- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Red flag laws will not end mass shootings but will end due process
Posted on 6/14/22 at 1:32 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 6/14/22 at 1:32 pm to AggieHank86
Hank, what do you think about this?
Red Flag wouldn't be needed if:
1: Semi Auto possession age limit raised to 21. That allows for three years of adulthood for an individual to prove they are or are not dangerous criminals or insane enough for regular due process to flag them on existing background checks.
2: When violent criminals are convicted of their crimes, they should get long sentences to keep them off the street. The vast majority of gun violence is committed by people who have already been arrested multiple times but just end up back on the street because the justice system is broken. Red Flag laws are like a band aid on a bug bite when there's a gaping wound that needs surgery.
TLDR; raise age of semi-auto to 21 and enforce existing laws.
Red Flag wouldn't be needed if:
1: Semi Auto possession age limit raised to 21. That allows for three years of adulthood for an individual to prove they are or are not dangerous criminals or insane enough for regular due process to flag them on existing background checks.
2: When violent criminals are convicted of their crimes, they should get long sentences to keep them off the street. The vast majority of gun violence is committed by people who have already been arrested multiple times but just end up back on the street because the justice system is broken. Red Flag laws are like a band aid on a bug bite when there's a gaping wound that needs surgery.
TLDR; raise age of semi-auto to 21 and enforce existing laws.
Posted on 6/14/22 at 1:35 pm to deeprig9
quote:
1: Semi Auto possession age limit raised to 21. That allows for three years of adulthood for an individual to prove they are or are not dangerous criminals
You’re right! All of the criminals under 21 will turn their guns in because you said so!!!
Posted on 6/14/22 at 1:44 pm to deeprig9
So far, I have been discussing legal issues, and you are asking about policy, but I will give it a try.
My philosophy on most things is very libertarian. I prefer punishing the Hell out of wrongdoers to inhibiting the behavior of the law-abiding supermajority. So I certainly agree with your second point in concept.
Not sure I agree with the first point, bc I see that 18yo as part of the law-abiding supermajority until he proves himself otherwise. Ideologically, I think that mandatory training and licensing are the better approach, but both can potentially run afoul of structural concerns under the 2nd Amendment. For instance, some zealot will assert that rights are being infringed by a requirement that he know how to use the "safety" button on his firearm.
I do think that red flag laws could potentially be useful, but I acknowledge that they are subject to abuse. If they were to be enacted, I think they would have to include both a significant burden of proof and significant penalties for misuse.
I suspect that many of the responses to both your post and mine will be the functional equivalent of attempting to discuss chess with an angry ferret.
My philosophy on most things is very libertarian. I prefer punishing the Hell out of wrongdoers to inhibiting the behavior of the law-abiding supermajority. So I certainly agree with your second point in concept.
Not sure I agree with the first point, bc I see that 18yo as part of the law-abiding supermajority until he proves himself otherwise. Ideologically, I think that mandatory training and licensing are the better approach, but both can potentially run afoul of structural concerns under the 2nd Amendment. For instance, some zealot will assert that rights are being infringed by a requirement that he know how to use the "safety" button on his firearm.
I do think that red flag laws could potentially be useful, but I acknowledge that they are subject to abuse. If they were to be enacted, I think they would have to include both a significant burden of proof and significant penalties for misuse.
I suspect that many of the responses to both your post and mine will be the functional equivalent of attempting to discuss chess with an angry ferret.
This post was edited on 6/14/22 at 4:38 pm
Posted on 6/14/22 at 2:20 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I suspect that many of the responses to both your post and mine will be the functional equivalent of attempting to discuss chess with a fish
This is your default, not politeness.
It’s fine and your not the most bombastic poster here, but I don’t know why you pretend that you’re not here to post things like the above.
Posted on 6/14/22 at 2:29 pm to deeprig9
quote:
1: Semi Auto possession age limit raised to 21.
So, we raising the age limit to enlist and/or be drafted to 21 as well?
Posted on 6/14/22 at 2:38 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
So, we raising the age limit to enlist and/or be drafted to 21 as well?
Many states including Texas require you to be 21 to have a semi pistol. But they can still enlist and be drafted. The precedent is already set. Applying it to semi-auto rifles is all I suggest.
Posted on 6/14/22 at 2:43 pm to deeprig9
quote:
The precedent is already set.
I notice you didn't answer my question.
Are you for increasing the draft age to 21?
Posted on 6/14/22 at 2:54 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Most "red flag laws" require a prompt contested evidentiary hearing ... usually within 72 hours.
Most states require a hearing on a petition fairly quickly, but that is ex parte. The inter partes hearing is a much longer time, e.g.
CA-21 Days
OR - 21 Days
MA -10 Days (unless you petition you need it for work)
Indeed, the times are between seven and 21 days. See Giffords Law Center Of course, I"ve already cited that in the past and you still post this 72 hours in every thread.
Additionally, the last version of the bipartisan federal bill that I saw discussed would create federal grant allocations as long as the hearing occurs in 15 days.
I think others have already corrected you on having due process rights through the 14th Amendment.
Posted on 6/14/22 at 2:58 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I hope that you are not in the "mindless Troy" camp, asserting that those centuries of jurisprudence are not nearly so valuable as his own, personal interpretations of the concept.
Here is "mindless Troy's" personal interpretation of the concept, you arrogant fricking prick. Read it. Know it. Live it.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Here is Webster's definition of due process, you arrogant fricking prick.
Definition of due process
1: a course of formal proceedings (such as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles
— called also procedural due process
2: a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual
Now, my personal interpretation is that any time the government takes your shite without affording the person the right to first defend themselves in court is on its face a violation of the 5th Amendment, among a couple of others. My personal interpretation is also that anyone who gives themselves permission to violate that right is a criminal, and a tyrant, and I don't give a rat's arse if those tyrants are the local street thug, or the Supreme Court of the United States.
You must have wanted me in this thread Hankabitch, or you wouldn't have been talking about me.
Posted on 6/14/22 at 3:08 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
I notice you didn't answer my question.
Are you for increasing the draft age to 21?
I don't believe in the draft period.
Posted on 6/14/22 at 3:08 pm to troyt37
quote:Not particularly, but it is always entertaining to watch you display your astounding levels of ignorance.
You must have wanted me in this thread Hankabitch, or you wouldn't have been talking about me
Posted on 6/14/22 at 3:12 pm to dukkbill
quote:Apologies, but I have no recollection of ever noticing your existence or reading anything that you've written.
I"ve already cited that in the past and you still post this 72 hours in every thread.
The draft bill that I read about two years ago said "three business days." 21 days (or even 15) is definitely too long for the initial contested hearing.
Personally, I would set 7 days as the outside limit. "Not less than three and not more than seven days from the date of service of the Order ...."
Three days to prep and no more than seven days to wait. Seems reasonable.
This post was edited on 6/14/22 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 6/14/22 at 3:21 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Not particularly, but it is always entertaining to watch you display your astounding levels of ignorance.
I'm not the one arguing that violating Constitutional rights isn't actually violating Constitutional rights. That's you, Hanky. Maybe if you had a few brains instead of all that education, you wouldn't be such a tyranny supporting bitch.
BTW, keep telling people how libertarian you are, while you advocate for wiping your arse with the Constitution. Gives my little pea brain a chuckle every time.
Posted on 6/14/22 at 3:29 pm to troyt37
Troy, when you are formulating your insults, you should keep something in mind. Nothing you say does anything more than make me shake my head in derision and chuckle. You are simply too stupid, uneducated and ill-informed to generate a "thought" which will upset me.
You are the Kevin Kline character in "A Fish Called Wanda." A complete Yahoo with delusions of intelligence.
You are the Kevin Kline character in "A Fish Called Wanda." A complete Yahoo with delusions of intelligence.
This post was edited on 6/14/22 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 6/14/22 at 3:40 pm to basionok
NY State currently has a Red Flag law on the books. How's it working there?
Well, a dude just blew-away a grocery store full of people. The dude was admitted to a hospital and there was a mental eval done on him. How many were killed after the mental eval???
Well, a dude just blew-away a grocery store full of people. The dude was admitted to a hospital and there was a mental eval done on him. How many were killed after the mental eval???
Posted on 6/14/22 at 3:55 pm to Mizzou Mule
quote:In fairness, I don't think that anyone ... anywhere ... is so deluded as to believe that a red flag law will stop ALL gun violence or even ALL mass shootings.
NY State currently has a Red Flag law on the books. How's it working there?
The thought seems to be that stopping even SOME of them would justify the process.
Posted on 6/14/22 at 4:14 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The thought seems to be that stopping even SOME of them would justify the process.
By violating the constitutional rights of thousands if not millions of Americans.
You know, if they just put every man, woman and child in America in prison, it would probably stop almost all gun violence.
Posted on 6/14/22 at 4:21 pm to basionok
Well, you see our legislators are doing " something" about guns. They found a way to get your guns without coming directly for your guns or your other rights.
Back to top
