Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

[SmarterthanYou]

SmarterthanYou has apparently left the building but I’m sure that he recognizes a strawman (sic) when he sees one. (Post no. 15).

of course.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I would like to see the concept expanded so that an individual who:

a) Has amassed an arsenal,

and

b) Has expressed white supremacy views either online or in person,

-has their guns taken away.

do you have any objection to extending it to supremacy views of any flavor?.....

 

[Earl]

The Second Amendment does not include the word “need.”

It clearly states what it states, with no limitations, but the courts have limited it, unConstitutionally.

If you are unhappy with what it states, go the Amendment route. Lots of luck with that.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

so you want to see someone who has never committed a crime have his property and liberty taken away? and you wonder why we consider liberalism a mental disease

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

 

[Earl]

do you have any objection to extending it to supremacy views of any flavor?.....

Or color?

 

[Earl]

of course.

Indeed.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

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

or any supremacy................

 

[anatta]

this is false ideology presented to freedom hating individuals who prefer oppressive tyranny to dangerous freedom.

it's not an "ideology" - it's normative regulations.
This is an extreme situation, and what the shooters had in common was mental derangement

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

they are not a threat to others without guns

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Or color?

I assumed color would be one of the flavors......also religion, gender, political orientation, beverage preference, etc...........

 

[John Barron]

thats kind of how freedom works..........do you not like freedom?

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.

 

[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