The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Second Amendment => Topic started by: EdJames on August 12, 2019, 02:59:57 pm
-
If the innocent honest man must quietly quit all he has, for peace sake, to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be considered, what a kind of peace there will be in the world, which consists only in violence and rapine; and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors.
-- John Locke
If you are a serious American citizen that is interested in really understanding what is being proposed in the form of these "red flag" laws and other incursion into our sacred rights, I suggest that you take the time (about 45 minutes) to listen to KrisAnn Hall explain the truth about what is going on. If you don't have the time at this moment, open the video in another tab, and watch it at your leisure.
If you are a person that is interested in political expediency, I suggest that you also take the time to watch the video, so that you may better understand why you are faced with such vehement opposition by American Patriots that are making a stand to say "enough, is enough."
KrisAnn patiently builds a powerful case starting from the basics of understanding the primary source and essence of our Natural Rights, and our Duties to defend them. She uses the words of the Founders to explain the reasoning and thought processes that undergirds the construction of the Bill of Rights. She explains that the sole legitimate basis of government, formed by the people as a community, is to protect these Natural Rights.
She very patiently explains how these "red flag" laws are not merely an attack on our Natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms which is to be protected from deprivation by Amendment II, but that it is only one of a list of the amendments in the Bill of Rights that are being shredded. The others include: Amendment I, Amendment IV, Amendment V, Amendment VI, and Amendment VII.
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skd9lVofnG0#)
Key to the discussion is an understand of James Madison's “Property†Essay from March 29, 1792, placed below for your ready reference:
This term in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.â€
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.
Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an opposite cause.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his.
According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just security to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.
More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man’s religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favor his neighbor who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the economical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!
A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.
If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.
If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/property/ (https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/property/)
Learn more: https://krisannehall.com/index.php/liberty-first-university (https://krisannehall.com/index.php/liberty-first-university)
-
At the 8:20 mark in the video she cuts to the chase! "How do you propose to protect rights if you don't even know what those rights are?" Paraphrasing I'm sure but that's the gist of it.
-
"What we don't know will enslave our children." KrisAnne Hall June, 2019
To which I say :amen:
-
@Bigun
Replying to both of your posts above.
That is why it is so vital, at this late hour, for all of us to understand the essence of these attacks. Whether they are coming from the true marxists as the next step of their plan, or from those that are merely ignorant and are placing political expediency above all.
Is it too late? I don't know, but we will never find out if we don't start trying!!
-
"What we don't know will enslave our children." KrisAnne Hall June, 2019
To which I say :amen:
I do too!
-
@Bigun
Replying to both of your posts above.
That is why it is so vital, at this late hour, for all of us to understand the essence of these attacks. Whether they are coming from the true marxists as the next step of their plan, or from those that are merely ignorant and are placing political expediency above all.
Is it too late? I don't know, but we will never find out if we don't start trying!!
For God's sake man! Why do you think I have spent so much of my time and treasuer trying to educate people about the Marxist Income tax and the IRS @EdJames?
(I know that you weren't directing that solely at me.)
I love KrisAnne but I just can't listen to her speak. Her voice is so high pitched and my hearing is so bad now. Nothing to do with what she is saying.
-
For God's sake man! Why do you think I have spent so much of my time and treasuer trying to educate people about the Marxist Income tax and the IRS @EdJames?
(I know that you weren't directing that solely at me.)
I love KrisAnne but I just can't listen to her speak. Her voice is so high pitched and my hearing is so bad now. Nothing to do with what she is saying.
@Bigun, you probably already know this, but just in case, you can go to the little settings icon in the Youtube and listen to it at a slower speed which brings her voice down to comprehensible.
-
For God's sake man! Why do you think I have spent so much of my time and treasuer trying to educate people about the Marxist Income tax and the IRS @EdJames?
(I know that you weren't directing that solely at me.)
I love KrisAnne but I just can't listen to her speak. Her voice is so high pitched and my hearing is so bad now. Nothing to do with what she is saying.
Ahh, not directing that you at all! It is my habit to riff off of others' posts to further the conversation.
Sorry that you are unable to listen to her speak, but without any sense of hyperbole, YOU could have written her script for her; I am sure that it doesn't contain much that you haven't already heard...
Hopefully others will not have similar problems with her voice.
-
The population is woefully ignorant of history and our founding documents. KrisAnne is right about that. Thanks for the post @EdJames
-
How can anyone not realize that red flag laws not only impact the 2A, but Amendment I, Amendment IV, Amendment V, Amendment VI, and Amendment VII???
I've said it before; ALL of our rights our dependent upon the Second Amendment. If we lose the Second Amendment, what is to stop Big Brother from stripping us of our other rights?
How do people not see this??
I am still convinced that these mass shootings were in some way orchestrated by the left in order to start dismantling the 2A. If anything, they are promoting fear. They themselves have promoted and condoned protests, uprisings, smear tactics, etc., against conservatism, patriotism, exceptionalism, and our Constitution.
-
@Bigun, you probably already know this, but just in case, you can go to the little settings icon in the Youtube and listen to it at a slower speed which brings her voice down to comprehensible.
Actually, I did NOT know that @Sanguine. Thanks for the tip!
-
@Bigun
Replying to both of your posts above.
That is why it is so vital, at this late hour, for all of us to understand the essence of these attacks. Whether they are coming from the true marxists as the next step of their plan, or from those that are merely ignorant and are placing political expediency above all.
Is it too late? I don't know, but we will never find out if we don't start trying!!
Good video. Thanks! 888high58888
-
Ahh, not directing that you at all! It is my habit to riff off of others' posts to further the conversation.
Sorry that you are unable to listen to her speak, but without any sense of hyperbole, YOU could have written her script for her; I am sure that it doesn't contain much that you haven't already heard...
Hopefully others will not have similar problems with her voice.
Thanks @EdJames! You are much too kind. I also hope her message gets widely disseminated because it damned well needs to be.
-
The population is woefully ignorant of history and our founding documents. KrisAnne is right about that. Thanks for the post @EdJames
Oh hell yes! And that is FAR from accidental @austingirl.
-
"What we don't know will enslave our children." KrisAnne Hall June, 2019
To which I say :amen:
Hah! If you truly believe that the 2A is the bulwark that secures our freedoms, then don't do stupid stuff that will result in the demise of the 2A.
Too many here are too stubborn to believe it, but the individual RKBA - the right that secures your natural right to defend you person and your personal property - exists by reason of a 5-4 SCOTUS majority. That's it. That's all. The decision affirming the individual right was joined by each conservative SCOTUS member, and rejected by every liberal one.
There is no question in my mind that if a Dem President and Senate is elected in 2020, and Clarence Thomas or another conservative steps down, then the Heller decision will be overturned and the 2A interpreted to not secure the individual right. States will be free to ban whole classes of weapons and otherwise prohibit that what you take for granted now. That is what is at stake in this election. And yet many are promising to stay home if the President, in reaction to a wave of mass shootings, dares to support doing something about it that would inconvenience gun owners in a minor way.
Gun owners have the political clout to secure the Presidency for the Democrats, and some appear willing and even eager to do that. But you do so at your peril. Your rights hang by a thread.
Don't be fools
-
Hah! If you truly believe that the 2A is the bulwark that secures our freedoms, then don't do stupid stuff that will result in the demise of the 2A.
Too many here are too stubborn to believe it, but the individual RKBA - the right that secures your natural right to defend you person and your personal property - exists by reason of a 5-4 SCOTUS majority. That's it. That's all. The decision affirming the individual right was joined by each conservative SCOTUS member, and rejected by every liberal one.
There is no question in my mind that if a Dem President and Senate is elected in 2020, and Clarence Thomas or another conservative steps down, then the Heller decision will be overturned and the 2A interpreted to not secure the individual right. States will be free to ban whole classes of weapons and otherwise prohibit that what you take for granted now. That is what is at stake in this election. And yet many are promising to stay home if the President, in reaction to a wave of mass shootings, dares to support doing something about it that would inconvenience gun owners in a minor way.
Gun owners have the political clout to secure the Presidency for the Democrats, and some appear willing and even eager to do that. But you do so at your peril. Your rights hang by a thread.
Don't be fools
I'm not going round and round the mulberry bush with you on this thread @Jazzhead! <Personal insult removed> and almost everyone here knows it.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/67742118_2463809650349699_6189002647530373120_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQnv8FxL7eeVjIOIUKXeGu5PI5FvKGPtxw6oQhS96Etr_DoeenDMZ7W18HPq1LlUqyc&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=91bf87995d3bf59df117bad6cb5cde70&oe=5DE7F531)
-
I'm not going round and round the mulberry bush with you on this thread @Jazzhead! YOU are FOS and almost everyone here knows it.
<Personal insult and trolling removed>
-
<Personal insult and trolling removed>
Your opinion is noted and fully rejected. Please don't bother defending anything on behalf of fools like me! We will muddle along without it!
-
How can anyone not realize that red flag laws not only impact the 2A, but Amendment I, Amendment IV, Amendment V, Amendment VI, and Amendment VII???
@libertybele
Because the way they are framed is designed as an appeal to emotions over common sense. Ignore what you see and go with what you feel based off the emotional appeal we're presenting to you.
-
The population is woefully ignorant of history and our founding documents. KrisAnne is right about that. Thanks for the post @EdJames
888high58888
-
Good video. Thanks! 888high58888
Share it far and wide!!
888high58888
-
Hah! If you truly believe that the 2A is the bulwark that secures our freedoms, then don't do stupid stuff that will result in the demise of the 2A.
Too many here are too stubborn to believe it, but the individual RKBA - the right that secures your natural right to defend you person and your personal property - exists by reason of a 5-4 SCOTUS majority. That's it. That's all. The decision affirming the individual right was joined by each conservative SCOTUS member, and rejected by every liberal one.
There is no question in my mind that if a Dem President and Senate is elected in 2020, and Clarence Thomas or another conservative steps down, then the Heller decision will be overturned and the 2A interpreted to not secure the individual right. States will be free to ban whole classes of weapons and otherwise prohibit that what you take for granted now. That is what is at stake in this election. And yet many are promising to stay home if the President, in reaction to a wave of mass shootings, dares to support doing something about it that would inconvenience gun owners in a minor way.
Gun owners have the political clout to secure the Presidency for the Democrats, and some appear willing and even eager to do that. But you do so at your peril. Your rights hang by a thread.
Don't be fools
Exactly. Don't be a fool @Jazzhead to not understand that the very people promoting red flag laws are the liberals who want to take away gun rights and impose gun confiscation that WILL enable them to collapse this Republic.
As for my response to you suggesting that I not vote my conscience -- well, I can't respond as I'd like -- it's not allowed in this forum. 888mouth
-
Thanks @EdJames! You are much too kind. I also hope her message gets widely disseminated because it damned well needs to be.
You know me, I call a "spade," a "spade!"
-
How can anyone not realize that red flag laws not only impact the 2A, but Amendment I, Amendment IV, Amendment V, Amendment VI, and Amendment VII???
I've said it before; ALL of our rights our dependent upon the Second Amendment. If we lose the Second Amendment, what is to stop Big Brother from stripping us of our other rights?
How do people not see this??
I am still convinced that these mass shootings were in some way orchestrated by the left in order to start dismantling the 2A. If anything, they are promoting fear. They themselves have promoted and condoned protests, uprisings, smear tactics, etc., against conservatism, patriotism, exceptionalism, and our Constitution.
Because all of the knowledge and wisdom that our Founders insisted that we retain as a citizenry has long been flushed down the drain (deliberately!).
@libertybele
-
@libertybele
Because the way they are framed is designed as an appeal to emotions over common sense. Ignore what you see and go with what you feel based off the emotional appeal we're presenting to you.
We are seeing far too much of that, @txradioguy. Time for this nation (including the POTUS) to snap the hell out of it!!
**nononono*
-
Because all of the knowledge and wisdom that our Founders insisted that we retain as a citizenry has long been flushed down the drain (deliberately!).
@libertybele
:yowsa: pointing-up
-
@EdJames
This chick is TEA Party HAWT.
My brother is gonna get this link.
Thank you!
-
We are seeing far too much of that, @txradioguy. Time for this nation (including the POTUS) to snap the hell out of it!!
**nononono*
I agree completely. Emotional appeals have always worked on Liberals because almost all of their arguments are based on emotions and feelings rather than common sense and real outcomes.
The more we on the right go along with those kind of feel good huggybear types of BS...the more we'll give the left what they want until they have it all and we have nothing.
-
@EdJames
This chick is TEA Party HAWT.
My brother is gonna get this link.
Thank you!
888high58888
-
I agree completely. Emotional appeals have always worked on Liberals because almost all of their arguments are based on emotions and feelings rather than common sense and real outcomes.
The more we on the right go along with those kind of feel good huggybear types of BS...the more we'll give the left what they want until they have it all and we have nothing.
That is what they are running with full-force now... it must be stopped.
-
Exactly. Don't be a fool @Jazzhead to not understand that the very people promoting red flag laws are the liberals who want to take away gun rights and impose gun confiscation that WILL enable them to collapse this Republic.
David French and Andrew McCarthy are not "liberals who want to take away [your] gun rights". Each supports red flag laws that are protective of gun owners' due process rights.
-
David French and Andrew McCarthy are not "liberals who want to take away [your] gun rights". Each supports red flag laws that are protective of gun owners' due process rights.
And, each are wrong on this issue. We're all wrong sometimes. This is their time.
-
David French and Andrew McCarthy are not "liberals who want to take away [your] gun rights". Each supports red flag laws that are protective of gun owners' due process rights.
There's not a red flag law being suggested out there right now that can guarantee that. If there is no legit psych eval before the guns are taken...if there isn't a chance to plead your case to a judge before your guns are taken away...then there is no protection to the gun owner under either the 4th or 5th Amendment.
And the only way any red flag law will every be effective is if there is a national registration data base. Which is the real goal of these laws.
-
And, each are wrong on this issue. We're all wrong sometimes. This is their time.
Feel free to disagree. But they are conservatives, and plenty of us support doing something about mass shootings.
-
David French and Andrew McCarthy are not "liberals who want to take away [your] gun rights". Each supports red flag laws that are protective of gun owners' due process rights.
I would likely support a red flag law that includes sufficient due process and the ability to appeal, but only if it removes the individual from society. I will not support a red flag law that focus on removing the legal guns while free to choose any other method to kill and harm others.
If locking up or committing the individual to mental health treatment is too large a hurdle to cross, the standard should be no less for taking away constitutional rights.
-
Feel free to disagree. But they are conservatives, and plenty of us support doing something about mass shootings.
Nothing you or any other gun grabbers have proposed would have stopped any of the mass shootings in the last 50 years.
Yet there you are...still insisting we need to do "something".
How about before you so gleefully decided that MY guns need to go...you work on having some psych hospitals built or reopened to take care of those with real mental issues and to house the criminally insane instead of pushing them out into society thinking they can be "normalized" with enough drugs and treatment.
Create more prison bed space to keep those that need to be locked up locked up. Why is that option always off the table?
Why is the first land and forever answer for the liberal anti gun types like you to punish law abiding citizens and violate OUR constitutional rights?
-
Uhoh... She is talking about principles...
Everybody run away!
-
Feel free to disagree. But they are conservatives, and plenty of us support doing something about mass shootings.
Ok so lets say red flag laws are put in place at the national level. If the cops come and seize someone's weapons at their house...how do you know you've gotten all of them?
What's to say they don't have some stashed somewhere else and can get them and continue to do whatever evil deed they were planning?
Oh wait...
-
Uhoh... She is talking about principles...
Everybody run away!
She also opened by advising everyone to stop looking to politicians to secure our liberties, but assume the responsibility ourselves.
-
Share it far and wide!!
888high58888
Already have! happy77
-
She also opened by advising everyone to stop looking to politicians to secure our liberties, but assume the responsibility ourselves.
And she is 100% correct! It has always been so and always will be so!
-
She also opened by advising everyone to stop looking to politicians to secure our liberties, but assume the responsibility ourselves.
And that's right.
-
And she is 100% correct! It has always been so and always will be so!
Yes she is. Stop expecting them to save us, and stop blaming them for everything that make us unhappy.
Its up to us.
-
Feel free to disagree. But they are conservatives, and plenty of us support doing something about mass shootings.
What do you think of Hall's presentation?
-
Man oh man was that a great argument!
Who can deny it?
Would that folks like her walked the halls of government!
-
What do you think of Hall's presentation?
Don't hold your breath waiting.
-
I would likely support a red flag law that includes sufficient due process and the ability to appeal, but only if it removes the individual from society. I will not support a red flag law that focus on removing the legal guns while free to choose any other method to kill and harm others.
If locking up or committing the individual to mental health treatment is too large a hurdle to cross, the standard should be no less for taking away constitutional rights.
I find it queer that this aspect is never discussed. One may reasonably come to the conclusion that the proponents aren't focused on solving the problem of the mentally ill perpetrating violence on society, but rather an attack on RKBA.
-
She also opened by advising everyone to stop looking to politicians to secure our liberties, but assume the responsibility ourselves.
Such an important part of the overall message!!
-
Feel free to disagree. But they are conservatives, and plenty of us support doing something about mass shootings.
ANYONE who suggests federal red flag laws is not conservative, by definition.
-
Man oh man was that a great argument!
Who can deny it?
Would that folks like her walked the halls of government!
Doesn't she do an amazing job of bringing the discussion of these Principles to Life!!
She explains how the essence of what set the United States of America apart from all other nations was, and remains, so vital to our existence as a Free People.
Would that all adults (and children old enough to understand) in America be exposed to her message!!
.
-
I find it queer that this aspect is never discussed. One may reasonably come to the conclusion that the proponents aren't focused on solving the problem of the mentally ill perpetrating violence on society, but rather an attack on RKBA.
Truer words have never been spoken my friend! Just another avenue of attack on the BOR.
-
Doesn't she do an amazing job of bringing the discussion of these Principles to Life!!
She explains how the essence of what set the United States of America apart from all other nations was, and remains, so vital to our existence as a Free People.
Would that all adults in America be exposed to her message!!
That's absolutely right. I swear, I heard bells going off!
But then, I always do when it's nitty gritty, down to the bone about principle things.
I guarantee there will be no argument that stands against her. She's just damn well right.
-
Feel free to disagree. But they are conservatives, and plenty of us support doing something about mass shootings.
Anyone who accepts relinquishing their rights afforded by the Constitution, including the second amendment is not a conservative.
Gun confiscation, red flag laws, will not guarantee that there will not be another mass shooting. Far from it. In fact,IF and after the red flag laws are federally implemented, the next mass shooting will only bring about more laws that infringe upon the 2nd amendment. The liberal left will once again proclaim that something needs to be done and that these laws didn't go far enough. Wake up!
As I have stated several times what needs to be done is to insist on better and more affordable mental health facilities along with systems in place to ensure that these individuals are on the road to recovery and stay on a managed mental health plan. Much like AA. Alcoholics go through a program, but should we insist on taking away their right to purchase liquor?? AA is only as effective as those who are willing to attend and keep up with meetings and help to stay sober. Mental health should be treated the same way. Individuals suffering need help, medication and CONTINUED guidance with systems in place to help them wean into society and become productive when possible. For those who cannot be helped into society, and elect never to stay on a program, if they are bent on shooting someone, they're going to get their hands on a gun. No law is going to change that.
-
What do you think of Hall's presentation?
@Jazzhead, what do you think of Hall's presentation?
Surely you didn't come on this thread and make comments without having actually reviewed the information being discussed? That would be sort of like, well, trolling.
-
Anyone who accepts relinquishing their rights afforded by the Constitution, including the second amendment is not a conservative.
Straw man. David French and Andrew McCarthy - and other conservatives like them - support red flag laws only if they provide for robust due process protections that pass Constitutional muster.
There is no "relinquishment of rights".
-
There is no "relinquishment of rights".
Yes there is...your second amendment right is relinquished. And you either naive or a fool if you honestly think due process will be followed.
To paraphrase you from a year ago "all it takes is a Dem controlled SCOTUS to make these protections go away".
-
To paraphrase you from a year ago "all it takes is a Dem controlled SCOTUS to make these protections go away".
That's right. So why take extreme positions that push voters into the arms of Chuckie Schumer?
-
And you either naive or a fool if you honestly think due process will be followed.
Oh, stop it. Are you in favor of capital punishment? Of course you are. And yet, when a man is sentenced to death, his very right to life is forfeit (let alone his right to play with his guns). But the state's execution of a human being is Constitutional because of the requirement that due process be followed.
-
Oh, stop it. Are you in favor of capital punishment? Of course you are. And yet, when a man is sentenced to death, his very right to life is forfeit (let alone his right to play with his guns). But the state's execution of a human being is Constitutional because of the requirement that due process be followed.
And how many people have been set free because those due process laws were violated?
Stop with the straw men and concentrate.
-
That's right. So why take extreme positions that push voters into the arms of Chuckie Schumer?
I'm not. The people here that don't agree with you aren't. And neither are the millions of legal gun owners who'd recoil in horror at what you propose and how you characterize them.
No matter how many times you try to apply Alinsky's Rules #11 and #13...we who believe in the 2nd Amendment as written aren't the extremists on the side of Schmucky Schumer.
You're the extremist for supporting these unconstitutional laws and a liar to boot for continuing to say you're conservative when it's clear you're the only one that believes that.
-
Straw man. David French and Andrew McCarthy - and other conservatives like them - support red flag laws only if they provide for robust due process protections that pass Constitutional muster.
There is no "relinquishment of rights".
???? "Only if they provide robust due process". For one "due process" is due process ... there is no "robust" to the equation. The problem is, that the proposed red flag laws, confiscate guns first and afford due process later. Clearly a violation of the Constitution as referenced in amendments V and XIV. So now, we're not just talking about trampling on the 2nd amendment but other amendments as well. @Jazzhead either you get the possibility of gov't overreach here or you don't.
To trust that once red flag laws are implemented that "due process" will be absolute is naive. Due process when? After the fact?? Red flag laws are supposedly to protect someone from harming themselves or others ... all that needs to be stated is that "gee we didn't have time for due process...this was an emergency". B.S. Even our President who proclaims that he is 2A himself, has stated confiscate first and worry about due process later. Basically, If I go to law enforcement and say that I suspect that you have a weapon and I believe that you are possibly not of sound mind as I think you should be, they will come by, snatch your weapon and evaluate the situation, if you think things are going to go down any differently, you are dreaming. Oh ... good luck afterwards, trying to get your gun back.
Secondly, when you go to renew your concealed carry (even after it has been determined that you are no threat) good luck as you were involved with law enforcement and a weapon.
-
That's absolutely right. I swear, I heard bells going off!
But then, I always do when it's nitty gritty, down to the bone about principle things.
I guarantee there will be no argument that stands against her. She's just damn well right.
Absolutely!!
:beer:
-
To trust that once red flag laws are implemented that "due process" will be absolute is naive. Due process when? After the fact??
Due process is largely incidental... The problem is the deciders.
I'll tell you right now, any liberal whacko shrink will have problems with me. It goes without saying... Just because I am hard right, passionately independent, unabashedly male, and self-contained.
Believe me, I get it all the time from my whacko liberal shrink sister.
Letting those people have free reign as mind police will throw due process right out the window. There may be some sort of show trial, but that's all it will be.
-
Due process is largely incidental... The problem is the deciders.
I'll tell you right now, any liberal whacko shrink will have problems with me. It goes without saying... Just because I am hard right, passionately independent, unabashedly male, and self-contained.
Believe me, I get it all the time from my whacko liberal shrink sister.
Letting those people have free reign as mind police will throw due process right out the window. There may be some sort of show trial, but that's all it will be.
What I forsee happening, is this; under the red flag laws, law enforcement shows up, speaks to the person in question, decides to confiscate the weapon as they'd rather err on that side just in case, apprehend the person in question and take them down to a holding facility where they will be "evaluated" by a government appointed psychologist or psychiatrist. How do you think that's going to turn out?
No gun back and mandatory psychiatric treatment and re-evaluated in 30 days. Nope. No gun back. It will be up to the accused to go to court to try to get the gun that was wrongfully seized back.
BTW, I hope @Jazzhead you're considering the different scenarios that these red flag laws will create.
-
The problem is, that the proposed red flag laws, confiscate guns first and afford due process later.
So what? That's common enough. For example, accused criminals have their very freedom denied if they can't post bail. And judges refuse bail, or impose stiff bail, all the time because they believe, based on testimony and the application of common sense, that an accused may be a flight risk.
-
What I forsee happening, is this; under the red flag laws, law enforcement shows up, speaks to the person in question, decides to confiscate the weapon as they'd rather err on that side just in case, apprehend the person in question and take them down to a holding facility where they will be "evaluated" by a government appointed psychologist or psychiatrist. How do you think that's going to turn out?
No gun back and mandatory psychiatric treatment and re-evaluated in 30 days. Nope. No gun back. It will be up to the accused to go to court to try to get the gun that was wrongfully seized back.
BTW, I hope @Jazzhead you're considering the different scenarios that these red flag laws will create.
@Jazzhead need to go watch the video before he comments any further. It's imperative to know what you're talking about.
-
Straw man. David French and Andrew McCarthy - and other conservatives like them - support red flag laws only if they provide for robust due process protections that pass Constitutional muster.
There is no "relinquishment of rights".
@Sanguine clearly pinged you over an hour ago, to remind you of the question that @skeeter posed to you over three hours ago, @Jazzhead. Of course, you just ignore the posts to carry on with your trolling.
Why don't you stop trolling the thread and watch the KrisAnn Hall presentation so that you can engage constructively with the other members on this thread?
All you have done is ruin all of these related threads over the past week with your constant spamming of logical fallacies. Amongst others, you repeatedly resort to:
- Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") in an attempt to manipulate people's emotions to support unreasonable and illogical measures.
- Argument to moderation or argumentum ad temperantiam in an attempt to assert that the answer must be found as a compromise between two opposite positions.
- Argument from authority or argumentum ab auctoritate, or an appeal to authority, in an attempt to convince others that the statements of known public figures is reason to accept your position.
You ignore the reasonable posts of other members that present logical, reasonable, and cogent arguments against your case. Over and over.
You resort to spamming these threads as you do other topics in the forum, in an attempt to obfuscate the message of others, and drive people away that are seeking intelligent discussion.
Why don't you take the time and review the material in the OP, so that you can honestly engage with the other members, instead of trolling?
.
-
@Jazzhead need to go watch the video before he comments any further. It's imperative to know what you're talking about.
Is there a transcript somewhere?
-
What I forsee happening, is this; under the red flag laws, law enforcement shows up, speaks to the person in question, decides to confiscate the weapon as they'd rather err on that side just in case, apprehend the person in question and take them down to a holding facility where they will be "evaluated" by a government appointed psychologist or psychiatrist. How do you think that's going to turn out?
No gun back and mandatory psychiatric treatment and re-evaluated in 30 days. Nope. No gun back. It will be up to the accused to go to court to try to get the gun that was wrongfully seized back.
BTW, I hope @Jazzhead you're considering the different scenarios that these red flag laws will create.
Yeah something just about like that, except the fines and payments, which you've overlooked.
And most municipalities and counties have a time limit on their responsibility wrt property. So by the time you actually get a shot at getting the gun back, it will probably already have been destroyed.
So by the time you're in 6 months or more, and a few thousand bucks down, you won't get it back anyway. Far better to just go buy another... off the street this time.
-
So what? That's common enough. For example, accused criminals have their very freedom denied if they can't post bail. And judges refuse bail, or impose stiff bail, all the time because they believe, based on testimony and the application of common sense, that an accused may be a flight risk.
Seriously? You just stated that the supposed conservatives wanted "roubust" due process ... now your saying it doesn't matter that due process would come after the fact...
Hello, the difference is -- the "proposed suspect" hasn't been caught doing anything, is not suspected of any crime, they are only believed that they may possibly commit a crime that hasn't happened because someone thinks that there is that possibility or perhaps they just have an axe to grind with that person and decided to turn them in for their own good.
You're willing to push several amendments under our Bill of Rights out the window. I'm not. End of conversation.
-
Is there a transcript somewhere?
Not to my knowledge. As @Sanguine mentioned above, there are Settings (drop down menu under the "GEAR" looking icon, at the lower right corner of the video) that you can use to alter the playback speed (play it much faster to save time, or play it slower to modulate the speaker's tone). Also, if you are hearing impaired, Closed Captions are available ("CC" next to the "GEAR") but the quality of them vary by video.
Beyond that, pull up a chair and a nice beverage when you have the time, and enjoy!!
-
Not to my knowledge. As @Sanguine mentioned above, there are Settings (drop down menu under the "GEAR" looking icon, at the lower right corner of the video) that you can use to alter the playback speed (play it much faster to save time, or play it slower to modulate the speaker's tone). Also, if you are hearing impaired, Closed Captions are available ("CC" next to the "GEAR") but the quality of them vary by video.
Beyond that, pull up a chair and a nice beverage when you have the time, and enjoy!!
Okay, I'll come back to the thread in 2026 or so. I did some searching before I asked.
-
Is there a transcript somewhere?
You'd be missing out... Although audio would be enough...
-
Is there a transcript somewhere?
I would be pleased to read a transcript. I do not have the ability to listen to a lengthy video on my work computer.
-
Okay, I'll come back to the thread in 2026 or so. I did some searching before I asked.
It is only 45 minutes, man.... I hope that you will have a spare 45 minutes before 2026, otherwise I worry that you won't make it!!
:laugh:
-
Seriously? You just stated that the supposed conservatives wanted "roubust" due process ... now your saying it doesn't matter that due process would come after the fact...
Hello, the difference is -- the "proposed suspect" hasn't been caught doing anything, is not suspected of any crime, they are only believed that they may possibly commit a crime that hasn't happened because someone thinks that there is that possibility or perhaps they just have an axe to grind with that person and decided to turn them in for their own good.
You're willing to push several amendments under our Bill of Rights out the window. I'm not. End of conversation.
I support the due process protections advocated by David French, a conservative who I respect. And there are a number of common situations where due process necessarily comes after the fact.
-
I would be pleased to read a transcript. I do not have the ability to listen to a lengthy video on my work computer.
Then pour a finger or two of your favorite single malt and watch it at home tonight.
(Your precious Phillies have the night off!!)
-
I would be pleased to read a transcript. I do not have the ability to listen to a lengthy video on my work computer.
Ditto. Even if I did, I'm not spending my time this way on any subject.
Any video of length is not going to be watched by me. In my opinion, if it is worth sharing, it is worth writing down. I'm not on the internet to watch TV.
-
It is only 45 minutes, man.... I hope that you will have a spare 45 minutes before 2026, otherwise I worry that you won't make it!!
:laugh:
One of the best illustrations she made was toward the reduction of real property for the good of the community... The 'authorities' come and say they are going to have to shorten up your lot by 2 feet on every side... How most folks would throw a hissy over that, but fail to see the very same thing happening to their God given rights... Rights as a real property, an actual possession - Brilliant!
-
Yeah something just about like that, except the fines and payments, which you've overlooked.
And most municipalities and counties have a time limit on their responsibility wrt property. So by the time you actually get a shot at getting the gun back, it will probably already have been destroyed.
So by the time you're in 6 months or more, and a few thousand bucks down, you won't get it back anyway. Far better to just go buy another... off the street this time.
No, I didn't forget about the obvious legal fees and fines that will be incurred. Trying to keep things simple for @Jazzhead --- but you make a good point -- cheaper to buy another weapon -- now off the street -- but @Jazzhead must think that the red flag laws and allowing rights under the Constitution to be ignored is going to prevent that. :whistle:
-
One of the best illustrations she made was toward the reduction of real property for the good of the community... The 'authorities' come and say they are going to have to shorten up your lot by 2 feet on every side... How most folks would throw a hissy over that, but fail to see the very same thing happening to their God given rights... Rights as a real property, an actual possession - Brilliant!
Indeed.
@thackney, just read Madison's "Property" Essay in the OP and call it a day!! ;)
-
One of the best illustrations she made was toward the reduction of real property for the good of the community... The 'authorities' come and say they are going to have to shorten up your lot by 2 feet on every side... How most folks would throw a hissy over that, but fail to see the very same thing happening to their God given rights... Rights as a real property, an actual possession - Brilliant!
Yes, great example ... well, you know...things change with time... Indeed, our rights shouldn't.
-
I would be pleased to read a transcript. I do not have the ability to listen to a lengthy video on my work computer.
No problem. Come back when you have either read or listened to it. I look forward to your comments.
-
Indeed.
@thackney, just read Madison's "Property" Essay in the OP and call it a day!! ;)
I did do that shortly after you posted the link!
Cheers!
-
but @Jazzhead must think that the red flag laws and allowing rights under the Constitution to be ignored is going to prevent that. :whistle:
Yeah... He seemed shocked when I told him I bought most of my guns off the back of a truck... Like there is something wrong with that. :silly:
-
Yes, great example ... well, you know...things change with time... Indeed, our rights shouldn't.
In fact, they don't. That is why it is so important to understand them as natural rights granted by God - Thus removing them to an higher court, above the courts of men.
Principle things - Always true.
And in that, where those rights are infringed, they can only be infringed under the color of law, and not the law itself.
-
Ditto. Even if I did, I'm not spending my time this way on any subject.
Any video of length is not going to be watched by me. In my opinion, if it is worth sharing, it is worth writing down. I'm not on the internet to watch TV.
Ok, but you should be able to skim through the video and pick up the pertinent points.
-
Ok, but you should be able to skim through the video and pick up the pertinent points.
How would you skim through a video? Fast forward and know in advance when to pause it for the important points?
-
In fact, they don't. That is why it is so important to understand them as natural rights granted by God - Thus removing them to an higher court, above the courts of men.
Principle things - Always true.
And in that, where those rights are infringed, they can only be infringed under the color of law, and not the law itself.
The natural right is that of self-protection. There is no natural right to possess a unlimited quantity of semi-automatic weaponry in secret. That is subject to reasonable regulation.
License, register, insure. As with cars, as with guns.
-
The natural right is that of self-protection. There is no natural right to possess a unlimited quantity of semi-automatic weaponry in secret. That is subject to reasonable regulation.
License, register, insure. As with cars, as with guns.
Fine, then do so in your own dang state and leave mine the hell alone.
People 3000 miles away have no business telling me what to do.
-
The natural right is that of self-protection. There is no natural right to possess a unlimited quantity of semi-automatic weaponry in secret.
Says who? You? Some anti Second Amendment politicians in DC?
Shall not infringe is pretty clear around here to everyone but you. And no where in there does it say how many and of what type of weapons we're limited to own.
That's a Liberal fantasy creation that you've bought into.
That is subject to reasonable regulation.
Define "reasonable regulation".
License, register, insure. As with cars, as with guns.
Show me the Constitutional right to drive a car.
-
Fine, then do so in your own dang state and leave mine the hell alone.
People 3000 miles away have no business telling me what to do.
And that, BTW, is another extremely important aspect of this conversation. That this is being bandied about as federal law makes me cringe far more than as offered by the various states.
-
California’s Background Check Law Had No Impact on Gun Deaths, Johns Hopkins Study Finds
https://fee.org/articles/california-s-background-check-law-had-no-impact-on-gun-deaths-johns-hopkins-study-finds/?fbclid=IwAR3rIPKiaD4XjZU95N9cqT5D5WyGvihnabev8RlKrwY5XkKe_5lf-uLq7Ko
-
The natural right is that of self-protection. There is no natural right to possess a unlimited quantity of semi-automatic weaponry in secret. That is subject to reasonable regulation.
License, register, insure. As with cars, as with guns.
It's really too bad that School of Law you attended spent all of it's teaching time on case law and none on the Constitution.
-
@Jazzhead, what do you think of Hall's presentation?
Surely you didn't come on this thread and make comments without having actually reviewed the information being discussed? That would be sort of like, well, trolling.
Of course he did.
-
Seriously? You just stated that the supposed conservatives wanted "roubust" due process ... now your saying it doesn't matter that due process would come after the fact...
Hello, the difference is -- the "proposed suspect" hasn't been caught doing anything, is not suspected of any crime, they are only believed that they may possibly commit a crime that hasn't happened because someone thinks that there is that possibility or perhaps they just have an axe to grind with that person and decided to turn them in for their own good.
You're willing to push several amendments under our Bill of Rights out the window. I'm not. End of conversation.
It's called "moving the goalposts".... and in case you haven't noticed...
the left does that all the time.
-
It's called "moving the goalposts".... and in case you haven't noticed...
the left does that all the time.
Yes!
That is another logical fallacy that he uses:
- Moving the goalposts or (propositum motus), to change the direction or objective of the discussion while it is still in progress...
wink777
-
Well, I listened to the first 12 minutes, and heard barely a word about red flag laws.
-
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 :patriot: :patriot:
-
Well, I listened to the first 12 minutes, and heard barely a word about red flag laws.
Well, there you go. Obviously nothing you can learn from that video.
-
Well, there you go. Obviously nothing you can learn from that video.
; )
-
The population is woefully ignorant of history and our founding documents. KrisAnne is right about that. Thanks for the post @EdJames
@austingirl
Serious question.
Is American History still taught in the public schools,or is it PC World History?
IMHO,the most dangerous enemy our Republic and people have ever faced is the NEA.
-
@austingirl
Serious question.
Is American History still taught in the public schools,or is it PC World History?
IMHO,the most dangerous enemy our Republic and people have ever faced is the NEA.
@sneakypete
I think what is taught varies from school district to school district. In my little town, I think they teach actual subjects rather than indoctrinate the kids into government propaganda.
-
@sneakypete
I think what is taught varies from school district to school district. In my little town, I think they teach actual subjects rather than indoctrinate the kids into government propaganda.
You would think so, but remember most teachers are a product of the progressive education system. I'm guessing it would be very difficult to find a conservative teacher under 50-60 years old.
-
Well, I listened to the first 12 minutes, and heard barely a word about red flag laws.
Well, let's see...a huge debate is going on around the country regarding the second amendment, the proposed red flag laws and the title of the video is "The Truly Insidious Nature of Red Flag Laws". Obviously her speech;lecture touched heavily upon the 2nd amendment and how other rights (amendments) were entertwined; so I don't think she was talking about Little Red Riding Hood. *****rollingeyes*****
-
@sneakypete
I think what is taught varies from school district to school district. In my little town, I think they teach actual subjects rather than indoctrinate the kids into government propaganda.
What passes for American history in public schools today would be unrecognizable to those who attended those same schools 30 years ago.
-
You would think so, but remember most teachers are a product of the progressive education system. I'm guessing it would be very difficult to find a conservative teacher under 50-60 years old.
I never thought about that @Sanguine but you are absolutely correct. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a conservative teacher these days .... though that's exactly what's been needed to combat the liberal indoctrination of our youth. Perhaps they still exist in private schools.
-
Hah! If you truly believe that the 2A is the bulwark that secures our freedoms, then don't do stupid stuff that will result in the demise of the 2A.
@Jazzhead
You are seriously making my head hurt. Unless there is another Constitutional Convention meeting that results in votes to disband the US and create another nation,THE BILL OF RIGHTS CAN NOT BE REVOKED.
Maybe if I type slowly it might not bounce off the back of your empty skull and out our ears? The whole purpose of these attacks on the Bill of Rights are to destroy America in order to create "World Wide Government,Inc" (my idea of an appropriate title) where once again,small family groups end up controlling the world and the people in it,and granting access to minions that behave "properly" and help increase their wealth and security.
The difference between these new "Kings and Queens" and those of the "Olde World" is that NONE of these will be warriors. They will all be bankers. The will have national armies enforce their dictates at first,but eventually there will be One Global Army to control the working classes and keep them slapped into line.
This is NOT possible as long as America exists,and it is not possible unless America becomes a part of the Borg. In order to accomplish this two things have to be done.
1: The Bill of Rights MUST be nullified in order before any sweeping changes are made in our form of government. The keys to this are to turn the public against the 2nd Amendment,and to convince everyone that whites are all racists looking to enslave them. Americans MUST be disarmed or we will be a danger to the survival of the globalist scum and their families. These people are NOT risk-takers. They never fight in anyone's army,and no one in their family has ever fought in anyone's army at any time in history. Their original families were the ones that lent European Royalty the money to wage wars against each other. They do NOT fight. Like the Schiff family in Czarist Russia,they grab what money they can and flee at the first hint the authorities are coming after them.
They are playing the "Long Game". It matters not to them if the ones alive today end up controlling the world,or if it is their grandchildren. The thing is they each want THEIR family to be at the top of the heap when the dust settles. They WILL resort to the murders of anyone that stands in their way,but they,themselves,will NOT take part in it. They are always several levels removed from positions where when the dust settles,no surviving governments can point fingers at them.
2:America's army MUST become populated primarily be young soldiers from 3rd World countries that know and care nothing about the Bill of Rights,or even freedom. They are here and in the army because they want to earn a living,eat regularly,and have a comfortable and safe place to live and raise children. To keep their jobs,they will NOT hesitate to open fire on native-born Americans that head to NG armories to arm themselves. Hell,some of them have so much resentment towards the "rich yanquis" they might even look forward to opening fire on them.
Too many here are too stubborn to believe it, but the individual RKBA - the right that secures your natural right to defend you person and your personal property - exists by reason of a 5-4 SCOTUS majority. That's it. That's all. The decision affirming the individual right was joined by each conservative SCOTUS member, and rejected by every liberal one.
Technically,I don't believe that is true. They can ALTER it and get away with it IF they gain firm control over the SC,the Justice Department,Congress,and the WH,but they can't really eliminate any of our individual freedoms without dissolving America and creating a "new country" that is no longer a Constitutional Republic.
Which leads to one of MY biggest personal peeves. My head wants to explode every time I hear a teebee talking head,a congresscritter,or even a President refer to America as a "Democracy".
We are NOT,and NEVER HAVE BEEN a freaking Democracy. A Democracy is defined as "government by mob rule". We are a CONSTITUTION REPUBLIC,and the only way our system can be changed is by vote or military defeat.
Thus the dumbing down of our educational system.
There is no question in my mind that if a Dem President and Senate is elected in 2020, and Clarence Thomas or another conservative steps down, then the Heller decision will be overturned and the 2A interpreted to not secure the individual right.
Nor is there any question in my mind about that.
States will be free to ban whole classes of weapons and otherwise prohibit that what you take for granted now.
And they will,because most of our states are now ran by mob rule,thanks to the leftists domination of the Dim Party,and the influx of all the 3rd world cannon fodder they brought in.
That is what is at stake in this election. And yet many are promising to stay home if the President, in reaction to a wave of mass shootings, dares to support doing something about it that would inconvenience gun owners in a minor way.
Once again,I agree,even though I am NOT glad about it.
Although,to be perfectly honest,I do NOT think Trump is going to go along with this,no matter how much he hints he will. I fully expect him to pull the rug out from under their feet at the last instant.
Gun owners have the political clout to secure the Presidency for the Democrats, and some appear willing and even eager to do that. But you do so at your peril. Your rights hang by a thread.
The truth is,with the urbanization of America along with the influx of 3rd worlders who have never even heard of the Bill of Rights,it is MY opinion that we have no more than one more presidential election left before the choice will be between "Globalist Number One",or Globalist Number Two".
Either Trump wins in 2020,yanks the rugs out from under the feet of the left by using judicial appointments and appointees that are not and never have been beltway insiders,or 2020 is when the Second American Revolution begins,and maybe,America ends. I am as serious as a heart attack about this.
-
Well said, @sneakypete. What a slender reed our future is based on.
-
I'm not so sure as to the timing but the rest I am in complete agreement with @sneakypete.
-
@Jazzhead
Either Trump wins in 2020,yanks the rugs out from under the feet of the left by using judicial appointments and appointees that are not and never have been beltway insiders,or 2020 is when the Second American Revolution begins,and maybe,America ends. I am as serious as a heart attack about this.
I agree. I see that the Second American Revolution could very easily be just around the corner. That is why it is so disturbing and in fact alarming that Trump is advocating red flag laws; especially with his mention of due process later. If a revolution should occur, in order to preserve our Constitution and retain this Republic we must insist on the 2nd Amendment not being dismantled in any way, otherwise I agree we may just see the end of America as we know her.
I don't really think many see how fragile our Country is right now. Frightening really.
-
@sneakypete
I think what is taught varies from school district to school district. In my little town, I think they teach actual subjects rather than indoctrinate the kids into government propaganda.
@austingirl
Thanks! As long as actual history is being taught in some areas,there is still hope.
-
@austingirl
Thanks! As long as actual history is being taught in some areas,there is still hope.
IMHO the most accurate versions of history being taught these days are to kids that are home schooled. Something the Liberals absolutely hate.
-
Well after hearing the gripe about not being able to listen to her (squeaky voice and all).... I downloaded the audio and altered it via a free program (Voxal free version)....
Here is the audio only in a lower tone.... in Mp3 format at 192 kbps
https://mab.to/blbhrBWm7
Personally I thought it was a brilliant speech... Meat not Milk...
3 Days Only Download
-
Fine, then do so in your own dang state and leave mine the hell alone.
People 3000 miles away have no business telling me what to do.
Well, you hit on the problem. People who live in the people hives like NYC and other major urban areas just can't wrap their heads around life in a rural environment. But they think they should be able to dictate how we live in what to them is as alien as another planet.
It is small wonder that their "solutions" for the problems had by people living in their environment just don't make one damned bit of sense where we are.
But an analog was found in the 60s by John B Calhoun, who worked at NIMH.https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/22514/1/2308Ramadams.pdf (https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/22514/1/2308Ramadams.pdf)
Employed in the Laboratory of Psychology of the National Institute of Mental Health from 1954, Calhoun repeated the experiment in specially constructed “rodent universes†– room-sized pens which could be viewed from the attic above via windows cut through the ceiling.
Using a variety of strains of rats and mice, he once more provided his populations with food, bedding, and shelter.
With no predators and with exposure to disease kept at a minimum, Calhoun described his experimental universes as “rat utopia,†“mouse paradise.â€
With all their visible needs met, the animals bred rapidly. The only restriction Calhoun imposed on his population was of space – and as the population grew, this became increasingly problematic.
As the pens heaved with animals, one of his assistants described rodent “utopia†as having become “hell†(Marsden 1972).
Dominant males became aggressive, some moving in groups, attacking females and the young.
Mating behaviors were disrupted.
Some became exclusively homosexual.
Others became pansexual and hypersexual, attempting to mount any rat they encountered.
Mothers neglected their infants, first failing to construct proper nests, and then carelessly abandoning and even attacking their pups.
In certain sections of the pens, infant mortality rose as high as 96%, the dead cannibalized by adults.
Subordinate animals withdrew psychologically, surviving in a physical sense but at an immense psychological cost. They were the majority in the late phases of growth, existing as a vacant, huddled mass in the centre of the pens.
Unable to breed, the population plummeted and did not recover.
The crowded rodents had lost the ability to co-exist harmoniously, even after the population numbers once again fell to low levels. At a certain density, they had ceased to act like rats and mice, and the change was permanent.
Accepted for publication in the Spring 2009 edition of The Journal of Social History
3 Calhoun published the results of his early experiments with the rats at NIMH in a 1962 edition of Scientific American.
-
Either Trump wins in 2020,yanks the rugs out from under the feet of the left by using judicial appointments and appointees that are not and never have been beltway insiders,or 2020 is when the Second American Revolution begins,and maybe,America ends. I am as serious as a heart attack about this.
A hell of a lot is at stake to place at the feet of one Donald J. Trump. Is he the best we can do?
-
A hell of a lot is at stake to place at the feet of one Donald J. Trump. Is he the best we can do?
@Jazzhead
The rest of us don't live in that rich fantasy world inside your head. We live in the real world,and have to deal with the players on the field.
Trump IS "the best we can do" because he IS who we have.
-
Well, there you go. Obviously nothing you can learn from that video.
Well, I do wish that woman would get to the point. After 12 minutes, I decided to go work out at the gym.
But here's my beef with her and those who think like her: The 2A as written is obsolete. This is not about killing the king. We threw out the king, and installed in its place a representative government of the people, by the people, with explicit protections for individual rights. We don't need pitchforks and assault weapons to take down our leaders, we have the ballot box. I am offended by this notion that guns secure our freedoms - our Constitution and our traditions of self-government do. When a President or Congress overreaches (like, say, after what Obama did with the ACA), the voters throw the bums out. That's going to be the battleground next year - whether to throw the bums out. I agree that, nowadays, the biased and unprofessional media has their thumb on the scales, but the answer is still not armed insurrection. Our institutions still work.
The 2A protects no natural, individual right. The 2A addresses matters of civil and community defense, from a time when a key role was played by citizen militias. It is obsolete in today's world. The natural right to self defense of person and property is an unenumerated right similar to the individual rights of privacy and self-determination. These are protected by Constitution, to be sure, but there is an ongoing tension between the courts and the legislatures since a sizable portion of the population disagrees with the courts that these rights are in fact protected. If close to half the nation wants to abolish the Constitution's protection for abortion, then I'd think a similar percentage likely wants to abolish the Constitution's protection (by means of Heller) of the individual right to keep a firearm for self protection.
The angst and anger that folks feel has as its source this tension. We are all hypocrites. Rights for me but not for thee. Those who most zealously guard their RKBA are often the first to demand that a woman's right to choose be denied. And those who most zealously guard the woman's choice right see no hypocrisy in demanding laws that would take away a man's right to defend his home and family.
Can a constitutional republic survive when half the country doesn't share the values of the other half? That's the open question, but matters would be helped if both sides could manage to recognize their selfishness.
-
Well, I do wish that woman would get to the point. After 12 minutes, I decided to go work out at the gym.
But here's my beef with her and those who think like her: The 2A as written is obsolete. This is not about killing the king. We threw out the king, and installed in its place representative government.
@Jazzhead
You are clearly delusional if you don't understand and accept as truth the statement that "Freedom requires eternal vigilance" because since the dawn of history there has always been people seeking power to enable them to enslave us all,and that these people will always exist
You sir,are a natural slave.
-
Well after hearing the gripe about not being able to listen to her (squeaky voice and all).... I downloaded the audio and altered it via a free program (Voxal free version)....
Here is the audio only in a lower tone.... in Mp3 format at 192 kbps
https://mab.to/blbhrBWm7
Personally I thought it was a brilliant speech... Meat not Milk...
3 Days Only Download
Thank you SO Much @Sighlass but the tip Sanguine provided earlier worked just fine and it was indeed a BRILLIANT speech!
-
Well, I do wish that woman would get to the point. After 12 minutes, I decided to go work out at the gym.
But here's my beef with her and those who think like her:
Honestly, why do you think we would care what you think about what she said? You went to the gym.
-
You are clearly delusional if you don't understand and accept as truth the statement that "Freedom requires eternal vigilance" because since the dawn of history there has always been people seeking power to enable them to enslave us all,and that these people will always exist
You sir,are a natural slave.
No, I simply don't share your paranoia, @sneakypete . Of course, freedom requires citizen vigilance, but in the context of a constitutional republic, that vigilance is exercised by means of the vote and political action, not by acquiring arsenals so as to be prepared to kill peace officers.
You demand we be ready to kill the king. In America, WE are the king. We govern OURSELVES, with the ballot not the bullet. You advocate the destruction of our beautiful nation. That is not the mindset of a patriot, and that is the reason I reject your warped ideology, totally.
-
No, I simply don't share your paranoia, @sneakypete . Of course, freedom requires citizen vigilance, but in the context of a constitutional republic, that vigilance is exercised by means of the vote and political action, not by acquiring arsenals so as to be prepared to kill peace officers.
You demand we be ready to kill the king. In America, WE are the king. We govern OURSELVES, with the ballot not the bullet. You advocate the destruction of our beautiful nation. That is not the mindset of a patriot, and that is the reason I reject your sickness, totally.
@Jazzhead
And we all live on puppy-dog hugs and kisses,safe in the knowledge that Santa is coming.
-
Honestly, why do you think we would care what you think about what she said? You went to the gym.
Why should I care about what you think when your avatar depicts a kid with a load in his pants? :tongue2:
-
Why should I care about what you think when your avatar depicts a kid with a load in his pants? :tongue2:
Thats wasn't a load, it was a Sig P2022.
-
Thats wasn't a load, it was a Sig P2022.
888high58888
-
I don’t own many guns
I’m not a member of the NRA
It would be great where anybody who wanted to harm somebody else with a gun would never be able to do it
But in the case where I am being asked do I want to trust bureaucrats or my guns, I think I’ll have to go with my guns
-
It would be great where anybody who wanted to harm somebody else with a gun wind never be able to do it
Make that the goal.
-
Armed Real Estate Agent Shoots Attacker at House Showing
https://www.secondamendmentdaily.com/2019/08/armed-real-estate-agent-shoots-attacker-at-house-showing/ (https://www.secondamendmentdaily.com/2019/08/armed-real-estate-agent-shoots-attacker-at-house-showing/)
-
Hah! If you truly believe that the 2A is the bulwark that secures our freedoms, then don't do stupid stuff that will result in the demise of the 2A.
Too many here are too stubborn to believe it, but the individual RKBA - the right that secures your natural right to defend you person and your personal property - exists by reason of a 5-4 SCOTUS majority. That's it. That's all. The decision affirming the individual right was joined by each conservative SCOTUS member, and rejected by every liberal one.
There is no question in my mind that if a Dem President and Senate is elected in 2020, and Clarence Thomas or another conservative steps down, then the Heller decision will be overturned and the 2A interpreted to not secure the individual right. States will be free to ban whole classes of weapons and otherwise prohibit that what you take for granted now. That is what is at stake in this election. And yet many are promising to stay home if the President, in reaction to a wave of mass shootings, dares to support doing something about it that would inconvenience gun owners in a minor way.
Gun owners have the political clout to secure the Presidency for the Democrats, and some appear willing and even eager to do that. But you do so at your peril. Your rights hang by a thread.
Don't be fools
@Jazzhead
So let's say a radical Muslim - a citizen born in this country -- owns legally purchased firearms, starts talking on social media about how he is getting ready to kill infidels, and is amassing weapons and ammo to do so. Again, all weapons and ammo are legally owned. Oh yeah, and lets add to it that his sister has called the police, says that her brother is mentally ill and off his meds, and that she's afraid he's going to do something violent.
Do we have to station cops around his house and tail him 24/7 indefinitely in the event that this is the day he decides to follow through on his threats? Or do we just wait until he starts shooting people to do something about him having guns and ammo?
Because those are the kind of questions a Republican candidate is going to be asked if he states a blanket opposition to any red flag law.
-
@Jazzhead
So let's say a radical Muslim who entered this country legally and owns legally purchased firearms, starts talking on social media about how he is getting ready to kill infidels, and is amassing weapons and ammo to do so. Again, all weapons and ammo are legally owned. Oh yeah, and lets add to it that his sister has called the police, says that her brother is mentally ill and off his meds, and that she's afraid he's going to do something violent.
Do we have to station cops around his house and tail him 24/7 indefinitely in the event that this is the day he decides to follow through on his threats? Or do we just wait until he starts shooting people to do something about him having guns and ammo?
Because those are the kind of questions a Republican candidate is going to be asked if he states a blanket opposition to any red flag law.
If given due process and is determined to be a substantial risk to others, he should not be left in public to drive a truck through a crowd on the sidewalk.
-
If given due process and is determined to be a substantial risk to others, he should not be left in public to drive a truck through a crowd on the sidewalk.
So you're saying we should be able to take his truck away from him? Okay.
Should he be permitted to keep his guns and ammo?
-
@Jazzhead
So let's say a radical Muslim who entered this country legally and owns legally purchased firearms, starts talking on social media about how he is getting ready to kill infidels, and is amassing weapons and ammo to do so. Again, all weapons and ammo are legally owned. Oh yeah, and lets add to it that his sister has called the police, says that her brother is mentally ill and off his meds, and that she's afraid he's going to do something violent.
Do we have to station cops around his house and tail him 24/7 indefinitely in the event that this is the day he decides to follow through on his threats? Or do we just wait until he starts shooting people to do something about him having guns and ammo?
Because those are the kind of questions a Republican candidate is going to be asked if he states a blanket opposition to any red flag law.
First and foremost ALL of his potential victims should have the ability to defend themselves.
-
First and foremost ALL of his potential victims should have the ability to defend themselves.
That's nice, but it doesn't answer the question.
Should he be able to keep those guns and ammo, or not?
-
Should he be permitted to keep his guns and ammo?
If he is intent on harming others, he is the risk, not the legally obtained guns and ammo.
To pretend he could not get others illegally is silly. He is the risk, not the tools.
-
So you're saying we should be able to take his truck away from him? Okay.
No, he should be taken away from society.
-
If he is intent on harming others, he is the risk, not the legally obtained guns and ammo.
To pretend he could not get others illegally is silly. He is the risk, not the tools.
Okay, you didn't answer the question either. Should be be able to keep his guns and ammo, or not?
-
No, he should be taken away from society.
Oh. So you're okay with gun owners being locked up -- just not having their guns taken away? And for exactly how long do we keep them locked up?
-
That's nice, but it doesn't answer the question.
Should he be able to keep those guns and ammo, or not?
Yes, he should until such time as he shows intent to use one or more in the commission of a crime.
-
Oh. So you're okay with gun owners being locked up -- just not having their guns taken away? And for exactly how long do we keep them locked up?
It is not about gun owners, it is about threatening others with substantiated proof he is a real threat to others.
Don't take away just their guns and pretend society is safe. That is foolish.
-
Oh. So you're okay with gun owners being locked up -- just not having their guns taken away? And for exactly how long do we keep them locked up?
2 hrs and 500 bucks, and he's got another gun. Now what?
-
So let's say a radical Muslim who entered this country legally and owns legally purchased firearms, starts talking on social media about how he is getting ready to kill infidels, and is amassing weapons and ammo to do so. Again, all weapons and ammo are legally owned. Oh yeah, and lets add to it that his sister has called the police, says that her brother is mentally ill and off his meds, and that she's afraid he's going to do something violent.
Do we have to station cops around his house and tail him 24/7 indefinitely in the event that this is the day he decides to follow through on his threats? Or do we just wait until he starts shooting people to do something about him having guns and ammo?
Because those are the kind of questions a Republican candidate is going to be asked if he states a blanket opposition to any red flag law.
In this case, take his citizenship away and deport him.
-
Interesting that some here prefer taking a man's freedom away (at great expense to the taxpayer) before taking his gun away.
-
Interesting that some here prefer taking a man's freedom away (at great expense to the taxpayer) before taking his gun away.
Yes, he is either a real threat to others or he is not. The gun is not the problem, he is.
Mass Murder without Guns
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/mass-murder-without-guns/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/mass-murder-without-guns/)
...Even today, there are a lot of non-firearm mass murders in America: In USA Today’s collection of mass murders for the period 2006 to 2017, nearly a quarter were done without guns. And most of them you have probably not heard about because they do not advance the Left’s cause of disarming the peasants....
-
Yes, he should until such time as he shows intent to use one or more in the commission of a crime.
Yes.
Well, that's where we differ. Your position is that a Muslim radical who has amassed guns and ammo, posted online about his desire to kill infidels, and whose sister has said he is off his meds and a danger to others, should be able to keep his guns and ammo as a matter of right, without any kind of process available to potentially deprive him of those before he kills a bunch of people.
I don't.
-
2 hrs and 500 bucks, and he's got another gun. Now what?
Sure, because he can just buy one off the back of a truck. *****rollingeyes*****
All transfers of ownership should take place through the medium of a licensed gun dealer.
-
In this case, take his citizenship away and deport him.
Assume he's a citizen. There are naturally born American citizens who become radicalized. Can't deport them.
Are you okay with him keeping those guns, or not?
-
Sure, because he can just buy one off the back of a truck. *****rollingeyes*****
All transfers of ownership should take place through the medium of a licensed gun dealer.
Absolutely, then just like all drugs, all sales would go through a registered pharmacists or licensed dealer.
-
2 hrs and 500 bucks, and he's got another gun. Now what?
Maybe yes, maybe not. If he's clearly off his rocker, he may have a tough time getting another gun and all that ammo.
But I assume that means you're also fine with leaving him with all his guns and ammo as well. Right?
-
Sure, because he can just buy one off the back of a truck. *****rollingeyes*****
All transfers of ownership should take place through the medium of a licensed gun dealer.
You're dreaming. It will never, ever happen. there will always be easily obtainable guns. That is the very essence of the absurdity of your position.
-
Yes.
Well, that's where we differ. Your position is that a Muslim radical who has amassed guns and ammo, posted online about his desire to kill infidels, and whose sister has said he is off his meds and a danger to others, should be able to keep his guns and ammo as a matter of right, without any kind of process available to potentially deprive him of those before he kills a bunch of people.
I don't.
And neither do most sensible people, including sensible conservatives. The linchpin, of course, is that the gun owner be afforded due process. The difference, it seems, is between those of us who have enough faith in the rule of law to respect the efficacy of due process, and those who believe the courts are corrupt and riddled with bias.
-
Sure, because he can just buy one off the back of a truck. *****rollingeyes*****
All transfers of ownership should take place through the medium of a licensed gun dealer.
Right! Because that thug in Philly selling guns out of the trunk of his car is going to do that! /S
-
So you're saying we should be able to take his truck away from him? Okay.
Should he be permitted to keep his guns and ammo?
No. You know what he was trying to say. If that person is that kind of threat lock them up...period. Don't take the guns and leave him out in public.
He's still gonna find a way to carry out his plan. Instead of killing 20 with a gun...he may end up killing 80 with a truck. A threat is a threat...put that threat where they need to be...in jail.
-
Interesting that some here prefer taking a man's freedom away (at great expense to the taxpayer) before taking his gun away.
Doesn't make any sense to me either. Especially since there were some upthread who said that taking someone's guns away in part because of statements they made was a violation of the First Amendment. Obviously, the exact same would be true for throwing him in jail for the making of those statements as well.
-
You're dreaming. It will never, ever happen. there will always be easily obtainable guns. That is the very essence of the absurdity of your position.
So your position is that nothing can be done, and if something is tried to be done, folks like you will decide to be lawless.
-
Yes.
Well, that's where we differ.
:yowsa: I suppose so!
-
And neither do most sensible people, including sensible conservatives. The linchpin, of course, is that the gun owner be afforded due process. The difference, it seems, is between those of us who have enough faith in the rule of law to respect the efficacy of due process, and those who believe the courts are corrupt and riddled with bias.
Again with the Liberal corruption of the Language.
-
Assume he's a citizen. There are naturally born American citizens who become radicalized. Can't deport them.
Are you okay with him keeping those guns, or not?
As his sister said he's wacko and refuses to take his meds, then have him certified as a wacko and locked up.
-
No. OYu know what he was trying to say. If that person is that kind of threat lock them up...period.
On what charge do you lock them up, and for how long?
-
So your position is that nothing can be done, and if something is tried to be done, folks like you will decide to be lawless.
Oh boy here we go with the lawless bit again. Don't you have anything new?
-
Right! Because that thug in Philly selling guns out of the trunk of his car is going to do that! /S
So what is the purpose of having laws? This lawless mentality on the part of "conservatives" is disturbing, especially because it is not rooted in principle, but selfishness.
-
So your position is that nothing can be done, and if something is tried to be done, folks like you will decide to be lawless.
Are you claiming that with due process and substantiated threats, a unstable person cannot be removed from society? Only legally obtained guns are the only risk?
-
So your position is that nothing can be done, and if something is tried to be done, folks like you will decide to be lawless.
NOPE! That is NOT his position and your sophistry is on full display for all to see.
His position is that the right to self-preservation is fundamental!
-
As his sister said he's wacko and refuses to take his meds, then have him certified as a wacko and locked up.
Doesn't work like that either.
And...what if he's not insane at all? Just a very militant convert to Islam who states his desire to shoot up a shitload of infidels?
-
On what charge do you lock them up, and for how long?
Good question. He hasn't yet acted on his threat. If the state has gotten it wrong, it is a far lesser injustice that his gun be removed, rather than his liberty.
-
Maybe yes, maybe not. If he's clearly off his rocker, he may have a tough time getting another gun and all that ammo.
But I assume that means you're also fine with leaving him with all his guns and ammo as well. Right?
Of course I am. If you don't have a reason to commit him, and you don't have a reason to arrest him, what the hell makes you think you have a reason to take his property?
But then - He's off his meds...
People taking medicine for psychosis would not have been able to purchase the gun in the first place, and if he is off his meds, you have a reason to commit him.
so your entire drama is rendered moot.
-
Are you claiming that with due process and substantiated threats, a unstable person cannot be removed from society? Only legally obtained guns are the only risk?
@thackney like most Liberals...Jazz doesn't care about the criminal element. He's only concern is taking guns away from law abiding citizens and making it safer for criminals who don't give a sh*t about all his schemes and proposals...and less safe for people like you and me.
-
Are you claiming that with due process and substantiated threats, a unstable person cannot be removed from society? Only legally obtained guns are the only risk?
It's extraordinarily difficult. We now have so many homeless precisely because involuntary commitment is so legally difficult. And again, remove the mental illness component of it if you like -- he's just a very militant convert to Islam who is posting on social media about his desire to kill a bunch of infidels.
-
Doesn't work like that either.
And...what if he's not insane at all? Just a very militant convert to Islam who states his desire to shoot up a shitload of infidels?
Arrest him on terrorism charges and put him in jail. It's that simple. We do it to people and groups plotting attacks in the U.S. all the time and we don't need new laws to do it.
-
Are you claiming that with due process and substantiated threats, a unstable person cannot be removed from society? Only legally obtained guns are the only risk?
It's like the practice of step therapy in medicine. If a man's a substantiated potential threat, but hasn't yet acted, take his dangerous tool away. That is a far lesser deprivation than of his liberty.
Why do you fetishize the tool? Why is that "property" more important to be protected than the man's liberty?
-
@Maj. Bill Martin serious question...why not just use the Baker Act on mentally unsteady people who have weapons? Why this urgent need to create new law where the old ones work just fine?
At least with the Baker Act there's a psych eval done before the judge makes a ruling. There's none of that in a single red flag law I've seen so far. Jsut the say so of the person making the charge to a judge.
I mean if it ain't broke don't fix it.
-
Why do you fetishize the tool? Why is that "property" more important to be protected than the man's liberty?
Why do you? Why do you pretend society is safe if you only take away his legally obtained firearms?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/mass-murder-without-guns/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/mass-murder-without-guns/)
-
@thackney like most Liberals...Jazz doesn't care about the criminal element. He's only concern is taking guns away from law abiding citizens and making it safer for criminals who don't give a sh*t about all his schemes and proposals...and less safe for people like you and me.
"Law abiding citizens?" Hah!
-
On what charge do you lock them up, and for how long?
Terrorism or the plotting or a terrorist act.
18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B. There are 22 different statutes within 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B that define terrorism offenses impose penalties, or otherwise establish federal rules and regulations related to terrorism.
Lock him up for however long it takes for him to get to trial.
-
So your position is that nothing can be done [...]
You can commit him on grounds, or you can arrest him on grounds.
If you don't have evidence enough to do that, what makes you think you have the evidence to take his property?
and if something is tried to be done, folks like you will decide to be lawless.
That would be a rogue government operating under the color of law, and no, I will not comply. See our founding document for where my duty lies.
-
@thackney like most Liberals...Jazz doesn't care about the criminal element. He's only concern is taking guns away from law abiding citizens and making it safer for criminals who don't give a sh*t about all his schemes and proposals...and less safe for people like you and me.
That's a convenient way to dodge the issue -- attacking one person who is making the argument because you don't like him. Maybe you don't like me either, but I'm not a liberal.
In this case, I think @Jazzhead made a going point. There are clearly some circumstances under which the vast majority of citizens -- even if not the particular people in this thread -- would agree that someone should have guns taken away from them. Making the argument that "under no circumstances should someone ever be deprived of their guns regardless of the threat they present to others" -- which is the essence of what is being argued here -- is massive loser politically. I also think it's stupid policy.
The right argument is to permit red flag laws, but only those with strong due process guarantees, a "shall return" legal mechanism that doesn't require the gun owner to sue to get his stuff back, but rather places the burden on the government to periodically prove their case all over again, expedited appeals, etc.. But if you refuse to enter into any discussion for red flag laws of any kind at all, then you're going to let the gun grabbers draft all those laws by themselves, and we'll end up with something much, much worse.
-
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Would Chris Cuomo be given a Red Flag for his recent rant? Filthy language and a total loss of control. He shouldn’t be allowed to have any weapon. He’s nuts!
-
"Law abiding citizens?" Hah!
Again Jazzy you don't get to corrupt the language. I'm a law abiding gun owner. Something you don't seem to have the slightest idea about.
I'm also sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. So defending that Bill of Rights isn't just some word salad game or a thought exercise to me on an internet chat board like it is to you.
-
On what charge do you lock them up, and for how long?
On what charge do you take his property and for how long?
-
Doesn't work like that either.
And...what if he's not insane at all? Just a very militant convert to Islam who states his desire to shoot up a shitload of infidels?
And what if in his conversion to Islam he develops an extreme hatred of dogs. His neighbor blows him away for killing one of his dogs.
If you can change the circumstances of the "What if" I can too. I'm done.
-
You can commit him on grounds, or you can arrest him on grounds.
What kind of "grounds" are you talking about? Coffee grounds?
You can't arrest someone who has not yet committed a crime, and you can't lock someone up for mental incompetency if they're just an bleep rather than mentally incompetent.
Also, I hardly see how you've made things better for gun owners if we say "well, you can have red flag laws to toss gun owners in jail indefinitely. You just can't take their guns."
-
So your position is that nothing can be done, and if something is tried to be done, folks like you will decide to be lawless.
No. I never stated that nothing could be done. What I have stated is to absolutely leave the 2nd amendment alone and instead of attacking innocent gun owners, we need to increase mental health awareness, increase affordable hospitals and treatments centers; especially with after treatment programs that will help them deal with their afflictions.
To think that no person who is mentally ill will never be able to obtain a weapon is just plain illogical and absurd. Red flag laws will do absolutely nothing to hamper them getting their hands on what they want.
As for due process -- Perhaps you didn't understand; Trump is for confiscation first and due process later. If you're ok with that, then you ARE willing to give up rights under the 2nd, 5th and 14th amendments. I'm not ok with that.
Our Constitution clearly lays out the Bill of Rights. ALL of those rights should NOT be infringed period.
Did you even watch the video?? It may open your eyes a little and perhaps you may be able to begin to comprehend what's at stake.
As I stated before, it's ok for the left to approve late term abortions and abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected which in general murder far more innocents than those that happen randomly by a mass shooter....I don't see anyone on the left advocating to fully repeal Roe v. Wade ... yet they are attacking the 2nd, 5th and 14th amendments. Go figure.
In my books, I see it as rather warped thinking.
-
And what if in his conversion to Islam he develops an extreme hatred of dogs. His neighbor blows him away for killing one of his dogs.
If you can change the circumstances of the "What if" I can too. I'm done.
Of course you are. Because you want to duck the hard choices that will force you to either change your position, or defend something that is indefensible.
-
It's extraordinarily difficult.
As it should be. Likewise taking a man's property without cause.
-
Again Jazzy you don't get to corrupt the language. I'm a law abiding gun owner. Something you don't seem to have the slightest idea about.
I'm also sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. So defending that Bill of Rights isn't just some word salad game or a thought exercise to me on an internet chat board like it is to you.
As is everyone who has ever put on a uniform! As far as I know, none have ever been released from that oath.
-
And what if in his conversion to Islam he develops an extreme hatred of dogs. His neighbor blows him away for killing one of his dogs.
If you can change the circumstances of the "What if" I can too. I'm done.
I'm with you @Elderberry! These circular arguments get REAL tiresome REAL quick!
-
That's a convenient way to dodge the issue -- attacking one person who is making the argument because you don't like him. Maybe you don't like me either, but I'm not a liberal.
No what he's been doing is corrupting the language. Broad brushing any and all law abiding gun owners who support the Second Amendment as written as "extremists"...and now this morning he's referring to anyone who might bristle at these red flag laws as "lawless". That's straight from the Alinsky playbook.
I'm counter punching against someone trying to turn on it's head who is the extremist and who is the sensible in this debate.
And in all of his gun grabbing schemes not once has he addressed or seemed to care about the impact of these laws or his insurance and registration schemes would have on the poor and or minorities who live in the areas where protection against crime is needed most. he just skips right over that question when posed to him like it never happened.
I've addressed the issue at length with him...nut as usual he's into circular debate and igrnores anything that threatens his little echo chamber.
In this case, I think @Jazzhead made a going point. There are clearly some circumstances under which the vast majority of citizens -- even if not the particular people in this thread -- would agree that someone should have guns taken away from them. Making the argument that "under no circumstances should someone ever be deprived of their guns regardless of the threat they present to others" -- which is the essence of what is being argued here -- is massive loser politically. I also think it's stupid policy.
Then enforce the laws that are already in place. As is pointed out continuously when these shootings happen...non of the proposed laws would prevent what happened. No registry or insurance requirement or red flag law is going to stop someone hell bent on committing mass murder against a group of innocent people.
Anyone who thinks they've got the perfect solution to prevent it is on a fools errand.
The right argument is to permit red flag laws, but only those with strong due process guarantees, a "shall return" legal mechanism that doesn't require the gun owner to sue to get his stuff back, but rather places the burden on the government to periodically prove their case all over again, expedited appeals, etc.. But if you refuse to enter into any discussion for red flag laws of any kind at all, then you're going to let the gun grabbers draft all those laws by themselves, and we'll end up with something much, much worse.
Why not just enforce to the fullest the 22K laws already on the books concerning the ownership and usage of a firearm?
-
@Maj. Bill Martin serious question...why not just use the Baker Act on mentally unsteady people who have weapons? Why this urgent need to create new law where the old ones work just fine?
At least with the Baker Act there's a psych eval done before the judge makes a ruling. There's none of that in a single red flag law I've seen so far. Jsut the say so of the person making the charge to a judge.
Fair question.
The Baker Act - which permits the voluntary and involuntary temporary commitment of someone who is mentally incompetent -- is only the law in Florida, so you'd have to make a national version. Assuming you did that, there are two problems:
1) It is entirely possible that the person in question is not so mentally impaired that they meet the high standards mental illness standards required under the Baker Act. They're just an extraordinarily dangerous, angry a-hole. Perhaps they are just a committed Islamic radical, Antifa goon, or Nazi who has published a desire to kill people with guns. Or just some really pissed off, antisocial young adult who talks about shooting up schools. The Baker Act is useless against all those people.
2) The Baker Act permits involuntary commitment via an ex parte court order, meaning you don't even get a say before you're locked up. That level of due process...isn't. How is it better for an accused gun owner to be thrown in jail as "insane" rather than be temporarily deprived of a gun? That's what the Soviets did -- define conduct they didn't like as insanity, and then just have people committed.
-
What kind of "grounds" are you talking about? Coffee grounds?
You can't arrest someone who has not yet committed a crime, and you can't lock someone up for mental incompetency if they're just an bleep rather than mentally incompetent.
Guess what? Then you can't take their damn property either. If he has done nothing wrong, and he's not off his rocker, then you've no cause to bother him...
Also, I hardly see how you've made things better for gun owners if we say "well, you can have red flag laws to toss gun owners in jail indefinitely. You just can't take their guns."
Hell no you can't have red flag laws to throw him in jail. What a dumbass idea.
You have two ways to deprive a man of his rights - Criminal due process, or mental due process.
work with that and quit trying to convict a man for what he has not done.
-
Then enforce the laws that are already in place. As is pointed out continuously when these shootings happen...none of the proposed laws would prevent what happened. No registry or insurance requirement or red flag law is going to stop someone hell bent on committing mass murder against a group of innocent people.
That's true of some of the proposed laws. And no law is going to stop every single potential incident. But that's kind of the same flawed logic as the left uses against the idea of a border wall. "Well, some people are going to figure out a way around, under, through, or over it, so it's useless." Just because a law won't stop everything doesn't mean that a reasonable law shouldn't be available to stop the ones that could be stopped.
Why not just enforce to the fullest the 22K laws already on the books concerning the ownership and usage of a firearm?
Which of those laws would stop the homegrown radical Islamist in my hypothetical? Because I think most people would agree that is something we should be able to stop.
-
BKMK
-
Guess what? Then you can't take their damn property either. If he has done nothing wrong, and he's not off his rocker, then you've no cause to bother him...
Okay. You think the homegrown radical Islamist with all the guns who is making online threats about going out and killing a bunch of American kids should be able to keep his guns anyway, and I don't.
Impasse.
-
Fair question.
The Baker Act - which permits the voluntary and involuntary temporary commitment of someone who is mentally incompetent -- is only the law in Florida, so you'd have to make a national version.
What is it with you people and federal level laws? What the hell business do you have imposing your crap on people a thousand miles away?
Mind your own damn business. Mess up your state all you want. Leave me and mine alone.
-
Fair question.
The Baker Act - which permits the voluntary and involuntary temporary commitment of someone who is mentally incompetent -- is only the law in Florida, so you'd have to make a national version. Assuming you did that, there are two problems:
Each state already has some kind of involuntary/72 hour hold type of law for people with mental disorders correct?
1) It is entirely possible that the person in question is not so mentally impaired that they meet the high standards mental illness standards required under the Baker Act. They're just an extraordinarily dangerous, angry a-hole. Perhaps they are just a committed Islamic radical, Antifa goon, or Nazi who has published a desire to kill people with guns. Or just some really pissed off, antisocial young adult who talks about shooting up schools. The Baker Act is useless against all those people.
Ok you're going apples and oranges here. But in any case...an involuntary 48 or 72 hour psych hold...something most states already have would give them time to figure out whether said person is mentally disturbed and needs to be placed in a psych hospital or is one of the others you sdescribed and needs to cool their heels in the county lockup.
2) The Baker Act permits involuntary commitment via an ex parte court order, meaning you don't even get a say before you're locked up. That level of due process...isn't. How is it better for an accused gun owner to be thrown in jail as "insane" rather than be temporarily deprived of a gun? That's what the Soviets did -- define conduct they didn't like as insanity, and then just have people committed.
If the person is truly mentally unstable then a psych hold and subsequent admission ot a mental hospital has saved the public from another tragedy.
The types of abuses you describe the old USSR doing to anyone they don't like...is exactly what people fear about Red Flag laws. It's completely naive to think that they won't be abused. They already are being abused where they are in place. It's why you see so many Sheriff's Departments beginning to refuse to enforce them when they are passed by a state.
My point is...we don't need another new law just to show we've "done something". We have the laws in place to handle these things....had them for years.
How about we jsut start enforcing them?
-
That's a convenient way to dodge the issue -- attacking one person who is making the argument because you don't like him. Maybe you don't like me either, but I'm not a liberal.
In this case, I think @Jazzhead made a going point. There are clearly some circumstances under which the vast majority of citizens -- even if not the particular people in this thread -- would agree that someone should have guns taken away from them. Making the argument that "under no circumstances should someone ever be deprived of their guns regardless of the threat they present to others" -- which is the essence of what is being argued here -- is massive loser politically. I also think it's stupid policy.
The right argument is to permit red flag laws, but only those with strong due process guarantees, a "shall return" legal mechanism that doesn't require the gun owner to sue to get his stuff back, but rather places the burden on the government to periodically prove their case all over again, expedited appeals, etc.. But if you refuse to enter into any discussion for red flag laws of any kind at all, then you're going to let the gun grabbers draft all those laws by themselves, and we'll end up with something much, much worse.
To be clear, that is NOT what I propose. There is existing law to remove people from society with due process for substantiated threats to others. If it is planned mass murder, that fits terrorism statues.
They will not have access to their guns, or vehicles, or fertilizer bombs, or airplanes, or pressure cookers, etc...
Stop ignoring crazy people and pretending their threatening behaviour doesn't matter.
-
Okay. You think the homegrown radical Islamist with all the guns who is making online threats about going out and killing a bunch of American kids should be able to keep his guns anyway, and I don't.
Impasse.
Impasse indeed. I will never agree with mind police, convicting people for what they have not done.
Careful what you are opening up... The precedent you are setting will have long range unintended consequences.
-
As for due process -- Perhaps you didn't understand; Trump is for confiscation first and due process later. If you're ok with that, then you ARE willing to give up rights under the 2nd, 5th and 14th amendments. I'm not ok with that.
I'm not sure that's the case, but in any event, I don't support that at all, and I'm not advocating for that.
I'm advocating for strict red flag laws that would include things like 1) mandatory due process 2) expedited appeals 3) mandatory return of weapons/ammo built into the law rather than requiring a suit to be filed, 4) damages/penalties mandatory when an order is determine on appeal to have been wrongly granted, etc. etc..
My concern is that if those of us who want to protect gun rights and gun owners just take a blanket position of "we're not even going to discuss red flag laws no matter how many built-in protections there are", then we're out of the debate, and the laws that will be enacted will likely be much, much worse.
-
That's true of some of the proposed laws. And no law is going to stop every single potential incident. But that's kind of the same flawed logic as the left uses against the idea of a border wall. "Well, some people are going to figure out a way around, under, through, or over it, so it's useless." Just because a law won't stop everything doesn't mean that a reasonable law shouldn't be available to stop the ones that could be stopped.
The focus is in the wrong place with everyone wanting new laws just to have new laws. Where's the focus on the criminal element. The people who don't give a rats ass abot any law you or anyone else would like to see passed?
While everyone is going apoplectic over the shootings in El Paso and Dayton...80 people were shot in Chicago the same weekend. One hospital ER was treating so many gunshot victims they had to stop accepting new trauma cases.
Baltimore just had it's 200th homicide of the year last week. It's on pace to hit 300...for the fourth year in a row.
