Top Republicans Sour On Lindsey Graham: ‘He Never Actually Does Anything’

[98cwitr]

Worst case scenario: she tells the cops, the cops tell the judge... nobody takes away your precious firearms until a judge gets involved...

You need to research this. It's not how cops are doing this: she tells cops, cops now have under red flag laws probable cause, cops take guns, you then are given a court date and have to prove YOUR sanity to the court. If they find you not a risk, only then do you get them back; and even possibly charged for the state having to store them while they drag you through court. This varies by state, but how it's working out in NY and PA.

Personally, I think it should be the same as any other form of perjury... but that's just me.

I think it should be worse than that...or hey...don't pass these laws at all because they are an infringement of the Constitution.

That does seem troublesome... but then again, so does taking off your shoes at the airport

Do I have a Constitutional right, explicitly, to keep and wear shoes?

Perhaps if a person weren't so disagreeable that people are willing to swear out false complaints about them, we wouldn't have to suffer through such inconvenience.

Happens all the time, but I too have wishful thoughts (not a goad, being serious actually)

Be that as it may, it ain't worked yet. After decades of doing our best nothing, perhaps it's time to try something.

Then treat the root of the issue: Willfulness to commit violence. The "why" is multifaceted: Single motherhood rate is through the roof, but that is due to the demise of faith. We are no longer a faithful people. We have become, as a whole, inherently secular.

Yes, yes... "cold dead hands," and all that.

Yes, and unironically.

If what you're saying is true, then I'll agree some of the laws need tweaking. But let's fix a good idea, not toss it out just because it's imperfectly executed

Criminals don't follow laws. All this does is restrict the law abiding while rendering them defenseless. Just look at Beto's confiscation narrative.

Anyway, we're off topic. Graham is not for small government, he is not for conservative ideals, and he is NOT on our side.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Criminals don't follow laws. All this does is restrict the law abiding while rendering them defenseless. Just look at Beto's confiscation narrative.

If that's your view, then why have any laws at all? After all, people regularly go to jail for crimes they did not commit. All laws end up infringing the rights of and restricting the law-abiding to some degree. However, as a society, we've decided that the tradeoff is worth it. Speaking for myself at least, I'm ok with the idea that some law-abiding, harmless gun owners might have their guns temporarily confiscated if it prevents even one Sandy Hook/El Paso/Aurora/etc. That's a tradeoff that I'm willing to make.

 

[durangodawood]

If that's your view, then why have any laws at all?....

I know.

Its oppressive that us law abiding people have to abide by laws while criminals dont.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You need to research this. It's not how cops are doing this: she tells cops, cops now have under red flag laws probable cause, cops take guns, you then are given a court date and have to prove YOUR sanity to the court. If they find you not a risk, only then do you get them back; and even possibly charged for the state having to store them while they drag you through court. This varies by state, but how it's working out in NY and PA.

Sucks, don't it?

Still think we gotta see the big picture here -- if your ex is willing to file false reports about you and the worst consequence you can think of is losing your guns for a few days, you might want to rethink your priorities...

I think it should be worse than that...or hey...don't pass these laws at all because they are an infringement of the Constitution.

I suppose people who are dangers to themselves and others are the ones who need firearms most of all...

Do I have a Constitutional right, explicitly, to keep and wear shoes?

You have a Constitutional right, explicitly, to free speech. Tweet a death threat to the White House sometime and learn that "explicit" doesn't mean "absolute."

Happens all the time, but I too have wishful thoughts (not a goad, being serious actually)

Just trying to draw attention back to the far bigger problem...

Then treat the root of the issue: Willfulness to commit violence. The "why" is multifaceted: Single motherhood rate is through the roof, but that is due to the demise of faith. We are no longer a faithful people. We have become, as a whole, inherently secular.

Yeah... Womack tried that scapegoat... got him nearly booed out of his own town hall... mostly by single parents who (up until that point) supported him.

I even started a thread on it: GOP Rep booed for blaming single parents for mass shootings

Yes, and unironically.

I guess "Blue Lives Matter" was the irony... or was that the punchline?

Criminals don't follow laws. All this does is restrict the law abiding while rendering them defenseless.

The law abiding wouldn't be restricted if they actually abided by the laws...

... hint: Don't be a danger to yourself or others, and the police will never hear a report about you.

Anyway, we're off topic. Graham is not for small government, he is not for conservative ideals, and he is NOT on our side.

Is Donald?