To be fair, red f**g laws would treat the accuser and the accused in the same manner, innocent until proven guilty. A one way street scene ain't gonna get it!
bilordinary wrote:
To be fair, red f**g laws would treat the accuser and the accused in the same manner, innocent until proven guilty. A one way street scene ain't gonna get it!
The accusers in this situation? There is only someone, like a whistleblower saying hey, this guys needs to be looked into. It's up to the FBI or police to see whether it's credible.
I tell this story because it is perfectly relevant. My sister reported to the police that I had made threats against my father. She was the executor and thought she had a sterling mantle of respectability and her word was golden. The sheriff's department and police came and talked to me, and they were loaded for bear because she had said I have tons of guns and am a dangerous dude. I told them to come in, and we talked for about 45 minutes. I made a compelling case that my sister was trying to negate me because I was pushing fraud charges against her mishandling the estate. They went to arrest her. She broke down and admitted she was trying to cause me as much harm as possible because she thought she could get away with it. They called me and asked if I wanted to press felony charges. I told them no, let her go, but I am wishing I had pressed charges.
The people that are having their guns confiscated have multiple issues that raise red f**gs, hence the term. Innocent people are not going to have to worry the way unhinged people need to worry and should.
bilordinary wrote:
To be fair, red f**g laws would treat the accuser and the accused in the same manner, innocent until proven guilty. A one way street scene ain't gonna get it!
There is nothing unfair about intervening on unhinged people who make credible threats
woodguru wrote:
There is nothing unfair about intervening on unhinged people who make credible threats
And there is nothing unfair about determining which party is guilty, in the case of one on one, both parties should be investigated to determine who is at fault. It is not necessarily the accused or the accuser. If weapons are confiscated it should be for both parties, until guilt is determined. It is just as easy to make a false accusation as a credible one. Ford proved that it can happen and does.
bilordinary wrote:
And there is nothing unfair about determining which party is guilty, in the case of one on one, both parties should be investigated to determine who is at fault. It is not necessarily the accused or the accuser. If weapons are confiscated it should be for both parties, until guilt is determined. It is just as easy to make a false accusation as a credible one. Ford proved that it can happen and does.
Ford actually didn't prove anything as neither the FBI or senate did not do right by investigations.
If someone threatens shooting their neighbor, and there is a witness or the guy is stupid enough to post those threats onlone it is an open and shut case as to confiscating guns.
woodguru wrote:
Ford actually didn't prove anything as neither the FBI or senate did not do right by investigations.
If someone threatens shooting their neighbor, and there is a witness or the guy is stupid enough to post those threats onlone it is an open and shut case as to confiscating guns.
The situation you describe would not warrant a red f**g law, it would be covered by existing statutes.
There is usually a law to take care of just about any situation, problem is they need to be enforced!
If someone is serious about shooting someone, they don't usually threaten.
Barking dogs don't bite. Usually.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.