Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

Hello Darth ,

Darth Omar said:
I’m less concerned about the arsenal [and good luck with that lol] and more interested in ‘expressing white nationalism’.

What do you mean by that, specifically?
Click to expand...

I think the phrase is rather clear.

You express white nationalism / white supremacy, and you amass an arsenal, then you should have your guns taken away.

That's all.

We should have all active racists under surveillance. Why wait until they act on their hatred?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth ,



I think the phrase is rather clear.

You express white nationalism / white supremacy, and you amass an arsenal, then you should have your guns taken away.

That's all.

We should have all active racists under surveillance. Why wait until they act on their hatred?
Click to expand...

so any claim of racism, tethered with known gun ownership, should be enough to risk lives in enforcing unconstitutional actions, in your mind?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth ,



I think the phrase is rather clear.

You express white nationalism / white supremacy, and you amass an arsenal, then you should have your guns taken away.

That's all.

We should have all active racists under surveillance. Why wait until they act on their hatred?
Click to expand...

Do you include black racists, Hispanic racists, gender extremists and etc with that or just white extremists?

Ok, let’s cut to the chase lol. Do you think I should be permitted to have an arsenal?
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
Do you include black racists, [Yes, if you can find them] Hispanic racists, [same] gender extremists and etc with that or just white extremists?
Click to expand...

No, I would not include gender extremists. I do not think we have a national problem with gender extremists perpetrating mass shootings on strangers. Individuals who have focused their hatred on one subject should be watched if they have been issued and violated restraining orders.

Darth Omar said:
Ok, let’s cut to the chase lol. Do you think I should be permitted to have an arsenal?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone should have an arsenal but how do you draw the line between that and collectors who simply admire the weapons and have no intent to use them aside from home protection? The 2nd allows ownership and places no limit on the number. I would agree that a new law limiting the NUMBER of guns does not abridge the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR arms. As long as people are allowed to keep and bear SOME arms, then the RIGHT is not abridged.
 
How about this?

You amass an arsenal and you express hatred online then you lose your guns.

Any rights being violated there?

Why can't we do THAT.
 
PoliTalker said:
How about this?

You amass an arsenal and you express hatred online then you lose your guns.

Any rights being violated there?

Why can't we do THAT.
Click to expand...

hatred is too subjective.............what if I am accused of hatred due to my anti government/anti law enforcement stances? should I have to endure a raid, possible death, and rights violations because you think i'm too full of hate?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth ,



I think the phrase is rather clear.

You express white nationalism / white supremacy, and you amass an arsenal, then you should have your guns taken away.

That's all.

We should have all active racists under surveillance. Why wait until they act on their hatred?
Click to expand...
Your papers, please, Snowflake.

So, a person who doesn’t like a particular race can not own a gun? Does that include ANTIFA, BLM, the Black Panthers.

IF YOU LIKE TO COLLECT GUNS (allowed by the Second Amendment), you can’t own guns?

Where is that in the Constitution?

You are a Fascist, Snowflake.
 
Gonzomin said:
Guns are contrary to logic. You should have to prove you need one, take a training program and be regularly tested. Not unlike a drivers license.
Click to expand...
Imagine if we took a different right, say voting, and suggested this same idea. Totalitarians often think rights are something they can regulate at this level, and that it somehow won't be considered infringement.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
yeah, we no longer need a constitutionally limited government.........hell, who needs a constitution anymore. ROFL. simple minds, simple lives, apathetic about freedom.
Click to expand...
Im with you on limited government ( call it by name "federalism") but both Partys and Trump
don't really care about co-sovereignty or the 10th or much of any limitations
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth ,



I think the phrase is rather clear.

You express white nationalism / white supremacy, and you amass an arsenal, then you should have your guns taken away.

That's all.

We should have all active racists under surveillance. Why wait until they act on their hatred?
Click to expand...

Hey fuzz nuts who determines what an arsenal is. I have a large collection of shotguns, military rifles, and pistols is that an arsenal?
 
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...

Nope.
Due process cannot be applied without the defendant present.
 
anatta said:
completely clear and completely nuts that you have a problem with Marbury.


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...

Bullshit.
You write like a high school dropout.
Get over yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top