Reply
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 60 of 60
  1. #31
    Verified Aesthetic rhadam's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Posts: 37,609
    Rep Power: 295771
    rhadam has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) rhadam has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) rhadam has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) rhadam has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) rhadam has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) rhadam has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) rhadam has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) rhadam has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) rhadam has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) rhadam has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) rhadam has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    rhadam is offline
    Originally Posted by Eugenics View Post
    If you support Trump, you support red flag laws.

    Hopefully your AR's are next.
    So if you support someone, you have to support 100% of their viewpoints?



    By far one of the dumbest things you've ever posted. Congratulations.

    Edit: someone as in a candidate or elected official.
    Last edited by rhadam; 11-19-2019 at 09:28 AM.
    USAF
    LEO

    Operation Inherent Resolve ~ 2019
    Reply With Quote

  2. #32
    Registered User Tamorlane's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2010
    Posts: 21,940
    Rep Power: 36127
    Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Tamorlane is offline
    Originally Posted by Dave22reborn View Post
    Do you support DUI checkpoints?
    Yes I sort of do for the same reason. If we know the streets have drunk drivers on a frequent basis due to arrest and crash statistics and testimonies from family members of alcoholics who drive cars on a regular basis, then we should perhaps do something proactive instead of reactive. At least in Canada, drunk driving is the #1 criminal cause of death. Police often release reports to the media (releasing the names of individuals charged but not yet convicted) and often times there's at least one or two people who got busted for blowing over the limit.

    I am not too keen on them arresting or charging people for unrelated offenses, but I understand why they do.

    I am cautious of police abusing their powers to initiate checkpoints. It shouldn't feel like they are harassing society or becoming a police state. They should be targeted toward high problem areas like around bars.

    another topic: do you support apps like Google's Waze that notify traffic-goers of real-time DUI checkpoint locations on the map.

    https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/6/18...ps-nypd-letter
    Reply With Quote

  3. #33
    Redheaded Stepchild RedRusty's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2018
    Posts: 5,675
    Rep Power: 75647
    RedRusty has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) RedRusty has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) RedRusty has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) RedRusty has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) RedRusty has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) RedRusty has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) RedRusty has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) RedRusty has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) RedRusty has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) RedRusty has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) RedRusty has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    RedRusty is online now
    Originally Posted by wincel View Post
    I am against red flag laws. Thoughtcrime is not a thing. Unless he carries out a serious attempt, he should not be held for any crime. A twitter post is hardly a credible threat. As if nobody here has fantasized about mass murder. Have none of you played GTA? You're telling me you never fired a rocket launcher at a passerby and giggled? Pls.
    If some kid from my son's school posts something on Twitter about shooting someone, someone damn well better take it seriously and check on it.
    Currently: Running off-season; T25/Body Beast hybrid

    Next race: Cap City Half Marathon - 4/25/20
    Reply With Quote

  4. #34
    the anti cuck Eugenics's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2015
    Posts: 2,001
    Rep Power: 14283
    Eugenics is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Eugenics is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Eugenics is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Eugenics is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Eugenics is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Eugenics is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Eugenics is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Eugenics is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Eugenics is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Eugenics is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Eugenics is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    Eugenics is offline
    Originally Posted by rhadam View Post
    So if you support someone, you have to support 100% of their viewpoints?



    By far one of the dumbest things you've ever posted. Congratulations.
    Technically its a true statement though and red flag laws are extremely dangerous because its also an attack on the 1A as well as the 2A. We would actually be better off with a democrat in power because things like this would never pass. With a democrat in power at least we know what we're up against and there is a clear line in the sand on what we must do. But the cult of Trump has created a somewhat blindness among his supporters. For example Trump never should have got a pass for the bump stock ban. Banning a piece of plastic is literally insane, yet he did so appease the dems who hate him regardless? And anger his own supporters? Why? Totally bizarre. Shows me another agenda is a foot here.
    Reply With Quote

  5. #35
    MAGA dhawkeye1980's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2012
    Posts: 30,402
    Rep Power: 104428
    dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    dhawkeye1980 is offline
    Originally Posted by Tamorlane View Post
    There should be consequences, we don't know that there aren't or wouldn't be in cases deemed malicious, or that they couldn't be implemented (since policies and laws are often improved and fine-tuned over time). You have to be careful about trying to crucify anyone who makes a claim, one reason being the law could prove successful and help avoid a catastrophe but the person with their guns removed can say it is 'proof' of overreach.



    When the police arrest a person on reasonable grounds and bring them downtown to the jail they haven't yet had their day in court. They are technically having their constitutional rights violated by police on a premise of guilty until proven innocent. The person is not allowed to leave, they have their wrists cuffed, they are essentially kidnapped and locked in a cage. All the while could be completely innocent but the police deemed it sufficient to arrest.

    All the points you raise are valid concerns but they don't necessarily remove the need for red flag laws to exist. You guys can spout out all of that 'shall not be infringed' bullsht but the reality is some people are psychotic and if they're throwing up red flags that are legitimate causes of concern then they should be acted upon. In fact the government has the responsibility to keep innocent people safe from people who are a legitimate threat to society. If you post on FB something about going to a Joker movie with guns after that Batman massacre in Aurora, then you deserve to be investigated and have your guns temporarily removed. "It was just a joke bro", "just for friends to see" as he posts it on a public forum. And clearly one of his 'friends' deemed him a risk enough to contact police.

    Again, look at the victims and situations where red flags were raised, nothing was done and innocent people paid the price. 2nd amendment advocates and extremists will never fight for the safety of innocent people, including children. So we don't go to them for problem solving. We may listen to what they have to say, but they lack the capacity to actually improve and make progress in society. Conservatives have a tendency to hold back progress, technological, scientific and for humanity in general.
    If their constitutional rights are violated then it is a false arrest. A righteous arrest does not violate the constitution at all. You need probably cause to make an arrest. If legitimate probably cause exists then it is not unconstitutional. Your knowledge of the constitution is bunk tranny
    A novel
    Reply With Quote

  6. #36
    Registered User Tamorlane's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2010
    Posts: 21,940
    Rep Power: 36127
    Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Tamorlane is offline
    Originally Posted by dhawkeye1980 View Post
    If their constitutional rights are violated then it is a false arrest. A righteous arrest does not violate the constitution at all. You need probably cause to make an arrest. If legitimate probably cause exists then it is not unconstitutional. Your knowledge of the constitution is bunk tranny
    You are right but my point is that the person hasn't had their day in court. You are following the protocol of police who don't necessarily have to abide by the law or it's legal procedures. How many people have gotten off of charges because they were innocent? Those people likely had their constitutional rights violated to be free from arbitrary detention or imprisonment. If the police had legit reasonable grounds, then there's no fault. But we know the police often do what benefits them instead of following principle and procedure.
    Reply With Quote

  7. #37
    MAGA dhawkeye1980's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2012
    Posts: 30,402
    Rep Power: 104428
    dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    dhawkeye1980 is offline
    Originally Posted by Tamorlane View Post
    You are right but my point is that the person hasn't had their day in court. You are following the protocol of police who don't necessarily have to abide by the law or it's legal procedures. How many people have gotten off of charges because they were innocent? Those people likely had their constitutional rights violated to be free from arbitrary detention or imprisonment. If the police had legit reasonable grounds, then there's no fault. But we know the police often do what benefits them instead of following principle and procedure.
    Once again you are wrong. Red flag laws there is no crime, people are getting their constitutional rights violated when there is no crime. In an arrest, there is a crime and there is probably cause to arrest that person based on that crime. It is then the responsibility if the court to prove guilt. Not the arrested parties job to prove their innocence. In red flag laws there is no crime and the burden of proof is on the gun owner
    A novel
    Reply With Quote

  8. #38
    Lifelong Virgin wincel's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2016
    Location: Chad
    Posts: 31,714
    Rep Power: 116188
    wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    wincel is online now
    Originally Posted by RedRusty View Post
    If some kid from my son's school posts something on Twitter about shooting someone, someone damn well better take it seriously and check on it.
    Oh I completely agree. We have investigations and a suspicious post is grounds to start one. But that does not in itself meet the criteria necessary to confiscate a weapon. If there is more probable cause and they get a warrant which then reveals detailed plans of an imminent attack, then this is something that could be taken as evidence that the person was planning something. Depending on how detailed the plans are, it could be viewed as an attempt. But there is a long road from planning something to actually trying to carry it out. We can't let our legal system sink to thoughtcrime.

    The constitution must be upheld.

    I am all for stricter background checks, but red flag laws are unconstitutional imo.
    #TULSI2020!!
    End wasteful foreign regime change wars, and promote a peaceful world!
    Vote for Tulsi Gabbard and bring honor and integrity to the white house!
    Reply With Quote

  9. #39
    Registered User Tamorlane's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2010
    Posts: 21,940
    Rep Power: 36127
    Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tamorlane has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Tamorlane is offline
    Originally Posted by dhawkeye1980 View Post
    In red flag laws there is no crime and the burden of proof is on the gun owner
    Yes everyone knows that and it's the entirety of the issue and why it's so controversial..
    Reply With Quote

  10. #40
    MAGA dhawkeye1980's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2012
    Posts: 30,402
    Rep Power: 104428
    dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    dhawkeye1980 is offline
    Originally Posted by Tamorlane View Post
    Yes everyone knows that and it's the entirety of the issue and why it's so controversial..
    Which is why its unconstitutional
    A novel
    Reply With Quote

  11. #41
    Registered User miscinbro's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2016
    Age: 36
    Posts: 8,108
    Rep Power: 16287
    miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    miscinbro is offline
    Originally Posted by JMath View Post
    So the appropriate response is to get rid of DUI checkpoints, not double down and say that because we allow one unconstitutional thing we should allow another.
    If we're talking random check points I think they are far worse than a rational red flag law that requires some due process. In a random check there isn't even responsible suspicion, yet alone probable cause and you're getting searched.

    I was recently fishing with my wife and we had a cooler, some game officer was coming around checking everyone's license (ok) - he then proceeded to tell me he was "going to look in my cooler" to see if I was above my limit. I told him no. He left. That's exactly how a random DUI checkpoint should also function.
    Reply With Quote

  12. #42
    Registered User sandaltan's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2009
    Posts: 10,162
    Rep Power: 6627
    sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000)
    sandaltan is offline
    there are plenty of due process protections in red flag laws
    Reply With Quote

  13. #43
    MAGA dhawkeye1980's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2012
    Posts: 30,402
    Rep Power: 104428
    dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) dhawkeye1980 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    dhawkeye1980 is offline
    Originally Posted by sandaltan View Post
    there are plenty of due process protections in red flag laws
    Name them
    A novel
    Reply With Quote

  14. #44
    Cold Hearted SOB Dave22reborn's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2005
    Location: Ill.
    Posts: 51,114
    Rep Power: 84189
    Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    Dave22reborn is offline
    Originally Posted by Tamorlane View Post
    There should be consequences, we don't know that there aren't or wouldn't be in cases deemed malicious, or that they couldn't be implemented (since policies and laws are often improved and fine-tuned over time). You have to be careful about trying to crucify anyone who makes a claim, one reason being the law could prove successful and help avoid a catastrophe but the person with their guns removed can say it is 'proof' of overreach.



    When the police arrest a person on reasonable grounds and bring them downtown to the jail they haven't yet had their day in court. They are technically having their constitutional rights violated by police on a premise of guilty until proven innocent. The person is not allowed to leave, they have their wrists cuffed, they are essentially kidnapped and locked in a cage. All the while could be completely innocent but the police deemed it sufficient to arrest.

    All the points you raise are valid concerns but they don't necessarily remove the need for red flag laws to exist. You guys can spout out all of that 'shall not be infringed' bullsht but the reality is some people are psychotic and if they're throwing up red flags that are legitimate causes of concern then they should be acted upon. In fact the government has the responsibility to keep innocent people safe from people who are a legitimate threat to society. If you post on FB something about going to a Joker movie with guns after that Batman massacre in Aurora, then you deserve to be investigated and have your guns temporarily removed. "It was just a joke bro", "just for friends to see" as he posts it on a public forum. And clearly one of his 'friends' deemed him a risk enough to contact police.

    Again, look at the victims and situations where red flags were raised, nothing was done and innocent people paid the price. 2nd amendment advocates and extremists will never fight for the safety of innocent people, including children. So we don't go to them for problem solving. We may listen to what they have to say, but they lack the capacity to actually improve and make progress in society. Conservatives have a tendency to hold back progress, technological, scientific and for humanity in general.
    People like you aren't progressive, you're regressive.
    Reply With Quote

  15. #45
    Cold Hearted SOB Dave22reborn's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2005
    Location: Ill.
    Posts: 51,114
    Rep Power: 84189
    Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    Dave22reborn is offline
    Originally Posted by Tamorlane View Post
    Yes I sort of do for the same reason. If we know the streets have drunk drivers on a frequent basis due to arrest and crash statistics and testimonies from family members of alcoholics who drive cars on a regular basis, then we should perhaps do something proactive instead of reactive. At least in Canada, drunk driving is the #1 criminal cause of death. Police often release reports to the media (releasing the names of individuals charged but not yet convicted) and often times there's at least one or two people who got busted for blowing over the limit.

    I am not too keen on them arresting or charging people for unrelated offenses, but I understand why they do.

    I am cautious of police abusing their powers to initiate checkpoints. It shouldn't feel like they are harassing society or becoming a police state. They should be targeted toward high problem areas like around bars.

    another topic: do you support apps like Google's Waze that notify traffic-goers of real-time DUI checkpoint locations on the map.

    https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/6/18...ps-nypd-letter
    I could care less about the app.

    What do you think of people refusing to cooperate during a DUI checkpoint?
    Reply With Quote

  16. #46
    Registered User miscinbro's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2016
    Age: 36
    Posts: 8,108
    Rep Power: 16287
    miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    miscinbro is offline
    Originally Posted by Dave22reborn View Post
    What do you think of people refusing to cooperate during a DUI checkpoint?
    It shouldn't be legal to search someone without consent or PC. Very simple. Also it's "couldn't" - could care less is so cringe.
    Reply With Quote

  17. #47
    Lifelong Virgin wincel's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2016
    Location: Chad
    Posts: 31,714
    Rep Power: 116188
    wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    wincel is online now
    Originally Posted by miscinbro View Post
    It shouldn't be legal to search someone without consent or PC. Very simple. Also it's "couldn't" - could care less is so cringe.
    Agreed. No probable cause or warrant, no search. Even the TSA bullchit is unconstitutional. There is always a trade between freedom and security. Gun free zones are honestly bullchit.
    #TULSI2020!!
    End wasteful foreign regime change wars, and promote a peaceful world!
    Vote for Tulsi Gabbard and bring honor and integrity to the white house!
    Reply With Quote

  18. #48
    Lifelong Virgin wincel's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2016
    Location: Chad
    Posts: 31,714
    Rep Power: 116188
    wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) wincel has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    wincel is online now
    Originally Posted by Tamorlane View Post
    Red flag laws were created like most regulations and policies out of necessity. Laws aren't just thought up necessarily out of thin air and all implemented at once. They are built and stacked over time. I am sure there have been cases where people were a known threat, no one did anything and then they used the weapons on others, and most often it's those closest to them so their family. It's something we as individuals aren't necessarily exposed to but police and courts would be. It's like how police get annoyed at not wearing seatbelts on the highway because they see the results of car accident victims who weren't wearing them. They get annoyed when they see a credible threat and nothing is done about it and then something does happen. Guess what everyone asks? 'What could we have done to prevent this?'
    There will always be pressure to trade freedom now for security later. But we are forgetting that this trade will actually cause us to lose both much later.
    #TULSI2020!!
    End wasteful foreign regime change wars, and promote a peaceful world!
    Vote for Tulsi Gabbard and bring honor and integrity to the white house!
    Reply With Quote

  19. #49
    Registered User miscinbro's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2016
    Age: 36
    Posts: 8,108
    Rep Power: 16287
    miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    miscinbro is offline
    Originally Posted by wincel View Post
    Agreed. No probable cause or warrant, no search. Even the TSA bullchit is unconstitutional. There is always a trade between freedom and security. Gun free zones are honestly bullchit.
    TSA is BS, though I think it's a tradeoff we should be willing to make - considering. The TSA needs to do a far, far, better job though.
    Reply With Quote

  20. #50
    Cold Hearted SOB Dave22reborn's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2005
    Location: Ill.
    Posts: 51,114
    Rep Power: 84189
    Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    Dave22reborn is offline
    Originally Posted by miscinbro View Post
    It shouldn't be legal to search someone without consent or PC. Very simple. Also it's "couldn't" - could care less is so cringe.
    But you agree with red flag laws?
    Reply With Quote

  21. #51
    Registered User miscinbro's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2016
    Age: 36
    Posts: 8,108
    Rep Power: 16287
    miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) miscinbro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    miscinbro is offline
    Originally Posted by Dave22reborn View Post
    But you agree with red flag laws?
    Again, the devil is in the details, but I can see with due process protections them being legal and useful. It's a far cry better than a random warrantless search requiring no RS or PC.
    Reply With Quote

  22. #52
    Registered User IAMBEE's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2018
    Age: 49
    Posts: 1,052
    Rep Power: 4278
    IAMBEE is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) IAMBEE is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) IAMBEE is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) IAMBEE is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) IAMBEE is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) IAMBEE is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) IAMBEE is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) IAMBEE is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) IAMBEE is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) IAMBEE is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) IAMBEE is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    IAMBEE is offline
    Originally Posted by scheal View Post
    As you are Canadian, your opinion or thoughts are worthless on anything to do with this country

    Please contribute to a Canadian forum

    Here's one for you

    https://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/...dian-politics/
    savage
    Reply With Quote

  23. #53
    husband, father, trainer KyleAaron's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2009
    Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts: 9,579
    Rep Power: 0
    KyleAaron is just really nice. (+1000) KyleAaron is just really nice. (+1000) KyleAaron is just really nice. (+1000) KyleAaron is just really nice. (+1000) KyleAaron is just really nice. (+1000) KyleAaron is just really nice. (+1000) KyleAaron is just really nice. (+1000) KyleAaron is just really nice. (+1000) KyleAaron is just really nice. (+1000) KyleAaron is just really nice. (+1000) KyleAaron is just really nice. (+1000)
    KyleAaron is offline
    Originally Posted by Tamorlane View Post
    I am sure there have been cases where people were a known threat, no one did anything and then they used the weapons on others, and most often it's those closest to them so their family. It's something we as individuals aren't necessarily exposed to but police and courts would be.
    Shooter in Florida with mental health issues, mouthing off etc. A cop tried to take him in. He got released. Went on to shoot a bunch of people in a school, and the cop on duty followed procedure and didn't go in alone - same cop, by the way. The legal response? Dismiss the cop.

    That's mental health laws, but same sht really.

    We've had the same issues in Australia: we fail to enforce the laws we already have, and so we respond by making new laws. Well, okay.
    Reply With Quote

  24. #54
    Cold Hearted SOB Dave22reborn's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2005
    Location: Ill.
    Posts: 51,114
    Rep Power: 84189
    Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    Dave22reborn is offline
    Originally Posted by dhawkeye1980 View Post
    Once again you are wrong. Red flag laws there is no crime, people are getting their constitutional rights violated when there is no crime. In an arrest, there is a crime and there is probably cause to arrest that person based on that crime. It is then the responsibility if the court to prove guilt. Not the arrested parties job to prove their innocence. In red flag laws there is no crime and the burden of proof is on the gun owner
    Is he actually saying someone's rights are violated when they're arrested?
    Reply With Quote

  25. #55
    Cold Hearted SOB Dave22reborn's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2005
    Location: Ill.
    Posts: 51,114
    Rep Power: 84189
    Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    Dave22reborn is offline
    Originally Posted by KyleAaron View Post
    Shooter in Florida with mental health issues, mouthing off etc. A cop tried to take him in. He got released. Went on to shoot a bunch of people in a school, and the cop on duty followed procedure and didn't go in alone - same cop, by the way. The legal response? Dismiss the cop.

    That's mental health laws, but same sht really.

    We've had the same issues in Australia: we fail to enforce the laws we already have, and so we respond by making new laws. Well, okay.
    Which school shooting? The one with Hogg?
    Reply With Quote

  26. #56
    IDDQD Austanian's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2009
    Location: Coeur D Alene, Idaho, United States
    Posts: 16,907
    Rep Power: 52798
    Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Austanian is offline
    To answer the OP. Very temporary seizure of weapons may be a prudent measure in lieu of involuntary psychiatric incarceration.

    However, it is the duty of the courts to PROVE that the person shouldn't have the weapon. Not for the person to prove they are safe with the weapon.



    Originally Posted by sandaltan View Post
    there are plenty of due process protections in red flag laws
    GF says you beat her... Judge issues protection order.

    Period. Full stop. No due process.

    Her still being "SCARED" is enough justification to renew it. She needs no proof of you doing anything. Judges are happy to issue them because "better safe than sorry".

    If all that was involved was you not being able to bother her... No harm done. Protection order removes 2nd amendment rights though.
    Last edited by Austanian; 11-19-2019 at 04:49 PM.
    Finance Degree - USAF INTEL - IIFYM - Injured Crew - KTM XCW300 - Single Track Trail Rider - NRA Supporter - Shunned from MFC - Libertarian - Pragmatist
    B: 345, S 375, D 445
    Trying to get your ideal outcome often leads to the passing up of practical alternatives that deny your adversaries theirs.
    Reply With Quote

  27. #57
    Cold Hearted SOB Dave22reborn's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2005
    Location: Ill.
    Posts: 51,114
    Rep Power: 84189
    Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Dave22reborn has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    Dave22reborn is offline
    Originally Posted by Austanian View Post
    To answer the OP. Very temporary seizure of weapons may be a prudent measure in lieu of involuntary psychiatric incarceration.

    However, it is the duty of the courts to PROVE that the person shouldn't have the weapon. Not for the person to prove they are safe with the weapon.





    GF says you beat her... Judge issues protection order.

    Period. Full stop. No due process.

    Her still being "SCARED" is enough justification to renew it. She needs no proof of you doing anything. Judges are happy to issue them because "better safe than sorry".

    If all that was involved was you not being able to bother her... No harm done. Protection order removes 2nd amendment rights though.
    So some female gets a bogus, false O.O.P. against you, and you're not arrested, but you lose your right to own a firearm?
    Reply With Quote

  28. #58
    Registered User sandaltan's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2009
    Posts: 10,162
    Rep Power: 6627
    sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000)
    sandaltan is offline
    Originally Posted by Austanian View Post
    To answer the OP. Very temporary seizure of weapons may be a prudent measure in lieu of involuntary psychiatric incarceration.

    However, it is the duty of the courts to PROVE that the person shouldn't have the weapon. Not for the person to prove they are safe with the weapon.





    GF says you beat her... Judge issues protection order.

    Period. Full stop. No due process.

    Her still being "SCARED" is enough justification to renew it. She needs no proof of you doing anything. Judges are happy to issue them because "better safe than sorry".

    If all that was involved was you not being able to bother her... No harm done. Protection order removes 2nd amendment rights though.
    no, that's not how it works. The respondent is entitled to a HEARING and the judge will issue the order based on the words or actions of the RESPONDENT, not someone else. Red flag confiscations will not be granted based on gf's complaint alone. she would have to show texts or emails or a voicemail from respondent actually threatening her with deadly violence. and honestly, in those cases the dude SHOULD have his guns confiscated.

    sorry man, youre making up how red flag laws are enforced and then getting mad about them
    Reply With Quote

  29. #59
    IDDQD Austanian's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2009
    Location: Coeur D Alene, Idaho, United States
    Posts: 16,907
    Rep Power: 52798
    Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Austanian has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Austanian is offline
    Originally Posted by sandaltan View Post
    no, that's not how it works. The respondent is entitled to a HEARING and the judge will issue the order based on the words or actions of the RESPONDENT, not someone else. Red flag confiscations will not be granted based on gf's complaint alone. she would have to show texts or emails or a voicemail from respondent actually threatening her with deadly violence. and honestly, in those cases the dude SHOULD have his guns confiscated.

    sorry man, youre making up how red flag laws are enforced and then getting mad about them
    Protection orders are about as easy to get as it is to get a judge to agree to take a case to trial. You don't need to convince them that it did happen, just that it is possible it did. Judges don't care because theoretically stopping you from seeing someone that doesn't want to see you is not a big deal. The problem is that those orders are automatic red flag law issues and you lose your rights to fire arm ownership.

    For those that don't know my mother filed false domestic violence charges against my dad. I was there 17 years old. I saw what happened. It went to trial. Not guilty verdict.

    The protection order got renewed 3 more times for a year each. Point out that the trial showed he was not guilt did exactly jack chit. High priced lawyer didn't matter. Don't tell me that it was just one judge because 4 separate judges issues the order/continuance. They didn't give 2 fuks he was innocent and my mother was caught lying on the stand during the trial. "She didn't feel safe" was enough. It took her getting married and losing interest for the renewals to stop.

    One bad break up is all it takes. So no Sandy I am not making chit up. My dad lost his gun rights for 4 years all because of a domestic violence claim that was defended.
    Last edited by Austanian; 11-19-2019 at 11:51 PM.
    Finance Degree - USAF INTEL - IIFYM - Injured Crew - KTM XCW300 - Single Track Trail Rider - NRA Supporter - Shunned from MFC - Libertarian - Pragmatist
    B: 345, S 375, D 445
    Trying to get your ideal outcome often leads to the passing up of practical alternatives that deny your adversaries theirs.
    Reply With Quote

  30. #60
    Registered User sandaltan's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2009
    Posts: 10,162
    Rep Power: 6627
    sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000) sandaltan is a name known to all. (+5000)
    sandaltan is offline
    Originally Posted by Austanian View Post
    Protection orders are about as easy to get as it is to get a judge to agree to take a case to trial. You don't need to convince them that it did happen, just that it is possible it did. Judges don't care because theoretically stopping you from seeing someone that doesn't want to see you is not a big deal. The problem is that those orders are automatic red flag law issues and you lose your rights to fire arm ownership.

    For those that don't know my mother filed false domestic violence charges against my dad. I was there 17 years old. I saw what happened. It went to trial. Not guilty verdict.

    The protection order got renewed 3 more times for a year each. Point out that the trial showed he was not guilt did exactly jack chit. High priced lawyer didn't matter. Don't tell me that it was just one judge because 4 separate judges issues the order/continuance. They didn't give 2 fuks he was innocent and my mother was caught lying on the stand during the trial. "She didn't feel safe" was enough. It took her getting married and losing interest for the renewals to stop.

    One bad break up is all it takes. So no Sandy I am not making chit up. My dad lost his gun rights for 4 years all because of a domestic violence claim that was defended.
    sorry to hear about all that bad sh*t, but all the red flag laws ive reviewed require documented evidence of threats of violence from the respondent - usually threats of GUN violence.

    and i dont know what happened with your dad but there is a difference between domestic violence and threats of deadly violence. you could definitely get a not guilty verdict on domestic violence if no actual violence happened, and also get your guns taken away if there were threats of violence. i would be SHOCKED if his guns were confiscated absent any documented evidence of threats of violence.

    so i doubt he lost his guns "because of a domestic violence claim." my best guess is he lost his guns because he made documented threats of violence. if he didnt, then that sucks and i dont agree with it.

    thats the thing - you cant own guns and also make threats of gun violence against people. i agree with that. if you do, you lose your guns.
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts