You heard me talk about Maine wanting to take your guns away, right? Joe Biden is going all in on gun confiscation. I told ya so.

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

where ever they are being used,,

do you live under a rock??

So it should be easy for you to provide an example

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

But, as you very well know, it is a very small step to get there. And this corrupt administration has shown a willingness to take very large steps to attack its political enemies.

Any law has the potential for abuse.

 

[progressive hunter]

So it should be easy for you to provide an example

oh for fucks sake you mither fuckers are dumber than an earth worm,,
do you even know what red flag laws are??

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

oh for fucks sake you mither fuckers are dumber than an earth worm,,
do you even know what red flag laws are??

So you can't provide an example?

 

[progressive hunter]

Any law has the potential for abuse.

just like laws that violate the constitution can and have been passed many times,,

 

[progressive hunter]

So you can't provide an example?

an example of what??

red flag laws are a law that give the police power to come in and take away your rights just because someone has said you could be dangerous and have guns,,,

then after that happens if you survive you might be able to get them back in a yr or so after a long series of doctor visits and court hearings,,

thats the opposite of due process,,

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

an example of what??

Exactly.

red flag laws are a law that give the police power to come in and take away your rights just because someone has said you could be dangerous and have guns,,,

then after that happens if you survive you might be able to get them back in a yr or so after a long series of doctor visits and court hearings,,

thats the opposite of due process,,

False

Have a nice day.

 

[progressive hunter]

Exactly.

Have a nice day.

Exactly.



False

Have a nice day.

of course you had to edit out the rest of my comment to deflect from your ignorance,,,

typical leftist tactic,,

 

[westwall]

Any law has the potential for abuse.

Some more so than others. Any law that abrogates due process is a non starter.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Some more so than others. Any law that abrogates due process is a non starter.

Then I guess it’s good red flag laws don’t do that

 

[Captain Caveman]

MSN

So far that i know, the Mentally Ill Democrats who went on murdering sprees in the public schools, should of been RED FLAGGED at the start, but then there wouldnt be something the Democrats would be running on this election cycle. So my issue with this is, that the left considers all of US legal citizens enemy of the state, so they can accuse anyone of being mentally ill, just so they can invade your house and confiscate what ever they please. This is exactly what Joseph Stalin did, why not Joe Biden. They are both the same.

Spying on Family and Friends

Discover the effects of the “Malicious Attacks” law, which criminalized dissent to the Nazi party, had on one German family and on German society as a whole.

www.facinghistory.org

View attachment 936226

Any sensible gun owner would want the unsuitables not to have access to firearms. Why would sensible people want dangerous folk to have guns?

 

[westwall]

Then I guess it’s good red flag laws don’t do that

Ahhhh, but they do. As written at least. That's the problem. Politicians aren't very smart, so they write laws that either don't work at all, or are so egregious to the Constitution that they are rife with possibilities for corruption.

 

[westwall]

Any sensible gun owner would want the unsuitables not to have access to firearms. Why would sensible people want dangerous folk to have guns?

We do. The problem is the laws are written by morons.

 

[woodwork201]

Hard to prove a negative isn’t it Skippy?
But we can point to cases where someone involved in a homicide should not have had access to guns.

And in almost, perhaps every, such case, the shooter published their intent and not only family members but also the police knew and should have, could have, stopped them - and chose to not do so.

The ability to lock up an insane person after hearing by a judge, goes back hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years in common law. If someone is deemed threatening enough to temporarily take their arms, they should be, instead, temporarily locked up, perhaps for 3 days while evaluated to see if they need a more in-depth hearing to get them locked up for a couple weeks, followed by another hearing to see if they need to be locked up for longer. They can't go on a violent rampage while locked in a room with padded walls. But even if you take their guns, if they're really, truly, dangerous, they would just get another gun.

In fact, red-flag laws are likely to be more dangerous. Those who might have thoughts of violence may never ask for help from family or professionals because it would result in their property being taken. If I were having mental health issues, at least judging from my current state of mind, I'm sure there's a line that can be crossed that would nullify this, but I'd like to think that if I could get help in a safe environment, I would take the help. And the difference between the fact that I'd take it early but might not take it later, is completely based on getting that help earlier rather than later.

Getting mental health help should be as safe to a person's rights, all of them, as is going to the doctor to get help for a cold, at least until that point at which you have to be locked up, not stripped of property but locked up, for your safety or the safety of others. Only then would any mental health treatment help to prevent a violent attack.

 

[rightwinger]

Those who might have thoughts of violence may never ask for help from family or professionals because it would result in their property being taken.

They don’t have to
Those who fear them do.

 

[woodwork201]

Any sensible gun owner would want the unsuitables not to have access to firearms. Why would sensible people want dangerous folk to have guns?

Who gets to decide on who is dangerous or not? On who is unsuitable or not?

No, we don't want that. Sensible gun owners understand that those powers will always be abused, misapplied - intentionally and/or by accident, disarming those who were not a threat and leaving them and their families defenseless.

Sensible gun owners understand that dangerous people are going to get guns or other weapons anyway and that the solution to dangerous people whose dangerousness comes from mental illness need to be locked up and that when they're not, the best response to the danger they represent is for those who are in danger to have arms with which to defend themselves.

There are literally hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of dangerous people who are prohibited from owning guns in America and, yet, probably almost all of them do.

In the United States - at least as it should be - we punish people for the crimes they commit and not for what government thinks they might commit.

 

[woodwork201]

They don’t have to
Those who fear them do.

You need to add some context; your reply makes zero sense.

 

[rightwinger]

You need to add some context; your reply makes zero sense.

You beat your wife, you lose your guns
You make a threat at work, you lose your guns
Threaten a neighbor, you lose your guns
Threaten suicide, you lose your guns

Common sense

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Ahhhh, but they do. As written at least. That's the problem. Politicians aren't very smart, so they write laws that either don't work at all, or are so egregious to the Constitution that they are rife with possibilities for corruption.

No, they don't. Despite what many of you are claiming, it's not as simple as claiming someone is a threat and the cops show up and take your guns after having a big shoot out with you. The threat has to be credible and a judge has to approve the warrant. That's Due Process.

 

[rightwinger]

No, they don't. Despite what many of you are claiming, it's not as simple as claiming someone is a threat and the cops show up and take your guns after having a big shoot out with you. The threat has to be credible and a judge has to approve the warrant. That's Due Process.

Common sense if someone is a threat to themselves or others