Suspension of gun rights

[Kirk Freeman]

Um, that is already the law. Need a conviction first, but that is the existing law.

 

[HoughMade]

Why is my heart beating so fast?

 

[printcraft]

Why is my heart beating so fast?

Blazing Saddles gif, please find the hidden meaning(s)

 

[Trigger Time]

Yeah I'm just waiting to see what other issue this gets flipped into but for now I'll play. I dont like hypotheticals because the rabbit hole can go to China

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah I'm just waiting to see what other issue this gets flipped into but for now I'll play. I dont like hypotheticals because the rabbit hole can go to China

Yeah, but now its 25% more expensive.

 

[Tactically Fat]

Just for clarification - actual use, right? Or would talking about using or asking others to use a firearm get you over the hurdle?

Isn't implying/threatening harm already a crime?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Blazing Saddles gif, please find the hidden meaning(s)

I am ready for the role I was meant to play, the Attorney General in the re-make of Blazing Saddles. Here I am with rhino running lines:

 

[T.Lex]

Isn't implying/threatening harm already a crime?

Whole lot of gray area between that "implying" and "threatening." And, it depends on the jurisdiction. And, importantly, depends on whether there's a conviction, methinks, for purposes of taking away 2A rights.

 

[DRob]

This makes me wish my signature line was still "What if there were no hypothetical questions".

 

[EPeter213]

Not without a due process conviction for an actual crime... though I did consider option 3. Because bacon.

edit: And yes, I would consider threatening violence to be a crime.

 

[breakingcontact]

...against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

[alabasterjar]

"...shall not be infringed..." My answer is no. Decisions regarding God-given rights should always favor honoring those rights even when it is unpopular or difficult. Break a law, now that's a different story....

When/if the 2A traitors come to that point in any organized way, we will be well on the way to a second civil war. Any further discussion regarding my thoughts on that would likely run afoul of the rules and get me banned.

Molon labe

 

[307SD]

"...shall not be infringed..." My answer is no. Decisions regarding God-given rights should always favor honoring those rights even when it is unpopular or difficult. Break a law, now that's a different story....

When/if the 2A traitors come to that point in any organized way, we will be well on the way to a second civil war. Any further discussion regarding my thoughts on that would likely run afoul of the rules and get me banned.

Molon labe

This! Especially the last sentence.

 

[deeno3432]

Even though you dont agree with someone doesnt YOU have a right to take their life into your hands by taking away their right to preserve theirs.

 

[BugI02]

Yeah, but now its 25% more expensive.

You're paying for your rabbit holes!? Ewwww

 

[BugI02]

My answer was no. When your constitutional rights can be constrained because the (hypothetical) current powers that be don't like your ideology, you are inviting tyranny. Adjudicated conviction of a disqualifying crime, perhaps (wishy washy word because of the edge conditions of no fly list etc) but no department of precrime, please (that didn't end well, anyway)

 

[Thor]

Slippery slopes and what not...no.

 

[fnpfan]

as much as I would love to say yes, The correct answer is no, We can not pick and choose... that is not American

 

[chezuki]

Infringement is infringement. “We can but you can’t” is the calling card of tyrants.