It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That's not the way it works.
The problem is that the people who want everyone's guns will turn in everyone that has a gun
That is the way it works. The person calling has to be a police officer or a family member. Then the court issues an order if it determines an immediate danger. But Florida doesn't have a law like that. Most states don't have a law like that.
I think the person calling in should be required to give their name so this law does not get abused.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
You just described 80% of the world’s population.
And I'm talking about one.
The POTUS.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: rickymouse
If someone is making threats, go take the guns, documenting the guns and keeping them safe till after the hearing on the matter. We need to revise the law a bit. This should require a court order, probable cause. The firearms could also be given to a close relative to hold. That relative should be held responsible for making sure the person does not get them till after the hearing. If the person shows up to get the guns from the relative, that relative has to report them taken though, as soon as they know it has been done.
As long as the law doesn't get twisted so they take away the guns of someone who yells at their neighbor for tossing their leaves in their yard, I see no problem with this. Also, it has to be shown that the person is actually the one that made the comment on social media. Anyone could start a Facebook page on someone else. I never had to prove who I was when I made a page.
Taking guns for mental illness and speech is basically giving the government the right to take them from anyone at any time. Such a broad statute would be wide open for abuse. Not to mention, it would justify a whole new level of monitoring what one says. It would be an absolute police state, and your guns would be taken for sure.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99
I really doubt trump was saying to take guns first, ask questions later
Except, that's exactly what he said.
"Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court."
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: angeldoll
I think the police should be able to make a little house call, complete with search warrant. If there's an arsenal there for material evidence, combined with his statements on social media, they should be able to take him to the nearest nut-house. Even against his will. I would totally be in favor of that.
So you are in approval of Trumps words today.
Leave your freedoms at the door and up to the judgement of authority and courts...which are never wrong...ever.
originally posted by: olaru12
Even Trump said....
. "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally here ...and his supporters cheered!!
www.cnn.com...
I wonder if he remembers saying that?
originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Mr. Trump also flatly insisted that legislation should raise the minimum age for buying rifles to 21 from 18 — an idea the N.R.A. and many Republicans fiercely oppose.
I guess that means they will have to raise the age to 21 for anyone joining the military. I wonder how the MIC will deal with that?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse
That's not the way it works.
The problem is that the people who want everyone's guns will turn in everyone that has a gun
That is the way it works. The person calling has to be a police officer or a family member. Then the court issues and order. But Florida doesn't have a law like that. Most states don't have a law like that.
I think the person calling in should be required to give their name so this law does not get abused.
So the cops get the call, and come with a swat team to take away my guns.
originally posted by: olaru12
Even Trump said....
. "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally here ...and his supporters cheered!!
www.cnn.com...
I wonder if he remembers saying that?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse
So the cops get the call, and come with a swat team to take away my guns.
What part of "court order" do you not understand?
But guns... how dare he. But then again, some still defend him at every turn and (of course) distort the reality into some sort of 4D chess move.
originally posted by: angeldoll
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: angeldoll
I think the police should be able to make a little house call, complete with search warrant. If there's an arsenal there for material evidence, combined with his statements on social media, they should be able to take him to the nearest nut-house. Even against his will. I would totally be in favor of that.
So you are in approval of Trumps words today.
Leave your freedoms at the door and up to the judgement of authority and courts...which are never wrong...ever.
Wow. Think what you think, I don't much care, really. But I hope at some point you'll give some thought to reading comprehension.
originally posted by: JinMI
originally posted by: angeldoll
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: angeldoll
I think the police should be able to make a little house call, complete with search warrant. If there's an arsenal there for material evidence, combined with his statements on social media, they should be able to take him to the nearest nut-house. Even against his will. I would totally be in favor of that.
So you are in approval of Trumps words today.
Leave your freedoms at the door and up to the judgement of authority and courts...which are never wrong...ever.
Wow. Think what you think, I don't much care, really. But I hope at some point you'll give some thought to reading comprehension.
In other words, you've no argument.