Then when disarming happens, we can start talking about it. My proposals are NOT about disarming anybody. And you have nothing to rebut them. That means my proposals are solid.
Exactly what I would expect somebody who is not aware of the responsibility that owning a gun entails would say.
Correct!So your proposal to ban “assault weapons” doesn’t disarm the tens of millions of people who own them?
Correct! You have to pass a test and demonstrate you are proficient (not that much different to when you get a driver's license). Pretty similar to obtaining a driving license.
Under Article 1 Section 1... Same as passing ANY law!
You are lying.
Banning a firearm someone owns, is disarming them. When you lie about what you have previously said, when the forum keeps a written record of your posts, it’s hilariously retarded.
Your inability to comprehend basic written English makes it impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you.
That does not give the FEDERAL the authority to enforce red flag laws. Art 1 Sec 1 just says that Congress writes the laws. It doesn’t say what laws it can write. That is why laws get determined to be unconstitutional.
How does Article 1 Section 1 apply to the states?
Banning a firearm someone owns, is by definition, disarming them lol.
Well except you stated that for you , it would just be “standing in line for a few minutes, checking your driving record , asked a few questions and bang you are out of there,
Gun banners gotta lie.
It's not as complicated as driving a car in traffic. If you think that it is you know less about the subjective than I ever thought.
Your proposal is rejected
WTF? You asked what authorized the federal government to ENACT red flag laws. Article 1 does! The law will be enforced by whoever has the job of enforcing laws. Local police, most likely.
No kidding!
I don't know what you're talking about. If you have something to comment about what I said, use the forum's QUOTE function. Unless the only way you can make a point is to take something out of context.
what's the point of red flag laws?
Doesn't matter how is this not a useless law
I am convinced more and more that he is probably fishing from a slow boat in the Black Sea.
Again where do you get this idea that you rebutt proposals you not know what a proposal is? It's rejected there's no need to rebut it the rebuttal is rejection no we're not doing that.
Congress can pass a law but it will be immediately challenged and ruled unconstitutional because there is no constitutional basis for the Federal government to regulate it.
Well.... you should have asked that in the beginning, if you didn't know. The purpose is to give judges the authority to temporarily remove the gun from somebody who might pose a risk to others or to themselves. Typically this happens when somebody has had a traumatic experience or particular mental health issues. But also when there are signs that they might use a gun to commit an act of violence.. The purpose is to reduce the immediate threat of gun violence.
Well I'm asking it now what's the point?
Well wouldn't it be better to just keep them in jail because even if you take away their guns they can always get another one. Also you can kill people with things other than guns too happens all the time.
It doesn't. Let's see you take away the guns you know about what about the ones you don't know about. No there shouldn't be red flag was people that would be subject to this if they're arrested for a crime such as making threats or being asked some violence this should just be denied bail.
Yeah red flag ones are really stupid it's like you can go home and murder anybody you want just not with these guns. When something is way too stupid like this to make any sense it's just a front for gun control.
And confiscation of legally owned property under dubious justification.