Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-22-2022, 09:15 AM
 
Location: Sylmar, a part of Los Angeles
8,342 posts, read 6,428,879 times
Reputation: 17463

Advertisements

Guns aren't cheap. If the goverment has a lawful reason to take them they ought at least to pay fair market value.
They say temporarily take your guns. If California gets them you'll never see them again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-22-2022, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Arizona
7,511 posts, read 4,352,988 times
Reputation: 6164
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
If someone is deemed to dangerous to be trusted in society with all of their rights intact, they should not be walking around with the rest of us. The solution is the same as it is for violent criminals: lock them up until they are no longer a threat. If we aren’t willing to do that, then we obviously don’t consider them dangerous.
Post of the day!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2022, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
4,509 posts, read 4,044,124 times
Reputation: 3086
Look at how "emergency powers" turned out. Full blown lock downs over a psyop to rebrand the literal flu.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2022, 09:55 AM
 
27,142 posts, read 15,313,785 times
Reputation: 12071
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
I already gave you the alternative: if they’re that dangerous, they should be locked up. If you’re taking someone’s right to own firearms away, you should be removing their ability to use firearms no matter where they come from. What’s to stop your hypothetical boogieman from stealing his neighbor’s firearm and going on a shooting spree or from using a different method to harm others? After all, we’re talking about someone who is too unstable to be trusted.

Red flag laws provide a false sense of security. They give government the power to arbitrarily confiscate firearms based on how “dangerous” someone is, but do nothing to address the actual danger posed by that person. Again, if someone is too dangerous to be in society with all of their rights, they shouldn’t be in society. If you think that’s an oversimplification, then your issue isn’t the threat caused by the person. Your issue is the threat caused by firearms which, on their own, are no more dangerous than a paperweight.
Dean on.
If one is a threat taking one "rock" away does not disable the threat......if it's real.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:34 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top