He called for instead reducing the requirements to place someone in a mental health hold, and increasing the requirements for freeing that person.
“I feel very strongly about a (white) man’s agency to posses firearms, I think this issue could be solved by making it easier to incarcerate people rather than deny them access to weapons”
Yes, throw them in jail (or an asylum) where they will be denied access to weapons instead of… denying them access to weapons…
From what I understood, it seems like you have 14 days to establish whether or not the claim that you’re “too dangerous to possess weapons” is legit or not. If you establish that you are a safe weapon owner, then you’ll get your weapons back after those 14 days. If not, well, the 14 days is part of the due process to get them taken away permanently.
I’m not sure what the average jail time before a hearing/trial would be, but my gut tells me it could very well be longer than 14 days…
I’m feeling a bit more cynical in that I assume by making mental health the vector to reduce firearm violence you can continue to deny that America has a growing white male terrorist problem by branding white male shooters as crazy people instead of white supremacists
That’s a separate, but valid, issue. There are two types of people who go on shooting sprees: crazy and evil, and the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
Someone who goes on a shooting spree, white male or otherwise, because his neighbor’s dog told him to go shoot people, yeah, he’s probably crazy.
Someone who goes on a shooting spree because he thinks Mexicans are here to steal jobs, yeah, he’s evil.
Of course, you can have the case where the person gets messages from his neighbor’s dog and decides to shoot up Mexicans for being Mexican, and in that case you get both crazy and evil and your reason for the spree in this case still boils down to being evil.
In neither case should said person be allowed to own guns. However, the way that person should be handled differs between the two. And yes, given the way things are, a while male is far more likely to be labeled “crazy,” no matter his actual motivation, than a person of color would be – e.g. the person of color who got messages to shoot people from his neighbor’s dog probably would still be considered “evil” even though he’s obviously crazy, but hey, only white males seem to be allowed to be crazy, right?
Mad dudebro is mad.
Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., drafted a provision that would strip stalkers, current or former boyfriends or dating partners convicted of domestic abuse of their firearms.
I own no firearms, but I live in a state and environment where almost everyone I know has firearms. I do end up feeling like this is largely an issue where republicans have picked a cherry issue and democrats have been fools to line up and be against something the republicans set out for them. Don’t get me wrong, Missouri is racist as fuck, but we “were” purple before the republicans were able to fully weaponize guns and abortions above and beyond unions (which were strong at one point). I feel like things like the 10 round magazine ban that was overturned specifically fall within the democrats fucking themselves territory on a “getting elected” front. It’s something that doesn’t actually make a ton of difference in terms of actual mass-murdering fuckheads, but gives ammo to keep a bunch of dividing lines divided. Further, the whole “kill the electoral college” thing… once again, that could be fine, but it comes across as “you knew the game we were playing, you lost multiple times playing that game, so now you want to change the game” from here. I’d love an Elizabeth Warren ticket, but any chance my state would swing hinges on not attempting to undermine the state’s extremely tiny bit of power.
All of that wrapped in, “this is not what I want, I’m just trying to find compromise with my neighbors.” Anything to swing people out of trump territory here imo.
Please don’t lend those kinds of arguments that kind of underserved legitimacy.
Yes, we know what the game is, and often we play it because there isn’t really another choice, but if the game is fundamentally broken then it clearly needs to be fixed.
Also, the game in politics is and has always been about changing the game. That’s what, say, gerrymandering and voter suppression are all about.
On the same level as the gerrymandering, court-packing, and whatever the word is to describe things like what Wisconsin did to their new governor, there’s a couple good options I think we have on the table. (1) Get DC and Puerto Rico statehood. (2) Amend the number of house seats to scale again. (3) Individually states can start moving away from all or nothing electoral college and towards ranked choice voting. All of those would help, and to me don’t come across as aggressively targeting the “flyover country” I live in.
Abolish the Senate. Palpatine style.
The problem is that they all in effect end the outsized influence of flyover country, and the GOP knows it.
Fair representation literally destroys the Republican party.
People voting destroys the republican party.
Of course, they can also play it as fair representation destroys flyover country. The whole rationale their using to keep the status quo is that the bigger, more populous regions would use their newly gained influence to fuck over the less populous regions.
They aren’t that dumb though. They know that if they get fair representation, their votes don’t matter anymore on national issues like human rights.
Are you talking about the GOP political class or voters who tend to vote GOP?
If the latter, you have higher faith in the intelligence of the average voter than I do.