Know any gun owners? Tell APD, Acevedo would like to "vet" them

[F350-6]

Big city police chiefs are basically just politicians. Politicians have a tendency to play to the home crowd and media.

Of course just in case he's serious about following through on this, anyone in the Austin area should report any extreme liberals they know. Make a note at the end how you're sure they will adamantly deny owning any guns. (You're technically not lying due to their extreme views and since they don't own guns, they would of course deny owning them)

 

[Orlando Marquez]

Let me attempt to clarify my position and possibly make a distinction that may bring some of us back on the same page. I inferred (I also realize Acevedo did not say these words, so if you want to slice the salami that thin, so be it) from the words "acting with a lot of hatred toward any particular group," and the context in which those words were used, that he was describing persons with a propensity toward violence.

I'm not saying we should all go turn in our neighbor who hates Mexicans and owns a safe full of guns.

You're asking us to profile, and I'm all for it. Hell yea. Our instincts have driven us to profile for hundreds of years and that is part of how we survive. Unfortunately, some men have feelings and they get hurt when you ask them to profile others. Everyone does it all time, and then deny it all the time too.

If I was sitting on a commercial plane and mid-flight, some middle eastern man in a white robe stood up holding an old clamshell Motorola or Nokia cell phone with his finger on the green SEND button and verbally repeated "Allahu Akbar", there would be a bit of concern on behalf of every living person on that plane. It's not illegal to do what this man is doing, but congradulations... you have just profiled. Simple process.


Acevedo pretty much said if you see someone suspicious, give them a heads up. If there is a lot of "concern" reported on an individual, they'd look into. If the "looking into" turned out to be a good solid citizen, they'd be left alone. Simple process.


Every land animal I know of already practices this type of profiling. Keep and eye out and pay close attention to a percieved threat. All Acevedo added was to report it if it activated your "pucker factor", that is really the only emotion he needs to hear about.

His statements made sense.

Sent from my Winchester 1300 Defender

 

[breakingcontact]

You're asking us to profile, and I'm all for it. Hell yea. Our instincts have driven us to profile for hundreds of years and that is part of how we survive. Unfortunately, some men have feelings and they get hurt when you ask them to profile others. Everyone does it all time, and then deny it all the time too.

If I was sitting on a commercial plane and mid-flight, some middle eastern man in a white robe stood up holding an old clamshell Motorola or Nokia cell phone with his finger on the green SEND button and verbally repeated "Allahu Akbar", there would be a bit of concern on behalf of every living person on that plane. It's not illegal to do what this man is doing, but congradulations... you have just profiled. Simple process.


Acevedo pretty much said if you see someone suspicious, give them a heads up. If there is a lot of "concern" reported on an individual, they'd look into. If the "looking into" turned out to be a good solid citizen, they'd be left alone. Simple process.


Every land animal I know of already practices this type of profiling. Keep and eye out and pay close attention to a percieved threat. All Acevedo added was to report it if it activated your "pucker factor", that is really the only emotion he needs to hear about.

His statements made sense.

Sent from my Winchester 1300 Defender

Welcome. You should have an interesting time here.

 

[Orlando Marquez]

Welcome. You should have an interesting time here.

It appears like a great forum. Lots of views and opinions. Exactly the kinds of things and interaction that makes us America strong.

Sent from my Winchester 1300 Defender

 

[breakingcontact]

It appears like a great forum. Lots of views and opinions. Exactly the kinds of things and interaction that makes us America strong.

Sent from my Winchester 1300 Defender

There you go. Enjoy.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

"If you somebody that's acting with a lot of hatred toward any particular group, especially if you know it's somebody that's a gun enthusiast, or armed with these type of firearms; and they're showing any type of propensity for hatred, it doesn't mean that we're going to take them to jail, but we might want to vet these people."

That is a completely reasonable statement. To suggest Acevedo said "Turn in all gun owners to the police" is to completely prostitute his words.

F-n hilarious.

He is only pleasantly asking people to rat out their neighbors. This is supposed to be taken as reasonable?

Doesn't help that he is a known anti-gun, communist scumbag who has met with Joe Biden. Joe Biden doesn't meet with folks who are actually pro-liberty, pro-Constitution. You know that, right?

As others have stated, there is no easy way to draw the line with what this fat dirtbag is asking for. What he said may sound reasonable to folks with actual common sense, but we all know this is just another excuse for all the yuppy libtards in Austin to rat out gun owners just because.

 

[jrbfishn]

Dammit, I hate when he says something I pretty much agree to.
To people like him, anyone that doesn't cower and call the police when they get scared , has a tendency towards violence and hate.

To any that think being turned in by your neighbors "to be vetted for your intentions" is reasonable. Exactly who is supposed to do the "vetting" and how? What are the police supposed to do when they get flooded with calls from liberals that think any gun owner is? Confiscate until they have time to vet you? What criteria and who gets to decide it? Him? Under what law is this done under? His?
Under going the background check is being "vetted". If that isn't enough, better reporting by law enforcement agencies, court and mental health workers to the system already in place would be a big help. If that isn't enough, then go through the Legislature to change the law.
His job is to enforce the law. Not try to create it through the press or fearmongering. The man needs to STHU and do his damn job.



from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[breakingcontact]

Dammit, I hate when he says something I pretty much agree to.
To people like him, anyone that doesn't cower and call the police when they get scared , has a tendency towards violence and hate.

To any that think being turned in by your neighbors "to be vetted for your intentions" is reasonable. Exactly who is supposed to do the "vetting" and how? What are the police supposed to do when they get flooded with calls from liberals that think any gun owner is? Confiscate until they have time to vet you? What criteria and who gets to decide it? Him? Under what law is this done under? His?
Under going the background check is being "vetted". If that isn't enough, better reporting by law enforcement agencies, court and mental health workers to the system already in place would be a big help. If that isn't enough, then go through the Legislature to change the law.
His job is to enforce the law. Not try to create it through the press or fearmongering. The man needs to STHU and do his damn job.



from an idgit coffeeholic

Hes following his boss in DC, got to figure out creative way to enforce laws that dont exist.

 

[NeckBeard]

I seriously cannot believe that people here (gun owners and so-called freedom loving patriots) would be onboard with this. This country truly has gone to hell.

 

[AustinN4]

To any that think being turned in by your neighbors "to be vetted for your intentions" is reasonable. Exactly who is supposed to do the "vetting" and how? What are the police supposed to do when they get flooded with calls from liberals that think any gun owner is? Confiscate until they have time to vet you? What criteria and who gets to decide it? Him? Under what law is this done under? His?
Under going the background check is being "vetted". If that isn't enough, better reporting by law enforcement agencies, court and mental health workers to the system already in place would be a big help. If that isn't enough, then go through the Legislature to change the law.

First off, I don't disagree with you. But let's try this one on - what about the person who passed a background check 10 or 20 years ago. Good solid citizen most of their life but is experiencing extreme strss in their lives (divorce, loss of job, home foreclosure all at once) and feels the world has turned against them. Lives alone and Is becoming increasing aggitated with life and the people around them, and expressing some pretty vivid feelings toward certain groups. Where is the background check in their lives at this point?

On the other hand, I don't want a vindictive neighbor or ex-wife fing up my life just because they can.

I think most of us would acknowledge that both types are in the minority but they are out there. How do we balance the 2 extremes?

 

[PapaG]

I don't know where the city of Austin would come up with the money to hire more $$ to pay to have any ot "vetted" let's see the property x owners wouldn't mind doing their fair share with a property tax increase? Maybe they can raise the sales tax on that, or just raise the number of tickets they write.

I wonder who picks these people to testify before congress? I think there are plenty of police chiefs who would have a different view. . Oh that's right they are elected no hired to do their jobs.

Just my 2 cents, you can keep the change.

 

[TXAZ]

There are so many ways for this to backfire, as has been seen in prior 'be our eyes and ears' / 'rat out your neighbor for lawful activities' calls from DC, DHS, Cali and other govt organizations.

From turning in list of police officers, politicos, reporters, priests and other 'wrong thinkers' in previous "thought police" sweeps this was an incredibly stupid move by an Aushole.

 

[breakingcontact]

There are so many ways for this to backfire, as has been seen in prior 'be our eyes and ears' / 'rat out your neighbor for lawful activities' calls from DC, DHS, Cali and other govt organizations.

From turning in list of police officers, politicos, reporters, priests and other 'wrong thinkers' in previous "thought police" sweeps this was an incredibly stupid move by an Aushole.

Just don't have "extreme views" or "hatred" and you'll be fine. Just don't hate socialism, liberalism or insist on believing in the constitution and rule of law, the Bible, traditional family, property rights, right to self-defense, right to resist tyrants...you'll be fine.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Is this extreme enough? Better go pickup Cherone.

 

[jrbfishn]

First off, I don't disagree with you. But let's try this one on - what about the person who passed a background check 10 or 20 years ago. Good solid citizen most of their life but is experiencing extreme strss in their lives (divorce, loss of job, home foreclosure all at once) and feels the world has turned against them. Lives alone and Is becoming increasing aggitated with life and the people around them, and expressing some pretty vivid feelings toward certain groups. Where is the background check in their lives at this point?

On the other hand, I don't want a vindictive neighbor or ex-wife fing up my life just because they can.

I think most of us would acknowledge that both types are in the minority but they are out there. How do we balance the 2 extremes?

Ok, turn everyone that gets stressed.
That's only about 99 percent of the population.
If they are really going to do it, they will find a way. By adding unlawful "vetting", you just might add the straw that breaks camel's back.
No matter what you do, you will not stop the lone person that wants to cause mayhem or hurt someone. No matter how many you vet or how many laws you pass. There are more than enough supplie readily available with no questions asked. They will do it. Period.
No matter how many you vet or how often. Period. Evil will find a way to act.


Sent by a idjit coffeeholic

 

[AustinN4]

Ok, turn everyone that gets stressed.

That is not what I said and you know it. I was adressing the posts that said the initial background check was all we needed.
But yes, there will always be a lone wolf that slips thru the system. I also wish the Sandy Hook shooter's mother had turned his ass in.

 

[breakingcontact]

That is not what I said and you know it. I was adressing the posts that said the initial background check was all we needed.
But yes, there will always be a lone wolf that slips thru the system. I also wish the Sandy Hook shooter's mother had turned his ass in.

Not destroying his brain with psychotropic drugs would have been a good start.

 

[AustinN4]

Not destroying his brain with psychotropic drugs would have been a good start.

That too! She was as sick as he was, but I still wish she had turned him in.

 

[breakingcontact]

If we follow the chiefs statements, he says on one hand we need "universal background checks" which is registration. On the other hand he says we need to "vet" people with "extreme views" or "hatred".

So he knows where you live.
He wants to know what you own and what you think.

 

[jrbfishn]

Yes, if someone will without a doubt cause harm, I can see that. But we can do that now.
But who is to say what views are extremeist? Conservatives or liberals?
Who gets to appoint the Thought Police?
Truth is, most people are extremeist to someone.


Sent by a idjit coffeeholic