SayUncle » Because they’re not targeting criminals


Ammo For Sale

« « Come and take them | Home | Good » »

Because they’re not targeting criminals

They’re targeting you: Dems Veto Red Flag Law for Gangbangers

Posted in uncategorized on September 23rd, 2019
by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |

8 Responses to “Because they’re not targeting criminals”

  1. Ken in NH Says:

    True, but it seems you had more to say or link?

  2. SayUncle Says:

    D’oh. Fixed

  3. Mike Says:

    This is possibly the most hypocritical thing I’ve seen the D’s do with regard to gun control, and certainly the most revealing of their true agenda.

  4. 8notch Says:

    Great, now I have to defend this asshat. Sure it is hypocritical and bad optics, but my church was once put on the city’s gang list. Whatever the listing requirements might be, giving the government carte blanche to SWAT people because you think no bureaucrat would add your name to a list is foolish. San Francisco recently declared the NRA a domestic terror group. I am sure every gun grabbing DA who wants to be governor would drool over a justification to start using this.

  5. JTC Says:

    Just more confirmation of what we have known. They are doing a lot of that lately, openly exposing the true agenda.

    Don’t know whether that signifies desperation at losing their shot or confidence that they are on-target. (Gun metaphors used advisedly).

  6. docmerlin Says:

    The Austin PD put a law firm I know on their terrorist list, after that law firm beat them in court a few times. Government is by its very nature corrupt, and I agree with the dems on this one, arbitrary lists shouldn’t be red flagged (nor should anyone else)

  7. JTC Says:

    Of the two “reasonable and common-sense” gun grabber measures most in the forefront and most likely to be enacted, the one that is most seemingly innocuous and even acceptable by some gunnies as evidenced by your post and link to Miguel’s piece recently, is the loss of the exemption from regulation of private firearms transactions.

    That is because the buzz-word “Red Flag” proposals are just scary sounding words and any enactment is a gauntlet of malleability and clarification and restriction on legality and enforcement, while so-called Universal Background Checks are the total and immediately enforceable rescinsion of an historical and specifically enumerated right to be free from restraint of trade and defacto registration/confiscation. The recent addition of “commercial” to the restrictions on sales is just a sales tactic that means nothing because unlicensed dealers (distinct from private sellers by virtue of ongoing for-profit activities) is already illegal and addressed in current regs.

    Also the storyline that having a BC to point to if any issue arises with a weapon you have sold is a non-issue because a good and basic signed receipt serves the same purpose in court and always has, not to mention that there have been no such issues arising with nutjobs doing their crazy with guns obtained privately because anybody with a brain will exercise due care in that regard other than the aforementioned unlicensed dealers who could and should be prosecuted according to existing regulation and law.

    What they want and what UBC would be is elimination of their lack of access and control over what you and I and any other private parties have. So, believe it or not, the scary sounding Red Flag BS is more acceptable for them to pursue with lots of pushback than the oh so reasonable sounding backgound checks.

    There are more than 300 million firearms in the hands of private law-abiding individuals making up a defacto National Private Armory that cannot be abridged except through acceptance and acquiescense to new laws with very dark and hidden agendas. We need to protect it with everything we have.

  8. pkoning Says:

    The point about “it can happen by mistake just like the no fly list” is rich, coming from people who are pushing for “no guns if you’re no the no fly list” laws.
    On red flag laws: several of the proposals I’ve seen in the past few weeks, including the incredibly evil Senate Bill 2559 (Booker and Blumenthal), have a particularly interesting red flag: “any recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons”. Translation: if you want to own a gun, you’d better not buy any of the ammo you would need to make it useful, because then you get red-flagged.

Leave a Reply

!–endCol1 –>

!– endMainContainer –>


Latest posts