It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Virginia Senate approves "red flag" law allowing temporary seizure of guns

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2020 @ 09:37 AM
link   




posted on Jan, 24 2020 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Red flag laws are terrible. Wasn't that one of the last things Obama passed before he left office? And wasn't that one of the first few things President Trump repealed once he was in office? We the people need to use these laws against the creeps that propose them. Why can't we all start saying that the politician's security forces are a threat in some manner and get all their guns taken away? And the police that possibly surround the politician regularly when he makes public appearances, couldn't we "accuse" them of being a threat and have their guns taken away? Just how easy is it to "accuse" somebody of being a threat so that their guns can be "temporarily" removed? This kind of thing trying to bypass or negate the 2nd Amendment makes my blood boil.



posted on Jan, 24 2020 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

It is going to court so it wont be enacted until after the court hears it and it may go all the way to the supreme court.



posted on Jan, 24 2020 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Having a loaded concealed firearm on your person with the safety off and wrestling with a child is pure stupidity.



posted on Jan, 24 2020 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

I'd say so.

However, it should not be used to color the vast majority of gun owners who don't wrassle with their kids with a gun on their hip.

To call it stupid, well, that'd be an understatement.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 01:57 AM
link   
I have had friends and acquaintances here in Australia have their guns 'temporarily' seized by police. Also returned later.

Good thing too as the only reason those people had their guns seized was because they weren't mentally well at the time. Unstable you might say.
Not in the mindeset you'd want a person to have a firearm on them.

Them having their guns confiscated for a brief period probably more than likely prevented a few people from being dead now, through either suicide or murder knowing the situations they were in that caused them to be unstable to begin with.

As a former firearm owner I am glad we tightened our laws here.
I myself years after giving up guns, went through a period where I have to wonder where I would be now if I had access to a gun at the time.

Chances are I wouldn't be here and neither would a couple of others as hard as that is too admit. Thankfully we shall never know.
Had I owned firearms at the time I would of been glad if someone came and said "hey we're going to look after these for you until you get your head on straight'

But government agencies cannot win. When they do nothing despite warning signs, they're the condemned for not doing more when they could. When they do do something, they're still condemned because 'mah feelz'....er.... I mean 'mah rights'.....

Seriously what do people want? How about instead of just complaining about and condemning government for doing what YOU pay them to do.

How about instead you try something different for once and put forward solutions to the issue that works for everybody, not just a few.
If you feel it's your spat from a vagina given right to own guns, then how do you make ownership of them safer?
If you feel it's a matter of 'mental' illness.... because clearly everyone who shoots someone is crazy, then what can be done about that?

Just stop leaving everything up to government then complaining about the results.

This is a topic of discussion that comes up daily in the U.S. and every time it's the same merry go round of tail chasing and same opinions and arguments and the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Maybe instead of quoting the same old 'mah amendments' 'mah constitution' things written for a different world and way of life way back in 1787, how about rewriting the constitution for 2020 and the humans of today and the way your country is now compared to over 200 years ago.

Try applying that same logic to other things from the 1700's today.
"Well in 1787 we owned slaves, it was my god given right, so I should own slaves now"

You don't own slaves because laws can, do and often should change with the times. Maybe guns shouldn't be any different hey?

Hell half the people who use the 'this and that amendment' for justifying gun ownership don't even use guns for the purposes those rights were given.

Seriously how many of you have used your guns to form a militia to necessary to the security of a free State?
How many of you own a gun for that purpose?
Not many if any I reckon, and hell you'd go to prison no doubt if you tried.

Maybe it's time to amend the second amendment to say "Rights to own guns to shoot home invaders and to wave at random people who cut you off in traffic"

But no. All people see in the 2nd amendment is "IT SAYS I CAN OWN TEH GUNZ!" while ignoring the WHY you can own a gun. And that's how they like it. Easier to say "2nd mendy said I could" than having to explain for yourself why you need an entire arsenal in your basement I guess......

Oh well maybe you do need the guns. Never know when Hillary and Trump will team up and throw you all into concentration camps or the British might come take ownership back hey?

Oh well here's hoping regardless you fix the 'mental health' issues that are clearly the REAL problem some time soon.
That should be easier than making gun ownership a privilege to be earned than a sky fairy given right I reckon.
edit on 27-1-2020 by AtomicKangaroo because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2020 by AtomicKangaroo because: typos if any more in there I don't care.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: AtomicKangaroo




I have had friends and acquaintances here in Australia have their guns 'temporarily' seized by police. Also returned later.

Good thing too as the only reason those people had their guns seized was because they weren't mentally well at the time. Unstable you might say.
Not in the mindeset you'd want a person to have a firearm on them.

Them having their guns confiscated for a brief period probably more than likely prevented a few people from being dead now, through either suicide or murder knowing the situations they were in that caused them to be unstable to begin with.


How did this come about?

Did someone call the authorities to inform them that a "mentally unstable" person had guns?

How does that work, I wonder?

You Aussies sure have some interesting "problem solving" techniques.

It's a miracle more law enforcement people haven't been shot trying to remove guns from these people...




edit on 1/27/2020 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Well when very few choose to own guns in a society it makes the cops being shot less likely to happen.

How do U.S cops make welfare checks? I doubt it's via telepathy.
Guess it's the same here. Well with less tazing to death in a shower for those they're checking on usually. ; )

I guess from my own observations that yes, using basic common sense and logic is "interesting" for some.
Personally I wish it was more 'common place' than interesting.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

Good points - all.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: roadgravel

I'd say so.

However, it should not be used to color the vast majority of gun owners who don't wrassle with their kids with a gun on their hip.

To call it stupid, well, that'd be an understatement.


Not a statement able responsible gun owners. AS with most things, some people just can't cut it.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Not saying you would.

However, there are people, some in this very thread, who would do so.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Many firearms do not have a safety nor does the article indicate what model or even as to if a semi auto or a revolver. Some safeties are not overly safe. Some people carry Condition 0 or Condition 1. Most remain Condition 2 or 3 for better safety. Condition 4 is of course the safest.

These apply for 1911 style guns. Other types have different status to particular condition. Such as a Glock has no safety nor a hammer as they are a striker fired firearm. Beretta 92FS (as well S, SB have a decocker to their safety that rotates the striker to the firing pin out of the way). Walther PPK has an elevated plane rotate around the strike before the decocker allows the hammer to fall. One could argue a Condition 5 exists as field stripped (disassembled) for cleaning.

Condition 0 - Loaded, chambered, hammer back, safety off. Absolutely ready to fire.
1 - Loaded, chambered, hammer back, safety on
2 - Loaded, chambered, hammer forward
3 - Loaded, not chambered, hammer forward.
4 - Not loaded, not chambered



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 05:34 PM
link   
So, just as I thought. Protest or rally all you want. The controlling party shrugged it off without a care. Seven bills have been passed to the Senate of Virginia.

wset.com...

The Virginian Democrats call it a success so far and describe these bills as such:

twitter.com...

The Senate of Virginia also has a Democrat majority, so I guess we'll see what happens.
edit on 3112020 by AutomateThis1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3112020 by AutomateThis1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 05:40 PM
link   

edit on 3112020 by AutomateThis1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join