Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

[PostmodernProphet]

another concern is defiinng "arsenal"....do you need more than one gun........do they all have to be in usable condition........will you be required to have fewer than 200,000 rounds of ammunition........

[Earl]

maybe we can apply it to those who have expressed a belief in lib'rul supremacy.......

They have shown a proclivity for violence, in the streets, at universities, in restaurants and on a Republican baseball field.

[SmarterthanYou]

it's not an "ideology" - it's normative regulations.

the founders didn't write a document to limit government just so that government could define it's powers in restricting the people. 'regulated rights' is as foreign a concept as government supremacy was to the founders

they are not a threat to others without guns

so you believe anyone with a gun to be a threat?

[Earl]

Again, I will remind the left that the Second Amendment to the Constitution does not mention “ need.”

Just the “right.”

[SmarterthanYou]

Freedom to do anything you want is not always right. Example drunk driving. Mental state of mind should be considered the same as alcohol impaired.

freedom is not doing whatever one wants. freedom is doing whatever one can do to thrive without infringing on the rights of others.

[Stretch]

if said person doesn't actually go out to hurt or kill someone, why should it be considered?

There can always be symptoms before a condition/disease actual appears. We see a doctor to check it out. Come to a conclusion with tests, labs, etc.
If there are legitimate witnesses to the behavior of someone with symptoms of rage syndrome, bouts of irrational anger, an obsession with weapons (and not
for sport), recent history of battering or bullying a weaker human or animal, keeps to himself in a closed off room for the majority of time, shows little to no interest
in school, recreation, work, social gatherings, on and on and on...........

I'm just saying I would rather "the doctor take a look."

[anatta]

the founders didn't write a document to limit government just so that government could define it's powers in restricting the people. 'regulated rights' is as foreign a concept as government supremacy was to the founders

every individual right has some regulations

so you believe anyone with a gun to be a threat?

deranged minds with guns are a threat

[SmarterthanYou]

There can always be symptoms before a condition/disease actual appears. We see a doctor to check it out. Come to a conclusion with tests, labs, etc.
If there are legitimate witnesses to the behavior of someone with symptoms of rage syndrome, bouts of irrational anger, an obsession with weapons (and not
for sport), recent history of battering or bullying a weaker human or animal, keeps to himself in a closed off room for the majority of time, shows little to no interest
in school, recreation, work, social gatherings, on and on and on...........

I'm just saying I would rather "the doctor take a look."

great, go through that whole process instead of letting some disgruntled relative call the cops and have that person lose all rights immediately, then let reverse due process play out.

[SmarterthanYou]

every individual right has some regulations

then they are not rights, but permissions

deranged minds with guns are a threat

prove a deranged mind. stop spinning circles.

[anatta]

then they are not rights, but permissions

tell it to SCOTUS

prove a deranged mind. stop spinning circles.

you write laws with that criteria.
you enumerate what constitutes mental instability that makes a person too dangerous to own a gun

[SmarterthanYou]

tell it to SCOTUS

SCOTUS cares nothing about the constitution or the limits it imposes upon them.........that's an issue that you support

you write laws with that criteria.
you enumerate what constitutes mental instability that makes a person too dangerous to own a gun

do you do it by ignoring the 14th Amendment?

[Stretch]

great, go through that whole process instead of letting some disgruntled relative call the cops and have that person lose all rights immediately, then let reverse due process play out.

I think you misunderstand. Imagine a person much like the fictional one I described. After seeing all that behavior, that person either wants to keep the gun he already has or is wanting to go out and buy a gun. In your heart of hearts would you not want that person to get checked out BEFORE he could act his rage out beyond fits of rage, battering, bullying and preferring
an anti-social lifestyle in a deadlier way? Why would calm rational productive socialized normal people elsewhere be forced to become addicted to gambling?

[Althea]

GOOD, its a start. FINALLY!

He'll backtrack as soon as he hears from his handlers.

He did away with Obama's regulation that deals with this issue. His Obama envy taints everything that he does.

[Stretch]

those deranged minds should not be allowed to reside amongst the public.

I agree with that, but until this country starts rebuilding a massive amount of more mental institutions this
would be a common sense approach to at least keep weaponry out of their hands with the purpose of
preserving the freedoms and rights of normal mentally balanced innocent people.

[Earl]

Why would anyone envy Obama, the worst president in history, slightly ahead of Jimmy Carter?