Political In Support of the 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Political Banter' started by ghost62, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:01 PM.

  1. ghost62

    ghost62 Goes Blip In The Night Staff Member Moderator Vendor Safe Zone Moderator

    Friends-

    Over the past few years as Moderator of VB, I have done my best to uphold the rules that @InMyImage established to make our home here a welcoming place for vapers to share their experiences, their daily lives, their love of vaping and their opinions without fear of condemnation and strong arm tactics employed by other forums to silence those with which they disagree.
    Truth be told, I have felt strongly about some of the issues that members have raised but my position prohibits me from taking sides and I have done my best to remain neutral, only getting involved when a member crosses the line between expressing an opinion and attacking another member.
    That's tough.
    I've had to support positions that I disagree with and admonish people that I consider friends for the sake of impartiality. Perhaps that's why Bill asked me to act in his stead. Dunno, but I take the commitment I made seriously.
    The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is vital to the freedoms that we enjoy as citizens of the greatest country on Earth. We can express our thoughts and beliefs without the fear of being rounded up as dissidents and seek the truth in the face of interest-driven misinformation. We can debate and grow; adopt a different point of view and defend what we believe. We can express views that differ from the official government stance. We can protest and organize and speak out.
    We can make change.
    And we can fight tyranny and oppression.
    That's why I feel so strongly about my support of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the Unites of America.
    The 2nd Amendment protects the rights guaranteed by the 1st.

    Let that sink in.

    Don't skim past that statement. Really stop and think what that means.
    I'll wait.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    *WARNING*
    If you proceed further and you will likely be 'triggered'. I will respect your right to express your views but I expect you to do the same without personal attacks and will likely challenge you to cite examples to support your stance. PLEASE challenge me to support my views with fact. I have no problem with that.
    I pledge to be open-minded, considerate and respectful of your views, I ask you to grant me the same. If you choose not to, understand that it in no way affects my willingness to support your right to express yourself.

    With that, shall we begin...
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  2. ghost62

    ghost62 Goes Blip In The Night Staff Member Moderator Vendor Safe Zone Moderator

    Reduction of violent crime?

    Why such a push for gun control when study after study, stat after stat shows that gun control not only DOES NOT WORK but actually increases the incidents of violent crime?
    Doesn't work? Fewer guns equals less gun violence, right?
    No.
    That concept is based on the fallacy that criminals obey the law. News flash- They don't.
    In reality, violent criminals are, at heart, opportunists and cowards. They will always find a way to obtain a gun to use against their intended victim, legally or illegally. And they target victims with the least opportunity to defend themselves.
    Numerous DOJ, Department of Corrections and university studies have shown that violent criminals do not fear the the police- do not fear incarceration but they DO FEAR the potential of an armed victim.
    So, if gun control doesn't reduce violent crime, why push for it?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  3. ghost62

    ghost62 Goes Blip In The Night Staff Member Moderator Vendor Safe Zone Moderator

    Well, it will reduce the number of gun related deaths.

    Again, no. Kinda.
    D.C., Chicago, St. Louis and New York all have very restrictive gun laws but the incidents of gun related homicides has increased since enacting their laws. Again, criminals don't obey the law.
    The mainstream media pounces all over shootings like El Paso and Dayton but ignores the fact that every week there are dozens of gun related homicides in each of these cities despite their laws.
    Why?
    It doesn't fit with their narrative. I'll go into the complicit role media plays later.
    Australia, Great Britain and New Zealand have put harsh anti-gun laws into effect but have seen no significant drop in firearm homicides. The number of overall homicides has, however, increased. Why? Criminals are emboldened by the laws and feel they will meet with less resistance. Crimes committed with knives, bats, clubs and other weapons are on the rise due to the perception that fewer people have guns. Another failing.
    So, again, if gun laws don't reduce violent crime and show a negative impact on the number of homicides by other means, why push to disarm law abiding citizens?
    (Yes- I ask why a lot. I want you to do the same.)
     
  4. ghost62

    ghost62 Goes Blip In The Night Staff Member Moderator Vendor Safe Zone Moderator

    Protect the children and the innocents

    A rallying cry among gun-grabbers is 'Protect the kids!'
    Total BS.
    The number of privately owned firearms in the United States is just under 16 MILLION, but, on average, less than 50 children under the age of 12 are killed annually by the family gun.
    Let's put that into perspective.
    There are roughly 9 million dogs kept as pets in America (far less than the number of guns) but the number of children killed by them is approximately equal to the number killed by accidental shootings. Where's the outcry?
    Some other numbers:
    60,000 kids are accidentally poisoned per year.
    815 drown every year in the family pool.
    214 die annually in DUI related accidents.
    5 children die EVERY DAY to abuse, that's over 1800 a year.
    2000 are killed in non-alcohol related accents and nearly 250,000 are injured every year.
    3.5 MILLION kids are injured or killed every year playing sports.
    In a related statistic, there are 1.5 million doctors in the U.S. and over 98,000 deaths due to medical malpractice.

    Do the math- for every family gun owned, only 0.000003517% result in the death of a child.
    While I admit that one is too many, it must be balanced against the number of times that a gun is used in self defense. Even the notoriously anti 2A NPR admits that firearms are used to protect families between 2.2 and 2.5 million times a year.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  5. ghost62

    ghost62 Goes Blip In The Night Staff Member Moderator Vendor Safe Zone Moderator

    Gun free zones protect our citizens

    Sorry for expressing an opinion, but this is the dumbest statement ever.
    Gun free zones basically advertise to violent criminals that they will meet with little or no resistance if they decide to go on a shooting spree. Again, study after study has shown that the fear of armed response by the intended victim is what criminals fear the most.
    https://www.wnd.com/2016/06/57-of-criminals-fear-armed-citizens-more-than-cops/
    That's precisely why 98% of mass shootings take place in gun free zones per the Crime Prevention Research Center.
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/2744...hootings-happen-gun-free-amanda-prestigiacomo
    The CDC published results of a study that indicated in 92% of crimes committed when an armed citizen was present, the perpetrator was scared off by merely seeing the gun or a warning shot being fired.
    Criminals are not thwarted by a sign.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019 at 5:39 PM
  6. ghost62

    ghost62 Goes Blip In The Night Staff Member Moderator Vendor Safe Zone Moderator

    Fewer guns make everyone safer

    Nope.
    Women, take this one to heart-
    27% of attempted rapes are successful against an unarmed victim while only 2% are successful when the rapist is confronted with armed resistance.
    Muggings, against males or females, are thwarted 72% of the time when the perpetrator encounters an armed victim.
    Great Britain, with its near total ban on firearms, has 5x the number of property crimes and home invasions than areas in the Unites States with more permissive guns laws.
    Canada, since enacting harsh gun control laws, has seen an increase in violent crime.
    Australia's mandatory gun 'buy back' program had no impact on the number of total homicides.
    Each month, Chicago (with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country) sees more shootings than the worst mass shootings. EVERY MONTH.
    Nearly every law enforcement organization in the country recognizes the fact that there is a DIRECT CORRELATION between higher gun ownership and lower crime rates. When Alabama mandated that every household should have at least one firearm, the murder rate dropped over 70% and property crime decreased 58%.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019 at 5:40 PM
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  7. ghost62

    ghost62 Goes Blip In The Night Staff Member Moderator Vendor Safe Zone Moderator

    Ban 'assault weapons' and high capacity magazines

    First, this terminology is an open door to ban all firearms.
    The anti gun lobby can't (or won't) define the terms 'assault weapon' or 'weapon of war'.
    Why? (That question again)
    Because they know that ALL weapons are assault weapons and are relying on the negative connotations associated with those phrases to gain support for their cause and get a foot in the door. They can't come out and push for a complete ban on firearms so they attack our rights slowly by promoting a narrative that tugs at people's heartstrings rather than their intellect. Baby steps.
    So what exactly is a high capacity magazine?
    Any detachable magazine that holds more than one round.
    Think I'm joking? Do a quick search for yourself and read their words.
    Once this is passed, will they stop there?
    They didn't when fully automatic weapons were banned.
    They didn't when 'silencers' were banned.
    That's another area where they played on misinformation to forward an anti gun agenda. Suppressors, or 'silencers', as they are incorrectly called, DO NOT silence a thing. They do two things- 1) Divert gas to minimize perceived recoil and muzzle flip making it easier to stay on target and 2) Reduce sound to to a relatively safe (short term) level. But silent? Not even close. Under the best of circumstances, a suppressor reduces the USER'S detected sound level to approximately 110db. Know what else is 110db? The front row at a Who concert and they are touted as the loudest band in rock and roll. What else? A jet engine at takeoff. A top fuel drag racer. At 25 ft, A Viet Nam era hand grenade generates 85db. Still, opponents of the 2nd Amendment lied to the public and used emotional arguments to get that one passed.
    They will not stop.
    No one needs a high capacity magazine for hunting or self defense.
    I hear that a lot.
    I used to carry a firearm for work and had to be certified on numerous weapons. I occasionally compete in three gun tournaments. Basically, I'm a bit more experienced than most and I can tell you that shooting at targets on a range is very different than getting woken up at three a.m. and having to defend your family in a dark, high stress situation. How many rounds do you need to ensure their safety against multiple armed intruders? 1? 5? 10? 100? Guess too low and your family dies. Oh, the gun grabbers say, that never happens.
    Uh... yeah. It does. Over 2 million times a year.
    Yet politicians will claim that a single round weapon is adequate. I wonder how many rounds their security personnel have?
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019 at 7:26 PM
  8. ghost62

