This issue for the left is solely an opportunity to ratchet society a step closer to their goal of a disarmed populace.
* * *
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2017/10/gun-rights-cake-analogy.html

Lawdog here is kvetching about the way nifty posts get plagiarized on the interwebz, but he does link to this earlier post which actually contains the analogy, along with some history and general snarking:

https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html

“Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say — again: “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.

So, we compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and this time I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I’m sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you’ve got nine-tenths of it.

Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already ‘compromised’ me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE …

… and here you come again. Compromise! … Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! … The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! … The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! … The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

After every one of these “compromises” — in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING — I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise” as you try for the rest of my cake.”

The Obama Recovery Inheritance?

Surely you jest……..

I think it could go really bad. The economy is doing fine, that’s people’s top concern. Democrats can’t talk about anything but Dreamers and Guns. Now we’ve gone and given them a potentially powerful wedge issue.

We’ll just have to wait and see. I know what theory tells us, but one can hope. And it’s not like anyone can say this is a complete surprise. He’s always been very vocal about this. Hopefully China doesn’t respond by deporting me.

That’s why his major accomplishment is an inheritance: The Obama Recovery. Hopefully he doesn’t screw this inheritance up like he did his last one. The last thing we need is anti-capitalist America-first neo-marxist protectionism.

But I doubt he’ll do anything on that front either. Don’t worry. Be Happy.

This issue for the left is solely an opportunity to ratchet society a step closer to their goal of a disarmed populace. The left is cynically using the decency of those on the right and well meaning liberals and their concern for children’s safety to further their agenda of officially approved guns only being in the hands of the government. Look to Europe for the future they envision and then look to Europe’s “no-go zones” that are metasticizing for the future they are creating.

Because virtually every mass shooting has been committed by a mentally unstable person, the goal is to identify them and stop them before they act. Since most of these shooters were identified by at least a few people before they acted, it seems a worthy goal to attempt.

These Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs) must be carefully crafted by lawyers, mental health experts, and law enforcement. Well thought out criteria – aggressiveness, cruelty to animals, threats, obsessive about guns, etc. These are just my inept attempts to try to identify characteristics of those who could be dangerous. Experts would be much more precise and spell out the traits in more detail. Procedures could be crafted from the report by a concerned citizen, interview, detention, gun removal, further evaluation, and adjudication of the person’s fate. Certainly, any detention or restricting of firearms should be temporary and involve mental health evaluation by a qualified psychiatrist – not a social worker. The law must also spell out what happens if the subject is found to be mentally impaired and too dangerous to be released into society, guns or not. We must assume that some of these cases would involve people who should not be loose in society. Most would, hopefully, be treatable and able to be habilitated, but some might be treatable but unable to own firearms.

I look at GVROs as a cautionary action to prevent mentally ill, dangerous people from carrying out a mass shooting. IMO, it’s worth a try – at least in a few states to see how it works. Careful evaluation would be necessary, and if the process is abused, it could be modified or ended.

Anyway, I’m not concerned about Trump taking our guns away. I’m more concerned about tariffs. Those he can do without Congress. We don’t know how the new tariffs on steel and aluminum will damage trade, but I’m not optimistic.