Who-all Should Be Disarmed?

Shalimar said:
Hmmmm. Intelligence often gets in the way of enlightenment. But then, perhaps that is the point?
Click to expand...

I never thought it got in the way. Rather, that it is a necessary starting point for the attainment of enlightenment.

But I seriously doubt that the 12 McDonald's workers and car-wash jockeys that make up your usual jury could be said to be enlightened ...
 
Going back to trying to guess who should not be allowed gun ownership. I mentioned convicted felons and folks with a record of mental illness. But what about all the countless citizens who have never been arrested...or hospitalized...yet... domestic violence? Maybe they didn't get caught. Those are the fruitcakes that can bypass the laws until they go on a spree.
 

I removed what I wrote originally, so I will just say that this was something that may have been prevented. There, I've been PC. I watched this video at least a dozen times, so I believe I know what caused the officer to shoot. I have seen this happen at least twice before as far back as I can remember.
 
fureverywhere said:
Small town Pennsylvania, anywhere in Pennsylvania and I'm not surprised. One of those states where cops feel they are da law. People who should not be allowed to possess firearms-
Convicted violent felons, not ever.
People convicted of domestic violence should be banned from owning a weapon perhaps a minimum of 15 years after release.
If someone has been in a psychiatric unit even overnight I would say five to ten years before they can legally buy a weapon, if they are a "frequent flyer"...that is they have had repeated stays for mental health issues. Then they should not be legally allowed to possess a weapon for life, period.
Click to expand...

Fur... convicted domestic violence offenders are banned from owning a firearm as per our friend wikipedia.
The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban often called "the Lautenberg Amendment" ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence"), is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as "the Lautenberg Amendment" after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D - NJ).
 
Warrigal said:
Because people don't understand the full meaning of "beyond reasonable doubt".
Click to expand...

Over here, Law Enforcement more often adheres to a policy of having had "probable cause".

As they insisted when a newbie cop had my vehicle towed to impound, stated it was "blocking a public thoroughfare". In reality, I used it (4X4) to get through a mud bath blocking our rented house from the roadway. I left it parked perfectly legally on a short dead-end gravel "thoroughfare".

When I called the cops, they insisted they had "probable cause" to believe the vehicle had been stolen. Explained the vehicle had been titled in my name issued by DMV, same 2-word insistence, no more. Pressed them further, the cop said the vehicle ID tag had been re-affixed using pop-rivets. I called International Harvester Engineering: ALL 1966 Scout tags were thusly factory-affixed. Back to the cop. Finally, he relented, claiming the vehicle was too old to continue the stolen issue. All the while, impound costs going higher. I got it back after paying impound over $100. Back bed had contained an expensive tow-chain, jack, and tools, gone, obviously stolen by the impound driver.

Wonder at all about my attitude? imp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top