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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.
Not once considering there are States that would refuse to enforce it, because they're smart, they don't want their police getting killed.

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

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..."   

Quote from: taxed on September 08, 2019, 05:26:46 PM
"Hollywood cops are wrong... and real cops are right..."   

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.