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

Socrtease said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's good to compare kids to guns. They're equally important to gun nuts.
 
Watermark said:
Yeah it's good to compare kids to guns. They're equally important to gun nuts.
Click to expand...

First of all, this "gun nut" label that is applied to anyone who hunts, shoots or collects firearms is just nonsense.

Ok WM, how about if the authorities could confiscate the car of anyone based solely on accusations by unqualified people? How would you like your neighbors to get mad and claim that you are a dangerous driver, and therefore your car should be taken away from you.

Make more sense?
 
I'm hearing two stories here - one about judicial review and one about seizing guns based on accusations. You know what? The first seems likely, the second seems highly unlikely.
 
ib1yysguy said:
I'm hearing two stories here - one about judicial review and one about seizing guns based on accusations. You know what? The first seems likely, the second seems highly unlikely.
Click to expand...
The review comes after the fact, it becomes necessary for you to prove it was the wrong decision to take away your firearms.
 
Damocles said:
The review comes after the fact, it becomes necessary for you to prove it was the wrong decision to take away your firearms.
Click to expand...

You're basing this on what Good said? Or do you have a real link to a real story or the legislation itself that backs this up?
 
ib1yysguy said:
You're basing this on what Good said? Or do you have a real link to a real story or the legislation itself that backs this up?
Click to expand...
I base it on the story where it says that within 14 days a hearing must be held after the guns are already confiscated.

My guess is you didn't bother to read it.
 
Damocles said:
I base it on the story where it says that within 14 days a hearing must be held after the guns are already confiscated.

My guess is you didn't bother to read it.
Click to expand...

I read enough to realize they weren't giving the whole story - intentionally. Show me something a little more credible than a WND article.
 
You read enough to dismiss the source regardless of quotes from the law's author and other people like the ACLU. Amazingly the area's Civil Liberties Union actually appears to fight for Amendment 2 unlike other areas.
 
I would love the ACLU if they would stop being retards about the 2nd being a "collective right."

They can "collectively" suck my balls. You can't pick and choose which amendments you defend if you call yourself a Constitutional watchdog.
 
Damocles said:
You read enough to dismiss the source regardless of quotes from the law's author and other people like the ACLU. Amazingly the area's Civil Liberties Union actually appears to fight for Amendment 2 unlike other areas.
Click to expand...

I read enough to realize the story was without substance and it wasn't answering the very basic questions I started the story with. It was a load of tripe, and I lost patience with it.
 
Epicurus said:
I would love the ACLU if they would stop being retards about the 2nd being a "collective right."

They can "collectively" suck my balls. You can't pick and choose which amendments you defend if you call yourself a Constitutional watchdog.
Click to expand...

Maybe they're semi-constitutional watchdogs.
 
Honestly this just lends credence to the talking point that they are NOT a constitutional watchdog and have instead just become a liberal interest group intent on forcing their interpretations of the Constitution on everyone else. I used to have a lot of respect for the ACLU.
 
Epicurus said:
Honestly this just lends credence to the talking point that they are NOT a constitutional watchdog and have instead just become a liberal interest group intent on forcing their interpretations of the Constitution on everyone else. I used to have a lot of respect for the ACLU.
Click to expand...

Whenever my state approved a pro-life groups request to make a special vanity tag, the ACLU sued because there wasn't also a pro-choice one. It's not that the state was obstructing it, it's just that there was little interest (pro-life sentiment is probably at 80% - 90% in Mississippi). Under what logic does that work? Does anyone think they would have done it if it were an only pro-choice tag being approved?

They sometimes do defend conservatives and radicals they disagree with (like Larry Craig and the KKK), but it's clear in other areas, whenever they aren't thinking so clearly, that they have a liberal bias.
 
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...

Depends on what you define as mentally ill. I don't think someone with ADD should be banned from possessing a firearm, but someone with dementia sure.
 
mental illness
–noun
any of the various forms of psychosis or severe neurosis.
Also called mental disorder, mental disease.


ADD is neither psychosis nor severe neurosis.
 
ib1yysguy said:
mental illness
–noun
any of the various forms of psychosis or severe neurosis.
Also called mental disorder, mental disease.


ADD is neither psychosis nor severe neurosis.
Click to expand...

On the same list with dementia. I once spent a long time researching this and was not satisfied.

http://www.mental-health-matters.com/disorders/list_alpha.php

Psychiatric Disorders: Alphabetical Listing

Antisocial Personal Disorder
Anxiety Disorder NO S
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
 
ib1yysguy said:
I'm hearing two stories here - one about judicial review and one about seizing guns based on accusations. You know what? The first seems likely, the second seems highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

A linkl was provided to the Connecticut website that confirms everything in the story. You obviously didn't bother to read it. You're an asshole too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top