red flag laws: if the law is not intended for gun confiscation:

[colfax_m]

Why is there no provision in those laws for observation of the accused?

Impractical.

Bullshit, liar.

Sure. It’s super easy to have people under 24/7 supervision. No problem.

people go to jail everyday

For crimes. You realize we aren’t talking about crimes, right?

what's the difference making threats to harm someone is crminal isn't it?

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why is there no provision in those laws for observation of the accused?

Impractical.

Bullshit, liar.

Sure. It’s super easy to have people under 24/7 supervision. No problem.

people go to jail everyday

For crimes. You realize we aren’t talking about crimes, right?

what's the difference making threats to harm someone is crminal isn't it?

Maybe. Maybe not.

actually it is a crime
Communicating a threat look up the Statute

 

[BlackSand]

Do you trust children to carry guns around?

.

There are no age restrictions in current Federal Statute as far as who can own or posses a long arm and ammunition.
You see ... We are born with our Constitutionally Protected Rights ...

Whether or not a parent would trust them, and whether or not it against Federal Law, are two different things.

.​

 

[bigrebnc1775]

yes children have caregivers all the time do you have children? or do you not watch them at all?

Not at all times. Kids need to run out and play. Helicopter parenting is not great for them.

really? so you never watch them from a distance? Got it
if you have children you are a very bad parent

No, just saying I don’t watch their every move. Try reading for a change.

shacking my head
allow me to redirect your red herring if an adult can't be trusted with a firearm they cannot be trusted without a caregiver

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Why is there no provision in those laws for observation of the accused?

Impractical.

Impractical? how so? when depriving a person of their rights there should be a good reason and if that reason is they are a threat they should be confined and watched for observation.
Therefore your response proves it's all about taking guns

Naaaaah, it's about senility. Or obvious mental illness. When a wife or mother realizes a family member has gone over the edge, there may be an issue about all those guns he's playing with so often. I think it's reasonable to have some recourse to law to deal with such a problem.

An extreme risk protection order can be issued only by a judge based on compelling evidence that such an order is warranted.

Firearms are not ‘confiscated’ pursuant to an extreme risk protection order; the orders are often limited to only a few weeks and the gun owner is at liberty to contest the order during a hearing and present evidence in support of returning the gun to the owner.

Present evidence of what? Hire a lawyer and have a trial for something some asshole said you may do? I know you’re one of the dumber ******* people on this board but has your ignorant ass ever sat down and contemplated just why the hell we have a presumption of innocence in the ******* Constitution? And why the evidence provided to convict has to be beyond a shadow of doubt?

You would have been a perfect parishioner of the church back in Salem.

Moron.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Why is there no provision in those laws for observation of the accused?

Impractical.

Impractical? how so? when depriving a person of their rights there should be a good reason and if that reason is they are a threat they should be confined and watched for observation.
Therefore your response proves it's all about taking guns

Naaaaah, it's about senility. Or obvious mental illness. When a wife or mother realizes a family member has gone over the edge, there may be an issue about all those guns he's playing with so often. I think it's reasonable to have some recourse to law to deal with such a problem.

really? if they a danger they should be confined for observation but they don't do that.
the accused is free to do whatever they want and pick another weapon to harm with
Again its about firearm confiscation and nothing else.

Some people should not own guns.

And some are too stupid to have freedom of speech yet here you ******* are.

 

[justinacolmena]

Why is there no provision in those laws for observation of the accused?

Impractical.

Let's not kid ourselves. We're definitely under 24×7 observation if we're on the NICS watch list and the cops think there's even the remotest might have "access" to a weapon.

 

[colfax_m]

actually it is a crime
Communicating a threat look up the Statute

If it was a crime

yes children have caregivers all the time do you have children? or do you not watch them at all?

Not at all times. Kids need to run out and play. Helicopter parenting is not great for them.

really? so you never watch them from a distance? Got it
if you have children you are a very bad parent

No, just saying I don’t watch their every move. Try reading for a change.

shacking my head
allow me to redirect your red herring if an adult can't be trusted with a firearm they cannot be trusted without a caregiver

cant be trusted to drive a car, can’t be trusted without a caregiver. Can’t be trusted with plastic explosives, can’t be trusted without a caregiver.

This is arbitrary and ignores the nature of firearms as dangerous objects.

 

[Hellbilly]

And some are too stupid to have freedom of speech yet here you ******* are.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

actually it is a crime
Communicating a threat look up the Statute

If it was a crime

yes children have caregivers all the time do you have children? or do you not watch them at all?

Not at all times. Kids need to run out and play. Helicopter parenting is not great for them.

really? so you never watch them from a distance? Got it
if you have children you are a very bad parent

No, just saying I don’t watch their every move. Try reading for a change.

shacking my head
allow me to redirect your red herring if an adult can't be trusted with a firearm they cannot be trusted without a caregiver

cant be trusted to drive a car, can’t be trusted without a caregiver. Can’t be trusted with plastic explosives, can’t be trusted without a caregiver.

This is arbitrary and ignores the nature of firearms as dangerous objects.

again communicating a threat is a crime not "if it was a crime"
and stop with the red herring
Firearm intended nature is to be used for lawful purposes

 

[justinacolmena]

This is arbitrary and ignores the nature of firearms as dangerous objects.

The truth of the matter is that modern firearms are very safe devices. The only dangerous part is the murderous intent to load the firearm, take the safety off, aim it and fire it.

But that murderous intent is still there even if the murderer doesn't have lawfully permitted "access" to a particular weapon of choice.

 

[colfax_m]

Firearm intended nature is to be used for lawful purposes

There’s nothing about a firearms “nature” about it being used lawfully.

Intended nature is 100% irrelevant. It’s intent is to kill or injure things. Lawful doesn’t enter into the design.

 

[colfax_m]

But that murderous intent is still there even if the murderer doesn't have lawfully permitted "access" to a particular weapon of choice.

Hmm, seems like murderous intent isn’t quite as lethal as a firearm combined with murderous intent.

 

[BlackSand]

Firearm intended nature is to be used for lawful purposes

There’s nothing about a firearms “nature” about it being used lawfully.

Intended nature is 100% irrelevant. It’s intent is to kill or injure things. Lawful doesn’t enter into the design.

.
"Lawful" is determined by law, not desire.


.​

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Firearm intended nature is to be used for lawful purposes

There’s nothing about a firearms “nature” about it being used lawfully.

Intended nature is 100% irrelevant. It’s intent is to kill or injure things. Lawful doesn’t enter into the design.

that's the intended purpose of a firearm for law use
As Blacksand said it's not determined by your wishes or desires

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But that murderous intent is still there even if the murderer doesn't have lawfully permitted "access" to a particular weapon of choice.

Hmm, seems like murderous intent isn’t quite as lethal as a firearm combined with murderous intent.

let's see how that holds up
death by vehicle, baseball bat, Knife, a gas can of gas and a match

 

[Missouri_Mike]

And some are too stupid to have freedom of speech yet here you ******* are.

View attachment 493177

Don’t say stupid shit and I won’t have to say anything at all.

 

[Hellbilly]

Don’t say stupid shit and I won’t have to say anything at all.

Perhaps you should have a chat with whoever it is that forces you to respond to my posts.

 

[colfax_m]

But that murderous intent is still there even if the murderer doesn't have lawfully permitted "access" to a particular weapon of choice.

Hmm, seems like murderous intent isn’t quite as lethal as a firearm combined with murderous intent.

let's see how that holds up
death by vehicle, baseball bat, Knife, a gas can of gas and a match

What’s the lethal range of a baseball bat, or a can of gas and a match?

So why don’t lock up people who aren’t safe enough to drive?

 

[BlackSand]

What’s the lethal range of a baseball bat, or a can of gas and a match?

So why don’t lock up people who aren’t safe enough to drive?

.

The same as a firearm when someone is standing in front of you.
Of course less than two seconds, even with a mistake, is quicker than the can of gas and a match will handle it.



.​