Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement

Started by HuntingVorel, September 05, 2019, 01:28:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

walkstall

Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 04:22:50 AM
"I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Good enough for me

And your not 90+ years old.   All you have to do is look at the United States Supreme Court. 

I have this bridge I can give you a really good deal on.  (Ruth Bader Ginsburg)
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Solar

Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 03:52:32 AM
Yes, from a constitutional perspective, red flag Laws are an infringement.
:biggrin:
Do you realize how silly that sounds? The Bill of Rights was not given to us by the Govt, no, WE the people placed it as a barrier against the govt. So in truth, Red Flag laws are, for all intents and purposes, Illegal.
The govt never once had any business cracking that Pandora's box, and now that they have, we have people discussing the efficacy of the govt.
How about this? Instead of discussing how much Freedom and Liberty your's or the next generation should give up, how about you start demanding the govt get the Hell out of your business and start protecting what little you have left.

QuoteHowever, what I can't get over is the precedent set by certain gun laws, particularly background checks.  If we allow infringements such as background checks, red flag laws just seem reasonable.

Of course they do, that's how the left wins. They take a little at a time till everyone just assumes that's the way it is.
Take the First, Freedom of Speech, written in stone, Right? Now think of the term "Hate Speech".
This is an encroachment into our Rights, because it won't be long before you will be arguing over "Precedent" as the left chips away at the First. "Well, it is hate after all, so it has no place in polite society, so I'll allow it.".

QuoteIt's an emotional conviction, but a conviction nonetheless. 
When it comes to our Freedoms and liberties, debate should never have an emotional component, unless you're fighting to retain or even restore them and willing to sacrifice life to preserve them.
How can one get emotional over giving up Liberties, you either stand your ground or simply give in, but concession is never emotional, it's cowardly.

QuoteYou would have to argue that we don't need background checks or show how entirely different red flag laws are from background checks (or how we could make them more similar to make good policy).
Why? Point is, our Founders knew an armed society would be a polite society. They knew that if every person guaranteed the Right of self defense, that person would be on equal terms with his fellow citizen, that people would always seek common ground.
They also knew that the thought of mass shootings would be damned near impossible.

QuoteAlso, I would say that conservative means a respect for tradition and the great things the world has to offer, and we shouldn't be talking about how extreme/moderate a "real" conservative must be.

Here's Conservatism, and pay close attention to this line, but keep reading, it's short.

"Conservatism is the absence of government control over the individual."

https://conservativehardliner.com/what-is-conservatism

One question. Why are you so quick to argue for concession to the govt, why are you working for the Devil? You do know, even our Founders hated the idea of govt, that's why they created a Republic.
Yet here you are arguing why we should grow govt?
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Solar

Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 03:55:26 AM
Thanks man, I figured this would be a better place to discuss politics than my college campus  :biggrin:
:biggrin:
OMG! If anything, a Hell of a lot safer. :lol:
I encourage people speak out on their beliefs here. It allows us to show the rest of our readership why Conservatism is the only option in the end.
And no, I don't mean Republican, the GOP is not anyone's friend. They are the reason the country has fallen this far.

Here's my take. :biggrin:

https://conservativehardliner.com/biden-asks-new-hampshire-audience-imagine-if-barack-obama-was-assassinated
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Solar

Quote from: s3779m on September 07, 2019, 04:38:13 AM
Since when is posting something a crime? Are you in favor of taking away freedom of speech also? My point is we do not need a red flag law, a concerned citizen can go to law enforcement now with what he sees as threats or concerns. What a red flag law does is eliminate the citizens rights. Every red flag proposal I have seen so far eliminates the need for a search warrant, or valid proof of probably cause in order to take property away from a citizen.  So we are looking at taking away the 1st, 2nd and 4th?  Just what exactly is the judge going to be swearing to when he says this?

This is the point I was making. Any new law passed, never reinforces our Rights, it almost always chips away at two more. As in this case, we suddenly have judges adjudicating on thought crimes. "Judge: "What did you mean by that"?
How scary is that? Being dragged into court so someone can decide just how much Freedom of Speech you should be allowed to retain? This is a perfect example of Slippery Slope.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Killer Clouds

Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2019, 06:12:12 AM
This is the point I was making. Any new law passed, never reinforces our Rights, it almost always chips away at two more. As in this case, we suddenly have judges adjudicating on thought crimes. "Judge: "What did you mean by that"?
How scary is that? Being dragged into court so someone can decide just how much Freedom of Speech you should be allowed to retain? This is a perfect example of Slippery Slope.
That's why it always bothers me when I hear someone from the GOVERNMENT say "Rights are not absolute. They have restrictions." Rights are absolute. The only restrictions they have are on the GOVERNMENT and not the people. The difference between a RIGHT and  a PRIVILEGE is you don't  have to get permission to exercise a RIGHT. Yes background checks are unconstitutional. Any and all gun control laws are unconstitutional.  The government has turned arms ownership into a privilege.

Possum

Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 07, 2019, 08:18:04 AM
That's why it always bothers me when I hear someone from the GOVERNMENT say "Rights are not absolute. They have restrictions." Rights are absolute. The only restrictions they have are on the GOVERNMENT and not the people. The difference between a RIGHT and  a PRIVILEGE is you don't  have to get permission to exercise a RIGHT. Yes background checks are unconstitutional. Any and all gun control laws are unconstitutional.  The government has turned arms ownership into a privilege.
:thumbup: :thumbup:

Solar

Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 07, 2019, 08:18:04 AM
That's why it always bothers me when I hear someone from the GOVERNMENT say "Rights are not absolute. They have restrictions." Rights are absolute. The only restrictions they have are on the GOVERNMENT and not the people. The difference between a RIGHT and  a PRIVILEGE is you don't  have to get permission to exercise a RIGHT. Yes background checks are unconstitutional. Any and all gun control laws are unconstitutional.  The government has turned arms ownership into a privilege.
,
It's beyond me as to why people don't read and understand our Founding Documents. The Framers were explicit as to the form of Govt they created, one where Govt was a necessary evil that needed to be kept in check and kept small.
Though the Dim party has always been a cancerous leech on the US, I blame the GOP for allowing it's encroachment via concession.
I just wrote an article kind of addressing this point, you might find it interesting, since no doubt you too have seen this over the decades.

https://conservativehardliner.com/biden-asks-new-hampshire-audience-imagine-if-barack-obama-was-assassinated
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Billy's bayonet

Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 04:07:28 AM
I agree that more gun laws tend to be slippery slopes but what you have described is what I think of when I hear red flag laws.  You go before a judge with evidence admissible in court, and depending on how the court rules, warrants may be given out to confiscate guns.

So why do we need "red flag laws" to do that when we already have laws covering i] threats to do bodily harm, [/i] or "Terroristic threats" or "Brandishing firearms", all of which have specific elements that constitute the offense not some obscure references based on someone's opinion or judgement.

Once again part of this slippery slope I reference is the complainants subjectiveness that I fear will be used as criteria for these "red flag laws" and I do not trust the judgement of my fellow man especially the leftists or the idiots they elect who go around calling Veterans "terrorists" NRA Members terrorists, Trump supporters terrorists or Nazi's or whatever the latest unbalanced rant happens to be.  What is going to happen is some leftoid jackass is going to see the NRA sticker on my car or my new Betsy Ross flag sticker (Which is now supposed to be a symbol of hate) and go running to the nearest police Station demanding "action' because obviously anyone who is a NRA member and displays the BR flag is both a terrorist and a hater who should't have guns. Or maybe it is the "Gadsden flag" (Don't tread on me) flag flying from my house my Leftist neighbor feels "threatened" by, or it's....well you get the idea from the dozen other scenario's I could provide.

I have concerns these laws will be used as a weapon to harass innocent law abiding citizens and we BOTH know that is exactly what will happen
Evil operates best when under a disguise

WHEN A CRIME GOES UNPUNISHED THE WORLD IS UNBALANCED

WHEN A WRONG IS UNAVENGED THE HEAVENS LOOK DOWN ON US IN SHAME

IMPEACH BIDEN

Killer Clouds

Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2019, 09:07:37 AM
,
It's beyond me as to why people don't read and understand our Founding Documents. The Framers were explicit as to the form of Govt they created, one where Govt was a necessary evil that needed to be kept in check and kept small.
Though the Dim party has always been a cancerous leech on the US, I blame the GOP for allowing it's encroachment via concession.
I just wrote an article kind of addressing this point, you might find it interesting, since no doubt you too have seen this over the decades.

https://conservativehardliner.com/biden-asks-new-hampshire-audience-imagine-if-barack-obama-was-assassinated
EXCELLENT. I have said for a long time the Republicants don't want to be in power and held responsible for their actions. It's much easier to  be the minority and blame the demonrats for the destruction of the American way of life. The forced acceptance of insanity isn't helping anything either.

Solar

Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 07, 2019, 10:59:56 AM
EXCELLENT. I have said for a long time the Republicants don't want to be in power and held responsible for their actions. It's much easier to  be the minority and blame the demonrats for the destruction of the American way of life. The forced acceptance of insanity isn't helping anything either.
BINGO!!! :biggrin:
As evidenced by Ryan's Omnibus Bill where they gave the Dims everything they wanted and more. Even Fuglosi said: "We didn't ask for all of this?" Then they tried to blame Hussein for running up the deficit.
Typical classic Establishment GOP Whores.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

supsalemgr

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 07, 2019, 10:10:13 AM
So why do we need "red flag laws" to do that when we already have laws covering i] threats to do bodily harm, [/i] or "Terroristic threats" or "Brandishing firearms", all of which have specific elements that constitute the offense not some obscure references based on someone's opinion or judgement.

Once again part of this slippery slope I reference is the complainants subjectiveness that I fear will be used as criteria for these "red flag laws" and I do not trust the judgement of my fellow man especially the leftists or the idiots they elect who go around calling Veterans "terrorists" NRA Members terrorists, Trump supporters terrorists or Nazi's or whatever the latest unbalanced rant happens to be.  What is going to happen is some leftoid jackass is going to see the NRA sticker on my car or my new Betsy Ross flag sticker (Which is now supposed to be a symbol of hate) and go running to the nearest police Station demanding "action' because obviously anyone who is a NRA member and displays the BR flag is both a terrorist and a hater who should't have guns. Or maybe it is the "Gadsden flag" (Don't tread on me) flag flying from my house my Leftist neighbor feels "threatened" by, or it's....well you get the idea from the dozen other scenario's I could provide.

I have concerns these laws will be used as a weapon to harass innocent law abiding citizens and we BOTH know that is exactly what will happen

Bingo!  :thumbup:

My bottom line on "red flag" laws is we have existing laws that responsible law enforcement will enforce if there is a legitimate threat. The previous poster said any warrant must go before a judge. That, my friend, does not guarantee a fair barrister. It is just another scheme by the left "get their noses under the tent' on gun confiscation.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

HuntingVorel

Quote from: TboneAgain on September 06, 2019, 10:13:45 PM
We've had red flag laws in the US for decades. They're called "child protection" and "domestic partner protection" laws. They are the most abused laws on the books. The new red flag laws won't be any better.
Can you explain how these laws are abused? These are great in spirit and intention.
"A man who has nothing to die for, is not fit to live" -Martin Luther King Jr.

HuntingVorel

Quote from: s3779m on September 07, 2019, 04:38:13 AM
Since when is posting something a crime? Are you in favor of taking away freedom of speech also? My point is we do not need a red flag law, a concerned citizen can go to law enforcement now with what he sees as threats or concerns. What a red flag law does is eliminate the citizens rights. Every red flag proposal I have seen so far eliminates the need for a search warrant, or valid proof of probably cause in order to take property away from a citizen.
I have the position on free speech as every conservative ever.  If you literally post on social media that you will shoot up a school, that is valid reason for legal action to be taken against you.  I understand that many red flag laws throw out concerns for probable cause and due process, but I'm talking about supporting the principle of taking someone's  guns when they say they will use it for illegal means.
"A man who has nothing to die for, is not fit to live" -Martin Luther King Jr.

Possum

Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 11:42:28 AM
I have the position on free speech as every conservative ever.  If you literally post on social media that you will shoot up a school, that is valid reason for legal action to be taken against you.  I understand that many red flag laws throw out concerns for probable cause and due process, but I'm talking about supporting the principle of taking someone's  guns when they say they will use it for illegal means.
There is already the means to report suspicious activity or any posting, or discussion that you might want to. But to act on that knowledge, law enforcement has to follow the constitutional guidelines, such as getting a search warrant ect. What red flag proponents are asking for is a way to eliminate those rights. So, let me ask you a question, why do you want a means to cancel out constitutional rights when there are ways to report any suspicious behavior?

supsalemgr

Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 11:34:22 AM
Can you explain how these laws are abused? These are great in spirit and intention.

Are you serious?

It is an open invitation for the left to take any minor complaint and turn it into a threat and a reason.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"