NRA Files lawsuit
- Thread starter Bushmaster
- Start date
96coal449
.308 Win
Meanwhile in NY and other coalition states
Spend some of that donated coin over here NRA.
Bushmaster
.308 Win
Meanwhile in NY and other coalition states
Spend some of that donated coin over here NRA.
I don't belong to NRA anymore. They know when they call me.... I tell them Cuomo is Gov in NYS where I live and we are a LOST CAUSE with him, get RID of Cuomo and I'll join again.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
This is my opinion, and only my opinion. If an individual makes an obvious and credible threat to public safety, I think he should have his firearms confiscated, if any, until such time as his due process rights and innocence can be argued in a court of law. That is the current unfortunate condition we live in.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
If he is that much of a credible threat, why confiscate his guns, when you could confiscate him? After all, he's the public safety concern, not the inanimate guns.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
Obviously, an arrest would be part of the program.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yep. They seem to always go after BS laws that don't really mean anything in the great scheme of things.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Only our justice system is supposed to be fair and impartial. Innocent until proven guilty. If the person in question hasn't hurt themselves or anyone else or broken any laws and has not been lawfully deemed "mentally defective", there is no legal basis or authority to deprive said person of their Constitutinal rights.
Burzum
.223 Rem
I pay my NRA dues just because, but the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and GOA I feel better represent gun owners, SAF was one of the major active proponents in Heller, the NRA was a Johnny come lately there as well.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
Apparently you missed the 'credible threat' part. Some idiot posting on fb he's going to school to shoot fellow students qualifies. Go nit pick someone else, without school age kids or grandkids.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
No, I didn't miss 'credible threat'. But FBI and Boward county did.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
That, we can agree upon.
So you care about the 2nd amendment (good, cool, nice)
Borderline care about the 5th but again only kinda, (see where I'm going with this)
And just straight up fuck the 14th amendment..
Got it,
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
Quite honestly, I see little difference nowadays between someone making a credible threat on social media, and intentionally pointing a gun at someone, which is reckless endangerment. If someone points a gun at you, are you going to defend them by giving them the benefit of the doubt that they were never going to pull the trigger? You don't think that the police should be called and a crime reported? You don't think that the person should be arrested? What about their weapons? In my youth, we didn't have social media. We had face to face social interactions. Then again, we didn't walk into schools shooting each other either.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
Look guys, I'm not the enemy here. Normally I'm briefly posting an opinion on a thread, using my phone, which doesn't encourage me to go into great detail when I post. I'm voicing an opinion, not writing up a bill to be introduced in the NYS Assembly. Of COURSE I think any law should contain 4th and 5th Amendment protections, to protect ppl from false accusations, so an ex or spouse or gf with an ax to grind doesn't make your life miserable with false accusations. I've been married and divorced twice, tell me something I don't know.
Most laws on the books are for face to face crimes, because social media interaction is relatively new, and the law hasn't caught up with threats made on the internet. Closest thing we ever had in school was someone calling in a 'bomb threat', usually because they thought it was funny and it got ppl out of school for a few hours, or a day. The authorities didn't find it amusing, and if whoever called it in was caught, which was likely, because they always bragged about their stupidity, were punished.
I also think arguing opinions on the internet is a complete waste of everyone's time. No one has to agree with me. It's just one man's opinion. I'm always open to constructive suggestions and alternative solutions. I'd truly love for someone somewhere to step forward with a genuine solution to the school shooting problem, that doesn't violate our Constitutional rights. I've spent a lifetime defending them, especially the 2A.
Most laws on the books are for face to face crimes, because social media interaction is relatively new, and the law hasn't caught up with threats made on the internet. Closest thing we ever had in school was someone calling in a 'bomb threat', usually because they thought it was funny and it got ppl out of school for a few hours, or a day. The authorities didn't find it amusing, and if whoever called it in was caught, which was likely, because they always bragged about their stupidity, were punished.
I also think arguing opinions on the internet is a complete waste of everyone's time. No one has to agree with me. It's just one man's opinion. I'm always open to constructive suggestions and alternative solutions. I'd truly love for someone somewhere to step forward with a genuine solution to the school shooting problem, that doesn't violate our Constitutional rights. I've spent a lifetime defending them, especially the 2A.
If the "credible threat" isn't enough to get someone arrested and put before a judge, then it isn't "credible" enough to deny them their Rights. Face-to-face, social media, smoke signals, it's all the same.
Unless a Judge signs off on it, with the person having the ability to defend themselves, all you are suggesting is tyranny.
Unless a Judge signs off on it, with the person having the ability to defend themselves, all you are suggesting is tyranny.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
Incorrect. Credible threat would mean they actually made the threat, and have the actual capability to carry it out.
Edit: and I absolutely think evidence should be presented before a judge to sign off on it.
Edit: and I absolutely think evidence should be presented before a judge to sign off on it.
Celt
.338 Win Mag
Low hanging fruit.
Im glad they are doing something, and i view them as a double edged sword. The country needs them, and the left clearly fears them, yet theyve done jack shit for us in NY.
The parts in green are where the issue is.
Last I checked the 14th amendment protects people'
Property and you seem to have a good bit backwards in the second part.
No it is not the "current unfortunate condition we live in"
Side note, this isn' meant as a "personal attack" I've actually never seen anything you have posted that I've disagreed with but this is not in my mind a safe way to think
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
Where were any of them when we needed them. Granted SAFE was passed in the dark of night illegally while Atlas swept, but where are they all now! In the end FUAC and the rest of the Fascists are the enemy and we every weapon in the arsenal to fight them, and never forget, its not all about guns, that is the symptom of a much larger illness.
Robin
Robin
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
Allow me to clarify my hasty phone post. I think that if someone, for instance, posts something along the lines of a threat, like a school shooting, on social media, and someone sees and reports it, it should be investigated by the police. If the threat is obvious, say a plainly visible post on facebook, for all the world to see, and not simply hearsay, then that evidence should be brought to a judge's attention by the police, and a search warrant obtained. If, in fact, the individual in question is in possession of a weapon that would substantiate the threat, an arrest should be made, and it should be confiscated in accordance with the search warrant and/or other orders by a judge of competent jurisdiction until such time as the person is arraigned, or has their day in court, as the case may be and as the judge sees fit to rule, and if a judge orders it, or if found innocent, their weapon(s) returned. By the same token, if I pointed a firearm at someone and threatened to kill them, for no justifiable reason, I would fully expect to be arrested and my firearm confiscated, at the very least for evidence purposes, until I had my day in court. I think that that is as fair as due process can make it.
I do think these are very sad and unfortunate times. Kids are being shot in schools. Threats to commit those acts should be taken very seriously. More seriously than the FBI took them in Fla. I have grandchildren in schools. That's the last phone call I ever want to receive.
I do think these are very sad and unfortunate times. Kids are being shot in schools. Threats to commit those acts should be taken very seriously. More seriously than the FBI took them in Fla. I have grandchildren in schools. That's the last phone call I ever want to receive.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
Also, for the record, I think it's complete and utter bs that if you lose your pistol permit, you lose ALL your guns, not just your handguns. I think obtaining my pistol permit in 1986 was one of the top 5 dumbest things I ever did. All I apparently accomplished was voluntarily sign away a portion of my 2A rights. Now, with every 5 year recertification, if I fail to recertify, I lose ALL my guns. ONE MORE THING that I have to remember, because my pistol permit is my top priority every minute of every day of my life. Not that I need to work, pay bills, go to grandkids birthday parties, mow the lawn, snowblow the driveway etc etc etc. I will be glad when NYS is in my rearview mirror when I cross the NY/PA line, for the last time. That day is coming soon.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
The question @SmallGameAddict becomes one of what is the standard to distingush idle threat vs. Real threat? What is the threshold? Yes, like you I think that, especially in todays world, if someone makes a threat on social media or to another person, it should be taken at face value, reported and investigated and if necessary acted upon. However, there then becomes a slippery slope of what standard these reports of threats must meet inorder for action to be taken to suspend rights and or throw a person in jail. They are already considering laws that take away rights at the meer complaint of someone being "off" or because you have a vindictive ex or sibling that makes a false claim about you.
This all sort of ties in to your video game thread and how you and I both agree that what is so much lacking today, which in my opinion would be the first and most effective line of defense against these types of crimes. This of course being family structure and community. I can remember growing up and there still being a strong sense of community. People knew who you were. One example being you were safe as a kid to go trick or treating in your neighborhood. Treats didn't have to be store bought pre-wrapped candy. Bullies still existed and bad things still happened, but there was a stronger parental and communal presence to help catch stuff early and put forth the structure of social norms and safety net where people felt like they belonged to something. A feeling of belonging is so important and something social media and video games really can't provide. Even here on this forum. Yes there is a sense of community, but it's all through our avatars and posts and not our actual lives.
This all sort of ties in to your video game thread and how you and I both agree that what is so much lacking today, which in my opinion would be the first and most effective line of defense against these types of crimes. This of course being family structure and community. I can remember growing up and there still being a strong sense of community. People knew who you were. One example being you were safe as a kid to go trick or treating in your neighborhood. Treats didn't have to be store bought pre-wrapped candy. Bullies still existed and bad things still happened, but there was a stronger parental and communal presence to help catch stuff early and put forth the structure of social norms and safety net where people felt like they belonged to something. A feeling of belonging is so important and something social media and video games really can't provide. Even here on this forum. Yes there is a sense of community, but it's all through our avatars and posts and not our actual lives.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
I def understand your point. Any law that denies anyone life, liberty or property, and any Constitutional right needs to afford the accused the opportunity to address those grievances fairly, in a court of law.
The American justice system isn't perfect. However, we have protections against warrantless searches, unlawful search and seizure, and trial by a jury of our peers. That's as fair as it gets. I hope there is a heaven and hell. There's no punishment on this earth for pedophiles, and other crimes.
I grew up, and still live in the America you speak of. The last thing you need around here is your name in the paper.
The American justice system isn't perfect. However, we have protections against warrantless searches, unlawful search and seizure, and trial by a jury of our peers. That's as fair as it gets. I hope there is a heaven and hell. There's no punishment on this earth for pedophiles, and other crimes.
I grew up, and still live in the America you speak of. The last thing you need around here is your name in the paper.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Here's where this can become a problem. Say for argument's sake @Edwardteach72 and I were arguing about which is better. 9mm vs .45 ACP. I get pissed off and call him dumb or something and that his name "teach" means nothing. He takes offense and says that my mother should be ashamed of giving birth to me. I get my panties in a twist and say that he wouldn't say that to my face because the .45 ACP will put an end to this argument.
Should I have my guns taken away from me for talking shit on an internet forum?
I get what you are saying but depending on the threat, it should only be investigated. Nothing more. If it's deemed a credible threat, there are other laws that can remedy the situation like Menacing Laws.
In the situation of the Florida shooter, they already have Terrorism laws that would have taken care of him before he actually committed the crime.
An automatic confiscation is bad news. It needs to be investigated first.
Should I have my guns taken away from me for talking shit on an internet forum?
I get what you are saying but depending on the threat, it should only be investigated. Nothing more. If it's deemed a credible threat, there are other laws that can remedy the situation like Menacing Laws.
In the situation of the Florida shooter, they already have Terrorism laws that would have taken care of him before he actually committed the crime.
An automatic confiscation is bad news. It needs to be investigated first.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
I agree with that. I thought I covered that in previous posts. I hate NYS gun laws. I think the SAFE act is total bs.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
Truthfully Will, we all run the risk of misinterpretation on any internet forum. You can see what I'm saying, but not how I'm saying it. We're all basically white boys playing the ball busting game. All it takes is one turd who wants to be a pain in the ass and unfortunately that makes others miserable.
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
Having read multiple threads about all of this, the crux of the problem comes down to two phrases of two words each;
"due process"
"ex parte"
When "due process" is "ex parte", meaning one person can make any accusation that is essentially taken as gospel truth to initiate and execute government action, we have a problem. The other side of the coin is what actually happened, when EVERY SINGLE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT FAILED TO PROPERLY EXECUTE THEIR DUTIES. EVERY! SINGLE! ONE!
So the obvious answer is to vest more power in government hands based on far more dubious legal grounds than any serious legal scholar would ever in good conscience defend. [/sarc]
"due process"
"ex parte"
When "due process" is "ex parte", meaning one person can make any accusation that is essentially taken as gospel truth to initiate and execute government action, we have a problem. The other side of the coin is what actually happened, when EVERY SINGLE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT FAILED TO PROPERLY EXECUTE THEIR DUTIES. EVERY! SINGLE! ONE!
So the obvious answer is to vest more power in government hands based on far more dubious legal grounds than any serious legal scholar would ever in good conscience defend. [/sarc]