Posted on 08/03/2008 8:43:28 AM PDT by Graybeard58
My hubby’s brother is in Idaho. I hope we can do as well as you have done. 3%!!! Well if the housing values go down, it may not be as bad. Time will tell. Maybe after our daughter(15 and homeschooled, thank God) is grown and out, we can get out of here. Thanks for the info. I had no idea.
I think the blood of a righteous revolution is far out of the question for the modern day American. He/she would far much rather spill his/her own in the name of socialist progressive.
Where’s the ACLU on this one?
Rape of Liberty Ping
How could anyone shoot at beautiful well trained women with M16âs?
Well, getting a warrant may be "due process" but taking private property and not paying for it is just wrong. This is about as bad as the "civil forfeiture" highway robbery foisted on us by the war on drugs.
Regards,
GtG
“how could anyone shoot at beautiful, well trained women”
Muzzies, of course!
Islam is the most misogynistic cult on the face of the earth. Muslim men hate and fear women. That’s why they hobble women in burkas. They hate and fear the natural wonderful seductive power of women which the rest of us both seek and celebrate!
Don’t forget their incandescent hatred of the Jews, based upon their unholy Koran (pigs’ grease be upon it).
A beautiful young Jewish woman therefore has to be an Arab Muslim’s ultimate object of white-hot hate. Think about it.
Regards,
GtG
Not that I personally have any.............
MOLON LABE
If so, what procedure should they use? Perhaps one that requires an investigation, a warrant and judicial review?
How is threatening a violent act not breaking the law? Are you certain no laws are already in place to deal with such an occurrence?
What problem could not be considered dangerous to an injudicious judge? Is Christianity a problem to you? Is being a Muslim a problem to you? Just pick what it is and there you have it; now you can take away anyone's gun for any reason you wish. Just law must be clear and precise when identifying a potential threat instead of throwing an arbitrary blanket over the whole rights of the governed thing. If you really feel safer with no legal guns around just move to Chicago.
lol Don’t hold your breath.
If by starts talking crazy(with or without the dramatic storyline you proposed) you mean he/she makes a threat to kill someone or to hurt someone, most of the time that person has broken a law and should be arrested for it, if there is enough evidence to warrant an arrest. Most laws on the books would probably not allow a person to posses a gun after that arrest, but that still does not mean that person could get one sooner or later illegally even if he had his guns taken from him and was arrested for having those guns. If someone is going to get a gun and kill someone, they will find a way to do it.
While the IRS allows you to sell one time w/o a capital gains tax on the appreciated value less purchase price and improvements. Wisconsin goes CA & NJ one better and charges the capital gain if you don't reinvest in the state within six months.
I had a friend from Ohio who lived in Racine and when he retired sold his house there and moved back to Zanesville. The state went after him for the capital gain, he fought it all the way up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and lost. He finally paid.
Regards,
GtG
Ouch! Exit taxes are just Un-American.
This “civil forfeiture,” or state-sanctioned armed robbery to be more precise, is an abomination. First, they used these unConstitutional tactics against those accused of dealing drugs; now it’s gun owners.
It’s not going to stop until we, the People, decide that the tactic is unacceptable in all cases.
If someone poses a truly imminent threat to others and the police happen to be present, then it is proper for the police to act since, among other things, most forms of posing a truly imminent threat are themselves crimes.
Further, removing one form of instrumentality from someone who intends harm to himself or others isn't going to protect those people from other types of harm. If someone is going to harm himself or others, the only way to prevent it is to physically restrain the person. If there is cause to do that, there's cause to do that. If not, there's no basis for disarmament.
But unless and until someone is convicted of a crime, it is no less than armed robbery for the state to steal their property.
I will pose the question directly to you then.
What would YOU do if someone showed enough emotional instability (perhaps due to life events and changes) that you earnestly believed that your friend posed an iminent hazard to them self or perhaps others?
Or would you do nothing and then after he does something terrible sit back and say that you know something like this would happen?
Serious question.
At what point do you intervene or get help with intervention?
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, if you the person does not break a law you see no moral or ethical way to intervene even if you personally believe that the person will either harm them self or others if left to their own devices.
In other words, the best you propose anyone can do is grab popcorn?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.