Page 21 of 30 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 293

Thread: Nearly 200 people have had their guns seized in N.J. under new ‘red flag’ law

  1. Top | #201
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Layton, UT
    Posts
    1,515
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Public safety and justice should be pursued, but not at the expense of punishing the innocent.
    You mean, like school kids getting gunned down in classrooms? Or not those innocents?
    No, I don't mean that. Nobody means that.
    Sure seems like it. You seem awfully concerned that someone might have their guns taken away. But you don't seem to be expressing a lot of concern for what might happen if a lot of those people are allowed to keep their guns.

    Also, you keep claiming to support sensible gun control, but every time it's brought up, no matter how mild and sensible it actually is, you and the other gun fetishists here go into your 'whataboutism' tap dance, so you'll forgive me for thinking you don't actually care about how many people are killed as long as you can keep your penis substitutes.

    Also, I'm sorry about your penis.

  2. Top | #202
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Layton, UT
    Posts
    1,515
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    One could make the argument that those firearms are not being taken or confiscated permanently, which would make a difference. Those weapons are in effect being impounded. So there's a lot of interpretative wiggle room, maybe? The owners are being temporarily deprived of the use of their property in the name of public safety.
    Possibly, as long as the gun owner is not financially disadvantaged in cases of false or mistaken accusations, the state or the accuser bearing the cost of lawyers, loss of income, etc.
    Too bad. The courts have ruled, that even if you're innocent, you can be charged for a stay in jail. I'm guessing this applies to gun owners too. Sorry. Ya'll should have been paying more attention and actually using those 2nd amendment rights they way they were originally intended (according to most gun nuts).

    https://twitter.com/nharpermn/status...51809360416771

  3. Top | #203
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    5,944
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    10,983
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    One could make the argument that those firearms are not being taken or confiscated permanently, which would make a difference. Those weapons are in effect being impounded. So there's a lot of interpretative wiggle room, maybe? The owners are being temporarily deprived of the use of their property in the name of public safety.
    It very well might be permanent--they usually don't store them properly. If they're kept long enough they're likely to come back unserviceable.
    If the firearms are being kept permanently then there was a problem that required that. But if a firearm is in serviceable, maintained condition when it is confiscated that's how it will be returned, same as any other item. It's not going to start to rot.

  4. Top | #204
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lots of planets have a North
    Posts
    6,014
    Archived
    5,115
    Total Posts
    11,129
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    No, I don't mean that. Nobody means that.
    Sure seems like it.
    I've heard of reading into what people say, but you brought your own pen to write out what you are reading into his post.

  5. Top | #205
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,425
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    6,336
    Rep Power
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    No, I don't mean that. Nobody means that.
    Sure seems like it.
    I've heard of reading into what people say, but you brought your own pen to write out what you are reading into his post.
    Well, as it appears that DBT's pen is having some issues, I don't see why he shouldn't use his own.

  6. Top | #206
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lots of planets have a North
    Posts
    6,014
    Archived
    5,115
    Total Posts
    11,129
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Also, you keep claiming to support sensible gun control, but every time it's brought up, no matter how mild and sensible it actually is, you and the other gun fetishists here go into your 'whataboutism' tap dance, so you'll forgive me for thinking you don't actually care about how many people are killed as long as you can keep your penis substitutes.

    Also, I'm sorry about your penis.
    What is it with anti-gun radicals constantly sexualizing firearms? They are compared to genitalia, which makes their desire to remove them interesting from a Freudian perspective. They are compared to male genitalia in particular, which makes one question their view of men in general. The radicals not only consider firearms a fetish, they consider them a sexual fetish, which makes a person wonder if they see sexuality and violence as closely linked. It always comes down to sex with them. It doesn't come down to sex for firearm owners, or even those who protect the right without owning a firearm. It is the radicals who constantly make that connection. Since they compare it to the penis in particular, it does make a person wonder if they think male sexuality is inherently bad as well.

    From a Freudian viewpoint, the fact that they equate guns to penises and want to remove guns, that would indicate an analogous desire to feminize men and a belief that men themselves are dangerous.

  7. Top | #207
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    17,858
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    42,358
    Rep Power
    78
    Right, right, no one framed guns as penis extensions until someone wanted to reduce gun proliferation. It's all an anti-gun plot, like PETA renaming fish 'sea kittens.'

  8. Top | #208
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    16,024
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    57,967
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    No, the problem is you shifted the goal posts. I showed that the red flag laws are not incompatible with the 4th amendment.
    What you fail to consider is that the issue doesn't just rest on one line of the amendments,..,..
    You erroneously brought up the 4th amendment as relevant not me. You bring up yhe 6th amendment then admit it is not relevant

    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Obviously it is you who doesn't understand the nature of substantiation because you seem to accept that it is justified to seize someones property on the basis of what someone says.
    No, I am saying you provide no credible evidence of actual harm. You rely on hearsay and fears not actual injustice that is substantiated.
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT
    I am the one pointing out that what someone claims may not be true, that they may be mistaken or making a malicious claim in order to punish a partner when a relationship fails, etc, which is known to happen and need to be accounted for before action is taken.
    Too bad you don’t apply that standard to your proffered examples,

  9. Top | #209
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,669
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,575
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    No, I don't mean that. Nobody means that.
    Sure seems like it. You seem awfully concerned that someone might have their guns taken away. But you don't seem to be expressing a lot of concern for what might happen if a lot of those people are allowed to keep their guns.

    Also, you keep claiming to support sensible gun control, but every time it's brought up, no matter how mild and sensible it actually is, you and the other gun fetishists here go into your 'whataboutism' tap dance, so you'll forgive me for thinking you don't actually care about how many people are killed as long as you can keep your penis substitutes.

    Also, I'm sorry about your penis.
    Rude and ignorant. An internet coward who throws insults from the security of their own anonymity. Worry about your own penis.

  10. Top | #210
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,669
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,575
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Also, you keep claiming to support sensible gun control, but every time it's brought up, no matter how mild and sensible it actually is, you and the other gun fetishists here go into your 'whataboutism' tap dance, so you'll forgive me for thinking you don't actually care about how many people are killed as long as you can keep your penis substitutes.

    Also, I'm sorry about your penis.
    What is it with anti-gun radicals constantly sexualizing firearms? They are compared to genitalia, which makes their desire to remove them interesting from a Freudian perspective. They are compared to male genitalia in particular, which makes one question their view of men in general. The radicals not only consider firearms a fetish, they consider them a sexual fetish, which makes a person wonder if they see sexuality and violence as closely linked. It always comes down to sex with them. It doesn't come down to sex for firearm owners, or even those who protect the right without owning a firearm. It is the radicals who constantly make that connection. Since they compare it to the penis in particular, it does make a person wonder if they think male sexuality is inherently bad as well.

    From a Freudian viewpoint, the fact that they equate guns to penises and want to remove guns, that would indicate an analogous desire to feminize men and a belief that men themselves are dangerous.
    They are like religious fundamentalists. Whenever they feel that their position is under threat, they turn insults, saying things that they they'd be too scared to say in person, yet shoot off with no concern while anonymous. Cowards.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •