He’s Disarmed Without Being Convicted Of Anything
BY Herschel Smith
6 years, 9 months ago
If there is “clear, convincing, admissible evidence” that a supposedly “restrained” party is a danger, how is it responsible to allow such a menace access to the rest of us until such time as it can be established that he is no longer a threat? Does anyone think he couldn’t kill with something else? Or, noting routine headlines from places like Chicago and Baltimore, that he couldn’t get a gun? Why wouldn’t he be separated from society, after being afforded real “due process,” with all appropriate protections of course?
Hey, it’s what Trump wants. It’s what the NRA wants. It’s what the progressives want. Cradle to grave security courtesy of the department of pre-crime. Hmm … I was wondering if he’s now prohibited from buying fertilizer at Lowe’s, Home Depot and Tractor Supply?
On March 15, 2018 at 7:52 am, Fred said:
President Trump is a gun controller. I’m going to vote strait democrat from here on out. At least when the dems are in power the right and republicans will fight gun control. There are ‘pro gun’ people, respected (supposedly) people, all over the web saying that they are ok with what Trump and the NRA are doing.
If it was President Clinton doing this shit you can bet the farm that the push-back would be epic.
On March 15, 2018 at 11:53 am, I R A Darth Aggie said:
I’m going to vote strait democrat from here on out.
That’s dumb.
When they raise your taxes, kill the economy, and put the cost of bullets so high that you’re visiting your local coke dealer to see if he can get his foreign suppliers to throw in a couple of cases of ammunition in their next shipment, well, it’ll be the government you voted for.
On the other hand, you’ll know what you’re getting ahead of time. So there is that.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On March 15, 2018 at 11:32 pm, Chris Mallory said:
Forget the fertilizer, are the going to let him buy 5 gallons of gas?
On March 16, 2018 at 11:33 am, Equilibrist said:
If there is “clear, convincing, admissible evidence” that a supposed “gun rights advocate” is a danger to others’ individual rights, how is it responsible to allow such a menace access to the means to advocate depriving the rest of us of our rights until such time as it can be established that he is no longer a threat? Does anyone think he couldn’t advocate infringements of others’ right by opining about something else? Or, noting routine headlines from places like Seattle, that he couldn’t engage in irrational fearmongering to cajole other governments into denying their citizens’ rights? Why shouldn’t he be separated from society, after being afforded real “due process,” with all appropriate protections of course?
In other words, what do we do if there is “clear and convincing” evidence that an unrestrained putz is, in fact, an unrestrained putz?