Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
this is dumb....of course ownership for felons is banned...you lose your Constitutional rights when you do something wrong....that's how it works....I'm not opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally impaired....where is the line?...some would suggest that based on your posts here you may be mentally ill...you've suggested others must be suffering some mental illness because of their political views..
this is a wrong headed as your leap from "the ban" at the Univ. of Va. to certain rights not being absolute
the examples you cite are after the fact.....you are then talking about proactively limiting the Constitutional rights of a segment of the population because you think a few of them "might" do something
|
it’s not dumb.
prohibiting guns from those who have restraining orders against them, are not necessarily after the fact. restraining orders can be given on a prospective basis if there's a reasonable future threat.
so you’re opposed to such actions unless they are “after the fact”? Maybe it’s just by dumbness again, but isn’t it far superior to address these things before the fact? isn’t that the goal we should
be striving for?
restraining orders can be given before the fact, when there’s a reasonable threat. Meaning, a person who hasn’t actually done anything illegal yet, is sufficiently likely to do something wrong in the future, that we seriously limit his liberties and his freedoms - we tell him where he can and cannot go.
I’ll ask again, why are red flag laws so different from this principle? seems very similar to me. Are you opposed to granting restraining orders until after an assault has been committed against the person applying for the order? would
you tell her she had to wait until after the fact
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device