Suicide is also a concern. I'm not saying I am for the red flag laws. Perhaps the whole thing needs to be rethought with strict guidlines about how it can be applied and a very short timeline to an appearance before a judge.
See
[2] &
[4] below.
I don't think a rigid stance that nobody can have their guns taken for any reason [...]
No one has said, suggested, or implied that "nobody can have their guns taken for any reason" - so you're just going to have to find another strawman.
For just one example, convicted prisoners are not allowed to have guns while they are incarcerated (or even afterwards, in many cases) - but those prisoners will have already been convicted of some particular crime(s).
The targets of "red flag" confiscations will not have been. After all, the whole point of so-called "red flag" laws is "take the guns first, due process later".
IOW: "red flag" laws are predicated upon a presumption of guilt. You yourself (see below) characterized the matter as a person being "proven ok"
after being (involuntarily) "evaluated" according to some unspecified standard applied by some unspecified person(s).
Is subverting the "presumption of innocence" a precedent you really want to establish? Why? Just so that some maybe-wannabe suicides might end up killing themselves with razors, pills, etc. instead of guns? Really? What is even the point of that?
[...] is going to fly with the average american.
Speaking for myself, I don't really give a damn what "is going to fly with the average American". (Neither do politicians and bureaucrats, by the way - albeit for different motives.) What "is going to fly with the average American"
does not matter - nor should it (and only deluded "muh democracy" suckers believe otherwise). The "average American" isn't going to do anything
[1] if "red flag" laws are
not passed, nor is he going to do anything
[1] if such laws
are passed - and he sure as hell isn't going to do anything
[1] if such laws are passed and then abused (and they absolutely will be abused).
There has to be a compromise that works. For instance what if somebody thought to have suicidal thoughts by a loved one lost their gun for a few days until evaluated, proven ok and had a hearing in court. Would the world end over that? I think no.
What if somebody thought to have objectionable political opinions by a neighbor (or even some random person on the Internet) lost their gun(s) for "a few days"
[2] until evaluated, "proven ok"
[3] and had a hearing in court? Would the world end over that? I think no.
But freedom sure as hell would.
Liberty is gradually destroyed by every drip of the acid of "compromise" that is applied to our freedoms. "Well, this particular drop of acid isn't that bad, and maybe some kind of good thing might come of it, so let's give it a pass ..." - right up until liberty has, little by little, been completely dissolved away and there is just nothing left of it to corrode any further.
I know it is a abused by the government now and that should be fixed. Pick battles you can win.
Fixed how? What are you (or your "average American
") going to do [1] when (not "if", but when) the 800-pound gorilla you want to sic on other people starts misbehaving and doing things you don't like? Are you going to give it a stern talking to via SWLODs and Internet forum posts? (Better be careful, though! That kind of thing could get you "red flagged" ...) Are you going to vote harder? What? (And just never mind that, by the time it gets to that point, it will be too late, anyway. That's what happens when you let the camel's nose in the tent.)
The utopian impulse to use government force to try to address every sad, sympathetic problem that arises in life is one of the biggest factors in why we are in the mess we're in. Liberty can and will have tragic consequences (suicide, drug addiction, violence, etc.)- but eroding liberty can and will still have all the same problems, with some more new and even worse ones added in.
As The Civil Rights Lawyer likes to say: "Freedom is scary. Deal with it!"
[1] Other than maybe grouse and grumble (and vote hard ?) about it.
[2] LMAO @ "for a few days" - as if such matters would be minor inconveniences, to be dealt with so simply and efficiently. I don't know what to say to anyone who imagines such proceedings (docketing, hearings, "evaluations", etc.) wouldn't involve weeks or probably months (and possibly even years in some cases) - except "you are not a serious person". And even if we indulge this absurd fantasy about "a very short timeline", how are we to expect any "evaluations" that come out of any such "very short timeline" to be anything but rushed, sloppy, and arbitrary "rubber stamp" jobs?
[3] LMAO @ "proven ok" - what do the concepts of "proven" and "ok" even mean in this context? "Proven" - according to whom, and by what standard [4]? "OK" - according to whom, and by what standard?
[4] The standard of proof can't be "beyond a reasonable doubt" - or even just "reasonable articulable suspicion" that a crime might be committed - because if it were, then you would already have a lawful basis for a custodial arrest or detainment (in which case, you wouldn't need the preemptive "red flag" procedure to begin with). IOW: Your "red flag" "evaluations" will be nothing but "fishing expeditions" - regardless of any of your glib, hand-waving happy-talk about "strict guidelines about how it can be applied". (A fishing expedition with "strict guidelines" is still just a fishing expedition.)
