- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A well-written, well defined red flag is a decent idea to stop this stuff
Posted on 5/24/22 at 11:42 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 5/24/22 at 11:42 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Is that you Dan Crenshaw?
0
Posted on 5/24/22 at 11:47 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Believe all wome....people that claim HHTM is crazy.
Posted on 5/24/22 at 11:52 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Do you think you'd pass a red flag examination based on your post history on this site?
Posted on 5/24/22 at 11:52 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
The accused has a right to a hearing before his weapons are taken.
So the person says “I’m not crazy, you people are wrong” and that the end of it, they get to go home and keep their firearms? It would be very difficult to defend oneself once accused.
Posted on 5/24/22 at 11:56 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
a) do not punish innocent people for the actions of a shooter (unlike bans on guns and other regs)
If someone hasn't committed a crime, they are an "innocent person". You are implying that someone who has a red flag and has their guns removed is "guilty" of something. What this really means is you are inventing thoughtcrime, and trying to soften that idea by making the penalty the removal of constitutional rights instead of imprisonment.
quote:
b) give the accused a right to explain himself before his weapons are taken
So people will have to fight for their rights at the whim of anyone calling into the police
quote:
c) are designed specifically for mentally ill mass shootings, rather than general gun violence
And will be used against personal and political opponents
Posted on 5/24/22 at 11:59 pm to junkfunky
quote:
Do you think you'd pass a red flag examination based on your post history on this site?
Given that politics caused him mental distress, and that mental distress caused him to vote disastrously, his voting rights should be red flagged. HHTM, you need to answer before the board before you can approved for voting again.
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:01 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Do you realize there are tens of thousands of people who would fall into to that 2nd column and will never act out violently with a gun?
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:03 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
The guy you voted for is installing a goddamn federal government ministry of truth right before our very eyes, some real communist shite there, to decide who gets to exercise their 1st Amendment rights. And now you expect us to trust these same ghoulish politicians to decide who among us is allowed to exercise the 2nd Amendment?
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:13 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
a) do not punish innocent people for the actions of a shooter (unlike bans on guns and other regs)
Can be abused to precisely target innocent people. And that has happened already.
quote:
b) give the accused a right to explain himself before his weapons are taken
So one has to petition the very same government to avoid violating an individual civil right that is using a law to violate an individual civil right? Are you really that stupid?
quote:
c) are designed specifically for mentally ill mass shootings, rather than general gun violence
No law could be that narrowly tailored. What mental illnesses would be targeted? You have a comprehensive list in mind? How would that be adjudicated fairly with equal protection in mind?
So no, you are just another idiot full of bad ideas.
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:20 am to Clames
Clames, I do not support any laws that pre-emptively disarm people
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:26 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
So you would tell people and give them a chance to argue for their case before taking the guns?
Would that not open the door for creating more incidents once people find out their guns may be imminently confiscated?
Would that not open the door for creating more incidents once people find out their guns may be imminently confiscated?
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:28 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
This would end up being a quagmire of bullshite. It would be abused by jilted lovers and family feuds and then law suits.
This post was edited on 5/25/22 at 12:30 am
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:30 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Trust us. It’s only two weeks to flatten the curve.
Posted on 5/25/22 at 12:57 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Red flag laws do exactly that. Maybe if you were better educated that wouldn't be such a difficult thing to grasp.
Posted on 5/25/22 at 1:15 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Remember they just wanted to take down a few confederate statues 
Now, they just want to target a few dangerous people with the red flag laws. Trust them
Now, they just want to target a few dangerous people with the red flag laws. Trust them
This post was edited on 5/25/22 at 1:20 am
Posted on 5/25/22 at 3:03 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
The accused has a right to a hearing before his weapons are taken.
Posted on 5/25/22 at 4:59 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Red flag laws:
a) do not punish innocent people for the actions of a shooter (unlike bans on guns and other regs)
b) give the accused a right to explain himself before his weapons are taken
c) are designed specifically for mentally ill mass shootings, rather than general gun violence
That seems great to some one who is naive.
The first problem is it can be arbitrarily used. If you think anyone who loves guns, shooting and think a doctor or judge won't classify you as a threat, you haven't been paying attention much.
The second issue is if I'm accused. You're telling me if I'm accused I just need to tell the judge I'm not crazy? Some people on this board think being innocent or telling a judge you're innocent is all you need. Wrong. If I have to go before a judge, I'm not presumed innocent as I'm already presumed guilty and have to prove my innocence. That innocent before being guilty just got tossed.
As far as it being used just for mental Illness, that's just silly. Leftists will decry anything as mentally ill at that point and if you think they won't, look how they brand terrorism and racism.
Last thing is what happens if the firearms are take and the person was innocent? What happens then? If anyone thinks Law enforcement will just hand them back, that person has never had a firearm stolen and recovered. It's often an ardurous affair.
Posted on 5/25/22 at 5:04 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
That's not how it works
The accused has a right to a hearing before his weapons are taken.
Oh, you’ll get your hearing. At which time, evidence will be introduced showing how you were put on psychiatric drugs because (by your own admission) mean Tweets broke you.
Posted on 5/25/22 at 5:07 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
will be used in every divorce case just like restraining orders are now.
Page 3 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News