armoredman
New member
Sent emails and phone calls. My Senators are on board with the Left, however. 
These are the gun-control bills Congress will be considering when they reconvene on 9/4.
- Thread starter Tom Servo
- Start date
It has never been more clear that the left is purely bent on disarming their political opponents. This has nothing to do with crime.
Gun confiscation with zero recourse based on 3rd party claims? Red flag laws.
Criminalize handing someone else a gun, i.e. criminalize training your kids.
Misdemeanor = lifelong ban on gun ownership.
And it's not like any of this has a track record of working. Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, etc. illustrate exactly where they want to take us, and exactly how will this crap works to prevent crime.
Also, recent events from the POTUS should illustrate exactly how well sending a signal regarding "compromise" works. These bills would have been DOA, except that certain people supposedly on our side wanted to say a few things to sound moderate. That sent our enemies into an absolute fever pitch, and look at the situation now.
Also, the polls are pure BS. They basically ask things like "would you like to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?" And of course everyone says yes. When laws like these actually come up for a vote in moderate states (not even necessarily conservative ones), they tend to lose. People generally do not know what is in these things!
Gun confiscation with zero recourse based on 3rd party claims? Red flag laws.
Criminalize handing someone else a gun, i.e. criminalize training your kids.
Misdemeanor = lifelong ban on gun ownership.
And it's not like any of this has a track record of working. Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, etc. illustrate exactly where they want to take us, and exactly how will this crap works to prevent crime.
Also, recent events from the POTUS should illustrate exactly how well sending a signal regarding "compromise" works. These bills would have been DOA, except that certain people supposedly on our side wanted to say a few things to sound moderate. That sent our enemies into an absolute fever pitch, and look at the situation now.
Also, the polls are pure BS. They basically ask things like "would you like to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?" And of course everyone says yes. When laws like these actually come up for a vote in moderate states (not even necessarily conservative ones), they tend to lose. People generally do not know what is in these things!
Doc Intrepid
New member
Red Flag Laws are not only vehicles for malevolent third parties to raise havoc with one's life, but also can be interpreted in whatever way suits local and federal authorities. In effect, they limit speech by declaring some speech "dangerous". While some speech may in fact BE dangerous, taken out of context, comments that many of us might make could also be declared "dangerous" for political purposes.
A case in Oregon where the Antifa confrontations occurred in Portland has resulted in the first Red Flag Law conviction.
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/201...gons-new-red-flag-law-took-his-guns-away.html
https://www.foxnews.com/us/former-m...ed-flag-law-after-remarks-about-antifa-report
Each of us may have different opinions regarding the wisdom of speaking in such a fashion, however, the propensity for having one's guns seized by the federal government on the basis of "dangerous speech" raises grim scenarios. Nearly everything stated by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, or Thomas Paine could have been categorized as "dangerous speech", using one definition or another.
The devil is in the definitions...
A case in Oregon where the Antifa confrontations occurred in Portland has resulted in the first Red Flag Law conviction.
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/201...gons-new-red-flag-law-took-his-guns-away.html
https://www.foxnews.com/us/former-m...ed-flag-law-after-remarks-about-antifa-report
Each of us may have different opinions regarding the wisdom of speaking in such a fashion, however, the propensity for having one's guns seized by the federal government on the basis of "dangerous speech" raises grim scenarios. Nearly everything stated by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, or Thomas Paine could have been categorized as "dangerous speech", using one definition or another.
The devil is in the definitions...
IMO, part of the mistake many of us make is to discuss the issue as though the people pushing this stuff are simply concerned about crime, but misguided/misinformed.
Big mistake. These people are not playing in good faith. Their track record is clear, wherever they take power.
Their purpose is to weaponize the state against gun owners, or set up a system that can be weaponized at will. The goal is to imprison innocent/well-meaning gun-owners, to "set an example" and "change the culture." The vague and arbitrary nature of some of this stuff is exactly its most desirable feature, for those pushing it.
They don't want a clear set of rules -- they want to weaponize the "appeal to authority." This is exactly how leftists have gained a great deal of power in the corporate world (tech being a prime example). They don't set up clear and objective rules, they set up councils and committees who will "interpret" vague rules which don't sound so bad on day 1, but which are immediately re-interpreted by the SJW's who get onto the council.
