GOP truly has become a parody of themselves

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 5, 2020
2,161
406
213
59
Broken Arrow
These laws will be challenged by the courts and many will and many won't hold up...it's not a big deal at all for responsible gun owners like you and I...but it has the possibility of saving lives. Does it not concern you that more and more people that don't need guns are driving around with them in their cars? Do you not think that some crazy dude my off you if you cut him off accidentally in traffic? Not to mention that some mentally Ill kid with horrible parents won't go kill kids in a school tomorrow? Both this incident and the one at St. Francis would have been prevented with responsible gun laws and waiting periods. Kid was under the 21 age limit that should be placed on guns, bought his right when he turned 18...which was BUT should not be legal...Gun in Tulsa was bought day of his murders. My big time gun owner and pro gun friend even said no citizen needs an AR15 and he's the biggest gun guy I know. It's time we are more sensible but we don't, and won't go all Australia or UK...but we will be better and have less lives lost for being a bit more selective in who we sell too.
I realize they would be challenged in court, but that doesn't mean as much today as it would have 30+ years ago. And yes, it most certainly is "a big deal" when a large group of politicians and citizens believe circumventing or just plain ignoring the constitution is acceptable. In terms of your question regarding "concern" I may or may not have, and to my previous point, the 2A isn't established based on NEED, a term which I shouldn't have to remind you is highly subjective in application. Why is it every time this discussion is initiated it always gets back to the gun, rather than the person who used it in a manner they shouldn't?
 
May 4, 2011
3,746
1,673
1,743
Charleston, SC
I totally get your point (and example) regarding suicidal patients, but federal politicians have a nasty demonstrated history of changing the definition of words that fit their political agenda. In this case, temporary will end up being perpetually temporary. It's too ripe for subjectivity and political bias in its application, which will just end up removing guns from law abiding citizens.I realize what I quoted, and am saying the federal politicians are discussing this option at the federal level. Regardless, for example let's take any liberal state you want that currently has what amounts to be an approved red flag law at the state level...Oregon? California? I have a family tragedy that prompts me to go visit a Psychiatrist to deal with my issues. Wham, physician reports to government, government seizes the firearm. Six months later I'm no longer seeing the physician; you really believe their state-level "mechanisms" will result in the return of that firearm to me? They'll come up with something to avoid it.
Since you seem to be engaging here in good faith, I really think that fear is unfounded having worked in these systems. I'm coming at this from experience working in multiple states and with colleagues in multiple states. I don’t know every state, though I do hae friends who work in California, Florida, and Colorado among others. In general, I have to provide compelling evidence that you are a danger to yourself or others to even get them removed in the first place. I have to be specific about what the danger is and why I think that. I can't do that without you finding out and it killing any chance at a good working relationship. So, I don't do it, unless I'm really certain it's needed and I can't get it done any other way (you can easily sue me for malpractice if I don't lool for alternatives or if I misrepresent anything). There are often specified mechanisms for either further review or for you to petition to get the guns back. Unless evidence has now come from elsewhere thay you're still a danger to yourself or others (like getting arrested), I get dragged back in to court. If I've pissed you off and you've found someone else to work with who says you're OK and released you or even if they're still working with you, there's nothing I can do (in that scenario, I don't want to anyway). The court then orders the guns back to you. People in the mental health field most often hate going to court, especially when it's related to a patient/client and even more if that person is going to be pissed off at them. Given the process, the situation you laid out isn't really possible. We'd have to think it's worth the crap we're going to get and have consistent evidence that you're a danger to yourself or others.
 
May 4, 2011
3,746
1,673
1,743
Charleston, SC
Curious... what are (some of) the mechanisms for returning them?
I wouldn't pretend to know all of the states, but my understanding is that after the emergency order, there's often another review that's required later on where more evidence has to be presented or the person gets their guns back. Due process is still required and the person can present their side for why they should have them back and burden of proof is on those who want the order continued. My understanding is that the person can usually petition to get their guns back and prompt another review in many circumstances.
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
9,624
5,401
1,743
Somewhere
If you're defending assault rifles, especially after the murder of children because of said assault rifles, you're a sociopath and you may need mental health treatment.

How would you react if one of your loved ones or child murdered by an assault rifle, then seeing a bunch of sociopaths claiming, "you see my loved one or child that was murdered? Look at that dead body.. can you BELIEVE that THAT is the reason they're wanting to ban, or make it extremely more difficult to obtain an assault rifle? CAN YOU BELIEVE IT! PFFFT! 2ND AMENDMENT! EFF MY LOVED ONE! EFF MY DEAD CHILD! LOOK AT ME POINT AT MY DEAD CHILD.. AND THAT IS THE REASON! Unbelievable. Pff. Who gives a damn about my dead child.. my dead child should NOT BE A REASON WHY WE SHOULD BAN ASSAULT RIFLES! FREEDOM, BABY! I luvs my assault rifle. I luvs them so much! Much more than my worthless dead child!"
This is a bit much.

There are millions of gun owners that have absolutely no issues and are not a threat to anyone owning guns. There are a small number of people that are causing major issues owning or using guns. Our goals should be:
1) Ensuring that it is difficult for those in the small group to get guns
2) Protecting the rights of the majority who own guns without issue

Plus, the one thing that you missed with your pearl clutching is that handguns and shotguns are the far and away most commonly used weapons for mass shootings, not assault weapons.

Wait periods for first time gun purchasers, background checks and mental health holds are the best immediate options to address this, while actual investment in mental health is going to be the most effective long term solution.
 
Last edited:
Jul 5, 2020
2,161
406
213
59
Broken Arrow
Since you seem to be engaging here in good faith, I really think that fear is unfounded having worked in these systems. I'm coming at this from experience working in multiple states and with colleagues in multiple states. I don’t know every state, though I do hae friends who work in California, Florida, and Colorado among others. In general, I have to provide compelling evidence that you are a danger to yourself or others to even get them removed in the first place. I have to be specific about what the danger is and why I think that. I can't do that without you finding out and it killing any chance at a good working relationship. So, I don't do it, unless I'm really certain it's needed and I can't get it done any other way (you can easily sue me for malpractice if I don't lool for alternatives or if I misrepresent anything). There are often specified mechanisms for either further review or for you to petition to get the guns back. Unless evidence has now come from elsewhere thay you're still a danger to yourself or others (like getting arrested), I get dragged back in to court. If I've pissed you off and you've found someone else to work with who says you're OK and released you or even if they're still working with you, there's nothing I can do (in that scenario, I don't want to anyway). The court then orders the guns back to you. People in the mental health field most often hate going to court, especially when it's related to a patient/client and even more if that person is going to be pissed off at them. Given the process, the situation you laid out isn't really possible. We'd have to think it's worth the crap we're going to get and have consistent evidence that you're a danger to yourself or others.
I appreciate you sharing that, and I’m certain your job is anything but a cakewalk. I definitely don’t dispute the process you summarized because it is what it is, I’m just looking at this from the lense of law abiding, gun-owning John Q. Public who understands the realities of our federal and state governments, and those political progressives involved. Let me also be clear, I fully support those ideas okstate987 summarized above, and others Imight not have thought of. My concern is with the action of seizing guns disguised as “temporary”. Not saying there aren’t circumstances that would warrant the actions, rather, that Idont trust the process could be widely applied in a non-politically biased manner. All that to say: 1) Like it or not, progressive liberals see the constitution as a hindrance, including the 2A, and they are actively trying to circumvent that. One needs to look no further than their reaction to today’s SC ruling, and 2) based on recent history, I don’t trust many state governments to adhere to established processes that on the surface appear reasonable; I just don’t’. When I see “temporary”, I see “perpetually temporary” because that’s the likely outcome.
 
Last edited:

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,155
1,743
Earth
I realize they would be challenged in court, but that doesn't mean as much today as it would have 30+ years ago. And yes, it most certainly is "a big deal" when a large group of politicians and citizens believe circumventing or just plain ignoring the constitution is acceptable. In terms of your question regarding "concern" I may or may not have, and to my previous point, the 2A isn't established based on NEED, a term which I shouldn't have to remind you is highly subjective in application. Why is it every time this discussion is initiated it always gets back to the gun, rather than the person who used it in a manner they shouldn't?
It is the person who used it's fault, sure. But, the slipper slope concern has actually side toward gun rights very far in our country not the other way around...In Oklahoma for example just about any moron can get a gun, "constitutional" carry, and most of the ones I see doing it aren't the types I'm comfortable with doing it. Bottom line, we need a bit tighter gun laws like we used to have. That does NOT mean that we take away everyone's guns, just that we return to logic and thereby reduce crime and murders committed by theses murderers and idiots, who by our laziness, we have armed with more deadly weapons at easy reach than they could legally obtain prior.

Truth is we have slid down the slope to open season on gun purchases and carry laws too far out of our own fear and the thought that we are in total control of our own lives. The fact is, we are not, and as a Christian I know who's in control of that...It's his job to keep me safe...it's my job is to spread the gospel of love not to arm myself to the teeth in case the "gobment" comes to get me. Christ forgave his enemies, he let them led him to the cross and nail him to a tree...he did NOT shoot them with his handgun while they did so.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,912
2,553
1,743
This is today's GOP folks. In 2022.
A GOP Senator celebrates that an earlier SCOTUS separate, but equal decision was bad and partially overruled by Bdown/BOE. I would hope most would agree that overruling was good.
Glad that was yesterday and today’s GOP. And it is also today’s DNC. That is good.