Texas loosens gun laws, bans 'red flag' orders

[The Brad Dad]

All in all, it's still better than Texas.

Yes! By a lot.

 

[Loulit01]

Now do rope deaths since you think murder, suicide, and accidents are all the same thing.

However, from one of your sources we see that New York has over 10 times the murders committed using firearms than does Idaho.

New York's rate is 5.3 per 100,000. Idaho's rate is 17.6 per 100,000.

 

[rahl]

New York's rate is 5.3 per 100,000. Idaho's rate is 17.6 per 100,000.

NY homicide rate is higher than Idaho. Firearms are completely irrelevant to homicide, suicide and violent crime rates.

 

[Hari Seldon]

It’s hilarious that you think you will fool anyone with that weak ass excuse.

Your pathetic little bit was as obvious as it was stupid. But hey it was coming from you so I doubt anyone was surprised

Speaking of pathetic and weak ass.

 

[RF667799]

Domestic violence is cool?

Reading for comprehension is cool. Try it some time.

 

[RF667799]

New York's rate is 5.3 per 100,000. Idaho's rate is 17.6 per 100,000.

You don't like your own source? You are wrong about the homicide rate.

 

[Nickyjo]

What if he stabs his wife? Is that a reason to take his gun away? What if he doesn't even have a gun?

What if you stepped back and considered these scenarios you think might make some sort of point?

Yup, I would say that if he stabs his wife or otherwise abuses her, and she complains to the police, that would be a reason to consider taking his gun away. If he doesn’t have a gun, there are restraining orders than can keep him away from his wife if she so desires. Also if a former mental patient is raving madly, threatening people, I could see a judge deciding to take away his weapon. Sort of like if you get multiple DUI’s, your drivers license can be voided.

 

[RF667799]

Yup, I would say that if he stabs his wife or otherwise abuses her, and she complains to the police, that would be a reason to consider taking his gun away.

But his knife would still be fine? That doesn't make much sense.

If he doesn’t have a gun, there are restraining orders than can keep him away from his wife if she so desires.

A piece of paper. Don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of restraining orders. It's a good talking point when you have to explain to the police why the guy under the restraining order is laying on your floor, center-punched through the forehead.

Also if a former mental patient is raving madly, threatening people, I could see a judge deciding to take away his weapon.

What good would that do, when weapons are available literally everywhere?

Sort of like if you get multiple DUI’s, your drivers license can be voided.

So multiple chances at violence before the weapons are taken away?

 

[Nickyjo]

But his knife would still be fine? That doesn't make much sense.



A piece of paper. Don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of restraining orders. It's a good talking point when you have to explain to the police why the guy under the restraining order is laying on your floor, center-punched through the forehead.



What good would that do, when weapons are available literally everywhere?



So multiple chances at violence before the weapons are taken away?

Why is it that gun advocates demand perfection when discussing rules on the topic of gun control. Outlawing bank robbery or rape hasn’t eliminated those crimes. Some philosopher or such said that if we can’t have a world where children aren’t tortured, at least we can try to reduce the number of tortured children. But nooo, unless a gun control rule will work perfectly, will prevent all gun killings, it’s worthless.

 

[RF667799]

Why is it that gun advocates demand perfection when discussing rules on the topic of gun control. Outlawing bank robbery or rape hasn’t eliminated those crimes. Some philosopher or such said that if we can’t have a world where children aren’t tortured, at least we can try to reduce the number of tortured children. But nooo, unless a gun control rule will work perfectly, will prevent all gun killings, it’s worthless.

I didn't say anything about "perfection". Try to respond to what I write instead of what you wish I wrote.

 

[CLAX1911]

Why is it that gun advocates demand perfection when discussing rules on the topic of gun control.

Because you're talking about taking away all of our rights.

Outlawing bank robbery or rape hasn’t eliminated those crimes.

Outgoing rights is a serious problem.

Some philosopher or such said that if we can’t have a world where children aren’t tortured, at least we can try to reduce the number of tortured children.

You're trying to increase it that's what gun control does.

But nooo, unless a gun control rule will work perfectly, will prevent all gun killings, it’s worthless.

Absolutely gun control laws are absolutely worthless. The only point it's too oppressed that's all it is. We're making perfect the enemy of authoritarianism.

Gun control is taking away every single right you have. so you're damn right to threshold for that this is going to be sky high to the point of impossibility that's the point.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yup, I would say that if he stabs his wife or otherwise abuses her, and she complains to the police, that would be a reason to consider taking his gun away.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. No sir you can go ahead and assault and murder your wife with anything you can find just not this gun.

Take the man away how can you be this ridiculous?

If he doesn’t have a gun, there are restraining orders than can keep him away from his wife if she so desires.

No if you assault someone with intent to kill which is what stabbing is you don't put a restraining order on somebody like that you arrest them and put them in jail.

Also if a former mental patient is raving madly, threatening people, I could see a judge deciding to take away his weapon.

After adjudication of course

Sort of like if you get multiple DUI’s, your drivers license can be voided.

You don't have the right to drive a car on the roadway. That's a privilege.

What about this are you not getting driving isn't a right.

 

[braindrain]

Speaking of pathetic and weak ass.

Yeah your excuse for you double standards is exactly that. Glad you now realize that.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Yeah your excuse for you double standards is exactly that. Glad you now realize that.

Speaking of pathetic and weak ass...

 

[braindrain]

Speaking of pathetic and weak ass...

Still have to get that last word huh.
Tell me do you think your little bit here is fooling anyone.
I don’t know if I should laugh at you or feel sorry for you. Honestly leaning towards feeling sorry.

 

[CLAX1911]

Still have to get that last word huh.

It's funny he accused me of the same thing and I got bored with him long before he did me

Tell me do you think your little bit here is fooling anyone.
I don’t know if I should laugh at you or feel sorry for you. Honestly leaning towards feeling sorry.

I just feel blessed that he doesn't want to live in Texas

 

[JMB1911A1]

Good for Texas. All they are doing is getting rid of the requirement to have SBRs and SBS registered in order to be legal in Texas. With the SHORT act and HPA incorporated into the OBB (since the NFA is technically a tax), I suspect that they will be removed from the NFA soon.

 

[CLAX1911]

Good for Texas. All they are doing is getting rid of the requirement to have SBRs and SBS registered in order to be legal in Texas. With the SHORT act and HPA incorporated into the OBB (since the NFA is technically a tax), I suspect that they will be removed from the NFA soon.

This be our thing always puzzled me because you can get a pistol. A pistol with a 1 inch barrel.

 

[JMB1911A1]

This be our thing always puzzled me because you can get a pistol. A pistol with a 1 inch barrel.

The reason for that is the machinations behind the NFA. The NFA was originally designed to effectively ban handguns. SBRs and SBSs were added to it to stop people from cutting down rifles into pistols. But that was bridge too far even for Demorats back then. So, we ended up with a weird regulatory scheme where handguns and rifles were OK, but not things in between.

What is interesting is that during debates for the NFA, the Attorney General admitted that a ban was a problem constitutionally, which is why the NFA is a tax, set at a level that was prohibitive for most folks in 1934. But they forgot to index to inflation, which is why it is still $200 today vice an inflation adjusted $5000 today.

Here is then Attorney General Homer Stille Cummings’ famous testimony on the National Firearms Act of 1934.

“Oh, we do not attempt to escape it. We are dealing with another power, namely, the power of taxation, and of regulation under the interstate commerce clause. You see, if we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved. But, when you say, “We will tax the machine gun” and when you say that “the absence of a license showing payment of the tax has been made indicates that a crime has been perpetrated,” you are easily within the law.”

 

[CLAX1911]

The reason for that is the machinations behind the NFA. The NFA was originally designed to effectively ban handguns. SBRs and SBSs were added to it to stop people from cutting down rifles into pistols. But that was bridge too far even for Demorats back then. So, we ended up with a weird regulatory scheme where handguns and rifles were OK, but not things in between.

What is interesting is that during debates for the NFA, the Attorney General admitted that a ban was a problem constitutionally, which is why the NFA is a tax, set at a level that was prohibitive for most folks in 1934. But they forgot to index to inflation, which is why it is still $200 today vice an inflation adjusted $5000 today.

That would seem to failure to do this is probably because the law is stupid.

Here is then Attorney General Homer Stille Cummings’ famous testimony on the National Firearms Act of 1934.

“Oh, we do not attempt to escape it. We are dealing with another power, namely, the power of taxation, and of regulation under the interstate commerce clause. You see, if we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved. But, when you say, “We will tax the machine gun” and when you say that “the absence of a license showing payment of the tax has been made indicates that a crime has been perpetrated,” you are easily within the law.”

De facto gun control

 

[JMB1911A1]

That would seem to failure to do this is probably because the law is stupid.

De facto gun control

That was the plan. One of the reasons that Joe wanted to put modern sporting rifles under the NFA. $200 tax to exercise your rights. I am sick of the 2A being a second class right.