The truly horrible House gun bill

[miketx]

lol

Every piece of evidence, every piece of history, says you're wrong.

Yet you persist in your delusions.

Why is that?

Because he's a lying commie.

 

[hunarcy]

I disagree. A gun changes everything. It isn’t just about killing people for them. You don’t hear about mass knifing attacks or such.

You never heard of the 2014 Kunming attack, the 2016 Sagamihara stabbings, the 2017 London Bridge attack, and the 2019 Kawasaki stabbings?

 

[Woodznutz]

I think confiscation could depend on the circumstances. If the cops are called and they arrest you cuz they believe you are a danger to yourself or others then I can see confiscation as reasonable. And when you get your arraignment hearing, part of the discussion for bail would include whether or not your guns should be returned to you. The judge can decide whether or not to keep or delay your weapons, and that is reasonable due process IMHO.

If they do not arrest you and do not believe you are a danger to yourself or others then IMHO confiscation is not warranted.

Then there's the situation where they don't arrest you but believe you could be a danger to yourself or others. Which is kinda weird, but let's run with it. Maybe a family member calls the cops even though you're not doing anything wrong at least at the moment but that person is concerned. Seems to me the prudent thing to do is confiscate the guns and require a hearing within say 14 days to determine further action. No hearing would mean the end of the confiscation and you get your guns back. But look at it, you haven't actually done anything wrong that the cops can see, so do we allow confiscation or not? What if there are witnesses to your violent behavior prior to when the cops show up? Are then any complaints out on you? Is it an acceptable infringement on your 2nd Amendment rights for 14 days to avoid a possible shooting?

Lol. Trust me, 14 days will magically turn into 14 months, or more.

 

[task0778]

Lol. Trust me, 14 days will magically turn into 14 months, or more.

Could be, and maybe it should. Let me ask you this: say there's an 18-year old kid like the one that shot up the Uvalde school. At the time of his purchase of the weapons he used, the background check turned up nothing on him so he got his guns. A month later or whenever, he is arrested or taken into custody for domestic violence and/or sent to be evaluated for mental illness, such that he would not have passed the background check. Do we take his guns away? The background check is only good at the time it was utilized, what about later misconduct? But once he acquires those guns, that's it? The cops believe he could be a danger to himself or to others, but never mind that?

What if a guy passes the BC and buys a gun, and then at a later date tries to buy another one but this time he fails the BC. Do we confiscate his 1st gun? The system says there are reasons why this person shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, but what if he already has one?

 

[Woodznutz]

Could be, and maybe it should. Let me ask you this: say there's an 18-year old kid like the one that shot up the Uvalde school. At the time of his purchase of the weapons he used, the background check turned up nothing on him so he got his guns. A month later or whenever, he is arrested or taken into custody for domestic violence and/or sent to be evaluated for mental illness, such that he would not have passed the background check. Do we take his guns away? The background check is only good at the time it was utilized, what about later misconduct? But once he acquires those guns, that's it? The cops believe he could be a danger to himself or to others, but never mind that?

What if a guy passes the BC and buys a gun, and then at a later date tries to buy another one but this time he fails the BC. Do we confiscate his 1st gun? The system says there are reasons why this person shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, but what if he already has one?

Lots of questions. What was the nature of the "domestic violence", and, who will evaluate his mental state and under what conditions?

 

[task0778]

Lots of questions. What was the nature of the "domestic violence", and, who will evaluate his mental state and under what conditions?

The domestic violence decision would have to be on the cops on the scene IMHO. If they arrested the person, then they must've thought the persons was dangerous enough to take into custody to prevent future violence. If so, I think that right there is good enough reason to confiscate any guns. And if not, well then they leave the person there without confiscating the guns.

If the person's mental state is in doubt, I would think the cops are not up to making that call. If they take the person to a mental ward or facility then a mental health expert would have to make the call over any weapons confiscation. And obviously any confiscation ought to be reviewed after 14 days or whatever the period of time is before the person can make his/her case to get his/her weapons back.

Do you not think we ought to try to keep guns out of the hands of those who would do harm to themselves or others? Or do we just let shit happen?

 

[hunarcy]

Could be, and maybe it should. Let me ask you this: say there's an 18-year old kid like the one that shot up the Uvalde school. At the time of his purchase of the weapons he used, the background check turned up nothing on him so he got his guns. A month later or whenever, he is arrested or taken into custody for domestic violence and/or sent to be evaluated for mental illness, such that he would not have passed the background check. Do we take his guns away? The background check is only good at the time it was utilized, what about later misconduct? But once he acquires those guns, that's it? The cops believe he could be a danger to himself or to others, but never mind that?

What if a guy passes the BC and buys a gun, and then at a later date tries to buy another one but this time he fails the BC. Do we confiscate his 1st gun? The system says there are reasons why this person shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, but what if he already has one?

Perhaps whenever anyone is judged to be a danger to themselves or others, they should be taken into custody and given psychological treatment until they are no longer a danger to themselves or others so we'll all be safe.

 

[task0778]

Perhaps whenever anyone is judged to be a danger to themselves or others, they should be taken into custody and given psychological treatment until they are no longer a danger to themselves or others so we'll all be safe.

I wouldn't argue against that, but what if the guy already has guns? Assuming he/she has been taken into custody, do you temporarily confiscate them, pending a hearing for a judge to decide if and when he/she gets his property back? It's one thing to prevent him/her from legally buying a gun, but it's another to take away the guns that person already owns. The red flag laws say yes, remove those guns until a judge has declared the person isn't a threat.

 

[hunarcy]

I wouldn't argue against that, but what if the guy already has guns? Assuming he/she has been taken into custody, do you temporarily confiscate them, pending a hearing for a judge to decide if and when he/she gets his property back? It's one thing to prevent him/her from legally buying a gun, but it's another to take away the guns that person already owns. The red flag laws say yes, remove those guns until a judge has declared the person isn't a threat.

If the guy is in the hospital and has no access to a gun, why take it? And, if he only gets out when he's no longer a danger to anyone, why take it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Dems have found a big issue to beat over the Reps with.
They will be using the gun control issue to scare women voters.

Democrats want to deprive women of their rights to self-defense.

 

[miketx]

House of Representatives

Just who is it those commie scum represent? Not me.

 

[task0778]

If the guy is in the hospital and has no access to a gun, why take it? And, if he only gets out when he's no longer a danger to anyone, why take it?

The guy may not be a threat to anyone when they cut him loose from the hospital or clinic, but that doesn't mean that next week he won't shoot somebody. They don't permanently cure your mental health issues, they just make sure you're not a threat when they discharge you. IOW, you could relapse back into your old ways and shoot somebody. Case in point: the Buffalo shooter was evaluated by mental health people but was released and eventually killed a bunch of people.

 

[hunarcy]

The guy may not be a threat to anyone when they cut him loose from the hospital or clinic, but that doesn't mean that next week he won't shoot somebody. They don't permanently cure your mental health issues, they just make sure you're not a threat when they discharge you. IOW, you could relapse back into your old ways and shoot somebody. Case in point: the Buffalo shooter was evaluated by mental health people but was released and eventually killed a bunch of people.

Then he was still a danger to himself and/or others. He should have been committed until it was certain he had no issues.

 

[Lesh]

This certainly brought out the gun nuts huh?

So which particular parts of that bill do you oppose?

Certainly not the raising of the age to buy assault weapons to 21

Certainly not keeping guns out the hands of people with mental issues

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This certainly brought out the gun nuts huh?

So which particular parts of that bill do you oppose?

Certainly not the raising of the age to buy assault weapons to 21

Certainly not keeping guns out the hands of people with mental issues

Ok retard you've shown us how retarded you are.

 

[Lesh]

Ok retard you've shown us how retarded you are.

That wasn't quite an answer...retard

 

[g5000]

I'm having a hard time believing that these shooters were not groomed by the federal government.

Of course you are. Because you are a conspiracy kook.

 

[g5000]

3. Confiscating Americans’ Firearms without Due Process

The bill would create new “red flag” laws that trample on Americans’ Second Amendment rights by allowing family or household members to alert law enforcement or petition a court requesting an individual’s firearm be confiscated without due process.

This guy is a retard. Petitioning a court IS due process.

"Take the guns first. Go through due process second, I like taking the guns early. - Donald J. Trump

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That wasn't quite an answer...retard

A retard such as yourself does not deserve a response other than pointing out that you are a retard.

 

[g5000]

Republicans are becoming more and more on the wrong side of the issues.