It's Official Now......Democrats Support Crime

Democraps had a chance to vote FOR a Red-Flag law but instead chose to vote against it......to protect MS-13 Gang Members.

September 21, 2019
Dems Veto Red Flag Law for Gangbangers
By Daniel John Sobieski
If Democrats were serious about using red flag laws to keep guns out if the hands of people who might use them to senselessly murder others and therefore are danger to society, and not just as a gun-control tool to disarm law-abiding citizens, then why did they kill an attempt to use compiled lists of known gang members, which many police departments and law enforcement agencies possess? Why did they kill a measure to red flag gang members? And if Beto O’Rourke is going to come and take our guns, particularly our AR-15s, is he going to start on the south side of Chicago? As the Washington Examiner noted on September 14:

House Democrats this week advanced a new measure to encourage states to pass “red flag” laws, known as extreme risk protection orders, that authorize removing guns and ammunition from dangerous individuals.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee amended the measure during a Wednesday mark-up to authorize the federal government to issue extreme risk protection orders in some instances, but they rejected an amendment that would have red-flagged anyone who law enforcement lists as a gang member.

“The majority of violent crime, including gun violence, in the United States is linked to gangs,” Rep. Ken Buck, a Colorado Republican who sponsored the amendment, said Wednesday. “My amendment is quite simple. It would allow the issuance of a red flag order against anyone whose name appears in a gang database if there was probable cause to include that individual in the database.”

Dems like House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler warned that people could be wrongly identified as gang members, just as people have been mistakenly put on no-fly lists. But identifying NRA members and law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms as killers-in-waiting are okay to Nadler, Swalwell, and O’Rourke. Yet, as Buck points out, urban police departments have a pretty good idea of who the gang members in their community are and are held to a high standard before officially listing them as member:

Buck pointed out his amendment requires law enforcement to limit red-flagging to only those with probable cause to be included on the list, which is a stricter criteria…

“Maybe you are just doodling because it is the 13th of June,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York said.

Buck said police have to meet a much higher threshold to list someone as a gang member.

“This is a situation where the police officers are trained, and there are very identifiable signs, and it isn't just one sign,” Buck told Nadler.

Chicago has the equivalent of a mass shooting every weekend, and just to put faces on those whom the Democrats want to exempt from red flag laws, consider that on last Tuesday two separate trials began in Chicago for known Chicago gang members Dwight Doty and Corey Morgan for the murder of nine-year-old Tyshawn Lee. As Fox News reported:

216146_5_.png

Two reputed Chicago gang members allegedly executed a 9-year-old boy in broad daylight because they sought revenge on the child’s father’s rival gang, which they blamed for gunning down family members, prosecutors said Tuesday.

Tyshawn Lee, 9, was in his school uniform when three men approached him in the South Side of Chicago in November 2015, prosecutors said during opening statements.

Prosecutors said Corey Morgan and Kevin Edwards kept watch while Dwight Doty lured the fourth grader into an alleyway. They said he promised him a juice box.

Doty then took out a .40-caliber handgun and shot Lee, Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney Margaret Hillmann said.

Two separate trials began for Morgan and Doty on Tuesday. The two alleged members of the Bang Gang/Terror Dome faction of the Black P Stones gang seek to pin the blame on each other for the child’s slaying, reports said.

No red flags for these guys.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/dems_veto_red_flag_law_for_gangbangers.html
You are among the first to scream about due process, unless it comes to people you'd like to see punished. It's very clear why the law can't red flag people just because the police have "a pretty good idea" they are gang members.

It's a horrible gang. They are feral dregs of society and I'd like to see them stopped, too. But you have to follow the law.
You're a serious dumbass. They're talking about "KNOWN CRIMINALS" with criminal records....not just people they sortof suspect.
 
Holy shit!

You are stretching there Davey as usual.

You know very well what gangs they would go after and those are the ones you and your political party protects daily.

I am not for using hit lists like you and the left would because let be honest those like you have been calling for the no-fly list to be used to deny an individual their constitutional rights but now when a list could be used to deny gang members of the violent type you are now against using lists or certain lists...

So tell the board why you support using the No-Fly list but not a gang banger list?
The NRA enables crime by making it as easy as possible to get a gun and make it legal for them to carry guns.


So, lets give the government blankret authority to decide what is a gang & let them take your guns.

Really? I can't believe you people are going for this. On any NRA approved thread, you people would be having a fit.

You know it.


It's not that fucking complicated to find out what a gang is mental midget.

So why isn't the NRA a gang? What makes a gang a gang? Is it a bunch of young people in an organization the commit crimes & how is thart different than a finance group screwing people out of their investments?

Crime, you asshat.


Good post next time learn how to use QUOTE 's and once again not to complicated to see who is in a fucking gang.

nintchdbpict000288662810.jpg
 
You are among the first to scream about due process, unless it comes to people you'd like to see punished. It's very clear why the law can't red flag people just because the police have "a pretty good idea" they are gang members.

It's a horrible gang. They are feral dregs of society and I'd like to see them stopped, too. But you have to follow the law.


Fair enough, but the proposed "red flag" laws that the Dems are advocating would allow the confiscation of weapons just because a friend, relative, doctor or nosy neighbor "has a pretty good idea" they are dangerous.

I think that if you are going to have such a red flag law, the police are more experts than neighbors, no?
EVIDENCE has to be supplied to the judge BEFORE an order is signed. You can't just walk in to court and get a judge to sign a temporary order without some EVIDENCE.


I'm sure it would be the same if MS 13 and Cripz members too. The police would have to have evidence to show they are members or associates of a gang.
 
Democraps had a chance to vote FOR a Red-Flag law but instead chose to vote against it......to protect MS-13 Gang Members.

September 21, 2019
Dems Veto Red Flag Law for Gangbangers
By Daniel John Sobieski
If Democrats were serious about using red flag laws to keep guns out if the hands of people who might use them to senselessly murder others and therefore are danger to society, and not just as a gun-control tool to disarm law-abiding citizens, then why did they kill an attempt to use compiled lists of known gang members, which many police departments and law enforcement agencies possess? Why did they kill a measure to red flag gang members? And if Beto O’Rourke is going to come and take our guns, particularly our AR-15s, is he going to start on the south side of Chicago? As the Washington Examiner noted on September 14:

House Democrats this week advanced a new measure to encourage states to pass “red flag” laws, known as extreme risk protection orders, that authorize removing guns and ammunition from dangerous individuals.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee amended the measure during a Wednesday mark-up to authorize the federal government to issue extreme risk protection orders in some instances, but they rejected an amendment that would have red-flagged anyone who law enforcement lists as a gang member.

“The majority of violent crime, including gun violence, in the United States is linked to gangs,” Rep. Ken Buck, a Colorado Republican who sponsored the amendment, said Wednesday. “My amendment is quite simple. It would allow the issuance of a red flag order against anyone whose name appears in a gang database if there was probable cause to include that individual in the database.”

Dems like House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler warned that people could be wrongly identified as gang members, just as people have been mistakenly put on no-fly lists. But identifying NRA members and law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms as killers-in-waiting are okay to Nadler, Swalwell, and O’Rourke. Yet, as Buck points out, urban police departments have a pretty good idea of who the gang members in their community are and are held to a high standard before officially listing them as member:

Buck pointed out his amendment requires law enforcement to limit red-flagging to only those with probable cause to be included on the list, which is a stricter criteria…

“Maybe you are just doodling because it is the 13th of June,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York said.

Buck said police have to meet a much higher threshold to list someone as a gang member.

“This is a situation where the police officers are trained, and there are very identifiable signs, and it isn't just one sign,” Buck told Nadler.

Chicago has the equivalent of a mass shooting every weekend, and just to put faces on those whom the Democrats want to exempt from red flag laws, consider that on last Tuesday two separate trials began in Chicago for known Chicago gang members Dwight Doty and Corey Morgan for the murder of nine-year-old Tyshawn Lee. As Fox News reported:

216146_5_.png

Two reputed Chicago gang members allegedly executed a 9-year-old boy in broad daylight because they sought revenge on the child’s father’s rival gang, which they blamed for gunning down family members, prosecutors said Tuesday.

Tyshawn Lee, 9, was in his school uniform when three men approached him in the South Side of Chicago in November 2015, prosecutors said during opening statements.

Prosecutors said Corey Morgan and Kevin Edwards kept watch while Dwight Doty lured the fourth grader into an alleyway. They said he promised him a juice box.

Doty then took out a .40-caliber handgun and shot Lee, Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney Margaret Hillmann said.

Two separate trials began for Morgan and Doty on Tuesday. The two alleged members of the Bang Gang/Terror Dome faction of the Black P Stones gang seek to pin the blame on each other for the child’s slaying, reports said.

No red flags for these guys.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/dems_veto_red_flag_law_for_gangbangers.html
You are among the first to scream about due process, unless it comes to people you'd like to see punished. It's very clear why the law can't red flag people just because the police have "a pretty good idea" they are gang members.

It's a horrible gang. They are feral dregs of society and I'd like to see them stopped, too. But you have to follow the law.
You're a serious dumbass. They're talking about "KNOWN CRIMINALS" with criminal records....not just people they sortof suspect.
Known criminals already have the guns confiscated, don't they? I think you need to reread your own OP.
 
You are among the first to scream about due process, unless it comes to people you'd like to see punished. It's very clear why the law can't red flag people just because the police have "a pretty good idea" they are gang members.

It's a horrible gang. They are feral dregs of society and I'd like to see them stopped, too. But you have to follow the law.


Fair enough, but the proposed "red flag" laws that the Dems are advocating would allow the confiscation of weapons just because a friend, relative, doctor or nosy neighbor "has a pretty good idea" they are dangerous.

I think that if you are going to have such a red flag law, the police are more experts than neighbors, no?

A court decides. How stupid are you people?

There is no limit to the silliness of gun nuts. I really don’t get this thread. Is the OP for red flag laws? If so, he is siding with the alleged party of crime...and the gun nuts are backing her up?

Weird thread.
 
Having tatoos isn't illegal in this country.
Most of them (the smart ones anyway) aren't advertising ink.
Oh......so you're busy backtracking and want to get out of the argument before you make a total fool of yourself, right?
BTW, how do you know that most of them aren't getting facial tattoos.......is there some link I can find the statistics on this subject?
 
Go ahead....explain to us why the democrats vetoed using their beloved "Red Flag" laws to go after known criminals who are the ones doing the actual gun crimes...

Go ahead....we're waiting......

Explain to us what you’re talking about.

Did you read the OP or are you just trolling?

Everyone knows you're a Progressive Poster that trolls, so discuss the material of the OP like 2guy is pointing to you.

I discussed the title and demonstrated the well known fact that Trump supporters commit violence at an alarming rate and are defended after the fact.

The OP is not about your delusional thought about anyone that disagree with your opinion on life but about Democrats not passing a red flag bill because you would also focus on gang members.

So seeing you are refusing to discuss this by trying to change the subject show the board you are trolling as usual...

Now next you will proclaim the NRA is the biggest terrorist organization in the world and anyone that vote GOP are violent people that should be disarmed while still ignoring the content of the Op...

Just pointing out that Trump supporters are predisposed to violence which is a proven fact. There are certainly violent democrats as well.

Dems see it as a flaw. Republicans see it as a feature.


and yet again you fail to name just one,,,
 
Having tatoos isn't illegal in this country.
Most of them (the smart ones anyway) aren't advertising ink.


The police know who is in a gang, and who isn't. They oftentimes have informants or even moles on the inside.

When detectives are given the orders to pick up the "usual suspects", they know exactly where to go.

Cops aren't nearly as stupid as liberals pretend.
 
Go ahead....explain to us why the democrats vetoed using their beloved "Red Flag" laws to go after known criminals who are the ones doing the actual gun crimes...

Go ahead....we're waiting......

Explain to us what you’re talking about.

Did you read the OP or are you just trolling?

Everyone knows you're a Progressive Poster that trolls, so discuss the material of the OP like 2guy is pointing to you.

I discussed the title and demonstrated the well known fact that Trump supporters commit violence at an alarming rate and are defended after the fact.

The OP is not about your delusional thought about anyone that disagree with your opinion on life but about Democrats not passing a red flag bill because you would also focus on gang members.

So seeing you are refusing to discuss this by trying to change the subject show the board you are trolling as usual...

Now next you will proclaim the NRA is the biggest terrorist organization in the world and anyone that vote GOP are violent people that should be disarmed while still ignoring the content of the Op...

Just pointing out that Trump supporters are predisposed to violence which is a proven fact. There are certainly violent democrats as well.

Dems see it as a flaw. Republicans see it as a feature.

Well let me say this before 2015 Trump was a supporter of the Democratic Party, and my bet you will deny what I just wrote but it is true.

Trump is not your typical Republican and to pretend he is, well of course you will claim he is but he is not!

As for his base you focus on the Neo-Nazi and KKK members that mostly do not vote and when they do it is not for a guy that has a daughter that is married to a Jewish man and worships Israel Friendship.

So please Candy try to peddle your nonsense to the weak minded poster because that crap does not work on me!
 
The OP is not about your delusional thought about anyone that disagree with your opinion on life but about Democrats not passing a red flag bill because you would also focus on gang members.

So seeing you are refusing to discuss this by trying to change the subject show the board you are trolling as usual...

Now next you will proclaim the NRA is the biggest terrorist organization in the world and anyone that vote GOP are violent people that should be disarmed while still ignoring the content of the Op...

The use on gang members was really an example of how the law could be be unfairly applied. Being in a gang is not illegal & therefore not be an excuse to deny gun ownership. It sounds great until to look at what is a gang, what defines membership, is one gang member guilty are all gang members?

Including this would lead to a rejection by the USSC.

Holy shit!

You are stretching there Davey as usual.

You know very well what gangs they would go after and those are the ones you and your political party protects daily.

I am not for using hit lists like you and the left would because let be honest those like you have been calling for the no-fly list to be used to deny an individual their constitutional rights but now when a list could be used to deny gang members of the violent type you are now against using lists or certain lists...

So tell the board why you support using the No-Fly list but not a gang banger list?


So, lets give the government blankret authority to decide what is a gang & let them take your guns.

Really? I can't believe you people are going for this. On any NRA approved thread, you people would be having a fit.

You know it.


It's not that fucking complicated to find out what a gang is mental midget.

So why isn't the NRA a gang? What makes a gang a gang? Is it a bunch of young people in an organization the commit crimes & how is thart different than a finance group screwing people out of their investments?

Holy shit you are reaching...

Just admit Davey you want violent gang bangers to have guns while you demand the average citizen to be disarmed...

You were for the No-Fly list to be used but are against using a Gang Bangers list because it is usually minorities.

Who would that list go after?

MS-13

Neo-Nazis

KKK members

Hmmm, watch Davey think second about that list when he realizes the Democrats could use it against white people...
 
You are among the first to scream about due process, unless it comes to people you'd like to see punished. It's very clear why the law can't red flag people just because the police have "a pretty good idea" they are gang members.

It's a horrible gang. They are feral dregs of society and I'd like to see them stopped, too. But you have to follow the law.


Fair enough, but the proposed "red flag" laws that the Dems are advocating would allow the confiscation of weapons just because a friend, relative, doctor or nosy neighbor "has a pretty good idea" they are dangerous.

I think that if you are going to have such a red flag law, the police are more experts than neighbors, no?
EVIDENCE has to be supplied to the judge BEFORE an order is signed. You can't just walk in to court and get a judge to sign a temporary order without some EVIDENCE.

Hahahaha!

That is so cute!

Wow!!

Really that was HILARIOUS!!!

You are so naive to think that way!!!!
 
You are among the first to scream about due process, unless it comes to people you'd like to see punished. It's very clear why the law can't red flag people just because the police have "a pretty good idea" they are gang members.

It's a horrible gang. They are feral dregs of society and I'd like to see them stopped, too. But you have to follow the law.


Fair enough, but the proposed "red flag" laws that the Dems are advocating would allow the confiscation of weapons just because a friend, relative, doctor or nosy neighbor "has a pretty good idea" they are dangerous.

I think that if you are going to have such a red flag law, the police are more experts than neighbors, no?

A court decides. How stupid are you people?

A court decides and a crooked cop, D.A. and Judge decide you are dangerous because your neighbor pays them off to say you are is what will happen...

Lists are for future abuses and if you were for the No-Fly list and now against the Gang Banger list then it tell me you are a partisan hack just going with what MSM tell you to believe...
 
Having tatoos isn't illegal in this country.
Most of them (the smart ones anyway) aren't advertising ink.


The police know who is in a gang, and who isn't. They oftentimes have informants or even moles on the inside.

When detectives are given the orders to pick up the "usual suspects", they know exactly where to go.

Cops aren't nearly as stupid as liberals pretend.
I never said they were stupid. The cops around here know exactly who is dealing drugs, too, but if they can't catch them, they can't do anything but watch 'em like hawks. Same situation with gang members and the red flag laws we are talking about.
 
You are among the first to scream about due process, unless it comes to people you'd like to see punished. It's very clear why the law can't red flag people just because the police have "a pretty good idea" they are gang members.

It's a horrible gang. They are feral dregs of society and I'd like to see them stopped, too. But you have to follow the law.


Fair enough, but the proposed "red flag" laws that the Dems are advocating would allow the confiscation of weapons just because a friend, relative, doctor or nosy neighbor "has a pretty good idea" they are dangerous.

I think that if you are going to have such a red flag law, the police are more experts than neighbors, no?
EVIDENCE has to be supplied to the judge BEFORE an order is signed. You can't just walk in to court and get a judge to sign a temporary order without some EVIDENCE.

Hahahaha!

That is so cute!

Wow!!

Really that was HILARIOUS!!!

You are so naive to think that way!!!!
You're sad.
Judges have a list of things to consider. I've posted it before and I'm not in here to get into another argument on red flag laws. This is about whether on a cop's "pretty much knowing" if someone is in a gang (with no evidence and no evidence of the person committing any crimes), his guns should be taken away.
 
Having tatoos isn't illegal in this country.
Most of them (the smart ones anyway) aren't advertising ink.


The police know who is in a gang, and who isn't. They oftentimes have informants or even moles on the inside.

When detectives are given the orders to pick up the "usual suspects", they know exactly where to go.

Cops aren't nearly as stupid as liberals pretend.
I never said they were stupid. The cops around here know exactly who is dealing drugs, too, but if they can't catch them, they can't do anything but watch 'em like hawks. Same situation with gang members and the red flag laws we are talking about.

Police can't prove who is mentally ill either, or criminally insane.

So I guess that puts the kibosh on the whole "red flag" proposal if we are going to wait for definitive proof.
 
You are among the first to scream about due process, unless it comes to people you'd like to see punished. It's very clear why the law can't red flag people just because the police have "a pretty good idea" they are gang members.

It's a horrible gang. They are feral dregs of society and I'd like to see them stopped, too. But you have to follow the law.


Fair enough, but the proposed "red flag" laws that the Dems are advocating would allow the confiscation of weapons just because a friend, relative, doctor or nosy neighbor "has a pretty good idea" they are dangerous.

I think that if you are going to have such a red flag law, the police are more experts than neighbors, no?
EVIDENCE has to be supplied to the judge BEFORE an order is signed. You can't just walk in to court and get a judge to sign a temporary order without some EVIDENCE.

Hahahaha!

That is so cute!

Wow!!

Really that was HILARIOUS!!!

You are so naive to think that way!!!!
You're sad.
Judges have a list of things to consider. I've posted it before and I'm not in here to get into another argument on red flag laws. This is about whether on a cop's "pretty much knowing" if someone is in a gang (with no evidence and no evidence of the person committing any crimes), his guns should be taken away.

Old Lady cops, and the D.A. fabricate evidence daily against people and I can provide so many incidents that you will cry about how sad I am!

Your blind faith in the justice system is the sad part if you think any law will prevent crimes or murders but what is even more sad is to believe our justice system is not corrupt...
 
Having tatoos isn't illegal in this country.
Most of them (the smart ones anyway) aren't advertising ink.


The police know who is in a gang, and who isn't. They oftentimes have informants or even moles on the inside.

When detectives are given the orders to pick up the "usual suspects", they know exactly where to go.

Cops aren't nearly as stupid as liberals pretend.
I never said they were stupid. The cops around here know exactly who is dealing drugs, too, but if they can't catch them, they can't do anything but watch 'em like hawks. Same situation with gang members and the red flag laws we are talking about.

Police can't prove who is mentally ill either, or criminally insane.

So I guess that puts the kibosh on the whole "red flag" proposal if we are going to wait for definitive proof.
Different thread.
 

Forum List

Back
Top