Recent Events and attacks on the 2nd Amendment

[Oak City Tactics]

Is there going to be no discussion about this here?

 

[Western]

I'm deeply disappointed in Trump's call for red flag laws. The Republicans and the Democrats both cannot be trusted to defend our 2A rights, or our rights in the court system either.

Red flag laws are very dangerous to our justice system as they basically make you guilty until proven innocent. What's worse, many states have expanded them so that family, teachers, and even co-workers can bring a red flag accusation against you. I know a lot of people who don't get along very well with their non-immediate family, and it's so easy to see how somebody's estranged aunt/uncle could bring a false red flag accusation against them. Even worse, some guy at your work could do the same.

In addition to how they trample over US justice, these laws could put some serious monetary hurt on quite a few of us. Most gun owners I know have quite a bit of money tied up in their firearms. In some states, (looking at you MA) the state can take for firearms away, and then charge you $800 (!!!) just to OPEN A FILE to get them back. Not even to get your guns back, just to have the chance at doing it.

I do think that boards like 8chan that are cesspools of hatred and promoting violence need to be looked at. Making death threats or a conspiracy to commit murder is a crime in the real world. Many of these shooters talk about their intentions online before ever doing anything, but nothing happens to them. I'm not against some way of better tying people's' online identities to their real selves. I think the ability to say whatever you want with no consequences has created nihilistic and destructive environments that wouldn't exist if these people had to face the consequences for what they spew. I've seen the same thing in college with people who write articles under pseudonyms and say inflammatory stuff that they would never bring up in person.

 

[Barry B]

Take malice out of it, and you are STILL left with stupidity. You got a snowflake that honestly thinks you are a risk, but you aren’t, and they’re just triggered, and there you are defenseless absent an iota of due process. Wait until someone falls prey to one of these laws, and a family member is murdered because someone was rendered defenseless. So many problems with this.

Not a Trump fan at all, and surprised he went for the red flag laws. They add no value, and will be poorly implemented.

Exceedingly slippery slope to head towards. Scares me far more than the chance (low) of a mass shooting - for the reasons stated by the other poster above.

Barry

 

[gws]

I'm at the point now where I'm just so sick of it. Sick of these tragedies. Sick of constantly having to defend the 2nd amendment to everyone around me. Sick of all the politics. The last couple of shootings, I've just kept my mouth shut when I hear someone say that the solution is to ban guns. To me, it's no longer worth arguing over. Nobody wants to talk about meaningful solutions. I just don't see the point in talking about it anymore. I wish it wasn't this way, but I'm worn down.

 

[Fatboy]

It would be great if instead of making new laws that criminals would just ignore, they enforce the ones already on the books. But instead, they will lump all dissidents in together and try to oppress every one. Incremental infringements will still add up to a ban even if it's called something else.

 

[HighTower]

@Fatboy
My DA/prosecutor spouse raises that point with her chain all the time... screaming masses begging for regulations and laws and checks, not being aware of what is already on paper.

 

[Mossens]

I find it difficult to discuss with people who have the same or similar mindsets. We’ll agree and move onto another topic. I’m worried how many of these red flag laws will get pushed through in record time.

Both of the assholes from last weekend showed signs of being violent. Why aren’t people speaking up earlier?

 

[iFeelBad]

I have described the process of how Red Flag Laws are carried out to anti-gun people and had them agree and even become angered that it was allowed. Then when I revealed that we were talking about Red Flag Laws the whole time, they reverse their opinion entirely. I don't understand.

Also, a fair chunk of these "flags" are not being thrown by family members. This is what I found from a brief search. I will post this links as well.

Connecticut (this is a download)
https://www.psychiatry.org/File Lib...e-Document-on-Risk-Based-Gun-Removal-Laws.pdf

41% by family, 8% by employer or doctor, "The remaining 51% of reports were made by people who did not know the person of concern or did not disclose their relationship to the police"

Maryland, ERPO 4th quarter 2018
https://www.courts.state.md.us/sites/default/files/import/district/statistics/2018/ERPO_Q42018.pdf

41% family, 45% law enforcement, 1% doctor, 13% unknown

Oregon
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017I1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/150782

68% Law Enforcement, 30% "authorized petitioner," 2% other

But the cases they list for how Law Enforcement are using them seem rather pointless.

"Case studies

The ERPO tool has been used to remove guns from several dangerous situations. The following case studies reflect the range of circumstances in which ERPO has been applied in OR.

A man threatens to kill himself and his 3-year-old sonxv

A Portland man called 911 threatening to kill himself with a gun. He expressed frustration at not being able to make a child support payment. In addition to threatening to kill himself, he said he would kill his 3-year-old son. Police officers arrived on the scene and removed 10 firearms from the home – including assault rifles, shotguns, and handguns. One loaded handgun was found on the floor, where it was easily accessible to the man and his 3-year-old son. By successfully filing for an ERPO, the responding law enforcement officers were able to remove these weapons and temporarily prohibit this man from purchasing new guns.

A man fires a handgun into the streetxvi

A Cave Junction man was firing a handgun inside his bedroom, thinking that there were intruders. The man had a previous history of drug addiction and mental illness. Bullets left the home through the window and walls, in the direction of the street and the neighbors. By successfully filing for an ERPO, the responding police officer was able to separate this man from his firearm.

A man commits domestic violence and threatens suicidexvii

An Astoria man caused injury to his girlfriend, giving her a black eye, fat lip, and reddening around the neck area. He then told her he was going to take his shotgun from the car and shoot himself. Officers arrived on the scene and filed an ERPO, allowing them to temporarily remove and store the weapon."

Without Red Flag Laws/ERPOs would local law enforcement have been completely helpless in these three cases they used to show how useful these laws are? I really don't think so.

 

[Fatboy]

....(snipped down by me)

Both of the assholes from last weekend showed signs of being violent. Why aren’t people speaking up earlier?

Signs of being violent isn't usually a crime. In the case of the one nitwit who had lists with specific intent for each list, that may have been a chance to remove them from the public. Problem is threats without actions in support of them are misdemeanor level offenses at best. That means a summons to appear or arrest followed by arraignment then release on a bond. Especially in today's age of de-incarceration.

The mental health route would not have worked either because anger is not a mental illness. Neither is racism, political beliefs, mean words or hurt feelings. But we are getting to that point when these laws get passed.

 

[Vinsynd]

Over the weekend tragic, awful, and in human acts were committed by badly damaged people.

Similarly the public has been conditioned into wanting a response aimed not at helping prevent the cause of these acts from happening but towards breaking new people continuing the cycle.

It’s just a depressing situation all around.

I’d like to hope as a society we will find the reasons why these people commit these acts of despair and how to help them as a means to preventing these events. But the realist in me wonders when I will have to decide between being a criminal or giving up my firearms.

 

[Valk]

I understand this is a unpopular, minority opinion, but I think we do need to offer our own solutions beyond "enforce laws on the books" and "repeal all gun laws" if we want to have a realistic shot at keeping our rights. I am not proposing that we cave or "compromise," but we absolutely need to put something on the table of our own design, even if it's as minor as proposing systemic reforms designed to streamline enforcement of current laws.

The fact of the matter is that we cannot simply stamp our feet and shout "no" at any proposal to change gun laws outside of rolling things back to our own benefit. The mantra of "lead, follow, or get out of the way" comes to mind - the way I'm seeing people react, we've very much become a group that the general public wants to get out of the way, and the more we refuse to even come to the table, the higher the odds are that a "solution" will be created and implemented without or even in spite of our input.

The gun community needs to find a way to get to the forefront of proposing solutions. We know the laws, we know the Constitution, we know how the guns work, and we know how and why mass killers act. We are the absolute best-equipped people on the planet to come up with a solution that respects our Constitutional rights and also stops the bloodshed. My greatest fear is that that knowledge will eventually get ignored in favor of letting a teenage socialist who has panic attacks at the McD's drive thru window help guide legislation because they are actively involved in getting Congress to "do something" and we were not.

 

[onearmedbandit]

A long-term mistake of the gun community has been the failure to properly engage with politicians and the public about deficiencies in the law. Case in point is the stabilizing brace and its usage to make an SBR. This will ultimately be a short-term gain that will have considerable long-term political costs. Consider the Rifle Dynamics 704M “pistol” (using this as an random example) and ultimately the firearm used in Dayton. What matters is how the general public will see the firearms. They will view them as rifles (They do not care about ATF letters). Heck even the majority of people who will buy the firearms or the experts who review them view them as rifles. Seen enough reviews of other firearms using stabilizing brace with the emoji when describing their usage. And when you are using the emoji you are likely to lose a long-term political fight. The general public does not like it when they think you are being dishonest and are gaming the system - ask the emotional support animals on planes crowd.

 

[Barry B]

Couple thoughts based on what has already been posted.

First, we do not typically engage in discussion with people we deem idiots. So I am not having a discussion with someone that is of the opinion that (example) a Ruger 10/22 is fine, until you put a pistol grip on it, at which point it becomes an evil weapon of doing harm. I can’t. The problem is that is about the level of understanding of our legislators.

Secondly, I’ll support whatever 1) keeps people safe, and 2) does not infringe the rights and ability of law abiding gun owners to protect their family, and themselves. Much, or ALL, of what is proposed by people with less understanding of firearms, tactics, etc, than I have (and I am a novice) keeps nobody safe. Think about how courthouses, gov’t buildings, police departments, etc. are protected. They are secured, entrances are limited, armed persons restrict access, maybe metal detectors. Most of the people on this forum can list 15 things we can do to harden schools... most of those things are unpalatable to non-gun people. We simply do not want to have armed security, and restricted access to places most of us go. Almost everything I hear proposed would in the end, keep nobody any safer, and would restrict the rights/abilities of lawful gun owners.

I am tired of hearing “we have to do something”. We have to do something EFFECTIVE. There is a difference between a deterrent, and a preventive measure. We have made it illegal to kill elected officials, such as the president. We PREVENT people from doing that be using the US Secret Service. Legislators don’t see the distinction between a deterrent (law) and preventive measure. I mean, the cornerstone of fail is in our country it is illegal to murder anyone, let alone a group of people. So we are gonna’ add another law to the pile? That’s the definition of insanity.

Barry

 

[Gypsy EDC]

I understand this is a unpopular, minority opinion, but I think we do need to offer our own solutions beyond "enforce laws on the books" and "repeal all gun laws" if we want to have a realistic shot at keeping our rights. I am not proposing that we cave or "compromise," but we absolutely need to put something on the table of our own design, even if it's as minor as proposing systemic reforms designed to streamline enforcement of current laws.

So here's the fundamental problem with "coming to the table"

"The tables" agenda is disarming the populace. They don't mind doing it incrementally. So when the "sorta 2a community" says ok we'll comprise on x y or z it is literally simply one step closer to total disarmament. And it gets easier and easier to concede the more often it's done.

Mass shootings will continue to happen until there are NO MORE guns... I'd like an opportunity to shoot back if I'm ever in that situation.

The "we have to do something" or we're going to lose the 2a mentality is appeasement no matter what else you would like to call it.

 

[Gypsy EDC]

A long-term mistake of the gun community has been the failure to properly engage with politicians and the public about deficiencies in the law. Case in point is the stabilizing brace and its usage to make an SBR. This will ultimately be a short-term gain that will have considerable long-term political costs. Consider the Rifle Dynamics 704M “pistol” (using this as an random example) and ultimately the firearm used in Dayton. What matters is how the general public will see the firearms. They will view them as rifles (They do not care about ATF letters). Heck even the majority of people who will buy the firearms or the experts who review them view them as rifles. Seen enough reviews of other firearms using stabilizing brace with the emoji when describing their usage. And when you are using the emoji you are likely to lose a long-term political fight. The general public does not like it when they think you are being dishonest and are gaming the system - ask the emotional support animals on planes crowd.

The problem isn't the braces, the problem is the absolute retarded regulation that brought them to market. Ie barrel oal less than 16 is bad/ needs extra regulation.

 

[Gypsy EDC]

I am tired of hearing “we have to do something”

#metoo

 

[Valk]

So here's the fundamental problem with "coming to the table"

"The tables" agenda is disarming the populace. They don't mind doing it incrementally. So when the "sorta 2a community" says ok we'll comprise on x y or z it is literally simply one step closer to total disarmament. And it gets easier and easier to concede the more often it's done.

Spare me the lecture and show me where I said “we need to compromise.”

I am certain there are things that we can do to improve the system that won’t involve compromising or conceding anything. The fact that we only ever have these discussions after a crisis is proof we’re not thinking about this often enough, and people in the middle see that as us not acting in good faith. They see us as trying to save our own skins and not acting with the general public’s best interests in mind, and that diminishes our clout and odds of long term success. Ethos is a key element of persuasion, and right now we are losing on that front because the other side paints us as callous towards bloodshed. Many in the middle don’t think we even have ethics at this point - that makes them not care about the fact that we are factually correct about the guns, the Constitution, etc., etc.

While compromise is certainly something none of us want given past grievances, GOA-style “no compromise, no discussion” stances are good for fundraising for the Pratt Family Slush Fund, but do little more than harden public opinion against us. We need to at least appear open to discussion - even with idiots - or those discussions will happen without us anyway. That is, for better or worse, how Washington works, and establishing that ethos in the public eye is critical the our long term success (even if we don’t really mean it).

 

[Gypsy EDC]

Spare me the lecture and show me where I said “we need to compromise.”

I am certain there are things that we can do to improve the system that won’t involve compromising or conceding anything. The fact that we only ever have these discussions after a crisis is proof we’re not thinking about this often enough, and people in the middle see that as us not acting in good faith. They see us as trying to save our own skins and not acting with the general public’s best interests in mind, and that diminishes our clout and odds of long term success. Ethos is a key element of persuasion, and right now we are losing on that front because the other side paints us as callous towards bloodshed. Many in the middle don’t think we even have ethics at this point - that makes them not care about the fact that we are factually correct about the guns, the Constitution, etc., etc.

While compromise is certainly something none of us want given past grievances, GOA-style “no compromise, no discussion” stances are good for fundraising for the Pratt Family Slush Fund, but do little more than harden public opinion against us. We need to at least appear open to discussion - even with idiots - or those discussions will happen without us anyway. That is, for better or worse, how Washington works, and establishing that ethos in the public eye is critical the our long term success (even if we don’t really mean it).

Well, you said the exact opposite.... Then you went on to discuss the what & how of doing the very thing you said you weren't proposing.
Explain to me what exactly coming to the table means if not a willingness to compromise (however small and insignificant in your opinion the compromise might be)?
You said "the gun community" needs to propose solutions, would those "solutions" be to advance, compromise, or surrender ground on the 2A. If you're suggesting coming to the table to propose advancement then I'm quite confused by the entirety of your post. That leaves us with 2 other options compromise or concession no matter what else you'd like to pretend it is.
PS I'm not trying to lecture you, I'm trying to engage you in critical thinking.

 

[Valk]

Well, you said the exact opposite.... Then you went on to discuss the what & how of doing the very thing you said you weren't proposing.
Explain to me what exactly coming to the table means if not a willingness to compromise (however small and insignificant in your opinion the compromise might be)?

Do you seriously believe that there are no ways to reform the current system in a way that alleviates concerns from those in the middle while also improving our own position?

Here's an example: I've been advocating for the reform of the NICS system for years - it is, frankly, outdated, and in this day and age there's no reason for it not to be open to individual sellers. "Universal background checks" are unacceptable, but nobody wants to be the guy who sells a gun to a prohibited possessor, and there's no easy way to voluntarily run a background check on a private sale, even if both parties consent to it. Making NICS open to private sellers via a secure web portal or similar that allows an individual to enter their information and get a binary "YES/NO" improves peace of mind for private sellers, assuages the concerns of those outside of our community about private sales, and, since it isn't attached to a 4473 whatsoever (i.e., one could run the check and then just not complete the sale), it prevents any sort of registry from being created from it. It would also have an added benefit of allowing people unsure of their legal status to check their eligibility without entering the legal gray area of providing incorrect information on a 4473.

This is not a solution to the current issue, but it is something I've been trying to encourage people to think about and discuss, even when guns aren't in the spotlight. Being open to and proposing reforms like this that protect ourselves while addressing the concerns of the general populace helps build our community's ethos - it gives our arguments credibility by demonstrating that we are self-motivated about keeping guns out of the wrong hands, and that we have an interest in policing ourselves instead of only ever pushing back against others trying to police us. Offering suggestions for reform to the current system gives us more political clout in times of controversy, and in turn makes it more likely for us to win in the long term.

This is critical thinking. It is strategic thinking about how to advance our position for the long term by keeping ourselves relevant through the appearances of acting in good faith towards keeping firearms out of the wrong hands, even if we never have any intent whatsoever of giving up semiauto rifles, pistol braces, suppressors, etc., etc. We live in a culture where logic is often thrown out the window; simply making logical appeals to the middle is unfortunately not a winning strategy. We have to shore up our credibility as people with solutions to issues being currently presented, and the more we take initiative to solve issues that are not front and center, the more clout we'll have in big fights like the current one, and the more authority our response of "no, that's not a reasonable solution" will have.

PS I'm not trying to lecture you, I'm trying to engage you in critical thinking.

Spare me the snark. Last I checked this was P&S, not the comments section of an Uncle Sam's Misguided Children Facebook post.

 

[Caomhin]

I understand this is a unpopular, minority opinion, but I think we do need to offer our own solutions beyond "enforce laws on the books" and "repeal all gun laws" if we want to have a realistic shot at keeping our rights. I am not proposing that we cave or "compromise," but we absolutely need to put something on the table of our own design, even if it's as minor as proposing systemic reforms designed to streamline enforcement of current laws.

The fact of the matter is that we cannot simply stamp our feet and shout "no" at any proposal to change gun laws outside of rolling things back to our own benefit. The mantra of "lead, follow, or get out of the way" comes to mind - the way I'm seeing people react, we've very much become a group that the general public wants to get out of the way, and the more we refuse to even come to the table, the higher the odds are that a "solution" will be created and implemented without or even in spite of our input.

The gun community needs to find a way to get to the forefront of proposing solutions. We know the laws, we know the Constitution, we know how the guns work, and we know how and why mass killers act. We are the absolute best-equipped people on the planet to come up with a solution that respects our Constitutional rights and also stops the bloodshed. My greatest fear is that that knowledge will eventually get ignored in favor of letting a teenage socialist who has panic attacks at the McD's drive thru window help guide legislation because they are actively involved in getting Congress to "do something" and we were not.

I cannot say I concur here.

The goal is disarmament.

That SHOULD be obvious by now.

If it’s not then just support the president and all governors to have a Constitutional Convention and invite the UNO here officially.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk