RED FLAG on CBS “60 Minutes” Tonight 11/17/19
- Thread starter Deep Lurker
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Mar 22, 2019
- 2,365
In case you missed tonight’s broadcast (but do want to watch it!) the full video + full transcript of the story here on “60 Minutes Overtime”:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/red-flag-gun-laws-a-standoff-in-colorado-60-minutes-2019-11-17/
Image below: Serving Suggestion Only
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/red-flag-gun-laws-a-standoff-in-colorado-60-minutes-2019-11-17/
Image below: Serving Suggestion Only
Attachments
I noticed this exact same scene and thought why not show a different statue.
Thanks for bringing it up here.
Spot on.
I absolutely noticed the Civil War statue as well. I also saw that statue in my mind's eye, correctly or otherwise and I could be wrong, as being Confederate. My first thought was, what does that statue have to do with the subject matter being presented?
That question was answered for me clearly when Scott Pelley made rather turse mention to one of the sheriffs, that "nobody asked you", when the sheriff indicated his disagreement with the newly passed law that takes effect January 1, and his unwillingness to enforce it. He indicated that his first duty regarding law enforcement is to the COTUS, with his second duty being to the Constitution of the State of Colorado. Third would be laws passed by the state. But in this instance, he sees this "red flag" law as violating both of his first two obligations and allegiances.
The message with the commentary, coupled with the purposeful introduction of the Civil War statue, was IMO a purposeful effort to foster a connotation of open rebellion against what "should" be regarded as the "lawful" and "righteous" orders of the state.
I watched it and was surprised (not) that the local yokel farmer didn't mention that removing one tool from the toolbox isn't rendering anyone safer or maybe he did and it was edited out. The mentally ill guy who shot up the liberal Sheriff's deputy could just as easily have pulled a McVeigh among many other options.
PowPow
Where's the beef?
I haven't watched NFL in years, because Goodell supported the kneeling. But, oh man, he almost caught that ball at the end. Then we would have had to wait even longer for the propaganda!
Rather irksome were the constant shots of Pelley nodding his head when red flag advocates' views were being touted. There was no mention of Gary J. Willis. How can they do a "story" on red flag laws and not mention his name?
Rather irksome were the constant shots of Pelley nodding his head when red flag advocates' views were being touted. There was no mention of Gary J. Willis. How can they do a "story" on red flag laws and not mention his name?
Raineman
On the 3rd box
One of the people interviewed (in support of erpo) was a father whose son committed suicide at the age of 20. With his own gun, THAT HIS FATHER GAVE BACK TO HIM!! He had taken his son's apparently legally purchased firearms, and when the son threatened to go out and get one "off the street", his father gave them back to him with trigger locks on them, and the father held the keys. Well, the son got past the locks and ate a bullet. Father claims "red flag laws" would have prevented it, and he TOOK NO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in the matter. I was just amazed at how far from reality the father seemed.
PowPow
Where's the beef?
He would rather blame the gun than state where the blame actually resides. That 20 yr old could just as easily have walked in front of a moving vehicle, jumped off a bridge, or countless other options that don't involve arms of any kind.
davsco
Ultimate Member
none of this crap is about saving lives. if someone is on the edge enough, he/she should be taken out of circulation, and not just have one of many tool options (knife, car, gasoline, etc) taken away. but there needs to be severe repercussions for any false calls.
PapiBarcelona
Ultimate Member
- Jan 1, 2011
- 7,362
Segment was trash. Looked like a fill-in story/some way to waste time when there was nothing else interesting that week to talk about
I haven't watched 60 minutes in many years, but while watching football, I saw the teaser for this piece, and decided to check it out..
It was frustrating to me that in the case of the mentally ill person who shot everyone, and was used to justify the whole bill, the piece even said the police had been there several times over several months and knew there was a possibility of violence and that he had guns, and yet the justification for the law after the fact was that "it would take months" to resolve with current laws.. Well.. you just told us that you HAD MONTHS of warning, and did NOTHING with current laws...
abean4187
Ultimate Member
- Apr 16, 2013
- 1,327
I disagree. Local defiance of state and federal laws is a very good thing and gets the ball rolling on restoring our government back to its limited government constitutional roots.
There should be significantly more control at the local level which drastically decrease as the size of the government increases to state and federal agencies.
Muleskinner
Ultimate Member
Nope NADA no way. Gun legislation is 100% the Federal government's responsibilities. State and local governments have no business sticking their nose into 2nd amendment legislation. In fact the only real gun law on the books today is the second amendment. The Constitution is clear all rights not enumerated in the Constitution belong to the state however the second amendment is part of the Constitution there for the states have no rights to produce any firearms legislation pro or con. As I see it these sanctuary States and sanctuary counties trying to protect our second amendment rights are doing so as a symbolic gesture not as legislation. It won't stand up to the Court's scrutiny in blue States anyway.
Seems to me there is way too much that can go wrong. If there is an error and a person whose guns are seized is avictim of a home break in and killed but caould have been saved had they had their gun is a great example. Would the judge be allowed to be sued? Of course not. I also think judges are going to sign off on these left and right and many people will not cooperate and we will have dead citizens or cops. NOw threats of violence then there is room for a conversation but they can say that someone saying "our founders would be shooting by now" is a threat. its not. Its an opinion. And i liked how the one guy says "Its only up to 21 days and then a decision is reached" This reminds me of minority report where they try to convict people of crimes they will commit but have not yet. If that is the case what would liberals say if we say that 1 or out 6 black males will commit a felony. Are one out of 6 guns in the country used in a crime? one out of 200? one out of 5000? They dont like stats then do they? I do not think a court will overturn red flags but i hope they make the bar really high and say states must give remedies.
