Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

I don't know if anyone is. There's maybe some trust that there actually are reports of wossname's death? That'd probably be easy to take at face value since there's apparently been those like a dozen times now or somethin'.

[Karnewarrior]

Well, that and Trump doesn't directly direct the SEALs, so it's entirely possible they took out another ace card basically on their own with presidential approval or oversight ala-obama.

I mean, it's plausible, and it'd be a valid pro for him. I doubt he'd turn down the chance.

[Iduno]

Thoughts and prayers.

It's easier than solving the problem!

[hector13]

Thoughts and prayers.

It's easier than solving the problem!

One thing I don't understand about the NRA is they say "guns don't kill people, people do", but they don't seem to be particularly interested in keeping guns out of the hands of people who might be more inclined to kill others.

If they were more honest and were like "GUNS FOR EVERYONE!" I might be able to take them a bit more seriously than them folks what want the biggest, baddest guns.

[smjjames]

Thoughts and prayers.

It's easier than solving the problem!

One thing I don't understand about the NRA is they say "guns don't kill people, people do", but they don't seem to be particularly interested in keeping guns out of the hands of people who might be more inclined to kill others.

If they were more honest and were like "GUNS FOR EVERYONE!" I might be able to take them a bit more seriously than them folks what want the biggest, baddest guns.

Isn't 'GUNS FOR EVERYONE!' or at least 'MOAR GUNZZZZZ!!' already their primary messaging?

[Teneb]

Thoughts and prayers.

It's easier than solving the problem!

One thing I don't understand about the NRA is they say "guns don't kill people, people do", but they don't seem to be particularly interested in keeping guns out of the hands of people who might be more inclined to kill others.

If they were more honest and were like "GUNS FOR EVERYONE!" I might be able to take them a bit more seriously than them folks what want the biggest, baddest guns.

Isn't 'GUNS FOR EVERYONE!' or at least 'MOAR GUNZZZZZ!!' already their primary messaging?

That's the secondary messaging. The primary is: "THEY TAKIN' AWAY OUR GUNZ!"

[Iduno]

One thing I don't understand about the NRA is they say "guns don't kill people, people do", but they don't seem to be particularly interested in keeping guns out of the hands of people who might be more inclined to kill others.

If they were more honest and were like "GUNS FOR EVERYONE!" I might be able to take them a bit more seriously than them folks what want the biggest, baddest guns.

Gun sales shoot through the roof when there's a shooting, which means more profits. The NRA actually wants more shootings to happen, because they like money more than human lives. If they actually cared about gun rights, they'd fight back against things that make gun owners look bad, or restrict their rights (NRA supported PATRIOT act and a few others that allow the government better tracking of gun owners, because they represent gun sellers, not gun rights).

[Lord Shonus]

Thoughts and prayers.

It's easier than solving the problem!

One thing I don't understand about the NRA is they say "guns don't kill people, people do", but they don't seem to be particularly interested in keeping guns out of the hands of people who might be more inclined to kill others.

There are two things that you can be referring to with this.

The first is the opposition to expanding background checks. Opposition to this is based on significant flaws in the proposed legislation that would provide no benefit to anybody (greatly increasing the burden on the system without providing any safety, as well as imposing a significant burden on the individual gun owner), and (more importantly) on the fact that none of the proposed legislation addresses the actual flaws. The so-called "gun show loophole" played a part in one or two major incidents, but in all such cases the transaction was already illegal - the seller was buying guns for the purpose of resale, which is illegal without a Federal Firearms Licence (the private transfer laws are intended for a "I never shoot this one anymore, might as well sell it for bullet money" type situation) that the seller did not have. The ATF has done a very good job dealing with this problem by cracking down on sellers since - no extra legislation needed.

Meanwhile, the most common failure point in the system is people passing the background check when they shouldn't be able to because a local, state, or military violation didn't get entered into the system properly - something that the "Universal Background check" laws rarely address, but was addressed by the "Fix NICS Act passed and signed in 2017. This, of course, does not immediately cause all pre-2017 disqualifying events to be entered, but will do a great deal to help going forward.


The second thing that you could be talking about is "red flag" laws that allow a court to confiscate firearms from somebody deemed to be a threat to themselves or others. The primary opposition to this is one of oversight - not only are there grave concerns that somebody with a grudge could make somebody's life extremely difficult by seeking such an order (most proposals set the bar for a complaint extremely low), but there have already been so many cases of police agencies using the "we don't have grounds for a warrant, but if we we red flag them we don't need a warrant to conduct a search" tactic that the ACLU is taking states to court over it.

[Dunamisdeos]

I'm trying to find some specific links where the ACLU is taking states to court, but I can't find any. I see where the ACLU has raised strong concerns, but could you link me to some suits? Much appreesh.

[Doomblade187]

I mean, on the front of the police using red flag laws for searches without a warrant, aren't warrants already fairly easy to get?

[Lord Shonus]

I'm trying to find some specific links where the ACLU is taking states to court, but I can't find any. I see where the ACLU has raised strong concerns, but could you link me to some suits? Much appreesh.

It is possible that I was mistaken about that. I was nearly sure that the ALCU was challenging Washington's law (on the basis that 98% of the ERPOs to date in Seattle were cops using it to bypass warrants), but I can't find the source anymore, just strong condemnation.

I mean, on the front of the police using red flag laws for searches without a warrant, aren't warrants already fairly easy to get?

Warrants, under the US Constitution, require "probable cause", which is a fairly high legal bar to clear (depending on the judge) and requires specific evidence. The way a lot of the "red flag" laws are written, the cops can basically point at any random person and declare "I think he's a risk!" to get an ERPO, because the only solid requirement is that you file the paperwork. The safeguard is supposed to be the fact that a hearing is automatic, but the hearing comes after the confiscation-by-force, and anything the cops happen to see while carrying out said confiscation is fair game.

[Iduno]

I "love" that juxtaposition.

https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1187162680706191361

Warrants, under the US Constitution, require "probable cause", which is a fairly high legal bar to clear (depending on the judge) and requires specific evidence. The way a lot of the "red flag" laws are written, the cops can basically point at any random person and declare "I think he's a risk!" to get an ERPO, because the only solid requirement is that you file the paperwork. The safeguard is supposed to be the fact that a hearing is automatic, but the hearing comes after the confiscation-by-force, and anything the cops happen to see while carrying out said confiscation is fair game.

They've got a history on that. It's been a news story for years (I can only find data back to 2015) that the police steal more from citizens than other criminals do. Just because it's found they took stuff without cause doesn't mean you can get it back. And they certainly didn't have a real warrant when they kicked in my neighbor's door and beat him unconscious. You want fun? Combine PTSD with police.

[Lord Shonus]

Warrants, under the US Constitution, require "probable cause", which is a fairly high legal bar to clear (depending on the judge) and requires specific evidence. The way a lot of the "red flag" laws are written, the cops can basically point at any random person and declare "I think he's a risk!" to get an ERPO, because the only solid requirement is that you file the paperwork. The safeguard is supposed to be the fact that a hearing is automatic, but the hearing comes after the confiscation-by-force, and anything the cops happen to see while carrying out said confiscation is fair game.

They've got a history on that. It's been a news story for years (I can only find data back to 2015) that the police steal more from citizens than other criminals do. Just because it's found they took stuff without cause doesn't mean you can get it back. And they certainly didn't have a real warrant when they kicked in my neighbor's door and beat him unconscious. You want fun? Combine PTSD with police.

Precisely why many, many people are concerned about providing means to further extend the power. It would be appropriate to chide the NRA for not fighting this battle until it wound up intruding on their doorstep, but that doesn't mean that they (and the SRA and JBGC) don't have a genuine concern here.

[Frumple]

... my immediate thought is that trying to boil down america's economic issues to pretty much any single thing is a fool's errand.

Though jesus flying fuck that article is horseshit. I wake up to cherrypicked industries, estimates pulled out of their ass, and just. Yeah, no, I literally just woke up and no. Sorry. Not dealing with that crap. I got nothing against you, isp, but whoever wrote that article just acquired personal enmity and it's too damn early for this.

[Iduno]

I wish I was surprised.