Read carefully…
7 Likes
Another reason I live in the desert
6 Likes
They are Democrats, after all.
(Moderators will delete in …5…4…3…2…)
Consider the left… which includes all totalitarian ideologies… including Marxism and Fascism.
They seek control… they seek power… and we have seen the evil they have caused.
10 Likes
Just curious here. Would you blame them? What does this topic have to do with the Guns or training? And yes, I know there are other threads that have nothing to do with either. I’m just asking.
Did you notice the category? Legal and Second Amendment.
There are many areas that fit into that.
Should we only discuss what @Fish finds acceptable or allowable?
There are topics I find totally worthless and absurd, yet I simply avoid them.
@USCCA;
Moderators, please explain what is the problem.
The category was legal… which the detainment of people when declared a health risk is… and it does impact firearms, and self defense… and the Second Amendment.
I already responded to @Fish, and explained the context and how I viewed his comment… and showed where the law makes the statement and does impact firearms and the Second Amendment as well as other amendments including the 5th, 14th, and 4th.
I also took exception to the idea that we are ONLY to talk about the ‘legal use of firearms’ and ‘training’ and nothing else… not holsters… not ammunition… nothing. which is what @Fish was suggesting. Again, I already addressed this in a response to him to explain what my comment meant and what the category covers and that I do not believe we are to be limited to just the legal use of guns and training.
I also notice others who responded in a similar fashion to @Fish did NOT get flagged… so , is it a moderator issue or a @Fish issue…
If a @Fish issue, apparently conciliatory type comments and explanations are not acceptable
6 Likes
How many threads in/on this forum deal with covid or other not purely personal defense using a firearm topics? Is there an algorithm that we can apply? What prevents anyone not interested in the discussion from moving on to the next?
Category is “Legal and Second Amendment”
Pending/proposed legislation would fall under legal, would it not?
It will be intresting to see if commenting ‘they are Democrats’ is enough to get this thread censored.
Personally I see that as more of a fact then an insult, unless of course there is a desire to hide who they are (or what they stand for).
6 Likes
This is the perfect example of what happens when the term for the greater good starts getting tossed around.
The language is plenty vague enough for the power to be abused. Since governments don’t have a history of NOT abusing power New York better wake up and take back their state.
8 Likes
I did notice the category. But the thread still has nothing to do with the legal use of guns or any type of training. I asked a simple question and all of a sudden I’m accused of defining acceptable or allowable. I really enjoyed the USCCA Community when I joined. Now, however, the majority of the posts are filled with politics and so much conspiracy theory that I can no longer just read and enjoy, but have to wade through all the trash, hoping to find a nugget of real information. And it seems to me that most of the true conspiracy threads and other (IMHO) nonsense seem to come from the same six or so people.
I agree and I have most threads muted.
I was simply replying to the not so subtle dig at the moderators. They have a very difficult job trying to maintain the Community while still giving all of us a bit of latitude and freedom. And trying to do that while some people think they are protected by the First Amendment here.
There are many people here which I believe have earned my respect, many that I listen to and learn from. There are also those that I normally don’t see anything from because it is possible to mute individuals I don’t believe have anything to add to the Community. Each of us makes those choices. I’ll continue to enjoy the Community and to just mute threads I’m not interested in and be happy to contribute where and when I can, but, for the enjoyment of others, this will be my last post in THIS particular thread.
3 Likes
@Fish
What if you were to put your objection to one sentence fragment from one person behind you and, rather then focusing in that, added to the conversation about the pending legislation.
The title fits the topic and it interested you enough to come into the thread to begin with, didn’t it?
Unless you consider a link to pending legislation on a dot Gov web site to be to too conspiratorial for your tastes?
I’m hopeful that your interests are more towards reviewing, and discussing, the legislation then in expressing your dislikes.
4 Likes
@Fish
The moderators have been rather strict on some issues… and not on others, and some in here have been far too sensitive, so that a factual statement is flagged…
I know the moderators have a difficult job, yet the standards seem to change some… one thread was deleted, totally gone… and yet, everyone in it was cordial and in agreement… no name calling, no arguments.
I was not aware this forum was ONLY for legal use of firearms and training. There are many subjects not related to legal use of firearms or training.
Legal to me is legal… ,meaning anything that might impact us and the right to keep and bear arms.
If New York implements the legislation
§ 2120-A. REMOVAL AND DETENTION OF CASES, CONTACTS AND CARRIERS WHO
ARE OR MAY BE A DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH; OTHER ORDERS. 1. THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE UTILIZED IN THE EVENT THAT THE GOVERNOR
DECLARES A STATE OF HEALTH EMERGENCY DUE TO AN EPIDEMIC OF ANY COMMUNI-
CABLE DISEASE.
it will impact the rights of those impacted. The right to freedom of movement will be denied, the right to due process will be denied… and the right to keep and bear arms will be denied… .it already virtually is denied in NYC and New York state as it is.
ANY COMMUNICABLE DISEASE… includes the flu… and many other illnesses , so this does have a legal issue regarding firearms, use of firearms, and the right to keep and bear.
Sorry if you did not connect the dots as others have, we all see things differently, but your comment to me came across as inane… and in a vein similar to others who have been more trollish and complaining than discussing.
Sorry if my reply was too harsh, but
this did not come across well.
I made the mistake of assuming everyone saw the impact on our rights by legislation such as this.
Sorry
As far as muting threads… that is your choice… but you may miss out on interesting discussions… that pop up from time to time in various threads and under different topics.
6 Likes
Definitely leaning toward FB and the others. Pretty natural as it grows, which is unfortunate. Still, a lot of nice folks and good info if you hunt for it.
3 Likes
Just waiting for the roadblocks to start going up.
5 Likes
…THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE COMMISSIONER OR THE HEADS OF LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS, MAY ORDER THE REMOVAL AND/OR DETENTION OF SUCH A PERSON OR OF A GROUP OF SUCH PERSONS BY ISSUING A SINGLE ORDER, IDEN-
TIFYING SUCH PERSONS EITHER BY NAME OR BY A REASONABLY SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE INDIVIDUALS OR GROUP BEING DETAINED
The verbiage justifying the ‘detention’ of a group identified by ‘a reasonably specific description’ is more than a little concering.
How would say…Unvacinated Persons as a ‘reasonably specific description’??
7 Likes
It kind of does have to do with the 2nd amendment in that they are saying if you come in contact with a suspected infectious person they can send you where ever they want for detainment to an approved facility. That means no weapons, etc.
So what happens if they accuse you but but you have legal firearms(lets assume hunting rifles) in your home? Do they then confiscate those as well or leave them out with no one there?
If you read through this proposal it should scare everyone. All they have to do is say you came in contact with someone. No proof is required. They detain you for 3 days and while you can request a hearing they have up to 3 days after that to respond. So in reality they can detain you for almost a week with no grounds other than someone saying you came in contact with an infectious person.
During the 3 days they can also try to get a court order to mandate the detention.
This is such a alippery slope given the wording of the bill.
9 Likes
I usually like this term, however I’m calling this one a cliff. Nobody in their right mind should be ok with the government detaining people at will without a trial/hearing/search warrant.
The till they come for me story applies here. And all signs point to they want to come for people.
8 Likes
Interesting reading. This could become a huge cluster “F”. If one state starts this, how long before others follow suit? People are all ready pissed off in so many ways.
6 Likes
The truly scary part is Biden is considering him for attorney General. So when asked why politics matter this is why!!! Look at what he’s willing to do to his state it is absolutely foolish to believe he would not spread the lawlessness and overreaching power to rest of the country.
7 Likes
Appreciate the news on their proposal in NY.
Although that Bill itself was for me, not easy to follow, thought it interesting. I’ll keep an eye out for any updates. I normally have been disinterested in such policies. Couple of things also stood out to me:
I gathered it’s in response to those positive with Covid 19, and attempts to govern/legislate their quarantining. How vague it was as a Bill, seemed poorly written. It could have been my fault, could not find their clear definition of their use of the word “detain” (what that entails).
As I tried to understand it, find the benefits and/or potential problems with it.
2 Likes
Nothing against our Patriot brothers and sisters in NY but wouldn’t it be a good time for long-haul truckers to stop delivering food to NY? Who wants to risk being locked up?
6 Likes
Rat meat and pigeon are a delicacies in some places…
Albeit they don’t come from the sewers and dumpsters.
5 Likes