Um, I think you didn't my intended meaning.

My "example" was a squared (i.e doubled) backhanded attack on authoritarianism.

But it's not your fault - I'm no Mark Twain for sure!!!

Don't feel bad.  Samuel Clemens is no Mark Twain anymore, either.   

Once again you're WRONG.  Do you like to feel this way?

I am wrong? You are not free to stop responding? So someone is forcing you to reply to me?  Is someone trying to assasinate you?

I am wrong? You are not free to stop responding? So someone is forcing you to reply to me?  Is someone trying to assasinate you?

you sound angry.
are you okay?

EEF:

Probable cause is a test for ANY case if the police (the state) is about to deprive you of life, liberty or property.  It's in the US Constitution.

You already conceded the Bill of Rights doesn't apply only to criminal cases.  Why are you reverting now?

And since the state is depriving you of property, the constitutional protections apply EVEN IN CIVIL CASES.

I can repeat fo you a few more times, but i can't understand it for you.

You're replying faster than you have time to read ALL of my comments.  You're just arguing without taking time to comprehend what is being generously provided for you to incorporate into your thought process.

Until you start reading what others post more than posting the same rebutted arguments over and over, this will continue to be another shit show thread starring you as the main character.

Preponderance of the evidence is a higher standard than probable cause, so by default if there is preponderance of the evidence in a case then there is more than enough for probably cause.

I am not denying that the 4th amendment mentions probable cause , only that probable cause is typically surrounding criminal cases. There is a dispute as to whether the 4th amendment applies to civil actions though and there is a mixture of court cases as to whether the 4th amendment applies to non-criminal searches.
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/05-searches-and-inspections-in-noncriminal-cases.html


But lets go back to your bringing up probable cause in the first place, and lets, for the sake of argument, say that in fact probable cause was necessary to take someone's firearms under a red flag law.
The Hawaii red flag law specifically says:
"If the court finds probable cause to believe that the respondent poses an imminent danger of causing bodily injury to the respondent's self or another person by owning, purchasing, possessing, receiving, or having in the respondent's custody or control any firearm or ammunition, the court shall issue an ex parte gun violence protective order."

So what is the point of you bringing up probable cause anyway? The law says the judge must find probable cause to issue the order.

https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-10/chapter-134/section-134-64/

you sound angry.
are you okay?

I don't really get angry often. My response was playing on one of CMO's older posts

I wanted you to prove that there is a constitutional red flag law out there, which you have failed to do. It isn't hard to admit that there are none.

I do admit that most pizza's do have cheese. See how easy that is. And once again, another poor example.  "Stop arguing just to aruge, esp when there is an actual dispute that matters".  Are you implying that the dispute with red flag matters cause it is unconstitutional?  Because if it were constitutional that you claim, then it doesn't matter right?  Wow, you even show yourself to be wrong.  This is awesome.

Once again, you don't comprehend well. The "irrelevance" is with regard to you bringing up a restraining order in this thread as we're talking about red flag. See how hard to keep focus when you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole?  Haven't you been taught that it's hard to remember a lie?

Thanks for playing Jean.

Proving one exists is different than saying one can exist, that was the fallacy of your argument there.

Me getting you to admit pizzas have cheese is meaningless, that was my point... swoosh.

You argued that Hawaii's red flag law is unconstitutional because it lacks due process. I showed you the due process but you ignored it. Maybe blinded by bias, maybe not wanting to admit you were wrong. Either way it doesn't matter because you are determined to not recognize it as constitutional. It doesn't matter if I put it on a golden platter for you, you will just claim the same.

I don't really get angry often. My response was playing on one of CMO's older posts

You sound angry.

You sound angry.

Don't know what to tell you. You are mistaken.

Don't know what to tell you. You are mistaken.

you sure? just take a breath. Jesus loves you.

Don't feel bad.  Samuel Clemens is no Mark Twain anymore, either.   

Nice

you sure? just take a breath. Jesus loves you.

Now that's good sportsmanship!

Um, I think you didn't my intended meaning.

My "example" was a squared (i.e doubled) backhanded attack on authoritarianism.

But it's not your fault - I'm no Mark Twain for sure!!!

I apologize that I didn't understand your intended meaning.

I am wrong? You are not free to stop responding? So someone is forcing you to reply to me?  Is someone trying to assasinate you?

Yes you are and I posted why.  I know I am free to respond or not respond.  Why would you ask if someone is forcing me to reply to you?  Why would you ask if someone is trying to assassinate me?

You aren't doing to well buddy.

Proving one exists is different than saying one can exist, that was the fallacy of your argument there.

Me getting you to admit pizzas have cheese is meaningless, that was my point... swoosh.

You argued that Hawaii's red flag law is unconstitutional because it lacks due process. I showed you the due process but you ignored it. Maybe blinded by bias, maybe not wanting to admit you were wrong. Either way it doesn't matter because you are determined to not recognize it as constitutional. It doesn't matter if I put it on a golden platter for you, you will just claim the same.

Your first sentence makes no sense as you're unable to show one exist.  We went over this.  When I asked you to show one exist, you posted HI's one.  Instead of just saying "they don't exist.  But for them to be constitutional, I think X,Y, Z needs to be done".  You even went as far to ask me if I read all the ones that are law and I said I have.

So since your cheese example failed as I agreed, now you're moving the goal post.  Hahahhaa.

You didn't show me due process in HI's law. You showed me what you THINK is due process and you're wrong. We covered this already. You don't need a golden platter, you just need to be correct.  I have no problem admitting a factual statement when you make one.  See cheese example.

I apologize that I didn't understand your intended meaning.

That's very kind of you.

I likewise apologize for being the keyboard-equivalent of a chicken butt.

 - my filipino wife tells me this is a common insult in the PI, because apparently chicken butts are incessantly winking, just like some people are constantly jabbering away -

Filipinos, being curious, humorous, and highly observant people, must have been drawn to the examination of chicken butts at some point in their history, saw the connection, and a new insult was born.

Either that, or it's really, really, boring out there in the provinces.

Anyway - Have a Great Day Dude!