The ‘Do Something’ Disease

do something gun control protest

Courtesy Twitter

This is TTAG’s weekly roundup of legal and legislative news affecting guns, the gun business and gun owners’ rights. 

As you can probably imagine, this week has been an active one for those of us in the gun rights community. The push for national red flag laws and universal background checks in this last week has gone from a persistent whirring to a deafening cacophony of lawmakers, media, and an egregious, yet unsurprising, misappropriation of terms like “common sense.”

Lawmakers on the left and right alike are (and always have been) plagued by an existential need to “do something,” despite operating in a process specifically designed to make major legal changes difficult to accomplish. Gridlock is a feature, not a defect, of our political system. This fact has most certainly been lost on most Americans.

There are rarely, if ever, easy answers in sound public policy — those respectful of our Constitution’s protections of fundamental human rights and based on significant pre-enactment study — but tragedies often drive bad answers.

Such is the case with the laws now being pushed, especially red flag laws and universal background checks. Like the PATRIOT Act, and other tragedy-driven pieces of ultimately tragic legislation, these proposals offend our rights, our fundamental assumptions about a person’s innocence, and create new opportunities for abuse. 

Red flag laws propose that people can have their rights and property taken from them on the basis of mere allegations. No reasonable suspicion needed, let alone probable cause or constitutionally sufficient adjudication, all to enable a policy that’s proven to be ineffective.

Even if the right to keep and bear arms is of little importance to you personally, do you really want this government to extend a relaxed notion of seizure and inverted due process to other areas of law? Because history has shown that it will.

Universal background checks are even worse. Not only would they make criminal the simple, longstanding, and uncontroversial practice of leaving firearms with friends and family, they also suggest that the federal government’s may go far beyond the powers granted to it by Article III of the Constitution.

One of the reasons the feds haven’t tried to meddle too much with intrastate private transfers of firearms is because they were aware that the commerce clause limits the number of transactions the feds can touch with propriety.

If the federal government can mandate a process for a sale, gift, or trade, within a single state, by two residents of that state, it means the commerce clause has lost all meaning, and transformed into vague federal police power–something the framers explicitly guarded against.

Luckily, not everyone has completely abandoned principles in response to a desire to “do something,” regardless of what that “something” is and whether it helps or harms Americans.

One thing is clear: our community’s steel will be tested. The most important thing right now is to make your voice heard. Talk to people about your concerns, and try to meet them on the same level.

Remind people that it’s not the NRA, nor any one organization, that serves as the mouthpiece for everyone affected by gun control. It’s you, your loved ones, and everyone who does or might ever live here. Build bridges, but stem the tide.

Bigstock

Opposition to Red Flag Laws

Despite seemingly constant, inexplicable knee-bending by elected officials who seem desperate to appeal to some perceived lukewarm purple-blooded American who values neither their privacy nor their right to bear arms, some politicians are pointing out the kinks in the red flag armor.

Iowa state Sen. Jake Champman and US Sen. John Barrasso made headlines this week for standing against the perceived sensibility of turning our entire notion of due process on its head.

new hampshire veto 3 gun control laws

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

New Hampshire Governor Vetoes 3 Gun Bills

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu on Friday was an example of statesmanship and oathkeeping. He vetoed three bills, one imposing universal background checks, another imposing a waiting period, and one which would prohibit the private carrying of firearms on school property.

The Governor wasn’t quiet about his reasoning, either. In a single message, chiding the lawmakers for their nonsensical activism at the expense of the rights of their constituents, Sununu wrote:

New Hampshire is one of the safest states in the nation, and we have a long and proud tradition of responsible firearm ownership. Our laws are well-crafted and fit our culture of responsible gun ownership and individual freedom. These three bills would not solve our national issues nor would they prevent evil individuals from doing harm, but they would further restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding New Hampshire citizens.

Big Tech’s Efforts to Harass Gun Printers

The maker community, 3D printing, and making guns at home are something extremely near and dear to me. This week Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun site The Trace put out a story on the cat-and-mouse game going on between tech giants like Reddit and Twitter and the community of people who just want to share and help each other build cool stuff.

It’s the usual story: big tech says no, the people say yes, and it’s a game of proxies, fake alternate accounts, and continuously switching platforms. It’s hard not to take cathartic satisfaction in seeing that, no matter how hard they try, tech giants can’t eliminate speech they find distasteful. The most they can do is make it significantly more annoying.

I, for one, fully support the gun maker community. These are dedicated, passionate, and intelligent guys that work for free to both entertain and help others. When you see interviews with Ivan the Troll, or many other members of the community, it’s obvious who the good guys are in this Robin Hood story. Much more so than in the original, at least.

texas gun law legislative session

Bigstock

Texas Takes Heat For Respecting Rights

The state of Texas this week took a bunch of heat from gun controllers because a series of bills relaxing previously arbitrary restrictions are set to take effect next month. The bills were already in place, but, in typical fashion, the press have lambasted Texas for loosening laws “in the wake” of the horrific murders, suggesting that the new laws are either related to or would worsen the circumstances underlying the shootings. Let’s explore just how silly that really is.

The changes to Texas law include SB553 (allowing carrying of firearms in Church, meaning you wouldn’t face jail time for wanting to protect your flock), HB302/SB741 (preventing landlords or HOAs from restricting your right to keep and bear arms), HB1143 (college students and faculty no longer face penalties for safely storing a gun in their car), HB1177 (the government can no longer lock you in a cage for carrying a handgun during a state of emergency or disaster–you know, the type of situation where you need a gun most), and HB2363 (loosening storage requirements for firearms in foster homes).

If you can figure out what any of these laws have to do with mass shootings, to the extent that the media has suggested, please drop me a line. I am limitlessly curious.

comments

  1. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “The ‘Do Something’ Disease”

    Unfortunately, it’s not the “do something that matters” disease…
    El Paso is a shining example, of NOT doing something that matters, with the exception of a scant few, NOBODY did anything to intercede, everyone ran, and that’s the society we live in today, they’d rather run and die doing nothing, than die doing something…IF you’re going to die, make it count for something…

    Personally, I’m not afraid of dying, make no matter, what I fear is living knowing that I could’ve done something and didn’t…

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help. ”

      – Ronald Reagan, August 12, 1986

      1. avatar Bolt McPherson says:

        The “do something “ reaction is totally normal and expected when confusion surrounds a tragedy. And just as expected is the “do nothing” reaction. Thus far we have been the immovable object in the face of an unstoppable force.

        It’s time to get in bed with the opposition and take charge of the future direction of our rights rather than pretend that we are not ourselves in the slow boil.

        I’m not advocating the loss of rights but instead being part of the “do something…like this” movement. The opposition is truly rudderless at the moment. It’s time to take the helm before someone else does. Unless you would rather just it in your porch chair spraying kids with the garden hose yelling like an unhinged lunatic to “stay off my lawn.”

        1. avatar Someone says:

          I agree that we should try to define that “sumpin” that needs to be done. When ambushed, attack!

          – Get rid of all background checks. (They were proposed as a way to avoid waiting periods. In Illinois we now have not only BCs, but 72 hours waiting for all purchases from FFL, FOID cards and State Police aproval of each private transaction.) Mass murderers either passed them or easily circumvented them by stealing their weapons.

          – Get rid of the NFA and GCA.

          – Constitutional carry for everyone who wants to carry. (If you are too dangerous with a firearm, you can’t live freely in society and need to be under constant supervision.) Concealed carry is fine, open is better.

          See, we CAN do something helpful. Why should every proposed solution mean more infringing on our human rights? Barely stopping gun grabber’s attacks is not enough. Let’s turn the table, get on our offensive game and only then we can start talking about compromises.

        2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          The problem is that everything the do something is open to is always in the direction of further infringements. NOBODY on that side can even conceive of the idea of doing something…like making carry licenses more accessible. Carry licenses are the only major gun policy of the past thirty years that has been documented to reduce violent crime.

          There are plenty of “somethings” in that vein that we could do. Eliminate so-called gun free zones. Eliminate license fee. Eliminate may issue standards for licenses. Eliminate licenses altogether and go constitutional carry. Adopt universal reciprocity (on a bilateral state-by-state basis, not federally mandated).

          The other side will have none of those somethings; they only want further infringements of firearms freedom to one degree or another. Getting into bed with them, therefore, produces no viable offspring or even just temporary pleasure. Getting into bed with them means only that you might get to help pick your affliction, perhaps ranging from crabs to AIDS. I’ll take their rudderlessness and let them drift out of control and out of the news cycle.

      2. avatar Helen Sabin says:

        Our government has never directly “helped” anyone. They usualoy muck things up!

    2. avatar B.D. says:

      “I’m not afraid to die, I’m afraid I’ll survive, and have to watch you suffer.” -TAIM

    3. avatar StLPro2A says:

      “The ‘Do Something’ Disease”…..aka “Stampede The Flock Over the Edge”…….The Lemming Effect……Get ‘Em While They’re Hot.
      Keep wondering how much a Deep State effort to create these “Hest ‘Em Up Events” is at work? An Government Deep State undercover operation to identify, nurture, position, “nudge”, and trigger at opportune times and places to stampede the flock into the pen of civilian disarmament
      “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
      Mao Tse-tung
      “Ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.” ~ Heinrich Himmler.
      History has repeatedly demonstrated that disarming good people in the name of making bad people harmless only eventually facilitates politicians shooting their own countrymen. History…learn from it or be doomed to relive it. Recall pre-WWII German Jews disarmament; Soviet Union; China; Cambodia; Venezuela; Rwanda; Belgium Congo; North Korea; et el, et el.

      1. avatar Helen Sabin says:

        I notice that everytime the DEMOCRATS and LIBERALS come under assault for their stupidity that these shootings/car deaths/van deaths/ etc pop up. Could there be a correlation? Further, libs are willing to allow our “government” to trample our Constitutional rights through the Red Flag laws and the supposed enhanced background checks. How can you enhance check if you are a doctor and if the HIPPA laws will NOT allow you to release the names and addresses of wackos you know are out there? Many people have tried to get help for their loved ones and were turned away or there were NO resources for them to get help. Write TRUMP and say NO to more gun laws.

        1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          I don’t know where there is a lack of resources, but right here in Texas last month a Lubbock grandmother prevented her grandson from committing a spree shooting followed up by suicide by cop, by convincing him to let her take him in for mental hospitalization. That man had an AK and numerous loaded magazines. Tragedy averted; no new laws needed; no one turned away from treatment.

    4. avatar Helen Sabin says:

      Not all ran – I think it was this shooting where an Army specialist rounded up children who were panickig and running around and got them to safety but there were no active concealed carry permit holders who engaged either. IF there were any – why not?

      1. avatar Mantitude says:

        PFC Glendon Oakley, actually, but yeah.

    5. avatar JBS says:

      Whenever I encounter someone concerned about “doing something,” I tell then to stick their face in a toilet bowl before they flush. That’s doing something.

  2. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Our federal politicians always want “to do something” but balancing the budget or policing their own…

    1. avatar Helen Sabin says:

      Policing their own? Why not release the names of the slugs in congress whom we have paid for when they assaulted someone? Why wasn’t Comey indicted? Why havent many DEMS been indicted? Our government is worthless and the worst are the HOUSE/Senate DEMS.

  3. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    It is so much easier to blame an inanimate object for crime than the truth . We are now reaping the “rewards” of the amoral society that the socialist left has turned much of our society into.

    1. avatar Helen Sabin says:

      Amen…..you are so right!

  4. avatar LifeSavor says:

    WI Patriot, agree with your sentiment.

    No way to know if there were any CCW folk in position at El Paso. You would think so, being Texas, but in a post this past week, some said this Walmart is popular with people coming over from Mexico to shop. None of them would have guns. Just no way to know.

    If I had been there alone and assessed that I could get into position to shoot back, I would have. Had I been there with my family, my first priority would have been getting them out safely.

    1. avatar anarchyst says:

      The “problem” with concealed weapons holders is that they do not have statutory “protections” that police officers enjoy.
      If I had my way, concealed weapons “permit” holders would have the same “qualified immunity” that police officers possess.
      I don’t blame any concealed weapons holder for NOT responding to a shooting as the liability is much too great.
      In many cases, shooting a bad guy (actually stopping the threat) will invoke the ire of rogue prosecutors who feels that only police should be allowed to “stop the threat”.

      1. avatar Splotch says:

        Stop pretending that CCW will save the world. The whole hero complex thing is looking quite silly now.

        1. avatar LifeSavor says:

          I really do not understand your point. I can only speak for myself, but I doubt that any of us want to be heroes; I am certain none of us WANT to shoot anyone. But we do constantly evaluate the ethics, tactics, and potential outcomes of defensive actions. Yes, sometimes it is done with bravado, but we would all prefer not to shoot anyone.

        2. avatar Dani in WA says:

          “…save the world.”

          What other ignorant, sweeping, nonsensical generalizations do you have?

        3. avatar MarkPA says:

          We need to think about the “CCW will save the world!” argument. There is a “micro” and a “macro” point of view.

          First, the “micro” viewpoint. As an individual, I don’t care whether/or-not CCW will save the world. I care only about whether my choice to carry might save ME, my wife or another loved-one. If it improves MY odds then I am convinced. This is a function of: my taste in carrying around a pound-and-a-half of extra weight; minding the state line separating PA from NJ; learning the law of (use of lethal force in) self-defense; buying self-defense “insurance”; and investing in some training. Also, knowing my own temperament and marksmanship skill. Got it?

          Our argument here is that every woman has a right to choose. Will she carry; or, will she depend on the kindness of strange police officers who might (might-not) be on duty. Google Amanda Collins for a case in point.

          Second, the “macro” viewpoint. We pretty well understand where the homicide numbers come from. The macro question is how those numbers are likely to be influenced as CCW permits outstanding grow significantly. I hold that they will NOT change MUCH in either direction; not in the near future.