    ghost62 Goes Blip In The Night Staff Member Moderator Vendor Safe Zone Moderator

    The 2nd Amendment is an outdated concept and we need to change with the times

    True, the world was a very different place when our founding fathers enacted the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
    News traveled at the speed of a rider on horseback.
    The average lifespan worldwide was less than 45 years.
    People worked sun up to sun down or they didn't eat.
    Most people hunted for their food.
    The threat of a wild animal attack was an ever-present concern.
    And muskets were the firearm of the day.
    Surely that's what 'the right to keep and bear arms' was referring to, huh?
    Nope.
    Nowhere does it mention the type of arms because the founders had the foresight to realize that certain things change as our technology and manufacturing evolves. Muskets would be fine for everyone IF muskets were still the king of the firearm world but they aren't and saying that the right to bear arms is limited to the weapons of their time doesn't address the fact that higher powered, semiautomatic and automatic weapons exist.
    And the bad guys have them. No law will stop criminals from getting them and no law will stop them from being used.
     
  9. ghost62

    ghost62 Goes Blip In The Night Staff Member Moderator Vendor Safe Zone Moderator

    Let's just pass more laws. Problem solved.

    If you've read this far without your head exploding, then you realize the fallacy of that statement.
    Gun control laws have never, nor will they ever, work because criminals do not obey the law. That's the very essence of what it means to be a criminal.
    In reality, gun bans will benefit violent criminals- they will still have guns and we will have removed their greatest deterrent. History has, time and time again, shown this to be true. The areas with the toughest gun laws have the highest violent crime rates. Conversely, the areas with the highest percentage of gun owners suffer the fewest crimes.
    So, if they don't keep guns out of bad guys' hands or reduce violence, what do gun control laws do?
    Simple.
    They punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019 at 7:41 PM
  10. Lisa66

    Lisa66 Read my blips

    My head is still intact and in its original condition after reading the above. :)

    I'm glad you decided to share what you think, and all the information above. Absolutely nothing wrong with expressing your opinion, regardless of your role in the forum.

    I don't have any problem with "good" people having guns..... but as you say, that's not the way things work.

    I do have my doubts about those good folks thwarting the bad guys. Not sure where the rape numbers come from......statistically, the sample size matters, as with any measurement. How many rapes do the numbers come from?

    Frankly, how often do we hear from any news outlet (on any side of the issue) in any form.....anything about an upstanding private citizen with a gun/ammo of any type who successfully fights off an attacker(s)? It seems to be very, very rare. The only time I have seen anything like that in the past couple years has been in my FB feed when someone posted about an incident (pulled from a news site). I lived in Chicagoland for 17 years and never heard of such a case locally. Believe me, I'd like to hear that this happens all the time - the dirtbag gets his/hers!!

    Just a wild guess: I'm thinking that most gun owners are not anywhere near the level of training/experience you've got and are in fact sorely lacking in expertise. As you mentioned, it's not just about target practice; it's about being mentally prepared as well. Me? I've only had a gun in my hand (to actually use) at a range, supervised/assisted by someone who is experienced. Given the number of guns in the country, I doubt most gun owners have much, if any, training.

    Here's the number of firearms. Again, I wonder how many owners have the knowledge and skill that merits ownership.

    http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/guns-per-capita/

    Note the UNregistered numbers.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019 at 9:08 PM
  11. Lisa66

    Lisa66 Read my blips

    I guess I'd like to know what your thoughts are regarding the mass shootings dilemma we have. I do agree it's not all about guns and that there are many other factors such as mental health issues, cultural issues, etc. Where do you think the efforts to change things or to mitigate the damages should be focused? I was asked this question by someone recently and I found it very difficult to come up with an answer.
     
  12. ghost62

    ghost62 Goes Blip In The Night Staff Member Moderator Vendor Safe Zone Moderator

    I have multiple links to studies saved on my laptop & will post them when I get into the shop this afternoon. There are some very eye opening studies.
    I can address, briefly, the issue of mass shootings but we'll go into it in further detail either later today or tomorrow.
    To reduce the number of shootings we, as a society, need to do several things.
    1. Eliminate gun-free zones. I know it sounds counterintuitive but, as addressed above, these areas serve as a flashing neon welcome sign to sick, violent individuals. The rise in shootings directly correlates to the number of gun-free zones. Later, I'll post a link showing where the shootings are taking place and you can see that a vast majority of them take place in areas that prohibit open carry or concealed carry of privately owned firearms.
    2. Stop putting the shooter's name, face, background and motivation on the media / social media. Too many people are desperate for their 15 minutes of fame that they are willing to commit acts of atrocity in order to gain it. They see themselves as heroes and martyrs and revolutionaries. Instead, if you are guilty of committing an act of terrorism (ie. mass shooting), your identity, face and "voice" need scrubbed from existence. As someone who wholeheartedly believes in the First Amendment, this might sound odd but one person's rights end at the point they begin infringing upon another's- chief among those rights are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    3. Mandatory compliance at a local level in regards to reporting VERIFIED situations that would disqualify a person from obtaining a firearm. I'll go into this later when I discuss red flag laws.
    4. Justice reform/mental health reform. Again, this could fill a library's worth of books but I'll go into greater detail in a dedicated post.
    5. Enacting constitutional carry laws throughout the United States. Basically that means if you are legal to purchase a gun, you are legal to carry it.
    6. Broad societal changes need to take place. Again, another book but I will touch on some of the main contributing factors that need addressed. We need to support politicians and policies that encourage traditional family values. A major factor in predicting violent crime is, believe it or not, a child being raised in a fatherless home.
    Promote programs that encourage education, healthy competition and reward individual accomplishment rather than mere participation. We learn and develop strength of character far more thru failing and overcoming adversity than we do by being rewarded for just showing up. More to come but that is a good start.
    7. Stop spreading hate and hold the media accountable. I'm going to go into this in depth in another post but allow me to say that I'm the same person in real life as you've come to know here. Yet, in the past year (for the first time in my life), I've been called a nazi, racist, murderer, ignorant, a bot, white supremacist, coward, hate monger, religious zealot, moron and homophobe- all without any cause other than disagreeing with someone else's point of view.
    A quick note here on the media. I studied journalism in both high school and college and was taught that the primary duty of the media is to serve the truth. Instead, it's become nothing more than a platform to push whatever lies serve their specific agenda.

    Dang. I said 'brief' didn't I?
    There is no quick, easy fix but pushing ineffective bandaid policies will only make the problem worse.
     
  13. Lisa66

    Lisa66 Read my blips

    #7 - was this on a forum, or what? That's horrible and just shows the childishness and ignorance of the people who did the name calling. Reminds me of the direction a couple people went on this political forum a couple years ago. Some people just cannot accept that theirs is not the only viewpoint and that their preferences are not the be-all end-all. sorry you've had to endure that.

    My general thought is that we got to where we are now over a 200+ year period and that deeply ingrained cultural and societal influences have brought us to where we are..... not easy to change, if ever. The problem that we need an answer to needs to be addressed now in some way. Now. It's not just Democrats that agree that something needs to be done. I keep hearing over and over again that 90% of all Americans want "common sense" gun laws, although I'm not clear on exactly what that is.

    I could go on at great length about the mental health situation and how resources for that have been obliterated over the years. When federal funding was removed for a major public mental institution in the town where I grew up, the homeless population exploded because the people were turned out on the street and had nowhere to go, no housing, no support.....so slashing the budget turned into a major problem across the country for local and state governments. There has to be money for the mental health aspect that the current administration has specified as the main problem, but historically, Republicans are nearly always against that type of funding and in fact, are known to usually take it away.

    Oh - by the way, I have voted as a Republican in the past ;). And, contrary to what Mr. Trump has been declaring very loudly, most of us Democrats are not socialists and we do want to keep our democracy; not interested in being a socialist republic. This painting of Democrats as socialists is reminiscent of all Republicans being painted as Tea Party members last time around. Remember the Tea Party, lol? Where are they now?

    Anyway, as I see it, and I think I'm not alone, we need quick answers, stop-gap measures, even if only temporary, until a long-term solution can be developed and implemented.
     
  14. ghost62

    ghost62 Goes Blip In The Night Staff Member Moderator Vendor Safe Zone Moderator

    I've been called those names both IRL and on Twitter.
    The second biggest spate of hatred toward me was when I issued an open challenge to people claiming that Trump was a racist and a liar.
    I asked anyone to share online a tweet, other social media post or video to support their claims but it needed to be IN HIS WORDS.
    Not what someone said (or wrote) about him and not a partial out-of-context clip.
    My challenge was respectful, avoided name calling and was opening the door for people to show why they believed a certain way.
    Should, if the President is as terrible as people claim, be easy, right?
    Instead, I got bombarded with the 'fine people' clip that was proven, over and over again, to be out of context and edited to fit a certain narrative. Left out the gains that he has made possible for minorities and conveniently left out the fact that he won the Ellis Island award along side Rosa Parks and Muhammad Ali.
    I got clips of him supposedly flailing his arms mocking a disabled reporter but they failed to include the part where, a few moments later, he used the same gesture in reference to himself. And they didn't include the numerous times in the past when he did the same thing while speaking on other topics. It is a common mannerism for him and had no specific relevance to the reporter.
    I heard Epstein, Epstein, Epstein but they failed to mention that Trump immediately barred him from his clubs and was the ONLY person to voluntarily cooperate in Epstein's prosecution.
    Through all of it, I avoided generalizations, juvenile name calling, never once inferred someone was lying, mentally deficient or ill-educated. I didn't discount another's input by calling them a 'bot'
    Another thing that didn't happen? Not a single person was able to meet the straightforward parameters of "in his own words".

    (My post exceeded the 10,000 word limit and needs to be broken up. Sorry)
     
  15. ghost62

    ghost62 Goes Blip In The Night Staff Member Moderator Vendor Safe Zone Moderator

    Continued

    The issue that generated the greatest amount of hate was while expressing my views on the 2nd Amendment. Someone used the 'baby-killer' line and I pulled up their profile and saw nothing but hate and cries of racism and "My body, my choice" in support of Planned Parenthood and abortion in general.
    When I pointed out the fact that I'm not racist and have never once murdered a baby but that she supports an organization that was a) founded by one of the most egregious racists ever and b) has murdered millions of babies, all hell broke loose. Twitter even deprioritized my posts (forced them to the bottom of threads I reply to), put a temporary lock on my account and shadowbanned me (prevents my posts from appearing on my followers' timelines and doesn't generate an alert to followers when I post something new).

    However, back on topic.

    There are currently over 20,000 gun control laws on the books in the United States and nearly ALL are aimed at eroding our 2nd Amendment rights while ignoring what does work. Passing a law that prohibits something has NO EFFECT on those that don't follow the law.
    Simply look at the opioid crisis.
    How many laws are there against the unlicensed, unregulated manufacture, distribution and use of opioids?
    Yet the problem is worse than ever.
    DUI, theft, murder, child abuse, tax fraud, etc... All against the law but people still commit these acts.
    People with respect for the law are usually people with respect for each other and would refrain from doing these things even if they weren't illegal.
    On the flip side, people with no respect for each other are generally ones that have no respect for the law.
    Yes, that is a generalization (guilty as charged) but it's one that holds up under strict scrutiny.

    On the topic of the phrase "common sense gun laws", no one can agree on what exactly that means.
    I support common sense laws. Laws based on the lessons of history. Laws that address the underlying cause of a problem. Laws that are enforceable with penalties that fit the crime. Laws that uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Most importantly, I support laws that do not punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

    Allow me to create a hypothetical scenario involving something that can, and has been used as a weapon for mass murder, kills far more people every year than guns and is more common than firearms- automobiles.
    The NTSB and IIHS have both repeatedly stated that one of the greatest determining factors regarding the survivability of a motor vehicle crash is speed.
    Common sense (from one perspective) says that if you reduced the speed limit in both urban and rural areas to a level that guaranteed that occupants would survive a crash unharmed, then lives would be saved.
    One study found that for every 1% reduction in speed, fatalities would be reduced by 4% in single vehicle accidents. So by (incorrectly) following that line of reasoning, a 25% reduction in speed would virtually eliminate vehicle fatalities.
    Just for illustration purposes, that equates to a 55mph being changed to 41mph.
    Now, on the surface, this seems to make sense.
    However, it doesn't address multiple car accidents. The physics are much different but for simplicity, let's assume that for two cars colliding, the safe speed would have to be HALF that of a single car accident, meaning a highway speed limit of just over 20mph.
    Nor does it address pedestrian fatalities. a 1979 study concluded that, at 20mph, 5% of pedestrians struck were killed. A pedestrian, cyclist or person standing on a corner is completely unprotected from the vehicle impact, so the reduction would have to even greater. I couldn't find data right off, but I'm guessing the speed limit to eliminate all vehicular fatalities would be close to 10mph.
    Following this line of reasoning, a 10mph universal speed limit would save nearly 1.5 million lives every year.
    Universally. Across the board. EVERYONE. 10mph.
    Even law enforcement and emergency first responders. Why? On average, 33 people are killed in the United States every year by ambulances rushing to an emergency. 5 are killed by fire engines and nearly 100 are killed annually by law enforcement vehicles- 100 people NOT being chased but completely uninvolved that just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
    (138 people killed by emergency first responder accidents annually. I only point that out again because it's nearly 3x the number of children under 12 killed accidentally by a family owned gun.)
    Why, if this completely by the numbers, common sense solution to vehicle accident fatalities is available, don't we enact it?
    Because it's stupid.
    It sounds good (if you only look at one side) but causes far more harm than good. I could go on and on listing the flaws in this scenario (I won't. I promise) but one of the most important facts overlooked is that a quick response time by emergency personnel is crucial to saving lives.
    I point this one about because it directly ties to the dangers of gun control.
    Quick response saves lives.
    There is no quicker response time to a violent crime than that of the intended victim.

