Democrats Don't Want Red Flag Laws to Apply to Gang Members - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Theories and happenings too odd for the main forums.
#15042141


In case anyone doesn't know, a "red flag" law is where someone can call the police and say that they're afraid someone will commit a crime, the police then come in and take away that person's legally owned firearms.

Ridiculously, Democrats have rejected a modification which would make red flag laws apply to people who are on a gang database, even though gang members commit the most gun crimes by a huge margin and the point of a gang database is to identify people who are believed to have a higher chance of committing crimes.

I wonder what the rationale or justification for that is supposed to be?
#15042199
Hong Wu wrote:
I always have good sources, I just assume that people will actually read/watch what I put up before attacking me for supposedly not having sources, which has recently been too much to ask for around here.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... -flag-laws



From your link:

“You know, California had these databases, and they finally stopped when they discovered that they had 3-year-olds on the databases as gang members,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California said. “I mean, so some of these are reliable, a lot of them are not.”

Law is an attempt to balance competing rights and interests.

You want to protect society, but you don't want to bring back Jim Crow and Bull Connor while you're doing it.

If Republicans didn't have a long ugly history, in that regard, you just might have a leg to stand on. If there had been a bipartisan effort to meet in the middle, your legs might have had a torso attached.

And if this was something more than idiotic propaganda, there might have been a head attached to that torso.

As it is, what is left is the stark stench of sleaze.
#15042267
Hong Wu wrote:


If the state can't be trusted to effectively maintain a gang members database, how can it be trusted to fairly apply these red flag laws?



That's the point, you've got history going back to the 1800s saying some states can't be trusted...
#15042269
late wrote:From your link:

“You know, California had these databases, and they finally stopped when they discovered that they had 3-year-olds on the databases as gang members,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California said. “I mean, so some of these are reliable, a lot of them are not.”

Law is an attempt to balance competing rights and interests.

You want to protect society, but you don't want to bring back Jim Crow and Bull Connor while you're doing it.

If Republicans didn't have a long ugly history, in that regard, you just might have a leg to stand on. If there had been a bipartisan effort to meet in the middle, your legs might have had a torso attached.

And if this was something more than idiotic propaganda, there might have been a head attached to that torso.

As it is, what is left is the stark stench of sleaze.


The forest gumpas of this world don't seem to get it, ie their head obviously isn't attached properly and they just ooze out pure bilious sleaze. It's down to senility.. p brains.

I'm thinking there's nothing to this thread again as usual other than a conspiratorial nothing-video.
#15042271
Presvias wrote:
I'm thinking there's nothing to this thread again as usual other than a conspiratorial nothing-video.



In addition to Republicans trying to keep the FBI off Right wing extremists, they recently did an especially sleazy attempt to get Antifa labelled as terrorists.

After a while, you only need to read a sentence or two to figure out which sleazy tactic is being used this time.
#15042273
late wrote:In addition to Republicans trying to keep the FBI off Right wing extremists, they recently did an especially sleazy attempt to get Antifa labelled as terrorists.

After a while, you only need to read a sentence or two to figure out which sleazy tactic is being used this time.


Well, they wrap it in long winded verbiage with many, many sentences, it looks like it's going somwhere but then yeh, it's just p brainer sleazy tripe masquerading as a cogent argument, made by the serial demented.
#15042390
late wrote:From your link:

“You know, California had these databases, and they finally stopped when they discovered that they had 3-year-olds on the databases as gang members,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California said. “I mean, so some of these are reliable, a lot of them are not.”


What lists were three year olds found on? That sounds like such a strawman! They just don't want their immigrants ending up on these databases lol

I read an article the other day that illegal immigrants, either Honduran or El Salvadorian gangs, are in large part responsible for running drug trafficking in San Francisco. I wonder if these illegal immigrants aren't trafficking in sex and guns as well.

The article was about a journalist who wanted to see how easy it was to buy fentynal off the street in order to learn how the drug trade worked at the street level.

I can't find that article but I did find this:

Federal drug crackdown yields 32 arrests in notoriously drug-heavy San Francisco neighborhood

SAN FRANCISCO – The first step in a sweeping crackdown on crime ranging from drugs to sex trafficking in a notorious San Francisco neighborhood yielded 32 arrests of mostly Honduran nationals tied to two international operations that poured heroin and cocaine into the community, U.S. prosecutors announced Wednesday.

It’s not uncommon to see people shooting up or snorting powder in the Tenderloin neighborhood, which contains City Hall and several federal buildings and is just minutes from tourist-heavy Union Square. The neighborhood has long been a public safety problem in a city famous for its permissiveness, and leaders are divided on how to address the drug epidemic.

But in his first news conference since being appointed by President Donald Trump in January, U.S. Attorney David Anderson said he could no longer stand by as tourists, government workers and residents wade through a daily slog of crime. He said an enforcement initiative by more than 15 federal agencies would not affect “innocent” homeless people or drug users but would tackle high-level drug dealing, fraud, identity theft and firearms.

Still, San Francisco is a city that strongly opposes federal immigration sweeps, and immigration agents are among those joining the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshals Service and others in the effort. San Francisco was a sanctuary city before the rest of California largely pledged not to work with federal authorities on deporting people in the country illegally.

San Francisco Supervisor Matt Haney, whose district includes the Tenderloin, said residents are fed up with dealers using the neighborhood as a dumping ground for drugs. He welcomed the assistance but says the city needs to remain vigilant on immigration.

“I hope that this isn’t a way to get around San Francisco sanctuary laws,” he said. “There can be an important role for the U.S. attorney in going after higher level individuals, and I hope that is where they would put their focus.”


Illegal immigration is obviously a very important issue to these cities and they will do anything to protect it.
#15042411
BigSteve wrote:Anyone who doesn't agree with me should die!! <foams at the mouth>
I am very positive that you don't even have a clue what a Liberal is. :lol:

Democrats are about as liberal as the Republicans.

The whole "Dems don't want red flags for gang members" thing is a right wing conspiracy theory.

Then again, if you're going to assume anyone part of a gang is a criminal and should be "tagged", then maybe we should do the same for people with guns and have them all register as violent criminals. :lol:

We could assume the same for anyone who was flagged as a potential terrorist banned from flying(or owning a gun), which raised the same kinds of questions as even making silly statements on a forum could end up on such a list, thereby denying him is 2nd Amendment rights, or other rights.
#15042412
Is there a single person on this mad forum with reasonable, middle of the road opinions on anything? Everyone here's crazier than me, which is quite an exceptional achievement, honestly.. congratulations on that one... bizarre but true.. I think the most normal seeming person is probably that drlee bloke. Y'all off ya trolleys..
#15042414
:lol: Speak for yourself @Presvias. You're doing the exact thing you seem to dislike and you find most people on this forum recognize a middle ground, but few want to strive towards it, because they are so far to the right. Few actual left wingers exist on this forum.

Liberal is just a stupid word that the Right-wingnuts use to malign people without even knowing what it means. :knife:

@Drlee and myself agree on most things. :D
#15042419
I always speak for myself, and I'm saying there is plenty of crazed opining on this here forum by almost everyone else. That is eminently true.

There's no 'bad' people on this forum other than maybe 2-3 people who incessantly bay for the blood of Palestinian kids,yet somehow they're...highly popular. That further confirms my theory that this place is pretty demented..
#15042421
@Presvias I'm implying you are ALSO one of those "crazy people". :p

Speak for yourself - If you say Speak for yourself when someone has said something, you mean that you do not agree with them, or that what they have said only applies to them.

No one, and I repeat NO ONE, has been calling for the blood of Palestinian kids, so you are being melodramatic.

If this place is demented what does that make you, since you choose to be here? :lol: A masochist or just another demented poster?
#15042448
Godstud wrote:I am very positive that you don't even have a clue what a Liberal is. :lol:


When I meet a complete idiot, it's a fair bet he's a liberal...

The whole "Dems don't want red flags for gang members" thing is a right wing conspiracy theory.


Can you show me where the left wants those laws to apply to gang members?

Then again, if you're going to assume anyone part of a gang is a criminal and should be "tagged", then maybe we should do the same for people with guns and have them all register as violent criminals.


Such an ignorant statement.

The obvious difference between a someone in, say, MS-13 and a law-abiding citizen like me is that I don't use my firearms to terrorize people and commit crimes.

I'm sure you already know that, which makes me question why you would say something so monumentally stupid...

We could assume the same for anyone who was flagged as a potential terrorist banned from flying(or owning a gun), which raised the same kinds of questions as even making silly statements on a forum could end up on such a list, thereby denying him is 2nd Amendment rights, or other rights.


What?

Protester's actual demands: 1. Revenge on police […]

Another school shooting

You post like a used car salesman and Adam Schiff[…]

The Democratic party is pretty much over with[…]

Ukrainegate

Republican talking points Sorry, couldn't b[…]