beebee233

"Live" doesn't necessarily mean "real"...

That I'm not buyin'?????????????????

So you would seize whatever the threatened person wants you to and only that/those items?

Yes, really. The whole topic here as I see it is about a person being deemed a threat to someone else and that being cause to seize guns. Not knives, not chainsaws, not baseball bats, just guns. And then allow this person back into society. That's right up there with a no firearms sticker on a door.

I think that's where legislators go off the rail and wreck. Support of language in legislation is support of the legislation.

I'm at the beach having a beer and a drunk puts his hands on my wife and I tell him if he touches her again I will kick his ass and because I threatened the guy the cops go to my house and seize my guns. Is that what you're saying is Constitutional?

Thanks for clarifying. When bersa said he didn't have a problem with red flag laws and you responded in agreement, I came to the wrong conclusion. For the record, I don't want to keep things the way they are now. I want to follow the Constitution as it was written and intended.

Posted Tuesday at 11:36 AM

First link goes to cdc study. Didn't see proof that the adult perps were normal, stable people. Second link broke. Again, show proof that people who leave precious cargo in hot cars to die are normal.

If taking guns is not important, what do you want red flag laws for?

You said: When LE has identified someone as a credible threat for violence to themselves or others, do you think the cops should have to wait until they start shooting to take their guns? What I mean by my statement is that, under your stated scenario above, LE has identified a credible threat for violence to themselves or another, at that point, LE has the authority and responsibility to eliminate the threat. I'm assuming your scenario involves the person brandishing a gun. Otherwise, why would LE take it/them? My solution for neutralizing the threat would be to take the person into custody, not take his guns and let him go free. What if he kills his wife with a knife 5 minutes after LE leaves? What you are saying is illogical to me. Why is LE taking the person's guns so important?

Ain't buyin'... Got proof?

You're gonna' need another one of these...

Doesn't current law cover this already?

If you need a reminder that your child is in the back seat of your car your child should be taken from you for their safety's sake.

This is SO sad....

No reason to expect cops to have any more sense than the society they are products of.

Opera for two years now

I am always puzzled by load calculations regarding safes/aquariums etc. When it is presented as (for example) 500 lbs in a 4'x4' footprint, I immediately imagine two 250 lb guys standing in the middle of the room back to back and wondering whether or not the floor is going to cave in. I keep coming up with no. But what do I know? I'm not a structural engineer with a degree and a computer.

I'm in this part of the thread late but, in regards to the "rights of a criminal thug threatening a violent act", when exactly does this person become a criminal, when does he become a thug?

If the threat is real, it doesn't matter if you remove the guns or not if you keep the knives, cars, bats, sticks, nail guns, screwdrivers, blowtorches, hammers, shovels, rakes, axes, etc. around.

If the threat is that real then the person should be removed from the firearms, not the other way around.

I'd like to jump in and say, in scenario 1, I would tell the lady she better get the h$// out of dodge. Find an attorney and a judge, and don't go near him until the courts have determined he is fit/unfit. Same for 2. Get the h$\\ out. That's if I was a cop. If it were my sister/mother, I'd tell them to get the h$\\ out NOW.

I'm lost....... Again.....

I spent 10 years in Chicago in 1983...