Why the Red Flag idea is bad... on so many levels

[TurtleDude]

Limit magazines. Trigger guards. Background checks, ten day waiting period, ban assault weapons, again. There's a few idea for ya'.

unconstitutional nonsense designed purely to harass gun owners. What is an assault weapon? its whatever liberals are currently trying to ban.

 

[bongsaway]

unconstitutional nonsense designed purely to harass gun owners. What is an assault weapon? its whatever liberals are currently trying to ban.

Really? That's what you think it's all about? If a mass shooting of young kids in school doesn't change the hearts of people and all you can say is it's to harass gun owners, there's really nothing left to say to you or folks who think like you.

Your gun rights in your head seems to supersede mass slaughters and all you folks can say is oh well don't bother us with your problems.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

2nd Amendment: the right to keep and bear arms is being infringed.

4th Amendment: no warrant will be issued.

5th Amendment: there's no due process.

6th Amendment: the accused won't get a trial, nor be able to face his accuser.

You shouldn't get into discussions about things which you're clueless of.

LOL! So, IOW, you cannot cite anything about this that demostrates your asinine claim.

SO good watching you crash and burn again.

 

[Bullseye]

Limit magazines. Trigger guards. Background checks, ten day waiting period, ban assault weapons, again. There's a few idea for ya'.

So, same ol' mantras. :roll:

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Your first sentence describes the laws as they exist today. Meaning simply...we dont need more laws. We need effective execution of existing laws.

Why not enforce existing laws and be willing to discuss other measures that could save lives?

 

[bongsaway]

So, same ol' mantras. :roll:

And the same old answer, hell no.

 

[PirateMk1]

Cool, be at your house in ten minutes with my tank. Be home.

Really, I get a live target to practice on? I have Javelin with custom programing I have dying to test on something substantial and maneuvering. Thank you dude. I will be waiting for you to swing by. Shall I give warning or shoot first?:twisted:

 

[VanceMack]

Why not enforce existing laws and be willing to discuss other measures that could save lives?

Are you really a fan of just passing more laws for the sake of passing more laws?

And I didnt see if you answered this before, but what if you still believe they should have their guns seized because they are or were a threat to themselves or others? DO you take away their cars? Bats? Knives? Chemicals? Access to rental vehicles? Access to children? I still think it is very telling that most people will have no problem saying "oh...they are dangerous! they could hurt someone! Take their guns!" but then when asked about other means to kill themselves or others they discount that notion..."dont be silly...take away their cars? Remove the children from their home? Why on earth would you remove their children just because you have determined they are a threat to themselves or others???"

Because then it is obviously all about just passing new laws that can be used against citizens and has nothing to do with saving lives.

 

[apdst]

Limit magazines. Trigger guards. Background checks, ten day waiting period, ban assault weapons, again. There's a few idea for ya'.

Trigger guards are standard on all guns. :lamo

 

[Bullseye]

And the same old answer, hell no.

magazine capacity depends on someone brave enough to face an armed lunatic, trigger guard? Most guns used in these horrific shooting belong to the shooter so it's likely he would know how to unlock the guard, background checks? We already DO THAT, a vast majority of these horrific shootings are done with guns legally, e.g. background check passed. "Assault weapons ban? They're used in less the 4% of all gun homicides. Got anything else?

 

[bongsaway]

Really, I get a live target to practice on? I have Javelin with custom programing I have dying to test on something substantial and maneuvering. Thank you dude. I will be waiting for you to swing by. Shall I give warning or shoot first?:twisted:

Your choice, whichever makes you feel more comfortable.

 

[bongsaway]

magazine capacity depends on someone brave enough to face an armed lunatic, trigger guard? Most guns used in these horrific shooting belong to the shooter so it's likely he would know how to unlock the guard, background checks? We already DO THAT, a vast majority of these horrific shootings are done with guns legally, e.g. background check passed. "Assault weapons ban? They're used in less the 4% of all gun homicides. Got anything else?

Yes, more mass shootings. How many more do we need before we as a society 'do something'?

 

[Bullseye]

Yes, more mass shootings. How many more do we need before we as a society 'do something'?

We need to find the correct "something to do" not just any trite cliché that comes to mind. While shootings like El Paso, Gilroy or Dayton grab the headlines Chicago or Cleveland have amassed far more gun murders than either or those by a huge factor. And not a single thing you've mentioned will make an ant crap worth of difference. So the question becomes do you want to reduce gun murders or do you just want to eliminate these sensationalized incidents?

 

[PirateMk1]

Your choice, whichever makes you feel more comfortable.

Excellent you sound like the type who just loves surprises. I will be waiting.

 

[poweRob]

Reporting on people to take away their guns is a bad idea because:

1. Leftist judges have proven themselves to be highly political.

a) The FISA court revealed judges cannot be trusted. They’ve been abused by Comey and his FBI and have done nothing in response.

b) Obama judges have been acting regularly to usurp the Trump administration.

Leftist judges have damaged the trust.


2. This is a first step to gun confiscation.

If you want to remove guns from law abiding citizens, then pass an amendment to the Constitution.


3. I can see Leftists abusing this and clogging the courts with bogus claims. It is what Leftists do and how they play.


4. We already have laws that prevent mentally unstable people from owning firearms.

Not one proposal being proffered would have stopped either shooter, and it wouldn’t stop the mass shootings in Democrat run cities gone to hell.

**** it... I say take the guns first, go through due process second. Whose with me?

 

[poweRob]

Leftists hate the Constitution because it limits their power. But... they do all they can every day to usurp and pervert it.

Meanwhile, over at America’s well regulated militia...

 

[bongsaway]

We need to find the correct "something to do" not just any trite cliché that comes to mind. While shootings like El Paso, Gilroy or Dayton grab the headlines Chicago or Cleveland have amassed far more gun murders than either or those by a huge factor. And not a single thing you've mentioned will make an ant crap worth of difference. So the question becomes do you want to reduce gun murders or do you just want to eliminate these sensationalized incidents?

Both.

 

[bongsaway]

Excellent you sound like the type who just loves surprises. I will be waiting.

Dude, if you have a javelin I'm sure the atf would love to visit you.

 

[PirateMk1]

Dude, if you have a javelin I'm sure the atf would love to visit you.

I am part owner of an aerospace engineering company with government contracts and spot buys. We already have a relationship. Also you can own one if you have the proper stamps and licensing along with legal purchase or in our case given them by the government for experimentation. Believe me the government is very keen on keeping track of their Javelins. When you build toys for the government, one of the benefits is playing with them.

 

[bongsaway]

I am part owner of an aerospace engineering company with government contracts and spot buys. We already have a relationship. Also you can own one if you have the proper stamps and licensing along with legal purchase or in our case given them by the government for experimentation. Believe me the government is very keen on keeping track of their Javelins. When you build toys for the government, one of the benefits is playing with them.

At your house? Just what do you target with your javelin when you're at home?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Are you really a fan of just passing more laws for the sake of passing more laws?

Because then it is obviously all about just passing new laws that can be used against citizens and has nothing to do with saving lives.

^^ Illogical and pointless comments.

And I didnt see if you answered this before, but what if you still believe they should have their guns seized because they are or were a threat to themselves or others? DO you take away their cars? Bats? Knives? Chemicals? Access to rental vehicles? Access to children? I still think it is very telling that most people will have no problem saying "oh...they are dangerous! they could hurt someone! Take their guns!" but then when asked about other means to kill themselves or others they discount that notion..."dont be silly...take away their cars? Remove the children from their home? Why on earth would you remove their children just because you have determined they are a threat to themselves or others???"

You’re playing the same stupid “what about” game that is a favorite of 2A absolutists. Short of locking a person away, there’s no way of removing every possible tool that could be used to harm themselves and/or others. Temporarily removing firearms is arguably the easiest and most efficient means of possibly preventing a suicide or the killing of multiple innocents. And as for removing children, that can be done too by contacting the local CFS.

 

[PirateMk1]

At your house? Just what do you target with your javelin when you're at home?

Good god. You dont have a tank at your house. I dont have Javelins at mine. Play time is done.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The leftists claim conservatives in America are deplorable smelly Wal-Mart shoppers who stupidly cling to God and guns. America does not need democrat Gestapo workers trying to decide if 'crazy' Christians should be allowed to own gunshot not.

Stop trying to perpetuate the false narrative of “God loving, 2A supporting conservatives” vs “atheist, anti-gunner Dems/libs”. It’s a crock of **** obfuscation of the facts. The vast majority of all Americans support mandatory UBC’s and red flag laws. The two initiatives make sense, period.

Folks like you continue to pick at any possible weaknesses, while completely disregarding the potential for saving lives. That is unacceptable.

The Vast Majority of Americans Support Universal Background Checks. Why Doesn’t Congress?
The Vast Majority of Americans Support Universal Background Checks. Why Doesn’t Congress? | The Institute of Politics at Harvard University
“Americans in wide margins agree on and that is the necessity of universal background checks”
“In fact, according to a Public Policy Polling survey, 83 percent of gun owners support expanded background checks on sales of all firearms, including 72 percent of all NRA members. ”

Poll: 97 percent support background checks for all gun buyers
A mostly on target claim: 97 percent of gun owners support universal background checks | PolitiFact Wisconsin
“We found a half dozen national polls that showed support at or near 90 percent. And an October 2017 poll taken by Gallup after Abele made his claim found support at 96 percent.”
“The result was 97 percent support among gun households (as well as 97 percent among all respondents in the poll).”

Fox News Poll: Voters favor gun measures, doubt Congress will act
Fox News Poll: Voters favor gun measures, doubt Congress will act | Fox News
“By a 13-point margin, voters consider protecting against gun violence more important than protecting gun rights (53-40 percent).

In addition, there’s substantial support for specific measures to reduce gun violence, including: requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers (91 percent), requiring mental health checks on all gun buyers (84 percent), raising the age to buy all guns to 21 (72 percent), putting armed guards in schools (69 percent), and banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons (60 percent).”

Growing Wave of Support on Both Sides of the Aisle.' New 'Red Flag' Gun Control Proposal Gains Momentum in Senate
New '''Red Flag''' Gun Control Proposal Gains Momentum in Senate | Time
“Nearly all Senate Democrats support red flag laws, along with a growing number of Republicans, including Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, Indiana’s Mike Braun and Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, a former Judiciary chairman. South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the second-ranking Senate Republican, told the Argus Leader in Sioux Falls that he’s “confident Congress will be able to find common ground on the so-called ‘red flag’ issue.”

An overwhelming majority of Americans favor Extreme Risk laws.
Extreme Risk Laws - EverytownResearch.org
“The emerging body of research shows that Extreme Risk laws work to prevent firearm suicide, and they can also help prevent would-be mass shooters from committing violence. An overwhelming majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle support Extreme Risk laws. In a recent survey, 89 percent of likely voters favored Congress passing an Extreme Risk law.”

 

[VanceMack]

^^ Illogical and pointless comments.


You’re playing the same stupid “what about” game that is a favorite of 2A absolutists. Short of locking a person away, there’s no way of removing every possible tool that could be used to harm themselves and/or others. Temporarily removing firearms is arguably the easiest and most efficient means of possibly preventing a suicide or the killing of multiple innocents. And as for removing children, that can be done too by contacting the local CFS.

Thats what I thought.

So YOU asked for evidence of existing laws that already do what Red Flag laws would do. I gave you the SPECIFIC LAWS in YOUR STATE that already do what red flag laws would do. You still want red flag laws. I ask why you want MORE LAWS when the existing laws already do waht proposed laws would do...and you find that question illogical and pointless. THEN when we discuss the ABSOLUTE REALITY that the people you describe are a threat to themselves or others you just straight up admit what we both already knew.

You dont give a **** about safety. You dont give a **** about saving lives. All you care about is passing another law..another vehicle to attack gun owners.

The only really painful thing was it took us to days to get here.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Thats what I thought.

So YOU asked for evidence of existing laws that already do what Red Flag laws would do. I gave you the SPECIFIC LAWS in YOUR STATE that already do what red flag laws would do. You still want red flag laws. I ask why you want MORE LAWS when the existing laws already do waht proposed laws would do...and you find that question illogical and pointless. THEN when we discuss the ABSOLUTE REALITY that the people you describe are a threat to themselves or others you just straight up admit what we both already knew.

You dont give a **** about safety. You dont give a **** about saving lives. All you care about is passing another law..another vehicle to attack gun owners.

The only really painful thing was it took us to days to get here.

^^ More lying and hypocrisy.

You did not provide me with any law in my state that does the same thing as a red flag law would. You are flat out lying.

What is illogical and stupid is your claim that we already have enough laws on the books. How many laws is irrelevant. What those laws do or don’t do is what matters. If there is a missing element in existing laws to protect our citizens, then the law/s need to be changed or new laws written.

You are one of those who wants Americans to be less safe because you believe fewer restrictions on firearms is more important. Disgraceful.