The Bedwetting Gungrabbers Are Out In Force

This forum is for discussion of politics, diplomacy, law, and justice
Greg
Posts: 8318
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: The Bedwetting Gungrabbers Are Out In Force

Post by Greg » Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:56 pm

Have to say I'm with Mark on this one.

So because existing laws are not effectively used, new laws will change that?

We've had WAY too many recent cases where competent administration of existing law would have prevented everything. Making murder illegal twice won't reduce the murder rate.

And also way too many cases where the new proposed 'fixes' would not have prevented the event, but would be very effective at taking away existing rights.

I don't think the answer for govt not being competent at its existing basic functions is to give it more, broader powers and responsibilities.
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby

If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr

User avatar
MiddleAgedKen
Posts: 2611
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:11 pm
Location: Flyover Country

Re: The Bedwetting Gungrabbers Are Out In Force

Post by MiddleAgedKen » Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:29 pm

Dan Crenshaw has been arguing frantically on social media for "better" red flag laws. With all due respect, neither he nor anyone else has anything to sell that I will buy.
Watergate didn't have a body count.

User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 3585
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: The Bedwetting Gungrabbers Are Out In Force

Post by Vonz90 » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:06 pm

We can agree to disagree, but the current sets of laws allow innocent people to get their guns confiscated while wanna be mass shooters get a srug. Why would we not want to improve that?

Greg
Posts: 8318
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: The Bedwetting Gungrabbers Are Out In Force

Post by Greg » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:27 am

Vonz90 wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:06 pm
We can agree to disagree, but the current sets of laws allow innocent people to get their guns confiscated while wanna be mass shooters get a srug. Why would we not want to improve that?
That's the RESULT of the most recent set of 'improvements'. I want more of such improvements like I want another hole in my ass.
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby

If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr

User avatar
Jered
Posts: 7500
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:30 am

Re: The Bedwetting Gungrabbers Are Out In Force

Post by Jered » Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:00 am

MiddleAgedKen wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:29 pm
Dan Crenshaw has been arguing frantically on social media for "better" red flag laws. With all due respect, neither he nor anyone else has anything to sell that I will buy.
Send him a Roman lantern
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

User avatar
Netpackrat
Posts: 13033
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: The Bedwetting Gungrabbers Are Out In Force

Post by Netpackrat » Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:43 am

Greg wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:27 am
Vonz90 wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:06 pm
We can agree to disagree, but the current sets of laws allow innocent people to get their guns confiscated while wanna be mass shooters get a srug. Why would we not want to improve that?
That's the RESULT of the most recent set of 'improvements'. I want more of such improvements like I want another hole in my ass.
+1. And here's the thing, regardless of what protections you add to a piece of excrement legislation, it doesn't really matter since they will enforce it however they damn well please. There's lots of protections in FOPA '86 that are summarily ignored by the powers that be. They're all about enforcing that Hughes Amendment though.
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati

"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Ass-op

User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 3585
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: The Bedwetting Gungrabbers Are Out In Force

Post by Vonz90 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:30 am

Greg wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:27 am
Vonz90 wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:06 pm
We can agree to disagree, but the current sets of laws allow innocent people to get their guns confiscated while wanna be mass shooters get a srug. Why would we not want to improve that?
That's the RESULT of the most recent set of 'improvements'. I want more of such improvements like I want another hole in my ass.
So, imagine what you think it should be and advocate for that. Part of the change could be rolling back some of the stupid that is out there now.

My personal preference is that "red flag" requirements should basically look the same as the requirements to prove criminal conspiracy (or that they are dangerously mentally ill). It should also preempt lower standards of confiscation to go after some horror stories mentioned above. There is a degree of redundancy there, but it tink having a standard legal tool could be useful.

I would also like to see a requirement that if a place is open to the public and makes themselves a gun free zone, they have to have armed security on premises.

MarkD
Posts: 3969
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:59 pm

Re: The Bedwetting Gungrabbers Are Out In Force

Post by MarkD » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:47 pm

The more I think about it, no. In fact not just no, but fuck no. Because it WILL be abused (as in my NJ example, imagine THAT on a Federal level).

So you have legislation that allows someone to have his guns confiscated if they show themselves to be a danger to themselves or someone else. Fine. Now suppose there's a situation where someone really DOES give his brother a gun to shoot his estranged wife. Oh nos! Now EVERYONE who has a family member going thru a divorce can be legally disarmed, because if it happened once it can happen again, and the combination of gun ownership and family divorce is a danger we just can't ignore.

If you're too much of a danger, to yourself or someone else, to possess a firearm, you're too much of a danger to possess gasoline, rope, knives, bleach, rat poison, a car, hammers, long screwdrivers, wood chipper, angle grinder, in fact you're too much of a danger to be out in public unattended. I keep lengthening the list of things you're too dangerous to possess, but I've know some folks that, if they were pissed at you, you wouldn't want them to have access to pencils or dental floss.

So if the future-ex-Mrs-Jackwagon is REALLY frightened that her husband will shoot her, let her (a) apply for a restraining order, (b) because of a, expedite her own CCW and (c) provide her with free training so she can effectively use the CCW. And violation of the restraining order provides prima facie justification for acting in self defense. If she refuses to arm herself in her own defense, allow her to be taken into protective custody.

Because (as we've pointed out right on this forum SO many times) the gun is just the tool, it's the PERSON who kills, and if the person is determined to harm someone they'll find a way.

User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 3585
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: The Bedwetting Gungrabbers Are Out In Force

Post by Vonz90 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:06 pm

MarkD wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:47 pm
The more I think about it, no. In fact not just no, but fuck no. Because it WILL be abused (as in my NJ example, imagine THAT on a Federal level).

So you have legislation that allows someone to have his guns confiscated if they show themselves to be a danger to themselves or someone else. Fine. Now suppose there's a situation where someone really DOES give his brother a gun to shoot his estranged wife. Oh nos! Now EVERYONE who has a family member going thru a divorce can be legally disarmed, because if it happened once it can happen again, and the combination of gun ownership and family divorce is a danger we just can't ignore.

If you're too much of a danger, to yourself or someone else, to possess a firearm, you're too much of a danger to possess gasoline, rope, knives, bleach, rat poison, a car, hammers, long screwdrivers, wood chipper, angle grinder, in fact you're too much of a danger to be out in public unattended. I keep lengthening the list of things you're too dangerous to possess, but I've know some folks that, if they were pissed at you, you wouldn't want them to have access to pencils or dental floss.

So if the future-ex-Mrs-Jackwagon is REALLY frightened that her husband will shoot her, let her (a) apply for a restraining order, (b) because of a, expedite her own CCW and (c) provide her with free training so she can effectively use the CCW. And violation of the restraining order provides prima facie justification for acting in self defense. If she refuses to arm herself in her own defense, allow her to be taken into protective custody.

Because (as we've pointed out right on this forum SO many times) the gun is just the tool, it's the PERSON who kills, and if the person is determined to harm someone they'll find a way.
You are very much missing my point, but all good, I guess the current laws are perfect and never abused and no changes could be considered with out destroying their Aristotelian pefection. ;)

User avatar
MiddleAgedKen
Posts: 2611
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:11 pm
Location: Flyover Country

Re: The Bedwetting Gungrabbers Are Out In Force

Post by MiddleAgedKen » Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:20 pm

I can easily imagine what I think it should be: no law at all. I will work for that, but I will not be a party to the negotiation of "acceptable" infringements.
Watergate didn't have a body count.

Post Reply