• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Current Attempts to destroy Gun rights in Congress

pinqy said:
Read the law from one of the easiest states to get forfeiture. SS 19.2-386.10. Forfeiture; default judgment; remission; trial

One person on YouTube regardless of qualifications is not more authoritative than the actual law. Policing for Profit - Institute for Justice Gives the standards of seizure for every state and cites the relevant statutes and case law. You have anecdotes where the law was not followed correctly.
Click to expand...

OK, does that link not state that the property owner has the burden of proof ?
Bolded for you

"For good cause shown and upon proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the party defendant's interest in the property is exempt under subdivision..."


So an inanimate object has no rights and if seized, the owner has to prove is is legally theirs.

If he/she can't, the state keeps it

The individual has the burden of proof, not the state.

This contrasts to a person who is innocent until proven guilty.
 
TurtleDude said:
I tried dozens of forfeiture cases. It was one of the several areas of law that I was deemed an expert in by the DOJ. I know the federal law and law in Ohio.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that if the police seize say $10,000 off you, at trial the state has to prove you got the money illegally or do you have to prove that you did ?
 
CLAX1911 said:
Rights should be top priority all the time. Not personality conflict.

Trump's approval is record high and his disapproval is record low.
Click to expand...

Fake news. Vote against Mango.
 
TurtleDude said:
You might have thought differently is someone tried to rob you there.
Click to expand...
I wonder how he was "brandishing it? In other words it was sitting on his hip or he may have turned or leaned just right that Lurch caught a glimpse of it. Either way, and biffed one in his drawers.
 
Last edited:
zsu2357 said:
I wonder how he was "brandishing it? In other words it was sitting on his hip or he may have turned or leaned just right that Lurch caught a glimpse of it and biffed one in his drawers.
Click to expand...

brandishing a firearm is usually called aggravated menacing
 
Rich2018 said:
So are you saying that if the police seize say $10,000 off you, at trial the state has to prove you got the money illegally or do you have to prove that you did ?
Click to expand...

they have to prove-by a preponderance of the evidence, that money was derived from illicit activities.
 
zsu2357 said:
But to an anti gunner just simply having a firearm is "brandishing" it.
Click to expand...

probably causes the same amount of fear and trembling.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So disagreeable reality is fake news? If he wins is it a conspiracy?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Are King Tangface and his brood going to conspire with foreign countries again? My guess is yes. If it's what you say, I love it, especially later this summer.
 
The underlying point here is obvious: that there is no way we can afford to be as safe as other countries who regulate weapons.
 
Nickyjo said:
The underlying point here is obvious: that there is no way we can afford to be as safe as other countries who regulate weapons.
Click to expand...

many of them are far less safe
 
TurtleDude said:
many of them are far less safe
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, there are people clamoring in Europe to replace their gun laws so they can be safe, to have the same low number of homicides we have. Visited a while back. Couldn’t walk a block or two without running into demonstrators chanting “Give us guns, give us guns! We want the same homicide rate as the US.”
 
Helix said:
Because you apparently don't believe in state's rights.
Click to expand...
I do not believe in any rights other than Human rights.
 
Nickyjo said:
Oh yeah, there are people clamoring in Europe to replace their gun laws so they can be safe, to have the same low number of homicides we have. Visited a while back. Couldn’t walk a block or two without running into demonstrators chanting “Give us guns, give us guns! We want the same homicide rate as the US.”
Click to expand...

Actually when one throws out the suicides our homicide rate is on par with much of the world. Then when one understands that the vast majority of shootings are done by criminals that don't legally have the right to own a firearm and most often in poor urban areas, the murder rate drops even further.
So when you really look at the facts one realizes that the real problem is not law-abiding citizens owning firearms it is a mental health issue along with a gang issue, that is where our focus should be if we are truely serious.
 
Casper said:
Actually when one throws out the suicides our homicide rate is on par with much of the world...
Click to expand...

Sue, if you want to compare the USA with Brazil or El Salvador


Then when one understands that the vast majority of shootings are done by criminals that don't legally have the right to own a firearm and most often in poor urban areas, the murder rate drops even further....
Click to expand...

Which, if true, undermines the declared need of gun owners to keep their guns


So when you really look at the facts one realizes that the real problem is not law-abiding citizens owning firearms it is a mental health issue along with a gang issue, that is where our focus should be if we are truely serious.
Click to expand...


Since we don't know when or if "law abiding" citizens will have a "mental health" issue, the idea is that the state takes their guns, so if they do have a "mental health" issue, their capacity to harm others is much reduced.
 
Guns are not bad, people are. That's why we need to keep good guns away from as many bad people as possible.


This concept is not exactly rocket science.
 
calamity said:
Guns are not bad, people are. That's why we need to keep good guns away from as many bad people as possible.


This concept is not exactly rocket science.
Click to expand...

It sort of is....


It relies on us developing a "Minority" report system of crime foresight.
 
Casper said:
Actually when one throws out the suicides our homicide rate is on par with much of the world. Then when one understands that the vast majority of shootings are done by criminals that don't legally have the right to own a firearm and most often in poor urban areas, the murder rate drops even further.
So when you really look at the facts one realizes that the real problem is not law-abiding citizens owning firearms it is a mental health issue along with a gang issue, that is where our focus should be if we are truely serious.
Click to expand...

It’s also an availability of guns issue in all of those contexts. More guns, easier to commit suicide. Keep your gun. When you buy another, go through some checks beforehand.
 
Rich2018 said:
Sue, if you want to compare the USA with Brazil or El Salvador




Which, if true, undermines the declared need of gun owners to keep their guns





Since we don't know when or if "law abiding" citizens will have a "mental health" issue, the idea is that the state takes their guns, so if they do have a "mental health" issue, their capacity to harm others is much reduced.
Click to expand...

Or Mexico...

Nope it validates why the need them for defence oh also hunting, you do that is also something firearms owners often do.

Nope, you don't take away, or try, my firearms because someones uncle Joe is crazier than a cat in heat, you get them help. Nearly every case of people going nuts is attached to a history of mental issues. Oh and those deemed to be mentally unfit are not allowed to buy firearms,vsame with abusive spouses.

Sorry, but I will not give up my firearms so some else can get a false sense if security, my rights are more valuable to me than their feelings.
 
Nickyjo said:
It’s also an availability of guns issue in all of those contexts. More guns, easier to commit suicide. Keep your gun. When you buy another, go through some checks beforehand.
Click to expand...

One can only shoot themsyelf with one gun unless very determined, hence it does not matter how many guns I have if I am suicidal one is all that would be needed, or a rope, bottle of pills, knife, razor, cliff or bridge, any would do the job. Guns aren't the problem, People with mental illness are.
 
Casper said:
One can only shoot themsyelf with one gun unless very determined, hence it does not matter how many guns I have if I am suicidal one is all that would be needed, or a rope, bottle of pills, knife, razor, cliff or bridge, any would do the job. Guns aren't the problem, People with mental illness are.
Click to expand...

Pills maybe, but guns are much more convenient than the other methods mentioned. And no one bothers to pump your stomach when you put a bullet in your brain. But the battle is over. French eat snails, in parts of Africa folks eat live monkey brains, Americans eat guns. I was nearly shot because cops assumed I was armed. Friend is in a wheelchair. Name your poison. I prefer snails.
 
Casper said:
Nope it validates why the need them for defence oh also hunting, you do that is also something firearms owners often do.
Click to expand...

Sure, even the strict British gun laws allow for "sporting guns"


I would ban all guns and allow the national executive the allow the national executive to allow certain guns by make/model #
I'd allow all single action guns

And just so you understand, because some posters like RF just couldn't (or preferred not to in order to pick an argument)
I'd allow all single action rifles not by any convoluted legal definition but by the executive listing EVERY model of said gun type...same with shotguns and muzzle loaders.


Nope, you don't take away, or try, my firearms because someones uncle Joe is crazier than a cat in heat, you get them help....
Click to expand...


If they kill someone we either jail them for life or execute them

How do we know you haven't just described yourself on some future date ?
We don't
So the guns of "honest citizens" are seized (less those the executive exempts)



Nearly every case of people going nuts is attached to a history of mental issues.
Click to expand...


"People going nuts" I assume is a euphemism for a type of mental illness ?

Wouldn't you say that EVERY case of "people going nuts" so qualifies not merely "nearly every case"


Are you saying that the majority of mass shooters had gone "nuts" ?
If so, where is your medical evidence ?



...those deemed to be mentally unfit are not allowed to buy firearms, same with abusive spouses...
Click to expand...

A quite ridiculous suggestion

So in order to by a firearm a person must have a certificate signed by who that they're not "nuts"
So in order to buy a firearm, a person must have a certificate signed by who that their partner is not abusive ?

Once the have bought their gun, how often must they pass this test ?
One poster on here claimed it was a violation of his constitutional rights to pass a law on how guns are stored and having Law Enforcement periodically inspect the storage facilities
It seems you propose a much more intrusive process

Once a firearm is purchased, does a gun own have to get their partner assessed for abusiveness any time they get married, start dating a new g/f or b/f, have a partner sleep over, have a new partner move in ?
Can you imagine that: A young woman starts dating but says her new boyfriend has to pass some kind of background and mental health test before he can spend the night ?


You take the prize for the most idiotic suggestion of the week.

:lamo
 
Rich2018 said:
Sure, even the strict British gun laws allow for "sporting guns"


I would ban all guns and allow the national executive the allow the national executive to allow certain guns by make/model #
I'd allow all single action guns

And just so you understand, because some posters like RF just couldn't (or preferred not to in order to pick an argument)
I'd allow all single action rifles not by any convoluted legal definition but by the executive listing EVERY model of said gun type...same with shotguns and muzzle loaders.





If they kill someone we either jail them for life or execute them

How do we know you haven't just described yourself on some future date ?
We don't
So the guns of "honest citizens" are seized (less those the executive exempts)






"People going nuts" I assume is a euphemism for a type of mental illness ?

Wouldn't you say that EVERY case of "people going nuts" so qualifies not merely "nearly every case"


Are you saying that the majority of mass shooters had gone "nuts" ?
If so, where is your medical evidence ?





A quite ridiculous suggestion

So in order to by a firearm a person must have a certificate signed by who that they're not "nuts"
So in order to buy a firearm, a person must have a certificate signed by who that their partner is not abusive ?

Once the have bought their gun, how often must they pass this test ?
One poster on here claimed it was a violation of his constitutional rights to pass a law on how guns are stored and having Law Enforcement periodically inspect the storage facilities
It seems you propose a much more intrusive process

Once a firearm is purchased, does a gun own have to get their partner assessed for abusiveness any time they get married, start dating a new g/f or b/f, have a partner sleep over, have a new partner move in ?
Can you imagine that: A young woman starts dating but says her new boyfriend has to pass some kind of background and mental health test before he can spend the night ?


You take the prize for the most idiotic suggestion of the week.

:lamo
Click to expand...

Never happen ..LOL

People that are not nuts don't think it is a great idea to shoot people at school, church and the theater. You need more evidence, do thoughts like that pop into your head?

That was your idiotic idea, not mine.

Enjoy your delusional fantasy, you will never see it in real life.
 
Casper said:
Never happen ..LOL
Click to expand...

So you claim, as most gun owners on here seem to
They adopt the faux "from my cold dead fingers" bravado


When in truth you'll stand in line an meekly hand your guns in if/when (for RF's pedantic benefit) you are ordered to so so follow the repeal of the 2nd amendment and a law banning all gun*

Also for RF's benefit exceptions would be made, under my proposal that is, for types of gun like single action rifles. BUT to be clear for RFs sake, the law wouldn't make any convoluted legal definitions, instead the national executive would make exceptions for them on a make/model# basis and list every weapon
Hopefully RF can understand this. I said hopefully.


People that are not nuts don't think it is a great idea to shoot people at school, church and the theater....
Click to expand...

This is your opinion or do you have evidence for this ?

Not saying that all mass shooters are rational but perhaps some just like killing people
Perhaps some are just so alienated towards American culture that their desire to be destructive outweighs any perceived consequences
Or it could be that their rage at something like a work dispute triggers them

In many cases, 20:20 hindsight identifies the warning signs, but are you seriously advocating the guns of people suspected to be "nuts" are seized ?

And if so would you be happy with each state drawing up their own criteria for what "nuts" is ?


That was your idiotic idea, not mine.
Click to expand...

Really, here's your idiotic idea again:

...those deemed to be mentally unfit are not allowed to buy firearms, same with abusive spouses...
Click to expand...

Ring a bell ?



Enjoy your delusional fantasy, you will never see it in real life.
Click to expand...


Big bar talk

"from my cold, dead fingers" school of gun control...

You'd hand in your gun meekly (and for RF's benefit, that is after a law banning guns is passed, not before)

Before, you'd rather see the world burn than surrender your precious guns, I get that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom