. 
I think part of the problem here is that we can't debate an actual proposed concrete piece of legislation. We are debating a hypothetical legislation. Due to that - I can't possibly defend every single imagined loophole or outlier "unintended victim" that other posters invent.  

I can only say that - big picture - I'm not nearly as fearful of those scenarios becoming reality as you are. And I think not even trying to limit the ability of the mentally unfit to easily purchase a gun is just giving up on something that can be at least better mitigated. 

That said. I feel like I'm needlessly repeating myself to those fundamentally opposed to what I'm saying, so I'm backing out of this one.

I totally disagree with this statement.  I think this is exactly what we/you and I are doing.

Perhaps I am not being clear here.  Something does need to be done we both and most people on either side agree on this.  

The suspect in this situation had not one but two red flags on his file.  Yet he was able to LEGALLY purchase firearms in Baltimore Maryland, of all places with all of the recent history there.  THAT is an issue is it not?  Before we add more laws is it too much to ask that we examine and review what is currently on the books?

---