Seriously, what is going on?

[ttechdallas]

Uhh yes it is. In my divorce process I had a court order against my wife to leave our domicile. That meeting included me, my attorney and the judge. No witnesses, no testimony, just me expressing that I felt she was a danger to my child. If the court can essentially make some homeless in a 30 min meeting like that, they won’t flinch to disarm someone.

Thankfully my wife and I reconciled. She got the help she needed and God changed my heart. But that was an eye opening experience into the court systems as a whole

With all due respect, if you were involved in a divorce proceeding then you already had a legal matter before the court and I would assume you were somehow bound to tell the truth before the judge. So unless a law is passed that lays out the groundwork to bypass the legal process for obtaining a court order while issuing the court order to remove guns from a home or individual, then it is not going to be as simple as some nut making an accusation and the police show up to take your guns.

I just believe that instead of arbitrarily rejecting anything and everything put forward that it would be far wiser to working to make sure that whatever is put in place if fair and effective.

[Ironman]

With all due respect, if you were involved in a divorce proceeding then you already had a legal matter before the court and I would assume you were somehow bound to tell the truth before the judge. So unless a law is passed that lays out the groundwork to bypass the legal process for obtaining a court order while issuing the court order to remove guns from a home or individual, then it is not going to be as simple as some nut making an accusation and the police show up to take your guns.

I just believe that instead of arbitrarily rejecting anything and everything put forward that it would be far wiser to working to make sure that whatever is put in place if fair and effective.

California says "watch this!"

[Playa]

With all due respect, if you were involved in a divorce proceeding then you already had a legal matter before the court and I would assume you were somehow bound to tell the truth before the judge. So unless a law is passed that lays out the groundwork to bypass the legal process for obtaining a court order while issuing the court order to remove guns from a home or individual, then it is not going to be as simple as some nut making an accusation and the police show up to take your guns.

I just believe that instead of arbitrarily rejecting anything and everything put forward that it would be far wiser to working to make sure that whatever is put in place if fair and effective.

With all due respect to you, you have no idea what you are talking about and I can only assume you have never been involved in a court order. Yes, I had to sign a sworn affidavit, but it was my “truth” which is to say my perspective. There was no competing party to dispute my claim. This occurred in a closed door session in the judges chamber. My wife nor her attorney had any idea this legal maneuver was being made until papers were served by a court officer. All I did was present a few instances where I felt she had endangered my child and identified a place where she could stay.

I could have said whatever and it would have been difficult for her to have fought it after the fact, in fact she didn’t.

In retrospect I would have handled it differently, but in the high emotion of a contentious divorce I did not have my clearest judgment about me.

Again, if it is this easy to remove someone from their home, how much easier will the court find it to deprive a gun owner their right to bear arms

[ttechdallas]

With all due respect to you, you have no idea what you are talking about and I can only assume you have never been involved in a court order. Yes, I had to sign a sworn affidavit, but it was my “truth” which is to say my perspective. There was no competing party to dispute my claim. This occurred in a closed door session in the judges chamber. My wife nor her attorney had any idea this legal maneuver was being made until papers were served by a court officer. All I did was present a few instances where I felt she had endangered my child and identified a place where she could stay.

You have your opinion, I have mine. But you wouldn't have been before a judge had there not been an official legal proceeding involving you and your spouse. If you want to assume that a similar court order to remove someone's guns would occur as you described without being known to the court and it's awareness of representation on both sides and their role in the process for filing to get on the court's docket, then that is your right.

My point remains that rejecting any and every proposed gun regulation on the basis of the assumption that it part of some sinister strategy to take our guns away is not serving us well in the court of public opinion - especially with regulations that appear to be pretty logical. And that we would be better off working toward, then supporting regulations that would be effective while protecting the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens.

[Playa]

You have your opinion, I have mine. But you wouldn't have been before a judge had there not been an official legal proceeding involving you and your spouse. If you want to assume that a similar court order to remove someone's guns would occur as you described without being known to the court and it's awareness of representation on both sides and their role in the process for filing to get on the court's docket, then that is your right.

My point remains that rejecting any and every proposed gun regulation on the basis of the assumption that it part of some sinister strategy to take our guns away is not serving us well in the court of public opinion - especially with regulations that appear to be pretty logical. And that we would be better off working toward, then supporting regulations that would be effective while protecting the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens.

You have you opinion, I have my EXPERIENCE! Do you see how one out ranks the other?

Now go see post #22 and try to keep up.

[systemnt]

Fed's are gonna have to hire some serious manpower to search all the rivers, creeks, and lakes in Texas for these weapons.
Texas (bowhunter) has a high rate of unfortunate boating accidents in which firearms tend to get lost.

[Ironman]

You have your opinion, I have mine. But you wouldn't have been before a judge had there not been an official legal proceeding involving you and your spouse. If you want to assume that a similar court order to remove someone's guns would occur as you described without being known to the court and it's awareness of representation on both sides and their role in the process for filing to get on the court's docket, then that is your right.

My point remains that rejecting any and every proposed gun regulation on the basis of the assumption that it part of some sinister strategy to take our guns away is not serving us well in the court of public opinion - especially with regulations that appear to be pretty logical. And that we would be better off working toward, then supporting regulations that would be effective while protecting the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens.

Aren't "gun regulations" another way of saying "infringement?"

Obviously you have no clue as to what California is doing, although I have mentioned it several times. If you think the end game is NOT to disarm the citizens, then you would be wrong. It has been said by the democrats that that is exactly what they ultimately want. Why would you be willing to allow that to be easier to accomplish?

Do I think that disarming the citizens are even possible? No I don't, but by passing more gun control, it will not stop gun violence, which is what is being pushed. It will just make it "legal" to strip more citizens of their constitutional rights, whether justified are not. It's that slippery slope thing. Don't be fooled.

[ttechdallas]

You have you opinion, I have my EXPERIENCE! Do you see how one out ranks the other?

Now go see post #22 and try to keep up.

If it makes you feel better to assume anyone who disagrees with you is either clueless or too ignorant to keep up, then more power to you. But I assure you I am neither and I am also very pro 2nd amendment.

The demographics of this country are rapidly changing and with each generation there is a greater percentage of the population with no experience, much less exposure to guns. If you cannot see the shift in public opinion favoring gun control then maybe you need to pay more attention. Right now, the majority are still pro 2nd amendment (even on the Democratic side) even if they support stronger controls. They are not in fear of this hypothetical "they" who are plotting to take our guns away and this argument turns more people away than it moves to our side. It is a losing argument today and will be more so with each graduating class of voter age adults for the foreseeable future.

[Playa]

If it makes you feel better to assume anyone who disagrees with you is either clueless or too ignorant to keep up, then more power to you. But I assure you I am neither and I am also very pro 2nd amendment.

The demographics of this country are rapidly changing and with each generation there is a greater percentage of the population with no experience, much less exposure to guns. If you cannot see the shift in public opinion favoring gun control then maybe you need to pay more attention. Right now, the majority are still pro 2nd amendment (even on the Democratic side) even if they support stronger controls. They are not in fear of this hypothetical "they" who are plotting to take our guns away and this argument turns more people away than it moves to our side. It is a losing argument today and will be more so with each graduating class of voter age adults for the foreseeable future.

I never implied you were ignorant and clueless, rather I’ll be blunt, you are naive and maybe a bit dense if you think that compromise is the solution. That is the beginning of the end. And you believe that this will not be abused, though I have given you 1st hand testimony to exactly how court orders of this nature can be abused.

I have explained what viable alternatives are to these regulations, the general public you speak of believe that every disqualifying crime is reported and that current laws are being enforced, and they are t. Additional laws just mean more that won’t be enforced or only penalize those who obey the laws

[Mike D]

If it makes you feel better to assume anyone who disagrees with you is either clueless or too ignorant to keep up, then more power to you. But I assure you I am neither and I am also very pro 2nd amendment.



The demographics of this country are rapidly changing and with each generation there is a greater percentage of the population with no experience, much less exposure to guns. If you cannot see the shift in public opinion favoring gun control then maybe you need to pay more attention. Right now, the majority are still pro 2nd amendment (even on the Democratic side) even if they support stronger controls. They are not in fear of this hypothetical "they" who are plotting to take our guns away and this argument turns more people away than it moves to our side. It is a losing argument today and will be more so with each graduating class of voter age adults for the foreseeable future.

There is no way you can be “very pro 2nd amendment” and support something like this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Ætheling]

Fed's are gonna have to hire some serious manpower to search all the rivers, creeks, and lakes in Texas for these weapons.
Texas (bowhunter) has a high rate of unfortunate boating accidents in which firearms tend to get lost.

ATFE is gonna need a freaking Submarine to recover all of mine out of Lake Conroe.

[Clay C]

There is no way you can be “very pro 2nd amendment” and support something like this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

If you have to add in that qualifier before you make a statement, chances are you are not very pro 2A.

[ttechdallas]

There is no way you can be “very pro 2nd amendment” and support something like this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Let me re-phrase so it makes it easier to understand my position. I want to preserve our 2nd amendment rights. I do not believe every regulation, such as the one here which apparently even the NRA supports, infringes upon those rights. Every law and regulation has the potential to be abused - including those involving our constitutional rights. We don't fight everyone of them. We fight to make sure they are fairly established and enforced.

[Neck]

Death by a thousand cuts.

[GatorBait]

Every law ever passed by our government has been abused. Look at the passing of the 16th amendment in 1909. The income tax has gone crazy, you can see how off the tracks it has gone. That is because people allowed it to happen. That is what government does when given power, they warp it and grow it to suit their needs.