Red flag laws - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Red flag laws
in United States

By all4acttall4actt 59 Pts
red flag laws

I don't believe such a law is a bad idea but must be written so they do not ignore due process.

They should include:

1.  If found necessary start with an emergency warrant signed by a judge

2.  If the person is considered a danger to others they should be put on an initial 5150 hold (a psychiatric hold put on someone who is considered a danger to themselves or others). Then placed in a psychiatric facillity for the genrally 72 hour period where they can be assessed as to whether they are really a threat or if they need to be held longer for further treatment.  Not in a jail while the DA decides whether or not the person has actually broken any laws where the person will not get the best assessment or further treatment if it is necessary.  As has happened in the most recent case in the news.  Afterall, what happens after the person is released b/c non of his gun are found to be illegal and he is released back into society now probably even more angry.  Then I also assume they would have to return his guns to him b/c what legal basis do they have to gold them.  Whereas if he is declared a 5150 he would not be legally able to have those guns until cleared by a psychatrist.

3.  If someone is determined that the person is not a 5150 and all weapons are legally owned they should immediately return the guns to that person.

Yes this law could be abused and as inconvenient it would be if you are not a 5150, I think it is an inconvenience  that a person can live with for the greater good of everybody.

  1. Live Poll

    Do you agree

    0 votes
    1. No. I don't agree
        0.00%
    2. Undecided
        0.00%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    There should be 1000% Accountability for every single Gun in the United States, both legal, and illegal.

    But that type of accountability doesn't exist, and that in itself, is another loophole created by the Second Amendment, as it's currently written.

    That's been exploited by some of the legal gun owners, and the illegal gun owners, who have both used their individual guns, to commit their Mass Shooting crimes with.

    The NRA, the DNC, and the GOP, all three Political Organizations, should have a nationwide meeting before the eyes of the Public, and get the overall gun violence crimes situation in the United States sorted out, once and for all.

    Including the Red Flag laws, the 1000% Gun Accountability Measure, and if need be, the Death Penalty?

    So why shouldn't these three Political Organizations get together, and come up with a combined stance that benefits the Public, as a whole?

    The gun owners, and the non gun owners, that is fair, and equal, and represents the country as a whole?

    Or maybe the NRA, and some of the GOP, might view, such a nationwide meeting, as a negative, and balk at the idea?


  • So why shouldn't these three Political Organizations get together, and come up with a combined stance that benefits the Public, as a whole? Ex Post facto law evidence is intentional made the crime in the misuse of lethal force. 

    There is option of choice in accountability for every gun by 2nd Amendment, the delegation is made by/in the burden lethal force. There is no way to presume the 1000% accountability is not just theft as no-one is given the security of posted bond as a eminent domain payment for a suggestion of taking property for the common wellbeing. There is knowledge prior to lethal force use when asking for human sacrifice by loss of independence. 

    The gun owners, and the non gun owners, that is fair, and equal, and represents the country as a whole? The 2nd basic principle is lethal force TKDB not private property. The united state constitutional solution would to be open public Amory. 24 hour a day access for all people to firepower in the form of guns. Assault weapons, fully automatic weapons, high powered big boar and low caliber weapons, plus hand guns. The public armories should be conveniently located and offer ranges the provide practice and training.

    In basic principle or idea if prefer the suggestion made simply fabricates criminals as an excuse to excuse neglect of the burden of lethal force. As for Capital Punishment the basic principle should allow for several means to be used to accommodate the many religious implication in which a Capital Punishment can be given with respect and honor. This is only emphasizing that any punishment is simply by united state the most severe possible and cruelty is not the intention.    

    There should be 1000% Accountability for every single Gun in the United States, both legal, and illegal. Accountability is limited to 100%  so 100% plus does not exist and will never exist unless an assigned cot is placed on others, and there is no presentation of a united state on this issue, therefore any goal is targeting America not the United states of America. 
  • THAT flag is not just "red", it's red white and blue. Thirteen colonies that grew into 50 states …. under majority (democratic) rule. The majority wants something done about the slaughter of its citizens. Red Flag laws are just a start, but, radicalizing them, as above, would make them more trouble than help. Responsible laws that preserve the Second Amendment, but, make the slaughter MUCH LESS devastating is what most people are looking for. Ridiculing the attempt just makes it worse. We have millions of cars on millions of miles of road. Without requiring people to be licensed operators, and the cars to be registered and safety inspected, we would have a second, uncontrolled slaughter going on. 
    That's what the majority wants, the right to bear arms, the right to allow responsible people to "have a license", the right to keep radical vehicles off the road (like a NASCAR vehicle) and radical guns off the shelf (like an assault/mass killing weapon, that has its place, like the car, but NOT in the publics space)! 

    Listen to the majority, not the radicals. People have the RIGHT to LIFE.
    CYDdharta
  • @all4actt ;

    1.  If found necessary start with an emergency warrant signed by a judge. 

    A court warrant is not enough to insure the United State common defense to general welfare of taking private property. The purchase of weapon must be insured prior by cash bond as the risk of damage comes with such demands of releasing to person of private property. The buying of a gun insures that the people who buy the gun legally take the burden of lethal force with the fire-arm and those who loss the weapon can freely replace it without question after the weapon has been relived from their care. A person can buy a gun with receipt stating the gun is in new condition and has not been in use. At minimal the person can then have the barreling of the taken weapon redone to insure the pristine of state to lethal force that fire-arm holds.

    There is no reason to believe that a police enforcing law and not United State Constitution has any obligations to ensure while under control of second armory any property it holds remains free from abuse relating to lethal force. 

    by a psychiatristt.
    The United  State placed on the medical psychiatrist is unconstitutional in no uncertain terms meaning it is illegal. The constitutional correction would be to have a group of 7 to which one report is taken at random. Then be evaluated with a group of 7 people who are chosen from a community as if for line-up. Then the two reports are reviewed and evaluated by officials for posible charges of crimes that may exist against the united state of American Constitution.

    Unless under no uncertain terms 5150 means a person has been prove before a open court of law to be not bearing the burden of American United State union of basic principle and legal precedent, all weapons and ammunition taken can be purchased new from the bond. limitation and Punishment by use of cost has become a legal precedent in many states in the public address of grievance.

  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited September 8
    @AlofRI

    The NRA, and it's members aren't a majority, they are the minority.

    There are 329 million citizens in the United States, 5 million of them are NRA members.

    So the NRA, can use the Second Amendment, as they choose to do so, and the pro gun extremists can use the Second Amendment as they choose to do so.

    But they aren't they Stewardship, of the Second Amendment, being that it again, belongs to the entire Public of the U.S., instead of how the NRA, and the pro gun extremists use it verbally, or through their literary expressions of their opinions.

    Thus, the entire Public, has the right to life.
    all4acttZeusAres42
  • TDKB

    What does that have to do with red flag law?

    Everybody I think is already familiar with your hatered of the NRA and pro-gun extremist.

    Please stay on topic.
  • @TKDB Hmm. That's funny, you said the same thing I did.:D
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited September 8
    @all4actt

    "Please stay on topic."

    I am on topic, because I debate the entirety of the Gun Violence crimes, that are plaguing the United States.

    "Everybody I think is already familiar with your hatered of the NRA and pro-gun extremist."

    Can you provide some quoted statements, from those individuals, that you've alluded to, the "Everybody I think is already familiar with your hatred of the NRA and pro gun extremists?"

    Who are these "Everybody's?"
  • all4actt said:
    TDKB

    What does that have to do with red flag law?

    Everybody I think is already familiar with your hatered of the NRA and pro-gun extremist.

    Please stay on topic.
    Don't mind him. Even if you were to have a debate about apples and bananas TKDB would still manage to bring guns and the NRA into the debate; it's like the guy is obsessed with the NRA.

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • John_C_87

    You said>>>by a psychiatristt.
    The United  State placed on the medical psychiatrist is unconstitutional in no uncertain terms meaning it is illegal. The constitutional correction would be to have a group of 7 to which one report is taken at random. Then be evaluated with a group of 7 people who are chosen from a community as if for line-up. Then the two reports are reviewed and evaluated by officials for posible charges of crimes that may exist against the united state of American Constitution.

    This type of requirement would take too long in a emergency situation and most of the time by the time reports are made the police need to act quickly.  If someone is suspected to be a 5150 most states, I believe allow for at least a 72 hour involuntary hold in a psychiatric facillity.  If someone is found to be a danger to themselves or others that would automatically make that person ineligible to have access to firearms.  If after someone is deemed a 5150 having a panel of psychiatrist review findings and to present such findings to a court to decide whether or not the initial findings were valid that would be fine.  

    As for the bond idea.  That is just like putting another tax on something that would probably out price the general public from buying any firearms, which is probably your idea.  

    I can stand behind temporary removal of weapons while establishing whether someone is a danger to society but taking a backdoor approach to depriving all but the elite from owning firearms, I would never stand behind.


     
  • zuesAres42

    Thanks. I already know he is impossible.
    ZeusAres42
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    Are you maybe obsessed, over me?

    "Don't mind him. Even if you were to have a debate about apples and bananas TKDB would still manage to bring guns and the NRA into the debate; it's like the guy is obsessed with the NRA."

    How many times now, have you gone out of your way, to personally point me out? 

    Maybe the NRA is obsessed with the Second Amendment, reason being how reliant they are on USING the Second Amendment, as their own personal platforming argument tool?

    Maybe some of the pro gun extremists, are obsessed with the Second Amendment, by using the Second Amendment, as their own permitter tool, to defend their guns with? 

    ZeusAres42
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    @all4actt

    "zuesAres42

    Thanks. I already know he is impossible."

    I'm not impossible, I'm pro family oriented, and pro Public safety oriented, in the face of the gun violence crimes, that have been, and are plaguing the United States, as we speak.

    ZeusAres42
  • @all4actt ;
    As for the bond idea.  That is just like putting another tax on something that would probably out price the general public from buying any firearms, which is probably your idea.  
    This is an idea of law requirement otherwise theft takes place. That simple. It is said to be unconstitutional because a common defense is not insuring the tranquility to presented to the judicial law officers connection to basic crimes by their known principle and legal precedent, that remedy is easily shared with the public. No not tax, it is a payment to touch, then take personal property. Remember not all people need a gun to utilize lethal force publicly. The gun was not used in a crime, a gun is not illegal by law it is accused of a crime by law. In this instance legislation is not addressing a living object a gun is accused of being itself as manufactured. 

    This type of requirement would take too long in a emergency situation and most of the time by the time reports are made the police need to act quickly. Realistically the burden is not to be placed on one person making the call, seven people are asked without talking to each other. In this case a perfectional.  Hence the 2nd Amendment pointing out how actions of safety are a mater of indecencies and come at personal risk when looking for liberty from the use of lethal force. This is the reasoning behind a cash bond the governing legislation must buy the object to be confiscated/taken at the cost they helped create. The person once an object of lethal force has been taken does not need to take it back for any number of reasons.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch