Serbian School Shooting

[fatman76]

The process I'm referring to would be the mirror image of that. It would be reactionary as opposed to an offensive.

You get convicted of...

Beating your wife
Felony drug use or sale
Rape (or any sex offense)
Arson
Multiple public intoxication (I'd say x2)
Burglary
Felony theft
Assault

...and many other examples. All of which lead to a medical evaluation and a legal hearing as to your right to own a firearm.

That seems reasonable.

Felons already cannot legally possess a firearm.

That's sort of the problem, no one can show me where a new gun law would increase public safety without severely compromising a sane, lawful gun owner from buying a gun.

There's no such thing as a "gun show loophole" either...that's a liberal talking point just like "trickle down economics" is.

 

[fatman76]

A few years ago a hunting buddy of mine and his wife split. The wife was batshit crazy, she became a practicing witch (Evilz will howl with laughter) . He came back for his stuff and she filed a restraining order against him. The judge ordered him to turn over his shotguns to the court. He ended up hiding them at a friends house until the order expired. He packed up and got his Labrador retriever and moved to Washington state. These are real world issues with who has authority to do what.

Which is why Red Flag laws are scary. All that has to happen is someone who doesn't like you reports you, and viola, no more guns for you.

I get the idea and love it, but putting it into practice is highly problematic.

 

[GatorTheo]

Driving is a privilege because there are no constitutional provisions for it. Guns on the other hand have them. It is set in stone.

So, if driving were a constitutional right, you'd set aside your safety concerns and advocate for no restrictions?

 

[BamaFan1137]

A few years ago a hunting buddy of mine and his wife split. The wife was batshit crazy, she became a practicing witch (Evilz will howl with laughter) . He came back for his stuff and she filed a restraining order against him. The judge ordered him to turn over his shotguns to the court. He ended up hiding them at a friends house until the order expired. He packed up and got his Labrador retriever and moved to Washington state. These are real world issues with who has authority to do what.

A judge had to order that. Why did he order it? If it was BS, you get that judge removed from the bench. My guess is she pushed his buttons and your buddy responded in a way that allowed the TEMPORARY process to move forward.

Also, my recommendation would add a step in a permanent decision. A judge and a doctor would have had to agree. And even their decisions wouldn't necessarily be final as it could be challenged.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Which is why Red Flag laws are scary. All that has to happen is someone who doesn't like you reports you, and viola, no more guns for you.

I get the idea and love it, but putting it into practice is highly problematic.

This isn't true.

It's possible that a "report" could have a temporary impact but there's no "viola" here.

Even with regards to a temporary impact based on said report, the reporting party would need to show cause as to why there's a need for the restraining order and why said person would need to be disarmed.

Disarming people is unbelievably difficult. Ask me how I know.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

So, if driving were a constitutional right, you'd set aside your safety concerns and advocate for no restrictions?

Where did he say he has no safety concerns over guns? Where did he ask for no restrictions?

Believe it or not, I don't think the other posters here have the emotional investment in removing guns from society that you do.

What gun did Cain use to kill Abel?

 

[fatman76]

This isn't true.

It's possible that a "report" could have a temporary impact but there's no "viola" here.

Even with regards to a temporary impact based on said report, the reporting party would need to show cause as to why there's a need for the restraining order and why said person would need to be disarmed.

Disarming people is unbelievably difficult. Ask me how I know.

It can seriously screw with someone, and there are many cases where it’s been used as a revenge tactic. And if something stupid and technical goes wrong in the administrative process people can lose access to firearms for a year or longer. Not to mention they may not even be constitutional.

NRA-ILA | A “Red Flag” Case – Florida Man’s Rights Virtually Disappear

President Biden and his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, have championed “red flag” laws that authorize courts to temporarily prohibit individuals from possessing or accessing guns based on unproven and uncorroborated allegations by family members, coworkers, law enforcement officers or others.

www.nraila.org

What Are Red Flag Laws and Are They Ripe For Abuse?

Recently, the Senate passed the “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act,” which includes funding for red flag laws. Garnering the support of

www.personaldefenseworld.com

Woman Abuses Red Flag Law, Lies About Innocent Man To Have His Guns Confiscated

The case shows how dangerous red flag laws can be.

www.westernjournal.com

 

[fatman76]

So, if driving were a constitutional right, you'd set aside your safety concerns and advocate for no restrictions?

@NavigatorII - are you advocating that everyone can openly carry any type of firearm they want? For example, shooting cans off of a fence with a machine gun on Main Street? Using rocket launchers to take down trees in suburban neighborhoods?

You really are a crazy person!!!

 

[EvilWayz]

@NavigatorII - are you advocating that everyone can openly carry any type of firearm they want?

I am. You used to be able to buy an Thompson M2 at a hardware store. There's no good reason why responsible people shouldn't be able to own and carry whatever they want. Before someone brings up nukes may I point out the regulatory and storage concerns.

Technically there's nothing in the constitution that says you can't be crazy or violent or a felon. And if the Russians start parachuting in here a la Red Dawn, that's who I want turned loose first.

For example, shooting cans off of a fence with a machine gun on Main Street? Using rocket launchers to take down trees in suburban neighborhoods?

You really are a crazy person!!!

Taking out trees and cans should only be done in an approved area while following the four safety rules.

 

[BamaFan1137]

It can seriously screw with someone, and there are many cases where it’s been used as a revenge tactic.

There's no doubt about that. But they would still have to show cause. Cause can't be a feeling or a belief. You would need something concrete like an actual verifiable threat.

And as I mentioned above, this isn't even the process that I was supporting regarding a permanent red flag. That would involve a medical evaluation and a judge to sign off on it AFTER A CONVICTION of the sort I mentioned.

Can things go awry? Sure, anything can but obviously that would be very much the exception and not the rule and even that can be rectified on those rare occasions.

I've been a part of these hearings. Way more often than not we're unsuccessful in the attempt. When we are successful, it's for a finite period of time.

 

[BamaFan1137]

I am. You used to be able to buy an Thompson M2 at a hardware store. There's no good reason why responsible people shouldn't be able to own and carry whatever they want. Before someone brings up nukes may I point out the regulatory and storage concerns.

Technically there's nothing in the constitution that says you can't be crazy or violent or a felon. And if the Russians start parachuting in here a la Red Dawn, that's who I want turned loose first.





Taking out trees and cans should only be done in an approved area while following the four safety rules.

I think it's reasonable to require a special license for fully automatic weapons. The rest of this crap, like SBR's, pistol grips, bump stocks and silencers should end immediately. If for no other reason than they're nonsensical and random AF.

I'd rather not be shot at but if I had to choose someone shooting at me with a rifle, I'd rather the person be using an SBR with a bump stock than a long barreled rifle without one. And yet acquiring an LBR is simpler and cheaper than acquiring an SBR.

 

[NavigatorII]

So, if driving were a constitutional right, you'd set aside your safety concerns and advocate for no restrictions?

Yes!

 

[fatman76]

I am. You used to be able to buy an Thompson M2 at a hardware store. There's no good reason why responsible people shouldn't be able to own and carry whatever they want. Before someone brings up nukes may I point out the regulatory and storage concerns.

Technically there's nothing in the constitution that says you can't be crazy or violent or a felon. And if the Russians start parachuting in here a la Red Dawn, that's who I want turned loose first.





Taking out trees and cans should only be done in an approved area while following the four safety rules.

My example is obviously hyperbole- because all Theo has are all or nothing absolutist arguments.

 

[NavigatorII]

@NavigatorII - are you advocating that everyone can openly carry any type of firearm they want? For example, shooting cans off of a fence with a machine gun on Main Street? Using rocket launchers to take down trees in suburban neighborhoods?

You really are a crazy person!!!

Cannons were allowed in residential neighborhoods in 1776. I see no jurisprudence to disallow them now! 😂

 

[NavigatorII]

I think it's reasonable to require a special license for fully automatic weapons. The rest of this crap, like SBR's, pistol grips, bump stocks and silencers should end immediately. If for no other reason than they're nonsensical and random AF.

I'd rather not be shot at but if I had to choose someone shooting at me with a rifle, I'd rather the person be using an SBR with a bump stock than a long barreled rifle without one. And yet acquiring and LBR is simpler and cheaper acquiring an SBR.

Well, there is. Bump stocks are useless nonsense, don't really care about them. It was like giving Briar Rabbit 30 days in the briars to ban them.😂

 

[EvilWayz]

My example is obviously hyperbole- because all Theo has are all or nothing absolutist arguments.

Oh. well you can own both. just a ridiculous amount of BATFE bureaucracy to wade through.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Felons already cannot legally possess a firearm.

In most states this is untrue as well. Most felons can own firearms. It's only felons convicted of certain crimes that cannot, like ones convicted of a violent act or distribution of narcotics.

Most people believe that all felons are forbidden from having a firearm and that's just not true.

 

[fatman76]

In most states this is untrue as well. Most felons can own firearms. It's only felons convicted of certain crimes that cannot, like ones convicted of a violent act or distribution of narcotics.

Most people believe that all felons are forbidden from having a firearm and that's just not true.

What states?

 

[NavigatorII]

What states?

I think a felony is a felony is a felony in Florida. The statute does not care here.

 

[BamaFan1137]

What states?

AL, AZ, ID, KS, LA, MN, MT, OH, PA, RI, SC, SD, and VT.

Most other states restore all or some rights after a specified time upon release from custody.

 

[EvilWayz]

In most states this is untrue as well. Most felons can own firearms. It's only felons convicted of certain crimes that cannot, like ones convicted of a violent act or distribution of narcotics.

Most people believe that all felons are forbidden from having a firearm and that's just not true.

Can confirm. They just can't buy one from an FFL dealer.

 

[BamaFan1137]

I think a felony is a felony is a felony in Florida. The statute does not care here.

In Florida it requires a pardon or a special restoration which I'm assuming is a Governor or Court Order for all felons.

I agree with Florida's law.

For example in Alabama, Handgun ("pistol") rights only lost upon conviction of violent crime; felony drug offense. Restoration by pardon.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Can confirm. They just can't buy one from an FFL dealer.

Well they can't be in possession of one either. Possession, legally speaking, means in care or control of. For example, if you're in the car and the gun is too, you're effed.

If it's in a house that the felon is in, that gets more dicey unless it's the home where the felon lives and then it's cut and dry.

 

[EvilWayz]

Well they can't be in possession of one either. Possession, legally speaking, means in care or control of. For example, if you're in the car and the gun is too, you're effed.

If it's in a house that the felon is in, that gets more dicey unless it's the home where the felon lives and then it's cut and dry.

In Florida if you have been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor domestic you can't possess or purchase a firearm unless you get your rights restored. I can't speak for other states.

 

[fatman76]

AL, AZ, ID, KS, LA, MN, MT, OH, PA, RI, SC, SD, and VT.

Most other states restore all or some rights after a specified time upon release from custody.

Fair, but I just checked one. AZ is 2 years. A violent felony is 10.

This seems like a fair standard. The bottom line is, in most states violent felons don’t get to buy guns legally, no?

 

[Capt Ron 1]

I know. You can apply sensible logic to discussions of speed control but discussions of guns is an entirely different matter.

How does making laws that affect me make gun violence go down. "Me" being someone that has never committed a crime? PLEASE..if you can explain this, I will join your fight! You see...this 100% RUINS your argument, because you CANNOT answer this. I have owned MANY, MANY guns in my lifetime, and mine must be really GOOD guns....because tghey have never been used for any crimes. Have at it son!!

 

[Capt Ron 1]

The process I'm referring to would be the mirror image of that. It would be reactionary as opposed to an offensive.

You get convicted of...

Beating your wife
Felony drug use or sale
Rape (or any sex offense)
Arson
Multiple public intoxication (I'd say x2)
Burglary
Felony theft
Assault

...and many other examples. All of which lead to a medical evaluation and a legal hearing as to your right to own a firearm.

That seems reasonable.

This is where the problem is. Has to be adjudicated. Too many times crazy peoples first act of violence is when they go crazy with a gun, and EVERYONE knew that they could blow a gasket....they just had not done so yet. THESE people need to be stopped somehow...but it is a very slippery slope.

 

[GatorTheo]

How does making laws that affect me make gun violence go down. "Me" being someone that has never committed a crime? PLEASE..if you can explain this, I will join your fight! You see...this 100% RUINS your argument, because you CANNOT answer this. I have owned MANY, MANY guns in my lifetime, and mine must be really GOOD guns....because tghey have never been used for any crimes. Have at it son!!

You can't grasp any argument besides what the gun companies allow.

You can look at all the daily gun violence......all the dead people.....and your only thought is......"guns had nothing to do with that because guns are good. Only good."

 

[BamaFan1137]

Fair, but I just checked one. AZ is 2 years. A violent felony is 10.

This seems like a fair standard.

I actually don't agree with the standard. I think that if you're convicted of a felony, or of a violent misdemeanor, that you should only have your gun rights restored through a court order or a pardon. I have no problem with a path towards restoration, but I don't agree that it should be automatic.

The bottom line is, in most states violent felons don’t get to buy guns legally, no?

I thought it was more than half but I was wrong.

 

[BamaFan1137]

You can't grasp any argument besides what the gun companies allow.

You can look at all the daily gun violence......all the dead people.....and your only thought is......"guns had nothing to do with that because guns are good. Only good."

How can guns be good or bad? They are inanimate. Your only thought seems to be that of the anti-gun lobby...guns are bad, only bad.

But you don't blame cars, electricity, or peanuts when they kill. Makes sense...they're also inanimate.

It is what it is but your position doesn't make sense to us either. If we're hypnotized by the gun lobby you're hypnotized by the anti-gun lobby.

 

[BamaFan1137]

This is where the problem is. Has to be adjudicated. Too many times crazy peoples first act of violence is when they go crazy with a gun, and EVERYONE knew that they could blow a gasket....they just had not done so yet. THESE people need to be stopped somehow...but it is a very slippery slope.

I understand what you are saying but limiting access before a person does wrong or shows signs of mental defect is absolutely unconstitutional imho.

However, to address your specific point, most people who commit gun violence do show some sign(s) prior to their act...be that criminal behavior or mental illness in general.

 

[GatorTheo]

How can guns be good or bad? They are inanimate. Your only thought seems to be that of the anti-gun lobby...guns are bad, only bad.

But you don't blame cars, electricity, or peanuts when they kill. Makes sense...they're also inanimate.

It is what it is but your position doesn't make sense to us either. If we're hypnotized by the gun lobby you're hypnotized by the anti-gun lobby.

Guns are killing machines that are frequently misused.

Are you guys allowed to acknowledge that?

 

[BamaFan1137]

Guns are killing machines that are frequently misused.

Are you guys allowed to acknowledge that?

I'm allowed to acknowledge anything I like, just as you are.

The vast majority of "killing machines" in America haven't killed anyone. Some of them have been around for a pretty long time and yet they've managed to restrain themselves...which, according to you, is rather amazing.

For me it's more like physics.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

So, if driving were a constitutional right, you'd set aside your safety concerns and advocate for no restrictions?

I would follow existing laws as written, until those laws were legally changed. Is this the answer you were looking for?

 

[Capt Ron 1]

You can't grasp any argument besides what the gun companies allow.

You can look at all the daily gun violence......all the dead people.....and your only thought is......"guns had nothing to do with that because guns are good. Only good."

Never talked to a gun company in my life. Law abiding people’s guns do not commit crimes. You are too stupid to understand this, have been more abused by your stupid stance, have been defeated in your feeble arguments, yet here you are. You HAVE to have a lefty in the woodpile to be this slow.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

I understand what you are saying but limiting access before a person does wrong or shows signs of mental defect is absolutely unconstitutional imho.

However, to address your specific point, most people who commit gun violence do show some sign(s) prior to their act...be that criminal behavior or mental illness in general.

Very slippery slope here. But the ones I am mainly speaking of are the people who show many signs for significant amount of time. Still a slippery slope.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

Guns are killing machines that are frequently misused.

Are you guys allowed to acknowledge that?

No. Guns are inanimate objects. Prove me wrong.

 

[GatorTheo]

Never talked to a gun company in my life. Law abiding people’s guns do not commit crimes. You are too stupid to understand this, have been more abused by your stupid stance, have been defeated in your feeble arguments, yet here you are. You HAVE to have a lefty in the woodpile to be this slow.

Have you ever read a 'study' that shows how safe and wonderful guns are?

Who do you think paid for that 'study'?

 

[GatorTheo]

No. Guns are inanimate objects. Prove me wrong.

I figured you weren't allowed to acknowledge it.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Guns are killing machines that are frequently misused.

Are you guys allowed to acknowledge that?

They are inanimate objects.

Warmists believe that gas-powered cars are killing machines too, they just think they are destroying the planet.

You think banning all guns will stop all shootings. Warmists believe banning all gas-powered cars will save the planet.

You ask us to acknowledge they are frequently misused...what you cannot acknowledge is if you remove the guns, we will still have people out there who will find other killing machines and FREQUENTLY MISUSE THEM.

Just like the warmist cannot acknowledge that EVs end up using fossil fuels just like gas-powered cars do.

You guys let your emotions override logic and common sense. And the left preys on that.

If we followed your logic, we would actually end up with MORE gun deaths.

If we followed warmist logic, we would actually do MORE harm to the planet.

You guys end up making the problem WORSE, when you think you are solving it. It is what it is.