"Those who sympathize with the white nationalist ideology but who deplore the violence should work closely with law enforcement to see that fellow travelers who may be prone to violence do not have access to firearms like semiautomatic assault-style weapons that are massively destructive." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/04/opinion/mass-shootings-domestic-terrorism.html "From El Paso to the Tree of Life Synagogue, and from Poway to Mother Emanuel Church, one thing is clear: Guns are the weapon of choice for domestic terrorists and perpetrators of hate crimes. Indeed, in an average year, over 10,300 hate crimes in America involve a gun—more than 28 each day.... To disarm domestic terrorists and hate crime perpetrators before they are able to carry out their attacks, Harris will empower courts to issue new Domestic Terrorism Prevention Orders. When passed into law, this new tool will allow certain individuals, including law enforcement officers and family members, to petition a federal court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if they exhibit clear evidence of dangerousness.... As a result of this loophole, gun sales through websites like ArmsList.com are often not required to conduct background checks under federal law, and guns are sold with no questions asked in the 30 states without universal background checks. This is how dangerous people buy guns: Last year alone, over 1 million firearm ads were posted on ArmsList for gun sales that would not require a background check. In America, loaded guns should not be a few clicks away for any domestic terrorist with a laptop. If Congress fails to pass universal background check legislation within her first 100 days as president, Harris will take executive action to require websites like ArmsList.com to conduct background checks by clarifying that 'dealing in firearms' can mean facilitating private gun sales online for profit." https://kamalaharris.org/domestic-terrorism/#1aIodyChpA43ELmc.99 Do you think a new law needs to be passed to make it easier to disarm someone when there's evidence that they may commit a hate crime? Do sites like armslist.com make it too easy for domestic terrorists to obtain guns?
1. The government is not ThinkPol, though they often act like it. Go read 1984. 2. The government does not take away constitutional rights because you "may commit a hate crime" at some indefinite point in the future. Go watch Minority Report. 3. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that you have a right to freedom of expression and thought under the 1st amendment, and that the state interest is limited by strict scrutiny, the highest judicial standard in the country. Go read Brandenburg v Ohio (1969). I was opposed to the attitude that Muslims are personally culpible if they don't become an unofficial agent of the police state - I sure has heck am not changing my view now. This whole position, found on the left as well as the right, is simply a guilt by association fallacy. Arrest those who have committed violence or made statements to that effect - leave everyone else completely alone.
The notion of hate crimes in their entirety are without justification, especially when one notes just how many supposed hate crimes are actually faked by the one claiming to be a victim, such as the transgender individual who murdered their own pets and burnt down their home simply to claim having been the victim of a hate crime. https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michae...er-activist-charged-burning-down-her-own-home
Yes White Supremacists have the right to own firearms just like every other citizen in the United States until they threaten to, and/or commit an act that warrants stripping them of their rights. There is nothing illegal about being a White Supremacist. Their ideology is protected under the 1st Amendment. The most horrifying law imaginable would be the one where the government tries to regulate free thought. Now if there is evidence that they are planning to commit a crime then yes that warrants investigation just like it does for every other citizen regardless of belief. But as long as they are not threatening violence then they are fine.
Antifa is almost all White snowflakes and meets the definition of domestic terrorist group. Should we disarm White snowflakes?
How does anybody take this seriously? 28 hate crimes a day involving a gun? In what kind of leftist scaremongering wet dream world does that happen? What color is the sky in that world?
So you now want laws to disarm people who MAY commit a hate crime? What kind of 'evidence' that a person MAY commit a crime do you feel there needs to be to warrant taking said persons guns away?
"Should white supremacists have guns?" Anyone that belongs to a terrorist organization should be denied the right to own a gun
how many mass murders with machine guns in recent years... seems to be working let's do the same we did with machine guns to assult weapons
Will handguns be next? "Assault" weapons account for, I believe, less than 3% of all gun murders. Why do folks want to ban a weapon that accounts for less than 3% of gun related murders? Will handguns be next?
Only because such a system was put in place before fully-automatic firearms were commonly available to the general public. Such cannot be done. Semi-automatic firearms are too far widespread to register every last one of them in existence, which is what would be necessary in order to treat them like fully-automatic firearms. If such a mandate were to be made, the public would simply ignore it, knowing that nothing would come of their decision to not comply.
I am not saying the law would pass today and problem would be fixed tomorrow, it would take decades for guns to wear out and be hard to get I do not think the majority of the public would choose to break the law when good options exist to own legal guns - just like with machine guns, some will hide them though, if caught, make it a felony
no, hand guns will always be legal, same with shotguns we should not even ban hand guns and shotguns from ex-felons as it's a right... not a privilege to own a gun be like saying death threats should be legal or they will take away are right to say anything - common sense is that no one is asking for that well, now the rich like Trump do want to silence people with their NDA's never before have we had a President that had government employees sign personal NDA's never to disagree with him or his businesses in public
So then what's the point of banning a type of gun that accounts for less than 3% of gun murders? It certainly won't prevent a future 3% from being murdered as killers will just use a different weapon if "assault" weapons aren't available.
How many tens to hundreds of thousands of individuals would be murdered in the meantime while the united states waits for the proposal to produce measurable results to show the investment was worthwhile? How long before those who support such a shift grow impatient and demand firearm prohibitions and confiscations instead? What makes such an approach qualify as being a good option? And yet such has proven insufficient to discourage the use of illicit narcotic substances such as cocaine, heroin, or marijuana. Despite the use of all these substances being a felony, the number of individuals using such continues to grow, to the point there are calls to decriminalize such substances because the public wants them. Why would the results be any different with firearms?
what investment, make it a crime to own a assult weapon and as time goes on less and less assault weapons will be in circulation I was not the one that claimed people would break the law to own the gun, I am the one saying most will not break the law narcotics are not the same at all, prohibition of drugs and alcohol was a failure prohibition of machine guns and explosives has worked out fine if you took it too far and tried to ban handguns and shotguns, I agree with you.. that would fail
Then why has such efforts not yielded such results with regard to illicit narcotic substances? Why is the number of individuals who are using such increasing despite their use being a felony, rather than decreasing? Only because so few actually exist and are held by collectors. There are well over ten million AR-15 rifles alone estimated to exist in the united states, to say nothing of all other types of similar rifles, and that number is growing daily. There are more than enough firearms for everyone in the united states, guaranteeing there will be no shortage for the foreseeable future no matter what degree of restriction is attempted. Why would such an approach not fail when applied to only a limited selection of firearms?
If someone is willing to risk the penalty of murder, why would they not risk the penalties of owning a banned weapon.
?? This has the feel of precrime and thoughtcrime. Define “terrorist organization” and then give me some assurance that the label will not be applied for bad thoughts instead of bad deeds.
Who gets the define "terrorist organization"? Oh, the government. So the government gets to determine who it deems terrorists and prohibit them from owning firearms. The government gets to decide which organizations are fighting the "good fight" and which organizations are "bad". They can't even figure that out as it is and it's all subjective, subjective definitions is not a power I wish to bestow upon the government. Pretty sure King George III and his government thought a certain group of people were "terrorists" at one point.
The enforcement problems with gun-grabbing ‘red flag’ laws are even worse than you think August 29, 2019 You better have a good relationship with your family, boss, co-workers and neighbors. If not, under the California “red flag” laws you could lose your Second Amendment rights. Get into a divorce and your wife makes accusations that you are “dangerous”, you could lose your rights. “These kinds of court orders are usually obtained from a judge ex parte. That’s fancy Latin for: The judge only hears one side of the story, it is not your side, and you may not even know about it until after the fact. Then they immediately strip you of fundamental constitutional rights for the duration of the orders. You’ll get your “full due process” hearing, but not until later. And any violation of these orders is separately punishable as a crime. So even if you are innocent of the underlying conduct that inspired the “red flag” order, if you violate the order pending your hearing, you can still face criminal charges. The initial temporary orders are usually “self-executing.” That means you might get served with a court order that tells you to take your guns and surrender them to the police or a local dealer within the next 24 to 48 hours. Personally, I think Dianne Feinstein is dangerous—should she be forced to give up her guns? Under the law, she will be—just ask for a restraining order, get a temporary one, and she loses her self protection. The red flag laws are not about safety, they are about using the law as if California was a totalitarian State... http://www.capoliticalreview.com/ca...-red-flag-laws-are-even-worse-than-you-think/
The problem with these laws is that it's hard to even prosecute those who would abuse it because at that point you would be trying to prove a negative. How does one prove that the ex wife didn't genuinely believe the husband was "dangerous" or prove that she was using this law as a middle finger to him because he cheated on her or something? Rights are rights, there is no hierarchy of rights. If we want to play this game then if somebody gets "red flagged" then they lose the rest of their rights as well. If I red flag somebody then they can't vote either until they prove to a judge they are worthy of exercising their rights at the hearing. I'm tired of this notion that there is a hierarchy of rights and we can treat one differently than the other when it suits our agenda. As Justice Thomas said: "If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court". There continues to be this notion that the 2nd Amendment is an asterisk while the rest of our Constitutional Rights are in a different category or something. We don't do this with other rights. Let a lower court pass a ruling stating that every citizen must first pass a simple 5 question test on the basic operation of government at the polling booth before being allowed to cast their ballot. All hell would break loose. Come next November can I call the authorities and say my neighbor, even though he is a grown adult, is an idiot and can't even name the 3 branches of government and is heading out to vote and needs his 26th Amendment Rights revoked? Nope. But we are pushing for laws that say I can call the authorities on my neighbor because he creeps me out and they can revoke his 2nd Amendment Rights until proven worthy of exercising them in front of a judge. Imagine if we treated the entire Constitution like this, and not just the parts we don't really like. There's a Church near my house, I drive by it every day. I rode my 4 wheeler by there this past weekend and heard crying going on, I should be able to call the cops and have them lock down the place and immediately revoke their 1st Amendment Rights until the Pastor goes in front of a judge and proves that the crying was due to strong emotions from worship and they weren't in there sacrificing people against their will or something. Yeah we wouldn't like it if we treated the entire Constitution like this. But it's ok because a lot of us don't like guns so we conveniently dismiss how hypocritical this entire thing is. But lets play. The ENTIRE US Constitution is subject to red flag law. Fair is fair. Lets see how well that works out.
