75,000 Pro-Gun Demonstrators in Richmond For "Lobby Day"?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
What about in sanctuary cities? |
Anonymous
If it wasn't too far back, it should be easy for you to find and quote, then. |
Anonymous
I guess it depends on what their boss -the elected Sheriff- tells them to do. And since 95 Virginia Sheriffs have said they wont be enforcing many of these new laws, then I guess those officers won't be getting many orders to serve red flags. |
Anonymous
| I'm pro Law Enforcement |
Anonymous
01/20/2020 21:54 |
Anonymous
"And I'm not." ?????? That's the post you say is specifically advocating for "crazy and deranged people to have access to guns"?!?!?! THAT?!?!?!?! Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Anonymous
Hint: you might need to read the quoted texts to understand the context. Give it another try, sport. And I didn’t say that PP was “specifically advocating for crazy” (way to slip in that lie) — I said PP was “basically advocating that ANYONE can get a gun”. Seems like you’re having A LOT of trouble following this thread. Maybe ask a friend to help you figure it out. |
Anonymous
|
Uh huh. Sure.
So we're all still waiting on that post where a gun rights supporter says they want "deranged and crazy people to be armed" Stilllllllllll waiting. Yawn. |
Anonymous
| The other day, this thread was dominated by a heavily medicated anti-gun nut. But today, a very vocal Elmer Fudd is all fired up, posting all sorts of nonsense! Were you at the rally with all of the other mentally challenged protesters? Why are you so worked up? |
Anonymous
If you are ok with anyone getting a gun then you are ok with crazy people getting guns. Do YOU support universal background checks? Do YOU support red flag laws? |
Anonymous
How do universal background checks stop people from getting guns? I think you will find plenty of people who don't want their gun purchases being tracked, and will conduct them without them being tracked. Some might not want them tracked for criminal reasons, others want privacy and don't trust the government not to compile a database of who owns what. |
Anonymous
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/ When background checks are required and properly enforced, they can help keep guns out of dangerous hands. 1. Since the federal background check requirement was adopted in 1994, over 3 million people legally prohibited from possessing a gun have been stopped from purchasing a gun or denied a permit to purchase.2 More than 35% of these denials involved people convicted of felony offenses.3 2. Background check laws also help prevent guns from being diverted to the illegal gun market. States without universal background check laws export crime guns across state lines at a 30% higher rate than states that require background checks on all gun sales.4 People with a history of mental illness can buy from an unlicensed seller without a background check. A dangerous gap in our federal gun laws lets people buy guns without passing a background check. Under current law, unlicensed sellers—people who sell guns online, at gun shows, or anywhere else without a federal dealer’s license—can transfer firearms without having to run any background check whatsoever. Because of this loophole, domestic abusers, people with violent criminal records, and people prohibited for mental health reasons can easily buy guns from unlicensed sellers with no background check in most states. In fact, an estimated 22% of US gun owners acquired their most recent firearm without a background check1—which translates to millions of Americans acquiring millions of guns, no questions asked, each year. If people buy their guns illegally then they risk legal implications. |
Anonymous
Nah. Your ridiculous oversimplification here fools no one. You were asked to prove your assertion that gun rights proponents specifically said they wanted "crazy" and "deranged" persons to be armed. You said they posted those exact words on a post somewhere in this 32 page thread . You were asked to find that post, and quote it. That's all. That's the ONLY thing you had to do. But that post doesn't exist. It never did. So you had to set about moving those goalposts.... again. Like always. "Well, if you're not for ________, it basically MEANS you're in favor of ______, even if you don't actually say as much" No. Doesn't work like that. And I think you should apologize now and admit you were wrong, because that's the adult thing to do. Now, as to your argument - you simply won't find gun rights proponents advocating for "crazy" or "deranged" or otherwise dangerously mentally ill people to be armed. Period. But being opposed to universal background checks doesn't equate to the same thing. Sorry, it just doesn't. There are some very good reasons for being opposed to UBC's, and none involve the idea of wanting crazy people armed. Until you stop conflating the two notions, you are imposing limits on yourself in your ability to see other sides of the argument. And that is intellectually unsound. |
Anonymous
There was already an excellent post about how we are already seeing abuses of red flag laws, when the ink is essentially still wet from when they were signed into effect. Red flag laws are easily are abused as-written because they were designed to be abused. And the lawmakers who crafted them knew they would be. Whether you own a gun or not, you should oppose red flag laws for two reasons: 1) they punish the accused by depriving them of their rights before due process and a lawful trial and conviction. 2) they have a tremendous potential for abuse, and are essentially a state-sanctioned way to "SWAT" people you don't like (search: "swatting" if you're unfamiliar with the term). To point #1, the deprivation of due process. If a person is of such immediate, credible danger to someone or to the community at-large, why does a red flag order simply make sure that they don't have access to a gun, but that's all? It doesn't require them to be taken taken into custody. It doesn't take away other equally deadly items like knives or other things. Just guns. As if merely taking away the gun of a violent person instantly transforms them into a nonviolent person, just like that. A real red flag order should involve removing the person from the community to eliminate the danger they pose, not just removing guns from the person. What good does it accomplish to take the guns away if the dangerous person is left there afterwards? But these laws aren't written that way. And if they were truly about safety, they'd remove the person, not just focus on the guns. But they don't. Which tells you this was never about dangerous people to begin with. As to point 2: anyone can get a red flag petition against someone, whether they own a gun or not. The police are still obligated to come to the respondent's home and search it extensively until they find a gun, or are satisfied that there isn't one. Such searches are invasive and frequently destructive, particularly so when someone denies they aren't hiding anything (or truthfully claims not to have it). The police will take your house apart if they have to to satisfy themselves you aren't hiding something. They cut up furniture to look inside, remove drywall walls, pull up floors and carpet, pull apart appliances, etc. And when the search is over, they leave. They don't help you put everything back together when they're finished. And they don't pay you for the damages caused during the search. And all this has the potential to happen because someone who doesn't like you for whatever reason, has the ability to file a red flag petition and put you through this, just to mess with you. And this stuff is already happening, in places where these laws have only been on the books for a few weeks sometimes. This is why people should oppose red flag laws, regardless of how they feel about guns. Because even if you HATE guns, a red flag law still has the potential to treat you just like an actual gun owner would be treated. Which is beautifully ironic. |
Anonymous
I'm sorry you're having trouble following the thread, pops, but I never said "they posted those exact words". FYI - DP means "different poster" - you are confusing posters. Here's exactly what I wrote: "DP. Not too far back someone said that they don’t want UBC...basically advocating that ANYONE (even crazy and deranged people) should have a gun." And then I gave the timestamp for the person who said they don't want UBC. So feel free to apologize to me once you figure that all out. In the mean time.... Background checks and red flag laws DO help to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. If you don't like them for whatever reason then please suggest an alternative. How would you like to ensure that crazy/deranged people don't get guns? Or do you think that ANYONE should be able to get a gun? |