Biden Admin Urges Supreme Court Let Cops Enter Homes Seize Guns Without Warrant

originally posted by: matafuchs
If a person continually threatens violence and are mentally unstable they should have their guns seized. I would not be opposed to them being flagged in a NCIS check. Most times no one says anything and there is a mass shooting or someone is killed. How many times has the FBI had people on the radar or local police and nothing was done. Hindsight in these cases is 20/20.

The scary part is that a person can 'say' to law enforcement you are a threat to yourself or others and they can come and simply take your guns. Happened to a very good friend going through a divorce. She was pissed and called the cops and said he has weapons and may use them. He lost them all. A year later he appealed and still no guns. He can however go purchase more and has. So what is the point?

The problem is where to draw the line. I am a firm believer in the 2A but there are those who should be deemed not able to have firearms. Because in the end they will get one if they really want to but doing nothing to prevent it is just as bad.

It is a difficult situation but things like this will lead to more cops dead in the end.

That sure is a slippery slope you are standing on. Making it a criminal offense for someone having the potential to commit a crime? A preemptive arrest because someone THINKS you are going to commit a criminal act? Does one person decide or does a committee decide? Which one would be most likely to be less wrong? Shades of MINORITY REPORT!

In a similar vein, how about cancelling the First Amendment for you by having your larynx surgically removed because someone thinks you just might cry out "FIRE!" in a crowded (pre-COVID) movie theater some day? Won't that be fun?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BalderAsir

This sort of thing is what the SCOTUS is supposed to prevent. The word infringe is intended to prevent the onerous laws from being so overly restrictive.

A lot of people point to things like voting and how the same people that claim we need more and more restrictive laws in order to exercise one constitutional right - firearms - also scream that any little restriction at all on voting - another right - is just terrible and suppressive. Take ID needed to prove that you are who you say you are. Absolute must for firearms, but terribly racist if you want it in order to vote.

Heck, I am quoting this solely because I like the hell out of it! Wish I had said it......

originally posted by: Rich Z

originally posted by: matafuchs
If a person continually threatens violence and are mentally unstable they should have their guns seized. I would not be opposed to them being flagged in a NCIS check. Most times no one says anything and there is a mass shooting or someone is killed. How many times has the FBI had people on the radar or local police and nothing was done. Hindsight in these cases is 20/20.

The scary part is that a person can 'say' to law enforcement you are a threat to yourself or others and they can come and simply take your guns. Happened to a very good friend going through a divorce. She was pissed and called the cops and said he has weapons and may use them. He lost them all. A year later he appealed and still no guns. He can however go purchase more and has. So what is the point?

The problem is where to draw the line. I am a firm believer in the 2A but there are those who should be deemed not able to have firearms. Because in the end they will get one if they really want to but doing nothing to prevent it is just as bad.

It is a difficult situation but things like this will lead to more cops dead in the end.

That sure is a slippery slope you are standing on. Making it a criminal offense for someone having the potential to commit a crime? A preemptive arrest because someone THINKS you are going to commit a criminal act? Does one person decide or does a committee decide? Which one would be most likely to be less wrong? Shades of MINORITY REPORT!

In a similar vein, how about cancelling the First Amendment for you by having your larynx surgically removed because someone thinks you just might cry out "FIRE!" in a crowded (pre-COVID) movie theater some day? Won't that be fun?

Wow, that last line was one hell of a graphic example!

I hope you were being dramatic to drive home your point, but upon reflection I could see how this is the logical conclusion of the progressive-socialist-liberal agenda. The implication of that graphic illustration is very deep and truly frightening.