Dan Crenshaw on mass shootings

Robert2888 · Aug 21, 2019

There is a vetting process by the powers that run things in Amurrica for any candidate running for office in any election higher than local school board. Unless you pass muster, no pieces of silver or media airtime for you. Until recently there was really only three major issues separating the two sides of the same coin political parties running this country, abortion, gay marriage and gun rights. So the push for legalization of degenerate behavior was settled and now both agree that you better bake that cake. Now we are witnessing the exact same playbook on civilian disarmament, again by both parties. I mean everyone knows this right? It is common knowledge that in American elections, you vote for the least worse candidate, which should really make this crystal clear.

Occam · Aug 21, 2019

If one has actually listened to Crenshaw when he has the floor during committee hearings and in the many interviews he's provided that touch on everything from health care to regulation to banking to immigration to seating justices and more, you'd know that he identifies MANY things that separate him and his party from the crazy lefties. He speaks eloquently on those issues, and with more passion and understanding of the constitution that nearly all of his peers. I've found far more to like about him than to dislike. Informed, quick witted, and with an admirable history of walking the walk. Compared to most of his colleagues, he's worth keeping.

SigZag · Aug 21, 2019

Occam said:
If one has actually listened to Crenshaw when he has the floor during committee hearings and in the many interviews he's provided that touch on everything from health care to regulation to banking to immigration to seating justices and more, you'd know that he identifies MANY things that separate him and his party from the crazy lefties. He speaks eloquently on those issues, and with more passion and understanding of the constitution that nearly all of his peers. I've found far more to like about him than to dislike. Informed, quick witted, and with an admirable history of walking the walk. Compared to most of his colleagues, he's worth keeping.

I agree Dan's been a solid guy on issues across the board but why in the heat of the moment would he appear to jump in with the knee jerkers? Here's his comments that sparked the backlash: “These disgusting mass shootings have been following a pattern ever since Columbine. Sick and lonely men have decided this is how they will vent their frustration.…The solutions aren’t obvious, even if we pretend they are. But we must try. Let’s start with the TAPS Act. Maybe also implement state ‘red flag’ laws, or gun violence restraining orders. Stop them before they can hurt someone.” Why jump into the fray at all only to jump in from the left? Also, was Joe wearing a Space Force shirt?

jstolz · Aug 21, 2019

I don’t get the point of overly criticizing representatives of other areas. I may hate AOC’s politics but if she represents what her constituents want than I can’t be mad.

inkd · Aug 22, 2019

SigZag said:
I agree Dan's been a solid guy on issues across the board but why in the heat of the moment would he appear to jump in with the knee jerkers? Here's his comments that sparked the backlash: “These disgusting mass shootings have been following a pattern ever since Columbine. Sick and lonely men have decided this is how they will vent their frustration.…The solutions aren’t obvious, even if we pretend they are. But we must try. Let’s start with the TAPS Act. Maybe also implement state ‘red flag’ laws, or gun violence restraining orders. Stop them before they can hurt someone.” Why jump into the fray at all only to jump in from the left? Also, was Joe wearing a Space Force shirt?

That's my cause for concern. He always came across as a rational, well spoken man who seems to give much thought to what he says, before he says it.

Why jump in with the knee jerk reaction group? If that is truly his position, then he is not someone worth keeping.

PJDiesel · Aug 22, 2019

krucam said:
Crenshaw is on our side. Be happy for that. Hell, listen to the video and tell me differently...he’s far from being a RINO.

That's what I was thinking.....

Sometimes it seems like some gun owners would only happy with a Nugent/Bob Ritchie ticket.

I'd like to have someone with an ACTUAL brain for a change, not just a bumbling fool like we usually end up with.

r3t1awr3yd · Aug 22, 2019

JMintzer said:
Did anyone bother to watch the interview?

By the comments I've read, I can only surmise that's it's a definite no...

This. I listened and five minutes in, I realize what a friend has told me about him isn't even close to accurate.

