This Is My Very Point About Recent Supreme Court Case

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.
It's cultural. We could change it, but we aren't even trying.
 
Red flag laws vary by state, all seek to prevent possession of firearms from unstable people. The problem is in the wording, and who thinks who is a threat. Due process is the big unknown here, and not much detail is provided when explaining the process. What happens here is someone reports a suspected threat, and a prosecutor or leo petitions a magistrate or judge for an order. The only thing the magistrate hears is the opinion of the leo, nothing from the accused, and that is where things get tricky. Action taken, depriving someone of property and rights without being heard can be taken in the name of expediency, that is where the argument was yesterday. I listened to some of it, and the lawyer that was arguing was a public defender, and I was wondering who was financing this, as it was such a no brainer case. This guy is a poster child for Career Criminal Magazine and why was he still able to run the streets and threaten people? The end justifies the means these days, and when you think about protecting the public you have to think about the plea deals for gang members who are caught shooting and drug dealers that rotate in and out.
 
My point is we don't need more gun control. Why is this guy running around loose? How stupid can we get? And, if you change gun control laws, this guy will get a gun anyway, that is if he's loose, which he shouldn't be.
Guns don’t fire themselves.
And I don’t believe that our 2d Amendment demands that such a menace be allowed to possess any firearm.

The question of whether a piece of shit like this should be allowed to possess guns ought to be moot.

It has proven that it is un willing or unable to peacefully exist in free society, without posing a serious danger to others. It needs to be permanently removed from free society.
 
Sure, retard. And next time learn the issue before responding. Will help you look less of a fool. Run along, now. Go play in traffic. :itsok:
Sure, retard. And next time learn the issue before responding. Will help you look less of a fool. Run along, now. Go play in traffic. :itsok:
 
Felons are banned permanently
Those with a restraining order are banned for the duration of the order

Sounds reasonable
But the reality is that any felon who wants a gun can get a gun. That's what you idiots fail to understand. In fact, if you are felon and get caught with a gun, many times lefty courts take the gun away, fine them, and then send them right back out on the streets again where they have already proven they can get a gun. How stupid is that?
 
If he has domestic violence charges over his head, I would say turning in his guns is the least of his problems

I would say possible prison, losing your job, losing your kids and family are bigger concerns

But to Conservatives, temporarily losing his guns are the biggest crisis …..hell with losing his family
What about his guns? :206:
He shouldn't have guns because he shouldn't be free.
 
It's cultural. We could change it, but we aren't even trying.
Yes, we do have more scum than other countries, which justifies having a higher incarceration rate. Guns aren't the problem. Scumbags are the problem. And, many leftists policies turn more people into scumbags. Check out the crime in the big cities where they have far too many leftist policies.
 
Red flag laws vary by state, all seek to prevent possession of firearms from unstable people. The problem is in the wording, and who thinks who is a threat. Due process is the big unknown here, and not much detail is provided when explaining the process. What happens here is someone reports a suspected threat, and a prosecutor or leo petitions a magistrate or judge for an order. The only thing the magistrate hears is the opinion of the leo, nothing from the accused, and that is where things get tricky. Action taken, depriving someone of property and rights without being heard can be taken in the name of expediency, that is where the argument was yesterday. I listened to some of it, and the lawyer that was arguing was a public defender, and I was wondering who was financing this, as it was such a no brainer case. This guy is a poster child for Career Criminal Magazine and why was he still able to run the streets and threaten people? The end justifies the means these days, and when you think about protecting the public you have to think about the plea deals for gang members who are caught shooting and drug dealers that rotate in and out.
The stupid part is that leftists think we should allow proven and known dangerous people to run around loose but try to keep guns away from them, as if these people will be upstanding model citizens if they don't have a gun (which they can get anyway). That's just crazy.
 

Forum List

Back
Top