• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Maggie’s Sen. Liindsey Graham is a traitor

DavidK

Sergeant
Banned !
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 27, 2006
1,084
698
Sen. Lindsey Graham announces bipartisan deal on ‘red-flag’ gun laws

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Monday he’s struck a bipartisan deal to write legislation that would encourage states to adopt “red flag” laws allowing guns to be taken from potentially dangerous individuals, and he vowed action in the wake of this weekend’s shootings.

The South Carolina Republican said his legislation, which he has worked on with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat, would offer grants to law enforcement to hire professionals to try to decide cases where guns should be taken from troubled individuals.

Mr. Graham said he talked to President Trump about the idea earlier Monday, and the president “seems very supportive.”

“Many of these shootings involved individuals who showed signs of violent behavior that are either ignored or not followed up. State Red Flag laws will provide the tools for law enforcement to do something about many of these situations before it’s too late,” said Mr. Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Red flag laws have been pioneered in some states such as Florida, scene of the 2018 Valentine’s Day school shooting in Parkland.

Under a red flag law, potentially dangerous individuals can be reported by family or others, and local officials then determine whether there is cause to temporarily remove firearms the person may have. Cases where weapons were removed in Florida involved both risks to others or potential suicide cases.

Under a red flag law, potentially dangerous individuals can be reported by family or others, and local officials then determine whether there is cause to temporarily remove firearms the person may have. Cases where weapons were removed in Florida involved both risks to others or potential suicide cases.

Mr. Graham said he and Mr. Blumenthal will introduce national red flag grant legislation “in the very near future.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said there’s no need to wait.

She’s already written and introduced her own version, the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act,” that would create a grant program to encourage states to come up with red flag laws. She said Mr. Grahamcould put her bill on the committee’s agenda.

“The Senate could vote on that bill today,” she said.

She said that while 15 states and the District of Columbia have red flag laws on the books, neither Texas nor Ohio — scenes of the weekend’s shootings — have one.

But she said the Senate needs to go further than that.

She called for Congress to renew the Assault Weapons Ban, a now-expired 1994 law that restricted the sale of some military-style semiautomatic rifles.

“It took the Dayton shooter less than 30 seconds to shoot 35 people, nine of whom died. This validates the theory that these weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible,” she said.



What color flag to we use to identify and prosecute treasonous politicians?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WT1 and TACC
The "and others" is the part that scares the hell out of me. You get into a heated argument with a neighbor, he turns out to be an oxygen burning Liberal, calls it in saying you were being aggressive and he is scared, the cops come barging into your house playing Billy Badass and confiscates all of your shit, no due process, no nothing.

That sucks.
 
ROFL

Must be them McMikoyan burgers
5d449099fc7e93ab138b4569.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: WT1 and gigamortis
The "and others" is the part that scares the hell out of me. You get into a heated argument with a neighbor, he turns out to be an oxygen burning Liberal, calls it in saying you were being aggressive and he is scared, the cops come barging into your house playing Billy Badass and confiscates all of your shit, no due process, no nothing.

That sucks.
This is EXACTLY what's going to happen. Ex wives, ex girlfriends, co workers, neighbors, strangers, you fuckin name it, they'll be lined up so deep at the police station theyll have to put up a circus tent outside to cover them all.

They should call these green light laws because that's what they'll become. A green light for every pussified, liberal, gun grabbing, steaming pile of shit to circumvent every legal process so they can have OTHERS come to your house and take away your rights cause dere widdle iddy bitty feewings got hurted by da big bad guy wid a bang bang.

Oh, and I'm sure all they have to do is go onto any social media or gun forum to gather up proof cause you wrote something that even has the appearance of discontent or anger. OH look! That guy is a loose cannon and a mass shooting waiting to happen!! Get him! GET HIM!!

Fucking assholes.
 
Mr. Blumenthal the fag who lied about being in Vietnam to get in office , when he was actually filling tampon dispensers in State Parks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TACC
Are you just figuring this out about LG?

They all are. Even the ones you like.

Except Ron Paul. Which is why he was chased out.
Didnt agree with some of what he said and fully believe he wasnt a commie puke like the rest of them.

Maybe the new guy from TX. He actually fought and bled for this republic. He gets it.
Dont know all about him and seem to like what I see and read.
 
Are you just figuring this out about LG?

They all are. Even the ones you like.

