Boulder police warn of 'active shooter at the King Soopers' supermarket

Dutch Uncle said:
There was no plan for restoration of rights.
Click to expand...

There actually is a way for 2nd Amendment rights restoration written in to federal law. The problem is that the democrats deny the ATF any funding to administer said law, so nobody gets their rights restored unless they spend their own money through the courts.
 
CASPER said:
Oh good grief, look like it or not we have to rely on someone's opinion I would prefer it be that of a professional and the person has the right to bring in their own expert and the court makes the final ruling.
Click to expand...

Psychoquackery. Expert worship.

These 'professionals' destroy families, destroy lives, gang up with lawyers that do the same thing, are in it for the money (usually targeting some rich dude in the family in the process), and don't give a fuck about society or the damage they do. They make shit up. They are Marxists. They are truly evil people. Do NOT give them god-like authority.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
There actually is a way for 2nd Amendment rights restoration written in to federal law. The problem is that the democrats deny the ATF any funding to administer said law, so nobody gets their rights restored unless they spend their own money through the courts.
Click to expand...

The right of self defense is inherent. It doesn't come from a piece of paper.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. Remember when Obama wasn't to disarm all vets who reported PTSD problems? There was no plan for restoration of rights. None at all. The Democrat plan is simply to stamp people as "not legal to own or possess firearms" and call it a day.

That, too, was an example of why I don't trust Democrats regarding gun laws.
Click to expand...

So, you’d rather trust somebody suffering from PTSD with weapons?
 
domer76 said:
So, you’d rather trust somebody suffering from PTSD with weapons?
Click to expand...

No. I'd rather, in order of priority, 1) prevent PTSD, 2) cure PTSD and return the person to full citizenship and functionality and, as a last resort, 3) adjudication them to be mentally ill so they can't vote or own guns and in need of others to protect them from themselves and others.

Democrats just go for Door #3 and throw away the key.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
There actually is a way for 2nd Amendment rights restoration written in to federal law. The problem is that the democrats deny the ATF any funding to administer said law, so nobody gets their rights restored unless they spend their own money through the courts.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Which flips partial responsibility back to the Republicans for cutting taxes to the point the Federal government can't function.

We, the People, need a better path because the one we're on isn't working out.
 
CASPER said:
Oh good grief, look like it or not we have to rely on someone's opinion I would prefer it be that of a professional and the person has the right to bring in their own expert and the court makes the final ruling.
Click to expand...

As long a there is equal representation I am ok with it! I do not want crazy people with guns any more than anyone else!
 
domer76 said:
Jesus Christ, dumbfuck. I can’t keep wiping your ass for you. Look up the reasons and mechanisms for competency hearings yourself.

Goddam, what a bunch of lazy and willfully ignorant morons.
Click to expand...

Quit being an ass? I asked a question. If a family member recommends it, and there is merit for it, fine I do not want people just being Cherry picked for being gun owners! The evidence better be pretty compelling also!
 
Wolverine said:
As long a there is equal representation I am ok with it! I do not want crazy people with guns any more than anyone else!
Click to expand...

Then we are in agreement. I do not want some open door for gun banners to use to deny people their rights, there are some people that should have any access to firearms since some are ticking timebombs just waiting to go off.
 
CASPER said:
Then we are in agreement. I do not want some open door for gun banners to use to deny people their rights, there are some people that should have any access to firearms since some are ticking timebombs just waiting to go off.
Click to expand...

Yep as long as it is done properly I have no issue! What is the trigger for said investigation?
 
Wolverine said:
Yep as long as it is done properly I have no issue! What is the trigger for said investigation?
Click to expand...

I would think that a mental health evaluation by a professional, either because they, family or friends get them to that point, the professional should be required to submit a report to the courts if they run into obviously dangerous person. Yes, I know HEPA laws, but this really has to be dealt with and that is the best way.
 
CASPER said:
I would think that a mental health evaluation by a professional, either because they, family or friends get them to that point, the professional should be required to submit a report to the courts if they run into obviously dangerous person. Yes, I know HEPA laws, but this really has to be dealt with and that is the best way.
Click to expand...

agreed!
 
Dutch Uncle said:
No. I'd rather, in order of priority, 1) prevent PTSD, 2) cure PTSD and return the person to full citizenship and functionality and, as a last resort, 3) adjudication them to be mentally ill so they can't vote or own guns and in need of others to protect them from themselves and others.

Democrats just go for Door #3 and throw away the key.
Click to expand...

If a person cannot manage their own affairs or are mentally ill, they should not be in possession of firearms until that situation is rectified.
 
domer76 said:
If a person cannot manage their own affairs or are mentally ill, they should not be in possession of firearms until that situation is rectified.
Click to expand...

Agreed. They shouldn't vote, run for office or drive either. In fact, they should have a guardian appointed to monitor them.
 
CASPER said:
I would think that a mental health evaluation by a professional, either because they, family or friends get them to that point, the professional should be required to submit a report to the courts if they run into obviously dangerous person. Yes, I know HEPA laws, but this really has to be dealt with and that is the best way.
Click to expand...

Agreed insofar as that goes. One professional or a family can require a look, but if we're talking about stripping people of their rights such as the right of self-defense, the right to vote, the right to drive, etc, then a second or third opinion should be required with annual updates.

IMO, such stripping of rights should default back to full rights unless another two doctors and a judge say no. Every year. Kinda like parole hearings, but better for the victim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top