Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Another State Wants EVERY Gun Owner to Hand Over Their Social Media Accounts...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    14,982

    Default Another State Wants EVERY Gun Owner to Hand Over Their Social Media Accounts...

    Another State Wants EVERY Gun Owner to Hand Over Their Social Media Accounts and Internet Search History

    February 8, 2019



    By Dagny Taggart

    Unconstitutional gun law ideas seem to spread from one state to another like some kind of insidious virus.
    Late last year, an Orwellian gun bill was presented in New York state. If signed into law, anyone who wants to buy a gun would have to turn over three years of their social media history and one year of their internet search history.
    “A three-year review of a social media profile would give an easy profile of a person who is not suitable to hold and possess a firearm,” said Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, who has proposed the legislation with New York State Senator Kevin Parker. (source)
    Before purchasing a gun, applicants would have to turn over their social media passwords to accounts like Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram. They would also have to allow police to see a year’s worth of their searches on Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
    That law would also require anyone renewing their permit for a pistol to be subject to this invasion of privacy as well.
    In the article, This Anti-Gun Bill Would Require the Social Media History and Internet Search History of Prospective Buyers, Daisy Luther wrote (emphasis mine):
    Remember, these things never stop with just one state.
    It’s easy to scoff and say, “Those crazy people in New York are getting what they voted for.” I know someone’s going to say it so there, I said it for you.
    But that’s short-sighted, and dare I say, ignorant of the way the world works.
    Look at all the states that have recently flipped from red to blue in the midterm elections. If you don’t think it could ever happen where you are, you’re not paying attention. Please keep in mind that I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but am referring to some party generalizations here. (source)
    Now, another state has an Orwellian gun bill on the table.

    It turns out, Daisy’s prediction was spot-on. In Illinois, to be allowed to possess your own gun, you have to have a special card, and the requirements to get that card could be about to become much more intrusive:
    Meanwhile, in the Illinois House, state Rep. Daniel Didech, D-Buffalo Grove, has filed HB 888 which would require those who apply for a state-issued Firearm Owners Identification Card– mandatory for legal gun owners– turn over a list of their social media accounts to authorities under threat of a Class 2 felony. The State Police would use the information to determine if the accounts have any “information that would disqualify the person from obtaining or require revocation” of a FOID card. (source)
    FOID cards also require your photograph, height, weight, address, birthday, hair color, and eye color. That is pretty basic information for a government-issued ID card.
    But that isn’t all that Illinois requires.

    In order to be granted a FOID card by the overlords in Illinois:
    …you have to answer a questionnaire that asks if you’ve ever been convicted of a felony, whether you are addicted to narcotics, whether you’ve been treated in a mental institution or are “intellectually disabled.” Other questions ask about convictions of some specific crimes, whether you are an illegal alien, whether you’re named on a current order of protection that prohibits firearms. (source)
    As you can see, being granted a permission slip to exercise a Constitutional right in Illinois is already a tedious and invasive process. If this bill becomes law, the process will become a lot more complicated and intrusive.
    What kind of social media content will police be looking for?

    In addition to the obvious problems with the new bill, here’s something to really be concerned about: Exactly what kind of information found on social media accounts would be used to “disqualify” people from getting a card, or lead to the revocation of FOID cards?
    That seemingly important detail is not specified anywhere in the bill (which can be read here).
    Will decisions simply be based on the thoughts and feelings of individual police officers who are assigned to evaluate social media accounts?
    Will there be specific, objective guidelines to follow or will decisions regarding who gets to exercise their Second Amendment rights be arbitrary and subjective?
    What else will the information collected be used for?

    Some groups are already voicing opposition to the bill, including gun rights groups and the ACLU.
    “When people look at this everyone who has a Facebook account or email account or Twitter account will be incensed or should be,” said Richard Pearson with the Illinois State Rifle Association.
    But the ACLU is opposed as well.
    Rebecca Glenberg with ACLU Illinois says the bill “doesn’t say anything about how that list will be retained and for how long and what uses it might be put to.”
    The first amendment group worries police scanning social media may show bias.
    “A person’s political beliefs, a person’s religious beliefs, things that should not play a part in whether someone gets a FOID card,” Glenberg said. (source)
    This bill is another example of pre-crime legislation, and it is terrifying.

    Just days ago, we reported on a new study that found the privacy of those who have deactivated all of their social media accounts – or never had any in the first place – is not guaranteed.
    A team of researchers from the University of Vermont and the University of Adelaide wanted to find out if fundamental limits exist when using information from social networks “to predict the activities and interests of individuals, and to what accuracy such predictions can be made using an individual’s social ties.”
    This may not sound like a big deal, but think about the worrisome nature of different types of predictive technology. You don’t have to actually be guilty of anything if the tech says that one day you might be. The stuff we’re discussing here takes “guilt by association” to an entirely new level. (source)
    How long until control freak politicians start calling for spying on friends, and friends of friends (and so on) to find any justification for denying gun rights to all of us?

    https://www.theorganicprepper.com/gu...earch-history/
    ”The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” - Margaret Thatcher

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,742

    Default

    AND, it's another way to trip you up, and prosecute you for "lying" if you forget that one account on an obscure website that you went to that one time for some special purpose.

    Is it EVERY forum you ever attend?

    Probably.

    For me that would be at least a couple of DOZEN sites. TOL is one of only two non-technical sites I go to ( the other being Claire Wolfe's ). The rest are work-related.

    I can remember the main ones - StackOverflow, for example. But, I've dropped-in on dozens and dozens of sites for single question things such as Mongo, Angular, MySQL, Apache, etc. etc. Anywhere I had a question - or an answer.

    But, if you MISS one, or FORGET one - *poof* you lied on your application and are now a felon.

    Nice, eh?


    Earl
    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    Withdraw consent!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Fly-over country
    Posts
    6,394

    Default

    Achillies, your headline is a bit deceptive in that in neither state has such an invasive bill passed. The NY bill went nowhere last year and the Illinois bill has only three sponsors in their House and none in their Senate. I expect that it too is going nowhere.

    Following the links in the OP, I found what seems to be the original column in the Democrat & Chronicle (a USA Today publication), a paper with a relatively liberal outlook by a columnist with an extremely liberal viewpoint:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Andreatta: Shoot down social media gun bill

    David Andreatta, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Nov. 30, 2018

    Moments before he opened fire in a Pittsburgh synagogue in October, Robert Bowers posted his last in a long series of anti-Semitic messages on social media.

    “HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics. I’m going in,” he wrote.

    Bowers had legally purchased over many years the four guns he used to kill 11 people at the Tree of Life Congregation Synagogue and six other firearms authorities found in his home.

    Though boiling with hatred, Bowers didn’t fall into any category of person barred from gun ownership under federal law. He wasn’t a felon or a domestic abuser or dishonorably discharged from the military. He wasn’t declared mentally ill.

    But it’s not hard to imagine how anyone in a position to grant Bowers the permits he may have needed to build his arsenal might have thought twice about doing so had the extent of his anti-Semitic screeds online been known.

    That’s what a new bill in the state Senate seeks to do, by requiring anyone applying for a pistol permit or renewing one to consent to an investigation of their social media accounts and online search history by police.

    Under the measure, police would be empowered to scour three years of an applicant’s social media activity on four websites or apps (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat) and a year’s worth of searches on Google, Yahoo and Bing.

    To ensure unfettered police access, the measure demands that applicants hand over their passwords and log-in information.

    Police would be required to look for evidence the applicant searched for or used racist or discriminatory language, threatened the safety of another person, inquired about or alluded to an act of terrorism, and, finally, “any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer.”

    The bill, introduced by state Sen. Kevin Parker, a Democrat from Brooklyn, is well-meaning in that it seeks to protect the unalienable right to life that the Founding Fathers held to be self-evident in the Declaration of Independence.

    In aiming to ward off mass murder, however, the measure runs roughshod over the Constitution’s right of free speech under the First Amendment, and the rights to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

    Of course, it conflicts with the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, too. But I don’t care much about that, and neither do a lot of people who are sick and tired of mass shootings, street violence, and suicides by gun.

    Sixty-one percent of Americans think there should be stricter gun laws and 21 percent want to see the Second Amendment repealed, according to an Economist/YouGov pollconducted earlier this year. The same survey found that nearly half of respondents, 46 percent, would be willing to modify the Second Amendment to make it easier to regulate guns.

    I do care about any chiseling away at the rights to speak our minds and to privacy. (Ironically, social media enhances our ability to do the former while eroding the latter.)

    With the exception of threatening another person’s safety, social media posts — even about the most heinous of topics — aren’t an indication that someone intends to go on a shooting spree.

    While it’s illegal to discriminate against others based on race, gender, sexual orientation and the like, and criminal to commit crimes motivated by prejudice, it’s neither illegal nor criminal to be a bigot.

    New York’s gun-permit application process is already rigorous. It takes months, involves police interviews with people who know the applicant, and has safeguards in place to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and people with a history of violence and mental illness.

    One would hope police doing the vetting are already reviewing the public social media posts of applicants to glean some additional insight on them. Anyone with internet access can do that. Accessing passwords and private conversations, though, is something different.

    That’s presumably why the bill doesn’t have a sponsor in the Assembly. New Yorkers Against Gun Violence won’t even commit to endorsing the bill, which was introduced two weeks ago.

    The advocacy group is backing a far more effective measure to stop mass shootings, however, in what’s known as the Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) bill.

    The bill enables families, household members and police officers concerned that a person might harm himself or others to petition a court directly for an order temporarily restricting that person’s access to guns.

    That bill passed the Assembly earlier this year but stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate. With any hope, that will change when Democrats gain control of the chamber in January.

    Enabling law enforcement to intervene when gun owners or would-be gun owners are in crisis — as opposed to subjecting all of them to an unconstitutional dragnet without probable cause or due process — is a far superior way to stop the next Robert Bowers.

    https://www.democratandchronicle.com...ny/2160423002/


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Partisan, Region 1: Occupied Territories
    Posts
    13,155

    Default

    Our State Fiance Committee's hearing Legislation tomorrow about a 10% tax on ammo, among other things.
    Related Article:

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...PkkUu_0f2eiSds
    Assault weapons ban push tests Dem support
    By Mike Lillis - 02/06/19
    We have no rights if we can't defend them.

    When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

    --- Frederic Bastait

    Everything I post is Fiction and should not be taken seriously by anyone....

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    2,758

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Man View Post
    Achillies, your headline is a bit deceptive in that in neither state has such an invasive bill passed. The NY bill went nowhere last year and the Illinois bill has only three sponsors in their House and none in their Senate. I expect that it too is going nowhere.

    Following the links in the OP, I found what seems to be the original column in the Democrat & Chronicle (a USA Today publication), a paper with a relatively liberal outlook by a columnist with an extremely liberal viewpoint:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Andreatta: Shoot down social media gun bill

    David Andreatta, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Nov. 30, 2018

    Moments before he opened fire in a Pittsburgh synagogue in October, Robert Bowers posted his last in a long series of anti-Semitic messages on social media.

    “HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics. I’m going in,” he wrote.

    Bowers had legally purchased over many years the four guns he used to kill 11 people at the Tree of Life Congregation Synagogue and six other firearms authorities found in his home.

    Though boiling with hatred, Bowers didn’t fall into any category of person barred from gun ownership under federal law. He wasn’t a felon or a domestic abuser or dishonorably discharged from the military. He wasn’t declared mentally ill.

    But it’s not hard to imagine how anyone in a position to grant Bowers the permits he may have needed to build his arsenal might have thought twice about doing so had the extent of his anti-Semitic screeds online been known.

    That’s what a new bill in the state Senate seeks to do, by requiring anyone applying for a pistol permit or renewing one to consent to an investigation of their social media accounts and online search history by police.

    Under the measure, police would be empowered to scour three years of an applicant’s social media activity on four websites or apps (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat) and a year’s worth of searches on Google, Yahoo and Bing.

    To ensure unfettered police access, the measure demands that applicants hand over their passwords and log-in information.

    Police would be required to look for evidence the applicant searched for or used racist or discriminatory language, threatened the safety of another person, inquired about or alluded to an act of terrorism, and, finally, “any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer.”

    The bill, introduced by state Sen. Kevin Parker, a Democrat from Brooklyn, is well-meaning in that it seeks to protect the unalienable right to life that the Founding Fathers held to be self-evident in the Declaration of Independence.

    In aiming to ward off mass murder, however, the measure runs roughshod over the Constitution’s right of free speech under the First Amendment, and the rights to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

    Of course, it conflicts with the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, too. But I don’t care much about that, and neither do a lot of people who are sick and tired of mass shootings, street violence, and suicides by gun.

    Sixty-one percent of Americans think there should be stricter gun laws and 21 percent want to see the Second Amendment repealed, according to an Economist/YouGov pollconducted earlier this year. The same survey found that nearly half of respondents, 46 percent, would be willing to modify the Second Amendment to make it easier to regulate guns.

    I do care about any chiseling away at the rights to speak our minds and to privacy. (Ironically, social media enhances our ability to do the former while eroding the latter.)

    With the exception of threatening another person’s safety, social media posts — even about the most heinous of topics — aren’t an indication that someone intends to go on a shooting spree.

    While it’s illegal to discriminate against others based on race, gender, sexual orientation and the like, and criminal to commit crimes motivated by prejudice, it’s neither illegal nor criminal to be a bigot.

    New York’s gun-permit application process is already rigorous. It takes months, involves police interviews with people who know the applicant, and has safeguards in place to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and people with a history of violence and mental illness.

    One would hope police doing the vetting are already reviewing the public social media posts of applicants to glean some additional insight on them. Anyone with internet access can do that. Accessing passwords and private conversations, though, is something different.

    That’s presumably why the bill doesn’t have a sponsor in the Assembly. New Yorkers Against Gun Violence won’t even commit to endorsing the bill, which was introduced two weeks ago.

    The advocacy group is backing a far more effective measure to stop mass shootings, however, in what’s known as the Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) bill.

    The bill enables families, household members and police officers concerned that a person might harm himself or others to petition a court directly for an order temporarily restricting that person’s access to guns.

    That bill passed the Assembly earlier this year but stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate. With any hope, that will change when Democrats gain control of the chamber in January.

    Enabling law enforcement to intervene when gun owners or would-be gun owners are in crisis — as opposed to subjecting all of them to an unconstitutional dragnet without probable cause or due process — is a far superior way to stop the next Robert Bowers.

    https://www.democratandchronicle.com...ny/2160423002/

    ERPO's basically turn due process on it's head, you do realize that don't you? That or you just don't care.

    It is basically anyone can accuse you of being "unstable" for any reason, not have to prove it in court legally, just have to convince some unelected do-gooder in a black robe to sign a single peace of paper.

    BANG, you have just been default convicted, in abstentia, totally unable to knowingly defend yourself. Now the Jack boots come to your house, illegally steal your property, possibly killing you in the process of said theft if they feel "threatened" by you (even though they are in full tacti-cool gear), and don't say "it can't happen", because ERPOs have already gotten people killled.

    Who cares if YOU feel threatened by the State thugs invading your home. They are "just following orders" of their paymasters, right? Right!?

    This is what just amazes me, is how some people can seem somewhat intelligent, yet still support this kind of Stasi-type, Pre-crime inspired insanity, which will do nothing but let the State crush people just that much more.

    Ever read "1984", and actually UNDERSTAND what Orwell was trying to warn us against?
    "Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here." Captain John Parker, to his Minute Men on Lexington Green, April 19 , 1775.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    64,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Man View Post
    Achillies, your headline is a bit deceptive in that in neither state has such an invasive bill passed. The NY bill went nowhere last year and the Illinois bill has only three sponsors in their House and none in their Senate. I expect that it too is going nowhere.

    Following the links in the OP, I found what seems to be the original column in the Democrat & Chronicle (a USA Today publication), a paper with a relatively liberal outlook by a columnist with an extremely liberal viewpoint:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Andreatta: Shoot down social media gun bill

    David Andreatta, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Nov. 30, 2018

    Moments before he opened fire in a Pittsburgh synagogue in October, Robert Bowers posted his last in a long series of anti-Semitic messages on social media.

    “HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics. I’m going in,” he wrote.

    Bowers had legally purchased over many years the four guns he used to kill 11 people at the Tree of Life Congregation Synagogue and six other firearms authorities found in his home.

    Though boiling with hatred, Bowers didn’t fall into any category of person barred from gun ownership under federal law. He wasn’t a felon or a domestic abuser or dishonorably discharged from the military. He wasn’t declared mentally ill.

    But it’s not hard to imagine how anyone in a position to grant Bowers the permits he may have needed to build his arsenal might have thought twice about doing so had the extent of his anti-Semitic screeds online been known.

    That’s what a new bill in the state Senate seeks to do, by requiring anyone applying for a pistol permit or renewing one to consent to an investigation of their social media accounts and online search history by police.

    Under the measure, police would be empowered to scour three years of an applicant’s social media activity on four websites or apps (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat) and a year’s worth of searches on Google, Yahoo and Bing.

    To ensure unfettered police access, the measure demands that applicants hand over their passwords and log-in information.

    Police would be required to look for evidence the applicant searched for or used racist or discriminatory language, threatened the safety of another person, inquired about or alluded to an act of terrorism, and, finally, “any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer.”

    The bill, introduced by state Sen. Kevin Parker, a Democrat from Brooklyn, is well-meaning in that it seeks to protect the unalienable right to life that the Founding Fathers held to be self-evident in the Declaration of Independence.

    In aiming to ward off mass murder, however, the measure runs roughshod over the Constitution’s right of free speech under the First Amendment, and the rights to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

    Of course, it conflicts with the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, too. But I don’t care much about that, and neither do a lot of people who are sick and tired of mass shootings, street violence, and suicides by gun.

    Sixty-one percent of Americans think there should be stricter gun laws and 21 percent want to see the Second Amendment repealed, according to an Economist/YouGov pollconducted earlier this year. The same survey found that nearly half of respondents, 46 percent, would be willing to modify the Second Amendment to make it easier to regulate guns.

    I do care about any chiseling away at the rights to speak our minds and to privacy. (Ironically, social media enhances our ability to do the former while eroding the latter.)

    With the exception of threatening another person’s safety, social media posts — even about the most heinous of topics — aren’t an indication that someone intends to go on a shooting spree.

    While it’s illegal to discriminate against others based on race, gender, sexual orientation and the like, and criminal to commit crimes motivated by prejudice, it’s neither illegal nor criminal to be a bigot.

    New York’s gun-permit application process is already rigorous. It takes months, involves police interviews with people who know the applicant, and has safeguards in place to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and people with a history of violence and mental illness.

    One would hope police doing the vetting are already reviewing the public social media posts of applicants to glean some additional insight on them. Anyone with internet access can do that. Accessing passwords and private conversations, though, is something different.

    That’s presumably why the bill doesn’t have a sponsor in the Assembly. New Yorkers Against Gun Violence won’t even commit to endorsing the bill, which was introduced two weeks ago.

    The advocacy group is backing a far more effective measure to stop mass shootings, however, in what’s known as the Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) bill.

    The bill enables families, household members and police officers concerned that a person might harm himself or others to petition a court directly for an order temporarily restricting that person’s access to guns.

    That bill passed the Assembly earlier this year but stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate. With any hope, that will change when Democrats gain control of the chamber in January.

    Enabling law enforcement to intervene when gun owners or would-be gun owners are in crisis — as opposed to subjecting all of them to an unconstitutional dragnet without probable cause or due process — is a far superior way to stop the next Robert Bowers.

    https://www.democratandchronicle.com...ny/2160423002/



    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
    John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir of Enfield (1875-1940): Author and Diplomat

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Fly-over country
    Posts
    6,394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmthomas View Post
    ERPO's basically turn due process on it's head, you do realize that don't you? That or you just don't care.

    It is basically anyone can accuse you of being "unstable" for any reason, not have to prove it in court legally, just have to convince some unelected do-gooder in a black robe to sign a single peace of paper.

    BANG, you have just been default convicted, in abstentia, totally unable to knowingly defend yourself. Now the Jack boots come to your house, illegally steal your property, possibly killing you in the process of said theft if they feel "threatened" by you (even though they are in full tacti-cool gear), and don't say "it can't happen", because ERPOs have already gotten people killled.

    Did I say anything about ERPOs in my post? No.

    Do I wish that there was a mechanism or something to keep at lease SOME unstable lunatics from going out and blasting away at congregations, clubs and ball games? Yes.

    Unless I've missed it, the NRA, GOA nor any other nationally recognized pro 2nd Amendment organization has yet come forward with a serious proposal that might be a tool to at least disarm the worst of the truly deranged. Until there is one, ERPOs remain the least infringing of those. There's no doubt that total confiscation of all firearms from civilian hands would be the most infringement of all.

    Got an idea of what would be less-infringing than ERPOs but still do any good? In most states a sufficiently persuasive argument to your county magistrate can result in involuntary commitment for a few days. That's clearly an infringement of their freedom in the interest of public safety. Any longer than that involves the courts. Most gun owners never harm anyone for their whole lives. Myself included. Lunatic killers often send off signals to their families, friends, neighbors of what they'd like to do with their guns.

    Guns don't kill people, bullets don't kill people, criminals and nuts with rage, guns and bullets kill people.

    It's not a simple problem.

    Your suggestions?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Between Sandpoint and Coeur D'Alene
    Posts
    3,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Man View Post


    Guns don't kill people, bullets don't kill people, criminals and nuts with rage, guns and bullets kill people.

    It's not a simple problem.

    Your suggestions?
    Everyone should go armed.
    An armed society is a polite society.
    Crime is much higher in places where arms are severely restricted or illegal.
    If there is a high possibility of a potential victim being armed and the will to defend themselves, crime will go WAY down.
    As it stands in this country now, defending your self can lead to a higher likelihood of being convicted and longer prison sentence than the aggressor.
    The government enforcers are likely to shoot the victim after defending themselves.
    Or, you will lose a fortune trying to defend yourself in government courts.
    It is the fiction of government that is adversary of your liberties.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    64,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Man View Post

    Did I say anything about ERPOs in my post? No.

    Do I wish that there was a mechanism or something to keep at lease SOME unstable lunatics from going out and blasting away at congregations, clubs and ball games? Yes.

    Unless I've missed it, the NRA, GOA nor any other nationally recognized pro 2nd Amendment organization has yet come forward with a serious proposal that might be a tool to at least disarm the worst of the truly deranged. Until there is one, ERPOs remain the least infringing of those. There's no doubt that total confiscation of all firearms from civilian hands would be the most infringement of all.

    Got an idea of what would be less-infringing than ERPOs but still do any good? In most states a sufficiently persuasive argument to your county magistrate can result in involuntary commitment for a few days. That's clearly an infringement of their freedom in the interest of public safety. Any longer than that involves the courts. Most gun owners never harm anyone for their whole lives. Myself included. Lunatic killers often send off signals to their families, friends, neighbors of what they'd like to do with their guns.

    Guns don't kill people, bullets don't kill people, criminals and nuts with rage, guns and bullets kill people.

    It's not a simple problem.

    Your suggestions?
    Come and take it!
    That clear enough fo you?
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
    John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir of Enfield (1875-1940): Author and Diplomat

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Fly-over country
    Posts
    6,394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenno View Post
    Come and take it!
    That clear enough fo you?
    Why should your guns be confiscated, even for a short time for, say, a mental health evaluation? The answer is that for the sufficiently wacko, it's best to act fast then do due process afterwards. There are situations where public safety trumps due process, but not by much.

    Here on TToL you've not (so far) expressed murderous intent.Hostility, yes. Murderous intent, no.

    I'm not reporting you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •