Legal gun owner definition updated

[Moonbeam]

I’m not getting your point, especially considering the truth is on my side so if anything the current events are showing that truth is irrelevant.

The sentiment you are expressing is the belief that it is irrelevant. That is because the truth can be suppressed only. It can never be expunged from human nature and will threaten to reappear with each new human birth or each mystical enlightenment.

Attitude, how you see the world determines your inner state. A man can sit like Rodin's The Thinker while a puppy plays at his feet. Except as you be a little child................

 

[Vic]

It is only because we have an extremist court that ignored precedence, the historic record, and the constitution itself when it ruled in 2008 that the 2nd was an individual right. Pack the court and change the ruling and these bull shit rulings go away.

Yaknow, this might sound silly, but one of my life's most profound philosophical epiphanies occurred while watching (of all things) Star Wars Rogue One. It was when Lyra Erso told Orson Krennic, right before she was murdered, "You will never win."
It occurred to me that moment the absolute truth of that statement. Good and evil are locked forever in an eternal battle from which neither can ever win. But at the same time, the path of progress is inevitably, albeit tragically incrementally, towards the good.
But the lesson to be learned is that every victory for evil is in fact a misstep that can be used to benefit the good.
This is truth. Evil can never win. Because we won't let it.

 

[HomerJS]

Few thoughts on this.

This applies to those with restraining orders, not criminal convictions.

Its fair to question where the appropriate threshold for losing constitutional rights should be, since the level of proof is much lower for a civil order, only "good cause" is needed, whereas a criminal conviction requires "beyond reasonable doubt" of course.

While I lean towards protecting rights, this is concerning for women. I think law enforcement will need to be more willing to charge abusers to ensure they are restricted, rather than settle for restraining orders. These charges need to be felonies as well.

I think this is also a blow against red flag laws as the underlying logic is the same.

Lastly, this guy was a real duck nut, and should have been charged with some crime along the way and had these rights removed

"Rahimi was subject to a February 2020 civil protective order after an alleged assault of his ex-girlfriend. In December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was accused of several shootings. They included instances in which he allegedly shot at a driver and a car after a car crash. In another incident, he allegedly fired shots into the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant."

I understand but in the time it takes to get a conviction the woman winds up up dead.

Don’t you think even absent a conviction there are some people who should not be allowed to own guns?

Mentally immature(violent tendencies, anger issues)

 

[ch33zw1z]

Few thoughts on this.

This applies to those with restraining orders, not criminal convictions.

Its fair to question where the appropriate threshold for losing constitutional rights should be, since the level of proof is much lower for a civil order, only "good cause" is needed, whereas a criminal conviction requires "beyond reasonable doubt" of course.

While I lean towards protecting rights, this is concerning for women. I think law enforcement will need to be more willing to charge abusers to ensure they are restricted, rather than settle for restraining orders. These charges need to be felonies as well.

I think this is also a blow against red flag laws as the underlying logic is the same.

Lastly, this guy was a real duck nut, and should have been charged with some crime along the way and had these rights removed

"Rahimi was subject to a February 2020 civil protective order after an alleged assault of his ex-girlfriend. In December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was accused of several shootings. They included instances in which he allegedly shot at a driver and a car after a car crash. In another incident, he allegedly fired shots into the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant."

Little comfort for domestic abuse victims. The 2A doesn't define what measurement we should use to remove an individuals rights to own firearms. It's left up to the people to determine. In this case, another step has been made that will impact the safety of the populace. If these states are ok with that, so be it, but it's just another reason for me to not live there. Unhinged people wrapped up in emotions that the court has deemed worthy of a restraining order shouldn't own firearms IMO.

 

[Bitek]

I understand but in the time it takes to get a conviction the woman winds up up dead.

Don’t you think even absent a conviction there are some people who should not be allowed to own guns?

Mentally immature(violent tendencies, anger issues)

It's concerning no doubt. IDK what the path forward is for law enforcement, but they will need to find some way to adjust for as long as this is the standard.

Currently, you can be denied firearms if you are under felony indictment. Doesn't have to be a conviction, which is a long process, but I think there are cases challenging that too. Regardless, this may be what LEOs need to do to get abusers flagged on a background check.

The underlaying issue is right to due process and constitutional rights, and where the threshold needs to be.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Yaknow, this might sound silly, but one of my life's most profound philosophical epiphanies occurred while watching (of all things) Star Wars Rogue One. It was when Lyra Erso told Orson Krennic, right before she was murdered, "You will never win."
It occurred to me that moment the absolute truth of that statement. Good and evil are locked forever in an eternal battle from which neither can ever win. But at the same time, the path of progress is inevitably, albeit tragically incrementally, towards the good.
But the lesson to be learned is that every victory for evil is in fact a misstep that can be used to benefit the good.
This is truth. Evil can never win. Because we won't let it.

Damn, Moonbeam is so desperate to get people to read his nonsense that he's hijacking peoples' accounts.

Little comfort for domestic abuse victims. The 2A doesn't define what measurement we should use to remove an individuals rights to own firearms. It's left up to the people to determine. In this case, another step has been made that will impact the safety of the populace. If these states are ok with that, so be it, but it's just another reason for me to not live there. Unhinged people wrapped up in emotions that the court has deemed worthy of a restraining order shouldn't own firearms IMO.

Just watch, they'll rule that restraining orders are unconstitutional to begin with (except for themselves of course). And we've got an entire generation of douchebags that went through their formative adult (puberty) years worshipping a pathetic rapist that bragged about sex trafficking women as though they were his actual girlfriends.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yaknow, this might sound silly, but one of my life's most profound philosophical epiphanies occurred while watching (of all things) Star Wars Rogue One. It was when Lyra Erso told Orson Krennic, right before she was murdered, "You will never win."
It occurred to me that moment the absolute truth of that statement. Good and evil are locked forever in an eternal battle from which neither can ever win. But at the same time, the path of progress is inevitably, albeit tragically incrementally, towards the good.
But the lesson to be learned is that every victory for evil is in fact a misstep that can be used to benefit the good.
This is truth. Evil can never win. Because we won't let it.

Seems like, also, the universe has and will exist for all of the time there is. That's not much of a victory for evil, seems to me.

If you take a nervous system designed to protect body integrity by avoidance of pain and reproductive assurance by attraction to pleasure and throw on top of that a capacity to name, to differentiate, by linguistic capacity, you will arrive at the world seen as duality, a duality that without language would not exist. It is no mystery to me, then, having experienced this as a prime revelation of my youth that the war between good and evil really does not exist. To awaken is to experience the oneness of everything, in my opinion.

Where I see the upward climb relates to how deeply one can maintain such awareness, to what extent a mind can abandon attachment to thought.

Not to worry that evil will win, however achieved, sounds to me like a big step. Thought is fear, and fear is nagging worry and endless grievance, the constant attempt to escape a boogieman of our own creation that does not actually exist.

 

[Moonbeam]

Damn, Moonbeam is so desperate to get people to read his nonsense that he's hijacking peoples' accounts.

Haha, just saw this. I must be doing your posts too because most of what you say I agree with. I just don't need to add on as you do how much smarter you are than everybody else, your intelligence is obvious. Nor do I have to run everybody else into the ground to highlight how superior I am. What I know I see as a gift that has nothing to do with some hidden shortcoming I'm trying to compensate for that leads to such delusional thinking.

 

[eelw]

I just don't need to add on as you do how much smarter you are than everybody else, your intelligence is obvious. Nor do I have to run everybody else into the ground to highlight how superior I am. What I know I see as a gift that has nothing to do with some hidden shortcoming I'm trying to compensate for that leads to such delusional thinking.

BWAHAHAHA

This post is almost as hilarious as fat Vader

 

[pmv]

First, it unquestionably is a constitutional right.

Not sure how that's different from saying "it's unquestionably the will of God".

 

[Muse]

I'm for making legal gun ownership an oxymoron, completely.

 

[Moonbeam]

BWAHAHAHA

This post is almost as hilarious as fat Vader

View attachment 75984

Maybe you do not understand the difference between feeling fortuitous and feeling deserving.

In the Lord’s Prayer a Christian asks for what essential to life and then to forgive and to be forgiven. To have that prayer answered I would call a gift but only if you feel it. I don’t think the ego would.

 

[Moonbeam]

Not sure how that's different from saying "it's unquestionably the will of God".

Scientists have demonstrated in the lab that if two monkeys are rewarded in a disparate manner, one receiving choice reward and the secon scant by comparison, the second will withdraw from whatever the game is that is being played.

In short even monkeys have an innate sense of justice. How much more so would humans who make up laws about such things. Law then, it seems to me, is a human attempt to crystallize into language an approximation of an inner inherent sense of fair play.

As with all such formulations it is the spirit that lives and the letter that dies with the drying if the ink. It is up to us to render unto Caesar his attempt to govern knowing that experience with the through time may require reformulation. The desire for justice, for whatever reason it exists, exists, but the rulings of courts will always be approximations.

Their quality obviously varies.

 

[woolfe9998]

And second, the problem is that restraining orders are ineffective. Too often the abuser just violates the order anyway.

They aren't ineffective because they don't work every time.

In a study involving 2,691 women who reported an incident of intimate partner violence to police, Holt et al.5 found that having a permanent protection order in effect was associated with an 80 percent reduction in police-reported physical violence in the next year.

Do Protection Orders Protect?

Protection orders are widely used legal interventions intended to reduce the risk of future harm by one person considered to be a threat to another. However, there has been controversy about when and whether such orders are useful. This article is a review of empirical studies of outcomes...

jaapl.org

.

You can look at the other studies discussed but the article says this one had the best methodology and highest sample size.