ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 42 of 43
« First < 323839404142 43 >
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>Gun owners: ready to surrender them yet?
Discuss Thrower 06:26 PM 01-19-2021
It's very simple. There will be a mass shooting event sooner than later.

It will be followed by a massive leak wherein everyone who can be traced to have owned a firearm in any capacity will be made public.

This mass shooting event will be blamed on the "alt right."

Thus the connotation will be made between gun ownership and "white nationalism / supremacy" where it is assumed if you're in one category you are, by definition, in the other. If you don't give up your guns then logically you are just like the terrorists who invaded the Capitol.




Do not say




you were


not warned.
[Reply]
Ninerfan11 01:32 PM 04-09-2021
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
I've been assured that online fact checkers are all controlled by Soros, the DNC, and Chicomms.
some, but mostly it's just mental illness.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 01:33 PM 04-09-2021
Originally Posted by Ninerfan11:
some, but mostly it's just mental illness.
I agree they're mentally ill, but that is what they say about online fact checkers.
[Reply]
frozenchief 02:15 PM 04-09-2021
Originally Posted by Katipan:
The public has been "just fine" with banning certain dogs.
You miss the point. The issue isn’t if the public is fine with banning certain dogs. The issue is that if those who want to ban dogs demonstrated so clearly that they really did not know what they were talking about, would you trust them? Would you think that they really just wanted to limit access to ‘aggressive breeds’? Or would you think that they were using the excuse of aggressive breeds to limit what kind of dogs you could own?

Joe Biden, for example, claims that arm braces make guns ‘more lethal’. How the hell does a gun become more lethal? Carolyn McCarthy said that a barrel shroud is a ‘shoulder thing that goes up’, whatever the hell that means. Biden says that if you buy a gun at a gun show you don’t have to pass a background check. He is demonstrably and verifiably wrong. If he is so wrong on the fundamentals, why should I trust him when he says he just wants a few restrictions?

Ole Adolph only wanted some Austrian land that had been German for centuries. Why don’t we just give it to him and everything will be fine?
[Reply]
Katipan 02:30 PM 04-09-2021
The people banning dogs are banning specific dogs.
Full on legislation drafted about banning dogs.
All over the place.

Whether or not I trust them is completely besides the point.
[Reply]
frozenchief 02:36 PM 04-09-2021
Originally Posted by Katipan:
The people banning dogs are banning specific dogs.
Full on legislation drafted about banning dogs.
All over the place.

Whether or not I trust them is completely besides the point.
I see that you are not capable of drawing conclusions from comparisons. I also posted an example of how the ‘red flag’ laws would work if applied to dogs. you made no mention of that.

I fully recognize that there are some people who should not have firearms. I will even concede that point. The difficulty is in drafting legislation that will remove firearms from those people without affecting the rights of the law-abiding. Put another way, I fail to see why the behavior of someone else should affect my rights. Last time I checked, I have never robbed a bank or shot up a super market or a school or threatened anyone with any of my firearms. And I am like the vast majority of firearm owners (98+%) in this country. Thus, I fail to see why my rights should be curtailed simply because some people abuse their rights.

in my mind, it is like saying that YOU should not be able to drive a car because some people drive drunk and kill people. But based upon your comments, you demonstrate an inability to derive logical positions from abstract arguments. So I am not really sure that you will understand this example.
[Reply]
frozenchief 02:43 PM 04-09-2021
Originally Posted by Katipan:
The people banning dogs are banning specific dogs.
Full on legislation drafted about banning dogs.
All over the place.

Whether or not I trust them is completely besides the point.
I see that you are not capable of drawing conclusions from comparisons. I also posted an example of how the ‘red flag’ laws would work if applied to dogs. you made no mention of that.

I fully recognize that there are some people who should not have firearms. I will even concede that point. The difficulty is in drafting legislation that will remove firearms from those people without affecting the rights of the law-abiding. Put another way, I fail to see why the behavior of someone else should affect my rights. Last time I checked, I have never robbed a bank or shot up a super market or a school or threatened anyone with any of my firearms. And I am like the vast majority of firearm owners (98+%) in this country. Thus, I fail to see why my rights should be curtailed simply because some people abuse their rights.

in my mind, it is like saying that YOU should not be able to drive a car because some people drive drunk and kill people. But based upon your comments, you demonstrate an inability to derive logical positions from abstract arguments. So I am not really sure that you will understand this example.
[Reply]
Katipan 03:18 PM 04-09-2021
No one is banning "attack dogs."

Who cares about abstract.
That's the whole foundation for that opinion article.
[Reply]
banyon 05:28 PM 04-09-2021
Originally Posted by frozenchief:
Kavanaugh is weak on the 4th.

Try this as an experiment: going along with the 'dog analogy' above, if you are in favor of red flag laws, how would you respond if anyone could anonymously make a report to animal control so animal control could just come and take your dog because they think the dog is aggressive/disruptive/unsafe/whatever? You would have no notice. Instead, because the dog is purportedly aggressive, numerous animal control personnel would arrive at your house, come into your house, push you to one corner of your kitchen while they grab your dog. They drop off paperwork with a date and time of a hearing about 3-4 weeks out. During that time, your dog is kept in some kennel somewhere. At the subsequent hearing, you bear the burden of proving that your dog is NOT dangerous/disruptive/whatever.

Does that procedure comply with due process? Or is the person guilty until proven innocent? What about an individuals' right to face an accuser or to keep their rights until they have actually been convicted? How likely is it that someone, somewhere will make a fake complaint just because they are pissed off at their neighbor?

Are the red flag laws proposed this way? I thought they were more analogous to a civil mental health proceeding or protective order hearing. The report is not anonymous, is made by named family members(usually), who then have to show up and testify (perhaps along with any why they are concerned enough to ask for you not to have firearms. Court has to make a ruling. There may be a temporary seizure while they wait on the evidentiary hearing. Maybe there are a few states that don’t have enough due process built in, but this was my understanding of how most of them would work.
[Reply]
frozenchief 06:01 PM 04-09-2021
Originally Posted by banyon:
Are the red flag laws proposed this way? I thought they were more analogous to a civil mental health proceeding or protective order hearing. The report is not anonymous, is made by named family members(usually), who then have to show up and testify (perhaps along with any why they are concerned enough to ask for you not to have firearms. Court has to make a ruling. There may be a temporary seizure while they wait on the evidentiary hearing. Maybe there are a few states that don’t have enough due process built in, but this was my understanding of how most of them would work.
I understand that this is how they are proposing red flag laws work in CA. Congressman Ting specifically seeks to allow anonymous reporting by anyone, not just a family member or close friend. From what I have read, CO has had problems with ‘fake’ filing to seize firearms. Just see the case of Susan Holmes. Her son was shot by a law enforcement officer. She claimed to be a romantic partner of the cop in order to get a firearm removal.

One of my issues with red flag laws is that someone can have their property seized without committing any crime. A search warrant that authorizes the search for evidence and seizure of that evidence because there is PC for a crime and police are seizing evidence for a crime. Red flag laws, though, allow law enforcement to take property based upon fear of what someone “might” do and that’s harder to square with due process.
[Reply]
Over Yonder 06:05 PM 04-09-2021
Originally Posted by cosmo20002:
So did he take them yet?
I don't know? Guns scare me so I try to keep a safe distance. Kinda like that Wuhan Flu that kills everybody it comes into contact with. I don't get near any place that doesn't require virtue signaling!! I need protection!!!

I'm just hoping I can trust Biden to look out for my families interest in this situation the same way he did for my wife's job. He pointed us in the right direction!! :-)
[Reply]
banyon 06:46 PM 04-09-2021
Originally Posted by frozenchief:
I understand that this is how they are proposing red flag laws work in CA. Congressman Ting specifically seeks to allow anonymous reporting by anyone, not just a family member or close friend. From what I have read, CO has had problems with ‘fake’ filing to seize firearms. Just see the case of Susan Holmes. Her son was shot by a law enforcement officer. She claimed to be a romantic partner of the cop in order to get a firearm removal.

One of my issues with red flag laws is that someone can have their property seized without committing any crime. A search warrant that authorizes the search for evidence and seizure of that evidence because there is PC for a crime and police are seizing evidence for a crime. Red flag laws, though, allow law enforcement to take property based upon fear of what someone “might” do and that’s harder to square with due process.
I would agree that it sounds like the CA proposal (and CO law apparently) doesn’t pass muster at this stage in its drafting.

But many laws do seize things (like a whole person) without a crime being committed. Protection from abuse laws in most states do prevent you from
Possessing a firearm, and civil commitment laws can put you in a mental health facility without any crime. I do not favor law enforcement being able to be the ones to seek such an order. If they have cause, they can normally get a warrant.
[Reply]
frozenchief 06:58 PM 04-09-2021
Originally Posted by banyon:
I would agree that it sounds like the CA proposal (and CO law apparently) doesn’t pass muster at this stage in its drafting.

But many laws do seize things (like a whole person) without a crime being committed. Protection from abuse laws in most states do prevent you from
Possessing a firearm, and civil commitment laws can put you in a mental health facility without any crime. I do not favor law enforcement being able to be the ones to seek such an order. If they have cause, they can normally get a warrant.
DVROs require evidence of some type of harm/threat to another. Civil commitment requires evidence of someone being unable to care for themselves or being a threat to themselves or others. If we already have civil commitment laws on the books, why can we not use those instead of red flag laws? One concern I have is that a rise in red flag laws will lower the instances of people seeking mental health counseling.
[Reply]
Discuss Thrower 02:56 PM 04-12-2021
Don't say you weren't warned.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 06:49 PM 05-07-2021

New security camera footage from Las Vegas exactly shows why you should not try to rob a gun store... pic.twitter.com/HwAIHtfMpH

— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) May 5, 2021

[Reply]
cosmo20002 07:33 PM 05-07-2021
So did he take them yet?
[Reply]
Page 42 of 43
« First < 323839404142 43 >
Up