MNGunTalk.com

Yes i've read through all that, but it doesn't specify if the affidavit under oath requires video/audio/electronic/physical evidence, or just the accuser's sworn statement which could easily contain fabricated statements dates times.

Not to drift too far off topic, last night on one of the PBS 'news' broadcast, a considerable amount of time was given to a live interview with David Hogg



He was allowed to ramble on, unchallenged about all manner of nonsense. He admitted he has some personal political ambitions.
But the line that got me to turn channels was when he suggested that if there wasn't passed the various red flag laws, that his might well be the last generation of students on the face of the earth. . .
. . .quite the little drama queen.

ETA: typo

On the news I caught a bit of an anti-gun rally at the Capitol. I saw a sign by the podium that read "Actually Guns DO Kill People."

I suspect it will be challenging to convince the left wing otherwise. How can people get entrenched in such nonsense. And they talk about "common sense" gun laws, whatever that means.

Rodentman wrote:On the news I caught a bit of an anti-gun rally at the Capitol. I saw a sign by the podium that read "Actually Guns DO Kill People."

I suspect it will be challenging to convince the left wing otherwise. How can people get entrenched in such nonsense. And they talk about "common sense" gun laws, whatever that means.

The hard core anti-gun crowd cannot be educated or convinced that their positions are wrong. Trying to change their mind is a waste of time.
b

Rodentman wrote:On the news I caught a bit of an anti-gun rally at the Capitol. I saw a sign by the podium that read "Actually Guns DO Kill People."

I suspect it will be challenging to convince the left wing otherwise. How can people get entrenched in such nonsense. And they talk about "common sense" gun laws, whatever that means.

I offer a gun baby sitting service for folks who are worried that their guns might go out and hurt someone. Very reasonable rates and I take ammo as a form of payment if preferred.

bstrawse wrote: Trying to change their mind is a waste of time.
b

Most important part

Ghost wrote:

bstrawse wrote: Trying to change their mind is a waste of time.
b

Most important part

Yep, just gotta keep reaching out to the 95% who don’t have a strong opinion,

dismal wrote:

Ghost wrote:

bstrawse wrote: Trying to change their mind is a waste of time.
b

Most important part

Yep, just gotta keep reaching out to the 95% who don’t have a strong opinion,

My guess is 95% is a bit optimistic

Holland&Holland wrote:

dismal wrote:
Yep, just gotta keep reaching out to the 95% who don’t have a strong opinion,

My guess is 95% is a bit optimistic

Is that 95% of his 95% or 100% of his 95%.

Ghost wrote:

xd ED wrote:

Ghost wrote:I also think anyone who makes a false claim should get a 144 hour hold in return.

You've gotten close to one of the most insidious aspects of the proposed MN Red Flag law; once adjudicated, one must somehow prove he is not a threat.
As I understand the intended law,
It is apparently not enough that they cannot prove you are a threat. And the level of evidence (for lack of a more correct legal term) is somewhere above a preponderance of evidence; the requirement for a civil suit, but just short of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous. Guilty until proven innocent by your attorney at the expense of your life savings.

Sounds like one of the tenets of socialism to me. Why the shock? We are living in the era of the green new deal.