Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Can a VPO require disarmament?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1889647" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>I don't believe that the right to keep and bear arms should be able to be taken away from someone in what amounts to a civil proceeding, with such a light burden of proof. It often comes down to "he said she said," and the judges like to err on the side of caution and go ahead and issue the order if they think there might be a possible issue. </p><p></p><p>I think that force/law should only be used to prohibit and punish actual violations of people's rights, rather than preemptively stripping people of their rights in case they MIGHT violate someone else's rights in the future. And the fact is, politicians love to distract from serious issues like rights and liberty by trying to stir emotions with sympathetic subjects, and claiming that anyone who doesn't support their legislation is an enemy of women/children/the elderly/handicapped, etc.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1889647, member: 4235"] I don't believe that the right to keep and bear arms should be able to be taken away from someone in what amounts to a civil proceeding, with such a light burden of proof. It often comes down to "he said she said," and the judges like to err on the side of caution and go ahead and issue the order if they think there might be a possible issue. I think that force/law should only be used to prohibit and punish actual violations of people's rights, rather than preemptively stripping people of their rights in case they MIGHT violate someone else's rights in the future. And the fact is, politicians love to distract from serious issues like rights and liberty by trying to stir emotions with sympathetic subjects, and claiming that anyone who doesn't support their legislation is an enemy of women/children/the elderly/handicapped, etc. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Can a VPO require disarmament?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom