U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-01-2018, 08:15 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,952 posts, read 22,528,268 times
Reputation: 15493

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
No, dearie. Try to keep up with the conversation, M'k...?

"Weapons of War" are the weapons so designated by the Fourth Circuit Court. Can you google it by yourself, or do I need to post a link?
Ooooh well hon, the 4th Circuit like they're the end all be all when it comes to judgements.

Wake me up when it's the actual designation ruled on by SCOTUS. Until then it's nada...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-01-2018, 08:16 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,284 posts, read 15,762,848 times
Reputation: 9858
Quote:
Originally Posted by FL IRON View Post
And yet it is true for many if not most who espouse gun control.
Not for my father and I and we own guns byr aren't NRA members.

Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Then what is it? If the, at that time, highest ranking law enforcement official in the US says "This is what we want to do" don't you kinda think it should be believed?

Many people have this habit of saying exactly what they mean and many others have the complementary habit of believing them.
The logic of the argument is. Don't matter if it was said. The slippery slope means action A leads to action Z. That is this case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 08:16 AM
 
Location: Micronesia
3,057 posts, read 948,395 times
Reputation: 1444
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
No, dearie. Try to keep up with the conversation, M'k...?

"Weapons of War" are the weapons so designated by the Fourth Circuit Court. Can you google it by yourself, or do I need to post a link?
The absurd ruling by uneducated people, ignorant on the topic, affecting Maryland law and completely disregarding the Supreme Court Heller decision?

I prefer to use actual definitions versus fictitious ones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Micronesia
3,057 posts, read 948,395 times
Reputation: 1444
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
Many of those federal restrictions protect you and the quality of your life. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The ones already in place? Yes. Many believe society is well past the point of diminishing returns in regards to regulation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,284 posts, read 15,762,848 times
Reputation: 9858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo302 View Post
Ineffective federal government is the goal for many. Not everyone wants everything laden with federal restrictions.
I think you are mistaken, i always thought it was effective government, not big government. Only libertarians really want that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 08:32 AM
 
535 posts, read 107,167 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Not for my father and I and we own guns byr aren't NRA members.



The logic of the argument is. Don't matter if it was said. The slippery slope means action A leads to action Z. That is this case.
I made no specific reference to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 08:37 AM
 
15,254 posts, read 16,824,190 times
Reputation: 25432
There are ways to remove guns from dangerous people that are consistent with due process. Imagine if there were a federal hotline to report people with access to guns who were believed to present a threat to themselves or others. A relative could call a number and make a report, or report their suspicions online. Federal marshals could go to the person's house like they do when they serve a warrant and confiscate the weapons. The law could have time limits for a hearing--say, 30 days to have a hearing. It could be considered a civil matter with a representative from ATF or somewhere putting on whatever evidence they have that the person intends to commit harm with the weapon (statements he's made, social media posts, etc.). The person can put on evidence that he doesn't intend harm.

A judge could then decide a number of things: return the weapons, keep them for a period of time (3-6 months) while the person gets some sort of mental health counseling, or keep the weapons until mental health professionals can say that he's no longer a danger to himself or others. If it's decided that the person is not stable enough to own weapons, his name could go into a database that would prevent him from buying additional guns.

That type of system would not take guns from those not intending any harm, because most gun owners are responsible and don't go around threatening people. And it would provide due process to those whose guns are taken.

This type of post-deprivation hearing is common when there is a good faith belief that harm will come if you wait. Children can be removed from a home on allegations of neglect or abuse and parents get hearings to have them returned. Vessels are often seized from owners and held by the government when money is owed because if they sail away, so does the money. Basically any arrest is a type of seizure and a hearing is held after the fact where the accused has an opportunity to prevent evidence of innocence.

If you're serious about addressing mental health issues rather than banning types of weapons outright, this is the type of legislation you ought to think about supporting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Micronesia
3,057 posts, read 948,395 times
Reputation: 1444
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
I think you are mistaken, i always thought it was effective government, not big government. Only libertarians really want that.
Label groups of people as you wish, it doesn't change the fact that many believe a federal government with less control over citizens, not more, is the most effective route to ensuring freedoms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Micronesia
3,057 posts, read 948,395 times
Reputation: 1444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
There are ways to remove guns from dangerous people that are consistent with due process. Imagine if there were a federal hotline to report people with access to guns who were believed to present a threat to themselves or others. A relative could call a number and make a report, or report their suspicions online. Federal marshals could go to the person's house like they do when they serve a warrant and confiscate the weapons. The law could have time limits for a hearing--say, 30 days to have a hearing. It could be considered a civil matter with a representative from ATF or somewhere putting on whatever evidence they have that the person intends to commit harm with the weapon (statements he's made, social media posts, etc.). The person can put on evidence that he doesn't intend harm.

A judge could then decide a number of things: return the weapons, keep them for a period of time (3-6 months) while the person gets some sort of mental health counseling, or keep the weapons until mental health professionals can say that he's no longer a danger to himself or others. If it's decided that the person is not stable enough to own weapons, his name could go into a database that would prevent him from buying additional guns.

That type of system would not take guns from those not intending any harm, because most gun owners are responsible and don't go around threatening people. And it would provide due process to those whose guns are taken.

This type of post-deprivation hearing is common when there is a good faith belief that harm will come if you wait. Children can be removed from a home on allegations of neglect or abuse and parents get hearings to have them returned. Vessels are often seized from owners and held by the government when money is owed because if they sail away, so does the money. Basically any arrest is a type of seizure and a hearing is held after the fact where the accused has an opportunity to prevent evidence of innocence.

If you're serious about addressing mental health issues rather than banning types of weapons outright, this is the type of legislation you ought to think about supporting.
This reads like an Orwellian dystopia.

Disregarding the illegal confiscation of property and denial of rights....
A an open civilian hotline to effectively swat people? That sounds like the worst idea I have heard in a while and a good way to get people hurt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 08:48 AM
 
15,254 posts, read 16,824,190 times
Reputation: 25432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo302 View Post
This reads like an Orwellian dystopia.

Disregarding the illegal confiscation of property and denial of rights....
A an open civilian hotline to effectively swat people? That sounds like the worst idea I have heard in a while and a good way to get people hurt.
First, as I said, post-deprivation hearings are common and satisfy due process in exigent circumstances.

Here's the deal. People don't want gun bans, but claim that mental illness is the problem. If that's true, and we want to take guns away from the mentally ill, how do we do that? I threw out an idea. What's yours?

And how is this different from "see something, say something" when it comes to terrorism? If you suspect someone is going to blow something up, you report it. They're investigated. If nothing is going on, fine. If they're building a bomb in their bedroom, you just stopped a mass murder.

BTW, I'd be happy with banning everything but hand guns and single shot hunting rifles. But I'm thinking of gun owners who claim that targets legitimate gun owners.

Again, what's your idea?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top