The Liberal Gun Club Forum

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html

A man accused of fatally shooting three people at his Milwaukee apartment complex this month had two firearms confiscated from him in 2008 after he said he sensed demons and witchcraft in his mother's house.

But Dan Popp petitioned to have his guns released, and the firearms were turned over to his brother six months later, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.

Investigators would not say if a rifle and a handgun found at the triple homicide were the same guns confiscated from Popp.

Many people will choose an all/nothing position on this, and on confiscation in general. I believe such a binary position is incorrect.

Clearly, trolls will enjoy this article, arguing as they will upon the slippery slope down which frightened, skirt-holding-up numbskulls slip into the oblivion where folks thick as a brick tend to hang out with the Trump voters.

To me, there is no doubt this gent should not have been allowed legally to buy guns. Note: my fur-lined, stainless steel fundoshi can withstand it. Bring it.

When someone is this mentally ill, he or she does not recover. Rather, the person needs to be taken care of and should not under any circumstances be allowed to own guns legally.

http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Re ... 894587.php

The issue which should be discussed is not the slippery slope, but the process, the procedure and protocols, for deciding about whether someone should be able legally to buy guns. What should this procedure look like? Who all should be involved? Should they all be professionals, or should the family and friends be allowed to weigh in? Obviously, a judge should be involved, or a panel of judges. From where? At what level?

This is a board with more rationality than most. Let's see what we can come up with.

CDFingers

No complaint here, and this poster doesn't see a slippery slope in this case. Oversight, process, and appeal avenues are the solution for things like this, I think.