Start "red flag" laws that allow confiscation of guns from gang members & white-supremacists? (Poll) Any other suggestions for reducing lawlessness?

[munkle]

That was the point I was hoping someone would make, thanks!

Imagine the Ministry of Truth saying what's NOT happening, as it is happening. The government could be sending conservatives to "gulags" for re-education and tranny counseling.

None of us should ever trust the government. The bogus FISA warrants, FBI operations Crossfire-Hurricane and Razor proved they can't be trusted, ever.

Don't you know Epstein killed himself, or you are a conspiracy theorist?

 

[kyzr]

Don't you know Epstein killed himself, or you are a conspiracy theorist?

LOL!! There is an IMF, "Impossible Mission Force" and they killed Epstein. Impressive.
Wonder if they could do Putin?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Another young shooter kills 10 in Buffalo, the talking heads say we need gun control. Its not the guns fault.
Cities and NY state already have serious gun control. Gun control doesn't work, never does.
People have a lot of guns already, and will never give them up.
The 2nd Amendment says we "non-criminals" can keep our guns, period.

So here's a thought. Serious prison time for anyone who uses a gun for any crime.
1. Including any criminal gang activity
2. Including hate crimes, or road rage.
3. Online monitors for hate speech or manifestos from any hate groups, then the "red flag" law requires them to surrender their guns or go to jail.
4. Bring back stop and frisk laws in big cities. Illegal guns result in fines or prison depending upon their rap sheet.

So lets have a poll to see if any new actions should be taken that would pass the House and Senate...

The fourteenth amendment states that liberties cannot be deprived without due process of law. We cannot deprive people of their rights for possible crimes we think they might engage in later.

 

[whitehall]

Who determines what being a "white supremacist" entails? Aren't there any race based supremacists who aren't white? The question is how did a psychopath get a gun in one of the most restrictive states and how did he get radicalized in a liberal state that spends time worrying about pronouns related to transfreakazoids?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Another young shooter kills 10 in Buffalo, the talking heads say we need gun control. Its not the guns fault.
Cities and NY state already have serious gun control. Gun control doesn't work, never does.
People have a lot of guns already, and will never give them up.
The 2nd Amendment says we "non-criminals" can keep our guns, period.

So here's a thought. Serious prison time for anyone who uses a gun for any crime.
1. Including any criminal gang activity
2. Including hate crimes, or road rage.
3. Online monitors for hate speech or manifestos from any hate groups, then the "red flag" law requires them to surrender their guns or go to jail.
4. Bring back stop and frisk laws in big cities. Illegal guns result in fines or prison depending upon their rap sheet.

So lets have a poll to see if any new actions should be taken that would pass the House and Senate...

You have to tie it to an actual crime not some group. Otherwise democrats will just say, as they have been already, conservatives are white supremists so go get their guns.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I wanted to show that "criminals" and not just squeaky clean humans get "civil liberties such as privacy and free speech". After the perp is out and on probation, should he get his privacy and free speech rights back or not?

Not necessarily while he is still on probation. When he has completed his probation or parole, and is restored to full free status, then I am in favor of him getting all of his rights back. Once he has truly “paid his debt to society”, as long as he stays out of trouble, he doesn't owe society any more loss of freedom.

I also, however, advocate a very harsh treatment of persistent or severe criminals. One serious enough crime (murder, possibly some instances of rape or child molestation), he should get the death penalty. Same with a persistent pattern of lesser crimes, sufficient to indicate that he will never be willing to behave like an actual human being, and to peaceably coexist with actual human beings. At some point, we need to declare a criminal to be unsalvageable, and not worth allowing to continue to exist, and to create any further risk to actual human beings.

Even then, once he's completed that sentence, he still has what rights he is left able to exercise. For example, if he wants to keep his guns, then they can be buried with him in his grave. At that point, I don't think we need to worry much that he'll use them to commit any further crimes, do you?

 

[whitehall]

How does "confiscation" work? Does it rely on Feds invading private property with vague and phony and bad paper that they don't have to defend? Didn't they try that at Waco? The dirty little secret is that the federal law enforcement agency allegedly dedicated to enforcing gun laws was the biggest source of illegal guns during the Hussein administration with Operation Fast/Furious and nobody was indicted or even fired when one of the weapons turned up in the murder of a Border Patrol Officer.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Don't look now but Twitter, Facebook, and Google monitor you already. If they notice a "red flag" person, you don't want them to show the police their finding, so the police could get a court order to disarm that individual??

Again, it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment to treat anyone as a likely criminal, because of an opinion that he posted on social media. Anything short of an explicit declaration of intent to commit a crime, or an admission to having committed a crime, would not be a valid basis for any such court order.

Rudy Giuliani used stop and frisk in NYC to lower the crime rate, so it must be legal, and it works.

Just think how much “safer” we could be if the police had the power to stop all of us on the streets, to stop any vehicle at random, to enter our homes at will, to search for evidence of criminal intent or activity. If the government had the power to treat us all as potential criminals, and put the burden on us to prove we are innocent; if they could throw anyone in prison or put anyone to death just on the slightest suspicion of crime, without having to go through all the bother of a trial.

For very good reason, the great men who wrote our Constitution, who wrote the Bill of Rights, absolutely forbade that approach. Our system of justice is founded on the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, and on the protections outlined in the Fourth through Seventh Amendments.

The Fourth Amendment draws a line that shall not be crossed—that we have a right to be secure in our persons, possessions, and property; that strict requirements are to be met before this security may be violated by search or seizure. The “stop and frisk” policies blatantly violate the Fourth Amendment, and violate the right to such security.

 

[whitehall]

Again, it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment to treat anyone as a likely criminal, because of an opinion that he posted on social media. Anything short of an explicit declaration of intent to commit a crime, or an admission to having committed a crime, would not be a valid basis for any such court order.




Just think how much “safer” we could be if the police had the power to stop all of us on the streets, to stop any vehicle at random, to enter our homes at will, to search for evidence of criminal intent or activity. If the government had the power to treat us all as potential criminals, and put the burden on us to prove we are innocent; if they could throw anyone in prison or put anyone to death just on the slightest suspicion of crime, without having to go through all the bother of a trial.

For very good reason, the great men who wrote our Constitution, who wrote the Bill of Rights, absolutely forbade that approach. Our system of justice is founded on the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, and on the protections outlined in the Fourth through Seventh Amendments.

The Fourth Amendment draws a line that shall not be crossed—that we have a right to be secure in our persons, possessions, and property; that strict requirements are to be met before this security may be violated by search or seizure. The “stop and frisk” policies blatantly violate the Fourth Amendment, and violate the right to such security.

The Bill of Rights doesn't apply when a federal agency is authorized to operate outside the law and the media condones the act. We saw it at Ruby Ridge, Waco and Barry's "Operation Fast/Furious" that sent thousands of illegal weapons to drug cartels in Mexico. Don't count on the 4th Amendment when there is a freaking tank outside your door.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

4. Bring back stop and frisk laws in big cities

Do you live in a big city?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The fourteenth amendment states that liberties cannot be deprived without due process of law. We cannot deprive people of their rights for possible crimes we think they might engage in later.

Yet "we" do. There are already red flag laws, also known as "Extreme Risk Protection Orders".

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

How does "confiscation" work? Does it rely on Feds invading private property with vague and phony and bad paper that they don't have to defend? Didn't they try that at Waco? The dirty little secret is that the federal law enforcement agency allegedly dedicated to enforcing gun laws was the biggest source of illegal guns during the Hussein administration with Operation Fast/Furious and nobody was indicted or even fired when one of the weapons turned up in the murder of a Border Patrol Officer.

It's already been done.

By Mike Baker​

Oct. 17, 2019​

SEATTLE — When Kaleb J. Cole landed at Chicago O’Hare International Airport after a trip to Europe last year, federal officials were waiting at the gate for a chance to question him. In his luggage was the trefoil flag of a neo-Nazi hate group. On his phone, a photo of two people posing at the site of the Auschwitz death camp.​

The officials did not charge Mr. Cole with any crimes that day, or in the months to come, despite information that he was a leader of the Atomwaffen Division, one of the most violent extremist groups in the country. But last month, according to records provided by a prosecutor’s office Thursday, the authorities in Seattle moved to seize a cache of weapons from Mr. Cole, using a state law intended to prevent gun violence.​

“This was an individual who had access to firearms and was preparing for a race war,” Kimberly Wyatt, a prosecutor in King County, Wash., said in an interview on Thursday.​

The move was part of a larger effort by investigators around the country, including the F.B.I., to crack down on members of Atomwaffen, as officials seek to counter the rising threat from hate groups. The Atomwaffen Division has been linked to a series of killings.
​

Continued here: Police Seize Guns From Man Thought to Be Neo-Nazi Leader (Published 2019)​

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

1/2. Wow bring back the "hangin' judge'!! Being a death penalty supporter puts you way outside the mainstream.

3. Don't look now but Twitter, Facebook, and Google monitor you already. If they notice a "red flag" person, you don't want them to show the police their finding, so the police could get a court order to disarm that individual??

4. Rudy Giuliani used stop and frisk in NYC to lower the crime rate, so it must be legal, and it works.

How do you figure that stop and frisk was ever legal under the 4th Amendment?

 

[kyzr]

The fourteenth amendment states that liberties cannot be deprived without due process of law. We cannot deprive people of their rights for possible crimes we think they might engage in later.

OK, then we put up with mass murders that were predictable.

 

[kyzr]

You have to tie it to an actual crime not some group. Otherwise democrats will just say, as they have been already, conservatives are white supremacists so go get their guns.

I would think that the courts would need to make the call to grab guns or not based on the evidence presented by the "monitors". The "monitors" would be tasked with prioritizing monitoring "groups" like gangs and white-supremacists to target the most violent.

 

[kyzr]

Not necessarily while he is still on probation. When he has completed his probation or parole, and is restored to full free status, then I am in favor of him getting all of his rights back. Once he has truly “paid his debt to society”, as long as he stays out of trouble, he doesn't owe society any more loss of freedom.

I also, however, advocate a very harsh treatment of persistent or severe criminals. One serious enough crime (murder, possibly some instances of rape or child molestation), he should get the death penalty. Same with a persistent pattern of lesser crimes, sufficient to indicate that he will never be willing to behave like an actual human being, and to peaceably coexist with actual human beings. At some point, we need to declare a criminal to be unsalvageable, and not worth allowing to continue to exist, and to create any further risk to actual human beings.

Even then, once he's completed that sentence, he still has what rights he is left able to exercise. For example, if he wants to keep his guns, then they can be buried with him in his grave. At that point, I don't think we need to worry much that he'll use them to commit any further crimes, do you?

I agree. That guy who shot up the subway car fits that "career criminal" profile, as an example.

 

[kyzr]

How does "confiscation" work? Does it rely on Feds invading private property with vague and phony and bad paper that they don't have to defend? Didn't they try that at Waco? The dirty little secret is that the federal law enforcement agency allegedly dedicated to enforcing gun laws was the biggest source of illegal guns during the Hussein administration with Operation Fast/Furious and nobody was indicted or even fired when one of the weapons turned up in the murder of a Border Patrol Officer.

You're conflating issues.
1. Waco happened while trying to serve an arrest warrant. Instead of waiting for the perp to come to town, the FBI attacked their compound. You may be thinking of Ruby Ridge where the FBI setup Randy Weaver and FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Mrs. Weaver while holding a baby.

2. Correct, the Obama admin did Operation Fast and Furious, which sold guns to drug cartels, that killed a border agent. An article of impeachment should have been filed.

3. Lets say that "monitors" saw the Buffalo shooter's "manifesto" online, Thursday. They notify the FBI, who goes to court to apply for a "red flag" confiscation of his guns....that would be too late since he killed 10 people Saturday. Gun grabbing would be a slow process, only stopping the slower long term "red flag" risks. Like gang members and rabid white supremacists.

 

[kyzr]

Again, it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment to treat anyone as a likely criminal, because of an opinion that he posted on social media. Anything short of an explicit declaration of intent to commit a crime, or an admission to having committed a crime, would not be a valid basis for any such court order.

Just think how much “safer” we could be if the police had the power to stop all of us on the streets, to stop any vehicle at random, to enter our homes at will, to search for evidence of criminal intent or activity. If the government had the power to treat us all as potential criminals, and put the burden on us to prove we are innocent; if they could throw anyone in prison or put anyone to death just on the slightest suspicion of crime, without having to go through all the bother of a trial.

For very good reason, the great men who wrote our Constitution, who wrote the Bill of Rights, absolutely forbade that approach. Our system of justice is founded on the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, and on the protections outlined in the Fourth through Seventh Amendments.

The Fourth Amendment draws a line that shall not be crossed—that we have a right to be secure in our persons, possessions, and property; that strict requirements are to be met before this security may be violated by search or seizure. The “stop and frisk” policies blatantly violate the Fourth Amendment, and violate the right to such security.

You didn't address that Rudy used "stop and frisk" successfully in NYC. It worked. Why not keep it working?

 

[kyzr]

Do you live in a big city?

No. My avatar location is posted...

 

[Flash]

Grocery and gas debt forgiveness.

Love it!

President Potatohead's destructive economic policies debt forgiveness.

How about giving all American babies free baby formula like Potatohead is giving the goddamn Illegals?