RE: All Hail the Second Amendment
December 5, 2013 at 6:27 pm
(This post was last modified: December 5, 2013 at 6:33 pm by freedomfromforum.)
(December 5, 2013 at 6:17 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:Again, your ignorance is showing. You know nothing of CA state law concerning "threats" that are made against people over the age of 65. "Guilt" is not a necessary consideration, and investigations into the accuracy of accusations are rarely carried out - there was no court case. The objective is to strip guns from citizens by whatever means possible... Including lies and coercion.(December 5, 2013 at 6:15 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: You are speaking from ignorance. I have a close friend who's mentally-ill mother WRONGLY accused him of abuse. All this kind man ever did was love and care for his mother. How dare you even suggest that he'd be guilty of something, simply because you have a suspicious nature. Her falsified accusation cost him his rights that are supposed to be protected under the constitution. That you are in any way an advocate of punishing someone who has done no harm surprises me to no end. Then, to suggest that someone is concealing some nefarious intent... preposterous.
If she was truly mentally ill, that would have been used in court to clear his name. That he was not cleared speaks volumes for your bias concerning the situation with your friend.
In CA, I can accuse you of assault and seek for a restraining order. I have NO NEED to demonstrate that you actually assaulted me. All I have to do is say that "I feel threatened by you" or that "I'm in fear of you" and you'll be handed a three year restraining order which will also prevent you from purchasing a firearm legally. This is your advocacy displayed... Lock em up! Who cares if it's true. If the law says so, he must be guilty. Blah blah blah.
(December 5, 2013 at 6:17 pm)Kitanetos Wrote: There must have been valid evidence of the abuse.You'd think it would be required, but sadly it is not. All she has to do is SAY it happened, and that she's afraid of him.