It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
too many red states to try, not enough blue states even if some purple states flipped either way too
Changing the actual words of the Constitution does take an amendment, as does actually deleting, or repealing, an amendment. Including the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, which were ratified in 1789, the Senate historian estimates that approximately 11,699 amendment changes have been proposed in Congress through 2016. Only one amendment, the 18th Amendment that established Prohibition, was later repealed by the states. In simple odds, the chance of any constitutional amendment being repealed would be roughly the same as a person living to 80 years old being struck by lightning during their lifetime, according to National Weather Service data. And for the Second Amendment, which was rooted in the English Declaration of Rights a century before the Bill of Rights was ratified, the odds would likely be steeper. In recent years, three other amendments have been subject of repeal talk: the 17th Amendment (the direct election of Senators), the 16th Amendment (the federal income tax), and the 22nd Amendment (presidential term limits). None of that talk came close to fruition. The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it.
There you go again, blaming me for your paranoia.
The President is suggesting taking guns away from the mentally ill, not me. I have never advocated that the government take away anyone's guns. I have never suggested that guns are anthropomorphic, and pull their own triggers.
originally posted by: xuenchen
Many in the MSM and many politicians are worried stiff they will be exposed as sociopaths and psychopaths and the medical boards will classify those as mental illnesses and bingo, they get locked-up tight never to be heard from again !! 😎🎯😎
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas
That's something I don't agree with in principle, and quite a risk as well. Even a hand-picked Supreme Court can rule opposite to the way one thinks they might... the whole point of the lifetime appointment is that no one, not the President who appointed them or the Congress, can exert undue influence on the courts.
That's also not Donald Trump's "style"... one thing I respect about him is he speaks his mind. It would bother me as well if he were to be feigning support for red flag laws in order to get political points, expecting anything passed to be overturned. If he changes his mind, I'll be left with a nagging concern about him at this point; if he doesn't, like I said, that's a major promise broken that will be considered on election day. It doesn't discount the good he has done, but it is a concern and a big one.
You're going to sit there and tell me you do not support getting rid of guns?
I do not support the government taking away anybody's guns, unless they are guilty of committing a violent crime or a judge has issued some kind of credible protective order.
We've argued over abortion and women's rights....maybe some Trump policies and rhetoric on immigration and foreign relations. But you won't find me in a gun rights thread advocating for the government taking guns away. Although, I don't recall making the argument here on line, I do have a creeping support some kind of regulation on assault rifles.
The last time I shot a gun was the first time, when they taught us about guns and their use and respect at Camp Fire Girl summer camp when I was a teenager, and it was hella fun!
I don't own a gun, but I've considered buying one many times. I still might. But, I'd have to join a shooting range or something to relearn how to shoot, and all.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck
Why would a study like that be needed?
We already know that most people dont shoot up crowds. Now dont we?
The Threat Assessment, Prevention, and Safety Act of 2019:Establishesthe Joint Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management TaskForce to develop a National Strategy to prevent targeted violence through threat assessment and management, and evidence-based processesto identify individuals that exhibit patterns of dangerous behavior that may precede an act of targeted violence. The TaskForce will be comprised of threat assessment experts frommultiple federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to state and local law enforcement as well asmental health service professionals.Requires the Task Force’s recommendations for the development of theNational Strategy toEnsure consideration of the different needs and resources of communities across the country, and will not be construed as a national standard. oInclude recommendations for the most effective leveragingof existing Federal, State, local, and Tribal infrastructure, workforce, and experience. oInclude recommendationsto increase collaboration between government agencies and private entities that focus on public safety responsibilities. oInclude recommendations on training programs to disseminate to State and Local entities.oInclude recommendations fora Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management School Violence Prevention Program to train and supporta multi-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional behavioral threat assessment and management processfor educational entities.Creates a grant programfor states, local governments, tribal organizations, educational entities, and nongovernmental organizationsto help establish community-based behavioral threat assessment and management units.Endorsed by the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (ATAP), Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange (GILEE),North Carolina Association of Chiefs of Police, North Carolina State Bureau of Investigations (NCSBI), Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), San Diego County District Attorney, San Diego County Office of Education, the Association of University and College Counseling Center Directors (AUCCCD), and the University of California Council of Chiefs of Police
so profiling but to what seems to be a more extensive level then we see already, but hey its the cops who get to assign threat levels to every citizen kind of like china's social credit score but applied to how risky each member of society is based on social media posts,interactions with law enforcement and id assume comments reported by others
The TAPS Act would encourage law enforcement to give everyone a personal threat assessment (kids and adults) and single out those that they deem as future threats. (Click here to see how our homes a given threat assessments.) "By bringing threat assessment experts together, and utilizing evidence-based behavioral threat assessment and management processes, we can bolster public safety by implementing strategies to identify and stop dangerous individuals before they can commit an act of violence. We have the expertise to combat the targeted violence plaguing our schools, places of worship, and public spaces, but we have yet to fully implement it to prevent attacks." The TAPS Act has all the earmarks of a paranoid police state that considers everyone a potential threat. The TAPS Act will create a "Joint Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management Task Force to identify individuals that exhibit patterns of dangerous behavior that MAY precede an act of targeted violence." According to Senators Marco Rubio, Kyrsten Sinemea and Thom Tillis, the TAPS Act will create a national behavioral threat assessment and management process for everyone.
no idea about this guy or his site but the "concerning ideas" aspect could be miss used by either party
Hunting Down “Threats” The legislative guide released by Rep. Babin’s office, which presents guidance on how to support this act, helpfully offers a “frequently asked questions” section to allay the concerns of citizens who are not yet convinced. When answering the question as to whether threat assessment teams are an invasion of privacy, the document points out that, “[T]hese requests arise because the individual in question has made public statements verbally, in writing, or on social media, that cause concern, with no expectation of privacy.” This should give some indication as to who will be targeted if the legislation passes.It will be aimed at hunting down those on the internet who post “concerning” ideas, profiling them, putting them on a “threat register,” and beginning an investigation into their lives. However, those who pose a genuine danger may simply stop using the internet for such activities, making it more difficult to track people involved in actual criminal behavior.