How the FUCK is this legal?

> stacking bodies
> all three news stories refer to the OIS of Gary Willis at 103 Linwood Ave.
Come on, man. At least read the articles before you link them.

I just kinda skimmed. Thought they were from different counties.

That varies so widely by state though. As of the Wapo article in August 2019, Maryland approved 400 out of 788, and DC hasn't even had a request for one yet.

I assume Florida's rate is absolutely terrible based on their judges there.

should have been a reply to

It's almost as if people in general, as opposed to internet edgelords and the violently insane (the two not being one and the same), think the violently insane shouldn't have easy access to highly lethal weapons.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 32K)

It's almost as if people are circumventing and entire process and using PD to kill with little or no evidence. Like, maybe, hear me out, people who own guns aren't the people who would facilitate and allow a home invasion to take place unchecked. Maybe, they should be taken to court. Perhaps it's safer, you like being safe right, to not show up armed at someone's house with like 3 of your buddies at ungodly hours and rob people.

>Make life more and more comfortable
>Make people more and more subservient
>The largest conflict in the u.s. for most people is whether or not to let mexicans in
>Surprised when they throw their rights away
Play MGS2

Attached: 1567609764952.jpg (552x476, 19K)

>PS, gonna happen in all 50 states.
I doubt it considering some states don't even enforce the NFA.

>highly lethal
Something is either lethal or nonlethal you fucking moron.

Attached: 1566410426926.jpg (480x480, 19K)

Remember that you can never under any circumstance trust a woman.

Good. Ita better than bans and it keeps guns away from schizos and WNfags.

Because it hasn't been challenged yet. Its blatantly unconstitutional.

Kys without a firearm.

A past event was either lethal or non-lethal. An object, substance, or potential event can have variable lethality, since lethality relates also to capability, which has degree.

But reality doesn't matter. You can keep being confidently and angrily wrong about trivial things.

This is what happens when web designers have to cater to the lowest common denominator (Iphones).

Thank you Mr. Hollywood Upstairs Law School

There is nowhere in the Constttution where it says "Crazy people have a right to bear arms"

Shall not be infringed. Sounds like infringement to me.

the constitutions doesn't 'give' anyone rights. the rights are inherent.

Yes it does. But there is nothing in there about arbitrarily accusing people of mental illness. Freedom of speech is in there. But there isn't anything about it being the federal or states responsible to make you feel safe.

Have you read the 4th amendment, user?

The bill of rights doesn't give anybody anything. It recognizes the rights as natural rights and states that they shall not be messed (infringed) with. You should sit down and read an actual copy of the bill of rights instead of what's in your school's textbooks(i.e. a leftist corrupt version of the bill of rights).

I thought there were red flag laws in Ohio.

Keep an eye out for unnatural posts

Attached: 1568744260819.png (1530x202, 24K)

like half the posts on this board?

Because you won't do shit, nigger.

So who determines who is and isn't crazy?

>How the FUCK is this legal?
The Devil doesn't want people to have the ability and freedom to defend themselves )and their households, SO and offspring) against hostile attackers committed to doing evil and or serving evil.

>This shit coming up a few weeks before that big case
Can't wait

Attached: 1568178892343.png (441x430, 204K)

Stale meme

>There is nowhere in the Constttution where it says "Crazy people have a right to bear arms"
Nor does it say or specify in any sort of way what types of individuals have the right to bear arms.

So...what was your point?

Convince me why pic related should be allowed to own guns

Attached: BF36C269-0761-4C16-A8B4-F202F50E7093.png (1639x960, 1.67M)

What part of "well-regulated militia" is "I think murdering a bunch of children is a great idea"

itt
>NOONONONOOOOOO
>YOU CANT HOLD ME RESPONSIBLE FOR CASUALLY THREATENING DOMESTIC TERROR
>WHY DONT YOU CARE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF VIOLENT EXTREMISTS NOOOOO
Loving every laugh.The more extremist cucks are ostracized and made into nonpeople the better.

natural rights are inherent, you chucklefuck. That's doesn't include free speech OR gun ownership which is why they had to write that shit down in the AMENDMENTS to the constitution

It is incumbent o the states and the federal government to promote the general welfare and perform act of judicial enforcement, which includes taking guns away from crazy people in many states.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
Not the militia, you shareblue cuck bitch.

And with that, the M1A has a reason to be posted once again.

Have you? Want to see more far reaonableness doctrine strecthes? Because I can asure you that it more than includes "crazy people"

dead party

>tfw live in a state where it was proposed
Anyways to answer your question it is our retarded and fat populace that wills it so they can have a faux sense of security. You can see it firsthand in this very thread. Panem et circenses and all that fun stuff.
>US of Squares
>not United States of Periodic Tables

Attached: 2E74D738-F71B-434C-94F5-AE4A2F71CC8E.jpg (1578x2048, 130K)

Top. Men.

No seriously, its a judge that has to issue the final order but its usually police and/or some civilian social/medical workers

Yuo are correct. I suggest you read Heller to see exactly how wide open the SCOTUS left it up for regulation, it's an 8-lane superhighway.

my point was that red flag laws are not unconstitutional in any way.

>"I think murdering a bunch of children is a great idea"
Strawman argument.

I'm infinitely more worried by abuse of ERPOs by police to get in homes without a warrant and for judges to put a bandaid on looney tunes still cognizant enough to avoid adjudication but nutso enough to run people over on a sidewalk.

