" Common Sense Gun Laws "

Hank

my war
I see the Media Brainwashing is working


Most back gun restrictions after shootings, Trump ratings down



An equal number, 56 percent, place a great deal of blame for mass shootings on easy access to guns and a lack of services for mentally ill people with violent tendencies. Four in 10 blame expressions of white nationalism (40 percent) and inadequate parenting (39 percent). About a third point to sentiments expressed by President Trump (34 percent) and anti-immigrant sentiment (33 percent). Less than a quarter say violent video games (23 percent) and sentiments expressed by Democratic political leaders (15 percent).

Democrats are most likely to blame easy access to guns (79 percent), expressions of white nationalism (62 percent), and Trump (59 percent). For Republicans, it’s a lack of services for mental illness (60 percent), bad parenting (54 percent), and access to guns (32 percent).

When voters are asked to say in their own words why mass shootings happen more often in the U.S. than elsewhere, their top three responses are: access to guns (35 percent), mental health issues (22 percent), and Trump rhetoric (10 percent).






a little hard to read .........

57% of democrats survayed want to live in a country where guns are banned
84% of Republicans do not

View attachment 139968



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-august-14


42. Easy access to guns: How much do you think each of the following is to blame for mass shootings in the United States over the last few years?

A great deal

Dem:: 79%
Rep: 32%
In: 46%

Some:

Dem: 26%
Rep: 18%
IN: 23%

40. Public and online expressions of white nationalism: How much do you think each of the following is to blame for massshootings in the United States over the last few years?

A great deal

Dem:: 62%
Rep: 19%
In: 29%

Some:

Dem: 27%
Rep: 29%
IN: 33%
Damn Dude. You are all over the place. First page of this thread you post a link indicating the US does not have the most mass shootings & now in this post you include a Fox News poll stating the US has the most mass shootings. Wipe the drool and make up your mind, Spaz!
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
:yawn:


Conversation .... Point, Counter Point differing information

You ASSUME just because I post an Article I Support The Information
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Kamala Harris Promises To 'Disarm Violent Hate' by Seizing Guns From Bigots



Harris mentions the 2018 shooting in which Robert Bowers murdered 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue. Prior to the attack, Bowers posted a bunch of anti-Semitic comments on Gab. In his bio, he described Jews as "the children of satan," and his posts and reposts railed against Jews and the Latin Americans whose illegal immigration he believed they were facilitating. "He was clearly obsessed with Jews," Alex Amend of the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote after the attack. "In the small window into his account currently available, it's evident he engaged with numerous antisemitic conspiracy theories that have long been in circulation among neo-Nazis and white nationalists."

But the clearest intimation of impending violence did not appear until the morning of the attack: "HIAS [the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society] likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. Screw your optics, I'm going in." By the time that message was posted, it was too late for police intervention, let alone a "domestic terrorism prevention order."

It's not clear how the law Harris supports would distinguish between run-of-the-mill anti-Semites and the tiny percentage of them who, like Bower, translate their hateful beliefs into homicidal action. If everyone who circulates messages like the ones Bower posted would be a candidate for a gun confiscation order, the law would be casting a very wide net, undermining First Amendment as well as Second Amendment rights.


Since we know what Roof ended up doing, that passage seems like an obvious threat of violence. But "fight" and "tak[ing] it to the real world" are so ambiguous that it's hard to see how Roof's venting would qualify as a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment. In combination with other evidence, such talk might suffice to show that someone poses a "significant" danger, the standard typically prescribed by red flag laws. But by itself, racist pontificating is constitutionally protected, and it is rather troubling that Harris does not even mention freedom of speech as a consideration.

 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Why Red-Flag Laws Are Worse Than You Think

Fortunately, the Vagueness Doctrine is most likely to prevail when an ambiguous law threatens a constitutional right, such as free speech or the right to keep and bear arms (see, for example, Smith v. Goguen).

Red-flag hearings must rely entirely on a “presumed fact” (the defendant poses an imminent danger to himself or others) being established by a “basic fact” (for example, the defendant has been repeatedly overheard saying, “I’d like to kill that idiot”). But Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute notes that, under Tot v. United States, a presumed fact satisfies due process only if it passes a “rational connection” test: There must be strong reason to believe that the presumed fact is more likely than not to flow from the basic fact on which it depends (Leary v. United States). In today’s verbally immoderate society, there is almost never a rational connection between people’s insolent, bombastic, or sinister comments and the likelihood of future criminality. To function as intended, red-flag laws must deliberately abandon the rational connection test and alienate themselves from fundamental due process.​
Mental disease evidence is likely to play a role in many red-flag hearings, yet this material often stands at odds with due process. Clark v. Arizona recognized the vagaries of mental disease evidence, including “the controversial character of some categories of mental disease, the potential of mental-disease evidence to mislead, and the danger of according greater certainty to [this] evidence than experts claim for it.” We can imagine how easily a red-flag hearing could shatter due process by granting undue weight to exotic psychiatric testimony. Ironically, this material will likely be held in particular esteem, as it ostensibly flows from scientists and “experts.”​
Because “reasonable doubt” has been long established as the standard of proof for criminal cases, it must naturally apply to judicial proceedings in which an individual, who has not even been charged with a crime, can be stripped of a constitutional right. Nevertheless, red-flag laws often rely on “a preponderance of the evidence,” a radically diminished standard of proof. This, above all other injuries to due process, offends our system of liberty and fair trial.​
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
16-Year-Olds Are Not Allowed Guns in California



Gun-control activists and Democratic presidential candidates have seized upon this news in order to advance the idea that it is time to pass whatever proposals they were already peddling, and, in concert, to blame those who disagree with them. In response, advocates of the right to keep and bear arms have pointed out that the shooting happened in California, which already has all the laws that Democrats in Congress tell us are necessary. This response is correct, of course, but it is also irrelevant given that the perpetrator was 16-years-old and that this case therefore doesn’t fit within our gun-control debate at all. In California, 16-year-olds are ineligible to buy handguns, to possess handguns, to carry handguns, and to take handguns onto school property. Nothing that was done here was legal at any point. No “loophole” was exploited. No liberty was abused. This was illegal from start to finish. Unless one is making a case for the forcible confiscation of every gun in America, there’s not a great deal to debate here.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/16-year-olds-are-not-allowed-guns-in-california/#

So Now WHAT :sshrug:
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
California has already passed a “universal background check” law. California, in fact, already instituted a 10-day waiting period, a limit to handgun purchases, a microtracking system, a personal safety test, an “assault weapon” ban, an age hike on the purchase of shotguns and rifles from 18 to 21, “red flag” laws that allow police to confiscate guns without genuine due process, among many other restrictions. And none of those laws stopped the “slaughter” of children in Santa Clarita.

It’s illegal for a teen to walk around with a handgun anywhere in the United States. It’s illegal for a California teen to go to Alabama or Arizona or Virginia to buy a gun. It’s illegal for any teen to purchase a gun through the mail or at a gun show or be gifted one from his dear uncle. It is illegal for parents to allow their kids to procure their firearms. No state or federal regulation now being championed by Senate Democrats would have stopped this teen, which is the case for the vast majority of mass shootings.

Murphy knows this. Kamala Harris and all the others leading Democrats who try to emotionally manipulate Americans to support their restrictions know this. All those who smear the NRA as a terrorist organization know this. All those who claim that Mitch McConnell has blood on his hands for failing to convene the Senate pass a Democratic bill that has absolutely nothing remotely to do with the Santa Clarita shooting know this.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/nothing-democrats-are-proposing-in-washington-will-stop-mass-shootings-in-california/
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The truth is, the person responsible for this shooting shot himself in the head after trying to murder his classmates. I don’t know or care what this 16-year old’s political beliefs are. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are to blame for today’s shooting. However, it’s a fact that you can have universal background checks, a ten day waiting period on firearms purchases, background checks on ammunition purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, microstamping, a “high capacity” magazine ban, red flag laws, “safe storage” laws, age restrictions on purchasing firearms, and dozens of other gun control laws and still have an attack like this happen.

For every politician trying to use this tragedy to push their gun control agenda, there should be a dozen reporters asking them why, if all of California’s gun control laws didn’t prevent an attack like this, they claim that a federal universal background check or ban on semi-automatic rifles would?



https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/11/14/details-emerge-santa-clarita-shooting-dems-dont-wait-facts/
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Red Flag laws are something a totalitarian state would implement. Basically, "for their safety" the cops storm your home (to seize your weapons - because "someone" has stated you have them and are a threat to yourself and others.
No right to confront your accuser
No right to a trial, to present evidence.
Geez, how much of the Bill of Rights can we redact before we don't have a Bill of Rights or even a Constitution.
 

black dog

Free America
PREMO Member
California has already passed a “universal background check” law. California, in fact, already instituted a 10-day waiting period, a limit to handgun purchases, a microtracking system, a personal safety test, an “assault weapon” ban, an age hike on the purchase of shotguns and rifles from 18 to 21, “red flag” laws that allow police to confiscate guns without genuine due process, among many other restrictions. And none of those laws stopped the “slaughter” of children in Santa Clarita.

It’s illegal for a teen to walk around with a handgun anywhere in the United States. It’s illegal for a California teen to go to Alabama or Arizona or Virginia to buy a gun. It’s illegal for any teen to purchase a gun through the mail or at a gun show or be gifted one from his dear uncle. It is illegal for parents to allow their kids to procure their firearms. No state or federal regulation now being championed by Senate Democrats would have stopped this teen, which is the case for the vast majority of mass shootings.

Murphy knows this. Kamala Harris and all the others leading Democrats who try to emotionally manipulate Americans to support their restrictions know this. All those who smear the NRA as a terrorist organization know this. All those who claim that Mitch McConnell has blood on his hands for failing to convene the Senate pass a Democratic bill that has absolutely nothing remotely to do with the Santa Clarita shooting know this.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/nothing-democrats-are-proposing-in-washington-will-stop-mass-shootings-in-california/

Sixteen States offer carry permits to those that are 18-20 years old. I believe that Constitutional carry States also allow 18 and older to carry without a permit.
 
Top