Attorney General Nominee: Reg Flag Laws Are “The Single Most Important Thing We Can Do In the Gun Control Area to Stop Massacres”

William Barr during his Senate confirmation hearing (via screenshot)

As called out by the National Association for Gun Rights online and Gunpowder Magazine, the President’s nominee for Attorney General, William Barr, made a startling statement regarding Second Amendment rights during his confirmation hearing:

“I think that the problem of our time is to get an effective system in place that can keep dangerous firearms out of the hands of mentally ill people. That is, should be, priority number one. And it’s gonna take some hard work, and we need to get on top of the problem… We need to agree to standards that are prohibitors of people who are mentally ill. We have to get the resources in to get the system built up the way we did many years ago on the felon records and so forth. We have to get the system working, and as I say, it’s sort of piecemeal right now. We need to get some energy behind it and get it done.

I also think we need to push along the ERPOs (Extreme Risk Protection Orders), so that we have these red flag laws to supplement the use of the background check to find out if someone has some mental disturbance. This is the single most important thing I think we can do, in the gun control area, to stop these massacres from happening in the first place.”

“Well, thank you, I’d like to work with you in that regard,” Dianne Feinstein replied.

This is worrying. You can read the NAGR article here and also watch the relevant four-minute portion of the hearing here on YouTube:


  1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

    All part of President Trump’s 4D chess strategy, according to his followers.

    1. avatar Rincoln says:

      Grow up. Trump is by no means absolute best we could possibly get. He is, however, in fact the best option we were presented. He has, quite likely, done more for the American people than any president in history. His record on the 2nd is quite blemished, and will likely continue to be so. He has no incentive to capitulate. And, as a business man, he needs incentive, or he will not act. It’s just not even a consideration for him.

      1. avatar Rincoln says:

        I would much rather have to fight tyranny with the prospect of constitution honoring judges, than have to fight the bread lines with what could have been.

        1. avatar Biatec says:

          Kavanaugh is not a constitution honoring judge.

        2. avatar Enuf says:

          Federal judge appointments are the only useful thing coming out of Trump and some are questionable at best. That isn’t even his doing, he’s rubber stamping the judge picking efforts of a team put together for him by other people.

          The rest is utter disaster. He has no leadership ability, no legislative talent and cannot figure out how to hire and hold onto the people who do have it.

          In 2016 we were faced with two horrible, dishonest, incompetent candidates. I was delighted, overjoyed even, when one of them lost. Just as I was equally horrified when one of them won.

          To this day I’ve had no reason to alter that view.

          Oh, and now this anti-gun nominee to run DoJ. Yeah, just loving Trump on this sh_t.


        3. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          “Kavanaugh is not a constitution honoring judge.”

          As Ricoln said, grow the fuck up.

          The “Kav” *loves* semi-auto rifles and high-cap magazines….

        4. avatar Biatec says:

          “As Ricoln said, grow the fuck up.”

          Discussions like these really convince me that Trump is our man. lol

        5. avatar Botofago says:

          Bread lines?

          Grow the fuck up.

        6. avatar inNC says:

          Kavanaugh drafted the “Patriot Act” which is the worst violation of the constitution we have right now. This AG is the worst he could have selected. I voted for Trump but there isn’t anyone I will follow blindly anywhere. It’s not left and right, it’s wrong and right.

      2. avatar JMR says:

        Imagine if, and stuck with me in this one, the people who voted for the president who has a giant ego actually held him to some standards instead of making excuses for him all the time.

        He was going to capitulate on the wall too, until he saw all of his supporters pissed off over the thought. Now he has the longest government shutdown.

        Imagine what we could do, if idiots like yourself would hold him accountable and quit making excuses for MORE GOD DAMNED GUN LAWS!

        You are the problem!

        1. avatar Rincoln says:

          I contribute to every gun organization, make phone calls to senators, and do everything within my power to voice my concerns. Bashing Trump is not helping anyone. You, sir, are the problem.

        2. avatar Rincoln says:

          Also, I made nearly the same statement as yourself. I explained that Trump needs incentive to be on our side. Apparently, simpletons like yourself need it explained more simply.

        3. avatar Biatec says:

          we should not trade liberty for better economics. Trump is constitutionally identical to a democrat and a rino now.

        4. avatar JMR says:

          Yea stroke his erm… ego.

          We’ve seen what we have to do, Trump only cares about being popular, that’s why after having major supports leave him after caving on the wall he went back to supporting it.

          Same way with guns.

          If you can’t see that you’re the simpleton.

          Instead, Trump can rely on his base, who keeps saying “he’s playing a million d chess” yea and gun rights are the scrifical pawns he keeps making stupid moves with. He may win the game but he’ll never get the pawns back.

          You damn anti-gunners are all the same.

        5. avatar Swarf says:

          Imagine if they held him to the same standards to which the held Obama? The apoplectic screeching would cataclysmic.

          Trump’s mustard choices alone would do him in…

        6. avatar Mad says:

          No you are the problem.trump is driving left the crazy.the swamp is huge and he has only been in for two what he does in the next two.maga

      3. avatar Swarf says:

        His “incentive” is that people voted him in to office, and he owes them.

        Trump isn’t running one of his scam businesses now, he’s running the goddamn country.

        Very poorly.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… it’s not like the economy is better than it has been in decades… Oh… wait…
          I’m sure he won’t shut down the government to secure our southern borders… Oh… wait…
          Surely we’re going to bend over and continue sucking China’s balls like Obama did… Oh… wait…

          You have no idea what you’re talking about.

        2. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          Swarf… yup, the name and opinion match.

      4. avatar Tom Williams says:

        He has, quite likely, done more for the American people than any president in history.******* If Ginsberg will cooperate and give him a crack ant another conservative SCOTUS justice, he will have created the greatest rally for conservatives sinc the founding of the country! This was my biggest goal for voting.

    2. avatar Howdy1 says:

      Every power given to government will be used against citizens.

    3. avatar pwrserge says:

      Are you fucking insane? Have you seen AOC? The Democratic party is run by open communists and insurgents. If you’re retarded enough to let them anywhere near power, you deserve exactly what they will do to you.

      1. avatar Rick Hess says:

        But we don’t deserve what they would do to US. Too late the dem lovers will find out that they chose poorly, when there aren’t even any bread lines to get in.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          @ Rick Hess

          “Too latethe dem lovers will find out that they chose poorly, when there aren’t even any bread lines to get in.” The bread lines to the gulag.

      2. avatar rt66paul says:

        We have George W to thank for the patriot act, this piece of excrement will be used against Americans for many years before they finally stand up and repeal it. It works right into the NWO agenda, call it Dem or Rep – it is 2 sides of the same coin and that coin takes rights away.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes… because clearly there is no difference between a poorly written national security bill which just needs more oversight and AOC pushing for Venezuelan style “democratic socialism”

    4. avatar Ozzallos says:

      This is the problem with the “now!” generation. I want it now!now!now!now!

      Only you don’t get it NOW when you have a law biding president. A law biding president doesn’t act unilaterally unless absolutely necessary. He has two other branches that must cooperate. Sure, he could executive action the shit out of things, but then said president is no better than the big “O”. In Trump’s case, he can barely get his own party on board with tax cuts, let alone the health care repeal they promised for years when we owned both the house and senate. If that’s the case, how well do you think repealing the NFA is going to go? Hearing Safety Act? Do you think you’re actually even going to get a majority of the Senate to sign off on those? LOL. You’re out of your goddamn mind.

      You can blame a lot of shit on Trump, but before you do, you need to look at the tools he has to work with. He’s playing at one hell of a handicap, frankly.

    5. avatar Aaron says:

      I’m sure you would have been happier with “Jeb!”. Or Hillary. Or Kasich.

  2. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

    …and the best way they can accomplish that is to make as many people possible prohibited persons.

    Get into a heated argument with someone? No guns for you!

    Just *imagine* how far they can run with that one!

    Here in Florida, they want to make someone with a reckless driving conviction a prohibited person. Think that will be ruled constitutional?

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Yea… probably>

  3. avatar dwb says:

    Did Trump nominate John Goodman for AG?

  4. avatar TommyG says:

    The Red Flag law isn’t a bad thing on the surface. The problem with it is the open ended potential for abuse and a back door to widespread confiscation and the elimination of due process.
    Another problem is depending on government to “do the right thing” which history shows is a farce.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      So it’s exactly like socialism then. All we need is a better Stalin and things would be just fine. Problem is there are no better Stalins.

      1. avatar Jim Bullock says:


        I’m gonna be stealing that.

      2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        @ Gov. William J Le Petomane

        Nailed it,comment of the day.

      3. avatar Cory C. says:

        Nailed it.

    2. avatar JMR says:

      No it’s not bad on the surface, it’s fucking terrible on the surface.

      “Hey lets let anonymous people report people so the government can take their guns away.”

      “Brilliant where did you come up with that?”

      “It’s in a book I read, by George Orwell, it’s called 1984, this guy really knew how to make a future we’re only we the people with power get nice things.”

    3. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

      They need to build the protections before they build the law. Oh wait, they already did in the constitution that our elected officials shit all over.

      I demand a trial and a right to face my accuser before my property is seized. I expect those rights for all citizens. Ignore the rule of law at your own discretion, you may find that if you attack without rules, someone may return the favor. It’s a thin line between civilized modern man and animals clawing and baring teeth.

      If you want to send the sheriff and a social worker to someone’s home with an offer of help, therapy, or to let a friend or relative hold the weapons for a bit, than I’m ok with that.

    4. avatar Squiggy81 says:

      Agreed. I believe the idea has good intentions, unlike some of the proposed laws by the libs. However, there must be due process and a clear mandate for the return of one’s property immediately if the threat unproven or downright false. Prior to a substantial portion of the mass shootings, there are some “red flags.” There should be an avenue available to keep these nutjobs away from firearms and get them the help they need.

      1. avatar m. says:

        no confiscation, no incarceration, or anything else without due process. otherwise FU. all of this commie d-sucker s**t began with unconstitutional civil asset forfeiture & seizure.

    5. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I haven’t seen anyone address what I consider a major factor, here! Dafook does the Federal government have to do with this question? Are we imagining a federal task force raiding homes all over the country? Red flag laws are a state question.

    6. avatar TruthTellers says:

      National red flag law will be abused just like the Mueller investigation. Everyone who hastheir guns taken for red flag and have to prove they’re fit to posses firearms and almost all those who get red flagged will be those with conservative views on Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube.

      It will be legal confiscation for “safety” reasons. Forget a law that says “all guns now banned”, that’s a giant neon sign. Red Flag will be used against the conservatives so that way only the gangbangers and Antifa will have guns.

      It’s a Socialist revolution in America, prepare to fight.

      1. avatar Mad says:

        Locked and loaded

    7. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      In order for “red flag” laws to work, there have to be truly effective due-process policies in place to protect gun-owning citizens from the exact kinds of abuse that are supposedly protected by our 2nd Amendment rights. That’s a tall order and, as we’re finding as more red-flag laws are enacted, the state isn’t making much effort to protect people’s rights. Instead compliant politicians (see above) and gun-control activists are using a progressive-socialist “greater-good” argument to confiscate the guns of private citizens who may have done nothing more than piss-off a relative who “thinks” someone’s political opinions equates with potential spree killings. As we’ve seen already, that’s all it takes for the cops to make a 5AM raid that results in an otherwise innocent citizens being killed. Simply put, red-flag laws support tyranny. Put 2+2 together and you have a local anti-gun physician decided to drop a dime on an “obviously paranoid” patient who refuses to say whether or not he is a gun-owner. If you’ve ever argued with a committed gun-controller, it’s obvious that every gun-owner is a threat to society.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        Due process is not even possible in ‘red flagging’, any more than it is in SWATting.

        Whatever due process is built into the text of the law goes right out the window when black robed cocksuckers are given the choice of protecting your rights or taking them away.

        They already proved that in Vermont. A law that doesn’t allow the disarming of people who aren’t suspected of being threats was used to disarm somebody because a kid he never met was suspected of being a threat.

    8. avatar burley says:

      It most certainly is ‘a bad thing’ on the surface.
      I can’t imagine any liberty minded individual not spotting this heinous infringement of due process at the get-go.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Problem is, there aren’t all that many liberty-minded people.

  5. avatar frankw says:

    I would caution gun owners not to place too much faith in politicians or even SC nominees These people are nearly all parsed by the system and their loyalties are to the system that provides their perks. If you do, prepare to be disappointed.

    1. avatar Michael Buley says:

      Frank, that pretty much sums it up. No one gets to that level of politics, or advances far at the much lower levels, without playing ball, and making plenty of ‘compromises.’ Most, if not all, have been ‘compromised,’ as well. It’s how the folks behind the curtain control everyone. They let a few actual good guys (I can’t think of any gals offhand) advance along – maybe.

      So you are right: to put our faith in any politician to represent we the people, and defend our rights? Those folks have long been beholden to interests and people much more powerful than they are. Not that any of this is new. It just seems the system is pretty much completely filled by controlled men and women.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Only likely solution would be aggressive term limits. I’ve heard 3 terms in the house or 2 in the Senate, but I would add 20 years of total Federal employment excepting only military service. I suppose I’d have to except SCOTUS’ lifetime appointment, too, but I could be argued out of it.

        1. avatar Biatec says:

          I don’t understand how term limits would work other than get rid of people we actually like? I mean if people keep voting the same people in. Why would they vote someone better in after their term is up?

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Obama weaponized several government agencies (IRS, FBI, in fact DOJ, federal judges) in order to lie to the American people during the 2012 election in order to steal reelection when he was in no way qualified, without term limits he would be president for life by now. Members of House and Senate can do the same things to a lesser extent, which should be obvious when Ted Kennedy murdered a pregnant girlfriend, was caught at it, and served another 40 years in the Senate. Far left, far right, everybody does the same shit to stay on the gov’t tit forever, the only way to end the value of an initial election is to set a limit on how many times you can lie and cheat your way to reelection. Another consideration, as opposed to the difficulties of serving in Washington 150 years ago, is, today, why the hell not?

        3. avatar Biatec says:

          Yeah I don’t think term limits would solve that. You just think it’s a rule you could change that might help you now. We keep changing rules and it bites us. The dems changed voting on confirmations and it backfired for them but now anyone can with a slight majority. I think what you are advocating is bad and the same issue. You are acting like it would make things less authoritarian I think it would just be more.

          People who are politically active know whats going on. Make people more aware of bad people who keep getting re elected don’t change more rules. We would just never know who is running. It would create another level of shadyness. here politicians don’t put their positions on their website even and if they don’t have like a huge public record of what they like who they are all of that you can’t find out anything on them. That problem would be amplified by term limits.

  6. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Ahh. Just shoot all the crazies.

  7. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    So out goes they guy who despised the 4th Amendment and in comes the guy who despises the 2nd. That’s about par for the Republican Party.

  8. avatar Kelly Ryan says:

    Guys – we’ve lost the 2A battle a long time ago. Sad to say we are now outgunned and now rapidly losing our guns. It’s not like it was in 1774-78 where they had a musket and so did we. Plus most Americans don’t want to lose EVERYTHING and that’s what it would take to take our country back

    1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

      Speak for yourself…

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Yeah, no. I seem to have more guns than I had 10 years ago, or 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago, and not the state or federal governments are allowed to know that I own any guns at all, other than my NFA holdings, which might be in the possession of any of 4 people. So losing is not even on my mind, maybe you should look in a mirror and figure why you think *you* are a loser.

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Things looked pretty bleak after Pearl Harbor, but Japs didn’t get our carriers.

      1. avatar Baldwin says:

        “Things looked pretty bleak after Pearl Harbor, but Japs didn’t get our carriers.” Well, what they truly didn’t get (i.e. understand) was our determination to fight back. It’s was not about the tools of war but about the weildors of the tools. And to bring us back to the present. It’s not about guns per se. It’s about our freedom and our willingness to fight back against those that would take and/or give away our freedom.