          The first waves of CCW holders will be the kinds of folks who avoid going to stupid places at stupid times, . . . These will not have many opportunities to shoot thugs. These will not change the numbers in noticeable amounts. Moreover, note this obvious fact. When these folks – heretofore – crossed paths with a thug is was the OFWG who got shot, not the thug. After these folks get their CCWs, it will be mostly thugs who take the bullet. Same number of gunshot wounds/kills; different people. Those who shout the statistics about gun deaths and woundings are NOT going to point out the gradual – infinitesimal – shift in the qualitative aspects of the data.

          The thugs will learn soon enough from the OFWGs and shift their attention to targets who are a little softer. Say, old skinny grandmas. Different targets, same statistics. The grandmas will start tooling up and another wave of qualitative shift in the character of those wounded and killed.

          And, so it will go until the thugs concentrate on hunting for targets in their home neighborhoods. Perhaps these will be young single mothers on public assistance. These won’t tool-up quite as quickly because they will discover that all the gun-control they asked for was implemented to ensure that guns would not fall into the hands of “those who shouldn’t have them”. Poor people shouldn’t have guns; that’s the primary target of gun control.

          Eventually, the CCW laws will change to lower the barriers to entry. But, that will occur only in the long run. And, as the famous economist John Maynard Keynes quipped: “In the long run, we are all dead.”

          Perhaps my analysis, above, is somehow mistaken. How might that be? How will the homicide figures and woundings by gunfire drop with the increase in CCW holders? Just flipping the assailant to victim doesn’t change the count; it just changes the person shot from the good-guy to the bad-guy.

          Moreover, homicides are only 1/3 of the total deaths by gunshot. The profound majority of deaths are suicides. Even if homicides were to drop noticeably, this would reduce the TOTAL gunshot deaths by the factor of decrease – say 10% – times 1/3; e.g., 3.3% That small change is apt to be dismissed as insignificant by the gun-controllers.

          Ultimately, Jack & Jill SixPack voter don’t care about the statistics one-way or the other. If we hope to make our point we need to argue the “micro” case. How, Mr. & Mrs. SixPack, do you REALLY feel about the fact that U-NV-Reno forbade Amanda Collins from trying to defend herself from a rapist with her carry gun and CCW? How do you feel about the fact that her assailant got away to rape two more women; one of whom he killed? How do you feel about the fact that the rapist was ultimately executed for his crimes; but only after he raped three women and killed one of them? Amanda Collins would have carried her gun the night she was raped; if only the U-NV-Reno allowed her. She believes she could have shot him, thus sparing the fate of two other women. She might have died trying; but this would have been her choice. Are you Pro-Choice? or Pro-Life for thugs?

        4. avatar Someone says:

          Right. Because being defenseless in life threatening situation is so much better!

        5. avatar SoCalJack says:

          Splotch, your reply doesn’t makes sense from the one above yours. Like most of the folks here, I have no delusions of being a hero. I simply need to get out of the bad situation and if the family and/or friends are with me, them to.
          If the threat is in the way of egress, I find another way out. I will not be hunting for the threat. It’s like the opposite of fighting video game bad guys; if you hear screaming/shots, go in the opposite direction, away from the bad guy. But if threat is near me, and doesn’t have the drop on me, I will engage, still there’s no hero mentality involved. This is also what they teach in my CCW classes.

        6. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          Nice straw man argument. Nobody, but YOU, ever invoked concealed carry as a panacea. You don’t get to create a new argument, ascribe it to your opponent as representative of his actual argument, then refute his actual argument by knocking down tge phony argument as its proxy. Busted!

          The fact is that armed, private citizens use their firearms to stop crimes anywhere between hundreds of thousands to more than a million times per years, the vast majority of which incidents do not invokve even discharging the firearm. We’ve seen just this past week a good guy with a gun prevent another mass shooting at Walmart in the wake of the El Paso and Dayton shootings.

          Concealed carry is just one element, albeit a highly effective one, in a sound strategy to counter these crazies and prevent or minimize the carnage they cause.

        7. avatar Hush says:

          Those with a CCW(concealed handgun permit) are Not obligated to save anyone. Splotch what would you call someone who saved your life?

        8. avatar WI Patriot says:

          Then die doing nothing, nobody cares…

  5. avatar Biatec says:

    Every generation the right wing becomes more like the European right wing and the left wing becomes more like the European left wing.

    America is Europeanizing. The individual is vanishing in politics. Our Republic is becoming more and more of a direct democracy. The only reason the republicans support the electoral college is because it helps them.

    If it only helped the democrats they would oppose it. It’s the problem with politics today. that is how our freedom will disappear. Cutting corners to try and win until it’s might makes right and we turn into a European shit hole.

    1. avatar JebNushhighenergy says:

      No, the problem is you boomers would rather lose with your constitution and principles- than win.

      Conservatives have lost on every major cultural point. Gay marriage? Now you have drag queens reading to young children in libraries. Jews changed the Episcopal Common Book of Prayer. Public schools have become THOT factories with no prayer! California is no longer majority white.

      Until we can be honest in naming our enemy, we will lose on guns too. Until then, have fun feeling good about your principles and pretending you’ll hold on to your guns when police knock on your door to confiscate them.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        What’s the retarded meme about Boomer’s? Do you really think any of us care about you younger losers? By any chance are you one of the idiot’s who calls folks “the poors” because they don’t get the expensive crap that you pretend makes you a master marksman? Stop blaming your elder’s for your lame life…and you sound low energy to me! And like a racist loser.

      2. avatar Biatec says:

        This is what I am talking about. You would rather win than have freedom. There is no difference between you and the drag queens who read children stories.

        People like you will give immense power to the left down the line.

  6. avatar George Washington says:

    WE must do something….. We must do more to fight these unconstitutional morons…. We must do something to stop the communist infiltration of our country… We must do something or we will lose it all….
    So yes, we MUST DO SOMETHING…. SOMETHING TO SAVE OUR LIVES…

    Examples of doing something:

    HORDING AMMUNITION

    LOAD UP ON GUNS

    ASSEMBLE A MARCH ON WASHINGTON TO SHOW OUR STRENGTH IN NUMBERS

    STOCK UP ON CANNED GOODS AND WATER

    COMPLETELY SHUT OUT COMMUNISTS FROM THE DISCUSSION AT ALL… AND COUNTER PROTEST THEM AT EVERY STEP IN THE STREETS WHEN THEY ASSEMBLE TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION

    NEVER ACT IN A THREATENING MANNER AND ALWAYS TREAT EVERYONE YOU MEET LIKE YOU LOVE THEM

    These are only quick examples, and a more complete list could be compiled by someone with more knowledge than me..

    We HAVE GOT to start protesting these unconstitutional laws or we will lose EVERYTHING!

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      –Load up on guns: check.
      –Hoard ammo:check.
      –Stock up on living supplies: check.
      –March on Washington: Would absolutely participate.
      –Shut Communists out of the discussion: Cannot agree. First Amendment.
      –Counter protests: Count me in.

  7. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Yeah, somebody tell Dianne that changing the shape of something is not “doing” something and all her other silly limitations are not effective and won’t stop somebody with a can of gasoline, see Kyoto Animation, July 17.

    1. avatar StLPro2A says:

      ”Killing is a matter of will, not weapons.
      You cannot control the act itself
      by passing laws about the means employed.”
      The late Col Jeff Cooper, 1958, Handgun expert and founder of Gunsite Academy
      Making good people helpless does not make bad people harmless.
      For once I agree with Bill O’Reilly. Bad guys shooting people is the price of freedom. Liberty is risky business. That’s why our Founding Fathers recognized our God-given right to shoot back.
      A politician with a law never stops a bad guy with a gun. He only controls the good guys, which is his true agenda. The bad guy with a gun…..or the mentally deficient guy with a gun……or the terribly distraught family member of a gun shooting victim…….are the politician’s Useful Idiot Tools to achieve his agenda.

      1. avatar LifeSavor says:

        “Making good people helpless does not make bad people harmless.”

        Thank you for that. Great phrase. Will sprinkle it into conversation frequently.

      2. avatar Big Bill says:

        “Liberty is risky business.”

        I remember when this was actually taught in our schools (yes, I’m that old).
        Waiting until someone actually does something wrong before punishing him was understood to be a side effect of personal liberty. (This is what’s wrong with “Red Flag” laws; they attempt to preempt a crime based on allegation, denying constitutionally required due process.)

  8. avatar Mack The Knife says:

    The real prize of universal background checks is gun registration. It cannot be enforced without it or nothing has changed. Then following the next mass shooting the cry from the left will be confiscation.
    Gun registration then confiscation that is the plan.
    We need to let the country know that if universal background checks and red flag laws pass that somewhere between 15,000,000 and 100,000,000 pissed off gun owners are staying home the first Tuesday following the first Monday, November 10, 2020.

  9. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    The fundamental problems are this:

    While “gun violence” is a tiny, tiny fraction of crime – It doesn’t matter if you’re the unlucky victim. Either you’re prepared and have a chance or not. If you are prepared and prevail, expect to be crucified on the alter of public opinion.

    The capitalistic model encourages media outlets to promote anything that will garner revenue. If it means playing both sides of the fence, no problem. I do agree that the management of the main stream media are aiming at repealing the Second Amendment…regardless of any statements to the contrary.

    The entire world is too complacent with regard to personal freedoms. It will take aggressive acts of a major nation/state to wake them up. By then it may be too late.

  10. avatar MarkPA says:

    I think we are overlooking a tactic to respond to the pressure for Red Flag Laws. For the sake of this discussion I’m assuming that we CAN’T STOP such laws altogether. The best we can do is limit their WORST impacts. If such is the best we can do, then we ought to consider doing at least THIS much.

    The Feds can’t dictate to states what laws they will pass and enforce. The most they can do is bribe the states to adopt laws conforming to a particular regime. So, at the Federal level, our best shot is to hope to influence that prescribed regime. States will generally be eager to bring their laws/bills into conformance in order to get Federal money.

    Our opening position is that: RFLs violate due-process; and, won’t have a measurable impact. If we are correct than the principled thing to do is to stop such laws. But if we can’t stop them, what is the next-best thing we could do?

    First, if – as we predict – there will be widely acknowledged abuses of RFLs then it is critical that these abuses NOT be buried in obscurity. The states should be required (to get $) to establish a mandatory system of reporting of incidents to a state bureau; and thence, to the FBI. Demographics on who is the target and who is the initiator? Who is the judge; and, in which court? Sex, race, age, occupation, antecedent incidents of record (domestic calls for service), political party registration; whatever our experts think would be useful and reasonable.

    As follow-up, the states should be obliged to record relief from the orders. Whether the target was subsequently arrested for any crime of violence or completed ordered mental health treatment.

    We might discover that a state’s RFL is hardly ever invoked. Or, that it is regularly invoked by angry husbands whose wives subsequently die of attacks, whether by cutlery, club or gun. What if we found that targets were men (women) of color? What if they never recovered their guns yet were never subsequently arrested for crimes of violence? Wouldn’t such data be just as informative as data indicating that targets were mostly Klansmen who recovered their guns and were subsequently charged with crimes of violence?

    Each state, and the FBI, should be required to publish, annually, detailed reports of the data – perhaps masked to the county level – so that residents and citizens could evaluate the effectiveness and cost of their respective programs; and, importantly, whether these results are deemed worth the erosion of due-process.

    Finally, each state law must have a 10-year sunset provision requiring the legislature to evaluate its decade of results and reform their implementation. If they do not affirmatively act, their law would automatically expire.

    I acknowledge that some such proposal would make a Federal RFL somewhat more palatable to squishy Republicans who might have been persuaded to vote Nay. Without such provisions the law might pass with a bear majority. With such provisions, it would be apt to pass with a landslide. From our viewpoint, which is preferable?

    If we think that squishy Republicans can be persuaded to vote Nay, and that the bill will fail in either the Senate or House, then this proposed tactic is a crap-shoot. Presumably a horrible bill will pass in the House but hang by a single vote in the Senate. That vote (or a few more) would tip in favor of the RFL+some-sweeteners. Doubtlessly, Trump would sign such a bill. So, this is a crap-shoot. Do we think we will probably win/lose on a bad Democrat-drafted bill?

    The history of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is instructive. It passed with a 10 year sunset provision. It lacked efficacy and economy; nevertheless, it passed. Political pressure was overwhelming. Our sole saving grace was that it died an ignoble death after 10 years. Without the sunset provision, it would be with us today. Bad laws are rarely reconsidered and repealed. Usually, they remain on the books unexamined.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      So, lots of sunshine (the best disinfectant) on all Red Flag Laws. Love it, if we cannot stop them. Create liability for mis-use/abuse of those laws. Absolutely!

      Great insights!

      But first, let’s fight like all heck to stop them.
      Putting my money where my mouth is with some targeted contributions. Writing letter on real paper and sending using real stamps. Making telephone calls

    2. avatar UpInArms says:

      ” each state law must have a 10-year sunset provision ”

      An absolutely critical requirement. Once a law gets into the books, it hangs around forever, even if everyone eventually ignores it. I would take it further and put a 5-year sunset on it– plenty of time to evaluate how unsuccessful it is.

      I’m a big fan of sunset clauses. I’d make it constitutional amendment to put one on every law that gets passed.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        @UpInArms: Thank you for your support.

        I would like the sunset period to be as short as possible so long as it is still effective. I think 5 years would be too short.

        Imagine the sunset were 1 month or 1 year. Almost no evidence would accumulate in such a short period that would convince legislators or the public to reconsider. As each year passed, legislators would routinely re-up the law.

        However, if the period of time were long enough, evidence would accumulate. After 5 years researchers would start paying attention to the data. They would draw whatever tentative conclusions they might from the data. Nothing could be done since the 10-year deadline is still 5 years into the future. Nevertheless, more researchers would be drawn to the still tentative evidence and look eagerly to each succeeding year’s new release. After 8 years of data is out the evidence – whatever it might be – ought to be clear enough. If the season is right in the 10’th year the re-authorization would die.

        If the season is wrong in the 10’th year, the re-authorization would re-up the law for another 10 years; possibly with a few “reforms”. The cycle would repeat.

        It’s anyone’s guess whether the ideal sunset time might be 6 – 8 – 10 – 12 years. Shouldn’t be too long. After 20 years voters would have learned to live with the law despite its ill effects. Too short and the law would be re-authorized without debate.

  11. avatar Everyday +1 Carrier says:

    Open carry march on DC and state capitals.

    Anything less, will accomplish nothing.

    Sad but true. It’s beyond time to do this. The longer we wait, the more they take.

    1. avatar Joseph Tanenbaum says:

      All in!

  12. avatar anarchyst says:

    “Equal justice under law” is one of the cornerstones of our Constitutional representative republic.

    Sadly, such is not the case, especially when it comes to our Second Amendment to the Constitution.

    One major problem is that there are different “gun laws” for “different” classes of citizens, most of these “infringements” being imposed on the state level, but there are also some federal “infringements” due to different “classes” of citizens.

    One federal infringement is the law that allows judges, police officers, FBI types, retired police officers, judges and other public officials as well as other “connected” individuals to concealed carry across state lines without being subject to each states myriad of firearms laws and restrictions. This basic right is denied to the ordinary citizen who is not “connected” by status.

    Another federal “infringement” is the ban on newly-manufactured machine guns (since 1986), not permitting ordinary citizens the opportunity to own newly-manufactured machine guns. One cannot “make” a firearm and register it legally since the registry is closed to ordinary citizens. Newly-manufactured machine guns are available to federal and police agencies without restrictions.

    On the state level, California “lawmakers” and police officers are exempt from the draconian “assault weapon” laws that the ordinary California citizen is forced to endure. The prohibition on “assault weapons” do not apply to those who are “connected”.

    Look at the recent scandal in New York City, where “concealed weapons permits” were being “sold to the highest bidder(s)” by their corrupt city agencies. The average person still has no chance to obtain “permission” to carry a firearm in New York City.

    Let’s look at another “double standard” that exists between police officers and ordinary citizens. In every case, a police officer who has committed even a “questionable” shooting will not be handcuffed, arrested, and charged. He will be given 72 hours in which to formulate his “story” and will be afforded a union-paid attorney that will see to it that he does not suffer negative consequences for his actions.
    In addition, he will get a “paid vacation” while the prosecutor does his best to minimize the situation
    Not so for an ordinary citizen in the same circumstance. In almost every case, even with incontrovertible video and audio evidence, prosecutors almost NEVER charge a rogue police officer with a crime. If the police officer is fired, he quite often gets “picked up” by another municipality’s police department. Yes, this “double standard” not only exists, but it is so blatant that it shows that the “justice system” is totally corrupt.

    All one has to do is look at the high profile case of police officer Philip Brailsford who murdered Daniel Shaver for merely attempting to follow conflicting commands from multiple police officers. Brailsford was looking to shoot someone, having the words “you’re f#cked” engraved on the dust cover of his AR-15. If a civilian committed a justified shoot with such an inscription on his weapon, the prosecutor would have a field day and probably procure a conviction based on intent…not so for police officers who are “above the law”. To add insult to injury, Brailsford was “re-hired” by his police department for one day so that he could receive a pension. Once again, the “double standard” rears its ugly head.

    This “double standard” is repugnant to the Constitution and can only foster an erosion of trust, which is well on its way…

  13. avatar MDH says:

    We have scores of laws already on the books that allow us to do plenty. In this particular case, it was the unwillingness to ‘do something’ first by the twisted scumbag’s mother who called police, then covered for him. Then by law enforcement who should have alerted to the call, used the caller’s phone number to identify the address of the caller, sent officers to the home for a welfare check, and Q & A, by the Mall, and Wal Mart which failed to provide sufficient security to timely identify and counter the threat at the door. Plenty of failure to ‘do something’ to go around here.

    1. avatar MDH says:

      Post Script: The only “We need to do something” that counts, is contemporaneously when the opportunity to actually “do something” presents itself, either before an act of violence actually occurs or within the period that that act of violence is actively occurring . Everything else is complete bull s**t.

      Passing feel good “Do Somehting” laws won’t repair the damage or bring back the dead from the consequences of the most dangerous and deadly weapon on the face of the earth, and that is a human being bent upon the destruction of other human beings.

      This is why we have the finest military in the world ready to strike decisively at anytime in our national and collective defense,. This is why our constitution guarantees us the same right to self defense as citizens at the personal and individual level.

  14. avatar Pg2 says:

    “Do something”…. like the “do something” herd mentality that supports forced injecting untested pharmaceuticals into newborns, infants and children to allegedly prevent self limiting childhood rashes and fevers?

    1. avatar Geoff "Anti-Vaxxers need to get cancer and die" PR says:

      Un-fucking believable.

      Here it is again, TTAG’s own one-trick-pony spewing crap NOBODY in TTAG wants to hear.

      STOP SPAMMING YOUR SHIT IN TAAG, ASSHOLE!

      We are sick and fucking tired of seeing it, because that’s all you do…

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Geoff/guesty humping legs, makes this blog great.

        1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          @Pg1.5,

          I was out of town on vacation and just got back today to see your name here. Yup, there it is…more vaxx stuff. I thought Dan Zimmerman had devoted an entire article to the spirit of this site, and even included a specific mention of ‘anti-vaxx’ in his list of verboten topics that should be avoided (and would be scrubbed by whoever is monitoring these comments)?

          But here you are. Well, I had a great vacation. All recharged and ready to deal with reading your nonsense.

          The more you scream, whine, and insist that Geoff and I are the same person, the more I like it. Your screaming, that is. The vaxx crap I can easily ignore.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          Been on vacation myself Geoff/Guesty, if TTAG posted said article I missed it.

        3. avatar Geoff "Anti-Vaxxers need to get cancer and die" PR says:

          “Been on vacation myself Geoff/Guesty, if TTAG posted said article I missed it.”

          You “missed it”. Bull-fucking-shit.

          Here it is, read it for yourself :

          July 19, 2019 – “A Few Words on TTAG’s Comment Policy”

          “Reminder: this is a gun blog. We accept, welcome and encourage comments and discussion of anything firearm-related. Aside from the aforementioned racist or violent content, it’s all fair game here.

          At the same time, completely off-topic comments for or against childhood vaccinations, the danger of water fluoridation, whether the moon landing was a hoax or not or similar non-gun related content will be zapped. There are plenty of other forums on Al Gore’s greatest invention where that content will be welcome.”

          https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/a-few-words-on-ttags-comment-policy/

          Clear enough for you, dipshit?

      2. avatar LifeSavor says:

        Geoff, I am what you call an anti-vaxxer. Do you really wish I would get cancer and die?

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          The Geoff/Guesty profile gets sand in his panties when someone points out the hypocrisy of gun rights supporters who call for mandatory vaccines.

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          I am one also. And I don’t care what he thinks.

        3. avatar LifeSavor says:

          PG2, adding to your point, the people who want to take away our health freedom, i.e., mandatory vaccines, are the same people who want to take away our guns. To fight them effectively, we have to fight for all of our freedoms.

        4. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Glad to meet you, Wolliam Burke!

        5. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          That brings up a good point. I myself believe in the scientific benefits of vaccines, but I *AM* against forced inoculation with no opt-out allowed (such as is the case here in CA), and rather for parental choice.

          I think Geoff’s ire is directed more at Pg1.5’s constant bitching about the topic on a site that’s *supposed* to be for guns only, per the TTAG management. But I guess he gets a free pass because he’s probably one of them. Remember the weird scandal from several weeks ago, when somebody here discovered some admin shenanigans and posited that it might be Pg1.5 doing the master trollery and causing problems? Pg1.5 conveniently disappeared and laid low for the next month before suddenly reappearing a couple of weeks ago.

          Knute(ken) tried to get to the bottom of it all, but was somehow silenced. How convenient, Pg1.5.

        6. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Sorry for the typo, William!

        7. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Gusty, I appreciate your support of freedom of choice in healthcare!! Thank you. Respect.

        8. avatar Pg2 says:

          Geoff/Guesty, what Vaccine “scientific benefits”do you believe in. For real. Lay it out. Make a fool of me, if you can. But you can’t. Good luck.

        9. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          Polio.

          But anyway, back to guns…

        10. avatar Geoff "Anti-Vaxxers need to get cancer and die" PR says:

          “I think Geoff’s ire is directed more at Pg1.5’s constant bitching about the topic on a site that’s *supposed* to be for guns only, per the TTAG management.”

          Bingo. *Very* rarely does ‘pg2’ talk guns. Just his anti-vaxx crapola…

        11. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Do you really wish I would get cancer and die?”

          You, no.

          ‘pg2’ ? You bet your ass I hope he gets cancer and dies… 🙂

        12. avatar Pg2 says:

          Watching the Geoff/guesty profile user have fake conversations between 2 of his sock puppet accounts-priceless. Asking same profile for the science to back up up his statements and he answers one word, “polio”-priceless. Watching same profile wishing harm on people who ask him for real proof of his opinions -priceless. At end of day it’s irrelevant whether vaccines work great and are completely safe, or if their benefits and safety have been greatly exaggerated. It’s about the egregious hypocrisy of some alleged 2nd supporters who support government intervention and control over of personal and familial medical/health care decisions.

  15. avatar Kendahl says:

    “Doing something” includes shooting down mass murderers in the act. The anti-gunners wouldn’t like that even though it would save victims’ lives.

  16. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    The “do something” in American politics issue goes back 100 years, to the first round of “progressives,” and the hectoring, busybody broads who brought us the 18th Amendment and Prohibition.

    Carrie Nation is a wonderful example of one of these women who wanted to impose her morality and opinion upon men. She became obsessed with agitating against “demon drink” after she married a Civil War veteran who was a drunk. Mind you, she chose to marry this drunk – if she had exhibited better judgement before getting married to a drunk, she wouldn’t have had to deal with either the “demon drink” or the man drinking it.

    As a result of her poor choices, she goes on a jihad against “the demon drink” and gets arrested dozens of times for destruction of private property and public disturbance. Instead of straightening this broom pilot out, judges kept letting her off because women get an easy pass from the judicial system. She should have been tossed into prison after about her 10th such violation out of over 30.

    Nation would preach and hector men in saloons and bars, claiming she was on a divine mission, inspired to be on this mission because she had married a drunk. She not only thought she was completely blameless for her decision to marry a drunk, she also thought God spoke to her and told her to smash up saloons and bars. No, I’m not exaggerating.

    Today, we still have her like with us, trying to play their moralizing games on men. The proper response is to tell these women to pound sand and quit trying to legislate their idiotic morality. A little detail that most people seem to forget about some of these young, male mass shooters is this: there was a mother who was involved in their upbringing. That woman failed. Whatever her excuses, she failed as a mother.

    And now other women want to make that failure everyone else’s problem.

    1. avatar MDH says:

      Only because many men haven’t yet identified and refined their most important trigger technique — specifically the all important “love button”. Get this one right, and your life (and hers) will be so much better. Trust me on this one 😉

      1. avatar MDH says:

        Additional information for beginners: Don’t get discouraged. Proper trigger technique requires patience, practice, repetition, and above all diligence! Good luck!!!

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      to d. gunsmith

      quote=================The “do something” in American politics issue goes back 100 years, to the first round of “progressives,” and the hectoring, busybody broads who brought us the 18th Amendment and Prohibition.============quote

      Actually studies proved that prohibition did indeed work and it worked far better than anyone thought it would. Prohibition deliberately made hard liquor very expensive which cut consumption of it way down. Studies done proved it reduced violent crime, auto accidents, homicides, and wife beating and divorcee and child abuse. It was not overturned because it did not work rather the Politicians were losing so much tax money from the formerly burgeoning hard liquor sales that they decided to end it over just plane blind greed.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        You completely ignore the social ills that accompanied prohibition.
        Crime, especially violent crime, shot way up. Crime families/syndicates became rampant to the point the various governments simply couldn’t keep up.
        The ban was so easily (and widely) circumvented that the ban was laughed at.
        The “cure” was worse than the disease.

        There is a parallel today: the “war” on drugs. Drugs today are more powerful, more easily obtained, and less expensive, than when the “war” started. Our society has been ravaged not only by drugs, but by the side effects of the “war.” So many people had their lives and families ruined by mere possession that the toll is incalculable, while the dealers and suppliers went largely unpunished. If you couldn’t/wouldn’t name your source, tough, you go to jail. The cure is worse than the disease.
        Now, some (mainly on the left side of the political spectrum) want to do the same with guns, ignoring the history of such actions (and, the unconstitutionality of such actions).
        I wish I had the answer to such people, but the obvious problems with their position is lost on them.

  17. avatar Chuck says:

    “Do Something Disease” is an apt name for the Knee Jerk Response legislation cluttering up the code books. None of it has impacted crime other than to make criminal attacks an inevitable event rather than a rare occurence. The majority of it’s based on false or missing facts altogether, and doesn’t make anyone safe, safer or safest (which is a “right” I can never find while reading the Constitution for the umpteenth time for some reason). The recent ATF Bump Stock is a good example. One crime in which a Bump Stock possibly “might” have been used (I saw zero evidence that it was actually used) and several hundred thousands of gun pwners who had one, were forced to destroy them lest they become criminals. Doesn’t matter that a real criminal still has one, but by God we’ve once again protected the masses from Law Abiding Gun Owners.
    I can hardly wait for September so we can watch the House and Senate Democrats make outrageous and totally worthless demands and ridiculous legislative proposals and then watch them hold their breath until our ball-less Republicans give in and give the Loony Left their way. It’d be amusing to watch except for the fact that we, the law abiding gun owners, will lose more of our Second Amendment Rights while this collective group of Asshats perform like the circus monkeys they are!

  18. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    Most Industrialized Nations require extensive background checks for all gun purchases which include interviews with a psychiatrist, the police, and the purchasers friends and or neighbors. Without universal background checks any lunatic or criminal can get a weapon with no question asked. Because of all this Amnesty International has now warned all foreign nations the U,S. has now become one of the most dangerous industrialize countries on earth to vacation in and warns people to be aware of what can happen to them in this totally lawless country where the lunatics rule and ordinary citizens get gunned down weekly in mass murder rampages. When it can happen in Texas which is one of the most gun crazy states in the U,S, it simply proved that even with lax gun laws that allowed both open and concealed carry a lunatic can kill with impunity.

    The Chicago study proved that most guns used in crime were at least 11 years old and had been sold second hand many times without any paperwork. This is irrefutable proof that Universal Background checks should have been passed decades ago.

    Most nations require safe storage laws for obvious reasons Only the uneducated and the ignorant out house crowd in the U.S. refuses to acknowledge that guns are easy to steal if left lying around and 1,300 kids get killed each year with them not to mention the mass killings that take place at our schools with guns that the kids brought from home that were just laying there ready to be picked up and used for mass murder at the school.

    Most nations have red flag laws which quickly disarm people acting strangely. The U.S. has yet to enact a Federal Red Flag Law which has proved a disaster for the safety of U.S. Citizens and has let the insane parade around on the internet or in front of the general population telling them they intended to commit mass murder.

    Most other Nations spend much more money on monitoring the most dangerous segment of the population and that is Right Wing Racist and Religious Maniacs. They break up Right Wing Neo Nazi Groups and often arrest their demented , xenophobic and racist leaders. David Duke and nut cases like him would have been put in prison decades ago in many civilized nations.

    Most Nations have very severe restrictions and or out right bans on high capacity assault rifles. The Far Right refuses to acknowledge that when the Second Amendment was written the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned or condoned the ownership of weapons of mass destruction such as assault rifles. The Far Right in their lunacy will argue they also have the right according to 2A to own atomic bombs and flame throwers and poison gas to someday overthrow the government and institute a Right Wing Dictatorship and a Christian Caliphate.

    Most Civilized Nations have affordable mental health care. In the U.S. the Corrupt Republican Congressmen have always blocked spending any money on health care and thereby making it not affordable and not available to people who need it. The result are maniacs running around buying up weapons of mass destruction and slaughtering large groups of innocent people now on a weekly basis and sometimes several times a week much to the shock and horror not only of U.S. citizens but the entire civilized world which knows only too well that the U.S. has now descended into Far Right Hitlerite Racism and pure insanity.

    Only a comprehensive approach can ever get the mass murder in the U.S. under control and to do that the Dems need to take possession of both houses of Congress. With a democratic president almost a certainty in 2020 it only remains to be seen if the Dems can capture control of the Senate and bring sanity back to America where children are not gunned down on a weekly basis while studying at school or even praying at church. Its actually become that insane a country to live in and its got to stop and stop soon before the U.S. descends into the chaos of a 3rd world country where there is no law and order because we are only a half step away from that right now.

    1. avatar MLee says:

      @ Vlad Tepes
      Everything you said was bullshit.
      Thank you.

    2. avatar LifeSavor says:

      What are you doing here, Vlad? Have you gotten any converts?

      Please, remember that Hitler was far left (National Socialist), not far right as you indicate, above. Also recall that his framework for solving the “Jewish problem” was based on the Democratic National Committee’s platform regarding “negroes” in the USA.

      Really, why are you here? What do you think you are accomplishing?

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        quote———————-What are you doing here, Vlad? Have you gotten any converts?

        Please, remember that Hitler was far left (National Socialist), not far right as you indicate, above. Also recall that his framework for solving the “Jewish problem” was based on the Democratic National Committee’s platform regarding “negroes” in the USA.

        Really, why are you here? What do you think you are accomplishing?—————quote

        Like most of the out house gang your totally ignorant of history. Hitler actually copied many of the racist programs the U.S. was involved in during those years when he rose to power. He studied the U.S. Far Right Racist programs like eugenics and the U.S. when they almost totally banned immigration by cutting it by 98 per cent due to the influence of the Klu Klux Klan.

        If you had ever bothered to read Hitlers book “Mein Kampf its everything the Far Right still believes in today i.e. Racism, Xenophobia, White Supremacy, Hatred of the free press, Nationalism and blind obedient patriotism, hatred and destruction of workers unions and rights so the workers can be enslaved by the Capitavanians and a wish to privatize and or totally destroy government funded social programs making them inadequate which were originally passed by the Liberals during the Bismark years. Its the credo of the Far Right to this very day.

        Yes the Far Right due to sub-conscience guilt and shame make a total laughing stock of themselves by claiming Hitler was a Liberal. He slaughtered Communists in the streets, hardly something a Liberal would ever even contemplate doing. And he invaded and tried to destroy the Soviet Union , the bastion of Socialist Thinking.

        Yeah Jethro tell me again how Liberal Hitler was or that he was a Socialist when he did everything imaginable in Germany to destroy unions and government funded programs designed to help the workers. His political thoughts and actions are followed to this very day by the Republican Capitalvanians who have enslaved the American worker and impoverished him in the last 50 years. Hitler would praised all of them.

        “quote————————–Really, why are you here? What do you think you are accomplishing?—————quote

        If you had ever bothered to read the comments even though they are often guarded and or occasional there are plenty of people who log on to this site that agree with me or were formally sitting on the fence in regards to gun control. Not everyone salutes with a stiff armed salute or grows a short mustachio who logs on to this forum. I have far more followers than you would ever dare imagine in your worst nightmares.

    3. avatar UpInArms says:

      ” Most nations require … ”

      This isn’t most nations. This is the United States of America. Get used to it.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        quote==============” Most nations require … ”

        This isn’t most nations. This is the United States of America. Get used to it.==========quote

        No, you get used to the fact that big changes are coming over the insanity that now terrorizes this nation on a weekly basis with mass shootings by assault rifle.

        1. avatar UpInArms says:

          Such big talk from such a small brain…

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          “No, you get used to the fact that big changes are coming over the insanity that now terrorizes this nation on a weekly basis with mass shootings by assault rifle.”

          So much so wrong…
          We are not terrorized as a nation. No poll shows mass shootings to be high on the list of very many people of what worries them. Most understand they are far more likely to be killed in a car crash than in a mass shooting, or, indeed, in any shooting. And even more likely to die during any medical procedure.
          Mass shootings by assault rifle? Where? When? First, no rifles shoot anyone; while firearms may be used in a shooting (and, of course, usually are), it’s the person holding and using the rifle that is responsible, not the rifle. I would think you would know that.
          Second, no “assault rifles” have been used in such shootings here. I’m sure you meant to say “assault weapon” (even though there isn’t actually a definition for such an item), because I’m equally sure you didn’t mean to falsely claim that an AR pattern rifle is actually a weapon of war, and thus make a liar out of yourself.
          So I give you the benefit of the doubt.
          Unfortunately, even doing so, your statement fails because most people, as I said, simply don’t attach the importance to the incidents as you do. They recognize that the risk is very low, and that removing that risk carries its own problems. Problems which people like you fail to see.

