Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

[verissimus]

I'm always curious as to how Democrats think a forced confiscation on guns would go. There are plenty of liberal judges and police commissioners but statistically rank and file police officers and enlisted men and women tend to not be very friendly to leftist causes.

If alcohol or drug prohibition couldn't work, what makes you think gun prohibition will?

 

[heyitsmike]

They already have the ability to legally fuck with you by making those same bogus claims in the courts, though. There are always going to be risks associated with enacting new laws, but a nationwide--Because some states already have them--Red Flag law would do nothing more than just add another layer to what already exists on background checks for purchasing firearms, or being allowed to own a firearm if it can be proven that you pose a significant threat to the safety of those around you. Every single mass shooter we've had for as far back as I can remember now could have easily been prevented had we the ability to restrain a clearly dangerous person before they did something violent.

When someone like these shooters demonstrably proves that they pose a significant risk to society--because they aren't just writing one email or posting one violence-alluding Tweet on social media--I have absolutely no qualms about pulling them into a court with the intent of proving the danger that they could pose, and restricting their access to firearms. I would love to hear an alternative, but as it stands I am not a fan of the current system where-in we can do nothing to put away a clearly psychotic person until after they've put a dozen people in the ground. There's the right to freedom and the right to bear arms, and then there's, "This person spent a decade telling us that he was going to kill people."

If someone came up to me day after day after day telling me about how they're going to rape people and skin them alive and kill them in an alley and crack their skull with a pipe and fill them full of buckshot, I wouldn't just shrug them off. I'd be taking that particularly seriously, and it's ridiculous that in our current legal system we have no way to meaningfully detain people like the Parkland shooter even after they've given us more than ample reason to believe that their endless, increasingly-hostile threats have merit.


We already revoke driver's licenses for drunk drivers based on the assumption that they will cause greater harm in the future, we already arrest people for specific threats of violence based on the assumption that they'll kill or injure that person in the future, so it's not as though a law exploring the options for removing firearms from people who make constant, increasingly-hostile threats wanders too far away from what we already do when it comes to preventing further harm by preempting a dangerous situation before that situation has a chance to occur.

I understand the concern, believe me, I hate the idea of sending any more power to the government than the government needs to have, but the status quo is not working when every single one of these mass shooters could have been readily and easily prevented had we been more preemptive in dealing with a person who is screaming about how much of a threat they pose to society, and any laws that want to be discussed concerning heading dangerous people off at the pass are laws that I'm very interested in hearing about, and that's assuming that he's even being serious about it in the first place and not just saying it to distract people.

Trump said he was going to crack down on violent videogames in the past, too. Can't help but notice that I can still play Mario Party without the FBI kicking my door in.

No. No. No.

If it passes this Congress and the Dems somehow win the White House in 2020, do you really want them to get to decide the meaning of the word 'significant'? The same people who changed the meaning of the word 'gender'?

The defining difference between Republicans and Democrats is the ability to understand the concept of not giving your opponent the tools to use against you.

Do you really want these idiots to have that power? Do you really want people who think you're a literal Nazi to be able to disarm you?

Mass shootings, while tragic, are not a major danger. Call me heartless, but there could be a Sandy Hook shooting every day of the week and I would still oppose this gun control. Mass shootings are far less of a threat to you than a Democrat in the White House.

 

[It's HK-47]

No. No. No.

If it passes this Congress and the Dems somehow win the White House in 2020, do you really want them to get to decide the meaning of the word 'significant'? The same people who changed the meaning of the word 'gender'?

The defining difference between Republicans and Democrats is the ability to understand the concept of not giving your opponent the tools to use against you.

Do you really want these idiots to have that power? Do you really want people who think you're a literal Nazi to be able to disarm you?

Mass shootings, while tragic, are not a major danger. Call me heartless, but there could be a Sandy Hook shooting every day of the week and I would still oppose this gun control. Mass shootings are far less of a threat to you than a Democrat in the White House.
View attachment 879374

I'm not exclusively talking about mass shootings, I'm just using them as a definitive example of a preventable situation that everyone else can clearly understand. How many murders are also caused by the same sorts of dangerous people that happened to take out all of their anger fewer than four people? I completely agree that mass shootings are a statistically insignificant cause of death in the United States, but that's not purely my point of concern in the first place, hence the reference to stalkers that I began with.

 

[Cosmug]

https://archive.is/EI2D0

It’s something that from a distance cancels out, you have a right wing and a left wing shooter on the same day. In response, the left calls for gun control and attacks on ‘white supremacy’, whatever that means this week, and looking at T_D the other day, all I saw was “The Dayton shooter will be memory holed” and I’m wondering what the two incidents actually had in common.
Broken homes, no career, maybe they were both incels or whatever. It’s funny how quickly the actual deaths are irrelevant.

 

[verissimus]

If it passes this Congress and the Dems somehow win the White House in 2020, do you really want them to get to decide the meaning of the word 'significant'?

...who said anything about letting Congress pass a federal law regarding this...wtf? How is what HK described a federal power? It's not unless you want the FBI helping local law enforcement track down people stalking others or posting heinous crap online. Even then, and call me dumb or crazy for saying this, but someone stalking another I'm pretty sure is a local issue (unless they're a federal agent or someone from another state).

 

[Vorhtbame]

We already revoke driver's licenses for drunk drivers based on the assumption that they will cause greater harm in the future,

But we don't revoke those licenses before they are even arrested for DUI.

we already arrest people for specific threats of violence based on the assumption that they'll kill or injure that person in the future,

When the specific threats of violence are in violation of the law, yes--which means the person is under adequate suspicion of having already violated the law.

You seem to keep missing that. Due process means that you either have to have done something illegal, or have to be considered so mentally unsound as to be unable to exercise your rights constructively.

If someone came up to me day after day after day telling me about how they're going to rape people and skin them alive and kill them in an alley and crack their skull with a pipe and fill them full of buckshot, I wouldn't just shrug them off. I'd be taking that particularly seriously

As well you should--by arming yourself and warning the people who might be in danger. Perhaps we need to stop waiting for some random strangers in D.C. to do more than use it for a power grab and, I dunno, start working at the local level to keep an eye on people like this.

And mental-health reform would be fabulous. Maybe bringing back the asylums, on a small scale, for such dangerous people as those who fixate on mayhem and murder and demonstrate a lack of capacity to stop themselves.

But selectively taking away someone's rights because they might could maybe? No. That's fundamentally tyrannical, and a huge step backwards--right into the waiting arms of total disarmament.

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

If alcohol or drug prohibition couldn't work, what makes you think gun prohibition will?

Banning all guns will be just like what happened with prohibition: people will find another way to get a gun (even make a gun if they have to) because CRIMINALS don't obey LAWS, and they will find a loophole to carry out whatever they intend to carry out.

 

[heyitsmike]

...who said anything about letting Congress pass a federal law regarding this...wtf? How is what HK described a federal power? It's not unless you want the FBI helping local law enforcement track down people stalking others or posting heinous crap online. Even then, and call me dumb or crazy for saying this, but someone stalking another I'm pretty sure is a local issue (unless they're a federal agent or someone from another state).

Since when have Democrats ever wanted more power, but only at the local and state level? I can't think of a single, solitary time.

If the states want to pass red flag laws, so be it. But they already have that power now. So obviously it must be some greater power they want, at a higher level, ie federally.

 

[Rice Is Ready]

Trump wants the same people that thing you're a racist Nazi if you voted for him to decide if you should have a gun or not.

 

[Trappy]

If it passes this Congress and the Dems somehow win the White House in 2020, do you really want them to get to decide the meaning of the word 'significant'? The same people who changed the meaning of the word 'gender'?

You don't trust the people who voted to categorize pizza as a vegetable not to define away your rights?

 

[verissimus]

Since when have Democrats ever wanted more power, but only at the local and state level? I can't think of a single, solitary time.

If the states want to pass red flag laws, so be it. But they already have that power now. So obviously it must be some greater power they want, at a higher level, ie federally.

...yeah, I know. I was just trying to point and clarify statements made above.

On another note ... https://www.theblaze.com/news/msnbc...gs-half-staff-white-supremacist-nod-to-hitler

You don't trust the people who voted to categorize pizza as a vegetable not to define away your rights?

Huh? What, where, how, why, and when?

 

[SmallTalk201]

I am going to say something controversial: I think those laws are wrong and are unconstitutional.
Someone already has died from the red flag law in Maryland because their house got raided at 5am and they had no idea what was going on.

I dunno, Trump has done a lot of good things such as Supreme Court picks and his efforts against Human trafficking, but I just can't support his efforts on gun control. I voted for Trump because I didn't want to even worry about gun control. And I know I am not the only one, if this does go forward there will be a lot of voters in places like the rust belt who might decide to just not vote after seeing they have no candidate that represents their interests on the second amendment.

Keep in mind I've always been a bit of a radical on the 2nd amendment, even when I was mostly a centrist years ago so take my words with a grain of salt.

let's not forget the rust belt is falling apart or reverting to empty green lots or wilderness. A lot of these places are like mad max. There are no services, no police and so forth. Unless decay is reversed residents of these places will need firearms due to having no one to rely except themselves for protection.

Asking for more power to be given to the government when in many of these places there is no such thing is lazy thinking at best.

if I were to give you an environmental or back ground screen shot from the video game last of us vs current pictures of the rust belt you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

[Godzilla@1989]

Really niggah, your network is more notorious for defending the actions of Democrats and SJW liberals.

Seriously though, why the hell does anyone don’t can’t see AT&T selling off CNN in a effort to prevent TDS from damaging their profits and pissing off their shareholders? I know it’s wishful thinking, but still, what would they lose if they got rid of CNN and sold it to someone else that makes bigger profits with it?

 

[It's HK-47]

...yeah, I know. I was just trying to point and clarify statements made above.

On another note ... https://www.theblaze.com/news/msnbc...gs-half-staff-white-supremacist-nod-to-hitler

That wasn't just some random-ass MSNBC contributor, either. That was the former FBI Assistant Director Frank Figliuzzi using fucking numerology on live television to call Trump a Nazi. Assistant Director for Counter-Intelligence, no less. I can't help but appreciate the irony.

 

[Trappy]

Huh? What, where, how, why, and when?

Pizza is a vegetable? Congress says yes

Congress wants to keep pizza and french fries on school lunch lines, fighting back against an Obama administration proposal to make school lunches healthier.

www.nbcnews.com

"Specifically, the provisions would:

Allow USDA to count two tablespoons of tomato paste as a vegetable, as it does now. "

"We are outraged that Congress is seriously considering language that would effectively categorize pizza as a vegetable in the school lunch program"

 

[SmallTalk201]

It turns out it's harder than you'd think to stop them from getting one anyway.

Consider one of our cows, Ron Collins. He's been found guilty of buying a handgun when it was illegal for him to do so. This is because he had been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital in the past. The thing is, they didn't put him in the database, so he passed the instant background check. (Part of his defense was that he thought this meant he was allowed to buy the gun.)

However, that was not all Ron had done. He had quite the checkered past!

• In 2006 he was indicted for assaulting a Federal officer and some other good folks from Veteran Affairs.
• In 2007 he was convicted of that stuff and also contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
• In 2013 he got busted for threatening a cop. That's when he got sent to the rubber Ramada.

Clearly it was illegal for this guy to buy a gun, and we had plenty of warning that he was a shitbird. Even so, it took the concerted efforts of several private citizens to convince the ATF to investigate Ron. They had to lobby the government to do its job, even though Ron put the evidence of his criminal purchase on goddamned YouTube.

I'm not contradicting you here, or at least that is not my intent. I agree that we need to enforce the laws we have before we imagine new ones into existence. If anything, I'm emphasizing that you're right, and that this requires actual effort and reform.

But why do that when we can make law-abiding gun owners eat shit?

There a lesson to be learned here. Wanted to know why shitbirds skate while law abiding citizens get hassled all the time?

cause the sh it birds give the government an excuse to get what it wants. Power. The current t shootings give politicians ways to persuaded the public to give up more freedom.
why fuc k with your bread and butter?

The law abiding citizens get hassled because they are seen as easily bullied targets.

So the trend is good people get targeted while bad people dont.

something to think about.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

You don't trust the people who voted to categorize pizza as a vegetable

Wtf I love Congress now

 

[Jigglyjogglers]

Trump wants the same people that thing you're a racist Nazi if you voted for him to decide if you should have a gun or not.

Which is really the whole problem with the optics of this, even if you could torture the logic enough to get behind the principle. The Democrats, both elected officials and all their loyal attack dogs on social media, have spent the last few days proclaiming that every single Trump voter, Republican, conservative, what-have-you is quite literally a Nazi and is 100% complicit in these murders, and then the Republicans say "Oh yeah we definitely think taking guns away from people the government decides are dangerous is a great idea". It's like they really did get tired of winning because even just saying this, whether or not they actually do anything, is a huge losing move on their part. It's like they just threw away the last three years of actually, for once, fighting back against the hatred directed at their constituents from the left, and whirled right back around to shitting on said constituents along with the left.

 

[Cosmug]

Guns are very heavily restricted these days, clumsily restricted, but still more hoop-jumping than any time before today. Try to offload an extended magazine or silencer in the after-market these days. Yet we still have more mass shootings than back in the 1960’s where you could buy a rifle at a drug store with no background check and clean it in your seat on an airplane. While smoking. Anyone who says “guns are the issue” needs to sit in the corner and let the adults talk.
I’m on board with mental illness as an explanation, because that’s the only thing that makes sense these days. Asylums are closed down and people self-dose with crazy pills with 15+ hours of social media a day where even the establishment press is crying about five imminent apocalypses every day for attention and ad revenue. If the red flag law thing is properly adjudicated, and I’m suspicious about that since we already have people who consider non-Hillary support to be a mental illness that makes you subhuman, then maybe it’s an opportunity to put those who are a threat to themselves and others into padded rooms again.
There’s plenty of points I wanna make from a more ideological stance, since I think most of this mental illness comes from fatherless homes, shitty parenting, bad schools that don’t deal in education, and a work environment that makes getting a summer job a thing of the past for most kids. That sort of combines with the petty narcissistic nature of online cliques and this weird shit where half the people online these days want to open a Patreon and be a professional twitter poster (of porn or hot takes of memes or bath water or whatever) instead of getting a real job. But I recognize that’s me being a curmudgeon.

 

[SmallTalk201]

Guns are very heavily restricted these days, clumsily restricted, but still more hoop-jumping than any time before today. Try to offload an extended magazine or silencer in the after-market these days. Yet we still have more mass shootings than back in the 1960’s where you could buy a rifle at a drug store with no background check and clean it in your seat on an airplane. While smoking. Anyone who says “guns are the issue” needs to sit in the corner and let the adults talk.
of getting a real job. But I recognize that’s me being a curmudgeon.

The better question is how to organize communities so they can handle their own affairs directly instead of "the government" do something .

Debating if certain laws should be passed or not is passing the buck. It the people job take care of themselves and not some abstract system managed by far away people who care nothing about the locals.

I've lurked long enough to know those in this thread for and against gun control have often mentioned how the government has been corrupted by corporations and such corrupt makes the state less trust worthy.

why would you want to rely on something you don't trust and don't serve your interest any more ?

A local community micro government can serve both sides of the argument.