The truly horrible House gun bill

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Yes trp said that but backed away when he realized it was a mistake.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Nope never happen but you can stop projecting.

 

[Lesh]

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

So you're a troll ...ok

 

[Jarlaxle]

I dont think background checks are unconstitutional

I think if you want to take a man’s gun away we already have a process for that

Convicted felons are not allowed to own guns

But lazy gun grabbers want take guns away based on hearsay

Thats unacceptable

No, it's more than that: they want be able to legally SWAT people and get them killed.

I somewhat disagree

The black guy who ran over the white ladies at a Christmas parade did get some attention

But no one was callIng for red flag laws or the confiscation of automobiles

And that disappeared from the news FAST when the suspect became known.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Hell no. People have been arrested for "domestic violence" despite no proof any crime was committed. Basically: if a woman reports domestic violence, the man WILL be arrested, even if he is injured and she is not.

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

I oppose each and every part of it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you're a troll ...ok

No a retard would use the word gun nut

 

[Lesh]

Basically: if a woman reports domestic violence, the man WILL be arrested, even if he is injured and she is not.

Show us a case where that has happened

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Show us a case where that has happened

A lot of times that does happen. To get one out of the house

 

[task0778]

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

It depends on which state you live in, but involuntary commitment to a mental facility is difficult for the state to do, as it should be. Pretty much if he calms down and exhibits no sign of violence then they'll probably discharge him. He goes home and if his weapons are still there then as soon as something sets him off again there could be a shooting(s). I'm not sure it's that big a deal to deny him his weapons for a few weeks until he shows himself to be in control of himself. If he can't even do that then maybe everybody is better off if he doesn't have any weapons.

 

[Mac-7]

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

The only petitioning will be by the conservative gun owner begging government to give his guns back

And good luck with that

 

[hunarcy]

It depends on which state you live in, but involuntary commitment to a mental facility is difficult for the state to do, as it should be. Pretty much if he calms down and exhibits no sign of violence then they'll probably discharge him. He goes home and if his weapons are still there then as soon as something sets him off again there could be a shooting(s). I'm not sure it's that big a deal to deny him his weapons for a few weeks until he shows himself to be in control of himself. If he can't even do that then maybe everybody is better off if he doesn't have any weapons.

So, you leave him out where he can have access to clubs, hammers, knives and automobiles which have all been used to murder? Then your goal is not public safety, it's to merely grab a gun.

 

[Woodznutz]

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?

Even if it poses a danger to society we must err on the side of individual rights. We withhold the death penalty in order to ensure that we don't mistakenly execute someone, while imprisoning them for life. We also let others out of prison knowing that they will likely reoffend, often violently.

What we have is human nature run amok, on both side of the law.

 

[Lesh]

So, you leave him out where he can have access to clubs, hammers, knives and automobiles which have all been used to murder? Then your goal is not public safety, it's to merely grab a gun.

Society recognizes that guns are not only far more dangerous, but that they have no other use than to do damage to other human beings.

 

[Woodznutz]

Society recognizes that guns are not only far more dangerous, but that they have no other use than to do damage to other human beings.

I have used guns all my life for hunting and target shooting. Haven't damaged a human yet (although I am prepared for that as well).

 

[Lesh]

I have used guns all my life for hunting and target shooting. Haven't damaged a human yet (although I am prepared for that as well).

Irrelevant

You are one person out of 300 million

Guns are inherently more dangerous than knives or clubs and have no other use than to do damage to humans

 

[Woodznutz]

Irrelevant

You are one person out of 300 million

Guns are inherently more dangerous than knives or clubs and have no other use than to do damage to humans

Most gun owners are like me. Very few shoot people. Guns are only dangerous in the hands of dangerous or careless people. Also, gun deaths are just a blip compared to other causes of premature and unnecessary deaths.

 

[Lesh]

Most gun owners are like me. Very few shoot people. Guns are only dangerous in the hands of dangerous or careless people. Also, gun deaths are just a blip compared to other causes of premature and unnecessary deaths.

And this is about keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people

So there’s that

 

[Woodznutz]

And this is about keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people

So there’s that

This is an attempt to identify people who might become violent at a later time. A very slippery slope.

 

[task0778]

Even if it poses a danger to society we must err on the side of individual rights.

How would you feel if a liberal judge somewhere allows a convicted rapist to go free with a suspended sentence, and then he rapes your daughter/wife/mother/sister? Do we not see threads in here where some are complaining about bad guys that pretty much get away with a light sentence or none at all cuz of their skin color? Are you still okay with a judge that errs on the side of individual rights?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And this is about keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people

You know his is false.
You know it's about laying unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding.