Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 44 of 44

Thread: What do you think of gun violence restraining orders?

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    17,247
    Thanks
    846
    Thanked 4,225 Times in 2,940 Posts
    Groans
    304
    Groaned 343 Times in 329 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    my other question didn't get answered. from the time of complaint to the time of hearing adjudication, what happens to said firearms?
    It was answered before you asked it. Read the article.

    Nothing happens to them, of course.

    This is a due process means of removing guns from a dangerous individual.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    the right of self defense applies to everyone.
    You did not answer the question. What could the government have done to avoid failure in this case?

    what stops a woman from carrying their own gun?
    Huh? What does any of this have to do with a woman? WTF are you talking about?
    Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. 34 The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the homeborn among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

  2. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    17,247
    Thanks
    846
    Thanked 4,225 Times in 2,940 Posts
    Groans
    304
    Groaned 343 Times in 329 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by USFREEDOM911 View Post
    The things you've mentioned, require a Court order; but a Court order is not required to be placed on the no-fly list and being on the no-fly list prohibits you from buying firearms.
    It does not. Is that what you are on about in your other reply?

    It should not either. If the state wants to restrict an individual's constitutional rights then due process should be followed.

    Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. 34 The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the homeborn among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

  3. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    17,247
    Thanks
    846
    Thanked 4,225 Times in 2,940 Posts
    Groans
    304
    Groaned 343 Times in 329 Posts

    Default

    For usf

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List


    Got to the section on

    Weapons purchases by listed persons (No Fly No Buy)
    Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. 34 The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the homeborn among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

  4. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74,838
    Thanks
    15,266
    Thanked 14,432 Times in 12,044 Posts
    Groans
    18,546
    Groaned 1,699 Times in 1,647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timshel View Post
    It does not. Is that what you are on about in your other reply?

    It should not either. If the state wants to restrict an individual's constitutional rights then due process should be followed.
    And yet, you're ignoring the fact that being placed on the no-fly list (which bans you from buying a firearm) doesn't require a Court order.

    Plus you aren't notified that you're on the no-fly list, until you ask.

    Would you care to guess how many people were put on the list, by mistake, and how long it took for one person to get off of it.
    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.


  5. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    85,117
    Thanks
    2,507
    Thanked 16,531 Times in 10,535 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 578 Times in 535 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timshel View Post
    For usf

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List


    Got to the section on

    Weapons purchases by listed persons (No Fly No Buy)
    Problem here is: no due process. You cannot simply take a list that somebody can add your name to simply because they suspect you in order to remove your rights. Let's say we did this for voting and gun rights then somebody like Trump was elected and chose to list people say in a party he wasn't part of on the list. Or to use the list of homegrown terrorists (like he listed Antifa).. and add members to that list, do you think they should have no rights?
    Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but rather we have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
    - -- Aristotle

    Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.
    - -- The Buddha

    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    - -- Aristotle

  6. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74,838
    Thanks
    15,266
    Thanked 14,432 Times in 12,044 Posts
    Groans
    18,546
    Groaned 1,699 Times in 1,647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timshel View Post
    For usf

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List


    Got to the section on

    Weapons purchases by listed persons (No Fly No Buy)
    Did you then bother to read all the information below that.
    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.


  7. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timshel View Post
    It was answered before you asked it. Read the article.

    Nothing happens to them, of course.

    This is a due process means of removing guns from a dangerous individual.
    i'm ok with that

    Quote Originally Posted by Timshel View Post
    You did not answer the question. What could the government have done to avoid failure in this case?
    not ignore the warnings, all 30+ of them

    Quote Originally Posted by Timshel View Post
    Huh? What does any of this have to do with a woman? WTF are you talking about?
    people seem to have this idiot idea that it's the governments job to protect us. it is not. In fact, numerous court decisions specifically denote that the government owes no one single individual any protection at all. therefore, what stops a woman from carrying her own gun to protect herself from an abusive ex?
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  8. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    17,247
    Thanks
    846
    Thanked 4,225 Times in 2,940 Posts
    Groans
    304
    Groaned 343 Times in 329 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
    Problem here is: no due process. You cannot simply take a list that somebody can add your name to simply because they suspect you in order to remove your rights. Let's say we did this for voting and gun rights then somebody like Trump was elected and chose to list people say in a party he wasn't part of on the list. Or to use the list of homegrown terrorists (like he listed Antifa).. and add members to that list, do you think they should have no rights?
    That's what I said.

    EDIT:

    The ill informed USF is saying that no fly no buy is law. It's not and shouldn't be, for the reasons you and I have noted.

    But a GVRO grants full due process. The target has ample opportunity to answer any evidence entered against him and the decision is made by a judge rather than some government bureaucrat.
    Last edited by Timshel; 02-18-2018 at 06:54 PM.

  9. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    17,247
    Thanks
    846
    Thanked 4,225 Times in 2,940 Posts
    Groans
    304
    Groaned 343 Times in 329 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by USFREEDOM911 View Post
    Did you then bother to read all the information below that.
    Yeah, it's been proposed but did not pass. It's not the way to do it anyway. Due process is needed.
    Last edited by Timshel; 02-18-2018 at 06:26 PM.

  10. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    17,247
    Thanks
    846
    Thanked 4,225 Times in 2,940 Posts
    Groans
    304
    Groaned 343 Times in 329 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    i'm ok with that


    not ignore the warnings, all 30+ of them
    What should they do if they are not going to ignore the warnings? I agree, but that's why we should empower citizens to act.

    The FBI should not be able to strip anyone of their rights without due process.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post

    people seem to have this idiot idea that it's the governments job to protect us. it is not. In fact, numerous court decisions specifically denote that the government owes no one single individual any protection at all. therefore, what stops a woman from carrying her own gun to protect herself from an abusive ex?
    Nothing. And this has nothing to do with your ex. It's not about a couple at all. You are way off topic.
    Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. 34 The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the homeborn among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

  11. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,857
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,363 Times in 14,089 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timshel View Post
    It does not. Is that what you are on about in your other reply?

    It should not either. If the state wants to restrict an individual's constitutional rights then due process should be followed.
    It's definitely an idea worth looking into. It's not an easy question to answer about respecting people's rights yet dealing with people like this kid who show the signs of trouble he did.

  12. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    17,247
    Thanks
    846
    Thanked 4,225 Times in 2,940 Posts
    Groans
    304
    Groaned 343 Times in 329 Posts

    Default

    David French (author) was on npr this morning talking about this topic. He said Jeb Bush and Rubio tweeted about it obsr the weekend.

    In other news, usf has not returned to pick up his dunce cap.

  13. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,107
    Thanks
    560
    Thanked 1,031 Times in 698 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 24 Times in 22 Posts

    Default

    Depends how the law is crafted and what protections the accused has. It can quickly become a tool to fuck with people, a la SWATTING, if done improperly.

  14. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74,838
    Thanks
    15,266
    Thanked 14,432 Times in 12,044 Posts
    Groans
    18,546
    Groaned 1,699 Times in 1,647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peridot View Post
    Depends how the law is crafted and what protections the accused has. It can quickly become a tool to fuck with people, a la SWATTING, if done improperly.
    Absolutely; especially when it appears that it's easier to get the accusation(s) believed, then it is for them to be disproved.
    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.


Similar Threads

  1. Temporary restraining order for guns
    By evince in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 11-13-2017, 01:33 PM
  2. Girl Scouts Obtain Restraining Order Against Trump
    By signalmankenneth in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-04-2017, 07:54 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-29-2016, 08:10 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-19-2016, 02:28 PM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-01-2016, 03:42 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •