There are a couple issues here. Locking someone up for a mental health evaluation serves a different purpose and has a different standard of proof than for prosecution of a crime. A mandatory mental health evaluation is a civil process, its purpose is to help someone with a serious mental health issue.

The point I was trying to make is that if someone had filed a TRO against him or a red flag order against him, it would not be much different than a system where a person could request he be taken into custody for a mental health issue. So for example, if an angry woman claims her ex threatens her the judge gives a TRO. If an angry woman claims her ex is suicidal then do we put in place a system that makes him go to a mental hospital?

The purpose for incarceration, whether in a cell or a hospital room, is not the point.  The fact is, you said some would argue against detention "because someone is being seized and locked up by the government before having committed any crime."  Whether it's for suspicion/evidence that you will commit a crime or for mental evaluation because you threatened to commit a crime, the same is true.  You are "being seized and locked up by the government before having committed any crime."

In our system, you don't have to have committed a crime to get locked up.  You just have to be arrested based on the suspicion you did or will commit a crime.  If you are innocent, you may sit in jail until you are able to get the charges dismissed at trial.  No different than being held for evaluation.  Your freedom has been temporarily revoked until you are able to prove you don't deserve to be detained.

You run into the same issues with this that you run into with red flag laws though, that is my point. Your rights are taken away (temporarily) because someone stated you might be a danger.

I stated more than once that if someone is dangerous enough to confiscate their guns, they are dangerous enough to detain for evaluation. 

Taking the guns is not a solution.

It's a policy based on an agenda to take away guns from as many as possible for any reason they can come up with.

You are free to make your assumptions.

...until they make those illegal as well

Just over 8 in 10 Democrats favor banning all semi-automatic weapons.
Great. It’s a shame that the poll didn’t make sure what respondents knew
what “semi-automatic” means, because there’s a decent chunk of the
population that mistakenly thinks “semi-automatic” firearms are machine guns.

So, when asked if they’d ban all handguns, Democrats are divided, with 44
percent in favor, 46 percent in opposition, and 10 percent undecided. When
asked if they’d want to ban all semi-automatic weapons (which includes handguns –
but perhaps they’re ignorant of this fact), 82 percent favor banning them.

Funny.  My "assumption" is based on the actions and literal statements by the people trying to take our guns.

But EEF wants to give the gun grabbers the benefit of the doubt.   

One in five Americans wants the Second Amendment
to be repealed, national survey finds

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/27/one-in-five-americans-want-the-second-amendment-to-be-repealed-national-survey-finds/

It's not a mystery.

Poll: Democrats Split on Banning All Guns
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/democrats-poll-guns/

The evidence -- nay, proof -- is in the public domain, and the actions of this WH Resident and his administration have stated in no uncertain terms they want to ban some of the most commonly owned firearms in the US.

If that's an "assumption" on my part, then i guess I don't understand the meaning of that word.

I prefer Hanlon's razor - Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
You obviously don't.


Repealing the 2nd amendment isn't the same thing as banning all guns. You suspect that is their secret motive but the existents of moderates in gun rights opinions dispute that claim. I don't like their attempts but I don't resort to hyperbole to summarize them.

I prefer Hanlon's razor - Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
You obviously don't.


Repealing the 2nd amendment isn't the same thing as banning all guns. You suspect that is their secret motive but the existents of moderates in gun rights opinions dispute that claim. I don't like their attempts but I don't resort to hyperbole to summarize them.

I prefer Hanlon's razor - Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
You obviously don't.


Repealing the 2nd amendment isn't the same thing as banning all guns. You suspect that is their secret motive but the existents of moderates in gun rights opinions dispute that claim. I don't like their attempts but I don't resort to hyperbole to summarize them.

Blocking someone from exercising free speech isn't the same as banning free speech. lul, wut, bruh, paypal.

• A straight bet on a number has only a 2.6% chance in favor of the player, with a payout of 35 to 1;
• A bet split between 2 numbers has a player chance of 5.3% and a payout of 17 to 1;
• 3 number split = 7.9% chance and 11-1 payout;
• 4 number (corner) split = 10.5% & 8-1 payout;
• If you bet one of the columns which covers 1/3 of the numbers excluding 0/00, odds are 31.6% w/2-1 payout;
• A "Dozen" bet is like a column bet, only it covers the rows at the top, middle or bottom third of the layout excluding 0/00.  Same odds as a column bet.
• Red/black, Even/odd and High/Low bets all have 47.4% odds for the player and pays 1 to 1 (even money).

Repealing the 2nd amendment isn't the same thing as banning all guns.

You sound like the kind of guy who would let your wife hang out with her ex at 2am.

You sound like the kind of guy who would let your wife hang out with her ex at 2am.

Blocking someone from exercising free speech isn't the same as banning free speech. lul, wut, bruh, paypal.

i prefer what my mother taught me -- if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

You can call it whatever you want, but it doesn't make it not a duck.

I never said everyone in any specific group wants to take the guns.  I said there are people who make absolutely no attempt to hide their desire to do so.

And WTF do you think repealing the 2A is for?  Just to tidy up the Bill of Rights -- getting rid of things we don't need? 

Repealing the 2A is a prerequisite toward banning guns.  If your wish / desire / goal is to ban all guns, and the 2A is the #1 thing stopping you, of course you want it repealed.  The two objectives are inseparable. 

I never said the two are "the same thing."  You obviously are just looking for straw arguments so you can keep arguing.

Not what I said 

The difference between us is that you presume to know their intent and of course you assume the worst intent. It's the same type of thinking when the left claims everything is racism.

Some on the left want all guns gone. Some of them want some guns gone. Some of them want the same guns but more restrictions on who can have them, etc. etc. etc. You can ignore that and just claim they want to take away all guns but it is incorrect and you are fear mongering.

There is an argument to be made that the current 2nd amendment be replaced with updated language. Replacing the 2nd amendment with modified language would not inherently be a step towards banning all guns.