CDZ : Let's debate, why did the democrats veto "Red Flag" laws for actual gun criminals, gang members?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by 2aguy, Sep 21, 2019.

  1. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    74,993
    Thanks Received:
    13,662
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Ratings:
    +56,115
    Mudwhistle posted this story today....and I want an answer from the Pro-Gun Control crowd here on U.S.messageboard....

    If the democrats tell us they care about gun crime, and they think that "Red Flag" laws are the way to help reduce gun crime......why did they veto the use of "Red Flag" laws against actual, known, repeat gun offenders....gang members and other criminals? Instead, the only targets of "Red Flag" laws will be gun owners who have committed no crime, who will then have to prove they are not dangerous having to pay lots of money to do it.....violations of the 2nd Amendment, the 5th Amendment, and the 4th Amendment.....

    So....I would like to know from those who support gun control, why did the democrats veto using "Red Flag" laws against known criminals?

    From Mudwhistle's post.....

    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:
     
  2. Billy_Kinetta
    Offline

    Billy_Kinetta Paladin of the Lost Hour Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    41,719
    Thanks Received:
    8,030
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Ratings:
    +52,254
    Democrats could not exist without their self-caused chaos.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Old Man Grumbles
    Offline

    Old Man Grumbles VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2019
    Messages:
    767
    Thanks Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    70
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Ratings:
    +745
    As the article states, police are held to a higher standard in identifying an individual as a gang member than a petitioner to have a person declared a danger and his/her guns confiscated. I know this first hand from working in a gang unit in California.

    So, at the minimum Democrats need to get off their chairs and - short of throwing out red flag laws - make the red flag laws as restrictive as anti-gang laws.

    Will this happen? No, probably not.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2019
  4. sartre play
    Offline

    sartre play Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    3,849
    Thanks Received:
    373
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,611
    Just guessing, its a lot more danger too go after Mexican gangs and drug big shots than it is to pick on nonviolent illegals, or just bust the drug users .
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    74,993
    Thanks Received:
    13,662
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Ratings:
    +56,115
    By the numbers...

    Mass public shootings in 2018..... 12. Total killed .... 93.

    Gun murder in General in 2017 the last year of FBI stats? 10,982.

    The majority of the 10,982 victims are criminals murdered by other criminals......the shooters likely with repeat illegal gun offenses.

    The democrats want to use the 93 killed in mass public shootings to pass Red Flag laws that target normal people.....yet, as Mudwhistle's thread pointed out, they want to exempt actual, known, violent gun criminals, the ones actually responsible for 10, 889 gun murders.

    As this is a debate thread, let's debate why the democrats want to focus on gun owners without histories of any crime ..... and ignore the individuals who actually use guns for crime......repeatedly.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  6. Tijn Von Ingersleben
    Offline

    Tijn Von Ingersleben Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    5,490
    Thanks Received:
    649
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +4,434
    Do gang members utilize legitimate gun dealers?
    I would think not given their purposes for gun ownership.
    I don't think the Red Flag laws would affect them.
     
  7. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    74,993
    Thanks Received:
    13,662
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Ratings:
    +56,115

    It doesn't matter...... they didn't vote down that provision because they didn't think it would work...since none of their other gun laws actually work either. Red Flag laws for known gang members would allow police to go to their homes, their baby momma homes, their mothers homes.....and search them for illegal guns.....the same way it would for law abiding gun owners who don't have a criminal record of gun crime of any kind.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Tijn Von Ingersleben
    Offline

    Tijn Von Ingersleben Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    5,490
    Thanks Received:
    649
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +4,434
    What is stopping police from doing that now? Warrants are incredibly easy to acquire. This idea that the courts work to protect Fourth Amendment rights is complete horseshit.
    The fact remains that Red Flag laws would prove to be useless against known gang affiliates.
     
  9. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    55,486
    Thanks Received:
    6,290
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +9,711
    The obvious answer is because they don't want to disarm criminals. They only want to disarm law-abiding people.

    Why?

    Because criminals won't resist leftist tyranny. They'll continue breaking the law just like usual, and not coincidentally providing stacks of bodies for Democrats to preach disarmament from.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    56,158
    Thanks Received:
    6,318
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +24,311
    It wouldn’t.

    What would affect them is if we passed a law to where all sales of guns would have to go through the same background check. Person A has a gun. Person B wants to buy the gun. They travel down to someone who is certified by the ATF (or whomever) to do the background check. The local tax office, court house, gun dealers, etc…. and the sale is contingent upon Person B passing a background check. Safe. Simple. Secure. Sane.

    If no certified authority authorized the sale, the buyer and seller are both subject to being charged with commission of a crime.

    It would make the dealers who sell to gang bangers think twice.

    Would it stop someone who is probably already a criminal? No…they’re not buying from legitimate people to start with. Would it stop some of the gun flow from responsible owners to gang members? Yep.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page