Gun Owners of America Applies for Red Flag Order for Charles Schumer - Page 6

Gun Owners of America Applies for Red Flag Order for Charles Schumer

This is a discussion on Gun Owners of America Applies for Red Flag Order for Charles Schumer within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Hoganbeg I recently finished the book The Overton Window by Glenn Beck, which inspired me to more research. It turns out to ...

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 103
Like Tree179Likes

Thread: Gun Owners of America Applies for Red Flag Order for Charles Schumer

  1. #76
    VIP Member
    Array spclopr8tr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    SE Tennessee
    Posts
    3,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoganbeg View Post
    I recently finished the book The Overton Window by Glenn Beck, which inspired me to more research. It turns out to be a critical insight into current political techniques. I have always been of the mind to avoid radical tactics but my recent research has led me to think that we really do need to start operating on the edge of the "window" to expand public perception in the direction more favorable to our cause.
    Brings to mind the saying "nice guys finish last".
    Havok, APX-9M and Hoganbeg like this.
    "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton

    Patron Life Member NRA
    SAF - CCRKBA
    NAGR / GOA
    TFA-LAC / Save the 2A
    Handgunlaw.us Donor

  2. #77
    VIP Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    5,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubblehead751 View Post
    Best way to demonstrate the lunacy of these laws is to use them against their proponents. I think is is a smart play.
    Yup. I follow an online channel whose host makes a point of studying the progressives and all of their latest lingo. Then he attemts civil interviews and discussions with them. But he does not let them get away with leftist word salad in the specific domain they are discussing. He uses their terminology across all leftist platforms and does so in a way that forces the contradictions of Progressivism.

    Use their weapons against them to highlight how bad they are. These statists are hypocrites. Their own medicine is the best medicine.
    APX-9M and Bikenut like this.
    Psalm 144:1

  3. #78
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    10,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Nmuskier View Post
    Yup. I follow an online channel whose host makes a point of studying the progressives and all of their latest lingo. Then he attemts civil interviews and discussions with them. But he does not let them get away with leftist word salad in the specific domain they are discussing. He uses their terminology across all leftist platforms and does so in a way that forces the contradictions of Progressivism.

    Use their weapons against them to highlight how bad they are. These statists are hypocrites. Their own medicine is the best medicine.
    Reminds me of an old quote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."

    We should apply the law equally, so those who love guns and those who hate guns will not be able to own them!

    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #79
    Member Array APX-9M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    Reminds me of an old quote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."

    We should apply the law equally, so those who love guns and those who hate guns will not be able to own them!

    The law is being applied equally thus the Red Flag laws application against Schumer for making threats. It's the law and will be such until SCOTUS or state legislatures change it. While it's the law, it should be equally applied to liberals who threaten Conservatives and Conservative appointees.

  6. #80
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    10,131
    Quote Originally Posted by APX-9M View Post
    The law is being applied equally thus the Red Flag laws application against Schumer for making threats. It's the law and will be such until SCOTUS or state legislatures change it. While it's the law, it should be equally applied to liberals who threaten Conservatives and Conservative appointees.
    Except that it can't be equally applied to anti-gun and pro-gun people. In one case you're taking a right away from someone who exercises it, and in the other taking it away from someone who not only refuses to exercise it, but thinks the right shouldn't even exist in the first place. Applying it to anti-gun people accomplishes nothing besides confirming that it's acceptable to take away the right via the statute.

    If a law is inherently unjust, as red flag laws are, it should not be applied to anyone. We should support negation of the law, never enforcement of it.
    Havok likes this.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  7. #81
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,692
    Quote Originally Posted by APX-9M View Post
    The law is being applied equally thus the Red Flag laws application against Schumer for making threats. It's the law and will be such until SCOTUS or state legislatures change it. While it's the law, it should be equally applied to liberals who threaten Conservatives and Conservative appointees.
    There is a HUGE difference between a gun rights organization sending a symbolic letter addressing a “threat” to a liberal governor who is probably friends with Schumer, and police showing up on someone’s doorstep at 5am, and shooting the homeowner so they could take his guns, then not being able to give a reason for why a red flag order was ever filed, and approved to begin with. So no, the law is not being applied equally.
    The Old Anglo and maxwell97 like this.
    a poor plan that is well executed will produce better results that a good plan that is poorly executed.

    This is America. I have the right to go places. You have the right to stay home. You have the right to be upset about me going places. I have the right to not care.

  8. #82
    Member Array APX-9M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    Except that it can't be equally applied to anti-gun and pro-gun people. In one case you're taking a right away from someone who exercises it, and in the other taking it away from someone who not only refuses to exercise it, but thinks the right shouldn't even exist in the first place. Applying it to anti-gun people accomplishes nothing besides confirming that it's acceptable to take away the right via the statute.

    If a law is inherently unjust, as red flag laws are, it should not be applied to anyone. We should support negation of the law, never enforcement of it.
    I guess the laws about felons not being able to own or buy firearms can not be applied equally and should not be put on the books with regards to liberals and antiguners who are felons using your logic... It should only be logged in FBI and state databases if the felon is pro-gun or a conservative.... Okay, got it!

    It's the law period whether you think it should be is irrelevant. The fact is that it's the law and of the land, and your personal feelings do not matter. If under the
    law that Schumer supports, his actions qualified him to be red flagged, then he should be red flagged and happy so.

  9. #83
    Member Array APX-9M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    There is a HUGE difference between a gun rights organization sending a symbolic letter addressing a “threat” to a liberal governor who is probably friends with Schumer, and police showing up on someone’s doorstep at 5am, and shooting the homeowner so they could take his guns, then not being able to give a reason for why a red flag order was ever filed, and approved to begin with. So no, the law is not being applied equally.
    Yes, it will being applied equally. Someone made a threat, and a red flag application was filed which could result in records and logs that prevents them from owning or possessing firearms whether they currently own one or not.

    In Chucky's case, he would not be able to go hunting or hold up an "evil firearm" during his publicly stunts...

    Name:  Senator-Charles-Schumer-courtesy-iamthewitness.com_.jpeg
Views: 23
Size:  26.8 KB

    Gun Owners of America Applies for Red Flag Order for Charles Schumer-2016-02-16-01.43.31.jpg

    Gun Owners of America Applies for Red Flag Order for Charles Schumer-1ee64bd3-252b-4081-940f-e3f6750250b4-ap_050303013903.jpg

    In antifa and other Liberals case, they're guns would also be taken away. While I'm sure GOA and many other are against these laws, they still need to apply to all instead of primary being used as a weapon against people like us. This is a fine example where the the means justify the ends. No one here supports red flag laws, but if we have to use the left's laws against them in order to curb public opinion, then so be it.
    Nmuskier likes this.

  10. #84
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,692
    Quote Originally Posted by APX-9M View Post
    Yes, it will being applied equally. Someone made a threat, and a red flag application was filed which could result in records and logs that prevents them from owning or possessing firearms whether they currently own one or not.

    In Chucky's case, he would not be able to go hunting or hold up an "evil firearm" during his publicly stunts...

    Name:  Senator-Charles-Schumer-courtesy-iamthewitness.com_.jpeg
Views: 23
Size:  26.8 KB

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2016-02-16-01.43.31.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	452.2 KB 
ID:	316936

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1ee64bd3-252b-4081-940f-e3f6750250b4-AP_050303013903.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	325.0 KB 
ID:	316938

    In antifa and other Liberals case, they're guns would also be taken away. While I'm sure GOA and many other are against these laws, they still need to apply to all instead of primary being used as a weapon against people like us. This is a fine example where the the means justify the ends. No one here supports red flag laws, but if we have to use the left's laws against them in order to curb public opinion, then so be it.
    a red flag order has not been approved or even filed against Schumer.
    a poor plan that is well executed will produce better results that a good plan that is poorly executed.

    This is America. I have the right to go places. You have the right to stay home. You have the right to be upset about me going places. I have the right to not care.

  11. #85
    Distinguished Member Array SFury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,272
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    Clearly it won't be taken as face value, but what does it matter? GOA has tried to use a red-flag law to deny weapons to an American citizen, without due process. Their motivation is irrelevant; what they've actually done is to participate in the evil they oppose. And as far as public opinion goes, all it displays is hypocrisy.

    An unjust law can't be applied fairly. The goal is to show it's unjust and remove it, not to participate in the injustice. And to hope to make antis feel the injustice themselves is foolish - what does Schumer care if he can't have guns? He's protected by others who still have guns. What does any anti-gun person have to fear from a law preventing them from owning something they despise and want to be banned?
    Sometimes the only way to get rid of an unjust law is to use it against the people who passed it. If they are forced to face the piper they created things happen. Democrats are bullies, and bullies only respond to one thing. Force. A lesson I learned as a child. You stand up to them, and fight. Most of the time they back down.
    Bikenut and Nmuskier like this.

  12. #86
    VIP Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    5,515
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    Reminds me of an old quote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."

    We should apply the law equally, so those who love guns and those who hate guns will not be able to own them!

    You miss the point. The law has been passed. It is bad. We would prefer the law be repealed. Until that happens, who should receive immunity: the government representatives or the people?
    Psalm 144:1

  13. #87
    VIP Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    5,515
    Quote Originally Posted by APX-9M View Post

    In antifa and other Liberals case, they're guns would also be taken away. While I'm sure GOA and many other are against these laws, they still need to apply to all instead of primary being used as a weapon against people like us. This is a fine example where the the means justify the ends. No one here supports red flag laws, but if we have to use the left's laws against them in order to curb public opinion, then so be it.
    So far, I have not seen a case where I would say the ends justify the means. In this case, the means would be justified. The law is passed. Schumer supports it. It should apply equally to the law makers.

    This is exactly like Chuck Todd holding a banned magazine in D.C. in front of millions of witnesses. It is like progressives being caught illegally converting firearms or attempting to illegally purchase firearms.

    They don't care about the consequences of these laws. Let them experience how bad these laws are. Experience is a good teacher. And it is legal. And they passed the law. They just never thought these laws would apply to them.
    APX-9M likes this.
    Psalm 144:1

  14. #88
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    10,131
    Quote Originally Posted by SFury View Post
    Sometimes the only way to get rid of an unjust law is to use it against the people who passed it. If they are forced to face the piper they created things happen. Democrats are bullies, and bullies only respond to one thing. Force. A lesson I learned as a child. You stand up to them, and fight. Most of the time they back down.
    They're trying to take away a right from someone who doesn't want it. That doesn't harm him, it harms the right, and those who want to keep it. The only benefit I can see to it is emotional - "yeah, that'll show him!" It was a foolish move.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  15. #89
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    10,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Nmuskier View Post
    They don't care about the consequences of these laws. Let them experience how bad these laws are. Experience is a good teacher. And it is legal. And they passed the law. They just never thought these laws would apply to them.
    This law is unusual, in that it requires a complaint from a private party - the government on its own cannot judge that Schumer should be banned from owning guns. So the law can be entirely negated simply by not making complaints. These folks chose to legitimize the law rather than negate it.

    Yes, the law should apply equally to them. If complaints are made against them they should be treated like any other complaint under the law. They're also treated equally if no complaints are made.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  16. #90
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,692
    The people who think this law will be applied evenly may want to take a look at the guns that protect the president and other politicians and compare that to what their voters are allowed to protect themselves with.
    maxwell97 likes this.
    a poor plan that is well executed will produce better results that a good plan that is poorly executed.

    This is America. I have the right to go places. You have the right to stay home. You have the right to be upset about me going places. I have the right to not care.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

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