It's incredible how issues can get conflated and just like CNN news, whatever gets out first, even if it's untrue, is what seems to stick.

jrumann59 · Aug 22, 2019

I just listened to whole podcast and he believes the issues of mass shootings is a states issue. He also does believe in red flag type laws but believes the citizens have to make sure the laws are good laws and not open to loopholes. He believes in due diligence and that citizens need that also.

But like many here they only go skin deep and not 2-3 levels down. Idea of "red flag" laws is a good idea where it becomes an issue is implementation due to how different states laws and legislators act. So now many here hear Red Flag laws and conflate it like the left does with fully semi automatic. I have no doubt many on these boards could draft a pretty much bullet proof Red Flag law "most" of us would get behind, it is the implementation that will be the issue.

smokey · Aug 23, 2019

SigZag said:
I agree Dan's been a solid guy on issues across the board but why in the heat of the moment would he appear to jump in with the knee jerkers? Here's his comments that sparked the backlash: “These disgusting mass shootings have been following a pattern ever since Columbine. Sick and lonely men have decided this is how they will vent their frustration.…The solutions aren’t obvious, even if we pretend they are. But we must try. Let’s start with the TAPS Act. Maybe also implement state ‘red flag’ laws, or gun violence restraining orders. Stop them before they can hurt someone.” Why jump into the fray at all only to jump in from the left? Also, was Joe wearing a Space Force shirt?

It is worth mentioning in that comment that he says "STATE red flag laws". He later clarified that the type of red flag laws he would support are those with due process, and that he's oppose those without due process safeguards. This is much more tolerable, but I still oppose them on the grounds that red flag laws are based on the assumption that legal access to firearms is what makes it possible for a known dangerous person to harm others. If a person is found through due process to be an imminent threat, the conversation should not be about his or her access to firearms. The conversation should be about that person's access to society. If you don't have evidence to lock a person up against their will, you don't have evidence to strip them of any other rights either.

It's also just bad policy to think removing a threat's ability to legally keep and bear arms means that person is no longer a threat. The Nice truck attack, the boston bombing, the happy land fire, the Aum Shinrikyo sarin attack, and 9-11 all demonstrate that dangerous people can easily kill without firearms. Most violent crimes that are committed with illegally obtained firearms prove that removing someone's legal access to firearms means nothing to a criminal.

For those reasons, even though Crenshaw's support of red flag is limited to the state level(not the federal), and to those versions with due process, I have to denounce his support of them as dangerous and misguided.

I do think that overall he is one of the best politicians in government, but it sucks he had to go and be on the wrong side for this one.

Steve_Zissou · Aug 23, 2019

SigZag said:
I agree Dan's been a solid guy on issues across the board but why in the heat of the moment would he appear to jump in with the knee jerkers? Here's his comments that sparked the backlash: “These disgusting mass shootings have been following a pattern ever since Columbine. Sick and lonely men have decided this is how they will vent their frustration.…The solutions aren’t obvious, even if we pretend they are. But we must try. Let’s start with the TAPS Act. Maybe also implement state ‘red flag’ laws, or gun violence restraining orders. Stop them before they can hurt someone.” Why jump into the fray at all only to jump in from the left? Also, was Joe wearing a Space Force shirt?

It's just because Crenshaw's nothing but McCain 2.0, the next warmongering neocon stooge hiding behind his service to shill himself to a conservative base that wouldn't give him the time of day if he wasn't wearing that eyepatch.

Don't take the bait.

inkd · Aug 24, 2019

smokey0118 said:
It is worth mentioning in that comment that he says "STATE red flag laws". He later clarified that the type of red flag laws he would support are those with due process, and that he's oppose those without due process safeguards. This is much more tolerable, but I still oppose them on the grounds that red flag laws are based on the assumption that legal access to firearms is what makes it possible for a known dangerous person to harm others. If a person is found through due process to be an imminent threat, the conversation should not be about his or her access to firearms. The conversation should be about that person's access to society. If you don't have evidence to lock a person up against their will, you don't have evidence to strip them of any other rights either.

It's also just bad policy to think removing a threat's ability to legally keep and bear arms means that person is no longer a threat. The Nice truck attack, the boston bombing, the happy land fire, the Aum Shinrikyo sarin attack, and 9-11 all demonstrate that dangerous people can easily kill without firearms. Most violent crimes that are committed with illegally obtained firearms prove that removing someone's legal access to firearms means nothing to a criminal.

For those reasons, even though Crenshaw's support of red flag is limited to the state level(not the federal), and to those versions with due process, I have to denounce his support of them as dangerous and misguided.

I do think that overall he is one of the best politicians in government, but it sucks he had to go and be on the wrong side for this one.

randomuser · Aug 24, 2019

after learning more about the taps act.... how do you feel?

They are in order of most important/in depth to least.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN2xQGKnZx8&list=WL&index=6&t=0s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htZKqhRJI5E&list=WL&index=5&t=0s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCaE_r3Vg1o&list=WL&index=4&t=7s

rascal · Sep 4, 2019

smokey0118 said:
It is worth mentioning in that comment that he says "STATE red flag laws". He later clarified that the type of red flag laws he would support are those with due process, and that he's oppose those without due process safeguards. This is much more tolerable, but I still oppose them on the grounds that red flag laws are based on the assumption that legal access to firearms is what makes it possible for a known dangerous person to harm others. If a person is found through due process to be an imminent threat, the conversation should not be about his or her access to firearms. The conversation should be about that person's access to society. If you don't have evidence to lock a person up against their will, you don't have evidence to strip them of any other rights either.

It's also just bad policy to think removing a threat's ability to legally keep and bear arms means that person is no longer a threat. The Nice truck attack, the boston bombing, the happy land fire, the Aum Shinrikyo sarin attack, and 9-11 all demonstrate that dangerous people can easily kill without firearms. Most violent crimes that are committed with illegally obtained firearms prove that removing someone's legal access to firearms means nothing to a criminal.

For those reasons, even though Crenshaw's support of red flag is limited to the state level(not the federal), and to those versions with due process, I have to denounce his support of them as dangerous and misguided.

I do think that overall he is one of the best politicians in government, but it sucks he had to go and be on the wrong side for this one.

i quoted you in full because your statement is reasoned rational and i agree 99%
I am very glad to see you use the phrase denounce his support of". There are obvious a number of people on the thread who did not listen to the interview and that is problematic. And there are also people who would denounce him in general.

Fact is unfortunately right now UBC and red flag poll at 80% to 90% including the strong majority of Republican and independent voters.

Even trump and other 2A supporters had a problem this week with his claim that UBC checks would no have stoppled any of the recent high profile killings, since the second Texas mass murder in fact turn out to have been a guy flagged by nics for adjudicated mental illness, turned down by th FFL -- and then who then LEGALLY purchased his firearm in a no background check private sale. Bloomberg's minons are going to use that clip of Trump and the facts of that purchase to argue for UBC.

The constitution matters -- but so do political realities. I mean how many people here who just throw out "will not comply" and "shall not infringe" are illegally carrying guns without a permit in maryland? My guess is few to none.

it is exactly right to call red flag a pre-crime concept that is ripe for abuse. But it is also right not to give over the field by taking positions that can't be sustained.

rascal · Sep 4, 2019

JMintzer said:
Did anyone bother to watch the interview?
By the comments I've read, I can only surmise that's it's a definite no...

Indeed.

HoCoShooter · Sep 5, 2019

It's sad to see politicians that are 'on our side' be so misguided. Not from a policy standpoint, but from the angle that they think any negotiating on the 2A is acceptable. I wonder how many congressfolks are gunowners that truly value the right vs. those that just shuffle with what they think they should be doing based on party affiliation.

press1280 · Sep 5, 2019

hooligan82 said:
I don’t align with most of Rogans views. From everything I’ve seen it’s a great platform to get a feel for someone’s point of view on topics. He tends to let a conversation happen, sometimes I wish he would press people to explain their position better on certain topics but that would change the dynamic of his podcast.

And it also puts people on defense and they simply retreat to their talking points.
Jordan Peterson was on his show and gave a good explanation why his podcast is so good. By not getting into debates and being confrontational with people, you're much likelier to find out what they're REALLY thinking.

Dan Crenshaw on mass shootings

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Meh.

DILLIGAF

2A TEACHER

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics