Trump Backs 'Red Flag' Laws That Could Impact Veteran Gun Ownership

[roamer_1]

Your combination of arrogance and stupidity will cause the loss of your precious right.

Not without coming to take it from my cold dead hands.

[txradioguy]

Your combination of arrogance and stupidity will cause the loss of your precious right.

You need to take a long hard look in the mirror and take that statement of yours to heart.

[Jazzhead]

Not without coming to take it from my cold dead hands.

 

[roamer_1]

And I am by no means alone.

[Bigun]

And I am by no means alone.

That's a line that many millions will not cross.  Count on it!

[roamer_1]

That's a line that many millions will not cross.  Count on it!

Behind every blade of grass...

[DCPatriot]

That's a line that many millions will not cross.  Count on it!

In this day and age...unless they're raising carrier pigeons right now, it will be impossible for gun-owners to form cells.

I saw what Janet Reno's DOJ did when they wanted your weapons.  Kids burned alive.

We'd better not "...go quietly into the night".

[Cyber Liberty]

In this day and age...unless they're raising carrier pigeons right now, it will be impossible for gun-owners to form cells.

I saw what Janet Reno's DOJ did when they wanted your weapons.  Kids burned alive.

We'd better not "...go quietly into the night".

Those cells will form the instant the indiscriminate confiscations begin.  Our side will not draw first blood.

[Cyber Liberty]

Your combination of arrogance and stupidity will cause the loss of your precious right.

And I say your eagerness to trample the rights of others will cause the loss of OUR precious rights.  Yours, too.  You are the one lacking in humility and intellectual horsepower here.

[Victoria33]

@txradioguy

All because I just wanted to talk to someone to figure out a better way to handle a stressful situation. Now imagine if a soldier had been trained for PTSD...or a traumatic brain injury due to an IED in Iraq or Afghanistan?  Should they be punished after everything is good for a brief moment in time when they had no choice but to be treated?  What about amputees who have to see psych services as part of their treatment at a Warrior Transition battalion while they heal?  They...by the current text in the red flag laws are prime candidates for having weapons they own seized because they are considered "high risk".
Where does it end?  Where is the line drawn?

I will tell you as I worked counseling/testing thousands of people.  With universal background checks, your doctors will be contacted by the govn.  Medical forms you fill out or questions answered by you and recorded will be provided to the govn.

If one has gone to someone like me, they will be contacted.  Law said I had to give documents about a patient if he/she was sent to court.  What I did to protect a patient from what he/she said, was, I didn't write it down.  My memory was so good then, when a patient came the next week, I knew exactly where we left off the week before.  I had no document about what a person said.

Exception:  If a patient said he/she was going to kill someone, had a plan to do it, was going to do it, I was required to report that to law enforcement.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

All because I just wanted to talk to someone to figure out a better way to handle a stressful situation. Now imagine if a soldier had been trained for PTSD...or a traumatic brain injury due to an IED in Iraq or Afghanistan?  Should they be punished after everything is good for a brief moment in time when they had no choice but to be treated?  What about amputees who have to see psych services as part of their treatment at a Warrior Transition battalion while they heal?  They...by the current text in the red flag laws are prime candidates for having weapons they own seized because they are considered "high risk".
Where does it end?  Where is the line drawn?

I will tell you as I worked counseling/testing thousands of people.  With universal background checks, your doctors will be contacted by the govn.  Medical forms you fill out or questions answered by you and recorded will be provided to the govn.

If one has gone to someone like me, they will be contacted.  Law said I had to give documents about a patient if he/she was sent to court.  What I did to protect a patient from what he/she said, was, I didn't write it down.  My memory was so good then, when a patient came the next week, I knew exactly where we left off the week before.  I had no document about what a person said.

Exception:  If a patient said he/she was going to kill someone, had a plan to do it, was going to do it, I was required to report that to law enforcement.

Yeah it has the potential from the start to punish those as you said "had no choice but to be treated?" 

IIRC the same is true for soldiers who lost a leg or an arm and are doing rehab and recovery whether they stay on active duty or not after the event...there is some mandatory sessions with a shrink.

that can and beleive me will be used as justification to "red flag that soldier".

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

The decision in Heller has nothing to do with red flag laws.

I agree.  Heller is where the democrats will go to overturn your right to have a gun --- outside a state-run National Guard.

All Heller did was reaffirm what was already written in the Second Amendment.

This is really a split decision.  Many on the other side believe the Constitution means exactly what it says:   "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Despite what some people here claim...the individual right to keep and bear arms didn't just magically appear with the Heller decision. 

So says you and five SC judges.  What happens when it's them and five SC judges? 


@txradioguy

[txradioguy]

I agree.  Heller is where the democrats will go to overturn your right to have a gun --- outside a state-run National Guard.

They can try and they will fail.  They are under the same misguided and totally false belief that the roght of an individual to own a firearm started the day the Heller opinion was published. 

The fact is that it started a little over two centuries prior to the Heller decision.

This is really a split decision.  Many on the other side believe the Constitution means exactly what it says:   "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Who do you think the "militia" was when this was written?  Not being sarcastic asking seriously who you think the Framers believed the militia was when the 2nd Amendment was written?

So says you and five SC judges.  What happens when it's them and five SC judges?

It doesn't matter.  What matters is what the Constitution says.  And it says that my right...your right..even if you choose not to own a weapon...the individual right shall not be infringed. 

[Bigun]

They can try and they will fail.  They are under the same misguided and totally false belief that the roght of an individual to own a firearm started the day the Heller opinion was published. 

The fact is that it started a little over two centuries prior to the Heller decision.

Who do you think the "militia" was when this was written?  Not being sarcastic asking seriously who you think the Framers believed the militia was when the 2nd Amendment was written?

It doesn't matter.  What matters is what the Constitution says.  And it says that my right...your right..even if you choose not to own a weapon...the individual right shall not be infringed.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that Schools of Law are the biggest indoctrination centers in existence!

[Right_in_Virginia]

Who do you think the "militia" was when this was written?  Not being sarcastic asking seriously who you think the Framers believed the militia was when the 2nd Amendment was written?

I get this @txradioguy  … citizen army.  But you keep missing "well-regulated" and "state". 

It doesn't matter.  What matters is what the Constitution says.  And it says that my right...your right..even if you choose not to own a weapon...the individual right shall not be infringed.

See, this is the problem.  [Full disclosure: I think there are cogent reasons for allowing citizens to arm themselves] ….But, the 2nd amendment does not speak about individuals outside a well regulated state militia (to fight the federal government should it become necessary).  Again, these are the 27 words in the Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

One man or one woman wearing a black robe sitting on the highest court in the land is all that stands between the interpretation of 2A as a state's right to form a militia and Heller's interpretation that the 2A extends to individuals, absent a state militia.

Don't tell me the Democrat-Socialist wouldn't have a chance using the reversal of Heller to come and get your guns.  Don't you dare -- you know they will.


Think very carefully about throwing the baby out with the bathwater come Nov 3, 2020.  Very carefully.

[Cyber Liberty]

They can try and they will fail.  They are under the same misguided and totally false belief that the right of an individual to own a firearm started the day the Heller opinion was published. 

The fact is that it started a little over two centuries prior to the Heller decision.

VERY minor quibble:  The right to self defense has existed since the dawn of man.  It's a "Natural Right," not to be granted or rescinded by hand of man.

Who do you think the "militia" was when this was written?  Not being sarcastic asking seriously who you think the Framers believed the militia was when the 2nd Amendment was written?

It doesn't matter.  What matters is what the Constitution says.  And it says that my right...your right..even if you choose not to own a weapon...the individual right shall not be infringed.

I know the answer to that one...

[skeeter]

I get this @txradioguy  … citizen army.  But you keep missing "well-regulated" and "state". 

See, this is the problem.  [Full disclosure: I think there are cogent reasons for allowing citizens to arm themselves] ….But, the 2nd amendment does not speak about individuals outside a well regulated state militia (to fight the federal government should it become necessary).  Again, these are the 27 words in the Constitution:

I never understood this line of reasoning. How can militias form in defense of a free state if people aren't allowed to possess arms?

Will the state keep then distribute them at the appropriate time? It's not hard to imagine the dichotomy with this line of thinking.

[txradioguy]

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that Schools of Law are the biggest indoctrination centers in existence!

The law schools are the worst parts of any university these days as far as the indoctrination of young people against America...it's core values and the Constitution.

[Bigun]

The law schools are the worst parts of any university these days as far as the indoctrination of young people against America...it's core values and the Constitution.

Yeah! That's what I thought.  Good to know others see it as well.

[Bigun]

I never understood this line of reasoning. How can militias form in defense of a free state if people aren't allowed to possess arms?

Will the state keep then distribute them at the appropriate time? It's not hard to imagine the dichotomy with this line of thinking.

The part that @Right_in_Virginia and others here completely miss is the FACT that the 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT, not the people.

[Cyber Liberty]

I never understood this line of reasoning. How can militias form in defense of a free state if people aren't allowed to possess arms?

Will the state keep then distribute them at the appropriate time? It's not hard to imagine the dichotomy with this line of thinking.

Perzackly, which is why it isn't a "Predicate Clause," it's an "Explanatory Clause."

[Cyber Liberty]

The law schools are the worst parts of any university these days as far as the indoctrination of young people against America...it's core values and the Constitution.

That's true of all the Liberal Arts majors.

[txradioguy]

I get this @txradioguy  … citizen army.  But you keep missing "well-regulated" and "state".

In Colonial times there was no formal organized Army like we think of today.  If Washington needed to raise an army he looked to the state militias.  They were the precursor to what we now know as the National Guard.

But even then the individual was responsible for the purchase and upkeep of their own personally owned weapon.

So well regulated and state had totally different meanings and purposes when that part of the 2nd Amendment was written.

See, this is the problem.  [Full disclosure: I think there are cogent reasons for allowing citizens to arm themselves] ….But, the 2nd amendment does not speak about individuals outside a well regulated state militia (to fight the federal government should it become necessary).  Again, these are the 27 words in the Constitution:

Ummm yes it DOES speak to the individual.  Right after the comma where it talks about the militia and the state it very clearly says:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

It doesn't get much clearer than that.  If you don't see that then I'm not sure what version of the 2nd Amendment you're looking at quite frankly.

One man or one woman wearing a black robe sitting on the highest court in the land is all that stands between the interpretation of 2A as a state's right to form a militia and Heller's interpretation that the 2A extends to individuals, absent a state militia.

No it's not.  And it's very naive to think that.  All you're doing at this point is repeating the same jibberish that Jazzy is.  Why I don't know.

Again Heller didn't extend any right.  The right was already there.  Heller reaffirmed that right.

I suggest you read ALL of Scalia's majority opinion.

Don't tell me the Democrat-Socialist wouldn't have a chance using the reversal of Heller to come and get your guns.  Don't you dare -- you know they will.

They know they can't do it through the courts and they won't get it done by repealing the 2nd Amendment outright. If they could they would have either under Clinton or Obama.  Fienstien said as much in 1994 when the Assault Weapons ban went into effect.

So they do it through all these red flag laws and registrations schemes.  Or apply exceedingly high taxes to make it impossible for you and I to purchase a gun...which is in turn a defacto band and violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Think very carefully about throwing the baby out with the bathwater come Nov 3, 2020.  Very carefully.

Trump needs to do the same.  He's voicing support for these Democrat born ideas of gun control and on top of that he's got Ivanka in the background on the phone to Republicans twisting arms to get support.

Trump is playing with re-election fire if he does even a tenth of what the Libs want.

[Bigun]

That's true of all the Liberal Arts majors.

"Departments of Education represent the slums of any University"

Dr. Walter E. Williams

[Cyber Liberty]

Trump needs to do the same.  He's voicing support for these Democrat born ideas of gun control and on top of that he's got Ivanka in the background on the phone to Republicans twisting arms to get support.

Trump is playing with re-election fire if he does even a tenth of what the Libs want.

This is exactly how I said it to my Senator last week, for which I was accused of "bullying" her.  "Stand fast, or you will lose next year" is what I said.