Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

SmarterthanYou said:
fine, my point is how do you come to terms with a document that we the people wrote, that created our new federal government, intended to limit that new federal government, yet allowing that government (through SCOTUS) to determine the limits of its own power?
Click to expand...
Marbury v. Madison (1803). IF I follow your meandering/run on sentence


so you rely on SCOTUS to determine your rights? see my above statement
Click to expand...
well I'm not about to take up arms to dispute that authority
 
Hello ThatOwlWoman,

ThatOwlWoman said:
But as soon as the drooling NRA minions get their OutrageTalkingPoints(tm), he'll change his "mind." Wait for it.
Click to expand...

Oh, you know it.

Good call.

He's done this before.

And he does have a history of promising things and then not delivering.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
my statement stands........the SCOTUS made a decision on its limitations of it's own power........................but this one you accept?
Click to expand...
i can't follow your run on especially when you refer to it without added clarity

why not? are your rights so unimportant?
Click to expand...
my life and liberty are of utmost importance.But do feel free to take those arms to DC and see how far that gets you
 
anatta said:
fuck off. how;s that instead?
every once in awhile you get squirrely with me. and I tolerate it to an extent - but i'm not here to get into a pissing match with you either

I am familiar enough with the concept of the hearings and the due process to be able to discuss it.
Now you can tell me I'm not and waste time and dig up previous posts for some picayune reason only you care about
Click to expand...

But you DIDN'T KNOW and that's proven by your comments; but you go right ahead and continue to lie to yourself and others.

Why would you NEED the back ground I provided, if you already were aware of it, and if you were aware of it, why would you have made the following comment??

anatta said:
if the accusation has no merit it would be shown in the hearing -so why would property be confiscated?
Click to expand...
 
anatta said:
any law has a potential for abuse. I sincerely believe drug testing my piss is a violation of my privacy as an illegal search
But it is what it is..it should be noted there is due process for those flagged
Click to expand...

Due process would be before their guns are confiscated. This is NOT, due process. Don't be ridiculous. Any false claim could result in a law abiding citizen being disarmed. This is asinine.
 
countryboy said:
Due process would be before their guns are confiscated. This is NOT, due process. Don't be ridiculous. Any false claim could result in a law abiding citizen being disarmed. This is asinine.
Click to expand...

Which she apparently was unaware of; but she still decided to support the measure.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Which she apparently was unaware of; but she still decided to support the measure.
Click to expand...

I understand the desire to want to do SOMETHING. But this is not it.

I do NOT support Trump in this, and he better be VERY careful with this knee-jerk shit, because this could bite him (and us in the process), right in the arse.
 
anatta said:
i can't follow your run on especially when you refer to it without added clarity
Click to expand...
the constitution doesn't give government power to define its limits, but the government said we will anyway with marbury v. madison..................and you simply accept it? is that enough clarity?

anatta said:
my life and liberty are of utmost importance.But do feel free to take those arms to DC and see how far that gets you
Click to expand...
so what you're saying is that you have a lesser expectation of what your life and liberty are than others, so you don't care about theirs........got it.
 
countryboy said:
Due process would be before their guns are confiscated. This is NOT, due process. Don't be ridiculous. Any false claim could result in a law abiding citizen being disarmed. This is asinine.
Click to expand...
it's an ex parte review because of the exigent circumstance -that is part of the due process.
Just because it's ex parte doesn't mean there is no due process. there is opportunity to overturn the initial review
with a full hearing

we do the same thing with FISA courts for terrorists because of the exigent circumstances
except terrorists do not get further due process
 
anatta said:
it's an ex parte review because of the exigent circumstance -that is part of the due process.
Just because it's ex parte doesn't mean there is no due process. there is opportunity to overturn the initial review
with a full hearing

we do the same thing with FISA courts for terrorists because of the exigent circumstances
except terrorists do not get further due process
Click to expand...

well, that answers my question then. you do think government gets to define its own powers and you're ok with that because it makes you feel safer.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the constitution doesn't give government power to define its limits, but the government said we will anyway with marbury v. madison..................and you simply accept it? is that enough clarity?
Click to expand...
completely clear and completely nuts that you have a problem with Marbury.


so what you're saying is that you have a lesser expectation of what your life and liberty are than others, so you don't care about theirs........got it.
Click to expand...
not what I said at all -but your argument is so poorly worded again I really haven't a clue what you are attempting to convey.
My posts are rarely misread, if still misconstrued.
Because I make sure to use subject in my sentences instead of unsupported pronouns and lousy syntax
 
SmarterthanYou said:
well, that answers my question then. you do think government gets to define its own powers and you're ok with that because it makes you feel safer.
Click to expand...
because I respect LONG AGO SETTLED stare decisis.
But you are free to tilt at as many windmills as you feel the need to do so
 
anatta said:
completely clear and completely nuts that you have a problem with Marbury.
Click to expand...
completely nuts that the federal government usurped power it wasn't given??????? yeah, that explains your position

anatta said:
not what I said at all -but your argument is so poorly worded again I really haven't a clue what you are attempting to convey.
My posts are rarely misread, if still misconstrued.
Because I make sure to use subject in my sentences instead of unsupported pronouns and lousy syntax
Click to expand...

grammar nazi to boot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top