[FreedomNotSafety]

I am with Trump on this one. There is no one on this forum who would not take the guns or call the cops to take the guns when faced with a crazy person with a gun. I have a right to defend and protect myself.

[Garth Tater]

You're getting a little loose with the facts of your argument there SafetyBeforeFreedom.

Your original post made no mention of imminent danger requiring self defense and in fact you state that you have time to "call the cops" when gramps decides not to give you his guns.

Post #106: "If my grand dad loses his mind I will take the guns. If he refuses I will call the cops and expect them to take them with no due process."

But now your argument includes this new element of imminent danger requiring self defense:
"There is no one on this forum who would not take the guns or call the cops to take the guns when faced with a crazy person with a gun. I have a right to defend and protect myself."

This difference is why your grand dad still has his right to due process before his guns can be taken away. If he was in possession of a weapon and threatening to harm or kill you then yes, your right to self defense does come into effect (as does the police officer's when he comes to investigate) but when you tell us that you would "call the cops" if he refused to give up his guns then no, you are wrong.

[VictoryGal]

>I am with Trump on this one. There is no one on this forum who would not take the guns or call the cops to take the guns when faced with a crazy person with a gun. I have a right to defend and protect myself.

With a screen name of “FreedomNotSafety”, I’m surprised you don’t see the problem with seizing the property of the “mentally ill”.

You only need to take a look at the Left labeling anyone who is for gun rights and Conservative values as “mentally ill” to see how it would be a disaster to throw away due process and seizing not just property but Constitutionally protected property from the hands of someone deemed “crazy” by the government.