Quote from: taxed on September 08, 2019, 02:56:23 PM
No you don't.  With people like yourself, the Constitution is in danger.  If you'll shred the Second, you'll also shred the First.
What if that person threatens to stab everyone in that school?  Or threaten to run over everyone in the parking lot and sidewalk?  Do they have to own guns to be subject to arrest?
Here's your dream scenario:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arACDYMiNuI

Yes, I do have the same opinion on free speech.  That is, unrestricted unless it causes harm to others.  That is not "shredding it."
As for the point about stabbing and running people over, I can't say that I would be inclined to confiscate that person's knives or car.  I guess we can apply the same logic to guns, which is the only logically consistent position.  Of course, I would make sure that the person is under constant police surveillance, but I think you would too.  Well played, sir.

Quote from: taxed on September 08, 2019, 02:58:09 PM
Sure. We have people like yourself who let emotions make decisions (you admitted to this), and you vote and push towards such actions instead of putting your country first.

Also, you clearly hate guns.  That's fine, but that's no reason to let your emotion take away my rights.

I actually don't hate guns and plan on getting some once I pay my parents back for college (they have threatened to stop their financial support if I buy a gun or motorcycle).  My question was mainly asking for specific instances, maybe in the news or personal anecdotes, of current red flag laws being abused.  I just don't see abuse of these laws holding up in court.

Quote from: taxed on September 08, 2019, 04:38:54 PM
They also don't consider, nor really care, frankly, about the violent attacks prevented by guns.

To be in favor of gun control and red flag laws is very selfish and inconsiderate of others.

I agree, do you have any statistics on the supposedly rare "good guy with a gun" instances?  The narrative is so split among party lines that I haven't heard any convincing evidence about guns preventing or causing more damage.

Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Because taking someone's guns away and detaining them are two distinct levels of punishment and should be applied on a case by case basis.  Also, I'm not sure if just saying something threatening can classify someone as a terrorist.

If their is sufficient reason to take someone's gun then there should be sufficient reason to detain them. That should be the only reason to remove someone rights.

Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:23:02 AM
I'm more looking for specific examples.  Since our judicial system is not run by the Clintons, I just don't see it taking a minor complaint and turning it into a threat.

I do not know your age, but I my perception is your thought process is somewhat naive. I have been on this planet for 7+ decades and have learned that the government is run by human beings and they are flawed and MANY are corrupt. The judiciary is included and one only has to look at the ninth circuit to see what I mean. Liberals are masters at covering their true desires with "feel good" measures which seem very positive. For that reason I oppose red flag laws as another way to abuse our rights.

Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:55:55 AM
I actually don't hate guns and plan on getting some once I pay my parents back for college (they have threatened to stop their financial support if I buy a gun or motorcycle).  My question was mainly asking for specific instances, maybe in the news or personal anecdotes, of current red flag laws being abused.  I just don't see abuse of these laws holding up in court.

You don't deserve to own a gun. You have no clue why you even have a right to own a gun.

Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 01:28:23 AM
Up until a week ago I was under the impression that red flag Laws had relatively bipartisan support, only to find that politicians like Dan Crenshaw are coming under fire for supporting red flag laws, even under the promise that due process is maintained.  To me, it seems pretty cut and dry that if someone threatens violence on another person, and it can be proven that they pose a temporary threat to society, then it is reasonable to take away their firearms for a few weeks. 
It is my understanding that the biggest concern among conservatives was the potential absence of due process (making someone an easier target by disarming them) but if something happens that would prevent them from passing a background check, I think it would be reasonable to retroactively apply it to previously purchased firearms.
What do you guys think?

I think the question you need to ask yourself is.....why does the democrat media complex always talk about disarming law abiding citizens.....never criminals....? That should land you in a solid place with the "red-flag laws".

Name me one democrat or republican candidate running for any office that says while campaigning they want to disarm the criminals. You can't.....! It's always the law abiding citizens and the "red flag laws" gets these "democrat gun grabbers" to that place of disarming the law abiding citizens.

Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:11:45 AM
Thanks for picking this apart for me, it makes sense to me from a conservative perspective.  How would you argue this to someone more interested in government control?

Thanks, glad I could help.

Educate them on our Founding Documents and why they chose a govt that was designed not to accomplish much, as in the three adversarial branches.
And read the Federal Papers. That alone will educate you on who and what we are as a Nation. They were written so the common man of the day would know what they were ratifying.

QuoteAlso, what are your ideas on reducing gun violence, besides a rework of our culture to make it more God and family centered?

It really is simple and our Founders knew that an armed society was a polite society. Restricting people from arming themselves creates the illusion of safety, but if people assume everyone may be packing, it makes one think twice before mugging someone.
I do not believe in background checks as it is unconstitutional. I do believe if someone violates the Rights of another, they should lose said Rights as punishment.

Again, look at why we have a Bill of Rights. It wasn't granted by govt, it was the people demanding their own God given Rights and a restriction against govt and the Right to certain enumerated Rights against the govt.

Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:39:18 AM
Then tell the judge the truth about what you're doing.  He'll see that there's no problem and send you back to working on the movie.  Also, both background checks and red flag laws are about keeping guns away from dangerous people.  Why should we care when that happens?

I don't want to be on trial or have to go before a judge.  I didn't break any laws.

I still have no idea why guns are even in the discussion.  Please address that.

Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:44:57 AM
Thank you for your take.

You're welcome.

Quote
  Are you actually fine with no background checks?

Yes.  Proof of citizenship should be the only requirement.

Quote
I would say that the background check is a massively helpful tool in seeing who is a threat to civil society.

I think it hurts.

Quote
  How else can we be sure that guns aren't going into the hands of dangerous people?

The same way we're sure knives won't be in the hands of dangerous people.

Quote
  Also, never have I ever advocated for more restrictions on the first amendment, and no part of the constitution is acceptable for "shredding."  I'm simply saying that keeping guns out of the hands of those who threaten violence should be a pillar of civil society.

Incorrect. You're advocating for taking guns from people regardless of how you slice it.

Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:55:55 AM
I actually don't hate guns and plan on getting some once I pay my parents back for college (they have threatened to stop their financial support if I buy a gun or motorcycle).  My question was mainly asking for specific instances, maybe in the news or personal anecdotes, of current red flag laws being abused.  I just don't see abuse of these laws holding up in court.

In the end, it's the crime that matters.  In a society where the Second Amendment is celebrated and gun ownership is promoted, the life span of bad people with guns rapidly approaches zero.  Murderers go to their safe spaces to kill people.  They don't go to places where people open-carry.  That's because the mentally unstable are just stable enough to know bullets hurt.

I would focus on leftist policies that promote mentally unstable criminal behavior.  That would keep violence to a minimum.

Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:58:56 AM
I agree, do you have any statistics on the supposedly rare "good guy with a gun" instances?  The narrative is so split among party lines that I haven't heard any convincing evidence about guns preventing or causing more damage.

There is no "narrative" split beyond "party lines".  That's a leftist response that allowed propaganda to bypass the logic-processing faculties of your brain directly into your memory banks, leaving you with the "feeling" that there's two equally valid opposing arguments.  There isn't.

There's reality and non-realty, regardless of what letter you like to cheer for.  If you're not familiar with gun owners stopping bad guys, or home owners neutralizing invaders, then I would suggest instead of me doing your work to influence your thinking, maybe do research on this topic yourself and begin to learn how to shape your own perspective.  The fact that you're not familiar with gun owners stopping violent criminals shows you haven't really put time into this topic.

Quote from: taxed on September 17, 2019, 03:01:16 PM
There is no "narrative" split beyond "party lines".  That's a leftist response that allowed propaganda to bypass the logic-processing faculties of your brain directly into your memory banks, leaving you with the "feeling" that there's two equally valid opposing arguments.  There isn't.

There's reality and non-realty, regardless of what letter you like to cheer for.  If you're not familiar with gun owners stopping bad guys, or home owners neutralizing invaders, then I would suggest instead of me doing your work to influence your thinking, maybe do research on this topic yourself and begin to learn how to shape your own perspective.  The fact that you're not familiar with gun owners stopping violent criminals shows you haven't really put time into this topic.

Case in point.

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/survival-tips/homeowner-shot-and-killed-3-masked-teens-who-tried-to-rob-him/msg384138/#new

Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:21:19 AM
I actually had no prior knowledge of these programs.  Knowing that, I would be wholeheartedly opposed to adding more laws. I guess media outlets just want to say "GOP opposes common sense gun reform" since nobody actually knows about these.  Thanks for enlightening me!

Just a little suggestion, look up all the gun laws in effect for Chicago and Baltimore. Then look up all the murders for these two cities. If gun laws reduce murder why are these two cities at the top for # of murders?

Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:31:59 AM
Okay, but what if they specifically state that they will do something?

Asked previously and answered. Once again specific threats are for the Police to handle, if the person has the ABILITY TO CARRY OUT THE THREAT plus IF there is a COMPLAINANT of course they are liable for arrest. You realize of course that putting a person thru the criminal justice system is NOT going to stop them from committing crimes in the future. BUT the bright side is having a record for making "Terroristic threats" would prevent them from LEGALLY obtaining a firearm, so they'd have to get their gun where the rest of the criminals do....on the street, much easier than going to a gun store.