ANd so it begins...

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 23, 2009
    1,822
    113
    Brainardland
    A citizen has his guns confiscated under a "red flag" law based on nothing but his political beliefs.

    [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]https://news.yahoo.com/police-seize-guns-man-thought-122415587.html[/FONT]
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,021
    113
    Martinsville
    It was atomwaffen, which has carried out some attacks and is universally considered to be a terrorist organization.

    Dicey territory and a true test of the constitution, hopefully he gets a lawyer. In the mean time I suggest you read up on them.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomwaffen_Division

    Atomwaffen encourages flag desecration, the burning of the United States Constitution, and attacks on the federal government of the United States, minorities, gays, and Jews.[SUP][15][/SUP] Atomwaffen Division has engaged in plans to cripple public water systems and destroy parts of the Continental U.S. power transmission grid.[SUP][15][/SUP] Atomwaffen has also been accused of planning to blow up nuclear plants in order to cause nuclear meltdowns.[SUP][15][/SUP] The organization's aim is to violently overthrow the federal government of the United States via terrorism and guerrilla warfare tactics. Since 2017, the organization has been linked to eight killings and several violent hate crimes, including assaults, rape and multiple cases of kidnapping and torture

    Guess he gets to experience, first hand, what "burning the united states constitution" looks like... :popcorn:
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 23, 2009
    1,822
    113
    Brainardland
    Sure. Today this Atomwaffen is "universally considered to be a terrorist organization." In San Francisco the NRA has been defined as a terrorist organization. How long before posting on INGO becomes justification for a red flag confiscation?
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,021
    113
    Martinsville
    Sure. Today this Atomwaffen is "universally considered to be a terrorist organization." In San Francisco the NRA has been defined as a terrorist organization. How long before posting on INGO becomes justification for a red flag confiscation?

    Don't believe there's any terrorist attacks that were ever carried out in the name of the NRA, feel free to correct me.

    Playing a bit of devil's advocate here because of the irony involved with AM's mission statement.
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,021
    113
    Martinsville
    What's your point?

    There's a bit of a difference between atomwaffen and the NRA. One has a long chain of attacks carried out in its name.

    Ultimately, if anyone is enterprising enough to fund a proper legal defense for this individual, this will get red flag laws overturned. In the mean time I can have a chuckle at the irony.
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 23, 2009
    1,822
    113
    Brainardland
    The distinction is irrelevant. The man has been charged with no crime. The gun confiscation was based solely on the man's beliefs, not his actions. If this is allowed to become a precedent the floodgates are open.
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,021
    113
    Martinsville
    The distinction is irrelevant. The man has been charged with no crime. The gun confiscation was based solely on the man's beliefs, not his actions. If this is allowed to become a precedent the floodgates are open.

    It's not quite just a belief when they swear to start a race war and kill people. As I said in my first post, this is dicey territory.
     

    rhino

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    30,906
    113
    Indiana
    Don't believe there's any terrorist attacks that were ever carried out in the name of the NRA, feel free to correct me.

    Playing a bit of devil's advocate here because of the irony involved with AM's mission statement.

    Each and every act of violence involving a firearm is attributed to the NRA by some.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,142
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I think Tombs is right that it’s a dicey case. Let’s be precise in saying what it is. It’s not quite as straightforward as him being disarmed for mere belief. He was disarmed for being a member of a known terrorist group which has carried out deadly attacks in this country.

    So let’s test this concept out with some other scenarios. American joining a jihadi terrorist cell in the US, whose members must vow to do violence against the infidels, and they’ve carried out several deadly attacks. Do you confiscate his legally owned guns?

    I’m not advocating either position here. I’m just presenting what I think is a more precise understanding of reality than was originally posed.
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    I think Tombs is right that it’s a dicey case. Let’s be precise in saying what it is. It’s not quite as straightforward as him being disarmed for mere belief. He was disarmed for being a member of a known terrorist group which has carried out deadly attacks in this country.

    So let’s test this concept out with some other scenarios. American joining a jihadi terrorist cell in the US, whose members must vow to do violence against the infidels, and they’ve carried out several deadly attacks. Do you confiscate his legally owned guns?

    I’m not advocating either position here. I’m just presenting what I think is a more precise understanding of reality than was originally posed.


    I agree with this line of thinking. Much more thought needs to go into this, although my kneejerk reaction is that Big Brother over reacted.

    My kneejerk thinking is this: members of known religious groups have blown up abortion clinics in this country, causing death and serious bodily injury. Should ALL other members these bombers churches be targeted for what their brothers and sisters in faith have done? My answer would be "no." Ergo, being a member of a group is not enough, in my current opinion, to justify removal of firearms. It WOULD be enough to potentially start an investigation to determine whether this individual presents a clear danger to himself or others, but not the jump to red flagging and removal.

    In this case the government had no information saying that he, individually, represented a threat to anyone.

    But you are correct in that this is dicey. It reeks of potential overreach and as such is worthy of a very good and in depth conversation. One that would require much libations and comfortable chairs to rest in and ponder points and counterpoints.

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,021
    113
    Martinsville


    I agree with this line of thinking. Much more thought needs to go into this, although my kneejerk reaction is that Big Brother over reacted.

    My kneejerk thinking is this: members of known religious groups have blown up abortion clinics in this country, causing death and serious bodily injury. Should ALL other members these bombers churches be targeted for what their brothers and sisters in faith have done? My answer would be "no." Ergo, being a member of a group is not enough, in my current opinion, to justify removal of firearms. It WOULD be enough to potentially start an investigation to determine whether this individual presents a clear danger to himself or others, but not the jump to red flagging and removal.

    In this case the government had no information saying that he, individually, represented a threat to anyone.

    But you are correct in that this is dicey. It reeks of potential overreach and as such is worthy of a very good and in depth conversation. One that would require much libations and comfortable chairs to rest in and ponder points and counterpoints.

    Regards,

    Doug

    Those religious groups generally don't have a charter implicitly stating they will overthrow the government, murder random people, and train teams to do exactly that, openly.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,142
    113
    Gtown-ish
    What if they’re Christians? Play Led Zeppelin backwards to release the deamons, then hand the guns back.

    :rolleyes:

    Idunno. You may not be old enough to get that one.
     
    Top Bottom