Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Stealthycat last won the day on February 24

Stealthycat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,022 Excellent

About Stealthycat

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    hunting, fishing, outdoors, FF, racquetball

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    New England Patriots

Recent Profile Visitors

5,453 profile views
  1. everyone please notice that fish doesn't want Red Flags to people unless they own guns .... why? IIRC you've said many times there is no confiscation being called for and yet, here we are with laws that target only gun owners and if a judge declares it, your guns are taken confiscated adjective (of property) taken or seized with authority. you are guilty until you can prove your innocence ... the exact opposite of the pillars of our judicial system. In cases like Cruz - rare, rare cases ..... I can see authorities making a house visit, talking to Cruz and the parents, explaining to everyone the evidence of threats and violence and maybe a removal of weapons by the parents or homeowners, voluntarily by Cruz but honestly in that case, Cruz himself should have been removed to a physc ward don't you think or some evaluations of some kind? Red Flag type laws I think could be used on a few dozen people yearly ......... the extreme violent and danger to themselves and others people that exist .......... I'm afraid its going to be used by the thousands in Colorado targeting gun owners and only gun owners. I've always said Red Flagging can be useful if done right (like they could maybe have done with Cruz and others who authorities know about)
  2. I missed this SaintsInDome2006 sorry If Assange broke laws yes, prosecute. Its that simple to me - whether good or bad come from it - isn't it that simple ?
  3. yes - in a case like Nikolas Cruz, I believe a police visit and discussing removing the weapons he had - all the weapons he had - would have been prudent including guns. That wouldn't have stopped him from buying black market, stealing guns, etc ..... but in a rare rare case like Cruz? Yes but what Colorado is doing is not like that correct, building on what you're saying is all ....
  4. ok but that's when convicted in a court of law = felons this Colorado law your Constitutional Right and legal rights on gun ownership are taken - without being found guilty and the burden is on the accused to prove their innocence and I would be kind ok with that IF it was applied equally and fairly to anyone who was obviously a threat to themselves and others ......... but its not, its only applicable to gun owners and that's where I have a massive problem with it
  5. I'll make a deal - would you favor a Red Flag law that includes ALL weapons being confiscated along with ANY other things that authorities decided were necessary to disarm and/or render someone incapable of hurting themselves or others ? Please keep your answer to one word. Because that'e NOT what your liberal buddies are doing - they're targeting gun owners only
  6. I'll tell you what - we can stop talking about Obama's massive failure on national security, cyber attacking, hacking and election interference when your liberals stop the witch hunts and works with Trump to get the citizens of this country a better economy., better health care, better border security etc deal ?
  7. I have Why don't you answer why only gun owners are being targeted? Why don't these types of laws cover all weapons and all types of treats of violence? I think you know why - this type of Colorado law is only designed to target gun owners. Its designed so that the burden of innocent falls on the gun owner, guilty until proven innocent and a loss of Constitutional Rights, ignoring all the other dangerous and threatening people that do not own guns at all. You know it, I know it, liberals know it, NRA knows it .... this is one of the reasons I am NRA, to fight these types of laws and discrimination. it didn't have to be this way either - the red flag law could have been written in a way that didn't target gun owners - that was fair and equal in reviewing the situations of anyone being reported. maybe they thought it would be overwhelming to do that, maybe they don't care about all violence and all threats .... I don't know, but its clear this CO law is anti-gun and targets only gun owners
  8. and this is from very liberal anti-Trump CNN one thing cannot be denied: Former President Barack Obama looks just plain bad. On his watch, the Russians meddled in our democracy while his administration did nothing about it..... But the Mueller report makes it clear that the Russian interference failure was Obama's alone. He was the commander-in-chief when all of this happened. If you consider Russian election interference a crisis for our democracy, then you cannot read the Mueller report, adding it to the available public evidence, and conclude anything other than Barack Obama spectacularly failed America. Subsequent investigations of this matter should explore how and why Obama's White House failed, and whether they invented the collusion narrative to cover up those failures.
  9. I am against this law If a man submitted an ERPO saying that his wife was threatening over and over to kill him, that she'd mentioned to her friends something to that effect, on social media etc .... but they didn't have any guns ..... what would police do? nothing - that Red Flag law only focuses on people with guns right ? next day, wife kills man with a knife, just like he said .... and the police did nothing ... that's a huge failure isn't it ? why wasn't the law written to try and intervene in ALL violent situations? ? only reason I can think of ..... if they're targeting gun owners do you not see that problem ?
  10. that's hilarious 2 years they tried to get Trump every way possible and failed .... but hey, burden of proof is still on Trump to prove he's innocent of Russia collusion ? I bet you still think Kavanaugh is guilty don't you ? guilty until proven innocent and then when the results are innocent, still brand as guilty? good gawd
  11. it actually has a lot to do with Obama ............. and his administration and the failures to stop Russia and/or whomever else in the world was meddling. We see that administration as setting up the Russia tied to Trump hoax, the very possible spying in Trump campaign, the dossier ... all tied to Obama, Hillary and the DNC. that all needs looking into doesn't it ?
  12. Trump wasn't President, in the years leading up to mid 2016 .... why didn't Obama's administration understand what was going on in the world, with the Russian's, with the Chinese or with Assange even? Trump was a businessman looking into business ...... Obama was President responsible for leading this country and part of that leading should have been to protect against other countries meddling in elections and cyber attacks right ? Obama failed - massively.
  13. you can go back and see where I've supported Red Flagging over and over ............ if its done right. It can be done wrong too. I have repeatedly said that people need to be addressed when there is enough evidence to support that they are a danger to themselves and/or others ... its not about having or not having a gun. You want to make this about guns - I want to make it about stopping people who are a threat. There is a vast difference I'm sorry you can't see that