What would you add or subtract from this paragraph you ignored in one of my above posts?:

To me, a proper panel to decide about the issue should include doctors, law enforcement, the courts, family and friends, and any folks who complained about the guy--and lawyers, who gotta eat, too. They would decide at least two things. First, whether to take the guy's guns and put them in safekeeping. And second, the conditions under which the guns would be returned, if ever.

I addressed your concerns. Whaddaya got? I mean, with the above panel, how can a minority or a woman or an LBGT person, or even a Democrat get "abused"? This is why I ask you to add or subtract from it to prevent even more strongly the the ability to abuse someone? Can you get there from here?

CDF

I'd like to point out one other thing. The point of view that CDFingers is presenting here about Red Flag laws and such is one that I would've agreed with, wholeheartedly, 20 years ago. Matter of fact, I might well have been lobbying my Congresscritters for this, quite strongly, back then. So, I understand why he supports it, because I would have.

What changed my mind was at last realizing the full implications of being a racial minority in America. This was in the wake of my study of the Indian/Native American Wars in this country, which I've mentioned in other threads. It was then that I finally understood everything that my Dad had been telling me for so long. And at that point, I had to *drastically* change my views on Us, The People being armed.

It was not a comfortable change, let me tell you. I had to think long and hard about that. And it wasn't what I'd call, "fun". But I had to. My life depends on it.

Just this last Sunday, there were a couple of guys beating on our door, quite hard. We both thought they might be trying to break in. They were dressed in all black, and it looked like tactical-type dress. Definitely didn't look like friendlies. Then they started walking around, shining lights or mirrors or similar into some of the windows. Then they beat hard on the other door. We both seriously considered that we might have to defend ourselves. We stayed out of sight.

Fortunately, they took off and haven't returned. My wife said to me, after they seemed to have left, "thank you for protecting me." And I was ready to do exactly that if the need arose. She was watching me the entire time and saw the look on my face. She said I looked surprisingly calm, but totally alert. I called my neighbor and told him immediately and to get ready, just in case, since he and his wife are older now. He got ready.

We eventually found out who they were. My neighbor, who's been in this neighborhood close to 40 years, managed to see them and recognized them as tree cutters who drive around the neighborhood looking for work. But my wife and I didn't know that at the time. Why the hell were tree cutters beating on the door so hard that it sounded like they were trying to break it open?

That was just a few days ago. And I don't know if a 7+1 out of a 1911 would've stopped both of them had they meant to do harm. I'd like to think so, but you never do know.

Maybe, you can't get there from here. It's like the play calls for a throw to first base but the player bends down to tie his shoe.

Let's imagine these guys in black committed DV and got caught. The Red Flag laws I'm talking about. How would you structure things so you two and the rest of your town were protected from those DV dudes? Maybe just let them keep their guns and hope for the best, or would it be something different?

CDF

Well, if they broke into our house, I would've shot them in defense of our lives and home. Fortunately, they did not. They seem to be simply obnoxious, high-pressure salesmen. I don't even know if they *had* guns.

When you say, "maybe, you can't get there from here", I'm thinking the same way toward you. It appears that we're not going to agree on this issue. You're a White man who is less likely to be affected by such evil laws than I am. That's what you're not getting. I am not White, and therefore I have to think in ways that you don't have to. I envy you, actually. Seriously, I do; I wish there weren't bigotry in the criminal justice system, and it ought not to be there, against anybody. But unfortunately, there is, and lots of it, and folks like me are the biggest targets of it.

That's why I cannot trust your aforementioned panel. In states with anti-2A laws like the Red Flag laws? Those officials are going to be pretty much all Democrat Party activists. It'll be anti-2A groupthink, from the doctors, courts, district attorney, and so on all the way down. It'll also be, "Black men are DANGEROUS!!!" groupthink in that same group. I've seen it, too often. So, no, I cannot trust such a legal regime in the hands of today's officialdom. No way. You might...but I cannot.