        1. avatar Kelly Ryan says:

          All good points. Hope everyone has a great day 👍🏼

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          The Japanese Empire could never have won a protracted war with America. Geography dictated that. You can’t island hop from Hawaii to California like you can from Hawaii to Japan. And even if you could it would take 10 times as much manpower to conquer a nation of over 3 million square miles than an island nation that’s smaller than Montana. However, if they had got our carriers they may have got us to cede the Philippines and supply them with iron and oil and stay out of their way in the western Pacific. Truth is they never had any delusion of conquering the USA. Very foolish move on their part.

        3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          “The Japanese Empire could never have won a protracted war with America.” The ship bottoms that became the vast Pacific fleets we used to defeat Japan were already laid down and building by the time the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Good as they were, they never had a chance.

        4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          More importantly we had oil and iron and they didn’t. And even if they had taken Hawaii the best they could have hoped for is to develop a bomber that could reach California. Simply no way they could have done anything meaningful to stop our manufacturing capacity.

          98% of history is geography.

    3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Things have gotten way better since the 90’s era… not sure that statement is 100% accurate.

  9. avatar Timothy says:

    I used to be against Red Flag laws. But now I realize that taking someone who’s committed no crime and deciding they’re a threat if they aren’t even around to defend themselves against the non existent charges is totally due process.

    Further, there’s the suicidal people that this will help. Spreading their problems around a courtroom, behind their back, and then sending armed people to break into their house and steal their property is 100% helpful. It will never make them feel isolate, embarrassed, and powerless. It’ll definitely never lead to some sort of lethal conflict.

    Lastly, the people supporting these laws are clearly morally superior and SHOULDN’T be shot in the face and left in a shallow grave to rot somewhere.

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      You’d bother to bury them?

    2. avatar Michael says:

      Violating the due process rights of suicidal people “to help them” is the definition of moral superiority.

      Almost universally people agree that everyone has a right to life, yet falter when asked if the inverse is true. The concept of apprehending a person who wishes to take their own life, without intention to do harm unto others, is in complete contradiction with the basic principles of individual liberty.

      In other words, if you need to use government power to forcibly “help” suicidal individuals, then you to recheck your principles.

      This ill-thought excuse for ERPOs does not justify the extreme overreaching power that it gives the government. Need I remind you that Maryland has been excessively abusing their ERPO law, which even resulted in a death? That was due to a vindictive family member.

      Please give more consideration to your own thoughts, they aren’t well placed.

      1. avatar Red in CO says:

        Wow, Poes Law in Action huh? The sarcasm literally could not have been more obvious

      2. avatar Timothy says:

        I debated on replying at all. Then, I debated whether to continue with the deep sarcasm or to come clean if I did reply. Ultimately it is good to have reminders that with the nation split roughly 50/50, there are plenty of people on our side too that struggle to grasp context.

        Never underestimate your opponent and never overestimate your supporters.

    3. avatar Ing says:

      Sarcasm for the win.

  10. avatar HP says:

    I’m not clicking on any link to an article from fundraising scammers NAGR. I don’t even want their cookies on my computer. Fraudulent hucksters.

  11. avatar Ken Shabby says:

    Then: An armed society is a polite society.

    Now: An armed society is Anne Frank hiding in the attic.

  12. avatar W says:

    Red flag laws have existed for decades in a slightly different form. They’re called involuntary commitment and instead of grabbing your guns, they grab you and toss you into a hospital and put drugs in you. Don’t tell the NAGR though, they’re busy fundraising.

    Many of our mass shooters should have been committed. The Aurora theater shooter sent his plans to his therapist (and they were delayed in the mailroom). The Virginia Tech killer terrified his professor, who wanted him in another class (to protect herself, but not others). Back in the 60s, the UT Austin shooter went to a doctor and complained of his condition which was then misdiagnosed.

    But, whatevs. The NAGR needs to throw dirt on the GOP for their own benefit. Maybe they can raise some money and convince people that Hillary would have been better. Win win.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      It’s cheaper to take the guns than actually provide real help.

  13. avatar MDH says:

    The AG doesn’t make law, cannot, and should under no circumstances attempt to “make” law. The AG is responsible for enforcing existing law. Period. He is entitled to his personal opinion, but is not entitled to attempt to allow personal opinions to interfere with his duties as AG.

    1. avatar JMR says:

      *looks at bump stock ban*


      1. avatar Michael says:

        That was Trump’s request to the ATF, the AG had little to do with it.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          AG owns the ATF, should have nixed it or resigned.

        2. avatar JMR says:

          Yea i’m Sure you know more then the Lawyers who are using the fact that it was done under acting Attorney General Whitticker, who didn’t go through a confirmation process, to fight it.

          Good lord do people honestly not know how the government is supposed to work?

  14. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    If you’re sick, or violent, enough to be prohibited (from pretty much anything) you’re sick, or violent, enough to be helped.

    It ought to be pretty easy to check gun purchases vs. who’s in support programs right now, under supervision, treatment, etc. So sure, let’s expedite getting people in distress some help.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “Pretty easy?” Maybe in your state. It is a felony under Federal law for the government to keep a list of who owns guns. I suspect you are correct, but let’s not casually accept that our government regularly breaks our laws with impunity, please.

  15. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Attorney General Nominee: Reg Flag Laws Are “The Single Most Important Thing We Can Do In the Gun Control Area to Stop Massacres”,{Regardless of the Constitution}

    The Left of both parties are for the destruction of the Bill of Rights,government is the state,state is the government. I’m totally shocked to read this of a former Bushy.

  16. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “… helped, or supervised, or both…”

  17. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Helping damaged people costs money n might not work.

    “Flagging” people costs them, not the flaggers, n if it doesn’t help that’s somebody else’s fault. (Maybe we should flag them who aren’t helping, too.)

    Seems like a great way to spin up another perma-issue, mint more adminidrones, create another “Mother, may I?” checkpoint, n burden a constituency better to keep down anyway.

    Clever. It’s like these politicritters are good at this.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      I agree it’s a low cost action that looks great on paper and screams We Did Something. And it’s a broad enough rule that it can be abused. Look at civil asset forfiture laws for example.
      Too many debts? Take the guns. DUI? Guns gone. Layoffs at work? Disarm them for a few months to be sure.

      Having permission to hit the house at 5 am and remove guns in front of tv cameras is too good to pass up.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Until the obvious. Hit the door, engage a prepared defender, lose 3-4 JBTs and then kill a citizen and, possibly, his family. Now, WHY were you there at 3 AM instead of noon? Even a claim of “wrong address” is going to fall flat, armed insurrection is significantly closer than it was yesterday.

  18. avatar Warlocc says:

    These laws bother me so much.

    If the law was written in such a way that the target was put under supervision of some kind, access to tools and chemicals blocked, or something like that, I could see the “for protection” argument.

    But when only the guns are confiscated and then the person is left with their shed full of chainsaws…

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Wait a minute. You’ve really got to start watching some better movies.

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      I hate to argue for the gubmint here, but I’ve never heard of anyone committing suicide with a chainsaw. Murder, but not suicide.

      Either way, sounds messy.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I think it’s a given that if you commit suicide with a chainsaw, it will be ruled an accident.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Good point.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Haven’t you ever seen Hot Fuzz? UK police ruling the death a suicide doesn’t mean a thing, this was straight up cold blooded murder. Surprised they didn’t call it an accident.

  19. avatar former water walker says:

    I voted Trump because ya’ know the Hildebeast. He’s destoying whatever goodwill he had with the wall lunacy(HINT:hire many more border guards). Now this a-hole. And not to sound selfish but my right’s are going to hell in ILLinois!

  20. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Trump sees the DoJ n A G as part of getting things done contrast with judges, who he sees issues *coming before*: DoJ n A G are players, while judges are refs. (Contra folks who go for activist judges; who are simply players in different dress.)

    So, bump stocks n red flags are policy n politics, not principle. So is the A G pick n his policies. Contra judges. (Getting the resistance to show their plans for opposing his anticipated next Supreme nominee is working out well. They’ve deployed tbeir battlespace prep early, and discredited themselves. I wish that were a strategy rather that useful consequence of goading them in general.)

    The Orange Crush has a remarkable feral intelligence, “stable genius” or not. Refs who act like refs work better for him and he gets political n policy wins doing that. (Bonus!) Better, nominating ref, refs makes his opposition bat-guano nuts n distracted. (More bonus!)

    He’s reading the DoJ part of this one wrong; the A G is *also* part ref, n Trump would gain from knowing the rules that ref will enforce. Trump gets muddled in the independdnce, and lack of independence of the DoJ.

  21. avatar H says:

    They are ill enough that you’d take their guns, but you’d leave their kids in the house with them.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You’re right, that is some sick shit, right there.

  22. avatar GS650G says:

    10 years from now questioning the policies of president Kampala Harris will be enough to have you swatted and your property taken, which she’ll have banned already.

  23. avatar Salty Bear says:

    Don’t blame me. I voted for Darrell Castle.

  24. avatar Gun Owning American says:

    What dimension chess are we up to now?

  25. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    We might be inclined to allow them more discretion if they hadn’t abused every bit of discretion, and discretion they don’t have, in novel, exciting ways we’d never imagined.

    No, you don’t get to “red” flag anybody, to restrict anything for any reason. We’re playing by the special rules, now.

    The only thing I’ll consider is an exigent circumstance jumping someone to the front of the due process line, for treatment n support first, in place *before* taking anything from them.

    Until that’s on the table, go back to groping grandmas at airports, because that’s what we had in mind. (Right, that’s what we meant…) If you can’t fund that, right now, go back to taking people’s stuff — ebay’s still up — because that’s what we had in mind for that, too.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      Well said

    2. avatar Jf says:

      He is truly a modus style person…greed and no morals!

  26. avatar strych9 says:

    “I think that the problem of our time is to get an effective system in place that can keep dangerous firearms out of the hands of mentally ill people. “

    So… no Honor Guards or P320’s for the nutjobs?

    1. avatar Karl says:

      Hold up, I didn’t read the whole quote the first time. They only want to get rid of dangerous firearms… SKKY, Jennings, and the like.

  27. avatar m. says:

    the single most important americancan do to protect its 2a rights is keep your useless ruby ridge-supporting a** out of office

    1. avatar m. says:

      correction:…”can do”…

      1. avatar m. says:

        another correction, can’t type for s**t:..america can do…

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Wouldn’t it be great if we had something like, maybe, a capability to edit our posts for some period of time? I wonder if that is even possible …

  28. avatar Shire-man says:

    Red flag laws will just be legal swatting. Call me a fag over Xbox Live? Hello, police?

  29. avatar Pg2 says:

    Trump is looking more and more like a Trojan horse.

  30. avatar FedUp says:

    Refusing to confirm Barr is the single most important thing we can do to prevent tyranny.

    Write your senators. If they’re Dems, urge them to Resist.
    If they’re GOP, remind them of Barr’s responsibility in the murders of Sammy and Vicki Weaver.

  31. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Libertarians, Liberals and the Left just can’t stay out of the bedrooms of other people. They just want to tell people how to live. Gay Marriage was just a smoke screen. And so many people just fell for it.

    You already support the Welfare Industrial Complex, replacing the black father, and any father, with a welfare check. Prosecuting a single mother who has sex with a man, while she is on welfare. Euphemistically calling it “welfare fraud”, when in reality she is taken to court for having sex with a man.

    So now to make the family “safe” the government will take your guns away. In the days of the old west you just shot “your problem”, and moved on. Sound harsh? So are red flag laws that will be abused by immoral gun grabbers. How many gay politicians, who are anti gun civil rights, support red flag laws?

    Libertarians are for, illiterate in their own language, no job skills illegal aliens, coming to the US who will go on welfare and end up voting democrat. And these people are from countries with almost no gun rights. And they want to make America just like the sh#t hole they came from. No gun rights here.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      William Barr was part of the Ruby Ridge cover up. He should never have been nominated for AG or any position in the government.

  32. avatar Jackass Jim says:

    Apparently there are a good number of TTAG posters in fear of losing their guns because of their own mental disease – hence the pearl clutching over red flag laws and their distorted view of them.

    1. avatar m. says:

      the authors & originators & supporters of red flag/commie fag laws demonstrate their mental disease by their actions, i.e. they emulate role models hitler, pol pot, stalin, etc. ask the Jews of europe how well “common-sense” gun control worked for them, a**hole.

    2. avatar Broke_It says:

      How is losing your property over a dipshit nephew and his friends nonsense plotting pearl clutching? That really happened and it concerns me greatly as I too have fuck ups in my family that should have no bearing on my responsible ownership of firearms. It’s only a step from “they could’ve broke in and stole those guns,” to “anyone could break in and steal those guns” with this kind of logic.

  33. avatar pg2 says:

    This is the problem with being forced to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. By design, of course, no candidate gets to this level without being a swamp thing.

  34. avatar Eli2016 says:

    Gov. William J Le Petomane says:
    January 25, 2019 at 08:36

    Things looked pretty bleak after Pearl Harbor, but Japs didn’t get our carriers.

    Please note that the term “Japs” is a RACIST TERM used throughout WWII. Terms like this and the N-word should NEVER be used on this forum. TTAG would be wise to take this comment down and warn the poster. As we all know, the vicious nature of social media has taken down many.

    1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

      Very well, if ‘Jap’ is out, is ‘Nip’ considered ‘racist’ to refer to someone of Japanese decent?

      It’s a contraction of the word ‘Nippon’ which is what the Japanese themselves refer to the country of Japan…

      1. avatar Eli2016 says:

        Good question. Do you consider “Cracker” racist? How about “Honky”? Better yet, “Wigga”. Ethnic slurs are the lowest form of racism. Maybe just spelling things out would be better? What do you think “Honky”?

        1. avatar m. says:

          tell someone who gives a s**t

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          You got a study going on different things to be outraged about? You seem to know more racial slurs than I have been exposed to in my 72 years, kinda makes me think you’re a racist. Why do you care about race so much? Is there free money in it for you?

    2. avatar m. says:

      tell someone who gives a s**t

  35. avatar jakee308 says:

    This guy Barr is worse than Sessions.

    I’m having doubts about where Mr. Trump intends to take the rule of law.

  36. avatar Derfel Cadarn says:

    Did not a DoJ report just conclude that gun control laws do not work ?

  37. avatar Anymouse says:

    If someone is so dangerous that guns need to be taken away, they should also be separated from large vehicles, pressure cookers, fireworks, gunpowder, volatile chemicals, poisons, etc. If the risk is to a specific person or small group, add knives, bats, heavy objects, chainsaws, etc. Red flags do none of this, and are therefore useless, even if due process protections are added.

  38. avatar Elizabeth Milheiser says:

    Red flag laws gives everyone a license to practice psychology. It also allows people to seek retribution against a person who angered them. How about adding that when one reports an individual as being a risk to themselves or others the accused should then be required to have a psych evaluation to verify this danger. This evaluation should be performed by a minimum of three psychologists and paid for by the state at 80% and the reporting entity at 20%. This would include the cost of lost wages to the person being evaluated. There must be accountability so those filing a report do so based on a sound reason. If it is then determined that a person is a threat to themselves or others appropriate action can be initiated there by respecting ones right under the second and fourth amendments or more to the point protecting their constitutional rights.

  39. avatar Aaron says:

    he is completely correct.

    all mass shooters give signals foreshadowing their actions.

    this is the only gun control polcy that would work, the issue being that due process must be built in to this or it will be misused.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      I was at the hearing when Vermont’s merry Marxists in Montpelier were warned of this very problem,they would not even consider a possible violation of Due Process and by the end of the year the very thing they were warned of occurred.


  40. avatar Miguel Rosas says:

    Wow this guy came up with this solution all by himself. I think most of Americans know this already. One thing they need to concentrate is stop taking normal Americans rights away. Politicians just want to look good for their next election to the bleeding hearts who never touched or fired a gun before. Those people think a gun is dangerous just because it exists. A gun is not a weapon until someone uses it just like most things around the house can be i.e. pencil, bat, toilet tank lid or a hammer.

  41. avatar Icorps1970 says:

    The President needs to stop putting Washington insiders in the AG slot. They are virtually all the same regardless of party. He needs to get outside the beltway.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email