Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

Buy Site Supporter Role (remove some ads) | LPF Donations

Links below open in new window

ArcticMyst Security by Avery | Browser Hide by Avery

The 2024 Election is coming fast, share your thoughts on the issues here.

RedCowboy said:
The fact that he had an A rating and took NRA money then flipped 180 proves he is a two faced parasite who stands for nothing but his own political advancement..... I wouldn't brag about that..... so he's stupid too.......or he thinks his supporters are stupid...... actually he's right about that much as you were simple enough to brag on him for it. 🤪
Click to expand...

Many gun owners would disagree with you. Many still believe that we need common sense gun laws.
 





I don't know what you call " many " and common sense gun laws is bullshit, there are already more than enough, stop screwing up kids in our schools, stop spreading political hatred, maybe get religion and a moral compass...... but any further restrictions on law abiding citizens will be useless in stopping maniacs who kill, what you want is to keep taking more and more because you don't want people owning guns at all.
 
RedCowboy said:
I don't know what you call " many " and common sense gun laws is bullshit, there are already more than enough, stop screwing up kids in our schools, stop spreading political hatred, maybe get religion and a moral compass...... but any further restrictions on law abiding citizens will be useless in stopping maniacs who kill, what you want is to keep taking more and more because you don't want people owning guns at all.
Click to expand...

I'm not a sencond amendement antagonist. I really don't care. But, it would be nice if these common sense gun laes got enactended. I beleive there are enoung gun enthusiasts that want this that you will be surprised.
 
RedFlag laws are not common sense, they are unconstitutional taking without due process and in some States they are far too easy to abuse or exploit to get back at an ex lover, ect....

Registration is not common sense, registration leads to confiscation and once you have to account to someone else for your item, it's not yours anymore, plus once there's registration, then there will be no end to the hoops a person will be made to jump through to keep their registration valid.

Banning any small arms and/or their accessories that are in common use is a violation of the second amendment.

The problem with universal background checks is how do you enforce it without registration.

Look it's simple, punish criminals, not citizens.
 
RedCowboy said:
RedFlag laws are not common sense, they are unconstitutional taking without due process and in some States they are far too easy to abuse or exploit to get back at an ex lover, ect....

Registration is not common sense, registration leads to confiscation and once you have to account to someone else for your item, it's not yours anymore, plus once there's registration, then there will be no end to the hoops a person will be made to jump through to keep their registration valid.

Banning any small arms and/or their accessories that are in common use is a violation of the second amendment.

The problem with universal background checks is how do you enforce it without registration.

Look it's simple, punish criminals, not citizens.
Click to expand...

Red flag laws are not Unconstitional. You may now like them, but they stand in many places. Universal background checks are the next step to stop criminals from buying guns. I'm sure you don't like that either, but it's coming. If you ever sell guns you will have to register as a gun seller. Oherwise, don't sell them.
 
RedFlag laws are unconstitutional.
Someone makes an online complaint in California and a judge sends cops to take your property without you getting your day in court 1st, without due process, without you getting to confront your accuser, that is unconstitutional.

There's already state laws to have someone committed for observation, which is the right way.
Otherwise with RedFlag laws you take only guns and leave a dangerous person with cars, trucks, knives, swords, gas cans, matches, and so, so, so much more...... if a person is a danger to self and/or others, then take the person into protective custody for observation, don't just take 1 kind of property.
 
RedCowboy said:
RedFlag laws are unconstitutional.
Someone makes an online complaint in California and a judge sends cops to take your property without you getting your day in court 1st, without due process, without you getting to confront your accuser, that is unconstitutional.

There's already state laws to have someone committed for observation, which is the right way.
Otherwise with RedFlag laws you take only guns and leave a dangerous person with cars, trucks, knives, swords, gas cans and matches, and so much more...... if a person is a danger to self and/or others, then take the person into protective custody for observation, don't just take 1 kind of property.
Click to expand...

You miss the point entirely. Anyone who has guns and can be shown to be a threat should have the guns removed from their possession until they can be found nonthreating. Committing someone in order to not take thier guns doesn't make that person not a threat. And it is only for a limited amount of time if they aren't considered mentaly ill.
 
The Harris Walz campaign has raised more than $36 million since yesterday when he was announced to be her running mate.
 
paul1598419 said:
You miss the point entirely. Anyone who has guns and can be shown to be a threat should have the guns removed from their possession until they can be found
Click to expand...

( Can be shown to be a threat )
This is why you take the person into protective custody for observation, not simply take the word of a single person ( ex girlfriend, disgruntled employee, jealous neighbor ) and steal property without the person " ( Can be shown to be a threat ) "
This needs to be done 1st and taking the suspected dangerous person into protective custody for observation also prevents the dagerous person from killing in so many other ways.
The only reason to take only guns is ..... to take guns on flimsy grounds without due process.
 
RedCowboy said:
( Can be shown to be a threat )
This is why you take the person into protective custody for observation, not simply take the word of a single person ( ex girlfriend, disgruntled employee, jealous neighbor ) and steal property without the person " ( Can be shown to be a threat ) "
This needs to be done 1st and taking the suspected dangerous person into protective custody for observation also prevents the dagerous person from killing in so many other ways.
The only reason to take only guns is ..... to take guns on flimsy grounds without due process.
Click to expand...

Due pross means prosecuting them. You should have posted my entire rational instead of cherry picking out one phrase. These commitments are very limited and can only hold a person IF they are found mentaly ill.
 
If a national redflag law is ever to be, it will be done with due process, otherwise it will be abused and when it's abused you can bet there will be unlimited pushback of ever escalating scope until it's corrected, citizens will not be subject to having property taken on a whim or to punish those with an opposing political view, especially not on a national level, this is yet another law that some States would refuse to enforce and prohibit federal enforcement of until corrected to protect citizens rights via of due process, due process means the accused gets to face their accuser in court before property is taken, otherwise if the accused is suspected of being a genuine immediate threat to self/others, then take the person into protective custody for observation.

Also those falsely accusing someone will need to be held accountable both legally and civilly.
 
States like Georgia have started in 2022 and last year to stop the election process by putting MAGAs in counties as election officials in order to stop the state from certifying elections. This has happened in small counties in all the battleground states. If any county doesn't certify thier election, the whole state can't certify. Marc Elias has been fighting this as an attorney.
 
RedCowboy said:
If a national redflag law is ever to be, it will be done with due process, otherwise it will be abused and when it's abused you can bet there will be unlimited pushback of ever escalating scope until it's corrected, citizens will not be subject to having property taken on a whim or to punish those with an opposing political view, especially not on a national level, this is yet another law that some States would refuse to enforce and prohibit federal enforcement of until corrected to protect citizens rights via of due process, due process means the accused gets to face their accuser in court before property is taken, otherwise if the accused is suspected of being a genuine immediate threat to self/others, then take the person into protective custody for observation.

Also those falsely accusing someone will need to be held accountable both legally and civilly.
Click to expand...

What you don't seem to understand is that when a person is prosecuted they can make bail and until they are found guilty can then murder women who they wish to seek revenge against. This has happened many times in the past. Red flag laws are necessary.
 
That's why a judge can issue a protective order without the person being convicted, but the person at the very least needs to have that day in court before property is taken, otherwise take the person into protective custody.

You want to strip citizens of gun rights on a blanket basis to prevent the fraction of a percent who might kill someone, that's just banning guns by another name, because if you can blanket ban gun rights for men who are getting divorced, then why not anyone for anything, it's unconstitutional.

We can not prevent every murder, we don't take cars/trucks, kitchen knives, baseball bats away from men who are getting divorced simply because they might decide to kill...... this is just gun control by another avenue and it is unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.





Back
Top