Rep. Dan Crenshaw Explains His Support for ‘Red Flag Laws’

Breitbart ^ | 11 Aug 2019 | AWR Hawkins

[elcid1970]

Crenshaw thinks that his eyepatch makes him immune to criticism or disagreement.

[maddogtiger]

He is sleep walking. Wake up! FISAGATE!

[Georgia Girl 2]

He’s a Democrat. No further explanation required. Liberalism is a disease that the special forces can’t cure.

[suthener]

I’m sure we can trust the judges who signed Trump’s FISA warrants to sign these red flag orders as well.

[Tammy8]

People with records and issues of mental illness should not have to commit the crime to have their guns taken.

People who are mentally ill to the point they cannot be trusted with a firearm should not be walking around period. They need to be detained in a mental health facility. Taking away their firearms does not solve the issue. There are too many things available that they could use to harm people or worse.

The focus has to be on the person. Not the firearm. If we take firearms to keep people safe we would also have to take hammers, knives, rocks, crowbars, tire tools, pool cue sticks, ETC. The list of potential deadly weapons is endless.

Seriously mentally ill people that are a danger need to be kept out of mainstream society. There are laws to detain people against their will if they are a danger to themselves or others. The problem is it is not done enough and they are not kept long term as many need to be. The reason it is not easy to get someone into a facility and keep them there is the concern for their Constitutional Rights and their right to due process.

Instead of dealing with the issues of the seriously, dangerously mentally ill the suggestion is to violate the Constitutional Rights and right to due process of all people who own firearms. That makes no sense. People who are so mentally ill they cannot be trusted with a firearm need to be locked up in a mental hospital. Then they would also be getting the care they need.

[MuttTheHoople]

No, not a crayon-eater. Dad was, but I only served in the Guard, aka, part time help.

[jimmygrace]

...So the people who Dox and SWAT and take away due process and presummption of innocence should be allowed to “show concern” about me and my guns? Stupid is as stupid does.

[DoughtyOne]

I didn’t write or imply a guy with mental problems should remain free to harm people in other ways.

It’s my suspicion that many of these mass shooters have been in the mental healthy system to some degree, on certain medications and known to be borderline.

If they have a problem that requires them to take certain medications to function, it seems reasoned to remove weapons that may be used if they stop taking their medication.do

Some of these people don’t follow medical guidelines, so drift in and out of mental states that can be dangerous.

[DoughtyOne]

I’m not sure what you mean by stopping honest people. If a person is not allowed by law to own a weapon, the checks are a help.

If a person has a clean record, no mental health problems, they can own a weapon.

When I purchased my weapons I waited the two weeks and went back and picked them up. I don’t think it takes that long now.

Since gun crime doesn’t happen if a person that is not allowed to have a gun, doesn’t get one, I don’t know how you quantify that figure.

I suppose you can tally those turned down, but then again, we don’t know all of those people would have committed a crime.

I’ve lived next to some pretty sketchy people, and I’ll admit I would not have wanted them to have guns.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree. You know, it would be nice to think we live in a world where every person should own a gun. In theory that’s something you and I agree on. In reality, there are some folks who barely skate by as it is. Adding a gun to the mix involving them, would be a bad proposition.

The democRats want to ban all weapons. We agree that is wrong. I want everyone who can handle it, to have a gun.

I want everyone who can handle it, to be able to conceal carry too.

[DoughtyOne]

If a guy participates in an armed robbery, are you against taking his weapons away? If a guy goes to a public restaurant and pulls a gun on Conservatives unprovoked, do you wish to allow him a second chance?

How do you come up with this crap? I never said any such thing.

During a conversations it's reasoned to ask questions. I did not say you favored these things. I asked you your opinion on them.

You took it personally, and I asked you not to. I didn't ask them to imply you said them.

[Fury]

But he has such a cool eye patch!

Disgusting comment. But not unexpected.

[DoughtyOne]

People with criminal backgrounds or mental health problems that preclude them from owning weapons should be denied if they try to purchase them.

Not every person denied can obtain weapons other ways. Yes some will.

Those without these problems should not be hampered that much by waiting a few minutes when they go in to purchase a weapon.

That is essentially leaving everyone else alone. You can purchase a gun if you want.

[DoughtyOne]

That’s not necessarily so.

[sport]

People with criminal backgrounds or mental health problems that preclude them from owning weapons should be denied if they try to purchase them.

That is what they told us the background checks we go through now would do.

[elcid1970]

“At its heart what we are talking about is the ability to confiscate weapons where there is evidence that violence is about to be committed. It’s that simple, and this isn’t that controversial.”

That’s not persuading, that’s lecturing.

[DoughtyOne]

People with records and issues of mental illness should not have to commit the crime to have their guns taken.

People who are mentally ill to the point they cannot be trusted with a firearm should not be walking around period. They need to be detained in a mental health facility. Taking away their firearms does not solve the issue. There are too many things available that they could use to harm people or worse.

People with mental health issues are not always placed in a facility.  Many of them can be managed with medications and regular office visits for monitoring.  People who work beside you may be one of them, and you'd never know.  For the most part, they function just fine.  Others in the same group may not refill their prescription or simply not take their medications.  Thus they are on the street and a potential danger.  Access to guns for this group should be denied.  I do think we have too many people running around on the street who need to be in a facility, but there are functioning people who are out there who are generally okay.

The focus has to be on the person. Not the firearm. If we take firearms to keep people safe we would also have to take hammers, knives, rocks, crowbars, tire tools, pool cue sticks, ETC. The list of potential deadly weapons is endless.

Some people get care, get stabalized and go back out into the general public.  Yes, there are other things that can be used as weapons.  Most of those don't involve the ability to kill fifty people in a very short period of time.

At the time of purchase and when someone is diagnosed, are times when a person's right to own weapons should be evaluated.  The average person would not be hampered by these laws.

Seriously mentally ill people that are a danger need to be kept out of mainstream society. There are laws to detain people against their will if they are a danger to themselves or others. The problem is it is not done enough and they are not kept long term as many need to be. The reason it is not easy to get someone into a facility and keep them there is the concern for their Constitutional Rights and their right to due process.

Lets say you have a heart problem.  You medicate and are just fine.  You go ten or twenty years, and then one day your medication doesn't prevent a relapse.  Should you have been kept in a hospital facility for that ten or twenty years?  I don't think so, and I doubt you do either.  This is however what you seem to be advocating for people with mental problems that can be managed with proper medication levels.  I don't think it's out of line for these people to be denied gun rights, since a relapse for them may lead to a
 public safety issue.  Your average person without these problems would not be affected.

Instead of dealing with the issues of the seriously, dangerously mentally ill the suggestion is to violate the Constitutional Rights and right to due process of all people who own firearms. That makes no sense. People who are so mentally ill they cannot be trusted with a firearm need to be locked up in a mental hospital. Then they would also be getting the care they need.

As laid out here, I have not advocated the violation of the Constitutional Rights and right to due process for all people who own firearms.  I have advocated for due process for people with mental health issues also, as it relates to gun ownership.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree Sport. There are places in the nation now that do not have background checks though. (at least I believe that to be true - someone correct me if I’m off base on that)

[Captain Peter Blood]

Sorry you sound like a good Nazi. You would suspend all due process and arbitrarily lock people up. What you seem to be advocating are concentration camps for the so called mentally Ill.