• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Way To Go Oklahoma

Rich2018 said:
Sure, being diagnosed with schizophrenia should affect your right to bear arms.


I wonder why defense lawyers often cite mental illness as if it is supposed to excuse what a person did in possession of a gun ?
Click to expand...

Many defense lawyers are degenerate scum who look for any loophole they can and a gullible or ignorant jury in order to get their client off the hook.
 
jamesrage said:
Many defense lawyers are degenerate scum who look for any loophole they can and a gullible or ignorant jury in order to get their client off the hook.
Click to expand...

But why do so many juries agree with them and acquit ?

Employing defense lawyers to get clients acquitted is the price the USA pays for an obsolete criminal justice system and jury trials.


Sadly US juries are prone to returning stupid verdicts like the Rodney King trial, OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony etc


Do you maintain that a man diagnosed with schizophrenia or accused (but not convicted) of physical violence/domestic abuse should retain his gun(s) ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Do you maintain that a man diagnosed with schizophrenia or accused (but not convicted) of physical violence/domestic abuse should retain his gun(s) ?
Click to expand...

Until someone has been found guilty in a criminal court of law(meaning proven beyond guilty beyond a doubt) that person's rights should not be stripped. Someone who is not only been diagnosed crazy but also diagnosed to be danger to the public should be locked up in the loony bin and until that happens that person's rights should not be stripped.
 
jamesrage said:
Until someone has been found guilty in a criminal court of law(meaning proven beyond guilty beyond a doubt) that person's rights should not be stripped. Someone who is not only been diagnosed crazy but also diagnosed to be danger to the public should be locked up in the loony bin and until that happens that person's rights should not be stripped.
Click to expand...

What if someone shoots another man and is realeased on bond awaiting trial...does he get to keep his guns in the meantime ?

What if he beats his wife and hospitalizes her, but she refuses, to press charges, does he get to keep his guns ?
 
Rich2018 said:
What if someone shoots another man and is realeased on bond awaiting trial...does he get to keep his guns in the meantime ?

What if he beats his wife and hospitalizes her, but she refuses, to press charges, does he get to keep his guns ?
Click to expand...
A person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court of law. You don't strip innocent people of their rights. Now if that suspect's weapon was allegedly used in a crime then the the police can get a warrant and seize that weapon,obtain fingerprints and other things for evidence and if the accused is found not guilty then all his property that was seized as evidence should be returned to him.
 
jamesrage said:
A person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court of law. You don't strip innocent people of their rights.
Click to expand...

Then why are some technically "innocent" people incarcerated awaiting trial
I'd most definitely say their "rights" have been stripped, wouldn't you ?


Now if that suspect's weapon was allegedly used in a crime then the the police can get a warrant and seize that weapon,obtain fingerprints and other things for evidence and if the accused is found not guilty then all his property that was seized as evidence should be returned to him.
Click to expand...

Does not compute

Did you not say that he's innocent until proven guilty, so no matter what the evidence against him, he's an innocent man.
 
jamesrage said:
Many defense lawyers are degenerate scum who look for any loophole they can and a gullible or ignorant jury in order to get their client off the hook.
Click to expand...

Many defense lawyers are degenerate scum FORMER PROSECUTORS!!!!!! :shock:

Half the defense attorneys in Lawton America started in the DA's office.... :2wave:

Degenerate scum indeed!!!!! :peace
 
jamesrage said:
Urban Dictionary: grammar fags
Those who troll internet message boards to serve no other purpose than to correct grammar, misspellings, or typos of others. This is usually done by those who have too much time on their hands, or are lacking self-confidence in the real world and are trying to make up for it by an inflated sense of self-importance online.
Urban Dictionary: Grammar Nazi
One who uses refined vocabulary, correct grammar, constantly finds themselves correcting grammar and spelling (in forums, chatrooms, tumblr, YouTube, etc.)

Amazing how anti-2nd amendment trash are bitching about a law they claim won't have any effect.One who uses refined vocabulary, correct grammar, constantly finds themselves correcting grammar and spelling (in forums, chatrooms, tumblr, YouTube, etc.) How many states have medical and recreational marijuana laws? It appears the feds prohibition against Marijuana has been nullified. So the states prohibition against red flag laws will be enforced.
Click to expand...

Do you read the stuff you drag in here or just knee jerk it????

One who uses refined vocabulary, correct grammar (That's a laugh, you obviously haven't read too many of my posts and lack spell check... :doh ), constantly finds themselves correcting grammar and spelling... That's a laugh, I remarked ONE TIME about your spelling of my home state that kids in the 3rd grade get correct... :doh

It is amazing how many 'gun' rubbers can't get the opposing argument correct. If you don't beat your wife or threaten co-workers with 'gun' violence you won't know what the red flag law will do (just like if you don't steal from stores you won't get arrested for shoplifting)

You need to read up on the pot facts before claiming anything about state nullification. Pot was reduced to schedule II drug by Congress. Obama directed his DOJ to not use federal criminal law against Dispensaries. But the federal banking regulations still exist so the rec pot dealers can't use federally backed banks. It isn't state nullification, but federal relaxing of enforcement. State nullification is not the factor here.

Bottom line- states didn't nullify FEDERAL law, they changed STATE law and the feds have declined to enforce federal criminal law for certain pot groups (unlike tRump who is demanding local governments enforce federal immigration laws) The way forward with pot is a relaxing of any government's criminal laws- not the way deal with firearms.

I wouldn't use the path to legality of pot as an example of the path of firearm regulation... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Many defense lawyers are degenerate scum FORMER PROSECUTORS!!!!!! :shock:

Half the defense attorneys in Lawton America started in the DA's office.... :2wave:

Degenerate scum indeed!!!!! :peace
Click to expand...

Court room lawyers are sleaze bags...they have to be to appeal to the lowest common denominator of a jury

Like snake oil salesmen of old

But the Constitution says people have a right to a jury trial and so the discredited adversarial system goes on and not a more civilized inquisitorial system where lawyers merely present the evidence for a panel of professional judges to examine

If I were innocent, no way would I want a jury trial

But if I were guilty, I want a jury trial and see if I could hire a sleaze bag lawyer to confuse the minds of a random group of "children" (AKA jurors) and get me acquitted.
 
Rich2018 said:
Court room lawyers are sleaze bags...they have to be to appeal to the lowest common denominator of a jury. Like snake oil salesmen of old. But the Constitution says people have a right to a jury trial and so the discredited adversarial system goes on and not a more civilized inquisitorial system where lawyers merely present the evidence for a panel of professional judges to examine. If I were innocent, no way would I want a jury trial. But if I were guilty, I want a jury trial and see if I could hire a sleaze bag lawyer to confuse the minds of a random group of "children" (AKA jurors) and get me acquitted.
Click to expand...

Well I see common ground for both extremes- both the right and left extremists agree they hate the basis for our legal system as defined in the Constitution...

Great day indeed, makes me proud to have served... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Well I see common ground for both extremes- both the right and left extremists agree they hate the basis for our legal system as defined in the Constitution...

Great day indeed, makes me proud to have served... :peace
Click to expand...

But the right to a trial by jury is enshrined in the Constitution, and many will metaphorically "die" defending their "rights".
 
Mr Person said:
"Anti-Red Flag law"?

What's the idea? Make sure it's easy for criminals to get guns so that they can point to criminals having guns as a reason to get rid of restrictions on use and ownership?
Click to expand...

Since red-flag laws only remove firearms, what prevents a flagged perp from using a kitchen knife?
 
Nickyjo said:
So a guy puts a gun to his wife’s head and threatens her and the kids. Threatens me for trying to calm things down. Someone calls the cops and they can’t se their discretion and take the man’s toy away. Sounds like a plan. Or do I get the effect of the law wrong? Apologize if it’s not as dumb as it sounded to me.
Click to expand...

So you think that without a red-flag law, we just let men beat and threaten their families?
 
Rich2018 said:
But if the cops took away his gun because he was clearly unfit to have it, is surely an impingement on him bearing arms ?
Click to expand...
No, because there are laws already on the books here that if you are arrested for domestic violence you have your firearms taken away temporarily until you are found to not have committed domestic violence. No red flag law needed there its already law.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
No, because there are laws already on the books here that if you are arrested for domestic violence you have your firearms taken away temporarily until you are found to not have committed domestic violence. No red flag law needed there its already law.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the Constitution trump any state laws ?

I agree that it should be dsone, but you can argue that the right to bear arms hasn't been impinged on a technically innocent man.
 
Wayne Jr said:
So you think that without a red-flag law, we just let men beat and threaten their families?
Click to expand...

Uh, no. They can arrest the man, issue a warning. They have lots of tools. Red flag laws provide another. If I had such a person in my neighborhood and the police removed his weapon (in a constitutionally valid way) I would have no problem. In fact, I might feel a bit safer myself.
 
Nickyjo said:
Uh, no. They can arrest the man, issue a warning. They have lots of tools. Red flag laws provide another. If I had such a person in my neighborhood and the police removed his weapon (in a constitutionally valid way) I would have no problem. In fact, I might feel a bit safer myself.
Click to expand...

Seemingly, not in Oklahoma.
 
Nickyjo said:
Uh, no. They can arrest the man, issue a warning. They have lots of tools. Red flag laws provide another. If I had such a person in my neighborhood and the police removed his weapon (in a constitutionally valid way) I would have no problem. In fact, I might feel a bit safer myself.
Click to expand...
What 'tool' does red flag offer that cops don't already have?
 
Wayne Jr said:
What 'tool' does red flag offer that cops don't already have?
Click to expand...

My assumption is that they cannot take a gun away w/o the law. I work on the assumption that temporarily/permanently removing the weapon is a useful alternative to arrest in some circumstances. Maybe I have those laws wrong, however.
 
Nickyjo said:
My assumption is that they cannot take a gun away w/o the law. I work on the assumption that temporarily/permanently removing the weapon is a useful alternative to arrest in some circumstances. Maybe I have those laws wrong, however.
Click to expand...

Well a judge can always deny bail.
 
Wayne Jr said:
That would be an incorrect assumption. https://www.preventdvgunviolence.or...f-firearms-at-scenes-of-domestic-violence.pdf

Also, red-flag laws do not regard the removal of other lethal weapons, only firearms.

Police: Park Ridge man accused of killing his mother with a sword previously had illegal guns confiscated - Chicago Tribune
Click to expand...



Well you'd have to strip the house of any edged device like a kitchen knife....then any blunt instrument like a kitchen clock

Eventually you'd leave a man failing a red flag law in an empty house, constrained in a straight jacket.
 
Nickyjo said:
I still don’t understand the problem with the laws. Nothing works perfectly.
Click to expand...
I just told you what is wrong with these laws. Not sure what you don't understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom