Take guns away from those who are potentially violent

Many argue that states and the federal government should take guns away from those they think might be violent, even if they had not been to date.

That sounds like a good solution to me. Once 5 people say someone is violent they lose all their guns.

 

"once 5 people say someone is something we remove their rights"

SHES A WITCH, BURN HER!
HE LOOKED AT A WHITE WOMAN THE WRONG WAY, LYNCH HIM!
SHES A COMMIE, ARREST HER!
HES A NAZI, HIT HIM WITH A BIKE LOCK!

Stupid ****ing idea.

Taking away someone's rights is an uber serious thing and we have a Constitutionally prescribed way to go about this.

Its called a trial.

I don't want nutjob lunatics like Cruz to have guns, but there's a correct way to do this.

So change that 5 to a 12 and make sure they're sitting in a jury box when they make that call or no deal.​

 

Thing is it would be all too easy to scam the system and falsely accuse someone. Particularly in today's social media world

 

So what criteria would you use given that Cruz was able to keep his guns

 

You make a great point. All it takes is some nut job being President like Jerry Brown and we're all deemed psychotic dangers. It's the slope, the slippery one we've all known about. Proven nut jobs should be banned from owning firearms, but the devil is in the definition and judge. That's why the old saying that free will reigns supreme. Do we accept temporary safety over liberty? And temporary is the word of the day. We're all going to die one day, will it be as a free spirit or as a mindless drone?

 

And yet Australia we feel much freer than you because e are not forced to have to think about defending ourselves day after day

 

A trial would take very few guns away from anyone. Federal and state agencies have limited resources and courts have limited time. No more than a handful of weapons would ever be removed this way.

I did this thread to point out just how silly the complaints are of those that say it was the FBI or Broward county that caused the problem. In fact had they pursued Cruz the same people who complain about them would have complained they were trying to take a gun away from a law abiding citizen.

Its not clear that they would even have won the case. But in any case requiring a trial would be prohibitively difficult, costly, and leave a lot of violent people with guns.

 

Australia wasn't founded on a revolution where the government wasn't to be trusted. GB just said to you, go your own way. It didn't happen that way here. The second amendment goes way deeper than just personal protection.

 

The Constitution says we use a trial so that's the only answer I have.

Lawmakers will do their thing because there is precedent.

Problem is those precedents are always challenged because, again, their Constitutionality is highly suspect.

One example is civil commitment.

Its done for the "good of society", but is it Constitutional?

Back in 1997 the Supreme Court said that civil commitment post sentence served isn't a violation of double jeopardy under a condition of a demonstrated intent to continue to engage in the behavior that landed them in prison in the first place.

But can we not say the same thing about pretty much every criminal that re-offenders based on the fact that they re-offended?

Its all so subjective and tricky at that point because the farther away we move from the Constitution the more cloudy the water becomes and the more dim the light is making it harder to find our way back.

In that instance the loophole that makes it all possible, aka the way the lawmakers evaded the Constitution, is in right there in the name.

"Civil" commitment, as in not a criminal proceeding.

Pretty ****ing slick isn't it?

That the change of one word can toss your rights out.

/shrug

 

seems commies aren't happy unless they're trying to take stuff that belongs to someone else.

 

Here the thing, had the locals did their job, Cruz probably wouldn't have killed 17 people. His mother even reported him. Teachers reported him. Classmates/friends even reported him. And I think I read that the SRO even reported him. So had the locals put more effort in to this and did a 72 hold or brought him before a judge to remoeve his rights.... 17 people would probablly still be alove.

 

There’s a lot of ways to argue this, but with all the violent protests, looting, arson etc, exhibited by the the left, then your suggestion would leave conservatives and NRA members as the only people who will be allowed to have guns.

 

Which is why people like Cruz will continue to have guns.

Trials are not real alternatives. There are never going to be more than a handful of these. So you either take guns away from individuals identified as being violent (as Cruz was) or you let them keep their guns.

But if you do the latter don't complain when state and federal agencies rarely take weapons away. Because they won't be able to in most cases.

 

Do you think Cruz is the only person this is true of? I am sure its true of lots of people who have guns. He had not killed anyone or broken any law at the time the complaints were made.

 

Yes the government makes you freer by not having to think.

 

Liberty is dangerous.
Life doesn't get less dangerous by surrendering it.

 

For the win. /end thread.

If we lose the LEGAL right to defend ourselves with firearms, then only criminals will possess them. Heroin and human trafficking is illegal in the US, yet criminals have access to it and distribute to other criminals quite easily. Those same people will always have firearms. Lives are lost.

 

The majority of violence in this world is not perpetrated by individuals. It's perpetrated by movements with a plan to shape society in their own image.

 

Never heard of the Rum Rebellion have you? We actually mutinied!! lols

Then there was Eureka

We still fly THAT flag!

 

How far you have fallen.

 

But for what? What was there in any of those reports that would have been a chargeable offense?

 

Well.........that made me chuckle. We had Tennessee moonshiners WAY after the revolution.

 

No of course not. But people don't wake up one morning and decdice to go wipe out tons of people. There is always some kind of sign. Some times its very simple and very hard to see, other times, like Cruz, it a light going off. In Cruz's case you had something like 50 complaints. At least that is what I read. And not a dam thing was done about him. If there is reason to believe that a person is a dangerous to them self or others, you can be bough before a judge and have your rights a firearm suspend to even revovked

 

You don't need to have a chargeable offense to have be placed on a psy watch/hold. If you try and commit suicide, you're not going to jail, but your going go to a hospital and probably watched for some time. With Cruz he could have place a watch and that would have prevent him form getting his firearms. At least legally anyway. If he were to steal them, well that is a different story

 

All humans are violent, just ask Bill Clinton about Hillary.

It's in our genes, survival of the fittest.

Alpha males are likely to use their fist while beta males using a weapon and millennial snowflakes tend to use AR rifles lately

Some will blame guns, some may blame the NRA for the mass shootings we have been seeing over the past couple of decades.
Using science I came up with blaming political correctness.

If your not a violent human you might be an animal.

So are you a human being or are you a rodent with wings like a bat ?

Are you like a bird of prey



or are you like a scavenger like a turkey vulture waiting for free stuff (food.)?