    A note on Democrats. I believe that most individual Democrats believe in our country, support the Constitution, oppose oppression and racism and hate, want borders that protect us from terrorists, drug smugglers and human traffickers and want the chance to succeed in building a life for themselves and their children.
    Unfortunately, the leaders of the Democratic party have abandoned those ideals and are trying to promote hate and fear to grab power, all the while promising free, free, free stuff, hoping the voters are too driven by personal greed to realize that their promises cannot be kept. The math doesn't add up but all people are paying attention to are cries of white supremacy, racism, nazi, murderer, liar.
    I fear for our country. And my future. And my family's future.
    That's not being dramatic. It's recognizing a real threat.
    If we eliminate the electoral college, suppress dissenting views, control the media, threaten the safety and livelihood of those that oppose us, abandon our fiercest allies, keep the population dependent on the government for education and healthcare, tax workers into poverty, allow religious persecution, disrespect our laws and the officers tasked with protecting us, eliminate due process and strip the citizens of their ability to fight back against tyranny, what have we become?
    ALL of these positions (and more) are being pushed by democratic candidates and the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." Ronald Reagan.

    Many people I've talked to say the same thing- "That can't happen here. This is America."
    I can happen and IS happening. We are a young country in historical context, barely 2 1/2 centuries old. Countries much older, cultures more firmly entrenched, have been eroded from within and slid into chaos, only to have the populace grasp for a despot because they promise an end to the chaos. For examples, simply look to Germany, Italy, Russia, Korea, Viet Nam, China, almost all of Africa, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Iran, Iraq, Ethiopia, countries in South America... the list goes on and on.
    We are not immune. Not by a long shot.
     
  16. ghost62

    ghost62 Goes Blip In The Night Staff Member Moderator Vendor Safe Zone Moderator

    Now, back to the 2nd Amendment.
    That's not to say that you can't comment on the above posts, but I need to get myself back on topic...

    Well, red flag laws will keep guns out of the hands of bad guys.

    No. They won't.
    Very few firearms used in the commission of a crime were purchased legally by the person that committed the crime. Most were stolen, purchased in private transactions or used without the knowledge of the owner. Some are even manufactured from scratch by criminals. It's not like trying to assemble a nuke in your garage. Any decent machinist with a CNC and a bit of gunsmithing knowledge can make a gun.
    The red flag laws are a dangerous expansion on the existing background checks. All they due is circumvent due process. Guilty until proven innocent.
    To purchase a firearm (from a federally licensed shop, online or at a gun show) you must first complete form 4473 required by the ATF pass an NICS background check using a database maintained by FBI.
    The process looks for certain disqualifying criminal and mental health entries such as convictions for a violent felony, domestic abuse, drug charges, any misdemeanor that could carry a sentence of 18 months or more and having been diagnosed with certain mental conditions. There are more, but these are the big ones.
    The problem is that responsible agencies do not always report to the FBI for entry into the NICS. The Parkland shooting is a prime example of what can happen when reporting requirements are not met.
    Rather than require mandatory reporting and imposing penalties for failing to comply, red flags laws all share one common element- a private individual can deprive someone of their 2nd Amendment rights based on nothing more than an accusation. There are no requirements that the person raising the flag be a law enforcement official or trained mental health expert.
    And there are no penalties for intentional abuse.
    Further the process for a person to recover their rights is long and expensive with no guarantee that they will be restored. Florida already has ERPO laws (Extreme Risk Prevention Order) on the books and guidelines dictate that the matter is to be resolved within 28 days. In practice, however, it can take multiple court appearances and up to 14 months to successfully challenge an ERPO.
    Yes, in most cases, acting on a red flag requires a judge to issue an order but no judge is going to risk the potential backlash of failing to issue a confiscation if something bad happens.
    What constitutes a legitimate red flag the way the laws are written?
    Basically, anything.
    The laws are written so broadly that merely commenting that I'm depressed Game of Thrones ended is enough to get me red flagged. Why? A depressed person is a danger to themselves and possibly others because they might be prone to irrational behavior, drug or alcohol use and could possibly be more prone to violence.
    Think I'm joking. Consider this:
    Recently a teen in Colorado was suspended from school because his mother posted a picture of him target shooting the prior weekend. Despite the fact that he was with his mother on a safety-enforced range, the school board felt that he might make other students uncomfortable - just cause for red flagging under the law. This happened to a good student with no history of disciplinary problems. His parents both worked, owned their home and had never been convicted of a crime. All because the board thought that it MIGHT make someone uncomfortable. If red flag laws were in effect in Colorado, the teen AND his parents would have had the 2nd Amendment rights stripped away without ever committing a crime. Their 4th Amendment protections would have been stripped away and they would have been forced to fight an unwinnable court battle.
    Unwinnable? Yup.
    Just one student would have had to say that, yes, it made them uncomfortable and the red flag restrictions would have remained in place.
     
  17. ghost62

    ghost62 Goes Blip In The Night Staff Member Moderator Vendor Safe Zone Moderator

    Weaponizing red flag laws

    You're my neighbor and I don't like you. Your dog barks at night. Your kids too loud when they play out in the yard. You think you're better than I am because your car is newer.
    I want to get back at you for mowing your lawn too early on a Saturday morning.
    And I know things.
    I know you enjoy a beer or two in the evenings after work.
    And I know you own a gun.
    Now I have the power to get back at you for having a prettier wife than I do.
    All I have to do is call the police and tell them that you are an undiagnosed alcoholic that gets drunk and waves your gun around. I'm afraid you re going to do something bad. I tell them that if they come by after 8 o'clock, they'll be able to catch you.
    The police make a call to the judge that handles the ERPO complaints. Sure, it's after hours but it's standard practice in many areas to have blank, signed warrants ready to at a moments notice. All they have to do is call the judge and tell him they need to use one then fill in the details later. Child protective services rely on them.
    Armed officers now show up at your door exercising full hazardous entry protocols because you're a dangerous drunk with a gun. They kick in your door, toss in a flash bang grenade and before you know what's going on, you are thrown to the floor. You turn, trying to ask what you did wrong and are tazed resisting arrest. God forbid your wife rushes downstairs to find out what the banging and commotion is all about. All the ARMED officers know is that they have just subdued a dangerous criminal that smells of alcohol and resisted address. Someone in the house has a gun and now a person is rushing at them.
    How does this end?
    Best case? You go to jail, have your gun confiscated and have to fight a long expensive battle to have your rights restored.
    Worst case? You go to jail, have your gun confiscated and your wife is killed because an officer was in a dangerous situation and saw 'something' in a person's hand that was rushing at them in an aggressive manner.
    How does it end for me?
    I don't have to worry about your gun (not that I ever really was) and I just might end up with new neighbors. You know... people more like me.
    Extreme 'what if' case? Yes. Easily imaginable? Yup. You betcha.
    I started with this to show just one way a red flag law could be used maliciously.
    Next, a true story that I watched unfold over the course of 11 months.
     
  18. ghost62

    ghost62 Goes Blip In The Night Staff Member Moderator Vendor Safe Zone Moderator

    Real world abuse of the law

    My brother and I weren't that close growing up. He's almost 5 years younger than I am and we fought a lot, for a lot of reasons. Over the past 15 years or so, we've grown closer as a result of both getting older and our enjoyment of shooting sports. He's a hunter- I'm not- but we both love going out to the range and showing off our latest addition. His best friend, Eddie (not his real name) was a frequent inclusion in our outings. Eddie worked with my brother but Ed's father was a retired U.S. Marshall that opened up a gun shop to pass the time and supplement his retirement income.
    Needless to say, Eddie had some firearms that neither my brother nor I could afford- whether it was the latest, greatest whatever or museum quality historical pieces.
    Both my brother and Ed worked 60-70 hrs a week as finish carpenters, subcontracting to a major home builder. My brother still does.
    Ed's wife was a stay-at-home mom to their two children and his work hours left her with a lot of free time while he was at work and the kids were in school. Eventually, she started having an affair with one of the bartenders from a local bar.
    One night, he took her car to run to the store (his work truck was full of tools) and he found a meth pipe. He confronted her about it and she confessed everything- her affair, how the bartender introduced her to drugs, how long it had been going on... everything. She begged for forgiveness and swore she'd break off the affair and give up drugs. Ed agreed to give her another chance and as far as he knew, she did stop using meth (at the time) but continued to see the other man.
    He found out and filed for divorce. His lawyer told him that he would likely get full custody of the children, the house and wouldn't have to pay alimony if he chose to go that route. Ed being Ed, still loved her and instructed his attorney to offer a deal. He'd sell the house and all of joint belongings, split the proceeds 50/50 and agree to shared parenting if she didn't contest the divorce.
    Her attorney told her that, if she fought it, given the fact that she didn't work, her drug use (she got busted for misdemeanor possession of marijuana after the separation) and her infidelity, she would likely end up with supervised visitation only until she got treatment and found a job and could provide a stable home. He advised her to agree to Ed's offer.
    This was a pretty dark time for him. He was heartbroken and, to cope, started drinking at night after the kids were in bed. (He has temporary custody because she moved in with her boyfriend and all he had was a one bedroom apartment.)
    His offer of half wasn't good enough so she and bartender came up with a plan.
    (next post)
     
  19. Lisa66

    Lisa66 Read my blips

    I hear you. I really do. It's a little overwhelming reading your posts, frankly, but I don't doubt what you are posting or that you've got this info from good sources.....not looking for "proof". I've heard arguments, pleadings, stories, etc. on both sides. So, what do we do?

    What do we do about the 99.6% of guns that are unregistered in the country, per the United States Concealed Carry Association? Are their numbers way off? I ask this in earnest because I just searched and found them, had never heard of them until this thread.

    I find that number alarming. How can we control, with "red flag" laws, people who "shouldn't" have guns, when almost all of them are not registered? Is this a naive question? Could be, as other than an occasional fun hour on a range, I'm clueless.

    I await your next post and appreciate the continuation of the above.
     
  20. ghost62

    ghost62 Goes Blip In The Night Staff Member Moderator Vendor Safe Zone Moderator

    I will have to look it up but I feel that the percentage of 'unregistered' guns is high.
    Way high. Guns aren't registered.
    Any time a legal firearm purchase is made, there is a record of it. That could be what they consider "registered".
    Your name, what you purchased, where it was bought and when. The documentation includes the serial number of the weapon as well.
    I suppose that percentage would have to include all weapons produced and sold before the current requirements were in place. That could account for millions but can't take into consideration the number that have been destroyed, no longer functional due to wear, age and damage or simply lost
    Still, a registry, the way they are proposing one is a database of all guns in private ownership, who owns them, where they are stored and who has access to them.
    A couple of problems with that.
    First, any firearm that you cannot establish the provenance of would be intelligible for registry and subject to confiscation. That means that any gun passed down thru the family would have to be surrendered. I have my grandfather's 1911 that he carried in WWII but I can't prove that he gave it to me and I can't prove that it was issued to him. It would be gone.
    All historical weapons in private ownership would be gone.
    Some have suggested a remedy to that would be to establish a new record of the weapon and assign it a unique serial number however the logistics and cost of doing that are prohibitive so I don't see that happening. It's easier just to take them.
    Secondly, if a gun is lost (dropped into a lake, or lost in the woods for example) it falls to the registered owner to PROVE that it was lost or face being held in violation of the registry laws. How do you prove a gun fell off your boat? Further, if someone else happens to recover a lost weapon and uses it in a crime, the owner is held liable.
    Along those same lines, the third problem is that if someone gets one of my guns without my knowledge and uses it in a crime, guess what? I'm responsible.
    Private, person to person sales and gifting to a family member would be essentially eliminated. One only needs look at the NFA to see how that would work. The manufacture, sale and ownership of suppressors is governed by the National Firearms Act. To obtain one, you must first apply for a permit. Before approval (which can take months) your entire background is investigated, and ANYTHING can disqualify you including too many parking tickets. Then, if you are approved, you pay a huge tax, wait for that to be verified and then you are granted permission. You pick out the exact one you want from the seller you want and wait for approval again. Finally, you purchase the suppressor and it's yours and ONLY yours. You can never sell it. You can't dispose of it. You can't allow anyone to handle it or fire a gun that it's attached to.
    And again, the registry only affects those that follow the law.
    So what good is it?
    It's a convenient list when they decide to confiscate all guns. It worked great in nazi Germany.

    As far as red flag laws are concerned, they serve no purpose other than to invite abuse and deprive law abiding citizens of due process in violation of the 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments. You should never be allowed to deprive an individual of their Constitutionally protected rights based solely on what they might do unless there is overwhelming evidence that they pose an immediate threat to themselves or others.
    Mandatory compliance with the reporting requirements by law enforcement agencies and mental health professionals is the only viable solution that helps keep guns out of the hands of people that pose a verifiable threat while protecting the Constitutional rights of others.
    Once again, though, even under the best of circumstances, when everything works the way it should, mandatory compliance will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns by illegal means and using them for illegal purposes.
    No amount of knee jerk bandaid legislation will put that genie back in the bottle. Sorry to sound like a broken record but all these laws will accomplish is removing the single greatest deterrent to violent crime and emboldening criminals to commit atrocities without fear of resistance.
    20,000+ laws have been ineffective at curbing the use of guns by criminals and have, in many cases, increased incidents of gun violence which raises the question of why legislators are pushing for more.
    I can think of three possible reasons.
    1. They are more interested in votes and getting reelected than they are about truly solving the problem. They want to appear to be doing "something" because image is more important than actual results.
    2. They have no understanding of either history or the way the real world works in which case, they shouldn't be anywhere near a position of power.
    3. They have another agenda that is served by disarming the populace.
    All three reasons should be completely unacceptable to every American - one is lazy and self-serving; one is driven by ignorance and one a nightmare scenario.
    Combined with everything else that is going on, I'm truly afraid that I'll outlive American liberty and freedom.