That is a complicated subject. Some people genuinely need them. Especially out in the boonies. In the city? No not so much. Then there's a question of "why can't I have this thing, I can use this responsibly, why I'm I being punished because someone else doesn't know?". And that's not even bringing constitutionality into this. But to give an answer your question. Yes I think people should have guns. I dont mind going through a psyc eval or 2 to get my m60.
Roma est mater omnium nostrum
I think
After you shoot and kill someone if they're proven to be a registered republican you should get a free gun
This is a subject of great contention for me. I consider myself moderate, and over all tend to lean "left" on issues, with the exception being guns; the problem is I feel both sides present valid points.
In my mind it is fair and just to remove weapons from the hands of people who can use them for evil. Decades of recurrent mass murders at this point indicate that we have a very large issue here, and ignoring that would be negligent to say the least.
On the other hand, it is also fair and just to protect yourself. Certain groups argue that guns are used to "protect yourself from tyranny". I won't dive into a tangent here, but do people really think they can protect themselves if a modern government wants to do them harm? Unless your stockpiling C-RAMS, you're screwed either way. A $600 AR from Palmetto State Armory and cheap FMJ will not stop a drone.
I have implicit bias here. I sometimes work in the security field, and firearms are a tool of income for me. I also grew up around them, and was endowed with a respect for firearms from a young age. As a result, I cannot offer a completely unbiased opinion.
I'm not sure there's a clear answer. Some people think outright banning guns is the answer, some think everyone owning a gun is the answer. I think the answer likely lies in between, but I'm not sure we -- the United States as a whole -- will ever reach said answer because everyone's feelings are hurt over the subject. For clarity, I don't mean that as an insult, I mean that in the sense that this debate has raged for decades, and people are firmly entrenched in their beliefs one way or another; ceding ground either way would feel like a "defeat" to somebody, and Americans hate feeling defeated.
I will say, on the flip side, that I disagree pretty broadly with the vilification of certain models of weapons. The Armalite Rifle has been grossly overestimated as an instrument of chaos and slaughter because of it's association with the military, it's aggressive profile, and it's history of use in mass murder. I feel this is an erroneous association because the same things could be accomplished by a number of different firearms, ranging from tactical to mundane.
All-in-all, I feel that people vastly underestimate how difficult it is to hit a moving target. Untrained shooters are -- by nature -- very bad marksmen, and even worse gunfighters; however, this lack of accuracy can be subsidized by rate of fire and a position of superiority. It's worth noting here that I fully agree with the ban on bump stocks. They really only serve one purpose, and ultimately make your weapon inaccurate for purposes other than spraying a crowd.
These are, of course, just my opinions. I see valid arguments on both sides, which makes it a hard issue to adjudicate. What I'll say is this: I believe there are many people like me that get swept below the waves of boisterous discourse from partisan elements; people who lawfully own weapons, but would also peacefully disarm themselves should the law change. No fuss; it is what it is, no need to go off "boogalooing" or what have you. We'll manage, as we always do.
I believe it is important for citizens to own weapons in case of a overthrow the government-type revolution scenario.
It is part of the constitution for that reason.
That being said, the shit scares me. You don't know who has a gun so you just assume everyone does. ...and that basically means literally anyone could end your life.
So anyway... gun laws only "work" at either extreme.... Either everyone needs to be issued one and know how to use one... or nobody should have them, with the military being the exception.
...i lean more toward the first scenario... BUT...
I personally know of at least two unstable people who should not own a firearm, (but of course, do) ...and tbh I'm not okay with that.
It only takes one instant of "coming off the chain" so to speak for someone to die.
If any tom dick or harry is capable of ending another person's life on a whim, then why do we even have a judicial system? One person gets to act as the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury.
Guns are just fucking horrible...
...and the only way to resolve this conflict is to invent a time machine and prevent them from being invented.
...good luck with that, and happy arguing.
От каждого по способностям, каждому по потребностям
At 2/20/21 06:05 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Montana and Utah are now CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY STATES! Bringing the total up to 18 States! Indiana and Tennessee are going for the push as well this year! if that happens that pushes the number up to a possible 19 or 20 states which would put Constitutional Carry at 40% of the states in the US!
while I'm at it I might as well add what the Liberals and Progressives are trying to do in Congress right now: Trying to License Firearm Ownership, trying to close the Gun Show show loophole and selling private property, and trying to make people liable for stolen firearms. the good news is it looks like they've pretty much died in committee not going through committees and having no cosponsors.
If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.
At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.
And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote:At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
Citation needed, cunt.
At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote:Citation needed, cunt.At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.
At 2/21/21 11:18 AM, EdyKel wrote:At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote:Citation needed, cunt.At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
Is your brain functional enough to understand that death threats are illegal? Or why someone explicitly stating that they're going to commit a murder is a good reason not to let them purchase a weapon?
At 2/21/21 11:29 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:At 2/21/21 11:18 AM, EdyKel wrote:Is your brain functional enough to understand that death threats are illegal? Or why someone explicitly stating that they're going to commit a murder is a good reason not to let them purchase a weapon?At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote:Citation needed, cunt.At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
No. Death threat's are diffidently not illegal. if you actually looked into it, you would find out why. It has a lot to do with actual intent and evidence to commit. That is why there is due process.
At 2/21/21 11:54 AM, EdyKel wrote:At 2/21/21 11:29 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:No. Death threat's are diffidently not illegal. if you actually looked into it, you would find out why. It has a lot to do with actual intent and evidence to commit. That is why there is due process.At 2/21/21 11:18 AM, EdyKel wrote:Is your brain functional enough to understand that death threats are illegal? Or why someone explicitly stating that they're going to commit a murder is a good reason not to let them purchase a weapon?At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote:Citation needed, cunt.At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
Looks to me like you're splitting hairs. Seeing as as how a death threat is evidence of intent and all. Guess that's the kind of technicality you hire lawyers to find.
And again, if someone has explicitly stated that they're going to commit a murder that seems like a pretty good reason not to allow them to buy a weapon.
At 2/21/21 12:03 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:At 2/21/21 11:54 AM, EdyKel wrote:Looks to me like you're splitting hairs. Seeing as as how a death threat is evidence of intent and all. Guess that's the kind of technicality you hire lawyers to find.At 2/21/21 11:29 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:No. Death threat's are diffidently not illegal. if you actually looked into it, you would find out why. It has a lot to do with actual intent and evidence to commit. That is why there is due process.At 2/21/21 11:18 AM, EdyKel wrote:Is your brain functional enough to understand that death threats are illegal? Or why someone explicitly stating that they're going to commit a murder is a good reason not to let them purchase a weapon?At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote:Citation needed, cunt.At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
And again, if someone has explicitly stated that they're going to commit a murder that seems like a pretty good reason not to allow them to buy a weapon.
That's not how the courts see it. There have been several high profile cases over the years involving individuals making death threats, but the prosecution could not show that the individual who made them had the intent to follow through on it. That is due process.
At 2/21/21 12:15 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 2/21/21 12:03 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:That's not how the courts see it. There have been several high profile cases over the years involving individuals making death threats, but the prosecution could not show that the individual who made them had the intent to follow through on it. That is due process.At 2/21/21 11:54 AM, EdyKel wrote:Looks to me like you're splitting hairs. Seeing as as how a death threat is evidence of intent and all. Guess that's the kind of technicality you hire lawyers to find.At 2/21/21 11:29 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:No. Death threat's are diffidently not illegal. if you actually looked into it, you would find out why. It has a lot to do with actual intent and evidence to commit. That is why there is due process.At 2/21/21 11:18 AM, EdyKel wrote:Is your brain functional enough to understand that death threats are illegal? Or why someone explicitly stating that they're going to commit a murder is a good reason not to let them purchase a weapon?At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote:Citation needed, cunt.At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
And again, if someone has explicitly stated that they're going to commit a murder that seems like a pretty good reason not to allow them to buy a weapon.
They were prosecuted. Or at least charged.
And again, it seems like a good reason not to let them have a gun.
At 2/21/21 12:35 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:At 2/21/21 12:15 PM, EdyKel wrote:They were prosecuted. Or at least charged.At 2/21/21 12:03 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:That's not how the courts see it. There have been several high profile cases over the years involving individuals making death threats, but the prosecution could not show that the individual who made them had the intent to follow through on it. That is due process.At 2/21/21 11:54 AM, EdyKel wrote:Looks to me like you're splitting hairs. Seeing as as how a death threat is evidence of intent and all. Guess that's the kind of technicality you hire lawyers to find.At 2/21/21 11:29 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:No. Death threat's are diffidently not illegal. if you actually looked into it, you would find out why. It has a lot to do with actual intent and evidence to commit. That is why there is due process.At 2/21/21 11:18 AM, EdyKel wrote:Is your brain functional enough to understand that death threats are illegal? Or why someone explicitly stating that they're going to commit a murder is a good reason not to let them purchase a weapon?At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote:Citation needed, cunt.At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
And again, if someone has explicitly stated that they're going to commit a murder that seems like a pretty good reason not to allow them to buy a weapon.
And again, it seems like a good reason not to let them have a gun.
Nope. legally, they essentially got off scot-free. They may have faced some fallout in their personal lives, and may face other repercussions, but they didn't actually commit a serious crime. You see, there are literally millions of death threats each year, with less than 1% following through. Death threats are mostly used to intimidate and scare, mostly by cowardly people, but rarely are they followed through on.
THE NRA was against gun rights when the Black Panthers were pushing for it.
At 2/21/21 12:43 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 2/21/21 12:35 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Nope. legally, they essentially got off scot-free. They may have faced some fallout in their personal lives, and may face other repercussions, but they didn't actually commit a serious crime. You see, there are literally millions of death threats each year, with less than 1% following through. Death threats are mostly used to intimidate and scare, mostly by cowardly people, but rarely are they followed through on.At 2/21/21 12:15 PM, EdyKel wrote:They were prosecuted. Or at least charged.At 2/21/21 12:03 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:That's not how the courts see it. There have been several high profile cases over the years involving individuals making death threats, but the prosecution could not show that the individual who made them had the intent to follow through on it. That is due process.At 2/21/21 11:54 AM, EdyKel wrote:Looks to me like you're splitting hairs. Seeing as as how a death threat is evidence of intent and all. Guess that's the kind of technicality you hire lawyers to find.At 2/21/21 11:29 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:No. Death threat's are diffidently not illegal. if you actually looked into it, you would find out why. It has a lot to do with actual intent and evidence to commit. That is why there is due process.At 2/21/21 11:18 AM, EdyKel wrote:Is your brain functional enough to understand that death threats are illegal? Or why someone explicitly stating that they're going to commit a murder is a good reason not to let them purchase a weapon?At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote:Citation needed, cunt.At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
And again, if someone has explicitly stated that they're going to commit a murder that seems like a pretty good reason not to allow them to buy a weapon.
And again, it seems like a good reason not to let them have a gun.
That doesn't change the fact that it's against the law to do it.
At 2/21/21 02:07 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:At 2/21/21 12:43 PM, EdyKel wrote:That doesn't change the fact that it's against the law to do it.At 2/21/21 12:35 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Nope. legally, they essentially got off scot-free. They may have faced some fallout in their personal lives, and may face other repercussions, but they didn't actually commit a serious crime. You see, there are literally millions of death threats each year, with less than 1% following through. Death threats are mostly used to intimidate and scare, mostly by cowardly people, but rarely are they followed through on.At 2/21/21 12:15 PM, EdyKel wrote:They were prosecuted. Or at least charged.At 2/21/21 12:03 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:That's not how the courts see it. There have been several high profile cases over the years involving individuals making death threats, but the prosecution could not show that the individual who made them had the intent to follow through on it. That is due process.At 2/21/21 11:54 AM, EdyKel wrote:Looks to me like you're splitting hairs. Seeing as as how a death threat is evidence of intent and all. Guess that's the kind of technicality you hire lawyers to find.At 2/21/21 11:29 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:No. Death threat's are diffidently not illegal. if you actually looked into it, you would find out why. It has a lot to do with actual intent and evidence to commit. That is why there is due process.At 2/21/21 11:18 AM, EdyKel wrote:Is your brain functional enough to understand that death threats are illegal? Or why someone explicitly stating that they're going to commit a murder is a good reason not to let them purchase a weapon?At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote:Citation needed, cunt.At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.
And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
And again, if someone has explicitly stated that they're going to commit a murder that seems like a pretty good reason not to allow them to buy a weapon.
And again, it seems like a good reason not to let them have a gun.
To what extent? You are more likely to be killed by some family member, or someone you personely know, than from some random death threat on the intent.
At 2/21/21 02:24 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 2/21/21 02:07 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:To what extent? You are more likely to be killed by some family member, or someone you personely know, than from some random death threat on the intent.At 2/21/21 12:43 PM, EdyKel wrote:That doesn't change the fact that it's against the law to do it.At 2/21/21 12:35 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Nope. legally, they essentially got off scot-free. They may have faced some fallout in their personal lives, and may face other repercussions, but they didn't actually commit a serious crime. You see, there are literally millions of death threats each year, with less than 1% following through. Death threats are mostly used to intimidate and scare, mostly by cowardly people, but rarely are they followed through on.At 2/21/21 12:15 PM, EdyKel wrote:They were prosecuted. Or at least charged.At 2/21/21 12:03 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:That's not how the courts see it. There have been several high profile cases over the years involving individuals making death threats, but the prosecution could not show that the individual who made them had the intent to follow through on it. That is due process.At 2/21/21 11:54 AM, EdyKel wrote:Looks to me like you're splitting hairs. Seeing as as how a death threat is evidence of intent and all. Guess that's the kind of technicality you hire lawyers to find.At 2/21/21 11:29 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:No. Death threat's are diffidently not illegal. if you actually looked into it, you would find out why. It has a lot to do with actual intent and evidence to commit. That is why there is due process.At 2/21/21 11:18 AM, EdyKel wrote:Is your brain functional enough to understand that death threats are illegal? Or why someone explicitly stating that they're going to commit a murder is a good reason not to let them purchase a weapon?At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.
And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
Citation needed, cunt.
And again, if someone has explicitly stated that they're going to commit a murder that seems like a pretty good reason not to allow them to buy a weapon.
And again, it seems like a good reason not to let them have a gun.
Which doesn't change the fact that it's illegal.
At 2/21/21 02:24 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 2/21/21 02:07 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:To what extent? You are more likely to be killed by some family member, or someone you personely know, than from some random death threat on the intent.At 2/21/21 12:43 PM, EdyKel wrote:That doesn't change the fact that it's against the law to do it.At 2/21/21 12:35 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Nope. legally, they essentially got off scot-free. They may have faced some fallout in their personal lives, and may face other repercussions, but they didn't actually commit a serious crime. You see, there are literally millions of death threats each year, with less than 1% following through. Death threats are mostly used to intimidate and scare, mostly by cowardly people, but rarely are they followed through on.At 2/21/21 12:15 PM, EdyKel wrote:They were prosecuted. Or at least charged.At 2/21/21 12:03 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:That's not how the courts see it. There have been several high profile cases over the years involving individuals making death threats, but the prosecution could not show that the individual who made them had the intent to follow through on it. That is due process.At 2/21/21 11:54 AM, EdyKel wrote:Looks to me like you're splitting hairs. Seeing as as how a death threat is evidence of intent and all. Guess that's the kind of technicality you hire lawyers to find.At 2/21/21 11:29 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:No. Death threat's are diffidently not illegal. if you actually looked into it, you would find out why. It has a lot to do with actual intent and evidence to commit. That is why there is due process.At 2/21/21 11:18 AM, EdyKel wrote:Is your brain functional enough to understand that death threats are illegal? Or why someone explicitly stating that they're going to commit a murder is a good reason not to let them purchase a weapon?At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.
And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
Citation needed, cunt.
And again, if someone has explicitly stated that they're going to commit a murder that seems like a pretty good reason not to allow them to buy a weapon.
And again, it seems like a good reason not to let them have a gun.
Or that it's a pretty good reason to not sell someone a gun.
At 2/21/21 02:27 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:At 2/21/21 02:24 PM, EdyKel wrote:Which doesn't change the fact that it's illegal.At 2/21/21 02:07 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:To what extent? You are more likely to be killed by some family member, or someone you personely know, than from some random death threat on the intent.At 2/21/21 12:43 PM, EdyKel wrote:That doesn't change the fact that it's against the law to do it.At 2/21/21 12:35 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Nope. legally, they essentially got off scot-free. They may have faced some fallout in their personal lives, and may face other repercussions, but they didn't actually commit a serious crime. You see, there are literally millions of death threats each year, with less than 1% following through. Death threats are mostly used to intimidate and scare, mostly by cowardly people, but rarely are they followed through on.At 2/21/21 12:15 PM, EdyKel wrote:They were prosecuted. Or at least charged.At 2/21/21 12:03 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:That's not how the courts see it. There have been several high profile cases over the years involving individuals making death threats, but the prosecution could not show that the individual who made them had the intent to follow through on it. That is due process.At 2/21/21 11:54 AM, EdyKel wrote:Looks to me like you're splitting hairs. Seeing as as how a death threat is evidence of intent and all. Guess that's the kind of technicality you hire lawyers to find.At 2/21/21 11:29 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:No. Death threat's are diffidently not illegal. if you actually looked into it, you would find out why. It has a lot to do with actual intent and evidence to commit. That is why there is due process.At 2/21/21 11:18 AM, EdyKel wrote:Is your brain functional enough to understand that death threats are illegal? Or why someone explicitly stating that they're going to commit a murder is a good reason not to let them purchase a weapon?At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.
And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
Citation needed, cunt.
Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.
And again, if someone has explicitly stated that they're going to commit a murder that seems like a pretty good reason not to allow them to buy a weapon.
And again, it seems like a good reason not to let them have a gun.
Again, to what extent. You once wrote an oversimplified topic about how things aren't so simple, even though you you wrote oversimplified and over generalized, arguments, and have continue to do those things.
Death threats are both legal, and not legal. But I think you should pound the pavement by looking into it, to understand that seemingly contradictory statement.
At 2/21/21 03:02 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 2/21/21 02:27 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Again, to what extent. You once wrote an oversimplified topic about how things aren't so simple, even though you you wrote oversimplified and over generalized, arguments, and have continue to do those things.At 2/21/21 02:24 PM, EdyKel wrote:Which doesn't change the fact that it's illegal.At 2/21/21 02:07 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:To what extent? You are more likely to be killed by some family member, or someone you personely know, than from some random death threat on the intent.At 2/21/21 12:43 PM, EdyKel wrote:That doesn't change the fact that it's against the law to do it.At 2/21/21 12:35 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Nope. legally, they essentially got off scot-free. They may have faced some fallout in their personal lives, and may face other repercussions, but they didn't actually commit a serious crime. You see, there are literally millions of death threats each year, with less than 1% following through. Death threats are mostly used to intimidate and scare, mostly by cowardly people, but rarely are they followed through on.At 2/21/21 12:15 PM, EdyKel wrote:They were prosecuted. Or at least charged.At 2/21/21 12:03 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:That's not how the courts see it. There have been several high profile cases over the years involving individuals making death threats, but the prosecution could not show that the individual who made them had the intent to follow through on it. That is due process.At 2/21/21 11:54 AM, EdyKel wrote:Looks to me like you're splitting hairs. Seeing as as how a death threat is evidence of intent and all. Guess that's the kind of technicality you hire lawyers to find.At 2/21/21 11:29 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:No. Death threat's are diffidently not illegal. if you actually looked into it, you would find out why. It has a lot to do with actual intent and evidence to commit. That is why there is due process.At 2/21/21 11:18 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.
And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
Citation needed, cunt.
Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.
Is your brain functional enough to understand that death threats are illegal? Or why someone explicitly stating that they're going to commit a murder is a good reason not to let them purchase a weapon?
And again, if someone has explicitly stated that they're going to commit a murder that seems like a pretty good reason not to allow them to buy a weapon.
And again, it seems like a good reason not to let them have a gun.
Death threats are both legal, and not legal. But I think you should pound the pavement by looking into it, to understand that seemingly contradictory statement.
Telling someone that you're going to kill them is illegal. There are laws prohibiting it. It is a prosecutable offense. It is against the law.
At 2/21/21 03:02 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 2/21/21 02:27 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Again, to what extent. You once wrote an oversimplified topic about how things aren't so simple, even though you you wrote oversimplified and over generalized, arguments, and have continue to do those things.At 2/21/21 02:24 PM, EdyKel wrote:Which doesn't change the fact that it's illegal.At 2/21/21 02:07 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:To what extent? You are more likely to be killed by some family member, or someone you personely know, than from some random death threat on the intent.At 2/21/21 12:43 PM, EdyKel wrote:That doesn't change the fact that it's against the law to do it.At 2/21/21 12:35 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Nope. legally, they essentially got off scot-free. They may have faced some fallout in their personal lives, and may face other repercussions, but they didn't actually commit a serious crime. You see, there are literally millions of death threats each year, with less than 1% following through. Death threats are mostly used to intimidate and scare, mostly by cowardly people, but rarely are they followed through on.At 2/21/21 12:15 PM, EdyKel wrote:They were prosecuted. Or at least charged.At 2/21/21 12:03 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:That's not how the courts see it. There have been several high profile cases over the years involving individuals making death threats, but the prosecution could not show that the individual who made them had the intent to follow through on it. That is due process.At 2/21/21 11:54 AM, EdyKel wrote:Looks to me like you're splitting hairs. Seeing as as how a death threat is evidence of intent and all. Guess that's the kind of technicality you hire lawyers to find.At 2/21/21 11:29 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:No. Death threat's are diffidently not illegal. if you actually looked into it, you would find out why. It has a lot to do with actual intent and evidence to commit. That is why there is due process.At 2/21/21 11:18 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.
And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
Citation needed, cunt.
Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.
Is your brain functional enough to understand that death threats are illegal? Or why someone explicitly stating that they're going to commit a murder is a good reason not to let them purchase a weapon?
And again, if someone has explicitly stated that they're going to commit a murder that seems like a pretty good reason not to allow them to buy a weapon.
And again, it seems like a good reason not to let them have a gun.
Death threats are both legal, and not legal. But I think you should pound the pavement by looking into it, to understand that seemingly contradictory statement.
@TurkeyOnAStick wanna know why I don't bother posting citation? https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death-threat/
At 2/21/21 03:13 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:At 2/21/21 03:02 PM, EdyKel wrote:@TurkeyOnAStick wanna know why I don't bother posting citation? https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death-threat/At 2/21/21 02:27 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Again, to what extent. You once wrote an oversimplified topic about how things aren't so simple, even though you you wrote oversimplified and over generalized, arguments, and have continue to do those things.At 2/21/21 02:24 PM, EdyKel wrote:Which doesn't change the fact that it's illegal.At 2/21/21 02:07 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:To what extent? You are more likely to be killed by some family member, or someone you personely know, than from some random death threat on the intent.At 2/21/21 12:43 PM, EdyKel wrote:That doesn't change the fact that it's against the law to do it.At 2/21/21 12:35 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Nope. legally, they essentially got off scot-free. They may have faced some fallout in their personal lives, and may face other repercussions, but they didn't actually commit a serious crime. You see, there are literally millions of death threats each year, with less than 1% following through. Death threats are mostly used to intimidate and scare, mostly by cowardly people, but rarely are they followed through on.At 2/21/21 12:15 PM, EdyKel wrote:They were prosecuted. Or at least charged.At 2/21/21 12:03 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:That's not how the courts see it. There have been several high profile cases over the years involving individuals making death threats, but the prosecution could not show that the individual who made them had the intent to follow through on it. That is due process.At 2/21/21 11:54 AM, EdyKel wrote:Looks to me like you're splitting hairs. Seeing as as how a death threat is evidence of intent and all. Guess that's the kind of technicality you hire lawyers to find.At 2/21/21 11:29 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: At 2/21/21 11:18 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.
And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
Citation needed, cunt.
Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.
Is your brain functional enough to understand that death threats are illegal? Or why someone explicitly stating that they're going to commit a murder is a good reason not to let them purchase a weapon?
No. Death threat's are diffidently not illegal. if you actually looked into it, you would find out why. It has a lot to do with actual intent and evidence to commit. That is why there is due process.
And again, if someone has explicitly stated that they're going to commit a murder that seems like a pretty good reason not to allow them to buy a weapon.
And again, it seems like a good reason not to let them have a gun.
Death threats are both legal, and not legal. But I think you should pound the pavement by looking into it, to understand that seemingly contradictory statement.
And here are some more citations:
Under state criminal codes, which vary by state, it is an offense to knowingly utter or convey a threat to cause death or bodily harm to any person. *from your own link
You cannot commit a criminal threat if the threat is vague or unreasonable. The threat must be capable of making the people who hear it feel as if they might be hurt, and conclude that the threat is credible, real, and imminent. If, for example, you threaten to blow up the world unless your bartender doesn't bring your drink to you immediately, no reasonable person hearing it would believe the threat was real. On the other hand, if you walk into a store with a gun and threaten to shoot the clerk unless she gives you a refund, such a threat is credible and specific. source
Again, you oversimplify things, without actual knowledge of what you are talking about, to suspend the rights of people over something that people rarely go to jail for because most instances are not the vast majority are not egregious examples of death threats.
At 2/21/21 03:59 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 2/21/21 03:13 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:And here are some more citations:At 2/21/21 03:02 PM, EdyKel wrote:@TurkeyOnAStick wanna know why I don't bother posting citation? https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death-threat/At 2/21/21 02:27 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Again, to what extent. You once wrote an oversimplified topic about how things aren't so simple, even though you you wrote oversimplified and over generalized, arguments, and have continue to do those things.At 2/21/21 02:24 PM, EdyKel wrote:Which doesn't change the fact that it's illegal.At 2/21/21 02:07 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:To what extent? You are more likely to be killed by some family member, or someone you personely know, than from some random death threat on the intent.At 2/21/21 12:43 PM, EdyKel wrote:That doesn't change the fact that it's against the law to do it.At 2/21/21 12:35 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Nope. legally, they essentially got off scot-free. They may have faced some fallout in their personal lives, and may face other repercussions, but they didn't actually commit a serious crime. You see, there are literally millions of death threats each year, with less than 1% following through. Death threats are mostly used to intimidate and scare, mostly by cowardly people, but rarely are they followed through on.At 2/21/21 12:15 PM, EdyKel wrote:They were prosecuted. Or at least charged.At 2/21/21 12:03 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:That's not how the courts see it. There have been several high profile cases over the years involving individuals making death threats, but the prosecution could not show that the individual who made them had the intent to follow through on it. That is due process.At 2/21/21 11:54 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 11:29 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: At 2/21/21 11:18 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.
And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
Citation needed, cunt.
Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.
Is your brain functional enough to understand that death threats are illegal? Or why someone explicitly stating that they're going to commit a murder is a good reason not to let them purchase a weapon?
No. Death threat's are diffidently not illegal. if you actually looked into it, you would find out why. It has a lot to do with actual intent and evidence to commit. That is why there is due process.
Looks to me like you're splitting hairs. Seeing as as how a death threat is evidence of intent and all. Guess that's the kind of technicality you hire lawyers to find.
And again, if someone has explicitly stated that they're going to commit a murder that seems like a pretty good reason not to allow them to buy a weapon.
And again, it seems like a good reason not to let them have a gun.
Death threats are both legal, and not legal. But I think you should pound the pavement by looking into it, to understand that seemingly contradictory statement.
Again, you oversimplify things, without actual knowledge of what you are talking about, to suspend the rights of people over something that people rarely go to jail for because most instances are not the vast majority are not egregious examples of death threats.
Well I guess a death threat coming from a winger who then tries to buy a gun is a little more creditable of a threat than others. Hell, I worry what you people are going to do next whether you say it or not.
Regardless, I am correct that death threats are against the law.
At 2/21/21 03:13 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:At 2/21/21 03:02 PM, EdyKel wrote: Death threats are both legal, and not legal. But I think you should pound the pavement by looking into it, to understand that seemingly contradictory statement.@TurkeyOnAStick wanna know why I don't bother posting citation? https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death-threat/
Not touching this because it looks complicated and you’re both probably right.
Let’s say someone makes a death threat, which gets reported and they get fined (I.e. no prison or jail time). In your scenario, would they be entitled to buying a gun?
At 2/21/21 04:53 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:At 2/21/21 03:13 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Not touching this because it looks complicated and you’re both probably right.At 2/21/21 03:02 PM, EdyKel wrote: Death threats are both legal, and not legal. But I think you should pound the pavement by looking into it, to understand that seemingly contradictory statement.@TurkeyOnAStick wanna know why I don't bother posting citation? https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death-threat/
Let’s say someone makes a death threat, which gets reported and they get fined (I.e. no prison or jail time). In your scenario, would they be entitled to buying a gun?
They should probably be subjected to a longer waiting period or required to go to counseling first. You know, try to make sure there aren't any more warning signs.
At 2/21/21 04:09 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:At 2/21/21 03:59 PM, EdyKel wrote:Well I guess a death threat coming from a winger who then tries to buy a gun is a little more creditable of a threat than others. Hell, I worry what you people are going to do next whether you say it or not.At 2/21/21 03:13 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:And here are some more citations:At 2/21/21 03:02 PM, EdyKel wrote:@TurkeyOnAStick wanna know why I don't bother posting citation? https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death-threat/At 2/21/21 02:27 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Again, to what extent. You once wrote an oversimplified topic about how things aren't so simple, even though you you wrote oversimplified and over generalized, arguments, and have continue to do those things.At 2/21/21 02:24 PM, EdyKel wrote:Which doesn't change the fact that it's illegal.At 2/21/21 02:07 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:To what extent? You are more likely to be killed by some family member, or someone you personely know, than from some random death threat on the intent.At 2/21/21 12:43 PM, EdyKel wrote:That doesn't change the fact that it's against the law to do it.At 2/21/21 12:35 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Nope. legally, they essentially got off scot-free. They may have faced some fallout in their personal lives, and may face other repercussions, but they didn't actually commit a serious crime. You see, there are literally millions of death threats each year, with less than 1% following through. Death threats are mostly used to intimidate and scare, mostly by cowardly people, but rarely are they followed through on.At 2/21/21 12:15 PM, EdyKel wrote:They were prosecuted. Or at least charged.At 2/21/21 12:03 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: At 2/21/21 11:54 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 11:29 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: At 2/21/21 11:18 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.
And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
Citation needed, cunt.
Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.
Is your brain functional enough to understand that death threats are illegal? Or why someone explicitly stating that they're going to commit a murder is a good reason not to let them purchase a weapon?
No. Death threat's are diffidently not illegal. if you actually looked into it, you would find out why. It has a lot to do with actual intent and evidence to commit. That is why there is due process.
Looks to me like you're splitting hairs. Seeing as as how a death threat is evidence of intent and all. Guess that's the kind of technicality you hire lawyers to find.
And again, if someone has explicitly stated that they're going to commit a murder that seems like a pretty good reason not to allow them to buy a weapon.
That's not how the courts see it. There have been several high profile cases over the years involving individuals making death threats, but the prosecution could not show that the individual who made them had the intent to follow through on it. That is due process.
And again, it seems like a good reason not to let them have a gun.
Death threats are both legal, and not legal. But I think you should pound the pavement by looking into it, to understand that seemingly contradictory statement.
Again, you oversimplify things, without actual knowledge of what you are talking about, to suspend the rights of people over something that people rarely go to jail for because most instances are not the vast majority are not egregious examples of death threats.
I don't think most people who kill others think of themselves as a winger. That's is strictly part of your weird reasoning process - and unhealthy obsession over wingers. Most shootings are caused in the heat of the moment over arguments.
Regardless, I am correct that death threats are against the law.
Yes and no. Stop treating things as black and white, like a winger.
At 2/21/21 05:18 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 2/21/21 04:09 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:I don't think most people who kill others think of themselves as a winger. That's is strictly part of your weird reasoning process - and unhealthy obsession over wingers. Most shootings are caused in the heat of the moment over arguments.At 2/21/21 03:59 PM, EdyKel wrote:Well I guess a death threat coming from a winger who then tries to buy a gun is a little more creditable of a threat than others. Hell, I worry what you people are going to do next whether you say it or not.At 2/21/21 03:13 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:And here are some more citations:At 2/21/21 03:02 PM, EdyKel wrote:@TurkeyOnAStick wanna know why I don't bother posting citation? https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death-threat/At 2/21/21 02:27 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Again, to what extent. You once wrote an oversimplified topic about how things aren't so simple, even though you you wrote oversimplified and over generalized, arguments, and have continue to do those things.At 2/21/21 02:24 PM, EdyKel wrote:Which doesn't change the fact that it's illegal.At 2/21/21 02:07 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:To what extent? You are more likely to be killed by some family member, or someone you personely know, than from some random death threat on the intent.At 2/21/21 12:43 PM, EdyKel wrote:That doesn't change the fact that it's against the law to do it.At 2/21/21 12:35 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:Nope. legally, they essentially got off scot-free. They may have faced some fallout in their personal lives, and may face other repercussions, but they didn't actually commit a serious crime. You see, there are literally millions of death threats each year, with less than 1% following through. Death threats are mostly used to intimidate and scare, mostly by cowardly people, but rarely are they followed through on.At 2/21/21 12:15 PM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 12:03 PM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: At 2/21/21 11:54 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 11:29 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: At 2/21/21 11:18 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 11:06 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote: At 2/21/21 11:02 AM, EdyKel wrote: At 2/21/21 10:05 AM, Aaron-Chandler wrote:If there's one thing history proves it's that any group that isn't wiling and capable of defending itself is soon appressed. That's why the United States doesn't allow felons to own guns. That's why the right wing NRA supported weapon laws when black people started buying them. That's why left wingers want to take them guns away from white people now. And it's why I promote gun ownership.
And why you support getting rid of due process to take away guns from people.
Citation needed, cunt.
Sure thing, snowflake... Page six of this topic, over your support of red flag laws.
Is your brain functional enough to understand that death threats are illegal? Or why someone explicitly stating that they're going to commit a murder is a good reason not to let them purchase a weapon?
No. Death threat's are diffidently not illegal. if you actually looked into it, you would find out why. It has a lot to do with actual intent and evidence to commit. That is why there is due process.
Looks to me like you're splitting hairs. Seeing as as how a death threat is evidence of intent and all. Guess that's the kind of technicality you hire lawyers to find.
And again, if someone has explicitly stated that they're going to commit a murder that seems like a pretty good reason not to allow them to buy a weapon.
That's not how the courts see it. There have been several high profile cases over the years involving individuals making death threats, but the prosecution could not show that the individual who made them had the intent to follow through on it. That is due process.
They were prosecuted. Or at least charged.
And again, it seems like a good reason not to let them have a gun.
Death threats are both legal, and not legal. But I think you should pound the pavement by looking into it, to understand that seemingly contradictory statement.
Again, you oversimplify things, without actual knowledge of what you are talking about, to suspend the rights of people over something that people rarely go to jail for because most instances are not the vast majority are not egregious examples of death threats.
Regardless, I am correct that death threats are against the law.Yes and no. Stop treating things as black and white, like a winger.
Is there a law against it?
