Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Yes, it is a loaded question.Exactly.
Your question is based on the unjustified assumption that the individual is dangerous. If he is an active threat, that's one thing. But to try and predict the future behavior of the individual without enough evidence to satisfy due process is wrong. The trial (and conviction) provides due process and validates the state's actions (limiting rights) to ensure public safety.
I want to ask a basic question that gets to the root of the issue.Absolutely no.
Is there ever a time where you think it may be appropriate to limit a constitutional right to an individual without them having been convicted of a crime or incarcerated (including a mental health facility)? Doesn't have to be limited to 2nd amendment rights.
Chief Kealoha, Gov Ige and the entire State Legislature isn't going to like this....Yeah, they won't. I'm going to enjoy seeing them squirm when President Trump signs the bill into law.
Who told you progressives are "sane, morally upstanding" people?No one, I had to learn the hard way. I'm just stating the obvious, though I do wish that progressives were more "reasonable."
