Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 35,391
- 9,170
But wait, temporarily removing firearms is not the same as locking someone up. This case is a great example of where local law enforcement could and should have had the ability to flag such a person in the background system and prevented the purchase in the first place.
The same goes for notorious drug users, domestic abusers and anyone awaiting trial.
So are the cops now required to provide 24/7 protection to the person now that they are disarmed?
If they get robbed and hurt while disarmed is the County/City now liable?
If you feel you need a firearm to "protect yourself" 24/7, you're probably the kind of person that shouldn't have one at all.
Nice attempt to dodge the question.
The government took an action to remove a person's ability to defend themself, for "the public good"
Why is the government not therefore liable for the safety of said person while they are disarmed?
I did answer the question. The goal is to protect others by removing the weapons from people who's mental stability is marginal.
The bulk of the population doesn't own a gun at all and has no issue with "defending themselves". Your fears are irrational.
Again, this isn't a choice made by an individual, this is something imposed on someone without them being convicted or even indicted for a criminal act, nor have they been mentally adjudicated via a court.
It's amazing how fast prog twats like you go for government power without government responsibility.
Next step, Nacht und Nebel, of course for the safety of the community, and they can only disappear for a year.
The types of people I've outlined are those who are most likely to commit violence with a firearm. It's temporary. Not unlike children being removed from a harmful environment by family services.