Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
Fallacy of logic. The onus is on the citizen, who is a potential threat to society, not on government who must protect it.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?
Since you guys give equitable weight to all tools, the person can protect himself with a lawn mower.
Then arrest them for a crime. Or commit them for a mental defect.
It's amazing how pussy-ish you morons get when allowing government to fuck with people "just because" for up to a year.
No, Marty, your concept of government that you call 'libertarianism' is not how we govern.
How is due process applied when the government can just sit on a ban for year, and renew it ad nauseum?
This is constitutionality.
Unless the government can prove the guy is a criminal or mentally unfit he should get his guns back.
Either that or charge him with something or commit him.
Why do idiots like you get on your knees and suck government dick anytime you get the chance?
And nice try going with not quoting and hoping i would miss it, fucktard.
Your mind operates in strange ways.You talking about a rational mind is like PETA giving a person a flank steak recipe.No, Marty, your argumentation does not persuade the rational mind to do it your way.
Fallacy of logic. The onus is on the citizen, who is a potential threat to society, not on government who must protect it.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?
Since you guys give equitable weight to all tools, the person can protect himself with a lawn mower.
Then arrest them for a crime. Or commit them for a mental defect.
It's amazing how pussy-ish you morons get when allowing government to fuck with people "just because" for up to a year.
What's the alternative, chief? Cross fingers and hope they won't go off the deep end?
No, Marty, your concept of government that you call 'libertarianism' is not how we govern.
How is due process applied when the government can just sit on a ban for year, and renew it ad nauseum?
This is constitutionality.
Unless the government can prove the guy is a criminal or mentally unfit he should get his guns back.
Either that or charge him with something or commit him.
Why do idiots like you get on your knees and suck government dick anytime you get the chance?
And nice try going with not quoting and hoping i would miss it, fucktard.
Do you imagine a well regulated militia should include mental incompetents or emotional timebombs?
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.
Seattle police confiscate first gun under new 'mental health' law
In the wake of February’s school shooting in Parkland, Florida, the country has been enthralled in a debate over whether those who are classified as “mentally ill” should be allowed their right to firearms. In opposition to the Second Amendment, some states, including Washington, have even enacted laws that provide for “extreme risk protection orders,” which allow police, family members, and community members to petition the court to remove someone’s firearms — by force if necessary.
And so it begins just like i said , it would be used against people , people will be accused of mental health issues when it isn't so.
like i SAID MEDICAL TYRANNY IS HOW THEY WILL TAKE THE GUNS" leftist retards are a little to low on the IQ chart to fully comprehend what that means or how it will be done. As the same idiots would tell people put on your tin foil hat as they warned there would be gun grabbing even during Obama which they used and still . use the " medical" excuse as the power to do it.
MEAN WHILE IT'S THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY CAUSING THESE MASS SHOOTERS.....
Fallacy of logic. The onus is on the citizen, who is a potential threat to society, not on government who must protect it.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?
Since you guys give equitable weight to all tools, the person can protect himself with a lawn mower.
Then arrest them for a crime. Or commit them for a mental defect.
It's amazing how pussy-ish you morons get when allowing government to fuck with people "just because" for up to a year.
What's the alternative, chief? Cross fingers and hope they won't go off the deep end?
Find out if they are actually a threat, and if so mentally adjudicate them via a court.
The issue will always be people in power will abuse things like this because they feel like it.
Fallacy of logic. The onus is on the citizen, who is a potential threat to society, not on government who must protect it.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?
Since you guys give equitable weight to all tools, the person can protect himself with a lawn mower.
Then arrest them for a crime. Or commit them for a mental defect.
It's amazing how pussy-ish you morons get when allowing government to fuck with people "just because" for up to a year.
What's the alternative, chief? Cross fingers and hope they won't go off the deep end?
Find out if they are actually a threat, and if so mentally adjudicate them via a court.
The issue will always be people in power will abuse things like this because they feel like it.
So you agree then that the Broward County Sheriff should have had the authority to flag Cruz based on his behavior and with a judge's signature could remove weapons and have red flagged the national background system so he couldn't obtain more?
Seattle police confiscate first gun under new 'mental health' law
In the wake of February’s school shooting in Parkland, Florida, the country has been enthralled in a debate over whether those who are classified as “mentally ill” should be allowed their right to firearms. In opposition to the Second Amendment, some states, including Washington, have even enacted laws that provide for “extreme risk protection orders,” which allow police, family members, and community members to petition the court to remove someone’s firearms — by force if necessary.
And so it begins just like i said , it would be used against people , people will be accused of mental health issues when it isn't so.
like i SAID MEDICAL TYRANNY IS HOW THEY WILL TAKE THE GUNS" leftist retards are a little to low on the IQ chart to fully comprehend what that means or how it will be done. As the same idiots would tell people put on your tin foil hat as they warned there would be gun grabbing even during Obama which they used and still . use the " medical" excuse as the power to do it.
MEAN WHILE IT'S THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY CAUSING THESE MASS SHOOTERS.....
No, Marty, your concept of government that you call 'libertarianism' is not how we govern.
How is due process applied when the government can just sit on a ban for year, and renew it ad nauseum?
This is constitutionality.
Unless the government can prove the guy is a criminal or mentally unfit he should get his guns back.
Either that or charge him with something or commit him.
Why do idiots like you get on your knees and suck government dick anytime you get the chance?
And nice try going with not quoting and hoping i would miss it, fucktard.
Do you imagine a well regulated militia should include mental incompetents or emotional timebombs?
If the guy was intimidating people charge him with it. If he is mentally incompetent, commit him.
Have government do its actual fucking job, not look for back door fixes.
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.
Being for a year and renewable is not temporary. Again if the cops are so concerned, detailing security for this person shouldn't be an issue.
Temporary is a week, with being in front a of a judge within that week and making the government show cause.
Being for a year and renewable is not temporary
Fallacy of logic. The onus is on the citizen, who is a potential threat to society, not on government who must protect it.
Since you guys give equitable weight to all tools, the person can protect himself with a lawn mower.
Then arrest them for a crime. Or commit them for a mental defect.
It's amazing how pussy-ish you morons get when allowing government to fuck with people "just because" for up to a year.
What's the alternative, chief? Cross fingers and hope they won't go off the deep end?
Find out if they are actually a threat, and if so mentally adjudicate them via a court.
The issue will always be people in power will abuse things like this because they feel like it.
So you agree then that the Broward County Sheriff should have had the authority to flag Cruz based on his behavior and with a judge's signature could remove weapons and have red flagged the national background system so he couldn't obtain more?
The guy actually committed crimes, multiple times. he should have been either charged with a crime and indicted, or brought before a judge to be mentally adjudicated.
At that point if you want to take his guns, due process has been followed.
No, Marty, your concept of government that you call 'libertarianism' is not how we govern.
How is due process applied when the government can just sit on a ban for year, and renew it ad nauseum?
This is constitutionality.
Unless the government can prove the guy is a criminal or mentally unfit he should get his guns back.
Either that or charge him with something or commit him.
Why do idiots like you get on your knees and suck government dick anytime you get the chance?
And nice try going with not quoting and hoping i would miss it, fucktard.
Do you imagine a well regulated militia should include mental incompetents or emotional timebombs?
If the guy was intimidating people charge him with it. If he is mentally incompetent, commit him.
Have government do its actual fucking job, not look for back door fixes.
A person doesn't have to be either insane or guilty of a crime to be emotionally disturbed enough to commit violence. Just by the statistics alone police should be able to act in certain situations..
NCADV | National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
- The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%.
No, Marty, your concept of government that you call 'libertarianism' is not how we govern.
How is due process applied when the government can just sit on a ban for year, and renew it ad nauseum?
This is constitutionality.
Unless the government can prove the guy is a criminal or mentally unfit he should get his guns back.
Either that or charge him with something or commit him.
Why do idiots like you get on your knees and suck government dick anytime you get the chance?
And nice try going with not quoting and hoping i would miss it, fucktard.
Do you imagine a well regulated militia should include mental incompetents or emotional timebombs?
If the guy was intimidating people charge him with it. If he is mentally incompetent, commit him.
Have government do its actual fucking job, not look for back door fixes.
A person doesn't have to be either insane or guilty of a crime to be emotionally disturbed enough to commit violence. Just by the statistics alone police should be able to act in certain situations..
NCADV | National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
- The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%.
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.
Being for a year and renewable is not temporary. Again if the cops are so concerned, detailing security for this person shouldn't be an issue.
Temporary is a week, with being in front a of a judge within that week and making the government show cause.Being for a year and renewable is not temporary
Uh, yeah. By definition, that's exactly what it means.
Then arrest them for a crime. Or commit them for a mental defect.
It's amazing how pussy-ish you morons get when allowing government to fuck with people "just because" for up to a year.
What's the alternative, chief? Cross fingers and hope they won't go off the deep end?
Find out if they are actually a threat, and if so mentally adjudicate them via a court.
The issue will always be people in power will abuse things like this because they feel like it.
So you agree then that the Broward County Sheriff should have had the authority to flag Cruz based on his behavior and with a judge's signature could remove weapons and have red flagged the national background system so he couldn't obtain more?
The guy actually committed crimes, multiple times. he should have been either charged with a crime and indicted, or brought before a judge to be mentally adjudicated.
At that point if you want to take his guns, due process has been followed.
So, no then?
No, Marty, your concept of government that you call 'libertarianism' is not how we govern.
How is due process applied when the government can just sit on a ban for year, and renew it ad nauseum?
This is constitutionality.
Unless the government can prove the guy is a criminal or mentally unfit he should get his guns back.
Either that or charge him with something or commit him.
Why do idiots like you get on your knees and suck government dick anytime you get the chance?
And nice try going with not quoting and hoping i would miss it, fucktard.
Do you imagine a well regulated militia should include mental incompetents or emotional timebombs?
If the guy was intimidating people charge him with it. If he is mentally incompetent, commit him.
Have government do its actual fucking job, not look for back door fixes.
A person doesn't have to be either insane or guilty of a crime to be emotionally disturbed enough to commit violence. Just by the statistics alone police should be able to act in certain situations..
NCADV | National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
- The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%.
How and why?
