[KrisKrinkle]

“does not implicate the second amendment, as it does not restrict the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of their homes.”

If the citizen who is red flagged is not law-abiding, arrest that citizen, don’t just take the firearms. If the citizen who is red flagged is law-abiding there is no reason to take the firearms unless “responsible” comes into play, but what does “responsible” mean here?

[JudgemAll]

Indeed. Why stop at guns? What if they have knives and vehicles they could murder with.

These laws go way beyond that scope of guns, but they handle it carefully for now on the booggeyman gun owner before moving on to other topics such as dissenting political views or mentioning the Bible about gay enablers going to hell.

[sport]

It means what they want it to mean.

[lapsus calami]

 

 

but what does “responsible” mean here?

 

Probably whatever some unaccountable bureaucrat inhabiting the bowels of a government institution who weighs their decisions based on arbitrary political standards and not established legal ones says it is.