Except Ron Paul. Which is why he was chased out.
Didnt agree with some of what he said and fully believe he wasnt a commie puke like the rest of them.

Maybe the new guy from TX. He actually fought and bled for this republic. He gets it.
Dont know all about him and seem to like what I see and read.

Who Dan Crenshaw? He fought, bled and lost an eye, but unfortunately he supports red flag laws and TAPS act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BLKWLFK9
As I understand it, a judge must sign off on the order to take guns based off the information (much like a search warrant) On the face, that should be okay. But look at the FISA warrants with Trump and his staff. Look at in Texas incident where the cops lied on the search warrant for the no-knock warrant... and then they wonder why we fight tooth and nail against them. Put protections agaist false information then come talk to me.

Also, what about protecting guns during transport and storage. Will the guns be in the exact same condition? No scratches, dings or rust? Doubtful.
 
if someone is so dangerous we don't trust them with firearms, we prob shouldn't trust them with gasoline, vehicles, knives or anything else. take them out of circulation, have a competency hearing or whatever, and if it was a false call, they can sue the accuser, judge and anyone else involved.

making it all and only about guns shows some sort of agenda going on.
 
@Slash0311 For a search warrant a judge is provided with an affidavit stating "person" is violating a law. If the judge believes that meets standard for probable cause he'll issue a search warrant to look for evidence showing that "person" is actually violating a law.

For Red Flag, does the person making the claim sign an affidavit? Either way, are they stating that "person" is violating the law? I believe the answer to that is No. A judge isn't issue a warrant to search for evidence of a crime, he's issuing an order to seize property without evidence of a crime.


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
 
@Slash0311 For a search warrant a judge is provided with an affidavit stating "person" is violating a law. If the judge believes that meets standard for probable cause he'll issue a search warrant to look for evidence showing that "person" is actually violating a law.

For Red Flag, does the person making the claim sign an affidavit? Either way, are they stating that "person" is violating the law? I believe the answer to that is No. A judge isn't issue a warrant to search for evidence of a crime, he's issuing an order to seize property without evidence of a crime.


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Trump should be the last person to support this, look what just happened to him over the last two plus years with fake dossier. The media, DNC Et al. abused the FISA courts in an attempted coup against him, his admin and the American people who supported him.
 
@Slash0311 For a search warrant a judge is provided with an affidavit stating "person" is violating a law. If the judge believes that meets standard for probable cause he'll issue a search warrant to look for evidence showing that "person" is actually violating a law.

For Red Flag, does the person making the claim sign an affidavit? Either way, are they stating that "person" is violating the law? I believe the answer to that is No. A judge isn't issue a warrant to search for evidence of a crime, he's issuing an order to seize property without evidence of a crime.


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Im not disagreeing but a judge is provided information and then determines if property should be seized. The entire process is only as good as that information and people lie...
 
@Slash0311

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This deserves to be seen again. Confiscation of weapons based on what you might do is the definition of unreasonable.
 
Why would the jack boots follow the red flag laws????? We saw how they handled the FISA court rules because they knew what was best for this country. Shall not be infringed is there for a reason!
 
  • Like
Reactions: WT1 and gigamortis
The only reason I vote Republican is for no gun laws. If they start passing guns laws, there is no need for me to vote for them. I hope they think this through,...

Unfortunately in our two party political system your choice is very limited. Look how the RNC treated Ron Paul during the 08’ and 12’ election cycle, they essentially shut him down during the debates. As a resident of a communist states my vote doesn’t count except maybe in county election, I refuse to vote for anyone with a (D) in front of their name. But you’re right, it’s getting harder and harder to defend the two, to the point where I switched my party affiliation.

Maybe, just maybe Mitch McConnell is doing us a favor by not bring the senate back in session to vote on these laws. He’s being hammered by people at his house and office, the media calls them “demonstrators” but in reality they are threatening him. Maybe by them being gone for another 4-5 weeks will make them forget about all this BS.
 
When about 60% of all orders of protection are given with false accusations , and don't hold up in court. The real bitch is its almost impossible to quickly, cheaply, and thoroughly remove it from your record.
If your LEO, Federal, State, 1st responder, teacher, or in any type of Job that has a defense contract , you just lost your job, pension, and reputation. But its ok. WE don't really need that 4th, 5th, or 6th amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W54/XM-388 and WT1
copy pasted
Red Flag Laws. Here’s what will happen...

It’s a Sunday night and your family has all gone to bed. You let the dogs back in and lock the deadbolt like you do every night. All the lights are off now except a couple of night lights scattered throughout the house leaving that dim glow throughout your home. It’s bedtime and work and school are going to come early in the morning. You crawl in bed, kiss your wife and drift off to sleep being thankful for the air conditioning that allows you to pull that heavy quilt up over your shoulder despite the fact it’s still 85 degrees outside. A few hours pass...

0200 Monday morning and your wife taps your leg and says, “baby I heard something outside”. As you sit up in bed you hear the dog growling in the living room and you know something isn’t right. You grab that trusty ole 870 and head into the living room. Your wife grabs her 9mm and heads down the hall to the kids rooms just like you have rehearsed. “Good boy” you say as you enter the living room, trying to calm both the dog and your wife just as splinters fly across the room and the front door flys open. “Oh shit!” As you shoulder your weapon and send a load of 00 Buck across your living room and see the perpetrator fall in a heap. Before the “thank God” can even run across your brain, you see a second man coming in the door and you fire again. This time you hear the pop of your wife’s 9mm as she has joined in the fight. It has to be those damn meth heads from down in town! Just then you are consumed by a wall of bullets as you see multiple muzzle flashes from just outside the door and you realize something isn’t right. You turn to yell at your wife to “get down” just in time to see her take a load of buckshot to the face and her brain matter splatter the wall behind her. You feel the burning as 5.56 bullets Riddle your body. One clips your spine as you’re scrambling away and paralyzes your lower body. The last thing you see before you bleed out is a SWAT guy from your local PD holding your teenage daughter on the floor with a knee in her back as she screams and cry’s because she just watched her parents being murdered.

Why did this happen? You’re no criminal. You’re a Conservative and an honest family man. Your wife is a school teacher and your daughters are on honor roll. Why did this happen?

Well two days ago, you and your wife went down to welcome the new neighbors to the community. Your wife made them some of her “world famous” cookies and you invited them to church on Sunday. Later that afternoon, you got a friend request on Facebook from your new neighbor, which you gladly accepted. They seemed a little odd, but in the few minutes you talked they were pleasant enough. The next day while you and your family sat in church, your new neighbor scrolled through your Facebook profile. He saw that “Trump 2020” post and got infuriated. See, he’s a staunch liberal and he hates your kind. The next thing he sees are the hunting pictures you took last fall when your daughter bagged her first buck. Now he’s seething with fury because he is wholeheartedly against the “slaughter of innocent animals”. Next he sees your post from the last range day with your buddy and sees those scary black assault weapons on the table and that does it! He has to do something about the racist domestic terrorist living next door. He picks up the phone, calls the local Sheriffs Office and reports you as a threat under the new Red Flag law. The SO follows their SOP’s and conducts a no knock warrant because you have now been denied due process and you are considered guilty until proven innocent.

Now you, your lovely wife and two deputies have been killed for nothing. Your daughter will have absolute hell for the rest of her life. She will never be that successful person you dreamed for her to be because of the mental tragedy caused from seeing her parents murdered. The local news paper will report that you were killed after firing on and killing two deputies and that “over a thousand rounds of ammo and 22 guns were confiscated from your residence”.

Oh, those two deputies were just following orders. They left behind families as well and had served their community for over a decade. They didn’t know you were a stand-up guy with a great family. They weren’t allowed time to investigate things under due process. They were told you had threatened your neighbor and were out in the street waving an AR15 around.

This is the reality of Red Flag gun laws. Innocent people will lose their lives. Red Flag laws will be used for petty and vengeful reasons without merit.
 
We are here to arrest you for the pre-crime of murder for your upcoming mass shooting at the *enter the name of the mall, nightclub, school, church, favorite walmart or public place you frequent* based on information provided by your really pissed off ex girlfriend when you closed the joint checking account with her name on it and kept all the money. The arresting officer will be Tom Cruise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W54/XM-388 and WT1
^^^^Yep, it’s Minority Report all over again, but this time I don’t know who will figure out that shit doesn’t work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WT1
The problem I have with red flag laws aside from the fact that they restrict firearms ownership is that ultimately red flag laws are a curb on language such as violent language or even gestures. Red flag laws are a restriction of the 1st amendment as much as they are of the 2nd. Any law that encroaches or infringes on two constitutional amendments shouldn't be allowed.
 
Unfortunately in our two party political system your choice is very limited. Look how the RNC treated Ron Paul during the 08’ and 12’ election cycle, they essentially shut him down during the debates. As a resident of a communist states my vote doesn’t count except maybe in county election, I refuse to vote for anyone with a (D) in front of their name. But you’re right, it’s getting harder and harder to defend the two, to the point where I switched my party affiliation.

Maybe, just maybe Mitch McConnell is doing us a favor by not bring the senate back in session to vote on these laws. He’s being hammered by people at his house and office, the media calls them “demonstrators” but in reality they are threatening him. Maybe by them being gone for another 4-5 weeks will make them forget about all this BS.

You are right. I've been saying that for years.
 
if someone is so dangerous we don't trust them with firearms, we prob shouldn't trust them with gasoline, vehicles, knives or anything else. take them out of circulation, have a competency hearing or whatever, and if it was a false call, they can sue the accuser, judge and anyone else involved.

making it all and only about guns shows some sort of agenda going on.
Murders by knives in England is big.
 
I would agree if it wasn't a wasted vote in the current election system. As long as we only have 2 recognized parties, no 3rd party will ever be elected.
I think we don't have much of a choice anymore. If the Republicans are going to betray their electorate, then that only leaves a 3rd party which in this case it is the Libertarians. The Greens are socialists and they hate guns. The socialists are also socialists. The two major parties know that. And it is not just the two parties, corporations, companies, all kinds of organizations would like to disarm the country. Don't think it is just the politicians and a bunch of liberals.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Alabusa
Libertarianism is astrology for old white men...you and everyone you know have voted it into the dumpster for years and now we all pay

Bench
 
Feinstein is just an opportunistic ghoul.

She's playing bait and switch, exchanging an open opportunity to debate legislation on the floor of Congress with her own staff assembled, gift wrapped poison pill package of totalitarian stealth gun control.

She's not exactly what I'd call either a cool intellect, or an unbiased contributor.

Cold, not cool; and a snake, not a contributor. Kinda like the Snake in the Garden...

Greg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: oneshot86
You two guys wrote:

Third party voting will elect demonrats. Stop being stupid.

Libertarianism is astrology for old white men...you and everyone you know have voted it into the dumpster for years and now we all pay


Well, I can see where you are coming from but if you don't vote for what you believe in, it is also a wasted vote. If you are only worried about voting for a candidate that will prevent what you fear in the other candidate, then you are voting against yourself at the same time because you are voting for a candidate that will probably betray your beliefs, like the Republicans are lining up to do right now. In fact, since you didn't vote for a 3rd party, that IS why you, we, are in the situation we are in. I voted 3rd Party almost completely for every candidate during the last major election in Wisconsin. I know the candidates didn't stand a chance. But I vote for what I believe in, not some false illusion created by collusion between the two major parties, caught in the middle of them, getting divided up by them.



Well goodie for you!

You did your best and got flatly nowhere. Now you want to shoot down anyone who murmurs any dissent to your crackpot third party scheme, just exactly like the old schemes.

Did your vote contribute to a Democrat gaining a seat? You understand, like the way Perot's candidacy went a looong way toward giving is the Clintons?

The effect of Ross Perot's candidacy has been a contentious point of debate for many years. In the ensuing months after the election, various Republicans asserted that Perot had acted as a spoiler, enough to the detriment of Bush to lose him the election. While many disaffected conservatives may have voted for Ross Perot to protest Bush's tax increase, further examination of the Perot vote in the Election Night exit polls not only showed that Perot siphoned votes nearly equally among Bush and Clinton,[105][106][107][108] but of the voters who cited Bush's broken "No New Taxes" pledge as "very important," two thirds voted for Bill Clinton.
A mathematical look at the voting numbers reveals that Bush would have had to win 12.55% of Perot's 18.91% of the vote, 66.36% of Perot's support base, to earn a majority of the vote, and would have needed to win nearly every state Clinton won by less than five percentage points.[110] Furthermore, Perot was most popular in states that strongly favored either Clinton or Bush, limiting his real electoral impact for either candidate. He gained relatively little support in the Southern states and happened to have the best showing in states with few electoral votes. Perot appealed to disaffected voters all across the political spectrum who had grown weary of the two-party system. Perot's anti-NAFTA stance played a role in his support, and Perot voters were relatively moderate on hot button social issues such as abortion and gay rights.

All I'm seeing is a conspiracy freak jumping up onto the podium and hawking for candidacy as the Lemming-in-Chief.

You are no part of the solution, you are the problem itself.

Vote your fantasies, just like the socialists. Go ahead, make the Democrat's day.

I count over twenty harping posts of yours, just on this one topic.

Give it a rest, your BP might need a break about now...

Greg
 
Last edited:
Now you are just changing the subject and name calling.

As for Ross Perot, he was right. The giant "sucking sound" of jobs leaving America did happen. More people should have voted for him. Clinton was a bastard president. The jobs are still leaving. It is still happening. Not just Mexico, but China with Clinton granting most favored nation trading status to China so Walmart could be The low Priced Leader (Clinton is from Arkansas where Walmart is headquartered) GM and Chrysler are moving more jobs to Mexico and so are many other manufacturing facilities.

All I am saying is I don't vote for something I don't believe in, something I did for a long time because of the concern of what another candidate stood for. For a long time I voted to prevent that other candidate from getting elected, which is how the two-party system wants it and it appears you are caught in that conundrum yourself and are rationalizing your repeated mistakes. This is a common thought process. We like to believe in what we do, even if it is the wrong thing for us. The two parties know this and want you to be caught in the middle.

During the last election I voted for what I believed in. That's all. I try not to do the same thing over and over again like you are doing and expect a different result. Because it is not happening. You can plainly see that. As for give it a rest, you are the one spouting off, attributing words and actions to others that are not evident, you made them up, probably trying to create some sort of show in the forum here, who knows. I'm just saying what I did and explaining why. I'm not name calling.

What I don't get is that you say you favor the Republicans and not a third party, the Republicans which you also believe are about to betray you, which is why you are in this discussion or otherwise you'd be mute, but yet you defend them anyway. I don't get it. Why would you defend someone you believe is about to betray you? Unless of course you are ulterior. I think you are the one who needs to give it a rest and think about what you are doing before you make the same mistake again, and again, and again, and again...

As for your pulling quotes from three different contributors in this discussion and attributing them to one person, perhaps you should get the prescription on your glasses updated.
 
Last edited:
Have it your way.

Our, quit trying to justify a flawed line of logic.

Hint, I think your tea leaves do not mean what not think they mean....

Moreover, I need to scrap my VA shrink, and employ you; since you have so much better a grasp on all our psyches.

And, moreover; you're boring, now.

Ignored. The way you're going, probably permanently.

Greg
 
You see Resident Elder, that's your problem. Voting for something you believe in isn't a flawed line of logic. Voting for something you believe in is in fact the best line of logic. On the other hand, in your case, voting for someone or something that will eventually betray you is THE MOST FLAWED LINE OF LOGIC and it seems to be the line of logic you follow and defend the most closely. As for your VA shrink, I have a very high opinion of The Veterans Administration where I live. I don't think you need to change your VA shrink. There is just probably nothing that can be done for you. That's all.
 
Last edited:
Well goodie for you!

You did your best and got flatly nowhere. Now you want to shoot down anyone who murmurs any dissent to your crackpot third party scheme, just exactly like the old schemes.

Did your vote contribute to a Democrat gaining a seat? You understand, like the way Perot's candidacy went a looong way toward giving is the Clintons?



All I'm seeing is a conspiracy freak jumping up onto the podium and hawking for candidacy as the Lemming-in-Chief.

You are no part of the solution, you are the problem itself.

Vote your fantasies, just like the socialists. Go ahead, make the Democrat's day.

I count over twenty harping posts of yours, just on this one topic.

Give it a rest, your BP might need a break about now...

Greg
Go to sleep junior...this is the real world... libertarianism is great...but was lost a long time ago and became irredeemable....a vote for a 3rd party is nothing more than a Democrat victory

Bench
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alabusa
I think some joining this discussion are getting confused over who is posting what. Chances are I'm older than any of you.

Furthermore, you vote for what you believe in. You don't vote for one guy because you are afraid of the other guy and disregard what you believe in by totally ignoring the guy who supports what you believe in and not even consider voting for him. You've just done the work of your enemy for him. Why put all of the different names on the ballot in the first place? Why stand for anything? If all it takes is a vote, a line drawn to form an arrow or to fill in the circle in my district pointing to the candidate you favor, then why is everyone so afraid to choose the candidate that supports their beliefs? Really? It only takes a matter of moments. They've made your mind up for you. That's what it sounds like to me. Thing of it is, they've done such a good job you defend what they've done to you.
 
Last edited: