Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Political Discussion and Debate => Topic started by: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 01:28:23 AM

Title: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 01:28:23 AM
Up until a week ago I was under the impression that red flag Laws had relatively bipartisan support, only to find that politicians like Dan Crenshaw are coming under fire for supporting red flag laws, even under the promise that due process is maintained.  To me, it seems pretty cut and dry that if someone threatens violence on another person, and it can be proven that they pose a temporary threat to society, then it is reasonable to take away their firearms for a few weeks. 
It is my understanding that the biggest concern among conservatives was the potential absence of due process (making someone an easier target by disarming them) but if something happens that would prevent them from passing a background check, I think it would be reasonable to retroactively apply it to previously purchased firearms.
What do you guys think?
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: taxed on September 05, 2019, 01:44:18 AM
You are insane.  Of course its a Second Amendment infringement.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: taxed on September 05, 2019, 01:48:00 AM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 01:28:23 AM
Up until a week ago I was under the impression that red flag Laws had relatively bipartisan support, only to find that politicians like Dan Crenshaw are coming under fire for supporting red flag laws, even under the promise that due process is maintained.  To me, it seems pretty cut and dry that if someone threatens violence on another person, and it can be proven that they pose a temporary threat to society, then it is reasonable to take away their firearms for a few weeks. 
It is my understanding that the biggest concern among conservatives was the potential absence of due process (making someone an easier target by disarming them) but if something happens that would prevent them from passing a background check, I think it would be reasonable to retroactively apply it to previously purchased firearms.
What do you guys think?

https://conservativehardliner.com/i-dont-care-about-your-mental-health
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Killer Clouds on September 05, 2019, 04:36:43 AM
This guy is obviously dangerous. We should take his guns and knives and bats and rocks. We should take his car and motorcycle if he has one. We should take away his family and friends for their protection. Maybe we should just lock him up because he  MIGHT  commit  a crime. Yes red flag laws are unconstitutional. All gun control is an infringement by definition therefore unconstitutional.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: supsalemgr on September 05, 2019, 04:46:14 AM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 01:28:23 AM
Up until a week ago I was under the impression that red flag Laws had relatively bipartisan support, only to find that politicians like Dan Crenshaw are coming under fire for supporting red flag laws, even under the promise that due process is maintained.  To me, it seems pretty cut and dry that if someone threatens violence on another person, and it can be proven that they pose a temporary threat to society, then it is reasonable to take away their firearms for a few weeks. 
It is my understanding that the biggest concern among conservatives was the potential absence of due process (making someone an easier target by disarming them) but if something happens that would prevent them from passing a background check, I think it would be reasonable to retroactively apply it to previously purchased firearms.
What do you guys think?

Red flag laws are a ruse by the left to confiscate guns. Just who would the arbiter be to determine if someone's guns should be taken away?
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 05, 2019, 04:56:20 AM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 01:28:23 AM
Up until a week ago I was under the impression that red flag Laws had relatively bipartisan support, only to find that politicians like Dan Crenshaw are coming under fire for supporting red flag laws, even under the promise that due process is maintained.  To me, it seems pretty cut and dry that if someone threatens violence on another person, and it can be proven that they pose a temporary threat to society, then it is reasonable to take away their firearms for a few weeks. 
It is my understanding that the biggest concern among conservatives was the potential absence of due process (making someone an easier target by disarming them) but if something happens that would prevent them from passing a background check, I think it would be reasonable to retroactively apply it to previously purchased firearms.
What do you guys think?
Every law regarding guns is an infringement on the 2nd. Read it for yourself, "Shall not be infringed".
The better answer to the question of someone having arms is easily answered. If the law didn't impede on everyone's Right to bear Arms, then no one would have to worry about one rogue idiot because we could easily remove him from the gene pool.
This is what the Founders envisioned in a polite Society, and they were Right. What the Marxists want to do is whittle down the 2nd to the point owning a gun is damned near impossible and costly.

The Right way of thinking is to go back and undo ALL Fuckin Gun Laws and let society work out its problems like it used to.

I appreciate your POV, I really do, but you are approaching this from an emotional position. Just understand the Bill of Rights more clearly, it answers all the questions.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Killer Clouds on September 05, 2019, 05:13:48 AM
@HuntinVorel maybe you can tell me where it says "except for"  in the 2nd amendment  or anywhere else in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: midcan5 on September 05, 2019, 06:40:31 AM
I agree with the thread premise and would add what is the need for weapons of mass destruction on the streets and in the homes of Americans. I have to also wonder who has the money to use a machine gun for hunting?  In case they miss the first time they get two hundred more times? 

"Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well-regulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are not part of a well-regulated militia. Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state."  Molly Ivins

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/key-gun-violence-statistics


Every day, 310 people are shot in the United States. Among those:

100 people are shot and killed
210 survive gun injuries
95 are injured in an attack
61 die from suicide
10 survive a suicide attempt
1 is killed unintentionally
90 are shot unintentionally
1 is killed by legal intervention
4 are shot by legal intervention
1 died but the intent was unknown
12 are shot but the intent was unknown

Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Bronx on September 05, 2019, 07:09:57 AM
Quote from: midcan5 on September 05, 2019, 06:40:31 AM
I agree with the thread premise and would add what is the need for weapons of mass destruction on the streets and in the homes of Americans. I have to also wonder who has the money to use a machine gun for hunting?  In case they miss the first time they get two hundred more times? 

"Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well-regulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are not part of a well-regulated militia. Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state."  Molly Ivins

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/key-gun-violence-statistics


Every day, 310 people are shot in the United States. Among those:

100 people are shot and killed
210 survive gun injuries
95 are injured in an attack
61 die from suicide
10 survive a suicide attempt
1 is killed unintentionally
90 are shot unintentionally
1 is killed by legal intervention
4 are shot by legal intervention
1 died but the intent was unknown
12 are shot but the intent was unknown

Answer (which you will not) what does "Shall not be infringed" mean....?
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 05, 2019, 07:30:34 AM
Quote from: midcan5 on September 05, 2019, 06:40:31 AM
I agree with the thread premise and would add what is the need for weapons of mass destruction on the streets and in the homes of Americans. I have to also wonder who has the money to use a machine gun for hunting?  In case they miss the first time they get two hundred more times? 

"Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well-regulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are not part of a well-regulated militia. Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state."  Molly Ivins

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/key-gun-violence-statistics


Every day, 310 people are shot in the United States. Among those:

100 people are shot and killed
210 survive gun injuries
95 are injured in an attack
61 die from suicide
10 survive a suicide attempt
1 is killed unintentionally
90 are shot unintentionally
1 is killed by legal intervention
4 are shot by legal intervention
1 died but the intent was unknown
12 are shot but the intent was unknown
Why am I not surprised you'd pull worn out talking points, all of which have been proven to be based in less than half truths.
Take all of these stats, a majority of which are a direct result of leftists infringing on the 2nd Amendment Rights of the people.
Chicago alone makes up for nearly a third of all gun crime, while the rest all stem from leftist shithole cities, where the average person is forbidden the Right of self protection.

But the term arms were meant to allow the individual the Right to self preservation while fighting off an invading force, be it our own govt or invader.
Using a weapon of mass destruction served no purpose to the individual where innocent might become victim, that was left to coordinated attacks by companies of militia.
Though it is not written, this was common sense back in the day, something lacking in today's society, OBVIOUSLY.
Try some critical thought for a change instead of kneejerk emotional responses.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Killer Clouds on September 05, 2019, 10:06:05 AM
Quote from: midcan5 on September 05, 2019, 06:40:31 AM
I agree with the thread premise and would add what is the need for weapons of mass destruction on the streets and in the homes of Americans. I have to also wonder who has the money to use a machine gun for hunting?  In case they miss the first time they get two hundred more times?

There are no weapons of mass destruction on the street or in homes of Americans.
A lot of people have the money to use a machine gun for hunting.
Because of unconstitutional laws put it place 85 years ago it is extremely hard and very expensive to legally own a machine gun to begin with. It is also illegall to hunt with a machine gun. The 2nd amendment is not only about hunting.

Quote"Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well-regulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are not part of a well-regulated militia. Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state."  Molly Ivins

Molly Ivins has no clue what she is talking about. 14yo boys cannot legally own a firearm. Being in a well regulated militia also has not a requirement for a person to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. It is the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

Quote"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."

Obviously Burger was wrong


QuoteEvery day, 310 people are shot in the United States. Among those:

100 people are shot and killed
210 survive gun injuries
95 are injured in an attack
61 die from suicide
10 survive a suicide attempt
1 is killed unintentionally
90 are shot unintentionally
1 is killed by legal intervention
4 are shot by legal intervention
1 died but the intent was unknown
12 are shot but the intent was unknown

And?

Just more typical asinine troll BS from midcan5
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Possum on September 05, 2019, 10:11:10 AM
Quote from: midcan5 on September 05, 2019, 06:40:31 AM
I agree with the thread premise and would add what is the need for weapons of mass destruction on the streets and in the homes of Americans. I have to also wonder who has the money to use a machine gun for hunting?  In case they miss the first time they get two hundred more times? 

"Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well-regulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are not part of a well-regulated militia. Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state."  Molly Ivins

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/key-gun-violence-statistics


Every day, 310 people are shot in the United States. Among those:

100 people are shot and killed
210 survive gun injuries
95 are injured in an attack
61 die from suicide
10 survive a suicide attempt
1 is killed unintentionally
90 are shot unintentionally
1 is killed by legal intervention
4 are shot by legal intervention
1 died but the intent was unknown
12 are shot but the intent was unknown
again, the 2nd is not about hunting.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Sick Of Silence on September 05, 2019, 10:20:59 AM
How many of those shootings are from gangs, criminals, lefties commiting crimes and terror versus law abbiding citizens protecting themselves and others?

You can't include suicide. If they really want to kill themselves, they will do that. The method or tool used is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Killer Clouds on September 05, 2019, 10:42:38 AM
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on September 05, 2019, 10:20:59 AM
How many of those shootings are from gangs, criminals, lefties commiting crimes and terror versus law abbiding citizens protecting themselves and others?

You can't include suicide. If they really want to kill themselves, they will do that. The method or tool used is irrelevant.

The method or tool used is always irrelevant.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Possum on September 05, 2019, 10:49:37 AM
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/69099437_165384501294919_6505934490529955840_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_oc=AQlIC81D-IaJ2vL7P7wFOIomcjOZcopV1u0p-kyD_MQLS_-I22QG7T_S4fv69jxc_M8&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=e602707524913b4a938bb1f17b093b28&oe=5E033739)
And somehow liberals do not see the 401 by accidents, 115 from opioids, 28 from drunk driving, 11 underage drinking, 8 teen texting, or the 1778 from abortions. So are the liberals really about lowering senseless deaths, or are they just after gun confiscation? Personally, this liberal bull sh-t is really getting old.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Sick Of Silence on September 05, 2019, 12:21:25 PM
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 05, 2019, 10:42:38 AM
The method or tool used is always irrelevant.

That's what I was getting at. If they want to kill themselves, they will do it.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Killer Clouds on September 05, 2019, 12:27:39 PM
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on September 05, 2019, 12:21:25 PM
That's what I was getting at. If they want to kill themselves, they will do it.

I agree. I agree with you before.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: taxed on September 05, 2019, 01:42:32 PM
Quote from: midcan5 on September 05, 2019, 06:40:31 AM
I agree with the thread premise and would add what is the need for weapons of mass destruction on the streets and in the homes of Americans. I have to also wonder who has the money to use a machine gun for hunting?  In case they miss the first time they get two hundred more times? 

"Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well-regulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are not part of a well-regulated militia. Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state."  Molly Ivins

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/key-gun-violence-statistics


Every day, 310 people are shot in the United States. Among those:

100 people are shot and killed
210 survive gun injuries
95 are injured in an attack
61 die from suicide
10 survive a suicide attempt
1 is killed unintentionally
90 are shot unintentionally
1 is killed by legal intervention
4 are shot by legal intervention
1 died but the intent was unknown
12 are shot but the intent was unknown

He posted idiocy that's easily destroyed and ran away.  Is he a relative of yours?
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Bronx on September 05, 2019, 01:59:51 PM
Quote from: taxed on September 05, 2019, 01:42:32 PM
He posted idiocy that's easily destroyed and ran away.  Is he a relative of yours?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 02:06:40 PM
Quote from: taxed on September 05, 2019, 01:44:18 AM
You are insane.  Of course its a Second Amendment infringement.
Forgive my clickbait title, perhaps I should have worded it as "a good idea" instead.  My main argument is that Red flag Laws act like a second background check that can be applied should someone's behavior change.  Can you explain how red flag Laws differ from background checks in principle?
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 02:07:51 PM
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 05, 2019, 04:36:43 AM
This guy is obviously dangerous. We should take his guns and knives and bats and rocks. We should take his car and motorcycle if he has one. We should take away his family and friends for their protection. Maybe we should just lock him up because he  MIGHT  commit  a crime. Yes red flag laws are unconstitutional. All gun control is an infringement by definition therefore unconstitutional.
Like I said, the due process part makes many of these concerns unfounded.  Making a frivolous claim could land you on trial for perjury.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 02:10:05 PM
Quote from: supsalemgr on September 05, 2019, 04:46:14 AM
Red flag laws are a ruse by the left to confiscate guns. Just who would the arbiter be to determine if someone's guns should be taken away?
While this may be true, I still agree with the principle of the idea.  Just because we don't share the same goal doesn't mean we can't support the same policy.  Ideally a judge would be the one to decide, since they cannot be politically biased.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 02:16:04 PM
Quote from: Solar on September 05, 2019, 04:56:20 AM
Every law regarding guns is an infringement on the 2nd. Read it for yourself, "Shall not be infringed".
The better answer to the question of someone having arms is easily answered. If the law didn't impede on everyone's Right to bear Arms, then no one would have to worry about one rogue idiot because we could easily remove him from the gene pool.
This is what the Founders envisioned in a polite Society, and they were Right. What the Marxists want to do is whittle down the 2nd to the point owning a gun is damned near impossible and costly.

The Right way of thinking is to go back and undo ALL Fuckin Gun Laws and let society work out its problems like it used to.

I appreciate your POV, I really do, but you are approaching this from an emotional position. Just understand the Bill of Rights more clearly, it answers all the questions.
In hindsight it was kinda dumb to say that it's not an infringement.  It's obviously an infringement, just like background checks and near-bans on automatic firearms.  However, I would say that the majority of Americans (conservatives included) have little issue with these regulations.  I simply fail to see how red flag Laws differ in principle from a background check.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 05, 2019, 02:23:45 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 02:16:04 PM
In hindsight it was kinda dumb to say that it's not an infringement.  It's obviously an infringement, just like background checks and near-bans on automatic firearms.  However, I would say that the majority of Americans (conservatives included) have little issue with these regulations.  I simply fail to see how red flag Laws differ in principle from a background check.

Real Conservatives have an issue with ALL gun laws, which was my point about "Shall Not Infringe".
Point is, the Fed has absolutely no business in the matter, particularly SCOTUS and Congress, while States are another issue.
The Bill of Rights was an impediment to the Federal Govt, a restriction against them. That's why it was a stand alone document, without it, there would never have been a Republic in the first place.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 05, 2019, 02:25:42 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 02:16:04 PM
In hindsight it was kinda dumb to say that it's not an infringement.  It's obviously an infringement, just like background checks and near-bans on automatic firearms.  However, I would say that the majority of Americans (conservatives included) have little issue with these regulations.  I simply fail to see how red flag Laws differ in principle from a background check.
By the way, welcome to the forum. :cool:
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Possum on September 05, 2019, 02:29:26 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 02:16:04 PM
In hindsight it was kinda dumb to say that it's not an infringement.  It's obviously an infringement, just like background checks and near-bans on automatic firearms.  However, I would say that the majority of Americans (conservatives included) have little issue with these regulations.  I simply fail to see how red flag Laws differ in principle from a background check.
A background check is looking for"A prohibited person is one who:

    Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
    Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
    Is a fugitive from justice;
    Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
    Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
    Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
    Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
    Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
    Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
    Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a defined term in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)[21]"

  a red flag is just someone's damn opinion which by itself would not justify a search warrant so in essence if violates the 2nd and 4th. If what someone posts on social media is concerning enough, get a damn search warrant, convince a judge that what is a red flag is serious enough to take away that person's rights. And no, I do not know of any conservatives in favor of increasing back ground checks or red flag laws. 
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Billy's bayonet on September 05, 2019, 02:36:32 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 01:28:23 AM
Up until a week ago I was under the impression that red flag Laws had relatively bipartisan support, only to find that politicians like Dan Crenshaw are coming under fire for supporting red flag laws, even under the promise that due process is maintained. 


How, Pray Tell, is "Due Process" Maintained? 

This is my Main objection to "red flag laws", they are subjective and in my opinion PRETEXTUAL in nature.  This is a way for the left to attack the 2d amedt and skirt the Constitution.  And I speak from the viewpoint of one who served in Law enforcement for 25+ years ad Private security for another 15. I got many a "restraining order" as a private body guard and took lots and lots of guns out of the hands of criminals who shouldn't have had them as a sworn LEO.

In each of those scenarios I had to have Probable cause for an arrest or was willing to swear out an affidavit outlining PROBABLE CAUSE before a JUDGE or MAGISTRATE why I thought the person might be armed/dangerous or have access to an illegal firearm. Then I needed a search warrant... There were a few times when the Judge/magistrate didn't agree with me.

Before you throw your support behind any "Red Flag" law I suggest you read the diagnostics and proceedural steps that must be taken.

If the LEOs can just come and confiscate firearms or other weapons on the say so of 3rd party HEARSAY, unsupported by that complainant/witness sworn affidavit before a Judge/Magistrate, outlining the PROBABLE CAUSE that the persons is dangerous or had made specific threats or is about to use said weapon in the commission of a crime  then right off the bat that law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and a violation of the persons right to due process.

And in cases where such the aforemetion legal requiremets exist the Police need a WARRANT to look for SPECIFIC Weapons as described in the warrant, no fishing expiditions, no taking guns belonging to my son or my brother if they aren't part of that which I'm alleged to have done

READ YOUR 4th Amedt which deals with search and seizure and the volumes and volumes of case law dealing with the seizure of citizens property by LEO & you'll understand where Im coming from

Last but not least what is the proceedure for a citizens REDRESS for having their property returned or refuting the "red flag"....I better have a hearing and face my accussers in a court of law before a Judge or perhaps a jury if I so choose as entitled to by the Constitution, and if you are going to keep my weapons then you better charge me with a crime or have a Forensic Psychiatrist testify why Im a danger to myself and others.

This is the slipperyest of slopes


Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Cryptic Bert on September 05, 2019, 03:07:20 PM
The main problem with these ref flag laws is they are going to be like thought crimes. Some person in power will decide what a person was thinking when he posted something on Facebook
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Billy's bayonet on September 05, 2019, 03:18:06 PM
Quote from: midcan5 on September 05, 2019, 06:40:31 AM
I agree with the thread premise and would add what is the need for weapons of mass destruction on the streets and in the homes of Americans. I have to also wonder who has the money to use a machine gun for hunting?  In case they miss the first time they get two hundred more times? 

"Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well-regulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are not part of a well-regulated militia. Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state."  Molly Ivins

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/key-gun-violence-statistics


Every day, 310 people are shot in the United States. Among those:

100 people are shot and killed
210 survive gun injuries
95 are injured in an attack
61 die from suicide
10 survive a suicide attempt
1 is killed unintentionally
90 are shot unintentionally
1 is killed by legal intervention
4 are shot by legal intervention
1 died but the intent was unknown
12 are shot but the intent was unknown

I find it somewhat odd that leftists who are so ANTI POLICE, so ANTI LAW AND ORDER , so PRO CRIMINAL But Now they want the cops to run around and start seizing weapons on some largely unsupported hearsay.

Usually the left screams the loudest when the Cops institute STOP AND FRISK to reduce shootings and other street crimes in inner city areas which I suspect comprise the bulk of the above stats.

The left is always screaming about "unarmed black man" shot by police.
The left is always screaming about disarming the police.
The left is always screaming about the cops having "military style weapons and gear" which of course they say the cops don't need.
The left screams the loudest when the cops crack down on street crime because it is racist and targets black men
The left screams the loudest when the cops cooperate with ICE and get dangerous armed sociopaths  Illegal alien crime gangs like MS-13 off the streets because they are racist xenophobes dontchaknow

SO now all of a sudden the left are champions of Law Enforcement ad want cops to get "guns off the streets"....is that it midcam? Are you A champion of law and order? Really?

BS! I think you and your leftist stooge pals just want the cops to go after White people who have done nothing wrong and disarm them so they can't fight back.

You people must be terrified and desperate

Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Killer Clouds on September 05, 2019, 04:21:50 PM
The 2nd amendment is no longer a right and hasn't been since the first gun control law was enacted. It is a privilege that the demonrats are trying to take away completely.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: walkstall on September 05, 2019, 05:47:32 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 02:10:05 PM
While this may be true, I still agree with the principle of the idea.  Just because we don't share the same goal doesn't mean we can't support the same policy. Ideally a judge would be the one to decide, since they cannot be politically biased.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Bull Shit!!! The Dem's go judge shopping all the time.   This is the real world not your BS Utopia. 
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Possum on September 06, 2019, 10:23:29 AM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 02:06:40 PM
Forgive my clickbait title, perhaps I should have worded it as "a good idea" instead.  My main argument is that Red flag Laws act like a second background check that can be applied should someone's behavior change.  Can you explain how red flag Laws differ from background checks in principle?
Maybe this wil help with the red flag discussion.

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2019/09/06/court-ruling-terrorism-watch-list-spell-doom-red-flag-laws/
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Killer Clouds on September 06, 2019, 10:58:52 AM
Quote from: s3779m on September 06, 2019, 10:23:29 AM
Maybe this wil help with the red flag discussion.

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2019/09/06/court-ruling-terrorism-watch-list-spell-doom-red-flag-laws/

Since all muslims are terrorists they should all be on the watch list.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Possum on September 06, 2019, 11:03:13 AM
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 06, 2019, 10:58:52 AM
Since all muslims are terrorists they should all be on the watch list.
The point was the fact that the red flag was ruled unconstitutional. The same will probably happen to any red flag act which will try to take away guns with out facts to go on.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Killer Clouds on September 06, 2019, 11:25:05 AM
Quote from: s3779m on September 06, 2019, 11:03:13 AM
The point was the fact that the red flag was ruled unconstitutional. The same will probably happen to any red flag act which will try to take away guns with out facts to go on.
Agreed. The red flag laws are unconstitutional for a few reasons.

I'm not an attorney but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: carolina73 on September 06, 2019, 11:57:48 AM
Really? I see in the Constitution that the Federal Government only has the right to perform the duties that it was granted in the Constitution. I d not see where the Federal Government was granted the right to restrict your right to breathe, defend yourself with a weapon of any type or anything else until you have broken a law that would justify it.

They also have no right to force you to buy insurance or take part in Medicare or even Social Security. You can argue the merits of giving the Federal Government those rights but amendments have to be made to the Constitution to make it legal. Currently the Federal Government is out of control and has been for 150 years. The slow slide to destroying our Constitution has now put politicians in a position where they think they can burn it.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Killer Clouds on September 06, 2019, 04:01:13 PM
Quote from: mrclose on September 06, 2019, 03:20:10 PM
There are a couple of you that have very little education as far as our constitution goes!

Your posts are a testament to your ignorance!

Burger, as most of our self serving government 'elitists' are was a liar or worse .. Ignorant!
And for your information: The Supreme Court or no other so-called lawmakers have any authority to pass or enforce law that conflicts with the Constitution!

The ONLY reason that they have been able to get away with these "infringements" is because of the Ignorance of the people which, as I already said ... is on display here by a couple of you!

I created the following, Really Short two pages on the 2nd amendment and the myth of only having muskets during the writings of the 2nd.

There are no ads or popups on the pages and it will take all of 2 minutes to read through them.

(Pay particular attention to what Noah Webster had to say about the 'militia')

https://mrclose.neocities.org/2ND.html

EXCELLENT!
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 03:52:32 AM
Quote from: Solar on September 05, 2019, 02:23:45 PM
Real Conservatives have an issue with ALL gun laws, which was my point about "Shall Not Infringe".
Point is, the Fed has absolutely no business in the matter, particularly SCOTUS and Congress, while States are another issue.
The Bill of Rights was an impediment to the Federal Govt, a restriction against them. That's why it was a stand alone document, without it, there would never have been a Republic in the first place.
Yes, from a constitutional perspective, red flag Laws are an infringement.  However, 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.  It's an emotional conviction, but a conviction nonetheless.  You 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).  Also, 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.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 03:55:26 AM
Quote from: Solar on September 05, 2019, 02:25:42 PM
By the way, welcome to the forum. :cool:
Thanks man, I figured this would be a better place to discuss politics than my college campus  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 04:00:00 AM
Quote from: s3779m on September 05, 2019, 02:29:26 PM
  a red flag is just someone's damn opinion which by itself would not justify a search warrant so in essence if violates the 2nd and 4th. If what someone posts on social media is concerning enough, get a damn search warrant, convince a judge that what is a red flag is serious enough to take away that person's rights. And no, I do not know of any conservatives in favor of increasing back ground checks or red flag laws.
Absolutely, a red flag law being "someone's damn opinion" concerns me too.  My idea of red flag laws are like what you said: someone posts/says something concerning, so they are investigated and a judge decided the appropriate action.  Would you support that?
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 04:07:28 AM
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 05, 2019, 02:36:32 PM
How, Pray Tell, is "Due Process" Maintained? 

This is my Main objection to "red flag laws", they are subjective and in my opinion PRETEXTUAL in nature.  This is a way for the left to attack the 2d amedt and skirt the Constitution.  And I speak from the viewpoint of one who served in Law enforcement for 25+ years ad Private security for another 15. I got many a "restraining order" as a private body guard and took lots and lots of guns out of the hands of criminals who shouldn't have had them as a sworn LEO.

In each of those scenarios I had to have Probable cause for an arrest or was willing to swear out an affidavit outlining PROBABLE CAUSE before a JUDGE or MAGISTRATE why I thought the person might be armed/dangerous or have access to an illegal firearm. Then I needed a search warrant... There were a few times when the Judge/magistrate didn't agree with me.

Before you throw your support behind any "Red Flag" law I suggest you read the diagnostics and proceedural steps that must be taken.

If the LEOs can just come and confiscate firearms or other weapons on the say so of 3rd party HEARSAY, unsupported by that complainant/witness sworn affidavit before a Judge/Magistrate, outlining the PROBABLE CAUSE that the persons is dangerous or had made specific threats or is about to use said weapon in the commission of a crime  then right off the bat that law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and a violation of the persons right to due process.

And in cases where such the aforemetion legal requiremets exist the Police need a WARRANT to look for SPECIFIC Weapons as described in the warrant, no fishing expiditions, no taking guns belonging to my son or my brother if they aren't part of that which I'm alleged to have done

READ YOUR 4th Amedt which deals with search and seizure and the volumes and volumes of case law dealing with the seizure of citizens property by LEO & you'll understand where Im coming from

Last but not least what is the proceedure for a citizens REDRESS for having their property returned or refuting the "red flag"....I better have a hearing and face my accussers in a court of law before a Judge or perhaps a jury if I so choose as entitled to by the Constitution, and if you are going to keep my weapons then you better charge me with a crime or have a Forensic Psychiatrist testify why Im a danger to myself and others.

This is the slipperyest of slopes
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. 
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 04:16:01 AM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on September 05, 2019, 03:07:20 PM
The main problem with these ref flag laws is they are going to be like thought crimes. Some person in power will decide what a person was thinking when he posted something on Facebook
In a court of law, evidence is presented and a verdict is fairly reached.  "Threatening Violence" is not an arbitrary or subjective standard.  Very different from the "incitement of violence" we are seeing in current events nowadays.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 04:22:50 AM
Quote from: walkstall on September 05, 2019, 05:47:32 PM

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Bull Shit!!! The Dem's go judge shopping all the time.   This is the real world not your BS Utopia.
"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
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Possum on September 07, 2019, 04:38:13 AM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 04:00:00 AM
Absolutely, a red flag law being "someone's damn opinion" concerns me too.  My idea of red flag laws are like what you said: someone posts/says something concerning, so they are investigated and a judge decided the appropriate action.  Would you support that?
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?


"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
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: walkstall on September 07, 2019, 05:17:08 AM
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)
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 07, 2019, 05:57:56 AM
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?
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 07, 2019, 06:02:07 AM
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
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 07, 2019, 06:12:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Killer Clouds on September 07, 2019, 08:18:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Possum on September 07, 2019, 08:29:05 AM
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:
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 07, 2019, 09:07:37 AM
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
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Billy's bayonet on September 07, 2019, 10:10:13 AM
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
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Killer Clouds on September 07, 2019, 10:59:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 07, 2019, 11:20:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: supsalemgr on September 07, 2019, 11:29:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 11:34:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 11:42:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Possum on September 07, 2019, 12:03:37 PM
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?
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: supsalemgr on September 07, 2019, 12:13:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Killer Clouds on September 07, 2019, 12:17:18 PM
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.
If there is sufficient legal reason to remove the tools of a terrorist then there is sufficient  legal reason to remove the terrorist. What makes you think that anyone set on killing others won't replace the tool they choose?
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 07, 2019, 01:07:29 PM
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.
We have laws Re: threatening speech, though they vary from State to state. Evil words from another person don't necessarily constitute a verbal threat under the law. The difference between a criminal act and a lack of common decency are the specific violent nature of the threat and the creation of fear in the person being threatened.

Like: "I hate you and wish you were dead", as opposed to "I'm going to kill you and piss on your soul as it exist your worthless shell of a body. That last one is a viable threat the authorities can act upon.
The former is merely expressing ones hate, not a crime.

What you're advocating is a Federal law Re: speech, something our Founders made impossible via the First Amendment. How about we leave it to the individual States because it would be unconstitutional for the Fed to get involved.

I say all the time how much I hate Marxists, but that's as far as I have gone which is Free Speech covered under the First. If left to the Federal Govt "Red Flag Laws", that could be interpreted as a threat and constitute an investigation, further eroding our fragile Rights as they stand.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Billy's bayonet on September 08, 2019, 07:17:59 AM
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.

NO!!!!

The Proper proceedure is to have the Police Investigate the matter, that is where the "see something, say something" principal comes in.  It is up to the investigating officers to determine if there should be follow through.  And what that
"legal action" is.

If someone makes a threat there is a REQUIREMENT under law that the person have the immediate apparent ability to carry out that threat.  So if someone threatens to shoot up a school or burn it down or blow it up, DUE PROCESS would require the police to investigate, INTERVIEW the Person and those around him/her to determine if they have the ABILITY to carry out such threat. for instance, what if the cops find that the person is a parapaligic or blind or has some other handicap that would make their "threat" unlikely or impossible for them to carry out? More Importantly, what if they don't have a firearm....don't you think they can get one if they really want one....criminals can and do ad always will.

Lets suppose that the Cops find there is validity to the threat, the proper proceedure would be to seek the advice of the prosecutorial body, seek charges, that means an arrest warrant, or if a Juvenile a "Petition" and perhaps a search warrant for not just any firearms or destructive devices but also documentation, that would mean a diary/journal but also THE COMPUTER. Hold that thought to substaniate and help prove the allegation.

Now lets look at a few niceties under the law. Things like computers, journals, letters etc are NOT illegal to possess, if they are pertinent to the case, the police can only hold them until the case is tried and they are presented as evidence
If they are no longer needed they must be retured to the person....PERIOD. That is the law and an internal rule most police depts have.  Lets also say that in this case a firearm was seized, belonging to the Father or a brother or someone else in the family/household and LEGALLY OWNED, that person has THE RIGHT to have their property returned to them if it is no longer needed as evidence or not to be used as evidence.

Lets go back to my "Hold that thought" part of the slippery slope of not just firearms being seized, lets suppose these red flag laws extend to other personal property used to convey the threat or used to carry out a threat, that means your computer, your car, your expensive designer book bag and pricey samsonite suitcases, your mountain bike would you support a law that says "if you post a threat online, we seize your computer" ?  Well....would you? I guarantee you a person can do a great deal of damage with a computer, make more threats, hack and send viruses ad steal information etc and yes I beleive your right to freedom of speech extends to your computer.

Bottom line, you cannot and should not enact "LEGAL ACTION' against people for what you THINK they might do in the future.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: taxed on September 08, 2019, 02:39:28 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 02:06:40 PM
Forgive my clickbait title,
I forgive you.

Quote
perhaps I should have worded it as "a good idea" instead.
Still clickbaity... and inaccurate...

Quote
  My main argument is that Red flag Laws act like a second background check that can be applied should someone's behavior change.
That's sounds great, but can you convince the pre-cogs before Tom Cruise breaks down the door and slaps cuffs on me in the event I was just thinking about a cool new war movie script?

Quote
  Can you explain how red flag Laws differ from background checks in principle?
Yes. Red-flag laws take guns from you after you have them.  Background checks prevent you from getting guns.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: taxed on September 08, 2019, 02:47:55 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 03:52:32 AM
Yes, from a constitutional perspective, red flag Laws are an infringement.
You just admitted you could care less about the Constitution.

Quote
  However, 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.
Sure. We already shredded the Constitution, let's keep doing it... wwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!  How about -- just a thought -- instead we remove Constitution-killing laws?

Quote
  It's an emotional conviction, but a conviction nonetheless.
I completely understand.  I grew up with sisters and have lived with girlfriends.

Quote
  You would have to argue that we don't need background checks
No problem.  We don't need background checks -- beyond showing ID that proves you're an American citizen.

Quote
or show how entirely different red flag laws are from background checks (or how we could make them more similar to make good policy).
At what point are you going to shred the First Amendment as well?  What part of the Constitution is not acceptable to you for shredding?

Quote
  Also, 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.
Conservatives don't shred the Constitution.  It's a baseline protection against a tyrannical government FOREVER.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: taxed on September 08, 2019, 02:50:30 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 04:16:01 AM
In a court of law, evidence is presented and a verdict is fairly reached.  "Threatening Violence" is not an arbitrary or subjective standard.  Very different from the "incitement of violence" we are seeing in current events nowadays.

Is there a way to bribe the pre-cogs?
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: taxed on September 08, 2019, 02:56:23 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 07, 2019, 11:42:28 AM
I have the position on free speech as every conservative ever.
No you don't.  With people like yourself, the Constitution is in danger.  If you'll shred the Second, you'll also shred the First.

Quote
  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.
What if that person threatens to stab everyone in that school?  Or threaten to run over everyone in the parking lot and sidewalk?  Do they have to own guns to be subject to arrest?

Quote
  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.
Here's your dream scenario:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arACDYMiNuI
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: taxed on September 08, 2019, 02:58:09 PM
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.

Sure. We have people like yourself who let emotions make decisions (you admitted to this), and you vote and push towards such actions instead of putting your country first.

Also, you clearly hate guns.  That's fine, but that's no reason to let your emotion take away my rights.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 08, 2019, 04:28:22 PM
Quote from: taxed on September 08, 2019, 02:58:09 PM
Sure. We have people like yourself who let emotions make decisions (you admitted to this), and you vote and push towards such actions instead of putting your country first.

Also, you clearly hate guns.  That's fine, but that's no reason to let your emotion take away my rights.
I like this question for anyone condoning Red Flag laws.

Let's say the govt finally destroys the 2nd and gives everyone a year to comply and turn in their guns. Do they think those people that follow the law are the ones we needed to worry about in the first place?
Now that 90% of the populace is disarmed, do you really think gun violence will cease?
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Possum on September 08, 2019, 04:34:36 PM
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2019, 04:28:22 PM
I like this question for anyone condoning Red Flag laws.

Let's say the govt finally destroys the 2nd and gives everyone a year to comply and turn in their guns. Do they think those people that follow the law are the ones we needed to worry about in the first place?
Now that 90% of the populace is disarmed, do you really think gun violence will cease?
Your getting all the liberals excited.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: taxed on September 08, 2019, 04:38:54 PM
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2019, 04:28:22 PM
I like this question for anyone condoning Red Flag laws.

Let's say the govt finally destroys the 2nd and gives everyone a year to comply and turn in their guns. Do they think those people that follow the law are the ones we needed to worry about in the first place?
Now that 90% of the populace is disarmed, do you really think gun violence will cease?

They also don't consider, nor really care, frankly, about the violent attacks prevented by guns.

To be in favor of gun control and red flag laws is very selfish and inconsiderate of others.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 08, 2019, 05:01:36 PM
Quote from: s3779m on September 08, 2019, 04:34:36 PM
Your getting all the liberals excited.
They actually think law abiding gun owners would actually give up weapons without a fight. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Not once considering there are States that would refuse to enforce it, because they're smart, they don't want their police getting killed.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 08, 2019, 05:16:16 PM
Quote from: taxed on September 08, 2019, 04:38:54 PM
They also don't consider, nor really care, frankly, about the violent attacks prevented by guns.

To be in favor of gun control and red flag laws is very selfish and inconsiderate of others.
Stossel has a great video on this.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1169600270025854977
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: taxed on September 08, 2019, 05:26:46 PM
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2019, 05:16:16 PM
Stossel has a great video on this.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1169600270025854977

"Hollywood cops are wrong... and real cops are right..."   :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 08, 2019, 05:38:15 PM
Quote from: taxed on September 08, 2019, 05:26:46 PM
"Hollywood cops are wrong... and real cops are right..."   :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I quit watching cop shows 20 years ago, I got sick and tired of the PC BS and procedural lies they were trying to convince the public of.
I believe these shows played a huge part in making the public hate cops even more.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: taxed on September 08, 2019, 05:47:40 PM
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2019, 05:38:15 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I quit watching cop shows 20 years ago, I got sick and tired of the PC BS and procedural lies they were trying to convince the public of.
I believe these shows played a huge part in making the public hate cops even more.

No question...  Lately I've only been watching movies before 2010.  If it's a show or movie after 2015, I don't even consider watching it.  There's a few exceptions, but I've really been appreciating movies from over a decade ago.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 08, 2019, 06:35:07 PM
Quote from: taxed on September 08, 2019, 05:47:40 PM
No question...  Lately I've only been watching movies before 2010.  If it's a show or movie after 2015, I don't even consider watching it.  There's a few exceptions, but I've really been appreciating movies from over a decade ago.
Yep, it's why old Westerns are still popular, when men were men and women were still respected.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: carolina73 on September 08, 2019, 07:01:30 PM
I can't remember John Wayne saying "call 911"; while he hid under the bed like Obama and the Democrats would.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 08, 2019, 07:10:10 PM
Quote from: carolina73 on September 08, 2019, 07:01:30 PM
I can't remember John Wayne saying "call 911"; while he hid under the bed like Obama and the Democrats would.
Yeah, me either, considering his phone was a Six Shooter. :biggrin:
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: mdgiles on September 09, 2019, 04:51:51 PM
Quote from: midcan5 on September 05, 2019, 06:40:31 AM
I agree with the thread premise and would add what is the need for weapons of mass destruction on the streets and in the homes of Americans. I have to also wonder who has the money to use a machine gun for hunting?  In case they miss the first time they get two hundred more times? 

"Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well-regulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are not part of a well-regulated militia. Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state."  Molly Ivins

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/key-gun-violence-statistics


Every day, 310 people are shot in the United States. Among those:

100 people are shot and killed
210 survive gun injuries
95 are injured in an attack
61 die from suicide
10 survive a suicide attempt
1 is killed unintentionally
90 are shot unintentionally
1 is killed by legal intervention
4 are shot by legal intervention
1 died but the intent was unknown
12 are shot but the intent was unknown
You and your ilk need to be reminded that the shooting started in the Revolutionary War, when the Crown decided to subject the colonials to a little gun control at Lexington and Concord. Besides, speaking of the Founding Fathers, why in the world would you be willing to believe that people who had just fought an eight year revolt would be interested in giving their arms to any government?
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Possum on September 10, 2019, 03:02:01 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on September 09, 2019, 04:51:51 PM
You and your ilk need to be reminded that the shooting started in the Revolutionary War, when the Crown decided to subject the colonials to a little gun control at Lexington and Concord. Besides, speaking of the Founding Fathers, why in the world would you be willing to believe that people who had just fought an eight year revolt would be interested in giving their arms to any government?
Since he does not answer questions let me take a guess, liberals decided long ago, when they embraced socialism, that the bible and the constitution, particularly the bill of rights to be irrelevant. As a worshiper of global warming and embracing socialism as the true ways, they do not need a history lesson from the likes of us. We who do not follow them are low class heathens to be controlled not listened to. This job would be easier once the guns are removed from the law abiding citizens.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 10, 2019, 07:00:35 AM
Quote from: s3779m on September 10, 2019, 03:02:01 AM
Since he does not answer questions let me take a guess, liberals decided long ago, when they embraced socialism, that the bible and the constitution, particularly the bill of rights to be irrelevant. As a worshiper of global warming and embracing socialism as the true ways, they do not need a history lesson from the likes of us. We who do not follow them are low class heathens to be controlled not listened to. This job would be easier once the guns are removed from the law abiding citizens.
My money says he has a huge portrait of George Bernard Shaw hanging in his home.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:11:45 AM
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2019, 05:57:56 AM
: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.


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.".
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.
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.

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?

Thanks for picking this apart for me, it makes sense to me from a conservative perspective.  How would you argue this to someone more interested in government control? Also, what are your ideas on reducing gun violence, besides a rework of our culture to make it more God and family centered?
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:18:08 AM
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
While I can totally see this happening, I think that person would be laughed out of the room.  There's no way a judge would accept a simple flag as grounds for firearm confiscation.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:21:19 AM
Quote from: s3779m on September 07, 2019, 12:03:37 PM
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?
I actually had no prior knowledge of these programs.  Knowing that, I would be wholeheartedly opposed to adding more laws. I guess media outlets just want to say "GOP opposes common sense gun reform" since nobody actually knows about these.  Thanks for enlightening me!
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:23:02 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on September 07, 2019, 12:13:12 PM
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.
I'm more looking for specific examples.  Since our judicial system is not run by the Clintons, I just don't see it taking a minor complaint and turning it into a threat.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 07, 2019, 12:17:18 PM
If there is sufficient legal reason to remove the tools of a terrorist then there is sufficient  legal reason to remove the terrorist. What makes you think that anyone set on killing others won't replace the tool they choose?
Because taking someone's guns away and detaining them are two distinct levels of punishment and should be applied on a case by case basis.  Also, I'm not sure if just saying something threatening can classify someone as a terrorist.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:31:59 AM
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 08, 2019, 07:17:59 AM
Bottom line, you cannot and should not enact "LEGAL ACTION' against people for what you THINK they might do in the future.
Okay, but what if they specifically state that they will do something?
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:39:18 AM
Quote from: taxed on September 08, 2019, 02:39:28 PM
That's sounds great, but can you convince the pre-cogs before Tom Cruise breaks down the door and slaps cuffs on me in the event I was just thinking about a cool new war movie script?
Yes. Red-flag laws take guns from you after you have them.  Background checks prevent you from getting guns.
Then tell the judge the truth about what you're doing.  He'll see that there's no problem and send you back to working on the movie.  Also, both background checks and red flag laws are about keeping guns away from dangerous people.  Why should we care when that happens?
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:44:57 AM
Quote from: taxed on September 08, 2019, 02:47:55 PM
You just admitted you could care less about the Constitution.
Sure. We already shredded the Constitution, let's keep doing it... wwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!  How about -- just a thought -- instead we remove Constitution-killing laws?
I completely understand.  I grew up with sisters and have lived with girlfriends.
No problem.  We don't need background checks -- beyond showing ID that proves you're an American citizen.
At what point are you going to shred the First Amendment as well?  What part of the Constitution is not acceptable to you for shredding?
Conservatives don't shred the Constitution.  It's a baseline protection against a tyrannical government FOREVER.
Thank you for your take.  Are you actually fine with no background checks? I would say that the background check is a massively helpful tool in seeing who is a threat to civil society.  How else can we be sure that guns aren't going into the hands of dangerous people?  Also, never have I ever advocated for more restrictions on the first amendment, and no part of the constitution is acceptable for "shredding."  I'm simply saying that keeping guns out of the hands of those who threaten violence should be a pillar of civil society.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:52:30 AM
Quote from: taxed on September 08, 2019, 02:56:23 PM
No you don't.  With people like yourself, the Constitution is in danger.  If you'll shred the Second, you'll also shred the First.
What if that person threatens to stab everyone in that school?  Or threaten to run over everyone in the parking lot and sidewalk?  Do they have to own guns to be subject to arrest?
Here's your dream scenario:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arACDYMiNuI
Yes, I do have the same opinion on free speech.  That is, unrestricted unless it causes harm to others.  That is not "shredding it."
As for the point about stabbing and running people over, I can't say that I would be inclined to confiscate that person's knives or car.  I guess we can apply the same logic to guns, which is the only logically consistent position.  Of course, I would make sure that the person is under constant police surveillance, but I think you would too.  Well played, sir.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:55:55 AM
Quote from: taxed on September 08, 2019, 02:58:09 PM
Sure. We have people like yourself who let emotions make decisions (you admitted to this), and you vote and push towards such actions instead of putting your country first.

Also, you clearly hate guns.  That's fine, but that's no reason to let your emotion take away my rights.
I actually don't hate guns and plan on getting some once I pay my parents back for college (they have threatened to stop their financial support if I buy a gun or motorcycle).  My question was mainly asking for specific instances, maybe in the news or personal anecdotes, of current red flag laws being abused.  I just don't see abuse of these laws holding up in court.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:58:56 AM
Quote from: taxed on September 08, 2019, 04:38:54 PM
They also don't consider, nor really care, frankly, about the violent attacks prevented by guns.

To be in favor of gun control and red flag laws is very selfish and inconsiderate of others.
I agree, do you have any statistics on the supposedly rare "good guy with a gun" instances?  The narrative is so split among party lines that I haven't heard any convincing evidence about guns preventing or causing more damage.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Killer Clouds on September 17, 2019, 12:09:59 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Because taking someone's guns away and detaining them are two distinct levels of punishment and should be applied on a case by case basis.  Also, I'm not sure if just saying something threatening can classify someone as a terrorist.
If their is sufficient reason to take someone's gun then there should be sufficient reason to detain them. That should be the only reason to remove someone rights.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: supsalemgr on September 17, 2019, 12:14:05 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:23:02 AM
I'm more looking for specific examples.  Since our judicial system is not run by the Clintons, I just don't see it taking a minor complaint and turning it into a threat.

I do not know your age, but I my perception is your thought process is somewhat naive. I have been on this planet for 7+ decades and have learned that the government is run by human beings and they are flawed and MANY are corrupt. The judiciary is included and one only has to look at the ninth circuit to see what I mean. Liberals are masters at covering their true desires with "feel good" measures which seem very positive. For that reason I oppose red flag laws as another way to abuse our rights.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Killer Clouds on September 17, 2019, 12:14:34 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:55:55 AM
I actually don't hate guns and plan on getting some once I pay my parents back for college (they have threatened to stop their financial support if I buy a gun or motorcycle).  My question was mainly asking for specific instances, maybe in the news or personal anecdotes, of current red flag laws being abused.  I just don't see abuse of these laws holding up in court.
You don't deserve to own a gun. You have no clue why you even have a right to own a gun.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Bronx on September 17, 2019, 12:19:09 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 05, 2019, 01:28:23 AM
Up until a week ago I was under the impression that red flag Laws had relatively bipartisan support, only to find that politicians like Dan Crenshaw are coming under fire for supporting red flag laws, even under the promise that due process is maintained.  To me, it seems pretty cut and dry that if someone threatens violence on another person, and it can be proven that they pose a temporary threat to society, then it is reasonable to take away their firearms for a few weeks. 
It is my understanding that the biggest concern among conservatives was the potential absence of due process (making someone an easier target by disarming them) but if something happens that would prevent them from passing a background check, I think it would be reasonable to retroactively apply it to previously purchased firearms.
What do you guys think?

I think the question you need to ask yourself is.....why does the democrat media complex always talk about disarming law abiding citizens.....never criminals....? That should land you in a solid place with the "red-flag laws".

Name me one democrat or republican candidate running for any office that says while campaigning they want to disarm the criminals. You can't.....! It's always the law abiding citizens and the "red flag laws" gets these "democrat gun grabbers" to that place of disarming the law abiding citizens.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 17, 2019, 01:25:25 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:11:45 AM
Thanks for picking this apart for me, it makes sense to me from a conservative perspective.  How would you argue this to someone more interested in government control?
Thanks, glad I could help.

Educate them on our Founding Documents and why they chose a govt that was designed not to accomplish much, as in the three adversarial branches.
And read the Federal Papers. That alone will educate you on who and what we are as a Nation. They were written so the common man of the day would know what they were ratifying.

QuoteAlso, what are your ideas on reducing gun violence, besides a rework of our culture to make it more God and family centered?

It really is simple and our Founders knew that an armed society was a polite society. Restricting people from arming themselves creates the illusion of safety, but if people assume everyone may be packing, it makes one think twice before mugging someone.
I do not believe in background checks as it is unconstitutional. I do believe if someone violates the Rights of another, they should lose said Rights as punishment.

Again, look at why we have a Bill of Rights. It wasn't granted by govt, it was the people demanding their own God given Rights and a restriction against govt and the Right to certain enumerated Rights against the govt.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: taxed on September 17, 2019, 02:45:49 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:39:18 AM
Then tell the judge the truth about what you're doing.  He'll see that there's no problem and send you back to working on the movie.  Also, both background checks and red flag laws are about keeping guns away from dangerous people.  Why should we care when that happens?

I don't want to be on trial or have to go before a judge.  I didn't break any laws.

I still have no idea why guns are even in the discussion.  Please address that.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: taxed on September 17, 2019, 02:49:34 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:44:57 AM
Thank you for your take.
You're welcome.

Quote
  Are you actually fine with no background checks?
Yes.  Proof of citizenship should be the only requirement.

Quote
I would say that the background check is a massively helpful tool in seeing who is a threat to civil society.
I think it hurts.

Quote
  How else can we be sure that guns aren't going into the hands of dangerous people?
The same way we're sure knives won't be in the hands of dangerous people.

(https://conservativehardliner.com/sites/default/files/2019-09/jason_red_flag-min.jpg)

Quote
  Also, never have I ever advocated for more restrictions on the first amendment, and no part of the constitution is acceptable for "shredding."  I'm simply saying that keeping guns out of the hands of those who threaten violence should be a pillar of civil society.
Incorrect. You're advocating for taking guns from people regardless of how you slice it.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: taxed on September 17, 2019, 02:55:43 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:55:55 AM
I actually don't hate guns and plan on getting some once I pay my parents back for college (they have threatened to stop their financial support if I buy a gun or motorcycle).  My question was mainly asking for specific instances, maybe in the news or personal anecdotes, of current red flag laws being abused.  I just don't see abuse of these laws holding up in court.

In the end, it's the crime that matters.  In a society where the Second Amendment is celebrated and gun ownership is promoted, the life span of bad people with guns rapidly approaches zero.  Murderers go to their safe spaces to kill people.  They don't go to places where people open-carry.  That's because the mentally unstable are just stable enough to know bullets hurt.

I would focus on leftist policies that promote mentally unstable criminal behavior.  That would keep violence to a minimum.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: taxed on September 17, 2019, 03:01:16 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:58:56 AM
I agree, do you have any statistics on the supposedly rare "good guy with a gun" instances?  The narrative is so split among party lines that I haven't heard any convincing evidence about guns preventing or causing more damage.

There is no "narrative" split beyond "party lines".  That's a leftist response that allowed propaganda to bypass the logic-processing faculties of your brain directly into your memory banks, leaving you with the "feeling" that there's two equally valid opposing arguments.  There isn't.

There's reality and non-realty, regardless of what letter you like to cheer for.  If you're not familiar with gun owners stopping bad guys, or home owners neutralizing invaders, then I would suggest instead of me doing your work to influence your thinking, maybe do research on this topic yourself and begin to learn how to shape your own perspective.  The fact that you're not familiar with gun owners stopping violent criminals shows you haven't really put time into this topic.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Solar on September 17, 2019, 03:24:15 PM
Quote from: taxed on September 17, 2019, 03:01:16 PM
There is no "narrative" split beyond "party lines".  That's a leftist response that allowed propaganda to bypass the logic-processing faculties of your brain directly into your memory banks, leaving you with the "feeling" that there's two equally valid opposing arguments.  There isn't.

There's reality and non-realty, regardless of what letter you like to cheer for.  If you're not familiar with gun owners stopping bad guys, or home owners neutralizing invaders, then I would suggest instead of me doing your work to influence your thinking, maybe do research on this topic yourself and begin to learn how to shape your own perspective.  The fact that you're not familiar with gun owners stopping violent criminals shows you haven't really put time into this topic.
Case in point.

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/survival-tips/homeowner-shot-and-killed-3-masked-teens-who-tried-to-rob-him/msg384138/#new
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Possum on September 17, 2019, 03:28:15 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:21:19 AM
I actually had no prior knowledge of these programs.  Knowing that, I would be wholeheartedly opposed to adding more laws. I guess media outlets just want to say "GOP opposes common sense gun reform" since nobody actually knows about these.  Thanks for enlightening me!
Just a little suggestion, look up all the gun laws in effect for Chicago and Baltimore. Then look up all the murders for these two cities. If gun laws reduce murder why are these two cities at the top for # of murders?

Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Billy's bayonet on September 17, 2019, 03:50:30 PM
Quote from: HuntingVorel on September 17, 2019, 11:31:59 AM
Okay, but what if they specifically state that they will do something?

Asked previously and answered. Once again specific threats are for the Police to handle, if the person has the ABILITY TO CARRY OUT THE THREAT plus IF there is a COMPLAINANT of course they are liable for arrest. You realize of course that putting a person thru the criminal justice system is NOT going to stop them from committing crimes in the future. BUT the bright side is having a record for making "Terroristic threats" would prevent them from LEGALLY obtaining a firearm, so they'd have to get their gun where the rest of the criminals do....on the street, much easier than going to a gun store.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: taxed on September 17, 2019, 04:04:13 PM
(https://conservativehardliner.com/sites/default/files/2019-09/elmerfudd_beto-min.jpg)
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: walkstall on September 17, 2019, 05:43:07 PM
Quote from: taxed on September 17, 2019, 04:04:13 PM
(https://conservativehardliner.com/sites/default/files/2019-09/elmerfudd_beto-min.jpg)



:lol: OUCH!! :lol:
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: taxed on September 17, 2019, 05:45:21 PM
Quote from: walkstall on September 17, 2019, 05:43:07 PM


:lol: OUCH!! :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's one of my favorites...
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: carolina73 on September 17, 2019, 05:48:36 PM
Who doesn't know a woman in a divorce that they are sure falsely claimed spousal abuse, child abuse, rape, sexual abuse or a guy calling his wife a cheating whore?
These spouses and their families will be the sources for red flag claims. Lawyers will even encourage it for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Bronx on September 18, 2019, 07:16:32 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtYBfEdybSY
Title: Re: Red Flag Laws are not a 2A infringement
Post by: Bronx on September 18, 2019, 04:58:44 PM
This says it all about the "red flag laws". The democrats don't wanna disarm the criminals all they wanna do is disarm the law abiding citizens of the United States of America and I say shame on everyone who voted democrat because this is your fault for voting these fools in.

Oh by the way, the reasoning is a laugh out loud moment. Get this, the democrats fear they might make a mistake with the criminals and gang members but not with the law abiding citizens.

In 'red flag' gun bill, House Dems want to flag high-risk individuals; just not police-identified gang members

Last week, House Democrats advanced their bill to encourage states to adopt "red flag" laws for removing guns and ammunition from dangerous persons.  But in the process, Democrats rejected a Republican-proposed amendment that would have red-flagged individuals identified by law enforcement as gang members.

The Democrats' reasoning was that law enforcement lists of gang members may have errors in them. As the Washington Examiner notes, similar logic has been behind Republican objections to using the terrorism no-fly list for denying weapons purchases from licensed dealers.

READ MORE.....
https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/09/18/in-red-flag-gun-bill-house-dems-want-to-flag-high-risk-individuals-just-not-police-identified-gang-members/