quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


Something some people obtain as a matter of habit on trumped up bullshit?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

But I told her as she gave me the finger after the last appearance, that she really should either move out of town or make sure she always went out accompanied. She moved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
so you feel that the state should be authorized to summarily violate everyone elses rights and take away their weapons based on the issuance or maintenance of a restraining order? Something some people obtain as a matter of habit on trumped up bullshit?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
...
A car is regulated licenced, tested, taxed.so is the driver

Only if one wishes to drive on public roads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Latest figures show that all motor deaths at only 200 more instances of deaththan firearms.

33804 deaths by car
33636 by gun
Figures from cdc

I assume you believe a person has a right to do whatever they want to their own body, including suicide. Your 'deaths by gun' figure includes suicides, which comprise roughly 2/3 of firearm related deaths. That number also includes justifiable homicides, which accounted for 742 deaths. The adjusted number is around 11,719 (or 11,511 if using the FBI's numbers on the link provided), nearly 300% less than the 'deaths by cars' figure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

I didn't threaten her at all. I just advised her that the town was a dangerous place. I never threaten anybody. Not in front of witnesses anyway................and do you REALLY think she would have gone to the local plods again with another and similar accusation ? If you do, you are thicker than I already thought D.S.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
...
A car is regulated licenced, tested, taxed.so is the driver

quote:

I think that even if the protective order is made permanent (it still doesn't mean the "abuser" actually abused the other), there should be some kind of "wiggle room" for a case-by-case adjudication as to whether or not the legal gun owner gets their weapon back or not.

quote:

Essentially, it's a "temporary measure" which can be made permanent, by nature of an actual conviction. Think of it as a "cooling off period" or a device to allow the alleged victim to get themselves and their things out of the house without threat of gun violence.

quote:

impose harsh penalties in the form of excessive bail, allow the homes of the accused to be ransacked by police, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
...
If you have committed a felony, you have forfeited your right to own a firearm.

Except one has not committed a felony because the justice system has not convicted them; these are merely the accused. Since when does merely accusing someone of a crime mean the accused must forfeit rights?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
If a person has logistical proof (go ahead, ask me what that is) of a person being in a category of a DV perpetrator, take the firearm out of their hand.
...

As long as we're violating people's rights based on accusations why stop with the 2nd amendment: impose harsh penalties in the form of excessive bail, allow the homes of the accused to be ransacked by police, etc. Lets get rid of the pesky presumption of innocence and just hang people by their toenails if someone accuses them of a horrific crime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

so you feel that the state should be authorized to summarily violate everyone elses rights and take away their weapons based on the issuance or maintenance of a restraining order? Something some people obtain as a matter of habit on trumped up bullshit?

Sir, I am long on record as being a staunch supporter of the right to keep and bear arms. So, I won't take this as one of your usual attempts at discrediting by ridicule.

I will say this: I made my position quite clear, but let me take a different tack (hopefully not into the wind):

Your "argument" which I quoted above seems (to me) to be that "everyone else's rights" are being "violated". Let me say I own two handguns and a rifle (There's bears in dese here hills).

When some people are accused of homicide, murder, (I think even) some rapes, they're held without bail. It is (I feel) a legitimate (temporary) move to ensure the public safety.

I also wish to remind you that my post included this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

... I don't appose this, entirely. I think that even if the protective order is made permanent (it still doesn't mean the "abuser" actually abused the other), there should be some kind of "wiggle room" for a case-by-case adjudication as to whether or not the legal gun owner gets their weapon back or not.

People who are living with weapon owners that may be violent are in proximity to danger. However, I believe that each situation is different and that they should be taken that way; not covered by a one-size-fits-all law. I know how easy it is to be accused of domestic violence with no foundation in fact. I surrendered my weapons for a total of five days. They were returned, outside the courtroom when the ignorant bitch was shown to be a liar.

Please read everything I type before cherry picking the hay for your strawman bullshit.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

so you feel that the state should be authorized to summarily violate everyone elses rights and take away their weapons based on the issuance or maintenance of a restraining order? Something some people obtain as a matter of habit on trumped up bullshit?

Sir, I am long on record as being a staunch supporter of the right to keep and bear arms. So, I won't take this as one of your usual attempts at discrediting by ridicule.

I will say this: I made my position quite clear, but let me take a different tack (hopefully not into the wind):

Your "argument" which I quoted above seems (to me) to be that "everyone else's rights" are being "violated". Let me say I own two handguns and a rifle (There's bears in dese here hills).

When some people are accused of homicide, murder, (I think even) some rapes, they're held without bail. It is (I feel) a legitimate (temporary) move to ensure the public safety.

I also wish to remind you that my post included this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

... I don't appose this, entirely. I think that even if the protective order is made permanent (it still doesn't mean the "abuser" actually abused the other), there should be some kind of "wiggle room" for a case-by-case adjudication as to whether or not the legal gun owner gets their weapon back or not.

People who are living with weapon owners that may be violent are in proximity to danger. However, I believe that each situation is different and that they should be taken that way; not covered by a one-size-fits-all law. I know how easy it is to be accused of domestic violence with no foundation in fact. I surrendered my weapons for a total of five days. They were returned, outside the courtroom when the ignorant bitch was shown to be a liar.

Please read everything I type before cherry picking the hay for your strawman bullshit.



Michael

Good, even handed post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

so you feel that the state should be authorized to summarily violate everyone elses rights and take away their weapons based on the issuance or maintenance of a restraining order? Something some people obtain as a matter of habit on trumped up bullshit?

Sir, I am long on record as being a staunch supporter of the right to keep and bear arms. So, I won't take this as one of your usual attempts at discrediting by ridicule.

I will say this: I made my position quite clear, but let me take a different tack (hopefully not into the wind):

Your "argument" which I quoted above seems (to me) to be that "everyone else's rights" are being "violated". Let me say I own two handguns and a rifle (There's bears in dese here hills).

When some people are accused of homicide, murder, (I think even) some rapes, they're held without bail. It is (I feel) a legitimate (temporary) move to ensure the public safety.

I also wish to remind you that my post included this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

... I don't appose this, entirely. I think that even if the protective order is made permanent (it still doesn't mean the "abuser" actually abused the other), there should be some kind of "wiggle room" for a case-by-case adjudication as to whether or not the legal gun owner gets their weapon back or not.

People who are living with weapon owners that may be violent are in proximity to danger. However, I believe that each situation is different and that they should be taken that way; not covered by a one-size-fits-all law. I know how easy it is to be accused of domestic violence with no foundation in fact. I surrendered my weapons for a total of five days. They were returned, outside the courtroom when the ignorant bitch was shown to be a liar.

Please read everything I type before cherry picking the hay for your strawman bullshit.



Michael

Good, even handed post.

I agree.

I also wanted to add (I don't know about other states, but in CA) - if you have been placed on 5150 hold and you own a weapon, the police are supposed come and take your weapons until you've received a psychological evaluation and clearance from a Dr.

That said, our experience is that the police don't put a high priority on it. With our family member, they showed up, she said it was at her mother's house, they left....and a month later she killed herself with that same gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
...
If you have committed a felony, you have forfeited your right to own a firearm.

Except one has not committed a felony because the justice system has not convicted them; these are merely the accused. Since when does merely accusing someone of a crime mean the accused must forfeit rights?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
If a person has logistical proof (go ahead, ask me what that is) of a person being in a category of a DV perpetrator, take the firearm out of their hand.
...

As long as we're violating people's rights based on accusations why stop with the 2nd amendment: impose harsh penalties in the form of excessive bail, allow the homes of the accused to be ransacked by police, etc. Lets get rid of the pesky presumption of innocence and just hang people by their toenails if someone accuses them of a horrific crime.

To a large measure, this is already happening.