I hope that someday that's the part that *you* are willing to see.

Well, if you don't trust my panel, you should propose something different. I've given you many opportunities to do so, but so far, nada. Sometimes it'll be that way, I guess. "Not trusting" a legal "regime" but providing zero evidence mirrors a strategy from the Repubs that we all make fun of.

I posted a very solid source that looked at California's approach to red flag laws with our GVRO approach. It has very solid data. We see no evidence it has been abused.

It seems you're afraid that because you're a minority that your guns somehow would be taken with Red Flag laws. I've seen no evidence that you're a DV guy. No evidence that you regularly do drive by's or robberies or any other evidence that you misuse guns. I'm pretty baffled at your position. I see no reason for you to be afraid of this. But there it is. Nothing wrong with that, by the way. Just baffling.

CDF

Most of the time we agree, CDF. But this time, I gotta tell you, you're missing what he's telling you.

He's trying to tell you that he doesn't need to be DV or DUI to have his guns taken.

Please tell me what he's telling me. I obviously miss it, thinking it's not there. He says he fears his guns being taken, but there is no evidence that it will happen. He can tell me something that's fantasy, and I may misjudge it. I don't see the monsters under the bed.

CDF

CDFingers wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2024 3:45 pm I don't see the monsters under the bed.

CDF

Exactly.

VooDoo

CDFingers wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2024 3:45 pm I don't see the monsters under the bed.

Indeed, few White people seem to. I'm grateful for the ones who do.

The most dangerous monster I see is the crazy puppet leading the Project 2025 charge, a charge to end our democratic republic and replace it with an inherently corrupt and vindictive dictatorship, with no recourse to the courts.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2024 11:50 pm The most dangerous monster I see is the crazy puppet leading the Project 2025 charge, a charge to end our democratic republic and replace it with an inherently corrupt and vindictive dictatorship, with no recourse to the courts.

I see that one, and the ones who are his avid cult followers.

I also recognize that I lead a privileged life, even if I am not aware of all the privileges I enjoy. I trust those who I know to not enjoy some of the more blatant privileges when they tell me their side of things.

BearPaws wrote: Sat Aug 10, 2024 6:00 am

YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2024 11:50 pm The most dangerous monster I see is the crazy puppet leading the Project 2025 charge, a charge to end our democratic republic and replace it with an inherently corrupt and vindictive dictatorship, with no recourse to the courts.

I see that one, and the ones who are his avid cult followers.

I also recognize that I lead a privileged life, even if I am not aware of all the privileges I enjoy. I trust those who I know to not enjoy some of the more blatant privileges when they tell me their side of things.

I’m with CowboyT, there’s dangers that have been heightened to minority communities which will not go away regardless of who is elected and we have plenty of minority communities from ethnic, religious, and also transgender communities. Having one side disarm us with those harmful forces vibrant and alive is naive. Electing someone like harris isn’t the solution, it delays one type of event at the expense of increasing the danger in another. Frankly I’ll suffer trough four years of someone who isn’t about to remove a constitutional right. I trust the constitution and the structures behind it more than an avenging individual bent on limiting or removing an effective defense. I don’t care for the choice, we’ll protect these of your rights, but we’re going to take away this one that involves guns that we don’t think you need. There are dangers out there that are real and they are not under my bed or under yours, they live in our communities watching for the moment their victims are vulnerable.

While there is zero evidence that race plays or has played any part in California's Gun Violence Restraining Order process, I acknowledge that fear short circuits reason. Fear is real. Reason also is real.

When we defeat our fear, we obtain power. Power of course can be misused, so having power also short circuits reason. When we defeat power, we obtain clarity. When we arm ourselves against fear, we get some measure of power with those arms. Obviously such power can be misused. Those who have defeated power have the clarity necessary to manage their power. It has always been that way, and each of us treads our path to enlightenment differently, which is the force driving the expression of art and music. Humans are fascinating creatures.

CDF

The problem I have with the argued position above is it implies you know what other people’s dangers are and we should all comply to your perspective because you said so. No danger exists because you don’t see it or understand it exists. It’s a myopic view because it presents your personal perspective as infallible. It doesn’t acknowledge other people’s perspectives, intelligence and ability to evaluate their own situation. It’s a bit like the people that say that there is only one type of gun needed for self defense and it has six bullets. It’s naive and full of hubris. No person can make judgements about another person’s needs. It’s not fear that is at point here, but the reality that danger exists to members of various communities. Implying it’s fear of some unknown entity under a bed is belittling and dismissive, and should be admonished by everyone here.

There is rational fear, and there is irrational fear. This is why I also play music. I am confused by those who ask that I act on their fears. I do not fear the diminished chord because I am the tonic. Yet the diminished may resolve to any of four tonics. Life can be confusing.

A little story: When I lived in Berkeley I worked for three years as a union cook in an all black kitchen. I was the only white guy, and I started as dishwasher. There was a clear hierarchy. I did my job well. I worked my way up to pastry chef not because of my race but because of merit. The Sous Chef Andrew, who in the Navy cooked for the soldiers going ashore on Okinawa during WWII, invited me to his house and cooked for me the best chicken soup I've ever had. His little house he'd lived in since he mustered out sat in the Oakland hills over looking the Bay. What a wonderful day that was for me. He saw me as a fellow cook. Why is that? We know why. I see that racism exists, but not in me.

A rational fear is that some people can be predicted to likely misuse guns. This is the origin of red flag laws. When I said race plays no part in CA's GVRO process, it is true when we look at the data. I put a link to actual data that demonstrates that. It appears I must remember the parable of the horse and the water. So I'll go play guitar.

CDF

Fear is how the mind alerts its wearer to danger. It seems unfair to divide it into mine are real, yours's are not. Highly subjective. Anti gun folk would argue that gun ownership is a response to an irrational fear. Evolutionary survival tools (guns are revolutionary survival tools) are why some critters are still here, others not (asteroid exemptions apply).

sikacz wrote: Sat Aug 10, 2024 9:24 am The problem I have with the argued position above is it implies you know what other people’s dangers are and we should all comply to your perspective because you said so. No danger exists because you don’t see it or understand it exists. It’s a myopic view because it presents your personal perspective as infallible. It doesn’t acknowledge other people’s perspectives, intelligence and ability to evaluate their own situation. It’s a bit like the people that say that there is only one type of gun needed for self defense and it has six bullets. It’s naive and full of hubris. No person can make judgements about another person’s needs. It’s not fear that is at point here, but the reality that danger exists to members of various communities. Implying it’s fear of some unknown entity under a bed is belittling and dismissive, and should be admonished by everyone here.

Exactly. And that's just why so many non-White people find so many White Progressives frustrating to deal with. That's why it's often said evem today that, "the greatest threat to the Black person is the White Liberal/Progressive."

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/nor ... ews-15161/#
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5001 ... er-threat/

And to the concerns raised by YankeeTarheel and BearPaws, that's exactly why I started this thread. If you're that concerned about Trump supporters possibly attacking you and Trump himself becoming a de-facto dictator, then you should be as armed as you can be, for your own defense and that of your loved ones. Get yourself one or more AR-pattern or Kalashnikov-pattern semi-automatic rifle(s), as you see appropriate. Get magazines, standard-capacity where it's legal. Fill up those magazines with good defense ammo. And go to the range as often as you can to stay proficient at operating them.

That's exactly why the Second Amendment was put into the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers considered this right so important that it comes right after the rights of free speech, assembly, religion, petitioning our officials, etc. The right is *that* important. Black Muslims showed that importance in the summer of 2015 against White supremacists. And really, that right, and its importance, applies to everybody.

It's like another Black man, Frederick Douglass, said, well over a century ago:

"A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

He was right then, and he remains right today. He probably always will be right as long as humans exist. Arm yourselves, folks, and remain armed.

papajim2jordan wrote: Sat Aug 10, 2024 1:43 pm Fear is how the mind alerts its wearer to danger. It seems unfair to divide it into mine are real, yours's are not. Highly subjective. Anti gun folk would argue that gun ownership is a response to an irrational fear. Evolutionary survival tools (guns are revolutionary survival tools) are why some critters are still here, others not (asteroid exemptions apply).

A claim without support plus five bucks will get you a cup of coffee at any Denny's in America. "I don't like it" is not support. Trying to argue about a vague term like "gun control" is like trying to nail water to a coconut tree. Arguing against an assault weapons ban is much more clear. My gun ownership stems not from fear but from fun. Don't forget that Randy Johnson killed a bird unintentionally on live TV while playing baseball.

As voters and gun owners in a republic, all's we can do is to demand that SCOTUS exercise consistency in their interpretations of the Constitution. Right now, ten states have assault weapons bans, which is a 2A issue. Over twenty five states take issue with the 4A right to privacy if you seek gender-affirming health care. I detect inconsistency. I would like to see consistency. I don't always get what I want. I accept that.

Rights appear to exist on a continuum with this Court, and it appears that absolutism does not fly with them. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments have caused more than one grey hair, I suspect, in our messy democracy.

CDF

Again dismissing other people’s assessment of personal or group danger as fear. Shows a total lack of understanding. It’s fun to make fun of people’s needs and dismiss them as irrational fear. That’s how it appears from my perspective.
Also noting that owning guns is out of fun and dismissing others needs as just a reaction to fear. That is simply unacceptable. Yes, some of us enjoy shooting, but there is a practical reason for ownership and practice, to prepare for danger.

Imagine if I were to say I wanted to pack 14 grains of Unique into a .45 LC case to shoot out of a Brand X single action. The experienced reloaders would say, "Don't do it. It will blow up your gun and hurt you. This is why, " and I would see pressure measurements, examples of guns blowing up under too high pressures, and so on. Are those people dismissing my opinion, or are they showing me I have a weak and potentially dangerous position? So it is with argumentation. I have I spent thirty years in academia evaluating arguments. If an argument is weak and it's shown why it's weak, it's weak. It's not personal. When a weak argument is presented, neither the thesis nor the writer is dismissed. The argument is weak. All the arguments I read on this board are in bold 24 point font. In that way, they all start out equal. Behind words live ideas.

Remember this thread?

https://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB ... es#p915278

If you argue with me, either your position will get stronger or you'll quit arguing. Don't whine. Make a stronger argument. We all want proper gun laws, and each has a different idea of what that means. We argue our positions. That's how it works.

CDF

Ok, CDFingers. Blacks are more likely to have run ins with the law. Black neighborhoods are often more heavily patrolled and there's the whole issue with driving/walking/jogging/shopping/living while black. The more laws we have, the more likely black folk will be disproportionately punished for breaking those laws. Thus, us white fuckers don't have the same fear of a "simple common sense" law that our black country men/women may have. That's fact. It ain't right, but it's true.

You argue RFLs are useful. I agree, if we can manage a fair implementation. Again black folk will be disadvantaged. Indeed, anyone who can't afford legal representation will be. Public defenders are generally over worked and under funded, so defense is legally adequate if you're lucky. I've had both public defenders and criminal defense attorneys in the family, so I do have some firsthand idea of what I'm talking about.

Now, I have personal experience with DV, have helped someone I love go through the TRO process and watched the DA plea the fucker down to a misdemeanor, his second time. In CA, any DV charge gets your guns gone and a TRO is quicker than a red flag, as far as I know. The problem I see with all of this is the system is shit, especially if you're already disadvantaged. RFLs in this environment will likely cause more harm than good.

The other angle often left out is that RFLs actively discourage gun owners from seeking mental health treatment. Gun suicide is much, much higher than gun homicide. So, we are in fact, likely increasing gun suicides with RFls while, as usual, we focus on murder rather than holistic root causes. That's the fear talking.

And I find the Davis centers claim that RFLs have stopped a bunch of mass shootings highly suspect, at best. Claims that they prevent more mass shootings, whatever the definition they are using, than the baseline prior to the law are pretty questionable. But, it sells gun control. And that's what the head of that particular group is all about.

We don't have a Denny's here. No claim, just opinion. Not saying "don't like", except now, I don't like coconut. I feared adding to this thread, as I might be dismissed for having no evidence to back the claim up.

Assault rifle from the 1600's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghKrbNpqQoY

The key is to develop RFL's that solve these problems. The most significant problem is the one that causes gun owners not to seek help. Seeking counseling is good, and laws prevent disclosure of what is said unless that person says he's going to do something bad to self or others. That makes gun owners afraid. I understand that aspect. And it is true that root cause mitigation is a very good approach, but it takes time.

Here is Minnesota's approach, called an Extreme Risk Protection Order.

https://dps.mn.gov/Pages/red-flag-law.aspx

Here's a critique of it by the MN gun owners caucus:

https://gunowners.mn/learn/minnesota-la ... minnesota/

It seems to me when we compare CA and MN on these laws, we may find the execution of each requires the involvement of at least several agencies, and it always includes the courts, which is due process. I would prefer a larger panel as I wrote above. I have not (yet) found instances of abuse. MN even has protection for the gun owner against harassment and false claims. Still, not as big a panel as I suggest. In CA, even something as short (21 days) as a TRO "Requires evidence of violence, threats, and stalking." Here's the CA page:

https://www.jlegal.org/blog/temporary-r ... alifornia/

I personally don't know anyone who has gone through this. Again, I've not (yet) found evidence of abuse of the law. Of course it must exist, as everything is abused by at least someone. And also: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, the intention is good, and any misuse of laws may be remedied through a change in the laws. I'm willing to keep looking to find a weakness in both intention and execution.

CDF

I don't disagree with your expanded panel. Reality is, we don't fund the programs we've got, so...

Root causes mitigation requires money, vision, persistence and patience. Shitty laws offer quick "solutions" with huge unintended consequences. Take a guess which is more likely.

Four sittings over a few hours showed me many things. This was fun. The most often repeated critique of so-called red flag laws is that they are not used often enough. I won't pile a zillion links, but at the end of this post I'll put two representative links that break down everything that is relevant.

I did find one instance of blacks being targeted by these laws. I will put the quotes and link just here:

The typical subject of an ERPO petition was a 37-year-old man. In fact, nearly 90 percent of petitions were filed against men.

Black people were somewhat disproportionately the subjects of petitions, making up about 9 percent of respondents whose race could be determined from court documents, compared to 6 percent of the state’s population. Those figures are influenced by heavier usage of ERPO in Denver, where Black people make up about 10 percent of the population and about 18 percent of ERPO cases.

https://www.cpr.org/2023/01/30/erpo-red ... -colorado/

The page has graphs that are useful, but there is software there that allows you to roll over it and get data, so I can't somehow paste it in. You can there and see it. It will be interesting for others here to go there, so we can see how the state of Colorado does this. Denver apparently, is the problem. Folks who read this far should help in deciding whether indeed this is a national trend, or whether Denver itself is a unique spot somehow.

The lack of applying the laws being the most common critique may be related to funding, as featureless has suggested. A couple hours isn't enough to get all the info, but I think we can detect an over all performance metric. Here's the two representative links, Wisconsin and the National Police Association.

https://nationalpolice.org/red-flag-law ... amEALw_wcB

https://www.maciverinstitute.com/news/r ... ack-record

Minnesota is so far the only one I've found that has protections for the gun owner with respect to harassment and false claims. I hadn't dusted off my google-fu since last summer, so this was fun.

CDF