Big mistake. These people are not playing in good faith. Their track record is clear, wherever they take power.
Their purpose is to weaponize the state against gun owners, or set up a system that can be weaponized at will. The goal is to imprison innocent/well-meaning gun-owners, to "set an example" and "change the culture." The vague and arbitrary nature of some of this stuff is exactly its most desirable feature, for those pushing it.
They don't want a clear set of rules -- they want to weaponize the "appeal to authority." This is exactly how leftists have gained a great deal of power in the corporate world (tech being a prime example). They don't set up clear and objective rules, they set up councils and committees who will "interpret" vague rules which don't sound so bad on day 1, but which are immediately re-interpreted by the SJW's who get onto the council.
Here's the reality of today's political environment. POTUS reacts to his (TV)audience and more often than not, his statements are either something somebody else mentioned to him, he saw it on TV or just something that came to him..but he's not great 'on his feet'..So..what he says or tweets means a whole bunch of nuthin. Unless the senate writes a bill POTUS, in advance, says he'll sign, nothin will be written. The reality of what POTUS' base wants is what will get passed by the senate BUT..nothin that the House writes will pass the Senate..nothing the Senate writes(what POTUS' staff writes) will pas the House..so nothin will come of this except hand wringing, 'sky is falling' tweets and such and lotsa of ammo for the upcoming senate, house and Presidential races..
IF the congress and POTUS become Democrat controlled..but until then...
If so, the argument could easily be made that he's in the wrong job, then. Inconsistency and unpredictability might make for good reality television, but they're terrible qualities in a leader.
We don't know that, and we can't count on it. Several Republicans have come out in favor of background checks and "red flag" laws.
Backwards...Congress writes and passes the laws..POTUS either signs or vetos..
As for the first point..ain't goin' there sir...
One of McConnell's endearing traits is an ability to speak calmly in defense of politically disfavored rights. Judging by their past relationship, McConnell's posture toward DJT on Senate matters isn't deferential; he has only indicated he would let a proposal DJT wants get a vote. Put differently, he doesn't want to schedule votes that only serve as a theatrical backdrop to get media coverage for further gun restrictions, but that would (likely) be vetoed.
The current primary preparations probably militate against anything passing. It's harder to ridicule as paranoid an opposition to further restriction as simply one step on the road to confiscation when primary candidates are endorsing prohibition of all modern firearms and confiscation.
Repub support for Red Flag law funding in the states is the most likely danger; it appeals to a law and order reflex to which repubs have been congenial historically. Mike Dewine, the new governor of Ohio, was on radio a couple of days ago stumbling his way through a defense of his version of a RFL.
The current primary preparations probably militate against anything passing. It's harder to ridicule as paranoid an opposition to further restriction as simply one step on the road to confiscation when primary candidates are endorsing prohibition of all modern firearms and confiscation.
Repub support for Red Flag law funding in the states is the most likely danger; it appeals to a law and order reflex to which repubs have been congenial historically. Mike Dewine, the new governor of Ohio, was on radio a couple of days ago stumbling his way through a defense of his version of a RFL.
In the senate and maybe..what the GOP doesn't want to do is embarrass this president into a veto, then Congress overturn. BUT 2020 getting pretty close, no telling what's going to happen.
He also doesn't want to force senators to go 'on the record' on some of these issues, which 'could' have a big impact in the 2020 senate races(for sure here in CO)..meanwhile any senators will play the 'the senator said' game..but nothing will get written.
IMHO, nothing regarding gun control will get written or passed in the Senate..nothing will go to 'the guy in the big chair's desk..
Indeed, the pro bill-of-rights camp is holding all of the cards, from the Senate to the POTUS to the timing. Any gun control push was completely DOA, and not even a news-worthy topic. It drives me up the wall that POTUS single-handedly put all of this back into play.
Of course there is an outside chance that this is all a "4D chess" move, designed to put vulnerable democrats on the record for massive gun control, leading into the election, just in time to energize the base. But I'm not banking on it.