Defensive Carry banner

House gun control proposals: One is new to me.

464 views 6 replies 7 participants last post by  spclopr8tr 
#1 ·
The Democratically controlled House Judiciary committee voted to advance three bills to the floor that would ban magazines that hold ten or more rounds; provide funds to incentivize states to establish red flag laws; and make it illegal for someone convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime to own a gun.

The first two we've seen before. The second was also proposed by Rubio, who of course is a Republican in the Senate. But the third is a new one to me and strikes me as very dangerous. Depending on the jurisdiction, a misdemeanor hate crime can be be something as benign as verbal abuse or insults, or triggering emails or social media posts, regarding sex, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation. I bet pretty much all of us have done something, sometime that could fall in that category and the House is proposing that would negate your gun rights, probably permanently.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news...-bill-that-would-ban-high-capacity-magazines/
 
#2 ·
So much wisdom ..........

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
 
#6 ·
Ding, ding ding! The progressives today are under the belief that any speech that offends is hate speech. You know, such evil things as not calling someone by their made up, preferred pronouns. Or simply stating facts that are uncomfortable if they potentially show a problem within a particular race, religion, or any of the (current) 325 genders, etc. They are of the opinion that free speech does not apply to this made up "hate speech". They are completely oblivious to the fact that the very intent of free speech was to protect speech that others (especially the gov't) disagree with and is sometimes offensive (Of course, this does not include any calls for violence).

We are accelerating towards a point where many believe our rights only apply to the "collective" and not the individual.
 
#7 ·
That doesn't seem particularly broad or vague to me. SCOTUS has already ruled there is no such thing as "hate speech". Verbal abuse, social media comments, or emails would not constitute misdemeanor hate crimes.

In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s hateful and disparaging speech directed towards African-Americans, holding that such speech could only be limited if it posed an “imminent danger” of inciting violence. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that a state could only forbid or proscribe advocacy that is “directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
Hate Speech and Hate Crime | Advocacy, Legislation & Issues
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Old Anglo
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top