-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
WIBC to air "The Gun Guy with Guy Relford" every Saturday
- Thread starter GuyRelford
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
If they are enough of a threat to themselves or others to confiscate firearms, then they are enough of a threat to arrest. Arrest would end the immediate need to seize their firearms while a judge determined whether there is evidence to take away their 2A rights.
But arrested for what? Being a threat? I’m honestly not sure if you’re serious or not. Under such law, if you ever have to visit a bat**** crazy state they’ll arrest you for wearing your MAGA hat. You know, because that’s literally violence. Or heaven help you if you misgender someone. They’ll bury you under the jail for that.
I’ve heard a lot of people on INGO say similar things, “If they’re too dangerous to own firearms, they’re too dangerous to be free. Lock ‘em up.” I’m sorry but that’s retarded.
For all of you who say this, if you are serious, have you really thought this out? Who gets to judge what’s too dangerous? What law have they violated? How do you define such a law so that it’s not weaponized? It’s just not practical, and it’s not what a free society does. It’s what dictatorships do for an excuse to imprison dissidents.
I’ve heard a lot of people on INGO say similar things, “If they’re too dangerous to own firearms, they’re too dangerous to be free. Lock ‘em up.” I’m sorry but that’s retarded.
For all of you who say this, if you are serious, have you really thought this out? Who gets to judge what’s too dangerous? What law have they violated? How do you define such a law so that it’s not weaponized? It’s just not practical, and it’s not what a free society does. It’s what dictatorships do for an excuse to imprison dissidents.
Last edited:
The only time I’ve ever made a statement like this it was in the context of a felon getting out of jail. Keep them locked up if they are deemed too dangerous to have firearms. Once out, their rights should be restored (perhaps after a probationary period without any violations).
If the cop sent to investigate a red flag complaint determines that the subject is a danger to themselves or others, they should be detained. Detained for a judge to determine whether the officers actions combined with the complaints lodged have merit to remove the individual's second amendment rights.
Arrested vs firearms confiscated, which would you rather have? Presently, they err on the side of confiscation. Confiscation that we know is often quite difficult to undo.
Arrested vs firearms confiscated, which would you rather have? Presently, they err on the side of confiscation. Confiscation that we know is often quite difficult to undo.
Very bible compliant piece of legislation. It's GOTTA be good! I'd add one thing: that if falsely setting someone up for a SWAT team home invasion resulted in death or injury (of anyone), that the informant be charged with murder or assualt with a lethal weapon
If the cop sent to investigate a red flag complaint determines that the subject is a danger to themselves or others, they should be detained. Detained for a judge to determine whether the officers actions combined with the complaints lodged have merit to remove the individual's second amendment rights.
Arrested vs firearms confiscated, which would you rather have? Presently, they err on the side of confiscation. Confiscation that we know is often quite difficult to undo.
I tend to agree. Especially if the person is suicidal. If that person is intent on harming themselves, they might not stop just because you took their guns away. As we all know, Japan has very few guns in circulation but those people certainly manage to kill themselves in great numbers anyway. Confiscation only the guns while doing nothing with the person might sound like a good idea but it's dumb.
I’ve agreed with this in the past, but the more I’ve thought about it the more I disagree. If they’re up for probation and the board thinks they’re still dangerous, sure. Keep them locked up. But if they’ve finished their sentence, their debt is paid. Let ‘em out. And they should have their full rights restored. Maybe there should be an option as part of sentencing, that a judge would have to review the case and conduct when the sentence is up, but then it’s still kinda the same thing. Offenders wouldn’t be jailed for a crime, they’d be jailed because society thinks they’ll commit one. I think people should only lose their liberty because they caused harm, not because people think they will.
If saves just one life...
We let a lot of very bad dudes out of jail or prison all the time. I’m sure there are many cops (and lawyers) on this forum who will say those people should never be allowed to touch a firearm. But once they’re out among us we all know if they want to get a firearm and do harm with one they will find a way.
i’m suggesting if we let a very bad dude out, someone who’s been convicted of a violent felony but has “paid their debt to society”, maybe they don’t get all of the rights restored instantly once they’re back on the outside. But they do become whole again by staying out of trouble on the outside for a specified period of time. This might help serve as a sort of cooling off period too. And if they **** up again once they’re on the outside, game over. Back in the pen they go and for good.
I fully acknowledge I don’t know crap about how any of this stuff works and I’m probably whistling Dixie here. If so I’ll be glad to hear your viewpoint. I’m having a hard time reconciling being on the outside after a long incarceration and not whole, let alone not being whole because of some silly nonviolent low-level offense.
Last edited:
Talking Remington V Soto right now...
If anybody wants to call in and discuss, he put out the call.
Got it downloaded for later.
