Gun Banning Promise

[Samm]

@tnt

@Paul_Thomson

Why not?

If the goal is to separate crazy people and guns, you need to know if they have any guns at home.

That’s what search warrants are for. Being crazy is probable cause to get one. If you don’t have probable cause, you don’t have any business knowing what anyone has inside their home.

[WuWei]

Notice he didn’t say “reasonable suspicion” either.

[WuWei]

@moonshine

@westaussie

If I were able to vote in USA elections your proposal would be a sound basis to consider voting for such a proposal. But as I have said many times before I am not able to vote in those elections so I will leave it to those who can vote to support such a proposal.

i live in texas, about the most ammosexual run state their is. but that will change as texas starts to turn blue and the gun huggers get kicked to the curb

But you’re not a Texan. California?

[Samm]

@BlueTex

@Paul_Thomson

Well, most of the mass-shooters were reported to police for their violent rhetoric many times, but not psychologically assessed despite those red flags. Had they professionally assessed them, they would have had cause to search for weapons. They didn’t need to know which of their neighbours had guns before assessing their sanity and their trustworthiness with weapons, and then searching their property for arms

Do you support red-flag laws?

Red flag laws are well intended, but they violate the 5th Amendment. Due process must occur before property is seized, not afterward.

[moonshine]

@WuWei

@moonshine

@westaussie

If I were able to vote in USA elections your proposal would be a sound basis to consider voting for such a proposal. But as I have said many times before I am not able to vote in those elections so I will leave it to those who can vote to support such a proposal.

i live in texas, about the most ammosexual run state their is. but that will change as texas starts to turn blue and the gun huggers get kicked to the curb

But you’re not a Texan. California?

moved to austin from wisconsin to escape the cold.
doing my best to help turn texas blue

[WuWei]

@moonshine

@WuWei

@moonshine

@westaussie

If I were able to vote in USA elections your proposal would be a sound basis to consider voting for such a proposal. But as I have said many times before I am not able to vote in those elections so I will leave it to those who can vote to support such a proposal.

i live in texas, about the most ammosexual run state their is. but that will change as texas starts to turn blue and the gun huggers get kicked to the curb

But you’re not a Texan. California?

originally from chicago. moved to austin texas from wisconsin to escape the cold.
doing my best to help turn texas blue

Thanks. Try California.

Why 7 rounds?

Trying to turn it into the ■■■■ hole you ran away from. Chicago. Huh.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

Shall not be infringed.

If I cannot afford a glock… am I being infringed?

[conan]

Of course all guns wouldn’t be banned…the privilege elitists snobs would be only ones with police state backing em up. Like Sylvester Stallone, Hollywood biggest hypocrite.

[Samm]

@WuWei

you’re just mindlessly repeating what you’ve heard others say. You want it because you’ve been told no. Or because you think it will hurt me.

This is a perfect example of why people despise libs. The constant imposition for no value.

It’s the same with “universal background checks” and “mandatory waiting periods.” They just parrot what they have been conditioned to say without having a clue as to whether those requirements would have any effect on shooting crimes at all.

[moonshine]

@WuWei

@moonshine

@WuWei

@moonshine

@westaussie

If I were able to vote in USA elections your proposal would be a sound basis to consider voting for such a proposal. But as I have said many times before I am not able to vote in those elections so I will leave it to those who can vote to support such a proposal.

i live in texas, about the most ammosexual run state their is. but that will change as texas starts to turn blue and the gun huggers get kicked to the curb

But you’re not a Texan. California?

originally from chicago. moved to austin texas from wisconsin to escape the cold.
doing my best to help turn texas blue

Thanks. Try California.

Why 7 rounds?

Trying to turn it into the ■■■■ hole you ran away from. Chicago. Huh.

if i could afford san fran id move there in a heartbeat

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

@WuWei

Shall not be infringed.

If I cannot afford a glock… am I being infringed?

No, you have the right to keep and bear. If you can’t afford a Tupperware gun, I’ll take up a collection and get you one. It will take a couple of days and it will have to be shipped to a FFL. Just let me know which one.

If you don’t have a car, is your right to vote being infringed?

I don’t think taxes should be charged on guns or ammo.

[WuWei]

@moonshine

if i could afford san fran id move there in a heartbeat

How can I help you? Seriously.

Why 7 rounds?

[moonshine]

As far as im concerned it could be 5 rounds.
i cant afford a house in SF thats why i dont live there. i dont have 2-3M in the bank

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

No, you have the right to keep and bear. If you can’t afford a Tupperware gun, I’ll take up a collection and get you one. It will take a couple of days and it will have to be shipped to a FFL. Just let me know which one.

If you don’t have a car, is your right to vote being infringed?

I don’t think taxes should be charged on guns or ammo.

But if I cannot afford to keep and bear… aren’t my rights being infringed?

[RTchoke]

@Samm

@tnt

@Paul_Thomson

Why not?

If the goal is to separate crazy people and guns, you need to know if they have any guns at home.

That’s what search warrants are for. Being crazy is probable cause to get one. If you don’t have probable cause, you don’t have any business knowing what anyone has inside their home.

This is what I mean. They are just fine with violating any rights they feel they need to, to get their end result. It’s also why I don’t believe a word libs say about where they will stop when they are violating one of our rights.

[WuWei]

@moonshine

As far as im concerned it could be 5 rounds.
i cant afford a house in SF thats why i dont live there. i dont have 2-3M in the bank

Why 5 then?

How can I help? I heard you don’t need a house to live there.

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

But if I cannot afford to keep and bear… aren’t my rights being infringed?

No. You have a right to keep and bear the arms you have.

Do you want me to take up a collection or not?

[RTchoke]

@PurpnGold

@WuWei

No, you have the right to keep and bear. If you can’t afford a Tupperware gun, I’ll take up a collection and get you one. It will take a couple of days and it will have to be shipped to a FFL. Just let me know which one.

If you don’t have a car, is your right to vote being infringed?

I don’t think taxes should be charged on guns or ammo.

But if I cannot afford to keep and bear… aren’t my rights being infringed?

If you can’t afford an ID, is your right to vote infringed?

[Samm]

@tnt

@Paul_Thomson

You ascertain that after deciding professionally that they are clinically insane. You don’t determine who has guns and then test them all for insanity. Otherwise, you should test everyone, whether they have guns or not, and then separate them from all weapons and potential weapons. There is nothing that predisposes gun owners to criminal violence with weapons more than non-gun-owners.

how will you know if they have guns? Are you going to search their house? Trust them to self report?

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

“ … nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …”

There you go … every thing you need to find out if they have guns and to seize them if you can show legitimate cause.

[WuWei]

Everything you need to address a situation over 200 years later. Amazing.