Trump looking at literally grabbing guns, and I agree

[Islam Imamate]

Again, I liked Bernie probably 99% as much as I liked Clinton. He was my third choice in the primary (I wasn't super wild about O'Malley either--it was a narrow range), but I wouldn't have had the slightest reservation about voting for him over any of the GOP field. If I was his biggest critic on the left here, I guess that's because very few on the left were critical of him at all.

Still strikes me as strange that people try to portray me as a big Clinton booster and a Bernie critic given how I pretty much saw them the same (and expressed that view many times). If anything, that reflects the massive skew among the WR left (most liberals in the country preferred Clinton, but the WR left was heavily pro-Bernie).

I suppose that's what I was getting at. I was trying to communicate to TCK that despite disagreements on the left, leftists are generally going to gravitate towards the Dems because they're more likely to propose policy that appeals to us. So more often than not we'd take the Dem candidate over the GOP candidate regardless of the differences that seem to appear within the party and the left in 2016.

But yeah, to be fair to you you generally seemed to have criticized Bernie's supporters here more than Bernie himself and maybe there is another WR leftist who could be said to be an even bigger critic of Bernie. But you stood out as the guy on the left with the most reservations about the Bernie bro movement in my mind.

 

[ShinkanPo]

Grab em by the Guns!!!

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I thought all states already had that law??

 

[GearSolidMetal]

I'm shooting this proposal down because it sounds like you get your day in court after they take away your rights. They should have to prove you guilty of said claims before being given the ability to act on a hunch or a claim.

This is a very good point.

And its very difficult getting your firearms back from the police, no matter what the results of the trial would be.

Just raise the legal age to buy rifles/shotguns to 21 like it is with handguns (I believe). This way you solve most likely just about

I don't have the stats, but I believe Nicholas Cruz was the only, or just one of the very few, high school shooters that personally bought the gun/s used in the shooting.

Most/all others got them from their parents.

It also doesn't really take anything away, like constitutional rights or certain purchases. It just pushes them back a couple of years.

That may be a decent compromise, because five years could be what they need to get their head screwed on straight.

Though, I admit that may be a weak argument.

As for the mental health issue, there needs to be more time and studies dedicated to this imo. Knee jerking laws into place may not help a whole lot and once they're in place, it's hard to reverse course even if they're largely ineffective.

Agreed.

More details and examples will need to be proposed. I look at the OP Bloomberg article as a rough draft.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You don't see an issue here with potential for abuse and fraud? People have been talking about a slippery slope for a long time and this is a horrible first step in the lubrication of that slope. So ARMED people will show up at your door, remove you from your home, confiscate your legally owned weapon, and hold you for ~72 hours on a whim? I can't believe people are so fucking blind to see what's really going on here and are just following along with this absurd motion.

Fuck all of this and fuck every single person who supports this kind of incarceration without due process. I brought this up a few years ago after I think the Newtown shooting and everybody was saying this same kind of bullshit. Who is going to make the determination that some person sitting in their home is now a threat to society? Is it going to be a trained criminal psychologist... if not, who will hold that kind of authority? I'm very concerned about this issue because I've been medically diagnosed with PTSD / Depression / Alcoholism... if this law were enacted how much "due process" would it take for an armed government official to show up at my house and steal my weapons?

Also, you're OK that someone would have to hire a legal council to get their weapons returned?

I admit their is some tail risk here, but we let judges sentence people to death. I hope that if you don't trust judges to make these calls, that you are also anti-death penalty.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I'm sure he's skulking around in one his 3 homes or something

Yep, with Bigfoot and the lizard people.

 

[usmctanker242]

I admit their is some tail risk here, but we let judges sentence people to death. I hope that if you don't trust judges to make these calls, that you are also anti-death penalty.

Do judges sentence people to death on a whim by some anonymous caller? Fuck no... it's after a massive amount of DUE PROCESS. You're suggesting removing due process, incarcerating people, confiscating their weapons, and then if they're able to prove they're sane they can then petition to get their shit back. In what world is that an acceptable course of action?

Just wanted to say I know my post came off quite abrasive and props to you for giving a reasonable response (though I don't agree) and not just a bunch of vitriol or some stupid hot dog gif (not accusing you of being Homer Thompson).

 

[Islam Imamate]

Yeah, that's my impression too.

It's possible that it might have been colored by JVS being more likely to defend Clinton/criticize Sanders than most posters here that got him that rep. Anyone who liked them about the same would have come across as a Clinton apologist by comparison to most here.

And that's my point, even the more vocal critics on the left of leftists candidates like Bernie will still likely prefer those candidates over one from the right and broadly agree with them. Not all the time of course but just generally.

For myself, I started out as a Sanders supporter and shifted to Clinton over the course of the primary. The first or second debate was the turning point for me.

I was sort of the opposite. I started out believing Bernie had no chance so I defaulted to lukewarm support of Clinton. However, my Bernie bro friends irl(including one girl who even helped his campaign) gave me the false hope that he might beat Clinton so I became a more fervent Bernie bro over the primary season.

 

[HockeyBjj]

What amazes me is that we are all seeing this 18 shootings figure now but I had absolutely zero awareness of the 17 before Florida.

Because the “18” number is such complete fake news to create a talking point it’s ridiculous

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html

The above is a good article. A few examples so you can see how bullshit the number is is

1) a guy parked his car in a school parking that had been closed for 7 months and committed suicide. There were no students or teachers there.

Does this sound like what you think of a school shooting?

2) a man was shot at a sorority event at Wake Forest at 1am in the morning. Again, not exactly the Virginia tech tragedy there

3) University of Michigan, there were reports of gunshots fired in a parking lot at 8pm outside a basketball game. No one was hurt


“18 school shootings” is a prime example of the “lies, damned lies, and statistics” quote of how a person can take any sample of events and cause them to make any point they wish. And then of course due to social media, people parrot it because it agrees with their current pre conceived opinion

 

[VivaRevolution]

Do judges sentence people to death on a whim by some anonymous caller? Fuck no... it's after a massive amount of DUE PROCESS. You're suggesting removing due process, incarcerating people, confiscating their weapons, and then if they're able to prove they're sane they can then petition to get their shit back. In what world is that an acceptable course of action?

Just wanted to say I know my post came off quite abrasive and props to you for giving a reasonable response (though I don't agree) and not just a bunch of vitriol or some stupid hot dog gif (not accusing you of being Homer Thompson).

Well an anonymous call shouldn't be considered reason to remove someone's guns.

The devil is in the details on something like this, but I do think it could be done in a reasonable, and checked and balanced fashion.

Think on it like this. Yes, some guy will probably have his guns removed for an improper reason along the way, but that cant be done all throughout society with this law.

Thier is individual granular risk here, but not societal risk.

They couldn't disarm society with this law.

As I said, there is tail risk here, but it's scope is limited.

On the other hand, this policy might actually stop some mass shootings.

 

[usmctanker242]

Well an anonymous call shouldn't be considered reason to remove someone's guns.

The devil is in the details on something like this, but I do think it could be done in a reasonable, and checked and balanced fashion.

Think on it like this. Yes, some guy will probably have his guns removed for an improper reason along the way, but that cant be done all throughout society with this law.

Thier is individual granular risk here, but not societal risk.

They couldn't disarm society with this law.

As I said, there is tail risk here, but it's scope is limited.

On the other hand, this policy might actually stop some mass shootings.

This policy won't stop a single shooting. If people know this kind of Nazi-esque tactic will be employed by the government they will stop posting their psychotic monologues on social media. The potential for abuse and fraud is immense and then there's the huge issue with a slippery slope. Again, who is going to be the person sending ARMED people to your house to incarcerate and confiscate? What will be the "cut-off" for what you can / can't say on social media before SWAT comes to your door? Funny enough there you have it... both the 1st and 2nd amendment being stomped on, at the same time, because some people think it MIGHT prevent some kind of shooting.

Look at what happens when someone says a guy at a certain address is selling pot? SWAT kicks in their door at 3am and starts barking orders, shooting dogs, and over a fucking plant. Now imagine your scenario where the same SWAT teams are now going to a home where they believe the person to be in some kind of mental state and they KNOW they have a weapon? A guy got shot about a month ago for simply opening his front door by a SWAT team... are you really comfortable with this kind of law and how it would be enforced?

 

[VivaRevolution]

This policy won't stop a single shooting. If people know this kind of Nazi-esque tactic will be employed by the government they will stop posting their psychotic monologues on social media. The potential for abuse and fraud is immense and then there's the huge issue with a slippery slope. Again, who is going to be the person sending ARMED people to your house to incarcerate and confiscate? What will be the "cut-off" for what you can / can't say on social media before SWAT comes to your door? Funny enough there you have it... both the 1st and 2nd amendment being stomped on, at the same time, because some people think it MIGHT prevent some kind of shooting.

Look at what happens when someone says a guy at a certain address is selling pot? SWAT kicks in their door at 3am and starts barking orders, shooting dogs, and over a fucking plant. Now imagine your scenario where the same SWAT teams are now going to a home where they believe the person to be in some kind of mental state and they KNOW they have a weapon? A guy got shot about a month ago for simply opening his front door by a SWAT team... are you really comfortable with this kind of law and how it would be enforced?

Basically you are arguing slippery slope. I agree with that argument 98% of the time.

Here is why this falls into the 2% for me. Imagine you are the FBI reviewing the Florida shooter. He hasn't committed a crime, so you can't arrest him, so what are your options?

You don't have any, your option is to let the guy go with a warning saying your posts on line are border line threatening, but not illegal.

With this law, you would create another option for LE.

Will it be abused? Sure.

But what is the tail risk vs effectiveness for this law?

Through that scope of reasoning, I can agree with this law.

 

[usmctanker242]

Basically you are arguing slippery slope. I agree with that argument 98% of the time.

Here is why this falls into the 2% for me. Imagine you are the FBI reviewing the Florida shooter. He hasn't committed a crime, so you can't arrest him, so what are your options?

You don't have any, your option is to let the guy go with a warning saying your posts on line are border line threatening, but not illegal.

With this law, you would create another option for LE.

Will it be abused? Sure.

But what is the tail risk vs effectiveness for this law?

Through that scope of reasoning, I can agree with this law.

I think we'll just have to disagree about the effectiveness of this kind of law. The potential for abuse far outweighs any potential benefits for society. Maybe if the FBI had shown up to this kids door and scared the crap out of him, instead of doing NOTHING, this could have been prevented. Perhaps his family could have placed him in some kind of counseling or psychology program. There's a lot of things which could have happened, but focusing on the weapon and then legislating in that manner isn't the way to go.

Either way good discussion and I'm glad it didn't devolve into "derp a derp libtard / trumper." Cheers buddy!

 

[Islam Imamate]

This policy won't stop a single shooting. If people know this kind of Nazi-esque tactic will be employed by the government they will stop posting their psychotic monologues on social media. The potential for abuse and fraud is immense and then there's the huge issue with a slippery slope. Again, who is going to be the person sending ARMED people to your house to incarcerate and confiscate? What will be the "cut-off" for what you can / can't say on social media before SWAT comes to your door? Funny enough there you have it... both the 1st and 2nd amendment being stomped on, at the same time, because some people think it MIGHT prevent some kind of shooting.

Look at what happens when someone says a guy at a certain address is selling pot? SWAT kicks in their door at 3am and starts barking orders, shooting dogs, and over a fucking plant. Now imagine your scenario where the same SWAT teams are now going to a home where they believe the person to be in some kind of mental state and they KNOW they have a weapon? A guy got shot about a month ago for simply opening his front door by a SWAT team... are you really comfortable with this kind of law and how it would be enforced?

Doesn't seem like the details are finalized and these laws might differ between states but in the OP there is mention of a restraining order so a judge would likely have to oversee that part at least. Its not perfect but if there is judicial oversight then I don't think it would be as prone to abuse as you seem to think.

 

[nixkid]

Because the “18” number is such complete fake news to create a talking point it’s ridiculous

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html

The above is a good article. A few examples so you can see how bullshit the number is is

1) a guy parked his car in a school parking that had been closed for 7 months and committed suicide. There were no students or teachers there.

Does this sound like what you think of a school shooting?

2) a man was shot at a sorority event at Wake Forest at 1am in the morning. Again, not exactly the Virginia tech tragedy there

3) University of Michigan, there were reports of gunshots fired in a parking lot at 8pm outside a basketball game. No one was hurt


“18 school shootings” is a prime example of the “lies, damned lies, and statistics” quote of how a person can take any sample of events and cause them to make any point they wish. And then of course due to social media, people parrot it because it agrees with their current pre conceived opinion

2 and 3 are school shootings, IMO. I'll agree that 1 is a stretch. It depends on how you perceive "school shooting". I don't think that the phrase "school shooting" equates to mass shooting. Basically, every mass shooting at a school is a school shooting but every school shooting isn't necessarily a mass shooting. I think #1 is a stretch because no innocents were in danger of being harmed and people don't generally describe suicides as "shootings". I could definitely see the local news reporting #2 and #3 as "school shootings" and I would think twice if they did.

I guess some people might see "school shooting" and automatically think mass shooting at a school but that makes about as much sense as seeing that there was a "shooting" in the news and automatically jumping to the conclusion that it was a mass shooting (which isn't the case 99% of the time).

Any unjustified school shooting is a problem, much like any unjustified shooting in general is a problem. Any effort taken to reduce mass shootings at schools would also likely have the effect of reducing low/no casualty school shootings and vice versa so I feel like it is relevant.

 

[usmctanker242]

Doesn't seem like the details are finalized and these laws might differ between states but in the OP there is mention of a restraining order so a judge would likely have to oversee that part at least. Its not perfect but if there is judicial oversight then I don't think it would be as prone to abuse as you seem to think.

This is a fair statement but I simply don't agree. I'm very curious to see the exact wording of the law when it's finalized... the due process required is what scares me. Either way if this law passes it's a huge step in the wrong direction for freedom.... it effectively would limit your ability to exercise both the 1st and 2nd amendments.

 

[JbModest]

You make more threads than @WorldofWarcraft .

Not that I'm complaining.

 

[Islam Imamate]

This is a fair statement but I simply don't agree. I'm very curious to see the exact wording of the law when it's finalized... the due process required is what scares me. Either way if this law passes it's a huge step in the wrong direction for freedom.... it effectively would limit your ability to exercise both the 1st and 2nd amendments.

Why? If this was only at the discretion of law enforcement I'd agree with your concerns but I think judicial oversight reduces the chances of abuse, not increases it.

The language used in the OP seems to suggest to me that this might ultimately apply primarily to those who are involuntarily committed or have a restraining order on them. I think that would limit the scope of the law enough for me at least.

You make more threads than @WorldofWarcraft .

Not that I'm complaining.

I noticed that too.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I suppose that's what I was getting at. I was trying to communicate to TCK that despite disagreements on the left, leftists are generally going to gravitate towards the Dems because they're more likely to propose policy that appeals to us. So more often than not we'd take the Dem candidate over the GOP candidate regardless of the differences that seem to appear within the party and the left in 2016.

But yeah, to be fair to you you generally seemed to have criticized Bernie's supporters here more than Bernie himself and maybe there is another WR leftist who could be said to be an even bigger critic of Bernie. But you stood out as the guy on the left with the most reservations about the Bernie bro movement in my mind.

What really grinds my gears, is quite a few posters, saying over and over that Bernie couldn't win.

When combined with what we know now, that talking point takes on new meaning.

 

[Cooz]

How are you found to be "at risk"?

I ask cause I am looking at a potential move to the Seattle area and I am looking at studio apartments and we have a law here where your neighbors/loved ones can report you to the cops as being "at risk" and the cops show up and take your guns and like throw you in the hospital mental ward for a night or two. My understanding is that at THAT point you have to petition to get your firearms back. I don't want some shitlord roommate that has never left Bellevue to call the cops on me cause I threatened my friend on Xbox live after he got us killed in like Battlefield 1 and shit.

People may scoff at that but remember fuckhead kids did that "SWATting" shit in the past.

Yeah but no one got their guns taken away from that.