You are dumb

If you've ever had to put up with the lil bastards you'd understand.

t. Teacher for 9 years

Wait what team are you in?
Mines different.

Attached: 5555.png (1522x487, 21K)

When you are crazy, your rrights can and will be legally abrogated and this is one of those circumstances. Crazy people don't get guns. Neither do felons or domestic abusers. Works for me.

You know what I'm going to take a break from this board.

Attached: 1568619307302.jpg (1080x549, 113K)

Fuck I always thought Indiana was based.

>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Are you arguing that as long as an accuser faults the sanity of an individual that the state has the right to sidestep the 4th Amendment?

What happens when advocating for more gun rights or wanting to have borders is considered "crazy" and "extremists"

Attached: 1567964002537.jpg (574x500, 43K)

>reasonableness doctrine
Begone, revisionist scum.

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT
FUUUUUUCK
I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT GUNS

Attached: 1567548941405.png (719x713, 587K)

They've been doing this shit for years via DVs, can't wait for the retroactive mental health red flags because you talked to a dr about depression once.

Attached: aae91e765ac6cc46a8e172d1ee1fd691ec58960a95d1c882a42b451c1e996a87.png (400x711, 303K)

Considering SCOTUS doesn't recognize the 2A....

>let's allow power-tripping faggots who shoot people for no reason and probably don't even have bachelors degrees to decide who and who doesn't get to own guns
Surely nothing could possibly go wrong with giving the police carte-blanche to disarm the general public.

Attached: 1565184924672.jpg (560x418, 14K)

So the problem is with the methods used to enforce the law, and not really the law itself. Yet it's the law you want to get rid of, and not the methods. Either you're not being very honest about your motivation here, maybe not even to yourself, or you're not a very clever kid.

>to You
>to me
I'm so confused

Attached: 1564726780606.jpg (251x252, 21K)

jesus how are they all so ugly and look the same?

>America still existing post 9/11
I'm actually surprised it took them this long to really kick things into gear. Imagine what this place is going to look like in a decade.

some person who has been brainwashed by "higher education" and has a piece of paper that states they know better than you

Which amendment is that?

>brainwashed by "higher education"
spot the brainlet

>conveniently leaves off most of the mass shooters from that year because they don't fit your narrative
really makes me think

How so? You should know by now that the social sciences in almost every university are completely infected with leftist/marxist ideology which affects the validity of anything produced by them.

>the social sciences in almost every university are completely infected with leftist/marxist ideology
source or you're just posting your feelings

>babbys first inspect element
Fake and gay

psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-consumericus/201202/is-there-liberal-bias-among-american-professors
Not that user, but this was back in 2012. Now tell me how it magically doesn't count somehow.

No, a judge has to sign off on it first. You know, just like a warrant.

That's why you should get involved in politics! Run for City Council or something.

>2012
Outdated, invalid

>what is stare decisis
>what is legal interpretation

It's in the very first paragraph you fucking dunce

Did you even read it? It just asked a bunch of professors if they were a Democrat or a Republican.

>WY
>Grey
How can statelets even compete?

toppest of luls. just admit you don't care or agree with lefty thought or whatever. my lady's worked in colleges for years, not going to waste time on doing easy searches for you against a hurdle with your hand on it.

Yeah I'm sure that user who's cunt ex reported him to the police for the crime of being her ex was an extremist

>leftist/marxist ideology
Do you think economists who do real concrete research on the accumulation of wealth and it's influence on modern democracies get tired of being told that Marx has somehow already performed every single piece of possible research on the subject back in the 1800s? I'm no economist, but I know I do.

>He took the "philosophy" in MGS2 seriously
Kek

Being a democrat doesn't make you a liberal, the same being a conservative doesn't make you a republican.

Fair enough, I can concede that. When I was referring to the social sciences, I was referring more to sociology and psychology, since that was the original topic of discussion (who gets to decide who is mentally stable), and was not including economics.

>leftist/marxist ideology
Being able to post doesn't mean you can read. Semantics game may make you feel smart, but not being able to search for one of the many articles from left/liberal/marxist rags acknowledging the bias counters the notion.

There are too many sources to post that can point out research that has been buried because it didn't tie in with the current zeitgeist that runs through sociology/physiology departments. Spend some time and use the interest to look. As for something to think about, here: nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html

they were just proposed today, actually, the house is mostly republican so it's basically dead but it's still coming up.

Attached: Screenshot_20190917_173432.png (848x860, 314K)

same way why you can't yell fire in a movie theater. Turns out there are so limits to the practical applications of the amendments.

There's a fire in your house and local movie theater. I get you're trolling, but you should look up the origin of that and why it's bullshit

>No, a judge has to sign off on it first. You know, just like a warrant.
Judges often fuck things up. Warrants can also be fudged. There are mountains of case law that show this on a federal and state level.

Just because a judge signed it doesn't mean its constitutional. Just because it's the law does not mean its constitutional. There is a serious conflict with red flag laws and the 4th and 5th amendments, which are entirely unrelated to Heller so I don't know why that was brought up as some kind of "fuck you, here's case law." The conflict is the abuse of the red flag system that would legitmatley take away the rights of individuals because a friend, co-worker, or family member says that individual is "crazy" and should be deprived of their property and rights.

Go be a retard somewhere else.

Attached: 1558567065295.png (659x609, 349K)

I commit crimes all the time. I made 9 SBRs in the last hour. I regularly litter and I even built a time machine to go back in time to kill that Nigger Mandela.