Gun conficstion for making gun violence threats

Scenarios can get twisted.

 

The first would not be grounds for taking away your gun, in my opinion. The latter examples probably so after adjudication.

 

You can get emergency hearings in an hour if need be. Every juristicion has on call judges for things like warrants. There is no reason these judges cannot see a prosecutor and defendant just as quickly.

Remember, this isnt about finding out guilt or innocence, its simply to determine if the state has cause to believe the defendant poses an immediate threat.

 

same reason folks have lotsa cars or baseball cards or wrenches or cats.

why so judgemental?

 

Here's something that's important to point out:
The reason it's illegal to make threats is NOT because we think that will help us predict who is going to commit a crime, but because those threats are intended to coerce or intimidate someone through fear.
If you made all threats illegal, even the ones made jokingly, would that actually prevent the violence? Think about that. So then suppose all those threats stop because everyone knows those threats are illegal and taken very seriously. Well then that's not going to help you, is it?

I just think of some of you are completely brain dead and not thinking the logic through.

 

Well there goes Madonna

 

That isn't a bad idea. I'm a card carrying member of the NRA and I own guns in the double digits.

I hate to say that would have stopped this shitbag because hindsight is 20/20 but he was sounding off about it.

Just like you don't joke about bombs in the airport you don't joke about this crap.

 

I think this is good. Why isn't it done everywhere?

 

Yes it's really quite enjoyable you Should give it a try you might like it.

 

Why do you think this is good?

The idea behind gun control is to seize everyone's guns before they can commit violence.

You're basically saying they haven't committed a crime but we can predict whether they're a threat.

 

Yeah in the revolutionary war. I thank them every day.

 

Unless it's made as an obvious threat, now you're running into Freedom of the Press issues and taking away freedoms and rights based on people writing things.

You tell everyone it's not okay, and succeed in making all these so-called "threats" go away, well that's not really going to do anything to stop the actual violence, is it?

 

Go get them. Stop harassing innocent folks because you're inept.

 

you don't have the right to make threats.

 

Saying "threats" are illegal can get really ambiguous. Unless a threat is specifically sent to the targeted person, it shouldn't be illegal if someone jokes about it in a Facebook post, or gets really angry and says threatening things to someone else.

You wouldn't arrest them for that, but apparently you don't feel any problem with taking away other rights. But that's probably because many people don't actually feel these are rights in the first place.

I just feel we're getting into dangerous territory when we're getting the government to make coercive threats against people for doing things that were not morally wrong.
All in the name of "safety".

I'm going to quote an anecdotal story here that was posted by someone else in a different thread:

So apparently an 8 year prison sentence for an angry outburst while the man wasn't thinking clearly because he had blood sugar issues and was in the middle of an angry argument with his wife. ​

 

He is not the topic of this thread. Why don’t you actually respond to the points he has raised rather than petty insults?

 

You don’t owe him an explanation nor are you the topic of this thread. Some posters have perfected the ad hominem such that they are literally incapable of actually formulating an argument. Welcome to PF.

 

Stop being an ass. It’s really boring.

 

threatening someone is illegal and it's not ambiguous.

Well a threat has to be credible for it to be a threat.

You have never had the right to threaten people it has always been against the law so we're not taking away rights because you never had the right to threaten people.

unless you can show me in the Bill of Rights where you have the right to threaten people I don't feel that it's a right because it's not.

no it has always been on against the wall to issue a terroristic threat. Maybe we should just take these threats a little more seriously the FBI knew about this guy if they had just arrested him which they had all the power in the world to do because he made terroristic threats we wouldn't be talking about this. Idle threats and jokes don't count they would have to be credible.

Enforcing the law that has been on the books for decades is not a violation of anything you never had the right to threaten people. just like you don't have the right to incite violence we can arrest you for that. You also don't have the right to slander somebody. There are few limits to liberties

 

Sounds nice but technically not logically true to make such a statement. "Toys" are just another extra benefit resulting from other people being able to have the means to protect.
Obviously if all they all melted down all their extra "toys" that were specifically just for play it probably wouldn't do anything to reduce the crime.

unless you claiming that they are all toys, which you seem to be implying

 

Under Federal penal code it is a class C felony to make a threat.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b(c)(1)(g) makes it a class C felony, punishable by 10 years imprisonment, for someone to willfully threaten to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily harm; the threat is made with the specific intent that it be taken as a threat; the threat is so unequivocal, unconditional, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution; the threat actually causes fear in the victim; and the fear is reasonable.

That's not making new laws that's not enforcing gun control that's enforcing laws that already exist that should have been enforced in the first place.

 

Yes it is. You're only thinking about a certain type of image of "threatening" but there are all different types.

Another potentially vague law.

Vague.

The issue I think is, when you say these words, you're only thinking about a few certain types of situations, but in in actuality those same words could potentially be applied to a much wider array of situations.

The reality is that if all these laws were strictly enforced to the letter by some cold calculating logical artificial computer intelligence, everyone would be in prison.

Basically what I'm saying is these laws should be much more narrowly worded, to better protect peoples' rights.

 

He's not a serious poster he's a cheerleader that regurgitates talking points without even really understanding them.

I just watched a louder with Crowder video on YouTube about white privilidge and male privilege and Steven Crowder was speaking to people on a college campus about it and one student really got all upset about it and it wasn't because he cared about the subject he didn't that's because he wanted to be right. It is a youthful thing. I'm one to talk I am merely 36 but it seems the Younger You Are the more you vehement Lee defended things because they're said by people you admire.

 

I am only speaking about the one covered by the US code.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b(c)(1)(g) makes it a class C felony, punishable by 10 years imprisonment, for someone to willfully threaten to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily harm; the threat is made with the specific intent that it be taken as a threat; the threat is so unequivocal, unconditional, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution; the threat actually causes fear in the victim; and the fear is reasonable.

So no it's not.

they aren't vague. Just like I found codified law that is not vague for a threat I can find law for this hundreds of thousands of lawyers 12 for 20 hours a day writing this s*** absolutely very specifically so that it is not vague.

Do you know nothing about our law?

stop trying to muddy the waters I'm talking about what is codified in law. It is not vague.

If it is feel free to tear apart the section of the US code that I quoted you and you should demand a couple million dollars from all the laws universities and the law firms and the us because they could not do what you did despite having vast amounts of education on it.

 

If we just went by the wording of the law and nothing else, half the people in this forum could be arrested for "slander".

You and any of your relatives have never made any type of threat before, even if it was not said in a way to make people actually believe that they'd do it?

The issue here is that these laws are going to end up (if they haven't already) getting people arrested for saying stupid things that are not unnormal.
All the easier when it's just some of their rights being taken away (that a lot of people do not regard as rights) and it doesn't even require an actual arrest or jail.

But that's the issue, laws can be interpreted in all different ways