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

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

If only the cavemen had made rocks illegal. Can you imagine the paradise we could be living in today?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

I am chatting with you. You’re the one that makes me respond. Are you too retarded to know how a message board works?

 

[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

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?

it's just as deadly what's your point?

 

[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?

it's just as deadly what's your point?

Is it? Last I checked a baseball bat had a pretty hard time killing someone at 100 yards.

How about a AR15? I’m not an expert at this gun stuff.

 

[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

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?

it's just as deadly what's your point?

Is it? Last I checked a baseball bat had a pretty hard time killing someone at 100 yards.

How about a AR15? I’m not an expert at this gun stuff.

when you are supposdly mentally off the distance doesn't matter

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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

The law is not intended for gun confiscation; to argue otherwise is a lie.

Unintended consequences are always the result of leftism.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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?

it's just as deadly what's your point?

Is it? Last I checked a baseball bat had a pretty hard time killing someone at 100 yards.

How about a AR15? I’m not an expert at this gun stuff.

That’s obvious. Yet you think think you should be the authority on the second amendment. Go figure.

 

[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?

it's just as deadly what's your point?

Is it? Last I checked a baseball bat had a pretty hard time killing someone at 100 yards.

How about a AR15? I’m not an expert at this gun stuff.

when you are supposdly mentally off the distance doesn't matter

It doesn’t? If someone mentally ill was trying to kill you, would you rather they have a rifle or a baseball bat?

 

[colfax_m]

That’s obvious. Yet you think think you should be the authority on the second amendment. Go figure.

The idea that the lethality of a firearm is no different than a bat is demonstrably stupid.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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

The law is not intended for gun confiscation; to argue otherwise is a lie.

Unintended consequences are always the result of leftism.

We really thought socialism was going to work this time. Sorry you’re eating out of trash cans. - Venezuela

 

[Missouri_Mike]

That’s obvious. Yet you think think you should be the authority on the second amendment. Go figure.

The idea that the lethality of a firearm is no different than a bat is demonstrably stupid.

Are your odds somehow better if someone hits you in the head with a bat? Distance doesn’t matter much when someone has decided to kill you.

 

[BlackSand]

It doesn’t? If someone mentally ill was trying to kill you, would you rather they have a rifle or a baseball bat?

.

I would rather have a firearm against either one of them.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't give the fool with a bat the opportunity to change course, or stand down, before they caught some lead.

.​

 

[justinacolmena]

It doesn’t? If someone mentally ill was trying to kill you, would you rather they have a rifle or a baseball bat?

What if someone suggested you were mentally ill or criminally insane or crazy or nuts, and went to court to have you committed to the state mental hospital for involuntary treatment to be drugged against your will, beaten senseless, and lobotomized to revoke you gun rights?

 

[BlackSand]

What if someone suggested you were mentally ill or criminally insane or crazy or nuts, and went to court to have you committed to the state mental hospital for involuntary treatment to be drugged against your will, beaten senseless, and lobotomized to revoke you gun rights?

.

Don't worry, his friends will bring their bats to break him out.

.​

 

[colfax_m]

That’s obvious. Yet you think think you should be the authority on the second amendment. Go figure.

The idea that the lethality of a firearm is no different than a bat is demonstrably stupid.

Are your odds somehow better if someone hits you in the head with a bat? Distance doesn’t matter much when someone has decided to kill you.

Matters quite a lot given my ability to, you know, move.

 

[justinacolmena]

Don't worry, his friends will bring their bats to break him out.

The **** you got served by the cops in bed in the middle of the night and you woke up with pimples on your face like a teenaged boy?

 

[BlackSand]

The **** you got served by the cops in bed in the middle of the night and you woke up with pimples on your face like a teenaged boy?

.

Uh ... Yeah, to whatever that meant ...

.​

 

[Missouri_Mike]

That’s obvious. Yet you think think you should be the authority on the second amendment. Go figure.

The idea that the lethality of a firearm is no different than a bat is demonstrably stupid.

Are your odds somehow better if someone hits you in the head with a bat? Distance doesn’t matter much when someone has decided to kill you.

Matters quite a lot given my ability to, you know, move.

I’m sure Caesar thought thank god there are no bows here.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Impractical.

What is impractical it to go to the home of someone others claim is acting erratically, and push them over the edge by demanding they give up their property without any opportunity for a defense in court.
That is guaranteed to cause trouble.

 

[justinacolmena]

I’m sure Caesar thought thank god there are no bows here

Guns were banned in ancient Rome, but the Greeks, Goths, Vandals, etc. all had firearms. What was the cause of the fall of the ancient Roman empire again? The Sack of Rome which took place after the ancient fascists banned their citizens from possessing firearms?