
It amazes me how many “conservatives” think that “red flag” laws are beneficial, believing they will save lives if and when they are instituted. They will argue that if someone is threatening acts of violence, we need “red flag” laws to address it.
Firstly, it is already a crime to make threats of violence; you can be arrested, disarmed, and sent to prison for many years for such behavior. It’s called Terroristic threatening…
Secondly, people fail to understand that “red flag” laws are not about stopping individuals who make threats. Instead, red flag laws revolve around situations where someone thinks — and subsequently reports — that another person might commit a violent act, even though they haven’t made threats or committed a crime.
In such situations, the police or a SWAT team is dispatched to seize your firearms, even if you haven’t done anything; it’s solely based on someone’s claim that they believe you might act out violently. Consequently, you have to appear in court and prove you are not planning any violent actions before you can reclaim your guns.
Yet, if there is someone genuinely planning to do something violent, they will likely have little trouble obtaining another weapon or multiple weapons and continuing their plans. It’s utter nonsense.