        3. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          To Big Bull (the bullshitter)

          quote—————–Second, no “assault rifles” have been used in such shootings here. I’m sure you meant to say “assault weapon” (even though there isn’t actually a definition for such an item), because I’m equally sure you didn’t mean to falsely claim that an AR pattern rifle is actually a weapon of war, and thus make a liar out of yourself.————quote

          Quit the game of semantics and the attempt to lay a false smoke screen around the horrific truth. The Horrific fact is that no matter what you call the mass killing machines, i.e. assault rifles or semi-auto rifles the droves of innocent people are now all very, very dead. Now genius what part of this do you not understand anyway???????

          Your out of your league you just made an absolute fool of yourself with your response.

        4. avatar Big Bill says:

          Vlad Tepes (The Ignorant One):
          Do you not understand that the medical profession kills far more people each year through “Medical Misadventures” than guns (including suicides)?
          According to your logic, the entire medical system should be shut down, and the Surgeon General executed.
          That’s not semantics, that’s fact.
          What you call semantics, I call knowledge. You are willfully ignorant, and revel in that fact.

    4. avatar Big Bill says:

      “Even with universal background checks any lunatic or criminal can get a weapon with no question asked.”

      FIFY.
      Ignoring basic facts in evidence tends to destroy your rather lengthy posts.

  19. avatar Wally1 says:

    WOW, Sorry but I have a life and don’t have the time to be offended by every little thing on the internet. These people are the Losers in society, instead of working hard and making a dollar, they are allegedly offended by everything in their life. so what label do we place on people like this? “LOSER”. Because instead of working hard to improver their life, they waste their life on issues they will never have control over of impact. They are easy to spot, usually have a “Bernie” sticker on a total late 80’s shit box burning oil at 72 mph smoking down the interstate. Anybody disagree?, I’m thinking I nailed it.

  20. avatar barnbwt says:

    “Do something” is the cry of pathetic children. The feel bad, and want Big Government to acknowledge them (ie give them a hug in the form of a policy change on their behalf)

    They don’t care what “something” is
    They don’t care if it makes things better or worse
    They don’t care what impacts or costs it has on others (except maybe if it hurts people they don’t like in the process)

    It’s the most anti-intellectual kind of narcissism there is. No wonder it’s spreading like wildfire in modern America.

  21. avatar Gene Ralno says:

    Last I heard, red flag or Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws are the only untenable positions taken by President Trump. That said, politicians who support this notion will regret the day they ever heard of red flag laws. Their legacies will carry a Supreme Court scolding and perhaps be a landmark of their careers. But not to worry. Red Flag laws will be overturned soon enough.

    The Supreme Court isn’t about to jeopardize its own reputation by reducing the ability of private citizens to defend themselves. It’s especially important because currently, half the nation’s murders occur in only 63 counties while the other half are spread across the other 3,081 counties. Said another way, 15 percent had one murder and 54 percent of the nation’s counties had no murders at all.

    These laws were created to dilute the power licensed to the psychiatric community and transfer it to unqualified persons the democrats can influence, e.g., local judges and disgruntled aunts. These confiscation laws are still being trumpeted by democrats because their usual gun control arguments have been lopsided, illogical losers.

    Democrats and weak minded Republicans are victims of the bum’s rush. They’ve been hoodwinked by Bloomberg’s rhetoric and haven’t read his 2018 data. It reveals gun homicides declined seven percent, firearm injuries declined 10 percent, fatal child shootings (under 18) declined 12 percent and unintentional shootings plummeted 21 percent. Generally, since 1991, the murder rate has fallen by 45 percent and the overall violent crime rate has fallen by 48 percent.

    Additionally, shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the ’90s. During that time, citizens were buying a record number of firearms. In 2018, more than 26 million firearms were purchased, a number exceeded only by 27.5 million in 2016 when purchasers were mortified that Hillary might be elected.

    Further, a December 2018 Gallup Poll revealed that gun control is last on a list of what Americans cite as the most important problem facing the U.S. Seems government is the most important problem and immigration is second most important. Obviously, the socialist-democrats are pushing a solution in search of a problem.

    Unarguably, our government cannot be trusted with the 2nd Amendment, just as our founders warned us. The primary problem with this nationwide hysteria to enforce red flag laws is none are crafted with sufficient protections for the accused. Apparently, we’ve been deluding ourselves that the U.S. judiciary would rather let ten guilty parties go free than convict one innocent person.

    Additionally, these laws generally place enormous responsibility and pressure on police officers and judges to dispense pretrial punishment, just in case an owner might be mentally afflicted. This kind of punishment is overly severe to be based on amateur opinions afforded by all the red flag laws enacted thus far. I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will strike these laws down but in the meantime, many firearms owners will suffer needlessly. Lawsuits are sure to follow.

    Since we’re dealing with mentally troubled persons, any law should include analysis by licensed psychiatrists, one chosen from each side, before an indictment. Doubtlessly, we all know of judges and law officers who are far from qualified for such professional undertakings. I also doubt that they’d volunteer to diagnose mental illness if their jobs depended on doing it correctly.

    This movement makes it clear that democrats want control without responsibility. I used to wonder why democrats saturate media outlets with soothing pleas for conversation instead of acting on their clear and ultimate goal of total confiscation. I assumed they stopped short of the extreme because they know firearms owners won’t tolerate confiscation without unimaginable fury.

    Fact is democrats will temporarily settle for controlling little things like angry partners, bayonet lugs, ammunition taxes, bullet shapes and so on. But it’s still part of a common democrat flimflam. Eventually they’ll again get around to universal background checks that are impossible to manage without universal registration.

    They need a universal firearm registry because it fundamentally transforms 140 million owners into dependents. Once they know who the owners are, they’ll choose which of them are allowed to be licensed. It’s the consummate entitlement. The democrat party cannot survive without more than half the nation being dependent on the government. Democrats trade entitlements for votes. It’s the heart of their strategy.

    Justice demands that the accused be afforded at least a modicum of professional analysis and an official opinion by two or more psychiatrists. Democrats screech in the streets if denied a full measure of due process but close their eyes on the subject of self-defense by firearm. These laws open the doors to scorned partners, angry neighbors, children seeking a parent’s wealth and arrogant judges.

    The natural next step for any Nazified government was to codify empowerment of mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, neighbors, judges, police officers, boyfriends, girlfriends, classmates, teachers, faculty, employers, co-workers and everyone except those actually qualified to judge mental competence.

    And you can count on democrats finding new restrictions that violate due process. Soon they’ll want to choose an upper age limit for people to be “allowed by the government” to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. It makes me wonder about the motive for Red Flag ERPO laws.

  22. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    The ‘Do Something’ Disease as the brain dead Left can’t fathom reasoning or thinking the are left with Feelz,Leftism truly is a mental disease.

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