2nd Amendment Is Dead

TheGreatYosh

Member
Jul 19, 2018
1,620
1,411
545
Red flag laws are anti-American. Not only does it kill the 2nd amendment, it bypasses due process. There is nothing more American than warning thugs that you will slaughter them in self defense. This guy should be commended instead of having the FBI come and take his guns away, leaving him vulnerable to Antifa scum.


This law abiding citizen had his life taken due to these unconstitutional laws.

Any politician pushing/supporting these laws should be removed from office.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,078
3,307
720
The law doesn't look unconstitutional to me:


Meeting police with a gun, refusing to comply and going melee armed guy vs armed cops is what caused the incident.

Supreme court decides what is and what is not constitutional, I was told, not somebody who owns guns.

And last but not least, was it FBI or local police?
 
Last edited:

The Pleasure

Member
Jan 8, 2019
340
306
305
That milkshake is pretty dangerous. Get your semi automatic on that shit. Or I dunno. Be a man and use your marines training for five across the eyes?
 

Zefah

Member
Jan 7, 2007
33,551
152
1,105
In self defense. There is no point in having a gun if you're not going to use it to defend yourself.
“If Antifa gets to the point where they start killing us, I’m going to kill them next,"
“I’d slaughter them, and I have a detailed plan on how I would wipe out Antifa.”

I imagine this dude casts a pretty wide net when it comes to how he defines "us." Basically announcing that he is going to start a war against any and all antifa if there's ever a death in a conflict with them. Sounds like it goes a little beyond simple self defense.
 

deathkiller

Member
Jun 10, 2006
786
1
1,100
In self defense. There is no point in having a gun if you're not going to use it to defend yourself.
“If antifa gets to the point where they start killing us, I’m going to kill them next,” Kohfield, 32, said. “I’d slaughter them and I have a detailed plan on how I would wipe out antifa.”
This doesn't seem like something that would fall within self-defense laws, I understand the feeling but unless they are in the process of attacking you it should be up to the police to identify and apprehend murderers.
 

TheGreatYosh

Member
Jul 19, 2018
1,620
1,411
545
The law doesn't look unconstitutional to me:


Meeting police with a gun, refusing to comply and going melee armed guy vs armed cops is what caused the incident.

Supreme court decides what is and what is not constitutional, I was told, not somebody who owns guns.

And last but not least, was it FBI or local police?
They should have never come to his home in the first place. If these shit laws weren't a thing he would still be alive.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,078
3,307
720
They should have never come to his home in the first place. If these shit laws weren't a thing he would still be alive.
Police doesn't create laws, apparently, and it's their duty to follow them.
If even FBI was involved, the guy had been considered very dangerous, and given how he acted, he really was.

Had anyone filed complaint about the law being "unconstitutional"?
 

TheGreatYosh

Member
Jul 19, 2018
1,620
1,411
545
This doesn't seem like something that would fall within self-defense laws, I understand the feeling but unless they are in the process of attacking you it should be up to the police to identify and apprehend murderers.
Exactly. It should be handled by the police after the fact. I am against this pre-crime shit as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: #Phonepunk#

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
669
337
255
I disagree. "Red flag" laws, as you call them, can be crafted in rational and fully constitutional ways.

Specific laws might be too open-ended, but that's not a reason to have no such law in the first place. Reform them.

That would be like saying police abuse means there should be no police at all (I know, some folks claim to want that...I don't).

It's not pre-crime. You need fair and reasonable standards behind such laws, including evidentiary thresholds, but it's tragic when an individual is literally broadcasting to their friends, family and/or workplace that they are likely to engage in gun violence...and then nothing happens until a massacre has been carried out, because nobody took that seriously.
 
Last edited:

TheGreatYosh

Member
Jul 19, 2018
1,620
1,411
545
Police doesn't create laws, apparently, and it's their duty to follow them.
If even FBI was involved, the guy had been considered very dangerous, and given how he acted, he really was.

Had anyone filed complaint about the law being "unconstitutional"?
Not really. Some unknowns with guns come banging on your door out of nowhere. I would be on edge as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stimpak

TheGreatYosh

Member
Jul 19, 2018
1,620
1,411
545
I disagree. "Red flag" laws, as you call them, can be crafted in rational and fully constitutional ways.

Specific laws might be too open-ended, but that's not a reason to have no such law in the first place. Reform them.

That would be like saying police abuse means there should be no police at all (I know, some folks claim to want that...I don't).

It's not pre-crime. You need fair and reasonable standards behind such laws, including evidentiary thresholds, but it's tragic when an individual is literally broadcasting to their friends, family and/or workplace that they are likely to engage in gun violence...and then nothing happens until a massacre has been carried out, because nobody took that seriously.
It's not as I call them. I know Captain Eye Patch is trying to soften the name, but I didn't come up with the name.
 

pennythots

Member
May 14, 2019
820
1,233
445
Lot of red herrings in that wonderful piece of news called journalism. Here's something they kindly summarized.

Fox:

Kohfield previously wrote to U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, a former Navy SEAL, to share his concern about Antifa and voice his support for having the group declared a terrorist organization, a step that President Trump has considered.
Oregonlive:

Kohfield told Crenshaw that Congress needed to take immediate steps to declare antifa a terrorist organization. Otherwise, he and other veterans would have no choice but to begin systematically killing antifa members “until we have achieved genocide.” Kohfield included a detailed outline of how he would carry out the mission, which he argued would be legally justified if the federal government refused to act.
Probably prevented another mass shooter. Good, may he never touch a gun until he's demonstrated he can be trusted.
 

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
669
337
255
Red flag is the death of due process. It will be weaponized against political enemies.
Again, this assumes all such laws are going to be created equal. Which isn't and wouldn't be true.

It's possible to both respect due process and no longer continue to irresponsibly fail to do anything.

Lot of red herrings in that wonderful piece of news called journalism. Here's something they kindly summarized.
Yikes. That does present a completely different picture. I wonder why such facts weren't mentioned.
 
Last edited:

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
2,003
2,581
410
As much as the Left would like it, they will never be able to repeal the 2A. It's not even practical, it's like saying get rid of every bong in the country. Secondly, the country isn't with them on this. Every time Democrats try to start gun grabbing, their public favorability plummets (outside of the coasts anyway) and they are removed from power. Last, the public knows that gun control does not work. They see it in action in places like Chicago and they hear Democrats trying to talk authoritatively on the subject when they don't even know the difference between an AR and a Mini 14 and they aren't with them on the topic. Plus, a TON of blue state Democrats own guns and are just as passionate about the 2A as those on the right are.

The Democrats are foie gras if they try it, which I hope they do. Not only will it be funny, they'll be fucked for a decade.
 

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
669
337
255
As much as the Left would like it, they will never be able to repeal the 2A. It's not even practical, it's like saying get rid of every bong in the country. Secondly, the country isn't with them on this. Every time Democrats try to start gun grabbing, their public favorability plummets (outside of the coasts anyway) and they are removed from power. Last, the public knows that gun control does not work. They see it in action in places like Chicago and they hear Democrats trying to talk authoritatively on the subject when they don't even know the difference between an AR and a Mini 14 and they aren't with them on the topic. Plus, a TON of blue state Democrats own guns and are just as passionate about the 2A as those on the right are.

The Democrats are foie gras if they try it, which I hope they do. Not only will it be funny, they'll be fucked for a decade.
Actually banning or confiscating guns from the population in general absolutely has no future in the U.S. I can agree with that. However, that's a totally extreme and unlikely scenario. Not even if the Democrats had control of Congress, which would also require a number of moderate legislators in certain states.

Yet there's a difference issue at stake. Most people, are in fact, becoming increasingly supportive of restricting the rights of mentally disturbed people. Because if you're going to pose a real danger to others, as supported by proper evidence and due process, then maybe you should be locked up and/or temporarily lose your gun rights.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: undrtakr900

Mihos

Gold Member
May 10, 2009
6,248
1,470
1,105
steamcommunity.com
Most of the gun laws
Actually banning or confiscating guns from the population in general absolutely has no future in the U.S. I can agree with that. However, that's a totally extreme and unlikely scenario. Not even if the Democrats had control of Congress, which would also require a number of moderate legislators in certain states.

Yet there's a difference issue at stake. Most people, are in fact, becoming increasingly supportive of restricting the rights of mentally disturbed people. Because if you're going to pose a real danger to others, as supported by proper evidence and due process, then maybe you should be locked up and/or temporarily lose your gun rights.
Only reason Democrats aren't falling over themselves on gun control is anything other than a full-on ban is going to 'disproportionately effect certain demographics' and therefore is racist.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
808
803
360
As much as the Left would like it, they will never be able to repeal the 2A. It's not even practical, it's like saying get rid of every bong in the country. Secondly, the country isn't with them on this. Every time Democrats try to start gun grabbing, their public favorability plummets (outside of the coasts anyway) and they are removed from power. Last, the public knows that gun control does not work. They see it in action in places like Chicago and they hear Democrats trying to talk authoritatively on the subject when they don't even know the difference between an AR and a Mini 14 and they aren't with them on the topic. Plus, a TON of blue state Democrats own guns and are just as passionate about the 2A as those on the right are.

The Democrats are foie gras if they try it, which I hope they do. Not only will it be funny, they'll be fucked for a decade.
I have a good buddy at work who is the actual demographic unicorn: an extremely loyal Democrat, white, male, former Marine. He and I go back and forth over gun control in the USA at least once a month. We always seem to meet in the middle somewhere at "Well shit, if you really wanted to kill a fuckload of people, why the hell would you use a gun at all?"

There's shit you can buy and ship through the mail that would let you kill dozens of people at a time. On top of that, guns and all the ammo you would need are expensive, and easily traced. I do think we have a problem in this country with guns; I'd be really curious if there could be some movement made in regards to allowing the formation of non-government controlled militias, for example. That would stick with the letter of the law in regards to the 2A, at least (maybe not the spirit).

However, I don't know what people really expect to change by just nibbling around the edges and trying to bury legal gun ownership in bureaucratic red tape. If you really want to grab all the guns, just nut up and call for it. Trying to arbitrarily call something "assault style" to make it scarier isn't going to conflict with the 2A any less. If you really want to get rid of guns, then go after the 2nd Amendment directly, and reap the political fallout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeresJohnny

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
2,003
2,581
410
Actually banning or confiscating guns from the population in general absolutely has no future in the U.S. I can agree with that. However, that's a totally extreme and unlikely scenario. Not even if the Democrats had control of Congress, which would also require a number of moderate legislators in certain states.

Yet there's a difference issue at stake. Most people, are in fact, becoming increasingly supportive of restricting the rights of mentally disturbed people. Because if you're going to pose a real danger to others, as supported by proper evidence and due process, then maybe you should be locked up and/or temporarily lose your gun rights.
Agreed, but I don't see the sense in leaving someone who is mentally unstable and might use a gun to kill people free to roam anyway. I mean, if you're that close to being unhinged, you should be institutionalized, because A) guns can still be gotten by those so inclined even with their rights taken away and B) there are tons of other ways to kill people not involving guns. The human IS the weapon. His implement of choice can change but leaving him free and trying to take the implements away is backwards imo. Lock his ass up. The only thing I will say is that there better be clearly enumerated and transparent rules for such actions; it can't be some liberal judge deciding to lock up a gun owner because his ex-wife who hates him told them he's a threat when he really isn't.
 

TheGreatYosh

Member
Jul 19, 2018
1,620
1,411
545
Actually banning or confiscating guns from the population in general absolutely has no future in the U.S. I can agree with that. However, that's a totally extreme and unlikely scenario. Not even if the Democrats had control of Congress, which would also require a number of moderate legislators in certain states.

Yet there's a difference issue at stake. Most people, are in fact, becoming increasingly supportive of restricting the rights of mentally disturbed people. Because if you're going to pose a real danger to others, as supported by proper evidence and due process, then maybe you should be locked up and/or temporarily lose your gun rights.
This is disingenuous framing. Just like when they would say most people support equal pay for women, but these misogynist Republicans want women to make 70 cents on the dollar compared to a man! It's just framing to get the desired support. Most people are not bright enough to think things through, and they prey on that.
 
Last edited:

ChazPrime

Member
Jan 29, 2005
20
6
1,200
NYC
Actually banning or confiscating guns from the population in general absolutely has no future in the U.S. I can agree with that. However, that's a totally extreme and unlikely scenario. Not even if the Democrats had control of Congress, which would also require a number of moderate legislators in certain states.

Yet there's a difference issue at stake. Most people, are in fact, becoming increasingly supportive of restricting the rights of mentally disturbed people. Because if you're going to pose a real danger to others, as supported by proper evidence and due process, then maybe you should be locked up and/or temporarily lose your gun rights.
There was a phrase that was bandied about by the GOP in the wake of 9/11 when the government decided to routinely ignore the 4th Amendment... what was it again?

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact"
 

Weiji

Member
Jul 20, 2018
492
522
355
Being punished for not committing a crime is one thing but if you're saying you'll shoot someone it's kinda different. I disagree with red flag laws on principle but you just can't say you're gonna shoot someone man
If you make violent threats you should be arrested for said activity. Seizure or property without due process is illegal, and any judge who supports it, whether is civil asset forfeiture or gun grabbing isn’t a judge, they are an activist.
 

TheGreatYosh

Member
Jul 19, 2018
1,620
1,411
545
If you make violent threats you should be arrested for said activity. Seizure or property without due process is illegal, and any judge who supports it, whether is civil asset forfeiture or gun grabbing isn’t a judge, they are an activist.
Exactly. It didn't didn't meet the requirements for that so they used red flag laws to violate American rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: appaws

Vicetrailia

Formerly 'ViceUniverse'
Mar 12, 2019
394
140
295
This sounds like his fault to be frank.

I rather this than the banning of all guns.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,276
5,380
420
The Supreme Court will decide this.

Personally, I don’t care. If you are so retarded, you go to a congressman talking about committing genocide....the fuck is wrong with you?
 

Davey

Member
Jan 30, 2014
497
105
400
Venezuela
Haven't read the full note but, if it was supposed to be a political decision, they'd be better letting the man shoot someone
 

Ol'Scratch

Member
Feb 17, 2019
1,121
1,447
510
Exactly. It didn't didn't meet the requirements for that so they used red flag laws to violate American rights.
Selective reading? The real non Fox washed information was posted not more than a few posts up. Seems to meet many requirements.
 

TheGreatYosh

Member
Jul 19, 2018
1,620
1,411
545
Selective reading? The real non Fox washed information was posted not more than a few posts up. Seems to meet many requirements.
For red flag laws. That's why they confiscated his guns. A guy talking to Dan "It's good conservative gun confiscation" Crenshaw is not going to do anything.
 

CausticVenom

Member
Apr 27, 2018
997
543
350
“If Antifa gets to the point where they start killing us, I’m going to kill them next,"
“I’d slaughter them, and I have a detailed plan on how I would wipe out Antifa.”

I imagine this dude casts a pretty wide net when it comes to how he defines "us." Basically announcing that he is going to start a war against any and all antifa if there's ever a death in a conflict with them. Sounds like it goes a little beyond simple self defense.
It's only if they try to kill him. That's what he's implying.

ANTIFA already has a body count with the Dayton massacre.
 

Hesemonni

Junior Member
Feb 27, 2007
6,104
62
1,100
Finland
Antifa is a joke worldwide and if somebody feels the need the urge to weaponize due to that rabble the red flag laws might actually be, well, effective?
 
Dec 8, 2018
815
1,646
585
Kentucky
I personally own around 40ish firearms and even have a firing range built on my property.
That being said this guys comments were over the line and have nothing to do with self defense. The guy who answered the door with a firearm to a bunch of cops also was in the wrong and sounds like he put the officers in the kind of situation that left them little to no choice.

Red flag laws are not my favorite thing in the world as a gun owner because they leave a lot of room for interpretation for what is actually a red flag but neither of these two seem like they were in a good mental state to own weapons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Urban Viking

Zefah

Member
Jan 7, 2007
33,551
152
1,105
It's only if they try to kill him. That's what he's implying.

ANTIFA already has a body count with the Dayton massacre.
Even if he said "me," he's talking about a retaliation plan in which he systematically hunts down and kills everyone who identifies as antifa. That's unhinged. Regardless of my feelings for antifa, I'm not going to support an escalation of vigilante justice.
 
Dec 8, 2018
815
1,646
585
Kentucky
No, you come to my door at 5am I'm meeting you armed, you're in the wrong if you take issue with it.
No, if you put down your firearm to read what the officers are giving you, see that it is signed by a judge underneath a new law that your state has issued and then proceed to raise your firearm you deserve what you get. I preach this when i see it in the videos of people fighting with cops on the side of the road and I'll say it here. The time to fight and argue is with words in the court not during the altercation. Those cops had a signed order from a judge to be there and you have no legal right to fight that with a gun. The minute you raise your gun towards a police officer executing a legal order you are no longer a law abiding gun owner and are now a criminal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Torrent of Pork
Aug 22, 2018
392
432
360
Red flag laws are not my favorite thing in the world as a gun owner because they leave a lot of room for interpretation for what is actually a red flag but neither of these two seem like they were in a good mental state to own weapons.
In much the same way I wouldn't want an armchair psychologist, like yourself, determining who is and isn't fit to own firearms, I wouldn't want our government who are also not psychologists, to sign away someone's rights without a cross examination by a medical professional.
You're giving authorities the ability to pan over every post anyone has made online and determine who can exercise a right and who can't.
Humans are emotional, illogical, unthinking creatures many times and can easily post something they don't mean.
 
Last edited:
Dec 8, 2018
815
1,646
585
Kentucky
In much the same way I wouldn't want an armchair psychologist, like yourself, determining who is and isn't fit to own firearms, I wouldn't want our government who are also not psychologists, to sign away someone's rights without a cross examination by a medical professional.
You're giving authorities the ability to pan over every post anyone has made online and determine who can exercise a right and who can't.
Humans are emotional, illogical, unthinking creatures many times and can easily post something they don't mean.
So fight the laws that are going into place and stop electing people who are anti-2nd amendment. Getting into a gun fight in your yard because you threatened to kill a family member and gave them a reason to come get your guns isn't helping pro-gun arguments.
 

#Phonepunk#

Gold Member
Sep 4, 2018
6,282
8,039
625
Yeah I like the 2nd myself but only an idiot makes death threats via the internet.
Exactly. It should be handled by the police after the fact. I am against this pre-crime shit as well.
Yeah I don’t buy this “self defense” excuse. I don’t buy it for Antifa authoritarians and I don’t buy it for anyone.

Please keep your mass shooting fantasies off the internet, everyone
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGreatYosh

TheGreatYosh

Member
Jul 19, 2018
1,620
1,411
545
So fight the laws that are going into place and stop electing people who are anti-2nd amendment. Getting into a gun fight in your yard because you threatened to kill a family member and gave them a reason to come get your guns isn't helping pro-gun arguments.
The problem is most politicians either want to disarm the populace or don't really give a shit one way or the other. As someone mentioned in hear. The American people are the reason we still have any gun rights left. They're being eroded little by little, state by state though.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,617
11,091
805
Again, this assumes all such laws are going to be created equal. Which isn't and wouldn't be true.

It's possible to both respect due process and no longer continue to irresponsibly fail to do anything.
Would you support a bill that let me report @Nobody_Important so that the police could come to his house and take away his posting devices and duct tape his mouth despite the fact he committed no crime?

Don't get me wrong, i understand the intent of the law. And maybe in a sane society, it might even work. But given the fact we exist right now in a world where some would argue that @EviLore is running a hate site, or that NRA membership is proof of white supremacy, I do not trust the implementation of red flag laws long term. Do we deny all antifa and proudboys their right to bear arms?

Furthermore, i would argue if someone does rise to such a level of risk that we need to revoke their rights for public safety reasons despite the fact that they committed no crime, then perhaps we should be talking about involuntary residency in an asylum so they don't use a machete or truck. Now, obviously, imprisoning someone who has committed no crime seems like it may run slipshod over some of our rights... well, so do red flag laws for the same exact reason.

Most importantly, i simply see you stating we can 'respect due process' while having red flag laws. That's easy to say when you don't explain yourself. So.... Okay, how? Assume the person committed no crime. Now respect due process. Convince me you have a way to remove a law abiding citizen's rights without ignoring due process by actually explaining it, rather than just saying you can.
 

CausticVenom

Member
Apr 27, 2018
997
543
350
Even if he said "me," he's talking about a retaliation plan in which he systematically hunts down and kills everyone who identifies as antifa. That's unhinged. Regardless of my feelings for antifa, I'm not going to support an escalation of vigilante justice.
Only if his life is in danger, or did you not get that part?
 

Zefah

Member
Jan 7, 2007
33,551
152
1,105
Only if his life is in danger, or did you not get that part?
Let me link my post from earlier in the thread that contains quotes from the guy:


That's an if-then statement. Basically announcing that if antifa actions lead to someone's death, he is going to begin his premeditated plan to wipe them out.

Where did you get this idea that his statement applies only to himself (despite saying "us") and he would only take action when his life is actively in danger. That flies in the face of his actual words that say otherwise.
 
Aug 22, 2018
392
432
360
So fight the laws that are going into place and stop electing people who are anti-2nd amendment. Getting into a gun fight in your yard because you threatened to kill a family member and gave them a reason to come get your guns isn't helping pro-gun arguments.
I don't elect these sorts of people. I'm an individual and in this world only the collective is strong. Our new demographics in the United States, both legally allowed entry since 1965 and illegally allowed entry by our treasonous(insofar as they sought to replace the old population in the US and do so openly now) elected officials, do not believe in firearm rights. The only groups who do are European Americans(at a rate above 50% in a democracy) and even then it depends on which European Ethnicities they tended to be. See this survey on Firearm Control and who votes for it, who doesn't.

If we want a state where firearms are allowed to be carried, we're probably going to want a state of Germans, Brits, and Swedes. Even then, we're talking about old world versions of these ethnicities, perhaps the early US acted as a filter that selected for people who were more for individual liberty and self sufficiency, given that later European Migrants are less for individual liberty.

Data in image is compiled from the General Social Survey:


The only way I keep my firearm rights is a divorce from people who are ideologically opposed, they can and have never been convinced on a massive scale.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: TheGreatYosh