Opinion How funny, MAGA v NRA

[Spam On Rye]

Seems like a foot in the door to abuse 2A. There's better ways to deal with sick people.

 

[nhbbear]

Who decides who is mentally ill? Do we have a screening before we are able to purchase firearms?

@nhbbear

This will be a long, thought out response and more than what you are looking for, but it’s me, so you have to expect that.

First, my thoughts on this topic. It is a clear fucking violation of the second amendment to disregard the rights of trans people to own guns simply because they are trans. Of all the whining about trans rights being violated (more on this in a min) this is one instance where I agree 100% that their rights are being trampled on simply because they are trans and fuck maga for attempting this bullshit.

I actually was going to make a thread last night about the proposed “trans bill of rights” that was proposed in 2023. First, I think it is a ridiculous and redundant virtue signaling act.

Second, I disagree that a. Trans rights (other than gun rights) are being infringed upon and b. that the rights this bill sought to secure are in fact not rights. There is only one sentence in the trans bill that I believe covers any actual rights-the right to not be denied housing, education, or employment based upon their being trans. But this bill says housing for trans is a right, healthcare-specifically providing “gender affirming care” is a right, and it even slips in abortion and contraception are rights (more on this).

First, the Supreme Court already overturned old laws that criminalized the selling of birth control or condoms, which was fucking catholic and religious insanity that those became laws.

But what the fuck does abortion have anything to do with trans rights? Nothing is the answer. And while I disagree with all of the anti-abortion laws and bullshit, I am not sure that there is a right to an abortion. I believe it should be an option, especially in cases of rape, incest, or risk to the mother or the fetus isn’t viable. What shocks me is that there has never been laws on the books or discussion that the father has any say whatsoever in the decision to abort. I think it’s weird that it isn’t even a topic as killing a child is solely the mother’s decision and it is the father’s child as well. I am not saying that a man objecting should automatically be grounds for denying an abortion, but I simply don’t ever see this being discussed. But I agree that a woman shouldn’t be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. I just find it weird that no one argues a father’s wishes matter at all.

Finally, on the trans bill of rights anyway, is that it says that trans children should be protected from harm. And while o agree with that on its face, the way they suggest protecting children from harm is two things-the right to choose their bathroom/locker room of choice and the right to choose what sports team they play on as in men/boys playing in girls/womens’ sports. That’s a right? Fuck you.

Back to the gun rights known as red flag laws. Yes, when someone has shown themselves to be a danger to themselves or others with a firearm, I believe there should be court orders to remove the guns from that person on a temporary basis until a court hearing and due process determines whether they should have the ability to own or purchases firearms. We remove firearms in the instances of being convicted of a felony, drug users (more on that later) a domestic violence crime, and temporarily while a domestic violence petition is in effect. I have had to remove firearms from people when domestic violence petitions are served (by me). A petitioner (usually the recipient of domestic violence or threats) fills out forms that a. determine that they are a spouse/sig other/family member and have a domestic relationship with the respondant(the person the form is being filled out against) b. a magistrate finds that there is a valid reason to grant the petitioner their request that once served, prevents any and all contact with the petitioner. This is a civil action and not a permanent issue like a conviction, though protection orders can be issued on a permanent or long term basis. Some states called them orders of protection and most people know them as restraining orders-only they are on the basis of a domestic relationship. Regular restraining orders do not have the ability to remove one’s’ guns, but DVPs do.

So we have a template for when and how it can be done by using the framework of a DVP.

So who should have the ability to fill out a red flag law or order? In my opinion, family members, law enforcement, or medical professionals which could be expanded to therapists or counselors eventually.

When should it be filled out or granted? That’s a bit tougher. When a person has shown that they are a credible threat to themselves or others. In my opinion, when the person either owns firearms or could possibly purchase them and they have shown a propensity for violence or serious self harm. Suicide attempts, threats to shoot someone, very serious mental illness Such as involuntary commitments to psychiatric facilities, and (this is just me) when a person is charged with a violent offense such as battery or any felony involving violence or drug possession (more on this in a moment).

As it stands right now, only domestic violence arrests lead to a person temporarily losing their gun rights until a conviction and there are no mechanisms to remove guns from someone charged with a felony or violent crime. These laws simply don’t yet exist in the manner in which I listed, but I think they should be strongly considered. In some states, red flag laws do exist, but they do them differently than I described and only cover certain instances involving law enforcement. My ideas are to temporarily remove them when charged with the crimes I described. I promised more on the drugs aspect of this, and here it is. Possession with intent to deliver drugs or felony possession of drugs. NOT FUCKING POT OR HAVING A MEDICAL MJ SCRIPT nor charges of MJ possession. And not simple possession charges UNLESS the person has been proven to be an addict-a heroin overdose, for example or possession of one of the big three-crack or cocaine, meth, or heroin/fentanyl.

When not to issue red flag laws or the equivalent: simply because a person is trans. Because a person drinks alcohol or smokes pot. Because a person takes depression medication or is diagnosed with depression, anxiety, bi polar, has ptsd, because of old age with no other factors that would indicate they’re a threat. Because they are prescribed any medication such a pain killers or psych meds-absent that threat. Schizophrenia I have not yet made up my mind on because that disease has associated with it, a break from reality so maybe we don’t want someone that sees demons having a gun. And not simply because someone says on face

Again, you tagged me and asked me for my opinion, so don’t whine about the length of the response or the depth I went into and I have a lot of thoughts on this issue and the second amendment in general

 

[Kingz]

2A is absolute

NRA is a paper tiger that the left builds up to make dummies believe something/somebody other than the absolute language of the constitution stands between them and a gun grab.

Almost nobody on the right ever talks about the NRA or looks to them in regards to anything.

 

[Siver!]

"Better to give people I deem crazy guns" is definitely a take.

 

[Cajun]

Trying to take trans people's guns might actually unite the country lol.

Who would have thought . We need a picture of a trans person holding a gun and the line about prying it out of my cold dead hands

 

[Crazy Source]

This will be a long, thought out response and more than what you are looking for, but it’s me, so you have to expect that.

First, my thoughts on this topic. It is a clear fucking violation of the second amendment to disregard the rights of trans people to own guns simply because they are trans. Of all the whining about trans rights being violated (more on this in a min) this is one instance where I agree 100% that their rights are being trampled on simply because they are trans and fuck maga for attempting this bullshit.

I actually was going to make a thread last night about the proposed “trans bill of rights” that was proposed in 2023. First, I think it is a ridiculous and redundant virtue signaling act.

Second, I disagree that a. Trans rights (other than gun rights) are being infringed upon and b. that the rights this bill sought to secure are in fact not rights. There is only one sentence in the trans bill that I believe covers any actual rights-the right to not be denied housing, education, or employment based upon their being trans. But this bill says housing for trans is a right, healthcare-specifically providing “gender affirming care” is a right, and it even slips in abortion and contraception are rights (more on this).

First, the Supreme Court already overturned old laws that criminalized the selling of birth control or condoms, which was fucking catholic and religious insanity that those became laws.

But what the fuck does abortion have anything to do with trans rights? Nothing is the answer. And while I disagree with all of the anti-abortion laws and bullshit, I am not sure that there is a right to an abortion. I believe it should be an option, especially in cases of rape, incest, or risk to the mother or the fetus isn’t viable. What shocks me is that there has never been laws on the books or discussion that the father has any say whatsoever in the decision to abort. I think it’s weird that it isn’t even a topic as killing a child is solely the mother’s decision and it is the father’s child as well. I am not saying that a man objecting should automatically be grounds for denying an abortion, but I simply don’t ever see this being discussed. But I agree that a woman shouldn’t be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. I just find it weird that no one argues a father’s wishes matter at all.

Finally, on the trans bill of rights anyway, is that it says that trans children should be protected from harm. And while o agree with that on its face, the way they suggest protecting children from harm is two things-the right to choose their bathroom/locker room of choice and the right to choose what sports team they play on as in men/boys playing in girls/womens’ sports. That’s a right? Fuck you.

Back to the gun rights known as red flag laws. Yes, when someone has shown themselves to be a danger to themselves or others with a firearm, I believe there should be court orders to remove the guns from that person on a temporary basis until a court hearing and due process determines whether they should have the ability to own or purchases firearms. We remove firearms in the instances of being convicted of a felony, drug users (more on that later) a domestic violence crime, and temporarily while a domestic violence petition is in effect. I have had to remove firearms from people when domestic violence petitions are served (by me). A petitioner (usually the recipient of domestic violence or threats) fills out forms that a. determine that they are a spouse/sig other/family member and have a domestic relationship with the respondant(the person the form is being filled out against) b. a magistrate finds that there is a valid reason to grant the petitioner their request that once served, prevents any and all contact with the petitioner. This is a civil action and not a permanent issue like a conviction, though protection orders can be issued on a permanent or long term basis. Some states called them orders of protection and most people know them as restraining orders-only they are on the basis of a domestic relationship. Regular restraining orders do not have the ability to remove one’s’ guns, but DVPs do.

So we have a template for when and how it can be done by using the framework of a DVP.

So who should have the ability to fill out a red flag law or order? In my opinion, family members, law enforcement, or medical professionals which could be expanded to therapists or counselors eventually.

When should it be filled out or granted? That’s a bit tougher. When a person has shown that they are a credible threat to themselves or others. In my opinion, when the person either owns firearms or could possibly purchase them and they have shown a propensity for violence or serious self harm. Suicide attempts, threats to shoot someone, very serious mental illness Such as involuntary commitments to psychiatric facilities, and (this is just me) when a person is charged with a violent offense such as battery or any felony involving violence or drug possession (more on this in a moment).

As it stands right now, only domestic violence arrests lead to a person temporarily losing their gun rights until a conviction and there are no mechanisms to remove guns from someone charged with a felony or violent crime. These laws simply don’t yet exist in the manner in which I listed, but I think they should be strongly considered. In some states, red flag laws do exist, but they do them differently than I described and only cover certain instances involving law enforcement. My ideas are to temporarily remove them when charged with the crimes I described. I promised more on the drugs aspect of this, and here it is. Possession with intent to deliver drugs or felony possession of drugs. NOT FUCKING POT OR HAVING A MEDICAL MJ SCRIPT nor charges of MJ possession. And not simple possession charges UNLESS the person has been proven to be an addict-a heroin overdose, for example or possession of one of the big three-crack or cocaine, meth, or heroin/fentanyl.

When not to issue red flag laws or the equivalent: simply because a person is trans. Because a person drinks alcohol or smokes pot. Because a person takes depression medication or is diagnosed with depression, anxiety, bi polar, has ptsd, because of old age with no other factors that would indicate they’re a threat. Because they are prescribed any medication such a pain killers or psych meds-absent that threat. Schizophrenia I have not yet made up my mind on because that disease has associated with it, a break from reality so maybe we don’t want someone that sees demons having a gun. And not simply because someone says on face

Again, you tagged me and asked me for my opinion, so don’t whine about the length of the response or the depth I went into and I have a lot of thoughts on this issue and the second amendment in general

Ain't that deep, bro. Calm down. You don't care for people that are trans or gay or any of that business. It limits you. I like you, but you are a limited person.

 

[fingercuffs]

Who would have tought . We need a picture of a trans person holding a gun and the line about prying it out of my cold dead hands

If only I had the program on my printer to do that, it'd go down a treat at my racist homo/transphobic car show I'm a vendor at next weekend.

 

[deviake]

Who would have thought . We need a picture of a trans person holding a gun and the line about prying it out of my cold dead hands

 

[Cajun]

If only I had the program on my printer to do that, it'd go down a treat at my racist homo/transphobic car show I'm a vendor at next weekend.

Time to take a ride to office depot haha

 

[fingercuffs]

Time to take a ride to office depot haha

I meant my 3d printer so I could make a model of it, lol.

 

[nhbbear]

Ain't that deep, bro. Calm down. You don't care for people that are trans or gay or any of that business. It limits you. I like you, but you are a limited person.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. You asked my opinion on the matter, I gave it-and then you question it and say I don’t mean what I just said? I don’t care about trans people? Wrong. I care about just about everyone as a human, but I don’t agree that trans should be granted special “rights” like the “right” to play in girls sports. That doesn’t mean I don’t care about or like trans people. I have a few trans friends that I thought their treatment by some was abhorrent, but that doesn’t mean I think they should be showering with my daughter at the gym or using her bathroom or playing against her in sports. And “I am limited?” I think I am pretty complex and put a good deal of thought and effort into that post because you asked and I have a lot of knowledge on these subjects, and rather than respond in a thoughtful manner, you insult me?

 

[nhbbear]

Which side are you on? The 2A or the muppet in The White House? Or just when he says he knew no on ever said that in his admin just go along like you always do?

America's largest gun lobby speaks out as Trump administration mulls possible trans firearms ban

The National Rifle Association released a statement as the Trump administration mulls a way of limiting transgender people from purchasing guns.

www.foxnews.com

Check me out posting Fox Lose.

Check out my long post on page three. Another poster tagged me to get my opinion, or at least I thought he did. I gave him a long and thoughtful post full of information and educational material on this and other topics. Turns out, he thought I would be in favor of trump and basically, called me a liar

 

[Crazy Source]

I have no idea what you’re talking about. You asked my opinion on the matter, I gave it-and then you question it and say I don’t mean what I just said? I don’t care about trans people? Wrong. I care about just about everyone as a human, but I don’t agree that trans should be granted special “rights” like the “right” to play in girls sports. That doesn’t mean I don’t care about or like trans people. I have a few trans friends that I thought their treatment by some was abhorrent, but that doesn’t mean I think they should be showering with my daughter at the gym or using her bathroom or playing against her in sports. And “I am limited?” I think I am pretty complex and put a good deal of thought and effort into that post because you asked and I have a lot of knowledge on these subjects, and rather than respond in a thoughtful manner, you insult me?

We don't jibe, dude. I think you are an idiot about some of your positions. You take a few issues like trans and guns and it is YOU that got us here. You voted this authoritarian in. I appreciate the person that you are. Solid dude. But you are a fucking idiot and thanks alot for where we are at because it is people like you that got us here. Love ya. Go fuck yourself.

 

[nhbbear]

From the article it should only come up in a background check if a judge has ruled the person mentally incompetent. There is no law preventing mentally ill people from owning guns. The NRA will not want any restrictions on guns for any group. They want guns available to everyone. This is a weird one. NRA fighting for trans rights and gun control peeps will be fighting for 2nd amendment haha.

Yep. He tagged me for an opinion. I gave him a very long and detailed response and then he said I was being dishonest because I said it was wrong to deny trans second amendment rights simply because they’re trans. I then went I to great detail about defining and refining red flag laws and when they should or shouldn’t be used.

 

[nhbbear]

We don't jibe, dude. I think you are an idiot about some of your positions. You take a few issues like trans and guns and it is YOU that got us here. You voted this authoritarian in. I appreciate the person that you are. Solid dude. But you are a fucking idiot and thanks alot for where we are at because it is people like you that got us here. Love ya. Go fuck yourself.

Again, what the fuck are you talking about? I DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP AND NEVER HAVE!

 

[Crazy Source]

Again, what the fuck are you talking about? I DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP AND NEVER HAVE!

Fine, but you are still carrying water for that side.

 

[Cajun]

Yep. He tagged me for an opinion. I gave him a very long and detailed response and then he said I was being dishonest because I said it was wrong to deny trans second amendment rights simply because they’re trans. I then went I to great detail about defining and refining red flag laws and when they should or shouldn’t be used.

No I get it. He should not have dismissed your thoughts. You were right about it.

 

[Cajun]

Fine, but you are still carrying water for that side.

 

[Crazy Source]

Only in Sherdog can I come and talk about chicks with dicks.

 

[Cajun]

Only in Sherdog can I come and talk about chicks with dicks.

Who can resist?