The Democrats will do anything to take our gun’s - Page 3
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 70

Thread: The Democrats will do anything to take our gun’s

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillydog1958 View Post
    I used the word, “vice” because I know for a fact that many Republican/conservative men believe that feminism is bad for the nation and that women are useful for breeding, child rearing and housekeeping. Also, to many men, guns are a phallic symbol.
    Says the guy who has two of 'em in his avatar. Funny stuff, indeed.
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Says the guy who has two of 'em in his avatar. Funny stuff, indeed.
    New troll. Filling in for the old trolls. You can't have it both ways. All I hear is how guns suck, conservative men objectify women, and yeah, he's got an internet picture of two guns as an avatar. I don't care a bit that he's here and that's Calvin's responsibility but I'm going to call him out on the occasions where he's playing out liberal talking points. On the occasions where I actually care, I would add.

    It's always funny how quickly these guys go completely open kimono on their agenda and try changing the minds of legal and lawful firearms owners on an amendment to our Constitution that he should be glad our forefathers saw as being absolutely necessary. I guess I'll know my life is truly meaningless when I started trolling pro choice websites about the genocide of children to people that believe that it's ok. Maybe abortion is somewhere in the Constitution and I missed it.

    Sent from my XT1650 using USA Carry mobile app

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Phillydog1958 View Post
    Seriously, you guys have got to stop with, “Democrats are trying to take our guns.” Allow me to let you in on a secret, “It ain’t true!”
    Not that there aren't also a few Republicans who feel the same way, but are you really denying that there are people, including prominent politicians, who want to 1) outlaw semi-automatic rifles 1b) and confiscate those that are already owned 2) make guns harder to get for law-abiding citizens 3) outlaw all semi-automatic guns 3) outlaw handguns or 4) outlaw all guns?

    Do you really deny that there are people who believe DC v. Heller was "wrongly decided", or that this necessarily means there is no constitutional right to own firearms?

    Do you really deny that the people who want to do these things are much more often Democrats than Republicans; and that the ones who "want" to do these things are actively trying to convince politicians and the people at large that they are right?

  5. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillydog1958 View Post
    Seriously, you guys have got to stop with, “Democrats are trying to take our guns.” Allow me to let you in on a secret, “It ain’t true!” Relax and relish in your favorite vices: Women and guns . . .
    I guess you forget what Diane Feinstein said, “If I could have gotten enough votes to take away all of the gun’s I would be alright with that”. She has a long history of wanting to restrict the ownership of guns and if you’d really do your researches, before you open your pie hole with false assertion you would be better off. I would say the vast majority of Democrats historically are in the same mindset as Feinstein.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  6. #25
    -147g.jpg
    .
    And on top of that, the number of gun crimes are mostly committed by Democrats.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  7. #26
    I wonder if she would say that to the members of congress that are ex-military that own guns. If she could remove every gun in the US, she would be alright with that, but it would only be the lawful gun owners.
    .
    -147n.jpg
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    ARIZONA-a short distance from the sun
    Posts
    8,845
    GOD HATES RELIGION
    ~ Religious Spirit Crucified Christ ~

  9. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    You forgot to include "and he was “taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment.”
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    You forgot to include "and he was “taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment.”
    And you forgot to include, "...which permits confiscating guns from people who have not been committed but are deemed a potential risk to themselves or others, according to the order signed by Broward’s Chief Judge Jack Tuter.”

    Deemed by whom? And what "legal" threshold of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment might "potential" risk conceivably fall on previous precedent of? We're all a "potential" risk to ourselves or others if we're still breathing! There's absolutely nothing at the link to suggest what "potential" risk is based on in this case. Maybe he made a post on the internet cussing out Scott for signing the bill. Or maybe he said in public that he believes in God. That would be enough for you to "deem" him a "potential risk" for being mentally ill, right? Or maybe he claims to have seen Big Foot. Whatever the "basis," it's not articulated in the link, so being taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment (why is he not being evaluated before being treated?) is totally meaningless to the prudence or legality of the new Florida law.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  11. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    And you forgot to include, "...which permits confiscating guns from people who have not been committed but are deemed a potential risk to themselves or others, according to the order signed by Broward’s Chief Judge Jack Tuter.”

    Deemed by whom? And what "legal" threshold of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment might "potential" risk conceivably fall on previous precedent of? We're all a "potential" risk to ourselves or others if we're still breathing! There's absolutely nothing at the link to suggest what "potential" risk is based on in this case. Maybe he made a post on the internet cussing out Scott for signing the bill. Or maybe he said in public that he believes in God. That would be enough for you to "deem" him a "potential risk" for being mentally ill, right? Or maybe he claims to have seen Big Foot. Whatever the "basis," it's not articulated in the link, so being taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment (why is he not being evaluated before being treated?) is totally meaningless to the prudence or legality of the new Florida law.

    Blues
    There's nothing in the link because Breitbart is just trying to rile you up. Just like you got. So they left out key facts, like the following, from their source article (they even linked to it):

    /Begin Paste

    Lighthouse Point police made the request on March 14, one week after they were called to conduct a welfare check on the man, who they said was behaving strangely at his condominium building. Authorities said it was the latest in a series of encounters law enforcement had with the man, though he has no prior history of arrests in Florida. He had some prior arrests in Pennsylvania, records show.

    Police were called after the man turned off the main electrical breakers to the condo building in Lighthouse Point, court records show. The South Florida Sun Sentinel is not identifying the man because of his medical condition.

    The man told officers he “was being targeted and burglarized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a neighbor who lives in [his] building,” the judge wrote in his order. “[He] could not describe the neighbor but stated that the neighbor [can] ‘shape shift, he can change heights and I’m not sure where he comes from’ and ‘to be honest, he looks like Osama Bin Laden.’”

    He also told officers that he had to turn off the electrical breakers because “they are electrocuting me through my legs.”

    Officers said they saw weapons in his home after they were called to check on his welfare. They also found evidence he had “a voluminous amount of notes containing numerous references to former President Barack Obama, that he was killed in the 1980s but came back and now murders children to place their spirits into [the man’s] head, is a member of [al-Qaida], and is [the man’s] enemy,” the judge wrote in his order.

    /End Paste

    The new law says:
    Section 8. Paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (2) of
    section 394.463, Florida Statutes, are amended to read:
    394.463 Involuntary examination.—
    (2) INVOLUNTARY EXAMINATION.—
    (c) A law enforcement officer acting in accordance with an
    ex parte order issued pursuant to this subsection [i.e. by a judge] may:
    [...]
    seize and hold a firearm or any ammunition the person possesses at the time of taking him or her into custody if the person poses a potential danger to himself or herself or others and has made a credible threat of violence against another person.
    [...]
    seek the voluntary surrender of firearms or ammunition kept in the residence which have not already been seized under subparagraph 1. If such firearms or ammunition are not voluntarily surrendered, or if the person has other firearms or ammunition that were not seized or voluntarily surrendered when he or she was taken into custody, a law enforcement officer may petition the appropriate court under s. 790.401 for a risk protection order against the person.

    Thus, it only allows for a person to be disarmed if he's subject to "involuntary examination", which 1) means he must also be subject to "involuntary commitment", and 2) means he must have refused voluntary examination (outpatient...he would be able to pick his own psychiatrist). Further, in this case, yes, the individual was examined - we know this because he was committed, and commitment in Florida (394.467) requires first that the person be "examined" (evaluated by psychiatrists) for a period of up to 72 hours, that those psychiatrists determine the person meets the criteria (dangerous or helpless, and mentally ill), and that a judge then agree at a hearing at which the subject is allowed and has a right to counsel.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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