This Is My Very Point About Recent Supreme Court Case

[rightwinger]

So just complain someone may be a threat and put him on line to see a judge in 6 months.

Until then his rights are infringed without being convicted OR ajudicated.

The odds of you being the victim of a home invasion or attempted murder during those 6 months is infinitesimal

The odds of someone under a domestic violence restraining order shooting their spouse or partner are much, much higher

That is the decision a judge must make

 

[martybegan]

The odds of you being the victim of a home invasion or attempted murder during those 6 months is infinitesimal

The odds of someone under a domestic violence restraining order shooting their spouse or partner are much, much higher

That is the decision a judge must make

From a person not already prohibited from owning firearms legally?

I really doubt that.

 

[Foxfyre]

If I understand correctly, you're not supposed to have guns while you are locked up and this guy should be locked up.

I don't necessarily disagree though I know little of the case other than what is in the linked essay in the OP and that is too biased and prejudicial to trust completely.

But I do know the case will be decided on the constitutional principle of due process and application of existing law. And if the guy walks because those were denied him/misused then the guy walks.

Those holding power must obey the Constitution and/or the existing law as intended or they must lose. That is the way it was intended and that is the way it should be. It is the only protection that we the people have if we believe in a government of, for, and by the people.

 

[candycorn]

But we obviously do need more gun control if this whack-job is any example.

Uncle Clarence set an embarrassingly low standard for gun ownership in the opinion mention in the article, basically throwing everyone one of us under the bus as far as keeping them pout of the hands of people who demonstrably don't deserve them.

But hey, when you elect clowns you get a circus, same when you put them on the so-called supreme court.

The gun control laws work in virtually every other first world nation. But for some reason, they won’t work here. I guess Americans are just more homicidal than other nationalities.

 

[HikerGuy83]

This nutjob is the poster child for someone who should not have guns because they are locked up.

Exactly.

What if he was just smacking people.

At what point do you wonder when it's not O.K.

When he finally hits you ?

The whole story is surreal.

 

[HikerGuy83]

But I do know the case will be decided

Which case ?

Sounds like there should be about 20 separate filings.

 

[rightwinger]

From a person not already prohibited from owning firearms legally?

I really doubt that.

Someone under a restraining order is not prohibited from owning a firearm.
It is common sense to take away their guns while the issue is being resolved

If you beat your spouse, you should not own a firearm…..EVER

 

[Magnus]

Again, there is a complexity to many legal issues that melts down your already feeble “mind,” Minnie.

I’d pity you. But you’re not worth that much consideration.

That’s ok, retard. Your surrender is accepted.

 

[rightwinger]

My links proves this guy should be locked up, making the gun issue irrelevant.

In most domestic violence cases the aggressor is usually locked up….temporarily
Once they make bail, they are freed under condition of a restraining order. Gun confiscation should also be a condition of bail.

 

[Magnus]

OK then. But then what is this article about then? Why do we have to pass laws to keep guns out of the hands of people who are locked up? Keep him locked up and don't punish law abiding gun owners for us being too stupid to keep people like this locked up who should very obviously be locked up. This was a very bad choice of article by them to talk about gun control because it proves my point. The left would rather let people like this run around loose and pass laws to keep guns out of their hands, which would be moot if this guy were locked up.

Because he wasn’t locked up when he shot of those guns. And he appealed to the SC to reverse the lower court decision.

Jeez. Is today a full Moon? Retards are out in full force.

 

[BackAgain]

That’s ok, retard. Your surrender is accepted.

Your wishful thinking is unrelated to reality.

You scumbag libtards remain clueless and dishonest.

Back on topic now, how about?

If the government which constitutionally protects our right to life has the legal and constitutional authority (in rare cases) to put us to death, then maybe me of you asshole libturds can finally address why that same government wouldn’t have the constitutional authority to deprive some of us of our right to bear arms?

You know; maybe it’s that whole “due process of law” thing that confuses you idiots so massively.

 

[Magnus]

It is liberal judges who have him running around loose.

Again, retard. Learn to read.

 

[Foxfyre]

Which case ?

Sounds like there should be about 20 separate filings.

The case cited in the OP.

 

[Magnus]

Your wishful thinking is unrelated to reality.

You scumbag libtards remain clueless and dishonest.

Back on topic now, how about?

If the government which constitutionally protects our right to life has the legal and constitutional authority (in rare cases) to put us to death, then maybe me of you asshole libturds can finally address why that same government wouldn’t have the constitutional authority to deprive some of us of our right to bear arms?

You know; maybe it’s that whole “due process of law” thing that confuses you idiots so massively.

Poor retard. Tried to argue without knowing the details and gets its ass handed to it.

 

[BackAgain]

Poor retard. Tried to argue without knowing the details and gets its ass handed to it.

I do pity you. But mostly, like most people, I just laugh at you.

But, at least you admit that you’re a retard.

Minnie. You’ve got nothing. And it shows.

 

[Magnus]

I do pity you. But mostly, like most people, I just laugh at you.

But, at least you admit that you’re a retard.

Minnie. You’ve got nothing. And it shows.

Again, your surrender is accepted. You can’t help it that you were born a retard.

 

[BackAgain]

Again, your surrender is accepted. You can’t help it that you were born a retard.

Again. No surrender. You can’t even admit that you were beaten thoroughly.

Your dishonesty is enormous, but completely expected. You’re just a libtard after all.

Don’t fret. I wouldn’t expect you to acknowledge how badly you got your ass handed to you. You’re too much of a pussy.

 

[the watcher]

You can learn more about the sc by the cases it chooses to hear, and the cases it doesn't.

 

[martybegan]

Someone under a restraining order is not prohibited from owning a firearm.
It is common sense to take away their guns while the issue is being resolved

If you beat your spouse, you should not own a firearm…..EVER

if you take away their guns, you are prohibiting them from owning firearms.

Then make spousal abuse a felony.

 

[rightwinger]

if you take away their guns, you are prohibiting them from owning firearms.

Then make spousal abuse a felony.

Yes
You are prohibiting them from having firearms

You beat a woman….that is reasonable