Police can confiscate citizens' guns "just in case" they might commit crime in future

here's what they seized the guns for. Who is the source? The nieghbor, most likely.

During conversation with neighbor to resolve dispute with neighbor's mother-in-law, subject held a handgun at his side and repeatedly expressed his right to protect his property (police records showed (1) past episode when subject allegedly walked around his property carrying rifle; (2) subject did not have gun permit; and (3) active arrest warrant for DWI)
 
The pronoun is obviously referring to the same thing in all three sentences. You have to be a retard to get confused by it. Ergo, you are retarded.
 
Last edited:
ib1yysguy said:
He proved my point about this bit from WND grossly distorting reality by omitting inconvenient facts about the bit of legislation.
Click to expand...

But nonetheless, the point remains the same.

You "two legs bad, four legs good" ilk can suck cack.
 
Cypress said:
I don't know how much more of this republican crybaby crap I can take.

Whether its city ordinances against smoking in San Francisco, trans-fat bans in NYC, or sensible gun laws in Connecticut, the rightwing seems to always be on the verge of fainting over some minor, virtually inconsequential issue.....even while a million people die in Iraq, and Bush orders illegal wars and immoral torture.

Get a fainting couch for these wingnuts. Its like your priorities are all upside down.

This connecticut gun bipartisan law is entirely reasonable. It totally makes sense to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people who have a history of violence.

Like this guy - the guy who inspired the law.
Click to expand...


Sensible gun laws? Wtf is sensible about confiscating private property based on unsubstantiated accusations?

Since when is convicting a person without a trial, or even evidence, considered sensible?

I guess the whole notion of freedom isn't sensible either?
 
There is nothing wrong, in principle, with establishing by bipartisan statute, an orderly judicial review process to take away guns from mentally ill people who have a history of violence, and are deemed through judicial review to be a threat.

You wingnuts fell for a World Net Daily article for christ sake.

Can you wingnuts remove the perfumed handkerchiefs from your tear-stained cheeks, and quit pretending that trans-fat bans in NYC, or sensible gun laws are something to expend faux outrage about? The second amendment is not under grave assault!
 
ib1yysguy said:
The pronoun is obviously referring to the same thing in all three sentences. You have to be a retard to get confused by it. Ergo, you are retarded.
Click to expand...
And you have now proved that you are a humorless automaton who can't take a bit of witticism about the statement that you were "called a moron for saying so" and the following statement of "Cypress proved it."
 
who here thinks that mentally ill people with a history of violence, have an absolute and inalienable right to own guns?
 
Cypress said:
who here thinks that mentally ill people with a history of violence, have an absolute and inalienable right to own guns?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here thinks that people as you described have an unalienable right to own guns.

But are the guns removed based on judicial process? Or are they removed based on accusations and then the accused are left to prove themselves innocent and mentally competent?
 
If the liberals can find a way to make it harder for you to purchase and own a gun, rest assured they will and they will call it "sensible gun legislation." And no, I don't think the mentally incompetent should own them. But law abiding citizens should have easy access to them.
 
Cypress said:
who here thinks that mentally ill people with a history of violence, have an absolute and inalienable right to own guns?
Click to expand...
Why don't you point out the clause that requires due process of law in determining the mental state of a citizen BEFORE the guns are confiscated? You cannot, because the law allows guns to be confiscated from SUSPICION alone. All the police need is a complaint filed against the person, and they can go in and take that person's weapons. And if a person DOES have their guns confiscated, the burden is then placed on them to prove the guns were taken without just cause.

That is NOT how this country is supposed to work. Your tune would change very quickly if this kind of law were focussed on something other than guns. How would you like it if a law allowed police to arrest people and put them in jail based on the same criteria that they are now allowed to confiscate a person's weapons? Bet you'll pop a blood vessel or two if that was going on.

Or, maybe you wouldn't. How totalitarian are you?
 
leaningright said:
If the liberals can find a way to make it harder for you to purchase and own a gun, rest assured they will and they will call it "sensible gun legislation." And no, I don't think the mentally incompetent should own them. But law abiding citizens should have easy access to them.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
Yeah imagine if they could take your kids from you based on so slight a standard, just suspicion that based on some depression that may not even be clinical and the worry that you MIGHT abuse your kids the police can come take your children. There would be a resounding cry, and well so. But because it is the horrible mean evil firearms then nothing more than suspicion should suffice.
 
leaningright said:
If the liberals can find a way to make it harder for you to purchase and own a gun, rest assured they will and they will call it "sensible gun legislation." And no, I don't think the mentally incompetent should own them. But law abiding citizens should have easy access to them.
Click to expand...


That's fine LR, but that has nothing to do with the thread.

This thread wasn't about "liberals" not selling you a gun.

It was about a bipartisan piece of legislation, signed by a republican governor, that allowed an orderly judicial review process for keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, with a demonstrable record of violence.

If we can't agree that mentally ill people that are violent, shouldn't have an absolute, inalienable right to own some guns, then the rightwing is way off the reservation and into extremist territory.
 
Cypress said:
That's fine LR, but that has nothing to do with the thread.

This thread wasn't about "liberals" not selling you a gun.

It was about a bipartisan piece of legislation, signed by a republican governor, that allowed an orderly judicial review process for keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, with a demonstrable record of violence.

If we can't agree that mentally ill people that are violent, shouldn't have an absolute, inalienable right to own some guns, then the rightwing is way off the reservation and into extremist territory.
Click to expand...

Has anyone disagreed with the idea that dangerous mentally ill persons should not be allowed to own guns?

What we are disagreeing with, and you keep ignoring, is the process by which the disarming takes place.

We are not off the reservation for wanting due process. We are not extremists for denying the rightness of disarming citizens based solely on the accusations of laymen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top