View Full Version : Et tu, Dan Crenshaw?
sundance435
08-06-19, 16:58
https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/08/05/texas-rep-dan-crenshaw-floats-red-flag-firearms-law/
We’re really screwed if even Crenshaw is on board with this. For the life of me, I can’t fathom how a guy like him, someone I considered exceedingly insightful and adroit, doesn’t see the danger of red flag laws as they are proposed.
Sorry, if you want to take away someone’s 2A right that otherwise isn’t prohibited from owning guns, the .gov had better prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and starting from the presumption that said person is entitled to possess them.
https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/08/05/texas-rep-dan-crenshaw-floats-red-flag-firearms-law/
We’re really screwed if even Crenshaw is on board with this. For the life of me, I can’t fathom how a guy like him, someone I considered exceedingly insightful and adroit, doesn’t see the danger of red flag laws as they are proposed.
Sorry, if you want to take away someone’s 2A right that otherwise isn’t prohibited from owning guns, the .gov had better prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and starting from the presumption that said person is entitled to possess them.
The same way most politicians I can think of that observed WW2, Mao's China, and similar events were typically anti-gun. Life is easy on the total control side.
Pirate Dan is a politician.
Politicians are shitbags.
Therefore, Pirate Dan is a shitbag.
QED.
Outlander Systems
08-06-19, 17:18
It’s this simple. **** this solid snake ass looking piece of garbage.
Pirate Dan is a politician.
Politicians are shitbags.
Therefore, Pirate Dan is a shitbag.
QED.
In related news, Biden says he will ban assault weapons if elected:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-assault-weapons-ban-shootings
Venom Snake can kiss my ass.
Don’t trust Crenshaw at all.
Someone ask him what he was fighting for if he is just going to come home and give it up for nothing.
I have NO problem with the "Red Flag Proposal" if the accuser is subject to prosecution for false accusation judged by the accused piers. Not the cops. There as many bad ones as good ones. Ask me why I don't trust my local LEO.
Outlander Systems
08-06-19, 18:16
Gospel.
Someone ask him what he was fighting for if he is just going to come home and give it up for nothing.
Venom Snake can kiss my ass.Such a let down. Crenshaw coulda been our Solidus.. but nope, he had to go and throw the TAPS Act in our face.
Seriously though, I hope he drops off the face of the earth politically. The only thing I hate worse than a Democrat that's honest about their unconstitutional intentions is a Republican that hides it.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Before people really get pissed with me, I am not in favor of these laws.
So let me ask the question that must be asked, guy owns guns all bought legal. But for what ever reason the guy is melting down and is making statements that he hates life and everyone and he wants to go out in a blaze of glory by murdering a lot of people.
What is the correct response to such a scenario?
Before people really get pissed with me, I am not in favor of these laws.
So let me ask the question that must be asked, guy owns guns all bought legal. But for what ever reason the guy is melting down and is making statements that he hates life and everyone and he wants to go out in a blaze of glory by murdering a lot of people.
What is the correct response to such a scenario?
It’s called due process
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What I have read the person would get at least 2 automatic court hearings, one at the time of the police taking his guns into for lack of better terminology protective custody. Then a week or 10 days later a second hearing.
Lets add a new piece to the puzzle, LE using search programs similar to what we used in Israel to eliminate 97% of lone wolf terrorism. Because most if not all these shooters post evil intent on social media
Outlander Systems
08-06-19, 18:37
Laws only apply to little people.
It’s called due process
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sundance435
08-06-19, 18:43
What I have read the person would get at least 2 automatic court hearings, one at the time of the police taking his guns into for lack of better terminology protective custody. Then a week or 10 days later a second hearing.
Lets add a new piece to the puzzle, LE using search programs similar to what we used in Israel to eliminate 97% of lone wolf terrorism. Because most if not all these shooters post evil intent on social media
Right, so you may get 2 automatic court hearings, but that’s AFTER they’ve taken your firearms without first providing you with due process as to whether they CAN take them. I can’t think of another constitutional right that’s only subject to due process AFTER they’ve taken the right away from you. Even driving privileges (not a right) aren’t subject to being taken away without due process first. Anything else you can at least try to get an injunction from the deprivation, but not for this.
Deprivation of a constitutional right based on an allegation should be unconstitutional. Only a red flag law that ensures meaningful due process before that right is taken would begin to be in the stratosphere of constitutional for me.
If it’s to the point where the person is too dangerous to be in possession of firearms, then what’s the logical reason for letting them roam in public at all? See a slippery slope there?
What I have read the person would get at least 2 automatic court hearings, one at the time of the police taking his guns into for lack of better terminology protective custody. Then a week or 10 days later a second hearing.
Lets add a new piece to the puzzle, LE using search programs similar to what we used in Israel to eliminate 97% of lone wolf terrorism. Because most if not all these shooters post evil intent on social media
I will be literally damned by God Almighty before I live in a Theocratic tyranny like Israel where you just get roshamboed for wrong think or because you "make people nervous" Hell no. Not the Kid.
Right now there are violent youths walking around with stolen guns who just use facebook to hook up and gossip. But every MINUTE, one of them is carjacking or doing a home invasion and murdering someone. And You want to go after people for being awkward and pissed at the world?
You can count me WAAAAAAY out, Bubbi
What I have read the person would get at least 2 automatic court hearings, one at the time of the police taking his guns into for lack of better terminology protective custody. Then a week or 10 days later a second hearing.
Lets add a new piece to the puzzle, LE using search programs similar to what we used in Israel to eliminate 97% of lone wolf terrorism. Because most if not all these shooters post evil intent on social media
Stop. Literally nobody cares how Israel does things.
We like freedom and liberty here in the USA.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Stop. Literally nobody cares how Israel does things.
We like freedom and liberty here in the USA.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pretty much. Once America is finally fvcked, you have a place to go.
I dont.
Outlander Systems
08-06-19, 18:51
D-don’t you guys wanna be s-safe though?
Diamondback
08-06-19, 19:17
D-don’t you guys wanna be s-safe though?
For those who prefer safe slavery over dangerous liberty, Canada's due north. :) Though many of them aren't happy with that situation either...
I was just throwing it out for discussion.
I want to be perfectly clear I WILL NEVER GIVE UP MY GUNS.
I also would not move back to Israel, so I am here for good or bad.
But I can see the future if these mass shooting continue, the Republicans will join the socialist and we will be given 2 choices give in or resist.
So what other items is the person hit by the red flag law prohibited from possessing? What health services do red flag laws provide for?
sundance435
08-06-19, 19:37
So what other items is the person hit by the red flag law prohibited from possessing? What health services do red flag laws provide for?
Given the “benign” premise behind red flag laws, those are both valid questions that will in no way be addressed by whatever shit law gets pushed through.
Given the “benign” premise behind red flag laws, those are both valid questions that will in no way be addressed by whatever shit law gets pushed through.
The 2 or 3 reviews I have read about them indicate none and none which is why I was asking.
I just heard that Biden said he would send Feds door to door to grab our guns if he is elected.
Please forgive me for putting anything out on the forum besides
I am not giving up my guns and I call on every gun owner to resist if the Feds start going door to door.
Diamondback
08-06-19, 20:14
Let me suggest a simple fix. One question, added to Form 4473: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Democratic Party or any group within the Progressive Movement?" If we just ban Progs with guns, the problem solves itself.
Averageman
08-06-19, 20:19
Do we need a red flag law, or do we have laws currently on the books that could separate someone from society if they are a danger?
Do we need a red flag law, or do we have laws currently on the books that could separate someone from society if they are a danger?
Most states if not everyone already have a mechanism in place to facilitate the emergency confinement of such persons.
It sure has hell doesn’t need federal involvement.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sundance435
08-06-19, 20:25
Do we need a red flag law, or do we have laws currently on the books that could separate someone from society if they are a danger?
If courts were serious about orders of protection and involuntary commitment, no, we would not. Either of those would involve more due process. Many OPs I’ve seen included a provision that the respondent not possess firearms, at least during the pendency of an emergency order, but it’s never enforced.
If courts were serious about orders of protection and involuntary commitment, no, we would not. Either of those would involve more due process. Many OPs I’ve seen included a provision that the respondent not possess firearms, at least during the pendency of an emergency order, but it’s never enforced.
Kentucky is really big on firearms confiscation via EPO's, but EPO's seem to be more about screwing another party over more than anything else.
Pretty sure it was in Kentucky a few years back where a woman took out an EPO against her husband/boyfriend, but was found to be cohabiting with him not long after. Pissed the lady judge off so she has them both jailed which then triggered several groups always wanting more EPO legislation over the judge punishing the poor woman.
Before people really get pissed with me, I am not in favor of these laws.
So let me ask the question that must be asked, guy owns guns all bought legal. But for what ever reason the guy is melting down and is making statements that he hates life and everyone and he wants to go out in a blaze of glory by murdering a lot of people.
What is the correct response to such a scenario?
Yoni, for once we are in agreement.
It’s called due process
This due process thing, it really doesn't mean what you want it to mean. You are spouting dogma, and incorrect dogma, to boot.
This shit gives me headaches:
The biggest problem that we’ve seen in the red flag laws proposed so far is that they lack due process. Hearings can be held without the gun owner being present
Do you think that before a warrant is issued for someone's arrest for murder or other crime they are brought in and have a hearing? Kind of like, come with us, so we can have a hearing, then we'll let you go and give you a re running start before we arrest you?
NO. THE JUDGE DETERMINES IF THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE BELIEVE THE PERSON COMMITTED THE CRIME AND ISSUES A WARRANT, EXACTLY THE SAME PROCESS AS THE PROPOSED ACT REQUIRES. And yes, I'm shouting. Fvck.
and weeks can go by before the gun owner can appeal and be heard by the court.
This needs to be addressed, as do mechanisms to ensure the weapons are stored correctly and returned without cost when the person is deemed competent, or when the person appoints a competent person to dispose of them.
FWIW the proposed New Mexico act had this language:
An emergency extreme risk protection order shall expire ten days after issuance. The court shall conduct a hearing within ten days of the issuance of an emergency extreme
risk protection order to determine if a one-year extreme risk protection order shall be issued pursuant to Section 7 of the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act;
provided that if notice of
So, jus' to 'splain, this means the Court, after hearing the petition and determing their is PC that the person is enough of a danger to pick up their firearms for safekeeping, has to have a hearing (where both sides get to present info) to determine if the issuing judge's interpretation of the petition was correct.
This is what we call due process.
Sheriff Tony Mace of Cibola County, New Mexico told me last week, he doesn’t believe that he has the power under New Mexico’s red flag law to enter the gun owner’s home without a warrant in order to take their firearms.
If they want to voluntarily hand them over, he can take them, but he doesn’t believe he has the legal authority to enter the home to take possession of the firearms.
This is an example of the kind of concerns we should be working to address with the folks crafting such measures.
Please, come to NYS and tell me how well any of that is working with respect to the SAFE act.
Here’s a clue, it’s not. It’s not dogma if it’s reality.
The feds involving themselves in any of this will only make it worse.
ETA: in the end none of this shit matters as it’s not addressing the actual causal issue of things.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Right, so you may get 2 automatic court hearings, but that’s AFTER they’ve taken your firearms without first providing you with due process as to whether they CAN take them.
First of all, the initial PROBABLE CAUSE hearing takes place before the firearms are gathered. As far as I'm aware, all the acts proposed have this structure. Remember 'no warrants shall issue without probable cause?' This covers it.
Have you actually read any of these acts? I have.
The rest of your post is just spouting less intelligent talking points. Frankly, I'm surprised.
sundance435
08-06-19, 22:04
First of all, the initial PROBABLE CAUSE hearing takes place before the firearms are gathered. As far as I'm aware, all the acts proposed have this structure. Remember 'no warrants shall issue without probable cause?' This covers it.
Have you actually read any of these acts? I have.
The rest of your post is just spouting less intelligent talking points. Frankly, I'm surprised.
I have read my state’s. Do you know how easy it is to demonstrate probable cause, the hearing for which includes whatever hearsay the state/petitioner finds useful and during which the respondent is not present? Where does that line of logic lead with regard to constitutional rights? Either the 2nd Amendment is on par with the 1st, 4th, 6th, etc., or it isn’t. What other right do you have that is subject to a probable cause hearing? These kinds of laws are an admission that the 2nd Amendment isn’t as fundamental as the others
In all of the hyperbole surrounding this, I have yet to hear someone cogently answer this: If it rises to the level of taking a person’s firearms away, is there really no crime they could be charged with or otherwise subject them to a temporary mental hold-type order? Take their firearms through the already established route. Really, if someone is objectively too dangerous to possess firearms, then they’re too dangerous for many other things. Civil actions won’t do anything to address that.
In this political/social climate, I’m convinced these red flag laws will be abused and often. What’s your practical recourse if you’re on the receiving end of that?
Yoni, for once we are in agreement.
This due process thing, it really doesn't mean what you want it to mean. You are spouting dogma, and incorrect dogma, to boot.
This shit gives me headaches:
The biggest problem that we’ve seen in the red flag laws proposed so far is that they lack due process. Hearings can be held without the gun owner being present
Do you think that before a warrant is issued for someone's arrest for murder or other crime they are brought in and have a hearing? Kind of like, come with us, so we can have a hearing, then we'll let you go and give you a re running start before we arrest you?
NO. THE JUDGE DETERMINES IF THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE BELIEVE THE PERSON COMMITTED THE CRIME AND ISSUES A WARRANT, EXACTLY THE SAME PROCESS AS THE PROPOSED ACT REQUIRES. And yes, I'm shouting. Fvck.
Sounds like you are conflating a suspect after a crime and a suspect before a crime. Enormous difference between the two when it comes to due process.
I remember hearing FISA courts were justified too. But we saw how that unconditional BS played out.
My opinion: The govt has no business in red flag laws. If people have not committed a crime, then citizens just need to be better prepared for them. That is what a just society looks like.
I know this is intellectually lazy, but I'm going to say it anyway:
Those who support red flag laws to any degree are F*CKING RETARDED.
You want to push a dude over the edge? Lock him up for a few days and take away his guns. Once that's over he's going to be good and pissed. It's not like it's hard to go out and get new guns. Hell, once "red flag" laws are common place, don't you think guys that think they'll be hooked up by them won't be hiding guns somewhere else.. criminals are going to criminal. I honestly don't believe any "red flag" legislation is going to do a damn thing about mass shootings.
I know this is intellectually lazy, but I'm going to say it anyway:
Those who support red flag laws to any degree are F*CKING RETARDED.
It’s intellectually dishonest because it’s a topic of conversation we shouldn’t even be having. It’s nothing but a meaningless distraction.
You want to push a dude over the edge? Lock him up for a few days and take away his guns. Once that's over he's going to be good and pissed. It's not like it's hard to go out and get new guns. Hell, once "red flag" laws are common place, don't you think guys that think they'll be hooked up by them won't be hiding guns somewhere else.. criminals are going to criminal. I honestly don't believe any "red flag" legislation is going to do a damn thing about mass shootings.
Well, once everyone becomes a potential criminal that’s a given. Plus none of this is feasible without a registration scheme.
Go figure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let me suggest a simple fix. One question, added to Form 4473: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Democratic Party or any group within the Progressive Movement?" If we just ban Progs with guns, the problem solves itself.
This type of bullshit has to stop. I actually shoot with several Democrats. I have huge issues with their political beliefs, but it's not like I agree with Republicans much anymore either. We don't agree on economics, abortion, are a myriad of other issues; but we have common ground many Constitutional ideals. They are also fine upstanding citizens that volunteer in our community, vote and take their civic responsibilities seriously. I know several liberal gun owners that are far more strident defenders of the 2nd than several conservatives I know.
Republicans....
Democrats....
Full blown San Francisco 1980s grade AIDS....
Stage 4 Brain Cancer.....
Excellent choices we seem to have
Diamondback
08-06-19, 22:57
A Red Flag grab is the kind of thing, especially when maliciously and falsely filed, that could easily push someone over the edge. You take one of the things a man treasures most and one of his last things to lose, and you're gonna push his Flopover Matrix a whole lot closer to Point F*ckit.
None of it matters. Lets say red flag laws work 100%.
Now mass killers start using explosives, vehicles, etc... all of which are more effective at killing people.
So these laws could/would result in more death.
Some of these mass killers dont care about killing- they want politicisation.
Gun cont gets that done
Diamondback
08-06-19, 23:13
None of it matters. Lets say red flag laws work 100%.
Now mass killers start using explosives, vehicles, etc... all of which are more effective at killing people.
So these laws could/would result in more death.
Some of these mass killers dont care about killing- they want politicisation.
Gun cont gets that done
IIRC, the biggest mass-kill other than 9/11 in American history was a disgruntled school employee with explosives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-06-19, 23:16
Someone is a psycho with malice on their mind and gets hauled before judge and they take the guns away. And the 'crazy' guy asks- you are locking up the guns and letting me go free?? Who's the crazy one?
Here's the problem with ERPO laws- if an individual is truly an "extreme risk" what does taking a firearm away accomplish?
NOTHING.
Here's the CO ERPO/red flag LAW:
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1177
It's pure bullshit.
A firearm is not the only object that can cause great harm. Should we also be confiscating trucks and vehicles if an ERPO has been granted? How about a persons ability to purchase gasoline and Mexican coke in bottles, T-shirts and Bic lighters?
OR how about fertilizer and diesel fuel?
Or how about...
See where this is going?
This type of legislation is literally a direct attack on the 2A and firearm ownership in general.
"A preponderance of evidence" is purely subjective and these laws HAVE and WILL continue to be abused. People will die. LEO's included, from enforcing these orders.
Put the pieces of the puzzle together- anyone who has posted anything online saying they would not follow confiscation orders could be articulated to be a risk to others and in need of an ERPO.
If you posted about using your CCW and standing up to an ANTIFA thug if they threatened you in public? "preponderance of evidence" "Threat to others". ERPO.
Think it through logically. We live in a day and age where EVERYTHING is recorded, cataloged, and exists out there in the aether for anyone to use against an individual.
LEO's could abuse this to a great extent for a myriad of reasons.
Trying to equate Red Flag laws/ERPO's to a murder suspect with PC to arrest- is dishonest and disingenuous.
What happens when we get into the realm of genetic markers for predisposition to violence? We aren't far off, hell we're pretty much there now. ERPO anyone with the genetic marker?
Anyone on M4C taken an ancestry DNA test?, or had family members do so?
Anyone on M4C make a statement that they would use a gun to fight if LEO's came door to door?
You can be colored any way, based on a few statements or events and ANYONE could find themselves at the wrong end of an ERPO.
It's unjust.
Should we pass legislation banning religious freedoms if it is deemed practicing that religion could be articulated by a preponderance of evidence as a "risk to others"?
Should we pass legislation denying the Right to vote if it could be articulated by a preponderance of evidence that your vote was a "risk to others"?
How about unlawful searches and seizures- preponderance of evidence to articulate "risk to others"?
Speech? Speech is the most powerful tool out there. Words, both spoken and written are the gateway/inspiration of violence to others- if someone doesn't like what you say and believes it puts others at risk should we allow a preponderance of evidence to remove your ability to speak freely?
We either have Rights or we do not. This "grey area in the name of safety" shit has got to end, it doesn't make anyone safer and it just gives more power to the State and those that seek to subjugate us.
Republicans....
Democrats....
Full blown San Francisco 1980s grade AIDS....
Stage 4 Brain Cancer.....
Excellent choices we seem to have
Agree 100%.
I think we have passed the point of no return.
Diamondback
08-06-19, 23:34
Let's bottom line. Either someone is a Danger to Self or Others, or they are not. If not, leave them to go about their business unimpeded; if so, institutionalize until no longer the case. Simple as that.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-06-19, 23:35
Anyone on M4C taken an ancestry DNA test?, or had family members do so?
Boom. All it takes is a relative or two taking those tests and they have you dead to rights if they want to start 'predisposing' us.
A Red Flag grab is the kind of thing, especially when maliciously and falsely filed, that could easily push someone over the edge. You take one of the things a man treasures most and one of his last things to lose, and you're gonna push his Flopover Matrix a whole lot closer to Point F*ckit.
Absolutely. I have a thought on many occasions. It goes something like this:
I am a gentle natured and caring man, I eek no harm to others unless they seek harm upon me and mine. If you turn me into a felon by the stroke of a pen, take away my life and my Rights by the stroke of a pen- I swear to all that is just and true, I will become the most vile felon I possibly can.
Turn this nice guy who would normally be kind and virtuous into a monster and beware of the monster you have created and unleashed.
Diamondback
08-07-19, 00:26
Absolutely. I have a thought on many occasions. It goes something like this:
I am a gentle natured and caring man, I eek no harm to others unless they seek harm upon me and mine. If you turn me into a felon by the stroke of a pen, take away my life and my Rights by the stroke of a pen- I swear to all that is just and true, I will become the most vile felon I possibly can.
Turn this nice guy who would normally be kind and virtuous into a monster and beware of the monster you have created and unleashed.
Yup. I'm by my nature a very shy, retiring sort who prefers to avoid conflict (and frankly people in general, except those who I've built rapport with and have earned my trust, as much as possible), but if someone's decided they're gonna burn me down I'm going to make very sure that I make it as Wasn't Worth The Cost as I can so that even if they manage to not go down with me they'll think about it a good long while before going after anybody else again. In for a penny, in for a pound... hell, my senior year in high school we had a hoax "suicide bomber" in my homeroom class and despite my dislike of most of my classmates and the pompous ass of a teacher, I body-tackled the bastard and shoved him somewhere with walls between us and everybody else hoping that between them and my own carcass it'd be enough to smother the boom and deny him a "win." (Ironically, it was a visual aid for a presentation he was going to give in our class, and he was able to use me as an unplanned extension of that visual aid.)
Aside re that incident, kid was lucky it was on the first floor, or I woulda thrown him out the window and it woulda come out a lot worse for all concerned...
I have read my state’s. Do you know how easy it is to demonstrate probable cause, the hearing for which includes whatever hearsay the state/petitioner finds useful and during which the respondent is not present?
From what I've read of the federal stuff, these acts are intended to go beyond the rubber stamp process that many PFA laws have ended up being.
I'm getting tired of repeating the due process explanation, so maybe you can look at it this way - you guns are being arrested on a warrant, do they get the court hearing before or after the warrant is served?
Where does that line of logic lead with regard to constitutional rights? Either the 2nd Amendment is on par with the 1st, 4th, 6th, etc., or it isn’t. What other right do you have that is subject to a probable cause hearing?
Really? Have you actually read the 4th Amendment? What do you think it is about? Here, succinct and beautiful in it's simplicity, arguably, our most precious Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
These kinds of laws are an admission that the 2nd Amendment isn’t as fundamental as the others
No, they apply the scrutiny that the Bill of Rights sets forth as necessary before trifling with our fundamental rights - probable cause.
In all of the hyperbole surrounding this, I have yet to hear someone cogently answer this: If it rises to the level of taking a person’s firearms away, is there really no crime they could be charged with or otherwise subject them to a temporary mental hold-type order?
If they are a danger to themselves or others and haven't yet harmed anyone, yes, there are remedies such as committals. Involuntary mental health committals have been pretty limited in scope since the 70's but there are still ways to accomplish that goal 1) if the officer or person has the knowledge, 2) the will, and 3) agency support.
Sad to say the knowledge base isn't there for many officers as a result of their training, or lack thereof. Many of the big city agency's are worst in this regard, the debacle over NYPD's 'Stop, Talk, and Frisk' program is an example of this.
Many officers are adverse to creating more work for themselves. And, often the folks that come to them asking for help in this regard are not ones that would evoke a very sympathetic response from most officers. When you combine these factors, you can see why issues such as this get pushed down the road.
To summarize: 1. Officers don't know what to do; 2. Officers don't want the extra work; 3. Sometimes the people needing help don't garner any sympathy; 4. In many case the officer is also simply too busy to work through the process and doesn't get support from the agency.
The people who need help, are lost in a system they don't know how to navigate.
In my opinion, the most useful things these Red Flag Acts do are several fold: 1) They give people in need access to the court system; 2) They assign responsibility; 3) They provide a structured path to for officers/social workers, etc. to follow and, 4) Properly written, they ensure the respondent's rights are not trampled.
Take their firearms through the already established route.
As already mentioned, too cumbersome to be used by most folks.
Really, if someone is objectively too dangerous to possess firearms, then they’re too dangerous for many other things. Civil actions won’t do anything to address that.
In this political/social climate, I’m convinced these red flag laws will be abused and often. What’s your practical recourse if you’re on the receiving end of that?
This is the reason that I hope that LE groups, and firearms groups, can come together with the folks who are going to craft these laws at both the state and federal level to try to ensure the acts are written to minimize such results.
It ain't a perfect world, and their will be burbles, but I think we can minimize them.
This is the reason that I hope that LE groups, and firearms groups, can come together with the folks who are going to craft these laws at both the state and federal level to try to ensure the acts are written to minimize such results.
It ain't a perfect world, and their will be burbles, but I think we can minimize them.
Why is the solution always MORE laws?
What changed in the data that all of sudden there is an overwhelming and compelling reason to warrant federal involvement in what is other wise state and local matters. Never mind the constitutional aspects of the issue.
Why is there not more fervor to address other mechanisms and means of unlawful and/or preventable deaths in this country? Ones that take far more lives annually and firearms, let alone “assault weapons”.
I’m tired of giving inches after inches. This year it’s red flag laws. Last year it was UBCs, before that it was magazines and so on and so on. It’s always something. And what have we gotten in return? Nothing.
I’d concede UBCs in exchange for opening up the NICS system, repealing the NFA, GCA, etc. afterall UBCs were sold as the end all be all of keeping assault weapons out of the hands of prohibited persons so it shouldn’t matter if FAs, cans, SBRs, etc we’re plentiful. We’d have UBCs to protect us!
So no, no federal red flag law BS. F*^kem
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Diamondback
08-07-19, 03:01
I’d concede UBCs in exchange for opening up the NICS system, repealing the NFA, GCA, etc. afterall UBCs were sold as the end all be all of keeping assault weapons out of the hands of prohibited persons so it shouldn’t matter if FAs, cans, SBRs, etc we’re plentiful. We’d have UBCs to protect us!
Add a stipulation, UBC's have to be exempt from FOIA or any other public-record request. You KNOW the Demofascists would cream their skivvies at the chance to grab those records and doxx us all... Also an immediate check, with immediate turnover if ruled Proceed--no waiting periods anywhere.
This is the reason that I hope that LE groups, and firearms groups, can come together with the folks who are going to craft these laws at both the state and federal level to try to ensure the acts are written to minimize such results.
It ain't a perfect world, and their will be burbles, but I think we can minimize them.
I will not turn this into a anti LEO thread--mark5pt56 edit
I will not turn this into a anti LEO thread--mark5pt56 edit
We’re all wife beaters don’t ya know
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BoringGuy45
08-07-19, 07:55
Why is the solution always MORE laws?
What changed in the data that all of sudden there is an overwhelming and compelling reason to warrant federal involvement in what is other wise state and local matters. Never mind the constitutional aspects of the issue.
Why is there not more fervor to address other mechanisms and means of unlawful and/or preventable deaths in this country? Ones that take far more lives annually and firearms, let alone “assault weapons”.
I’m tired of giving inches after inches. This year it’s red flag laws. Last year it was UBCs, before that it was magazines and so on and so on. It’s always something. And what have we gotten in return? Nothing.
I’d concede UBCs in exchange for opening up the NICS system, repealing the NFA, GCA, etc. afterall UBCs were sold as the end all be all of keeping assault weapons out of the hands of prohibited persons so it shouldn’t matter if FAs, cans, SBRs, etc we’re plentiful. We’d have UBCs to protect us!
So no, no federal red flag law BS. F*^kem
New laws are going to be passed. Maybe after these shootings, maybe after the next ones, whenever they take place. The pro-gun crowd comes across as wanting to do absolutely nothing about these mass shootings; we don't even want to discuss it. But that's getting us nowhere. In fact, it's getting us backed into a corner. Because we refuse to talk, refuse to make deals, refuse to do anything that we view as "compromise", and so they just take more and we get nothing. The excuse for the inaction is always the same: There's no reasoning with the gun control crowd. Maybe true, but the gun rights community has gotten so rigid on what makes a person "anti-gun." It seems the gun rights view has evolved to thinking that one can believe in no guns whatsoever, or a complete and total ban on guns, and any belief in the middle is the equivalent to believing in a total gun ban. So, we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If some politician says that they are going to oppose all bans but look for ways to make background checks better, we say "Get over there with Feinstein, traitor! You should be against bans AND drafting a bill to completely abolish background checks!!" We're eating our own if anyone has the nerve to do anything other than fold their arms, stamp their feet, and shout "...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
So, we in the pro-gun community need to come up with solutions. We need to play the game, and realize that knee jerk reactions are going to take place after tragedies like this. The key is to work to minimize the damage, appear to be the rational ones, give them some feel-good measures in exchange for things we want. Right now, it's just two sides that want to take without giving anything. No, the anti-gun crowd is likely not going to agree with any of our ideas. But right now, how it's appearing to the general public is that they are coming up with ideas for this mass shooting problem, and we're just opposing them without offering any of our own ideas.
So, the question is how do we work with what we have? Not with how we wish things were, or could be, or should be. How things are now? How can we gain our rights and offer solutions at the same time? What can we appear to be willing to compromise on to get something more important? And "Nothing. We're f**ked, we're doomed, this country is done for," is not a good answer.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190807/a4381e1d4b67730b1815e55920054d55.jpg
America. 202X. Colorized.
Also for the record is perfectly reasonable to question that LE would/will want special exemptions carved out for them. Hell, I’m LE and I’ve seen it firsthand. There’s nothing anti-LE about such assertions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
New laws are going to be passed. Maybe after these shootings, maybe after the next ones, whenever they take place. The pro-gun crowd comes across as wanting to do absolutely nothing about these mass shootings; we don't even want to discuss it. But that's getting us nowhere. In fact, it's getting us backed into a corner. Because we refuse to talk, refuse to make deals, refuse to do anything that we view as "compromise", and so they just take more and we get nothing. The excuse for the inaction is always the same: There's no reasoning with the gun control crowd. Maybe true, but the gun rights community has gotten so rigid on what makes a person "anti-gun." It seems the gun rights view has evolved to thinking that one can believe in no guns whatsoever, or a complete and total ban on guns, and any belief in the middle is the equivalent to believing in a total gun ban. So, we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If some politician says that they are going to oppose all bans but look for ways to make background checks better, we say "Get over there with Feinstein, traitor! You should be against bans AND drafting a bill to completely abolish background checks!!" We're eating our own if anyone has the nerve to do anything other than fold their arms, stamp their feet, and shout "...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
So, we in the pro-gun community need to come up with solutions. We need to play the game, and realize that knee jerk reactions are going to take place after tragedies like this. The key is to work to minimize the damage, appear to be the rational ones, give them some feel-good measures in exchange for things we want. Right now, it's just two sides that want to take without giving anything. No, the anti-gun crowd is likely not going to agree with any of our ideas. But right now, how it's appearing to the general public is that they are coming up with ideas for this mass shooting problem, and we're just opposing them without offering any of our own ideas.
So, the question is how do we work with what we have? Not with how we wish things were, or could be, or should be. How things are now? How can we gain our rights and offer solutions at the same time? What can we appear to be willing to compromise on to get something more important? And "Nothing. We're f**ked, we're doomed, this country is done for," is not a good answer.
But the goal line just keeps moving and terms redefined. "Assault weapon", "high capacity", "fully semi auto"....etc.. compromise is fine until the J frame becomes a high capacity fully semi automatic assault weapon.
Outlander Systems
08-07-19, 08:13
The future we have chosen:
https://youtu.be/IxkA31Zgoa0
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190807/a4381e1d4b67730b1815e55920054d55.jpg
America. 202X. Colorized.
Also for the record is perfectly reasonable to question that LE would/will want special exemptions carved out for them. Hell, I’m LE and I’ve seen it firsthand. There’s nothing anti-LE about such assertions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-07-19, 08:20
So the left thinks that the police are these racist thugs out to get them, and for some reason - at the same time- they think that the police are going to disarm the people for them...
interesting theory.
sundance435
08-07-19, 08:24
New laws are going to be passed. Maybe after these shootings, maybe after the next ones, whenever they take place. The pro-gun crowd comes across as wanting to do absolutely nothing about these mass shootings; we don't even want to discuss it. But that's getting us nowhere. In fact, it's getting us backed into a corner. Because we refuse to talk, refuse to make deals, refuse to do anything that we view as "compromise", and so they just take more and we get nothing.
So, we in the pro-gun community need to come up with solutions. We need to play the game, and realize that knee jerk reactions are going to take place after tragedies like this. The key is to work to minimize the damage, appear to be the rational ones, give them some feel-good measures in exchange for things we want. Right now, it's just two sides that want to take without giving anything. No, the anti-gun crowd is likely not going to agree with any of our ideas. But right now, how it's appearing to the general public is that they are coming up with ideas for this mass shooting problem, and we're just opposing them without offering any of our own ideas.
So, the question is how do we work with what we have? Not with how we wish things were, or could be, or should be. How things are now? How can we gain our rights and offer solutions at the same time? What can we appear to be willing to compromise on to get something more important? And "Nothing. We're f**ked, we're doomed, this country is done for," is not a good answer.
I empathize, to an extent, with what you’re saying. If the other side was acting in good faith and they really cared about meaningful solutions rather than just making it harder in general to own guns, I would have no problem discussing it. Our position has calcified because we have seen there is no end to the “common-sense” gun control march. I used to think compromise was the answer, but what we’ve done in the past is not a compromise, because we got nothing from it. What is there to negotiate at this point if next year the goal posts get moved again in the name of “common sense”?
People with an agenda are appealing to the unwashed masses who can be mentally bought with the “common sense” argument, or the opposite, on both sides. Maybe it’s Quixotic, but I don’t see how compromise at this point is anything but hastening the day when everything besides hunting shotguns are illegal.
There are laws in place that can achieve the same stated goals of red flag laws. Besides media attention, the only thing these shooters shared was warning signs. In every case someone dropped the ball. Most of them could’ve been charged with a crime or have been made subject to a mental evaluation, which, at least in my state, would’ve provided a mechanism for taking away their firearms. Why am I penalized for that because it didn’t happen?
Just because it’s more “difficult” (26Inf) to do it that way holds no water with me. It should be difficult to take someone's firearms away. That’s the entire point. That it doesn’t happen is laziness, complacency, and negligence on the part of authorities and us as individuals, not because laws aren’t in place. The answer is not making it easier procedurally to infringe on a constitutional right.
Edited to add: At least in a plurality of mass shootings, the shooter obtained the weapons from a family member or friend. If their access to weapons is a driving factor, then put the onus on the people who are providing guns to these lunatics before it becomes a mass shooting. They should be held responsible because it’s their duty to be on the lookout for warning signs and they are more likely to be in a position to spot them (e.g. Newtown’s mom). If the family member’s firearms were used (and they’re still alive), then they should be criminally and civilly liable if objective warning signs were ignored. Many of the current and proposed red flag laws acknowledge that, but they go way further in breadth as far as who can report and what triggers proceedings - proceedings where the accused’s firearms are taken first without them being able to defend themselves in court. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry should not be able to provide the impetus for initiating gun confiscation from someone, not in today’s social and political climate and not without the accused being present to contest before guns are taken away and not without ever being able to face their accuser. Yeah, that’s difficult, and, again, it should be.
All it will take is one confiscation where law enforcement shows up with no warning, and are fired upon, for the “common sense” folks to have their new narrative.
I empathize, to an extent, with what you’re saying. If the other side was acting in good faith and they really cared about meaningful solutions rather than just making it harder in general to own guns, I would have no problem discussing it. Our position has calcified because we have seen there is no end to the “common-sense” gun control march. I used to think compromise was the answer, but what we’ve done in the past is not a compromise, because we got nothing from it. What is there to negotiate at this point if next year the goal posts get moved again in the name of “common sense”?
People with an agenda are appealing to the unwashed masses who can be mentally bought with the “common sense” argument, or the opposite, on both sides. Maybe it’s Quixotic, but I don’t see how compromise at this point is anything but hastening the day when everything besides hunting shotguns are illegal.
There are laws in place that can achieve the same stated goals of red flag laws. Besides media attention, the only thing these shooters shared was warning signs. In every case someone dropped the ball. Most of them could’ve been charged with a crime or have been made subject to a mental evaluation, which, at least in my state, would’ve provided a mechanism for taking away their firearms. Why am I penalized for that because it didn’t happen?
Just because it’s more “difficult” (26Inf) to do it that way holds no water with me. It should be difficult to take someone's firearms away. That’s the entire point. That it doesn’t happen is laziness and negligence on the part of authorities and us as individuals, not because laws aren’t in place. The answer is not making it easier procedurally to infringe on a constitutional right.
That is what I am noticing on this also. Nothing to separate a person claimed to be dangerous from society, just a gun grab. After noticing some of the back stories on mass shooters I wonder if red flag laws would even get applied to some of them considering they were making death threats that got reported, yet no legal action was ever taken against them.
Outlander Systems
08-07-19, 09:00
You ready?
https://i.ibb.co/rM7fkRJ/FA8-C6-A61-FAEA-40-F8-B595-4428-DB969-D6-E.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/YdgBY9m/5-F8-B2-F35-D78-F-4453-9-A6-C-FDB821-FAE63-C.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/dJN2gqw/17-BDCE78-CC46-4312-B3-C7-08677-BC3-C017.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/Z6bW7yX/E2-AFBAE0-16-E9-4-AB7-A6-CF-52-CD11926-E7-A.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/ykT7mKW/B2-CBC8-D1-74-A0-4-A7-B-9421-7978-EE8-EC326.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/19YQfs2/83-D64696-E6-F1-48-FD-9816-36416-A35899-E.jpg
Really activates my almonds...
...just a gun grab. After noticing some of the back stories on mass shooters I wonder if red flag laws would even get applied to some of them...
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
You ready?
https://i.ibb.co/rM7fkRJ/FA8-C6-A61-FAEA-40-F8-B595-4428-DB969-D6-E.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/YdgBY9m/5-F8-B2-F35-D78-F-4453-9-A6-C-FDB821-FAE63-C.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/dJN2gqw/17-BDCE78-CC46-4312-B3-C7-08677-BC3-C017.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/Z6bW7yX/E2-AFBAE0-16-E9-4-AB7-A6-CF-52-CD11926-E7-A.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/ykT7mKW/B2-CBC8-D1-74-A0-4-A7-B-9421-7978-EE8-EC326.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/19YQfs2/83-D64696-E6-F1-48-FD-9816-36416-A35899-E.jpg
Really activates my almonds...
Similar to the silliness I go through buying Claritin D 12 hour at Wal-Mart while passing 37 cases of meth mouth coming and going to the pharmacy. The really big folks claimed to be the cause for me having to hoop jump simply aren't hindered in their pursuits and I suspect never were intended to be.
As previously alluded to by others in this thread, when someone shows up to confiscate an innocent man's weapons due to a "red flag"; it ain't gonna be pretty.
However, maybe that's what some of "them" want...
Frightening to think about where these new “laws” will take us as a society........
“Sir, we have had to confiscate your firearms because you are a living breathing mammal that is capable of extreme violence and mayhem even though you have never uttered a word of intention.....as an addition, you are alive in our society which has its problems and therefore you are part of the problem and are deemed to be bat s&it crazy like everyone else in this society by this governing body. “BANG” sounds the gavel. “Have a nice day Sir.......NEXT!”
New laws are going to be passed. Maybe after these shootings, maybe after the next ones, whenever they take place. The pro-gun crowd comes across as wanting to do absolutely nothing about these mass shootings; we don't even want to discuss it. But that's getting us nowhere. In fact, it's getting us backed into a corner. Because we refuse to talk, refuse to make deals, refuse to do anything that we view as "compromise", and so they just take more and we get nothing.........
Thank you for saying what I've been trying to say in an easy to understand manner. Hopefully folks will read and ponder.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190807/a4381e1d4b67730b1815e55920054d55.jpg
America. 202X. Colorized.
Also for the record is perfectly reasonable to question that LE would/will want special exemptions carved out for them. Hell, I’m LE and I’ve seen it firsthand. There’s nothing anti-LE about such assertions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Guess what, like it or not, social media is the new town square.
If you stand in the town square and start hollering about shooting LE off your front porch, or blowing up political opponents, you will likely skylight yourself.
Ain't saying it is right, aint' saying it is wrong. Just saying it is.
IIRC, the biggest mass-kill other than 9/11 in American history was a disgruntled school employee with explosives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Try Timothy McVeigh with ANFO.
Because we refuse to talk, refuse to make deals, refuse to do anything that we view as "compromise", and so they just take more and we get nothing.
Do you have a 30 round PMAG? How about a new AR?
You only have these because people like me refused to make deals. Otherwise the AWB would have been renewed in 2004, or under Obama. Almost every gun you own, is because we refuse to make deals and compromise. I guess you forgot the Dems goal - "Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them in."
BoringGuy45
08-07-19, 12:13
Do you have a 30 round PMAG? How about a new AR?
You only have these because people like me refused to make deals. Otherwise the AWB would have been renewed in 2004, or under Obama. Almost every gun you own, is because we refuse to make deals and compromise. I guess you forgot the Dems goal - "Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them in."
But the people in the middle of this debate, not the anti-gun people, but the people on neither side, want answers. The left's goal is to take every last gun down to the Revolutionary War musket that your great, great, great, great grandfather fought with at Bunker Hill. But there's the ignorant masses don't really think much about guns until there's a shooting; they don't hate or love them. But they want something done. What can we offer as ideas? Because simply saying "Shall not be infringed, molon labe, from my cold dead hands" is not what they want to hear. And it's going to be the death of us. We need to appear to offer solutions. Because if we don't come up with ideas, the people in the middle will turn to the other side, which claims to have ideas.
We're also nowhere near where we want to be in this country in terms of gun laws. We have numerous states and territories where you CAN'T have 30 round magazines or ARs. We don't have universal carry. We still have the NFA and 68 GCA. We're not playing to win; we're always just trying not to lose. We need to make moves and be crafty enough to get what we really want.
Outlander Systems
08-07-19, 12:35
Don't back down. There's an idea for you.
But the people in the middle of this debate, not the anti-gun people, but the people on neither side, want answers. The left's goal is to take every last gun down to the Revolutionary War musket that your great, great, great, great grandfather fought with at Bunker Hill. But there's the ignorant masses don't really think much about guns until there's a shooting; they don't hate or love them. But they want something done. What can we offer as ideas? Because simply saying "Shall not be infringed, molon labe, from my cold dead hands" is not what they want to hear. And it's going to be the death of us. We need to appear to offer solutions. Because if we don't come up with ideas, the people in the middle will turn to the other side, which claims to have ideas.
We're also nowhere near where we want to be in this country in terms of gun laws. We have numerous states and territories where you CAN'T have 30 round magazines or ARs. We don't have universal carry. We still have the NFA and 68 GCA. We're not playing to win; we're always just trying not to lose. We need to make moves and be crafty enough to get what we really want.
Thank you for saying what I've been trying to say in an easy to understand manner. Hopefully folks will read and ponder.
And yet year after year we find ourselves in the same situation.... pondering the exact same set of circumstances.... well it’s going to happen anyway we may as well mitigate things best we can.
After a few decades where will we find ourselves? If we get all self congratulatory because hey things could have turned out worse so let’s treat this as win, is BS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Outlander Systems
08-07-19, 12:41
https://uploads.mordhau.com/spirit/images/39/785ef7de4a6e90a07d2ef073630aec0d.jpeg
And yet year after year we find ourselves in the same situation.... pondering the exact same set of circumstances.... well it’s going to happen anyway we may as well mitigate things best we can.
After a few decades where will we find ourselves? If we get all self congratulatory because hey things could have turned out worse so let’s treat this as win, is BS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We all know how this story ends.
We all know what the end game is
And you guys want to “come to the table” to offer solutions to problems we didn’t create, that frankly don’t exist, all out of fear of getting steam rolled and losing grasp of whatever precious liberty we have left.
It’s sad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We all know how this story ends.
We all know what the end game is
And you guys want to “come to the table” to offer solutions if not outright concessions to problems we didn’t create, that frankly don’t exist (within the context of the narratives), all out of fear of getting steam rolled and losing grasp of whatever precious liberty we have left.
It’s sad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I brought up WW2 earlier and awhile ago thought of
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Inouye
Should have been the poster child for no infringement what so ever, end of discussion 2nd Amendment rights. Dude got the screwing people in the 1700's were worried about getting, but instead he went with the king.
sundance435
08-07-19, 13:37
We all know how this story ends.
We all know what the end game is
And you guys want to “come to the table” to offer solutions to problems we didn’t create, that frankly don’t exist, all out of fear of getting steam rolled and losing grasp of whatever precious liberty we have left.
It’s sad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Frankly, that’s about where I’m at with it. I don’t acknowledge that it’s actually some public health/national emergency, so framing the discussion as if there is a problem that needs to be, or is capable of being, addressed by the government is a non-starter for me personally. I fully acknowledge that a majority of people probably see it differently, because perception is reality. The carefully cultivated perception is generally that mass shootings, with their ever-changing definition, are becoming far more common and deadlier in spite of all empirical evidence pointing to the contrary.
Call me an idiot and naïve, but if history is a teacher, then appeasement against principles only leads to what you ultimately feared in the first place or worse.
I think that if enough of us believe we need to “negotiate”, then it will make all the difference. If any more gun control comes from these recent crimes, in all seriousness, I believe it will be a pivotal “Then they came for...” moment vis a vis the Second Amendment and the liberty many of us believe it safeguards, and we’ll have tacitly allowed it.
If the “masses” don’t or won’t understand that, then so be it. Not to be pedantic, but it’s the same moral and philosophical situation as in 1775.
BoringGuy45
08-07-19, 13:58
Don't back down. There's an idea for you.
We can come up with ideas without backing down or compromising what we're allowed to own. Maybe we won't "back down", but we're going to get overrun if we continue to view any idea other than "do nothing and maintain the status quo" as "backing down". Why simply dig in and wait to be wiped out if we can find a way to move and flank them?
Outlander Systems
08-07-19, 14:32
The Radical-Left's pet ideologies never receive any compromise.
Now my daughters get to share a bathroom with psychotic pederasts. Where was my say in that?
We can come up with ideas without backing down or compromising what we're allowed to own. Maybe we won't "back down", but we're going to get overrun if we continue to view any idea other than "do nothing and maintain the status quo" as "backing down". Why simply dig in and wait to be wiped out if we can find a way to move and flank them?
We can come up with ideas without backing down or compromising what we're allowed to own. Maybe we won't "back down", but we're going to get overrun if we continue to view any idea other than "do nothing and maintain the status quo" as "backing down". Why simply dig in and wait to be wiped out if we can find a way to move and flank them?
Because unfortunately, as history has proven time and time again, folks don’t appreciate what they once had until they’ve lost it.
I’d honestly almost rather had Hillary win and start calling for nationwide confiscation than this current tread harder on me daddy because he’s our guy nonsense
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Outlander Systems
08-07-19, 14:35
Whoa there, fella. You wanna be safe though, r-right?
Because unfortunately, as history has proven time and time again, folks don’t appreciate what they once had until they’ve lost it.
I’d honestly almost rather had Hillary win and start calling for nationwide confiscation than this current tread harder on me daddy because he’s our guy nonsense
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We can come up with ideas without backing down or compromising what we're allowed to own. Maybe we won't "back down", but we're going to get overrun if we continue to view any idea other than "do nothing and maintain the status quo" as "backing down". Why simply dig in and wait to be wiped out if we can find a way to move and flank them?But when their whole thing rests on banning certain firearms how can we compromise without backing down. We already have background checks and gunshow loopholes aren't a thing. What else is there to compromise on?
But when their whole thing rests on banning certain firearms how can we compromise without backing down. We already have background checks and gunshow loopholes aren't a thing. What else is there to compromise on?
Don't know for fact, but pretty sure that when people say that they are talking about face to face sales, no FFL involved.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-07-19, 15:46
The other way to look at it is - in the states with UBC, did the sky fall when they were instituted? Now I know the real push behind UBCs is that they lead to registration, but when obviously when it is polling at 103% ;) we have lost a lot of people on our side. An extension to that is in the states with Red Flag laws, how many instances do we have of them over reaching with them? I haven't seen one mentioned in all the posts here and in news stories about them.
Putting aside the mental health buzzers that come from people thinking that the govt is targeting them specifically for gun confiscation- when we can't get them to look into the thousands of failed current BGCs- we have two things that go after people and not the guns. That is what we have always been saying is the right approach.
Now if those pass and all those twits in the suburbs can be shown that the GOP has actually instituted the first real violence reform in 20 years and vote GOP and we take back the House and keep carrot top in, we basically get an AWB off the table for another generation, a chance to get Gunsgrabsburg off the court and replace Thomas with a new model. Then if WE get our crap together and actually get some cases to SCOTUS, then we fix all this.
That's the reality, that's the politics. I don't like it. I can't believe that people are so dumb that they vote for these things when they wouldn't have stopped the last shooting. I can't believe people's selective memory when it comes to how many lefty shooters went out and did the dirty work that DEm pols called for. At the very least we have some obscuring going on until next week when something else takes front stage and people's mind drifts. Like no one here hasn't told the wife a fib to get her over the current hissy fit and the task just goes to the bottom of the honey-do list.
We need to make moves and be crafty enough to get what we really want.
The socialist left will never give an inch in “letting us craftily get what we want”. That’s the problem.
You seem to believe they are ACTUALLY open to negotiation or compromise, or that they will truly be appeased by some red flag laws or other areas of compromise. They may pretend to want to compromise, but it will only be a set up to eventually take more. Every inch we have given in the past, they have taken a mile, and given nothing back.
Let’s be clear: THEY DON’T WANT COMPRIMISE. THEY WANT TOTAL DISARMAMENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND COMPLETE ABOLISHION OF THE SECOND AMMENDMENT.
There may be some people in the middle who would be happy with compromise, but those in power on the left just use those people as pawns, and will never truly stop taking ground until we are disarmed completely. Don’t get me wrong, I understand what you are saying, and I so wish we could craftily negotiate and move the chess pieces until we got what we want, but I feel we are past that point. It’s time to dig in, and see how badly they are really willing to fight.
Right, so you may get 2 automatic court hearings, but that’s AFTER they’ve taken your firearms without first providing you with due process as to whether they CAN take them. I can’t think of another constitutional right that’s only subject to due process AFTER they’ve taken the right away from you. Even driving privileges (not a right) aren’t subject to being taken away without due process first. Anything else you can at least try to get an injunction from the deprivation, but not for this.
Deprivation of a constitutional right based on an allegation should be unconstitutional. Only a red flag law that ensures meaningful due process before that right is taken would begin to be in the stratosphere of constitutional for me.
If it’s to the point where the person is too dangerous to be in possession of firearms, then what’s the logical reason for letting them roam in public at all? See a slippery slope there?
Ha!
You’ve not read “Page 2”.
On page 2 they take you and your collection. You won’t be roaming anywhere outside of a 12 foot fence with concertina wire atop.
That’s where we are headed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Don't know for fact, but pretty sure that when people say that they are talking about face to face sales, no FFL involved. You and i know this. We also know it's not a loophole. Some states don't allow any face to face sales, others, like Pa, allow only long arms. I seriously think they do believe it's a loophole for gun shows. Even listening to Bernie on Joe Rogan show yesterday he cites it too. I'm sure someone in gov actually knows what it is but it's presented as a loophole around background checks at gun shows
BoringGuy45
08-07-19, 17:09
The socialist left will never give an inch in “letting us craftily get what we want”. That’s the problem.
You seem to believe they are ACTUALLY open to negotiation or compromise, or that they will truly be appeased by some red flag laws or other areas of compromise. They may pretend to want to compromise, but it will only be a set up to eventually take more. Every inch we have given in the past, they have taken a mile, and given nothing back.
Let’s be clear: THEY DON’T WANT COMPRIMISE. THEY WANT TOTAL DISARMAMENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND COMPLETE ABOLISHION OF THE SECOND AMMENDMENT.
There may be some people in the middle who would be happy with compromise, but those in power on the left just use those people as pawns, and will never truly stop taking ground until we are disarmed completely. Don’t get me wrong, I understand what you are saying, and I so wish we could craftily negotiate and move the chess pieces until we got what we want, but I feel we are past that point. It’s time to dig in, and see how badly they are really willing to fight.
Right now, "dig in" seems to mean "do nothing." Do nothing because everything is doomed to fail, so why even try? What do we say to someone who asks us what our suggestions are for curbing this mass shooting problem? Because "F**k you, not my problem" is not going to be an acceptable answer to anyone, and they're just going to turn to the socialist left, who will say, "assault weapon bans, hi-cap mag bans, no more gun show loophole..." Who is the uneducated layperson going to listen to and side with? The people who seem to have ideas about how to tackle this problem, or the apathetic curmudgeon who doesn't seem to give a shit about how many are killed so long as it doesn't affect him?
We need to offer solutions. They don't have to work. The left knows gun bans are not going to work, and if anything, are going to make the problem worse. Just do the same thing they do, only for things that will help us and appear to be tackling the problem. We're going to lose everything if we continue to appear that we don't care and aren't going to do anything.
What I have read the person would get at least 2 automatic court hearings, one at the time of the police taking his guns into for lack of better terminology protective custody. Then a week or 10 days later a second hearing.
Lets add a new piece to the puzzle, LE using search programs similar to what we used in Israel to eliminate 97% of lone wolf terrorism. Because most if not all these shooters post evil intent on social media
In most of these bills and laws, the first hearing offers no Due Process for the accused and there's no penalty for the ruling authority if they fail to provide Due Process in a timely manner.
For the second, see the FBI's JTTF. That's what they do and they're the only ones who need to be doing it, period.
Do we need a red flag law, or do we have laws currently on the books that could separate someone from society if they are a danger?
That's a hard NO. We need more efficient and effective use of the laws already on the books for involuntary commitment. If they're enough of a public safety threat to seize their guns and their constitutional rights, they're enough of a threat to involuntarily commit. The authority in question needs to do the work, not the other way around. :(
Yoni, for once we are in agreement.
This due process thing, it really doesn't mean what you want it to mean. You are spouting dogma, and incorrect dogma, to boot.
This shit gives me headaches:
The biggest problem that we’ve seen in the red flag laws proposed so far is that they lack due process. Hearings can be held without the gun owner being present
Do you think that before a warrant is issued for someone's arrest for murder or other crime they are brought in and have a hearing? Kind of like, come with us, so we can have a hearing, then we'll let you go and give you a re running start before we arrest you?
NO. THE JUDGE DETERMINES IF THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE BELIEVE THE PERSON COMMITTED THE CRIME AND ISSUES A WARRANT, EXACTLY THE SAME PROCESS AS THE PROPOSED ACT REQUIRES. And yes, I'm shouting. Fvck.
and weeks can go by before the gun owner can appeal and be heard by the court.
This needs to be addressed, as do mechanisms to ensure the weapons are stored correctly and returned without cost when the person is deemed competent, or when the person appoints a competent person to dispose of them.
FWIW the proposed New Mexico act had this language:
An emergency extreme risk protection order shall expire ten days after issuance. The court shall conduct a hearing within ten days of the issuance of an emergency extreme
risk protection order to determine if a one-year extreme risk protection order shall be issued pursuant to Section 7 of the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act;
provided that if notice of
So, jus' to 'splain, this means the Court, after hearing the petition and determing their is PC that the person is enough of a danger to pick up their firearms for safekeeping, has to have a hearing (where both sides get to present info) to determine if the issuing judge's interpretation of the petition was correct.
This is what we call due process.
Sheriff Tony Mace of Cibola County, New Mexico told me last week, he doesn’t believe that he has the power under New Mexico’s red flag law to enter the gun owner’s home without a warrant in order to take their firearms.
If they want to voluntarily hand them over, he can take them, but he doesn’t believe he has the legal authority to enter the home to take possession of the firearms.
This is an example of the kind of concerns we should be working to address with the folks crafting such measures.
You are incredibly wrong for one simple reason. You're talking about warrant process for a CRIME. Red Flag laws seize property and rights (even if only temporarily) where no evidence of a crime exists. If you have PC for a crime, shouldn't your warrant be for that and not the "danger" alleged by the petitioner?
I'll grant you the NM act may have an automatic expiration date, but what are the penalties to the agency or court if the 10 days expire and they refuse to immediately return the guns, say in Albuquerque or Santa Fe? What are the penalties to the agency if the guns aren't returned in the same condition as they were when seized (and don't say routine civil redress at the expense of the accused)? If the accuser obviously filed a false claim, will the jurisdiction be compelled to file charges against the person bearing false witness?
The anti-gun zealots aren't going to allow sufficient Due Process, redress and penalties for unreasonable abridgement of our rights into these bills. Representatives who value the Constitution should be ensuring that ALL burdens be placed on the implementing authority, with both civil and criminal penalties for anyone in a position of authority abusing the law. That would guarantee these unnecessary and unconstitutional bills get KILLED.
You and NoringGuy45 may want to Neville Chamberlain your way out of this but the rest of us are not budging. We won't lose "more" by fighting tooth and nail. We'll lose the same or LESS, which is and should always be the goal. After all, we aren't getting jack squat in return. What we will get are 2nd and 3rd order effects:
Gun owners refusing to seek mental health services and treatment.
Gun owners refusing to utilize EAP services.
Gun owners self-medicating to deal with their issues instead.
Gun owners paranoid and afraid someone will turn them out to the gun police.
Petitioners who use Red Flag laws as a weapon during acrimonious legal proceedings.
No actual penalties for false accusers being levied.
Gun owners who will feel their rights are being violated when they've committed no crime but they're losing their guns.
Gun owners who would rather fight than submit.
Officer lives lost.
Gun owner lives lost.
No proof the red flag laws actually work because "Precrime".
I get that you want this because you see the current laws dealing with potential threats to public safety by erratic individuals as inefficient and ineffective, but this is the wrong path to get where you want to go. Inevitability shouldn't even factor into your stance, at all. Simply put, if a person who hasn't yet committed a crime is too much of a threat to retain their constitutional rights, then they're too much of a threat to remain free in society. Do the hard work to have them jailed or committed. Otherwise, telling a person they've been deemed a threat, seizing their property and their rights, then leaving them to fume is a surefire way to make them a threat.
Our 2nd & 4th Amendment rights should be just as hard to seize as our persons. :nono:
Right now, "dig in" seems to mean "do nothing." Do nothing because everything is doomed to fail, so why even try? What do we say to someone who asks us what our suggestions are for curbing this mass shooting problem? Because "F**k you, not my problem" is not going to be an acceptable answer to anyone, and they're just going to turn to the socialist left, who will say, "assault weapon bans, hi-cap mag bans, no more gun show loophole..." Who is the uneducated layperson going to listen to and side with? The people who seem to have ideas about how to tackle this problem, or the apathetic curmudgeon who doesn't seem to give a shit about how many are killed so long as it doesn't affect him?
We need to offer solutions. They don't have to work. The left knows gun bans are not going to work, and if anything, are going to make the problem worse. Just do the same thing they do, only for things that will help us and appear to be tackling the problem. We're going to lose everything if we continue to appear that we don't care and aren't going to do anything.
I'm sorry you feel that way and I can empathize with your concerns, but this is the wrong way to address them. If you're willing to set aside your pre-conceived assumptions, then perhaps we can work together to arrive at a solution which doesn't infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. The logical and EMPATHETIC solution is to engage individuals with emotional (not mental) problems and provide them with positive tools with which to deal with their issues. If that doesn't work, then we can move on to mental health treatment (voluntary or involuntary) to address the issue.
We have a culture issue in how we treat each other as Americans, and especially how we treat those who are emotionally unequipped to manage social and interpersonal interactions. Waiting till someone is a threat to go grab their property, isn't going to do a damned thing to make them less of a threat. :(
Right now, "dig in" seems to mean "do nothing." Do nothing because everything is doomed to fail, so why even try? What do we say to someone who asks us what our suggestions are for curbing this mass shooting problem? Because "F**k you, not my problem" is not going to be an acceptable answer to anyone, and they're just going to turn to the socialist left, who will say, "assault weapon bans, hi-cap mag bans, no more gun show loophole..." Who is the uneducated layperson going to listen to and side with? The people who seem to have ideas about how to tackle this problem, or the apathetic curmudgeon who doesn't seem to give a shit about how many are killed so long as it doesn't affect him?
We need to offer solutions. They don't have to work. The left knows gun bans are not going to work, and if anything, are going to make the problem worse. Just do the same thing they do, only for things that will help us and appear to be tackling the problem. We're going to lose everything if we continue to appear that we don't care and aren't going to do anything.
So the million dollar question becomes, what solutions can we as a gun community offer that don't further compromise our already dwindling 2A rights? You keep saying we need to offer solutions; i'm curious, what solutions do you have in mind? I'm not asking that to be a smart a$$, i'm genuinely curious. Do you have legitimate solutions in mind that don't continue to further erode our 2A freedoms, or is the suggestion that we just offer BS solutions that "don't have to work" to anyone who asks, so we can try and sound reasonable and win the hearts and minds of the uneducated laypeople?
I'm not opposed to offering solutions, but if those solutions appear to concede more ground, it will just embolden the left to push even harder.
48 hours ago, I was looking for ways that we could help prevent mass shootings as a safeguard for our guns.
Today I know, NOTHING will safe guard our guns.
When Death Camps get tossed out on the table, you have pushed me as far as you can.
This now has become a fight for life or death, not just for the Republic but also for those of us on the right.
BoringGuy45
08-07-19, 18:34
So the million dollar question becomes, what solutions can we as a gun community offer that don't further compromise our already dwindling 2A rights? You keep saying we need to offer solutions; i'm curious, what solutions do you have in mind? I'm not asking that to be a smart a$$, i'm genuinely curious. Do you have legitimate solutions in mind that don't continue to further erode our 2A freedoms, or is the suggestion that we just offer BS solutions that "don't have to work" to anyone who asks, so we can try and sound reasonable and win the hearts and minds of the uneducated laypeople?
I'm not opposed to offering solutions, but if those solutions appear to concede more ground, it will just embolden the left to push even harder.
Laws absolutely requiring the enforcement of the so-called "red flag" laws already on the books. Laws mandating investigation of actual, obvious people who are a clear and present danger, and criminal penalties for those who don't. Mandating a short time period when such investigations must begin. Basically, make it like the mandatory reporting laws for child abuse. Based on personal experience, a lot of violent and disturbing behavior gets dismissed with little more than "Thank you for your concern. We'll take it under advisement". Almost to a T, every mass shooter since Columbine had previous contacts with law enforcement and mental health authorities. All displayed disturbing behavior, made numerous violent threats, had an obsession with murder, death, and previous mass shootings, and made no attempt to hide their violent tendencies. Almost all were reported and nothing was done about it. Make laws that hold people's feet to the fire for dropping the ball.
Diamondback
08-07-19, 18:54
Here, have some food for thought on Red Flag abuse already happening by the VA:
https://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2019/08/07/warning-how-the-va-redflags-patriots-n2551313
sundance435
08-07-19, 19:18
Laws absolutely requiring the enforcement of the so-called "red flag" laws already on the books. Laws mandating investigation of actual, obvious people who are a clear and present danger, and criminal penalties for those who don't. Mandating a short time period when such investigations must begin. Basically, make it like the mandatory reporting laws for child abuse. Based on personal experience, a lot of violent and disturbing behavior gets dismissed with little more than "Thank you for your concern. We'll take it under advisement". Almost to a T, every mass shooter since Columbine had previous contacts with law enforcement and mental health authorities. All displayed disturbing behavior, made numerous violent threats, had an obsession with murder, death, and previous mass shootings, and made no attempt to hide their violent tendencies. Almost all were reported and nothing was done about it. Make laws that hold people's feet to the fire for dropping the ball.
Pass more laws to ensure compliance with existing laws. What happens when there’s not compliance with the new laws on laws?
Cultures don’t change because of laws and to say that the current “gun” problem is anything but a cultural and societal issue, which you can’t legislate into or out of existence, is foolish. The “law” of diminishing returns applies just as well to laws specifying or prescribing conduct. There is plenty of scholarly work on rates of compliance with laws as they become more burdensome and complex...they’re inversely proportional, whether it’s the government or an individual. Non-compliance, to get sociological, is like the “Broken Windows” theory of policing. The less people on either political side comply with a law because it’s too burdensome or they don’t agree with it, the more likely they are to start ignoring other laws and thus see the government as illegitimate. That’s where real compromise comes in, except real compromise only happens when both sides see a benefit from it.
I’m not an anarchist and I do try to live my life within the bounds of the law. But there is a practical and moral limit to that. Society needs order, but not for the sake of the appearance of order.
You guys advocating for compromise do realize that a full 50% of the country is bat shit crazy and that they along with the non citizens will not be targeted by red flag laws. Anything they pass will be aimed directly at the normals with the goal of starting the disarmament of the political opposition. Which is why it is so bitter to have someone like Dan Crenshaw fold like a cheap suit.
BoringGuy45
08-07-19, 19:58
Pass more laws to ensure compliance with existing laws. What happens when there’s not compliance with the new laws on laws?
I say, cross that bridge when we come to it. There's pretty good compliance and enforcement of mandatory reporting laws regarding child abuse. But this is what I'm talking about: The attitude of "let's not do anything because nothing is going to work". That's why we're losing.
Outlander Systems
08-07-19, 20:00
Are insinuating that various or Federal agencies would be wielded against the public as a partisan political tool?
That sounds like a conspiracy theory!
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/remember-the-irs-targeting-scandal-no-one-ever-got-punished-for-it
You guys advocating for compromise do realize that a full 50% of the country is bat shit crazy and that they along with the non citizens will not be targeted by red flag laws. Anything they pass will be aimed directly at the normals with the goal of starting the disarmament of the political opposition. Which is why it is so bitter to have someone like Dan Crenshaw fold like a cheap suit.
I say, cross that bridge when we come to it. There's pretty good compliance and enforcement of mandatory reporting laws regarding child abuse. But this is what I'm talking about: The attitude of "let's not do anything because nothing is going to work". That's why we're losing.
As GTG said if you’re banking on Neville Chamberlaining (this is hilarious btw) the left, literally folks who’ll gleefully call you a racist for leaving negative restaurant reviews online, then you’re not going to get it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was looking at tools I have used in other places that could be used to try and limit the number of mass shootings while complying with the Constitution.
The the Dems and left started telling us if they are elected they want to send Feds door to door to take away our guns.
Then the death camp for Trump supporters and calling the President and his supporters racist.
I have been pushed too damn far, no mas.
No more gun laws, period.
I was looking at tools I have used in other places that could be used to try and limit the number of mass shootings while complying with the Constitution.
The the Dems and left started telling us if they are elected they want to send Feds door to door to take away our guns.
Then the death camp for Trump supporters and calling the President and his supporters racist.
I have been pushed too damn far, no mas.
No more gun laws, period.
Serious question. Serious, real question.
How does it feel knowing all these Democrats are American Jews? Ironic isnt it? They cry in "fear" as they set out to imprison and kill you and never waste a "crisis".
Do you feel betrayed? I would.
At some point we must break from our tribes to find our real homes.
I have been through that myself. And it hurt at first until it didnt.
Here, have some food for thought on Red Flag abuse already happening by the VA:
https://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2019/08/07/warning-how-the-va-redflags-patriots-n2551313
I can say with certainty that these classifications are making it to the NICS background check system. I have two guys that are Vets that have been denied on 4473 purchases and neither have been adjudicated as mentally defective, nor have they been committed to a mental institution. Those are the disqualifiers on 11(e) of the form. They also did not fail any of the other questions. The only thing they can think of is being treated poorly by the VA and them complaining about it. Both also sought counseling for PTSD.
I have a question. Who do we support in upcoming elections?
Dan Crenshaw was once seen as an advocate for gun owners.
Now he is advocating Red Flag laws.
So do we not support him in the next election and help a candidate who is probably far more antigun get elected?
Same for the President considering how far left the candidates who support him are.
My fear is that if we wait for candidates who pure enough in supporting gun rights we will have very few gun rights left.
if it passes can see many criminals ratting on folks so they know they will have no protection when breaking in etc...
yeah if it passes hope some folks come back with some insane lawsuits etc..
its coming apart for sure
Diamondback
08-08-19, 03:55
if it passes can see many criminals ratting on folks so they know they will have no protection when breaking in etc...
yeah if it passes hope some folks come back with some insane lawsuits etc..
its coming apart for sure
I've always similarly told every Elmer Fudd I encounter, "you throw me under the bus I IMMEDIATELY rat you out in return. I Lose You Lose..."
I have a question. Who do we support in upcoming elections?
Dan Crenshaw was once seen as an advocate for gun owners.
Now he is advocating Red Flag laws.
So do we not support him in the next election and help a candidate who is probably far more antigun get elected?
Same for the President considering how far left the candidates who support him are.
My fear is that if we wait for candidates who pure enough in supporting gun rights we will have very few gun rights left.
None of them.
They destroy your culture, destroy your history, replace you in your own home, and rob you in taxes.
We go.opposite. We start voting SO FAR LEFT that we put Joe Middle Class into the shit. Because all these Republicans have to do is say God, Guns, and Family to get free votes. No. We totally vote Communist Left and let the Pol Pot wannabes in.
When Grandma gets told she has to die because she is too old, and Joe Sixpack gets taxed to hell and gone then REAL change will happen.
I WANT door to door confiscations. I WANT more innocemt elderly men shot dead in their homes over inanimate deviced. I WANT dogs shot and trampled. I WANT kids ripped from.their parents. I WANT a fire lit under some asses and I want it to hurt.
Because I been reading a lot of cuckery here lately. The way I see it....we finally are in a cyberpunk dystopia of corrupt politicians, overpowered corporations ruling your daily lives, no one to trust, and cheapened life.
Wake the fvck up, Samurai.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igq3d6XA75Y
Serious question. Serious, real question.
How does it feel knowing all these Democrats are American Jews? Ironic isnt it? They cry in "fear" as they set out to imprison and kill you and never waste a "crisis".
Do you feel betrayed? I would.
At some point we must break from our tribes to find our real homes.
I have been through that myself. And it hurt at first until it didnt.
It isn't "all" who are hard leftists are Jews, but the ones who are (along with blacks, Daniel Inouyes, and any others intimately familiar with a .gov screwing) really do hit the WTF buzzer when they show themselves to be statists.
That is the #2 reason (the main one, and only one necessary, being it isn't kosher per the Constitution) I am opposed to foreign aid/foreign interventionusm. Playing odds based on historical events, any success in aiding Group A because they are getting oppressed by Group B is more than likely going to end with Group B becoming the oppressor.
Serious question. Serious, real question.
How does it feel knowing all these Democrats are American Jews? Ironic isnt it? They cry in "fear" as they set out to imprison and kill you and never waste a "crisis".
Do you feel betrayed? I would.
At some point we must break from our tribes to find our real homes.
I have been through that myself. And it hurt at first until it didnt.
UNDERSTAND they are no longer Jews!
They are people of Jewish descent but they sure as hell aren't Jews. They are kapos!
They have replaced Torah with "ism's" socialism, communism, liberalism. etc
The Orthodox Jewish community votes Republican and love Trump by about 70%. This is my tribe.
I am not sure any other group has such high support for the President.
Adrenaline_6
08-08-19, 07:47
Serious question. Serious, real question.
How does it feel knowing all these Democrats are American Jews? Ironic isnt it? They cry in "fear" as they set out to imprison and kill you and never waste a "crisis".
Do you feel betrayed? I would.
At some point we must break from our tribes to find our real homes.
I have been through that myself. And it hurt at first until it didnt.
I'm right there with you man.
Right now, "dig in" seems to mean "do nothing." Do nothing because everything is doomed to fail, so why even try? What do we say to someone who asks us what our suggestions are for curbing this mass shooting problem? Because "F**k you, not my problem" is not going to be an acceptable answer to anyone, and they're just going to turn to the socialist left, who will say, "assault weapon bans, hi-cap mag bans, no more gun show loophole..." Who is the uneducated layperson going to listen to and side with? The people who seem to have ideas about how to tackle this problem, or the apathetic curmudgeon who doesn't seem to give a shit about how many are killed so long as it doesn't affect him?
We need to offer solutions. They don't have to work. The left knows gun bans are not going to work, and if anything, are going to make the problem worse. Just do the same thing they do, only for things that will help us and appear to be tackling the problem. We're going to lose everything if we continue to appear that we don't care and aren't going to do anything.
1) Direct them to the court cases clearly stating police are not on the hook to protect them.
2) Direct them to the back stories on many (possibly a majority) of the shooters that they were known to authorities for making death threats long before they made good on it, yet typically nothing was done to them.
3) Most people allegedly like empowerment. Point out that arming themselves is exactly that. Not perfect or a guarantee of safety, but is better than being prey to the facts of #1 & #2 while pointing out all of the lies they are inundated with relating to 1 & 2.
Outlander Systems
08-08-19, 08:11
I've got to back Yonster up on this one. The diaspora team ain't the same as the home team.
UNDERSTAND they are no longer Jews!
They are people of Jewish descent but they sure as hell aren't Jews. They are kapos!
They have replaced Torah with "ism's" socialism, communism, liberalism. etc
The Orthodox Jewish community votes Republican and love Trump by about 70%. This is my tribe.
I am not sure any other group has such high support for the President.
if it passes can see many criminals ratting on folks so they know they will have no protection when breaking in etc...
yeah if it passes hope some folks come back with some insane lawsuits etc..
its coming apart for sure
Are the red flag laws not limited by who can report or seek the court order?
In Indiana, only LEOs can petition. Oregon is limited to family members.
There is plenty of concerns about the red flag laws. But, criminals filing false reports to disarm intended victims is a bit out there. Is a criminal really going to go to court, file out the petition in his name/address/etc., be sworn, and give testimony to a judge to set up a robbery?
https://i.imgur.com/scKJMGq.jpg?1
Are the red flag laws not limited by who can report or seek the court order?
In Indiana, only LEOs can petition. Oregon is limited to family members.
There is plenty of concerns about the red flag laws. But, criminals filing false reports to disarm intended victims is a bit out there. Is a criminal really going to go to court, file out the petition in his name/address/etc., be sworn, and give testimony to a judge to set up a robbery?
Ignoring the fact that many people get robbed or assaulted by nefarious family members, the usual suspects want to expand who may report.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/donald-trump-is-right-to-call-for-red-flag-laws/
"It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people who have direct interaction with the respondent (close relatives, members of their household, employers, educators)."
And once again, nothing to separate the scary person from society or from access to every other means of harming themselves or others. Simply gun grabbing.
Also, the article linked above goes on to claim the lead up activities of mass shooters would be grounds for stopping them via red flag lawa, but (this is where the author lies or acts as a shill/useful idiot for liars) current laws can do nothing and goes on to give an example of the Dayton shooter making death threats. The only problem with their claims we need red flag laws and using Dayton turd as an example is:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2903.22
I have a question. Who do we support in upcoming elections?
Dan Crenshaw was once seen as an advocate for gun owners.
Now he is advocating Red Flag laws.
So do we not support him in the next election and help a candidate who is probably far more antigun get elected?
Same for the President considering how far left the candidates who support him are.
My fear is that if we wait for candidates who pure enough in supporting gun rights we will have very few gun rights left.
I guess it depends on where you are. The Rep I have now is far too soft on gun legislation. I'll vote for his opponent in the primary and won't vote for him if he makes it on the general ballot, but either him or his more conservative opponent will win my district regardless.
As for Trump, he signs a bad gun law and he can go piss up a rope. I'd rather watch him lose and hasten the impending battle, than let him screw me without a reacharound. :mad:
I've always similarly told every Elmer Fudd I encounter, "you throw me under the bus I IMMEDIATELY rat you out in return. I Lose You Lose..."
Excellent retort, I'm gonna use that! :cool:
So your answer is to help people like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC get elected?
By the time candidates who are gun-rights enough run for office, there may be almost no gun rights to protect.
None of them.
They destroy your culture, destroy your history, replace you in your own home, and rob you in taxes.
We go.opposite. We start voting SO FAR LEFT that we put Joe Middle Class into the shit. Because all these Republicans have to do is say God, Guns, and Family to get free votes. No. We totally vote Communist Left and let the Pol Pot wannabes in.
When Grandma gets told she has to die because she is too old, and Joe Sixpack gets taxed to hell and gone then REAL change will happen.
I WANT door to door confiscations. I WANT more innocemt elderly men shot dead in their homes over inanimate deviced. I WANT dogs shot and trampled. I WANT kids ripped from.their parents. I WANT a fire lit under some asses and I want it to hurt.
Because I been reading a lot of cuckery here lately. The way I see it....we finally are in a cyberpunk dystopia of corrupt politicians, overpowered corporations ruling your daily lives, no one to trust, and cheapened life.
Wake the fvck up, Samurai.....
MountainRaven
08-09-19, 00:30
So your answer is to help people like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC get elected?
By the time candidates who are gun-rights enough run for office, there may be almost no gun rights to protect.
That seems to be the way it is, no matter who you vote for.
Here is Dan Crenshaw on Louder with Crowder. He discusses:
- Why the AR-15 is the ideal home defense tool
- What the TAPS Act does (gives $ to local law enforcement for threat assessment)
- Red Flag Laws
The discussion on Red Flag Laws is really interesting. Steven Crowder asks tough questions which Crenshaw doesn’t dodge. He does make several good points, among them is the fact that there is a conversation that needs to be had about RFL. Conservatives need to be involved in that conversation to ensure that any law includes clear language that safe guards due process and protects against abuse. Everyone should listen, it starts at the 42:00 min mark.
To be clear, I don’t support red flag laws.
https://youtu.be/m_EeFzR_yAA
Here is Dan Crenshaw on Louder with Crowder. He discusses:
- Why the AR-15 is the ideal home defense tool
- What the TAPS Act does (gives $ to local law enforcement for threat assessment)
- Red Flag Laws
The discussion on Red Flag Laws is really interesting. Steven Crowder asks tough questions which Crenshaw doesn’t dodge. He does make several good points, among them is the fact that there is a conversation that needs to be had about RFL. Conservatives need to be involved in that conversation to ensure that any law includes clear language that safe guards due process and protects against abuse. Everyone should listen, it starts at the 42:00 min mark.
https://youtu.be/m_EeFzR_yAA
This was actually a very good interview with Dan Crenshaw. I don't support Red Flag laws.
Dan Crenshaw said he was against some of the things that are part of red flag laws. He said that there should be "multiple points of evidence." It can't be just one person's testimony. There has to be actual evidence presented and it has to be clear and convincing. There should also be punishment for false claims. He thought that the only people who should be able have standing to be able to present evidence to the judge should be the police. He also thought that there should be due process, with the person accused be able represent himself and even have a lawyer to argue his case back at the hearing.
This differs with a lot of red flag laws that are on the books and being proposed.
Diamondback
08-10-19, 03:47
This was actually a very good interview with Dan Crenshaw. I don't support Red Flag laws.
Dan Crenshaw said he was against some of the things that are part of red flag laws. He said that there should be "multiple points of evidence." It can't be just one person's testimony. There has to be actual evidence presented and it has to be clear and convincing. There should also be punishment for false claims. He thought that the only people who should be able have standing to be able to present evidence to the judge should be the police. He also thought that there should be due process, with the person accused be able represent himself and even have a lawyer to argue his case back at the hearing.
This differs with a lot of red flag laws that are on the books and being proposed.
This version sounds almost reasonable, unlike ANYTHING those pinko Commie shitheads on Team Jackass would accept.
Here’s a list of safeguards that must be included according to representative Crenshaw
* Petitions initiated by law enforcement, not by spurned dating partners or relationships from long ago.
* Ex parte hearings only when there is proof of necessity.
* Proof by clear and convincing evidence, which has been corroborated.
* Guarantees of all due process rights, including cross-examination and right to counsel.
* Court-appointed counsel if the respondent so wishes.
* A civil remedy for victims of false and malicious petitions.
* Safe and orderly procedures for relinquishment of firearms.
* Strict controls on no-knock raids.
* Storage of relinquished firearms by responsible third parties.
* Prompt restoration of concealed carry permits for the falsely accused.
* Prompt return of firearms upon the termination of an order.
* Renewal of orders based on presentation of clear and convincing proof.
* Not allowing time-limited orders to be bootstrapped into lifetime federal prohibition.
What Dan leaves out is what happens to the violent person if his weapons are confiscated. A violent person will be violent; they don’t need guns. That violence has become merely a “gun” discussion shows how well the propaganda has sunk into even the liberty minded “leaders.”
Here’s a list of safeguards that must be included according to representative Crenshaw
* Petitions initiated by law enforcement, not by spurned dating partners or relationships from long ago.
* Ex parte hearings only when there is proof of necessity.
* Proof by clear and convincing evidence, which has been corroborated.
* Guarantees of all due process rights, including cross-examination and right to counsel.
* Court-appointed counsel if the respondent so wishes.
* A civil remedy for victims of false and malicious petitions.
* Safe and orderly procedures for relinquishment of firearms.
* Strict controls on no-knock raids.
* Storage of relinquished firearms by responsible third parties.
* Prompt restoration of concealed carry permits for the falsely accused.
* Prompt return of firearms upon the termination of an order.
* Renewal of orders based on presentation of clear and convincing proof.
* Not allowing time-limited orders to be bootstrapped into lifetime federal prohibition.
That will not be part of any bill the Democrats would pass. They want guilty until proven innocent.
Whiskey_Bravo
08-10-19, 17:13
Here’s a list of safeguards that must be included according to representative Crenshaw
* Petitions initiated by law enforcement, not by spurned dating partners or relationships from long ago.
* Ex parte hearings only when there is proof of necessity.
* Proof by clear and convincing evidence, which has been corroborated.
* Guarantees of all due process rights, including cross-examination and right to counsel.
* Court-appointed counsel if the respondent so wishes.
* A civil remedy for victims of false and malicious petitions.
* Safe and orderly procedures for relinquishment of firearms.
* Strict controls on no-knock raids.
* Storage of relinquished firearms by responsible third parties.
* Prompt restoration of concealed carry permits for the falsely accused.
* Prompt return of firearms upon the termination of an order.
* Renewal of orders based on presentation of clear and convincing proof.
* Not allowing time-limited orders to be bootstrapped into lifetime federal prohibition.
If this is what they are looking at I could almost stand behind it. There are cases( Florida school shooter) where the police know there are issues. But if their guns are taken other action needs to be taken. Admission into a mental facility, etc. If not what is the point? A crazy person will be crazy and if they don't have a gun they will use gas, bombs, or a truck.
Any law with the above would have to be written so that it can't grow over time to include other things or relax it's checks. I don't see the democrats going for it.
What Dan leaves out is what happens to the violent person if his weapons are confiscated. A violent person will be violent; they don’t need guns. That violence has become merely a “gun” discussion shows how well the propaganda has sunk into even the liberty minded “leaders.”
There is that. It seems no one wants to address why many of the mass shooters were known to make death threats prior to the shooting without sanctions. Or why they keep claiming red flag laws are needed to deal with people making death threats since there are already laws on the books that take the threat issuer out of circulation.
sundance435
08-10-19, 17:27
Here’s a list of safeguards that must be included according to representative Crenshaw
* Petitions initiated by law enforcement, not by spurned dating partners or relationships from long ago.
* Ex parte hearings only when there is proof of necessity.
* Proof by clear and convincing evidence, which has been corroborated.
* Guarantees of all due process rights, including cross-examination and right to counsel.
* Court-appointed counsel if the respondent so wishes.
* A civil remedy for victims of false and malicious petitions.
* Safe and orderly procedures for relinquishment of firearms.
* Strict controls on no-knock raids.
* Storage of relinquished firearms by responsible third parties.
* Prompt restoration of concealed carry permits for the falsely accused.
* Prompt return of firearms upon the termination of an order.
* Renewal of orders based on presentation of clear and convincing proof.
* Not allowing time-limited orders to be bootstrapped into lifetime federal prohibition.
Pie-in-the-sky, never going to happen. The left won’t allow it.
If this is what they are looking at I could almost stand behind it. There are cases( Florida school shooter) where the police know there are issues. But if their guns are taken other action needs to be taken. Admission into a mental facility, etc. If not what is the point? A crazy person will be crazy and if they don't have a gun they will use gas, bombs, or a truck.
Any law with the above would have to be written so that it can't grow over time to include other things or relax it's checks. I don't see the democrats going for it.
Florida had laws against making threats, same as everywhere else.
Perhaps some laws and punishments for dereliction of duty would be more productive than more anti gun nonsense.
Surprised and disappointed. Thought he was one of the goof guys who "gets" it. Apparently not...
Surprised and disappointed. Thought he was one of the goof guys who "gets" it. Apparently not...
Just because he goes counter to your best interests doesn't mean he fails to understand. As I mentioned a few days ago, Daniel Inouye should have been one of the most rabid 2nd Amendment proponents ever, but he was wholly the opposite. He undoubtedly knew what he was doing since he got to see the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment (as stated in founding writings) in Europe and here.
Here’s a list of safeguards that must be included according to representative Crenshaw
* Petitions initiated by law enforcement, not by spurned dating partners or relationships from long ago.
* Ex parte hearings only when there is proof of necessity.
* Proof by clear and convincing evidence, which has been corroborated.
* Guarantees of all due process rights, including cross-examination and right to counsel.
* Court-appointed counsel if the respondent so wishes.
* A civil remedy for victims of false and malicious petitions.
* Safe and orderly procedures for relinquishment of firearms.
* Strict controls on no-knock raids.
* Storage of relinquished firearms by responsible third parties.
* Prompt restoration of concealed carry permits for the falsely accused.
* Prompt return of firearms upon the termination of an order.
* Renewal of orders based on presentation of clear and convincing proof.
* Not allowing time-limited orders to be bootstrapped into lifetime federal prohibition.
Still a hard pass until things are quantified.
Scratch “prompt” and replace with “2 days” for example.
Strict controls on no-knocks?- how about no no-knocks.
Wtf does “strict controls” mean? Its fluff.
He said “should” a lot in his interview, and stated intent but not language.
I dgaf what intent is, I care what the law says.
Until we see a real draft- its all BS
Also, as said, still will not actually matter, it a win for gov and lose for the people.
Stop trying to appease the far left, Dan.
To Dan’s credit, he has clarified that he is inviting a conversation. He has not written or sponsored any bills. He wants input and wants to see the discussion from liberty minded people as a counter to what the progressives have passed and continue to propose.
Voice your concern to HIM. He claims to be listening and reading from the people who send more than stupid memes. It just may offer some clarity and critique that will give him insights on the national stage.
I still stand by what I said above. I also think we all need to be more proactive.
Diamondback
08-10-19, 22:58
So purely amongst ourselves, here's the deal I'd push for if we had REASONABLE people who can act like HUMAN ****ING BEINGS rather than a troop of baboons on the other side of the table...
UBC's:
4473 greatly simplified. Name, address, DL #, optional space for SSN/UPIN. No firearm data collected.
No waiting periods except in Delay or appealing Deny--iron goes home as soon immediately upon a Proceed.
1-800 number or mobile app where anyone can call in a check; alternately go with IIRC Steyr's Livescan-based BGC idea.
Red Flags:
Most all restrictions above
False red-flag filers REQUIRED to be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law, ZERO prosecutorial discretion.
In return for all of these:
Sporting Purposes clause repealed.
MG Registry reopened.
SBR/SBS's and Suppressors removed from NFA--Tittle II reduced to MG's, Destructive Devices and Disguised Firearms ONLY.
Significant curtailment or elimination of Victim Disarmament Zones.
Most of all: NATIONWIDE CARRY or No Deal.
If you wanna add more for our side of the ledger feel free, this is just my personal bare minimum "I get this or you can go take a fat one up the ass and die of AIDS" position as of this moment... gimme five minutes and I'll probably have more Non-Negotiables.
BoringGuy45
08-11-19, 07:47
All this looks good to me.
So purely amongst ourselves, here's the deal I'd push for if we had REASONABLE people who can act like HUMAN ****ING BEINGS rather than a troop of baboons on the other side of the table...
UBC's:
4473 greatly simplified. Name, address, DL #, optional space for SSN/UPIN. No firearm data collected.
No waiting periods except in Delay or appealing Deny--iron goes home as soon immediately upon a Proceed.
1-800 number or mobile app where anyone can call in a check; alternately go with IIRC Steyr's Livescan-based BGC idea.
Red Flags:
Most all restrictions above
False red-flag filers REQUIRED to be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law, ZERO prosecutorial discretion.
In return for all of these:
Sporting Purposes clause repealed.
MG Registry reopened.
SBR/SBS's and Suppressors removed from NFA--Tittle II reduced to MG's, Destructive Devices and Disguised Firearms ONLY.
Significant curtailment or elimination of Victim Disarmament Zones.
Most of all: NATIONWIDE CARRY or No Deal.
If you wanna add more for our side of the ledger feel free, this is just my personal bare minimum "I get this or you can go take a fat one up the ass and die of AIDS" position as of this moment... gimme five minutes and I'll probably have more Non-Negotiables.
I hope you sent this to Crenshaw and everyone else.
Never have figured out why anyone is remotely ok with a special tax on weaponry while the 1st Amendment recognizes a special tax on paper is a violation.
Kinda wonder why TN gave up on this violation fairly easy though.
https://youtu.be/8enTHRDq9r8
As if there is going to be any "deal" where we actually get something in return, like nationwide CCW or deregulating SBRs..
The best "deal" we're likely to get is going to be be the same one it always is: "You get to keep what you already have".... until some undetermined point in the future when they decide that's no longer acceptable either.
As if there is going to be any "deal" where we actually get something in return, like nationwide CCW or deregulating SBRs..
The best "deal" we're likely to get is going to be be the same one it always is: "You get to keep what you already have".... until some undetermined point in the future when they decide that's no longer acceptable either.
The point is to flip the script. The left isn’t going to give us adequate constitutional protections and we know it. What we need to do is set this up so that they flatly refuse our offers of “compromise”, then we get to say that not only do they not want to protect the 2nd Amendment, they’re not even all that interested in solving this “problem”.
Put something on they table they can’t swallow and ram it down their throats.
I hope you sent this to Crenshaw and everyone else.
Unless YOU are Crenshaw, they aren't listening. Short of repealing the 2nd, you can NEVER stop all of these evil people from doing evil things. YES, this problem is uniquely American, but the 2nd is uniquely American. What is the solution? I DON'T KNOW. Even if you repeal the 2nd, it will take generations for all of these weapons that have proliferated to be collected. Is that YOU Dan, if so, see below...
As if there is going to be any "deal" where we actually get something in return, like nationwide CCW or deregulating SBRs..
The best "deal" we're likely to get is going to be be the same one it always is: "You get to keep what you already have".... until some undetermined point in the future when they decide that's no longer acceptable either.
THIS is where I am. "Compromise" means that we get something in return. Keeping what you have "for now" is NOT compromise. Trust me, this time, the compromise will be "for now". As I said in another post, we WILL see another AWB with at least a 11+ round magazine confiscation as part of it within the next 10 years. Sure, keep those AR/AKs, but turn in those 11+ round mags right away.
The point is to flip the script. The left isn’t going to give us adequate constitutional protections and we know it. What we need to do is set this up so that they flatly refuse our offers of “compromise”, then we get to say that not only do they not want to protect the 2nd Amendment, they’re not even all that interested in solving this “problem”.
Put something on they table they can’t swallow and ram it down their throats.
Ah, we'll still get painted as unreasonable lunatics just for wanting "anything" in return, let alone national CCW and deregulating NFA stuff.
How dare we try to use this national emergency as leverage to get what we want! And imagine the headlines when the deal falls through because the Dems won't go for it.
"Gun extremists torpedo background checks with insane demand for 'more machine guns"
"Kamala Harris: 'They tried using our children's lives as a bargaining chip!"
I can't imagine how much pressure boys are under these days because they can't be boys anymore... When JFK was shot, they did not blame the gun. The problem ain't the guns. Are you listening Dan???
sundance435
08-11-19, 12:13
I can't imagine how much pressure boys are under these days because they can't be boys anymore... When JFK was shot, they did not blame the gun. The problem ain't the guns. Are you listening Dan???
That’s not necessarily true. Although 5 years late, the JFK assasination was the impetus for the GCA of ‘68. RFK and MLK sealed it. Times may change, but not perceptions. Never mind that the ‘68 GCA preceded a massive surge in violent crime for the next 20 years.
Unless YOU are Crenshaw, they aren't listening. Short of repealing the 2nd, you can NEVER stop all of these evil people from doing evil things. YES, this problem is uniquely American, but the 2nd is uniquely American. What is the solution? I DON'T KNOW. Even if you repeal the 2nd, it will take generations for all of these weapons that have proliferated to be collected. Is that YOU Dan, if so, see below...
My experience: the gun community has long depended on the NRA to stand for them. That has failed. The gun community likes others to do their work. The gun community likes to sit on their hands and complain that nobody listens. The gun community likes to pretend the constitution protects them while they engage in infighting and idealism. The gun community rarely moves to action, never marches, rarely sends letters or makes calls apart from the scripts the gun lobbies send. The gun community thinks they can just bunker down with a “Yeah right, I’d like to see you try it” and “I’m not giving up anything.” Fudds and freedom-minded curmudgeons are sinking the ship faster than Bloomberg can.
If unified engagement doesn’t work and if no one is listening, please tell the progressives. They make it work and they don’t sit on their hands.
If we expect change, we need to be willing to make an effort beyond masturbatory venting frustration within our own cave.
I’m surprised how malleable politicians are these days to pressure from their constituents. I follow a politically active people on social media who show up at the representative’s office to talk, who organize public hearings, to canvas streets. They get little support on the ground. Gun owners don’t show up to events. When they do they look like a hodgepodge of stereotypes that plays against them. If we dedicated 10 years to form a grassroots groundswell of clearheaded, civilized action, unifying with those doing the work and clarifying the message, I know we’d see real change for freedom.
If that didn’t work, I’ll say it’s all pointless. But defeatism is not the countenance of free men.
How dedicated are M4C members to this effort? From what I’ve seen the last decade, very little. Money and mouth are in different places.
Diamondback
08-11-19, 15:18
My experience: the gun community has long depended on the NRA to stand for them. That has failed. The gun community likes others to do their work. The gun community likes to sit on their hands and complain that nobody listens. The gun community likes to pretend the constitution protects them while they engage in infighting and idealism. The gun community rarely moves to action, never marches, rarely sends letters or makes calls apart from the scripts the gun lobbies send. The gun community thinks they can just bunker down with a “Yeah right, I’d like to see you try it” and “I’m not giving up anything.” Fudds and freedom-minded curmudgeons are sinking the ship faster than Bloomberg can.
If unified engagement doesn’t work and if no one is listening, please tell the progressives. They make it work and they don’t sit on their hands.
If we expect change, we need to be willing to make an effort beyond masturbatory venting frustration within our own cave.
I’m surprised how malleable politicians are these days to pressure from their constituents. I follow a politically active people on social media who show up at the representative’s office to talk, who organize public hearings, to canvas streets. They get little support on the ground. Gun owners don’t show up to events. When they do they look like a hodgepodge of stereotypes that plays against them. If we dedicated 10 years to form a grassroots groundswell of clearheaded, civilized action, unifying with those doing the work and clarifying the message, I know we’d see real change for freedom.
If that didn’t work, I’ll say it’s all pointless. But defeatism is not the countenance of free men.
How dedicated are M4C members to this effort? From what I’ve seen the last decade, very little. Money and mouth are in different places.
This describes most of the entire spectrum of so-called "conservative activists," in my experience. Scott Adams called it:
http://slideplayer.com/slide/7041635/24/images/44/Change+is+good%E2%80%A6+You+go+first!.jpg
Diamondback
08-11-19, 15:42
The point is to flip the script. The left isn’t going to give us adequate constitutional protections and we know it. What we need to do is set this up so that they flatly refuse our offers of “compromise”, then we get to say that not only do they not want to protect the 2nd Amendment, they’re not even all that interested in solving this “problem”.
Put something on they table they can’t swallow and ram it down their throats.
You're being merciful... I'm thinking more "ram it so far up their ass it knocks out teeth." :)
Diamondback
08-11-19, 19:33
All this looks good to me.
I hope you sent this to Crenshaw and everyone else.
Thanks for the votes of confidence, guys. What else could we pile on for serious Playing Offense?
Maybe...
Mandatory basic-safety education in schools--Eddie Eagle/Four Rules stuff
What else?
titsonritz
08-12-19, 02:38
Crenshaw's statement (not sure how to embed it). Sounds like he is get a lot of push back, good I say, they need to hear loud and clear people are sick of this shit.
https://www.facebook.com/RepDanCrenshaw/videos/vb.281956319183075/788689238200170/?type=2&theater
My experience: the gun community has long depended on the NRA to stand for them. That has failed. The gun community likes others to do their work. The gun community likes to sit on their hands and complain that nobody listens. The gun community likes to pretend the constitution protects them while they engage in infighting and idealism. The gun community rarely moves to action, never marches, rarely sends letters or makes calls apart from the scripts the gun lobbies send. The gun community thinks they can just bunker down with a “Yeah right, I’d like to see you try it” and “I’m not giving up anything.” Fudds and freedom-minded curmudgeons are sinking the ship faster than Bloomberg can.
If unified engagement doesn’t work and if no one is listening, please tell the progressives. They make it work and they don’t sit on their hands.
If we expect change, we need to be willing to make an effort beyond masturbatory venting frustration within our own cave.
I’m surprised how malleable politicians are these days to pressure from their constituents. I follow a politically active people on social media who show up at the representative’s office to talk, who organize public hearings, to canvas streets. They get little support on the ground. Gun owners don’t show up to events. When they do they look like a hodgepodge of stereotypes that plays against them. If we dedicated 10 years to form a grassroots groundswell of clearheaded, civilized action, unifying with those doing the work and clarifying the message, I know we’d see real change for freedom.
If that didn’t work, I’ll say it’s all pointless. But defeatism is not the countenance of free men.
How dedicated are M4C members to this effort? From what I’ve seen the last decade, very little. Money and mouth are in different places.
Concerning the NRA, I get what you are saying to an extent, but that is the service they claim to offer(& we hear the same on the GOP). I can't think of any other business where the customer is somehow considered to not be trying hard enough and/or flat out in the wrong if the service rendered is less than advertised. Another catch is, NRA from day one has been about boosting federal authority being formed by Union officers. This is summarized by:
"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22
Progressives want more .gov and less personal freedom (other than lgbtq?...and that may change based on historical references of how totalitarian states typically handle that section of society.) Even if everyone(100%) showed up at a firearms event wearing tuxedos either no images would be shown or something negative would be made up. Go research extra footage of gay events that won't be shown on mainstream news, but does certainly fit the stereotype for an example. While in college I was attending a firearms/liberty group meeting and ended up sitting beside a school news paper reporter who left with an empty notebook, but somehow managed to write an article full of direct quotes that were never said.
Fudds and many others allegedly in the 2nd Amendment community aren't really 2nd Amendment advocates since they are statists that use guns purely for sport or occasionally the possibility (or in some cases, hope) they can get some reason to light up some segment of society they dislike.
Same firearms/liberty group mentioned earlier held a larger meeting in an election year that included political candidates. The first speakers gave lip service to smaller .gov/more liberty, but then would go on to detail lots of statist utopian ideas on what they really wantex and the crowd ate it up. Then one of the higher ups from GOA at the time (was making appearances on national news) didn't stop at lip service and well over half the crowd left before he was finished with his allotted time.
On a similar note, searching for Tennessee's repeal of their sin tax on ammo (T. Rex Arms has a video on it they recently released) has fudds all kind of pissed because they felt benefit from it. They may view people who buy more than a box of ammo every 3 years with contempt, but they sure don't like it when they can't use shooters which is something I and others have seen at private shooting ranges as well.
https://youtu.be/MIWrmgPNUqQ
https://youtu.be/MIWrmgPNUqQ
Post vids so we can see the thumb :)
https://youtu.be/MIWrmgPNUqQ
Pirate Dan is a politician.
Politicians are shitbags.
Therefore, Pirate Dan is a shitbag.
QED.
Someone ask him what he was fighting for if he is just going to come home and give it up for nothing.
Politicians are not one of us, doesn't matter if you are a Ranger, Seal, Delta or lost an eye or a leg in battle. Once your elected to office, you are above everyone else.
Averageman
08-24-19, 10:45
Just a personal experience from a while back.
When my ex gave birth, her sister came to live with us to help take care of my Son. The Oklahoma bombing happened within weeks of me cutting off her phone privileges because she rang up $500.00 phone bills two months in a row.
Remember the "other" guy who the feds were looking for?
Guess who got turned in as a suspect? Wonder why?
58565
Dan is dead to me.
Meeting with those hags legitimizes then. Not good.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-24-19, 14:39
58565
Dan is dead to me.
Meeting with those hags legitimizes then. Not good.
MEh. If you don't meet with them, you are then a coward who won't face them. The MSM sanctifies, let alone legitimizes them.
Belmont31R
08-24-19, 20:33
After listening to him on Joe Rogan, unless he was lying, I don't think he's switched sides or supports gun control. He was more interested in the 'why' and 'how' type questions because most of these killers fit a certain profile or many attributes of the 'disgruntled outcast with prior mental health issues' variety.
Having family and friends with mental health issues I can tell you 100% mental healthcare in this country sucks, and the media is one of the biggest recipients of Pharma ad dollars so the correlation between prior or current meds never get traction. Its not video games or access to firearms. These guys sit alone with no GF and no purpose until they snap and actually getting help is hard. You have to pay out of pocket for counseling/sessions and the meds they do give out can permanently alter your brain chemistry. Theres no magic pill out there that turns someone from an angry loser who can't get laid and/or has a fatalistic view of society into a functioning human who won't be a threat for self harm or harm to others.
Infringing on the rights of millions who don't fall into the threat category isn't going to work, though. We all know that but email or call your Rep's and Senators weekly to keep the pressure up. Most of these are fielded by staffers and get filed into a category the member will get briefed on. Make it short and don't give them a diatribe or wall of text. The staffers try to get through them as quickly as possible and they're looking for 'for or against' succinct messages.
After listening to him on Joe Rogan, unless he was lying, I don't think he's switched sides or supports gun control. He was more interested in the 'why' and 'how' type questions because most of these killers fit a certain profile or many attributes of the 'disgruntled outcast with prior mental health issues' variety.
Having family and friends with mental health issues I can tell you 100% mental healthcare in this country sucks, and the media is one of the biggest recipients of Pharma ad dollars so the correlation between prior or current meds never get traction. Its not video games or access to firearms. These guys sit alone with no GF and no purpose until they snap and actually getting help is hard. You have to pay out of pocket for counseling/sessions and the meds they do give out can permanently alter your brain chemistry. Theres no magic pill out there that turns someone from an angry loser who can't get laid and/or has a fatalistic view of society into a functioning human who won't be a threat for self harm or harm to others.
Infringing on the rights of millions who don't fall into the threat category isn't going to work, though. We all know that but email or call your Rep's and Senators weekly to keep the pressure up. Most of these are fielded by staffers and get filed into a category the member will get briefed on. Make it short and don't give them a diatribe or wall of text. The staffers try to get through them as quickly as possible and they're looking for 'for or against' succinct messages.
A lot of people back pedal publicly when what they do pisses people off.
What seems fairly common action among many of the mass killers is that they were known to be making threats up to and including the death variety, but it didn't seem to cause them any legal trouble. Meanwhile, it also isn't unusual for people who aren't a danger and make threats off the cuff or even joking to end up in the legal system. Might be worth trying to figure out why the serious ones dont seem to be getting many legal entanglements from their violent version of crazy.
Belmont31R
08-24-19, 21:30
A lot of people back pedal publicly when what they do pisses people off.
What seems fairly common action among many of the mass killers is that they were known to be making threats up to and including the death variety, but it didn't seem to cause them any legal trouble. Meanwhile, it also isn't unusual for people who aren't a danger and make threats off the cuff or even joking to end up in the legal system. Might be worth trying to figure out why the serious ones dont seem to be getting many legal entanglements from their violent version of crazy.
The 1A is one of the most protected rights we have, and there have been court cases where even threats or incitement of violence are ruled ok as long as there's no imminent action. So it's really hard to roll people up for making vague threats online because a lot of it is protected speech. Add to that there's untold number of 'threats' posted online every single day, and there's just not enough resources to follow up and investigate the vast majority. Only the most specific and imminent of threats really will get looked at, and even then the file might sit on a desk for days/weeks/months before action is taken.
Then you have to work with the tech co's to get IP logs and user data which may or may not be evidence of anything. Its just a ton of work to investigate threats made online and actually get to a conviction that would rise to a felony level of making someone a prohibited person.
I think it is extremely difficult to prevent violent crime by first time offenders without becoming an Orwellian society. There is always risk in a free society and first time offenders is one of them.
But, I do think we gloss over many lesser crimes that had the subject been suffering some appropriate consequences along the way might have deterred him from escalating or at least reduced his time out roaming free.
And we need a better way to intervene with mental illness when it leads down these paths of violence. Most mentally ill fo not go on rampages but I find it hard to believe there are no reliable indicators before a killing occurs. Many of them seem to be withdrawn and caught up in violent fantasy. But even families have been prevented from intervening u til something terrible happens.
The 1A is one of the most protected rights we have, and there have been court cases where even threats or incitement of violence are ruled ok as long as there's no imminent action. So it's really hard to roll people up for making vague threats online because a lot of it is protected speech. Add to that there's untold number of 'threats' posted online every single day, and there's just not enough resources to follow up and investigate the vast majority. Only the most specific and imminent of threats really will get looked at, and even then the file might sit on a desk for days/weeks/months before action is taken.
Then you have to work with the tech co's to get IP logs and user data which may or may not be evidence of anything. Its just a ton of work to investigate threats made online and actually get to a conviction that would rise to a felony level of making someone a prohibited person.
I can assure you I was not now, nor will I ever be, interested in creating a "prohibited person." If someone is safe enough to be out running around then they are certainly safe enough to have a firearm considering there are plenty of ways to create death and destruction by way of items that do not require a 4473.
Not all of the threats were made online and making threats, even as hyperbole, is a common way to end up in court.
But assuming there is a lack of Interest in investigating and Prosecuting death threats, why are red flag laws going to suddenly cause people to start wanting to do the jobs they were supposed to be doing the whole time?
Belmont31R
08-24-19, 22:31
I can assure you I was not now, nor will I ever be, interested in creating a "prohibited person." If someone is safe enough to be out running around then they are certainly safe enough to have a firearm considering there are plenty of ways to create death and destruction by way of items that do not require a 4473.
Not all of the threats were made online and making threats, even as hyperbole, is a common way to end up in court.
But assuming there is a lack of Interest in investigating and Prosecuting death threats, why are red flag laws going to suddenly cause people to start wanting to do the jobs they were supposed to be doing the whole time?
I don't disagree with you just pointing out that 'online death threats' aren't something that's routinely prosecuted to start a criminal record on people, and even then the odds of getting a felony for posting stupid shit online is basically zero.
Red flag laws will give heavily abused, and there's already a process in the majority of state's to commit someone where they should legally get flagged. Its basically just a buzzword the left came up with get a way for gun owners to get their property taken away because 'someone said something'.
Belmont31R
08-24-19, 22:34
I think it is extremely difficult to prevent violent crime by first time offenders without becoming an Orwellian society. There is always risk in a free society and first time offenders is one of them.
But, I do think we gloss over many lesser crimes that had the subject been suffering some appropriate consequences along the way might have deterred him from escalating or at least reduced his time out roaming free.
And we need a better way to intervene with mental illness when it leads down these paths of violence. Most mentally ill fo not go on rampages but I find it hard to believe there are no reliable indicators before a killing occurs. Many of them seem to be withdrawn and caught up in violent fantasy. But even families have been prevented from intervening u til something terrible happens.
Exactly. Aside from gun owners you can't turn people dealing with mental health issues into 2nd class citizens because people won't see help, and mass punishment or restricting their rights is unconstitutional. A depressed person is not on the same level as someone who is a ward of the state or some form of retardation from birth that qualifies for permanent disability/care.
I just don't like the way they give criminals so much weight and power to forward their political means.
No politician wants you armed. To be armed is to be independent.
Someone totally blackpilled me by using Christian music. Like let me explain.
He was playing some Christian rock from the 90s and it sounded edgy and raw instrumental wise. Then he said "pay attention to the lyrics" and it was Christian themed. Okay cool. Then he says "If they replaced Jesus and Lord with Baby and Girl....they'd be indistinguishable"
And then he says.....Republicans do the same thing. Replace anything they say about God and Freedom with Public and Responsibility and they say the exact same things.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.