I haven't heard one politician or anyone on here backing these red flag laws say anything about that. All I keep hearing are new schemes to take guns away from and restrict the usage of firearms from law abiding citizens trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Wonder why that is?
Which of those laws would stop the homegrown radical Islamist in my hypothetical? Because I think most people would agree that is something we should be able to stop.
Which of the news laws the Libs keep proposing would stop any of the mass shootings we've had in even the last decade?
Answer: None.
-
Okay. You think the homegrown radical Islamist with all the guns who is making online threats about going out and killing a bunch of American kids should be able to keep his guns anyway, and I don't.
Impasse.
Section 806 of the Patriot Act should already cover this individual. Already law to seizes assets without a prior hearing, and without them ever being convicted of a crime.
https://www.aclu.org/other/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism (https://www.aclu.org/other/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism)
-
@Jazzhead
So let's say a radical Muslim - a citizen born in this country -- owns legally purchased firearms, starts talking on social media about how he is getting ready to kill infidels, and is amassing weapons and ammo to do so. Again, all weapons and ammo are legally owned. Oh yeah, and lets add to it that his sister has called the police, says that her brother is mentally ill and off his meds, and that she's afraid he's going to do something violent.
Do we have to station cops around his house and tail him 24/7 indefinitely in the event that this is the day he decides to follow through on his threats? Or do we just wait until he starts shooting people to do something about him having guns and ammo?
Because those are the kind of questions a Republican candidate is going to be asked if he states a blanket opposition to any red flag law.
As it currently stands, he would get a 72 hour stay in the local psych ward and be evaluated and medicated.
-
There is existing law to remove people from society with due process for substantiated threats to others. If it is planned mass murder, that fits terrorism statues.
Which law is that?
Most of those laws have conspiracy as an element, which means multiple people must be involved. They also require that a predicate act, which cannot simply be statement of intent, be committed. That doesn't help in a lot of scenarios.
I'll toss out another. Woman breaks up with boyfriend, who calls her and tells her that he's going to come over there and shoot her. She has an actual recording of his voice saying that so it's not just his word against hers. To me personally, that should trigger the ability to red flag the dude, have a hearing, and deprive him of firearms for a 14 or 30 day cooling-off period. If you don't want to lose your guns, don't directly threaten to kill someone with them.
-
As it currently stands, he would get a 72 hour stay in the local psych ward and be evaluated and medicated.
Remove the psych element -- he's just a pissed-off, radicalized, homegrown Islamist.
-
Remove the psych element -- he's just a pissed-off, radicalized, homegrown Islamist.
I was coming back to add, he should be prosecuted for making terroristic threats. The two possibilities, 72 hour hold and prosecution, should take care of most situations. Given that there are some people, very rare luckily, who are going to do what they are going to do regardless of anything we can do to prevent them.
@Maj. Bill Martin
-
Which law is that?
Most of those laws have conspiracy as an element, which means multiple people must be involved. They also require that a predicate act, which cannot simply be statement of intent, be committed. That doesn't help in a lot of scenarios.
The Patriot Act can be applied to a single person.
I'll toss out another. Woman breaks up with boyfriend, who calls her and tells her that he's going to come over there and shoot her. She has an actual recording of his voice saying that so it's not just his word against hers. To me personally, that should trigger the ability to red flag the dude, have a hearing, and deprive him of firearms for a 14 or 30 day cooling-off period. If you don't want to lose your guns, don't directly threaten to kill someone with them.
If she doesn't have the recording, as most won't?
Now make the situation where he is falsifying her threats and gets her firearm removed that was her only real protection against him.
-
Well, you hit on the problem. People who live in the people hives like NYC and other major urban areas just can't wrap their heads around life in a rural environment. But they think they should be able to dictate how we live in what to them is as alien as another planet.
It is small wonder that their "solutions" for the problems had by people living in their environment just don't make one damned bit of sense where we are.
That's right Joe. Here we are swimming in guns - More dang guns per square inch, than anywhere on the planet. And we've got police response times that can be an hour or more... There ain't no appreciable law out here, once you get out of town.
According to their insanity, here more than anywhere there should be gun problems... But there's not. No the problems are all in their gun-free sh*thole cities. Why? Because only the criminals have guns.
But an analog was found in the 60s by John B Calhoun, who worked at NIMH.
That is one heck of an analog - I have long declared cities mess folks up... I thought maybe it was the water... :whistle:
-
Just because a law won't stop everything doesn't mean that a reasonable law shouldn't be available to stop the ones that could be stopped.
He who governs least, governs best. What have your 'gun-free zone' laws stopped? most of these mass shootings are committed in metro areas where gun laws are absolutely draconian... What have those laws stopped? Heck, I have heard there are laws preventing you from even transporting a gun... What has that stopped?
Y'all have laws falling out of your *sses that don't stop a damn thing. And you wish to impose them on us too.
It boggles my mind that you cannot see that.
-
Raising a Black Flag Against Red Flag Laws
https://townhall.com/columnists/sheriffdavidclarkeret/2019/08/12/raising-a-black-flag-against-red-flag-laws-n2551547
-
Raising a Black Flag Against Red Flag Laws
https://townhall.com/columnists/sheriffdavidclarkeret/2019/08/12/raising-a-black-flag-against-red-flag-laws-n2551547
The usual paranoid bullshit
-
The usual paranoid bullshit
Him or you?
-
Doesn't make any sense to me either. Especially since there were some upthread who said that taking someone's guns away in part because of statements they made was a violation of the First Amendment. Obviously, the exact same would be true for throwing him in jail for the making of those statements as well.
Maybe that’s why some people call gun owners and enthusiasts, gun nuts. To non gun owners, they seem almost to worship unfettered access to guns, above every consideration of a gun’s potential—in the wrong hands—to visit unspeakable carnage on innocent people at school, at work or at a busy market.
The gun is a tool. I have lots of tools. I use my tools. I like my tools. But, they’re just tools. A gun however, is a tool that comes with a great responsibility and an even greater potential for harm—again, if in the wrong hands.
A home grown Islamic terrorist, someone on the edge of sanity, a disgruntled, agitated or threatening employee, an 18-year-old acting out violently, an anarchist or subversive advocating violent overthrow of the government; If these types of people own guns, there should be a codified, due-process way to legally challenge that ownership.
-
A home grown Islamic terrorist, someone on the edge of sanity, a disgruntled, agitated or threatening employee, an 18-year-old acting out violently, an anarchist or subversive advocating violent overthrow of the government; If these types of people own guns, there should be a codified, due-process way to legally challenge that ownership.
There is - Mental disorder or felony - either one already means no legal gun ownership... Not that it stops anyone.
-
Maybe that’s why some people call gun owners and enthusiasts, gun nuts. To non gun owners, they seem almost to worship unfettered access to guns, above every consideration of a gun’s potential—in the wrong hands—to visit unspeakable carnage on innocent people at school, at work or at a busy market.
The gun is a tool. I have lots of tools. I use my tools. I like my tools. But, they’re just tools. A gun however, is a tool that comes with a great responsibility and an even greater potential for harm—again, if in the wrong hands.
A home grown Islamic terrorist, someone on the edge of sanity, a disgruntled, agitated or threatening employee, an 18-year-old acting out violently, an anarchist or subversive advocating violent overthrow of the government; If these types of people own guns, there should be a codified, due-process way to legally challenge that ownership.
Then start making the case for an amendment because that's what it's going to take.
-
Maybe that’s why some people call gun owners and enthusiasts, gun nuts. To non gun owners, they seem almost to worship unfettered access to guns, above every consideration of a gun’s potential—in the wrong hands—to visit unspeakable carnage on innocent people at school, at work or at a busy market.
The gun is a tool. I have lots of tools. I use my tools. I like my tools. But, they’re just tools. A gun however, is a tool that comes with a great responsibility and an even greater potential for harm—again, if in the wrong hands.
A gun is also the only tool you have that's protected by an Amendment in the Constitution.
A home grown Islamic terrorist, someone on the edge of sanity, a disgruntled, agitated or threatening employee, an 18-year-old acting out violently, an anarchist or subversive advocating violent overthrow of the government; If these types of people own guns, there should be a codified, due-process way to legally challenge that ownership.
There's already laws on the books to handle this. What good will a new one do?
-
Fair question.
The Baker Act - which permits the voluntary and involuntary temporary commitment of someone who is mentally incompetent -- is only the law in Florida, so you'd have to make a national version. Assuming you did that, there are two problems:
Every state has a version of this law. They fall under the heading of voluntary/ involuntary commitment laws.
https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/national-studies/state-standards-involuntary-treatment.html
-
The Patriot Act can be applied to a single person.
There is no provision of the Patriot Act that would permit arrest under those circumstances, and I've read the whole thing. There are some state laws that would permit prosecution if you made a threat for the purpose of scaring/intimidating people. But they don't do any good if the threat or evidence of dangerousness wasn't made public, and wasn't for the purpose of intimidation. For example, if it was posted to an arabic-only website and didn't intimidate other citizens, no prosecution is possible.
If she doesn't have the recording, as most won't?
Then you can't take his weapon. Pretty simple.
Now make the situation where he is falsifying her threats and gets her firearm removed that was her only real protection against him.
That's the point of ensuring that the law is drafted correctly regarding the burden of proof and required evidentiary standards.
-
The usual paranoid bullshit
This law would allow the government to violate our Fourteenth Amendment due process rights along with Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights to the Constitution and confiscate our property (guns) on an unsubstantiated citizen complaint about something a person might do. That is a lower standard than the reasonable suspicion standard we allow police to use. That is an “anything is possible†standard. Red Flag Laws will not stop the next mass shooting just like banning the Confederate Flag after Charleston did not nor did banning bump stocks after the Las Vegas massacre.
-
Yeah... He seemed shocked when I told him I bought most of my guns off the back of a truck... Like there is something wrong with that. :silly:
You mean there are other places to purchase firearms? Ya learn something new every day.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wbj6NNSK/Screenshot-2019-08-13-Dana-Loesch-on-Twitter-With-one-Tweet-POTU.png)
-
You would think so, but remember most teachers are a product of the progressive education system. I'm guessing it would be very difficult to find a conservative teacher under 50-60 years old.
Here in my district, in VA. we have quite a few. Our county is very rural with 2 cities. I can only think of about 5 teachers in my school that would qualify as liberal.
-
You mean there are other places to purchase firearms? Ya learn something new every day.
It ain't quite all that bad... I think two of my rifles were bought over the counter... Maybe three... I really don't remember. But as a general rule, I try pretty hard to buy things broken and fix em... That's how redneck boys get nice things. So it should be no surprise that I dwell in private sales. If it weren't flatly for the liberty angle, I would be doing it anyway, naturally... Like with everything else... You won't find me buying much of anything new, when you can find used in near new condition for a tenth of the cost. :shrug:
-
Here in my district, in VA. we have quite a few. Our county is very rural with 2 cities. I can only think of about 5 teachers in my school that would qualify as liberal.
I can't tell you how rare that is. I live in a very rural Texas area and I taught in a rural Texas area. Again, very, very few non-leftist indoctrinated teachers in both areas.
-
I can't tell you how rare that is. I live in a very rural Texas area and I taught in a rural Texas area. Again, very, very few non-leftist indoctrinated teachers in both areas.
All products of Colleges of Education no doubt!
-
It's extraordinarily difficult. We now have so many homeless precisely because involuntary commitment is so legally difficult. And again, remove the mental illness component of it if you like -- he's just a very militant convert to Islam who is posting on social media about his desire to kill a bunch of infidels.
I have direct personal experience with it. It takes the signature of a physician and a concerned person (generally a relative). Takes about 2 hours start to finish.
-
IMHO the most accurate versions of history being taught these days are to kids that are home schooled. Something the Liberals absolutely hate.
@txradioguy
I agree and I think those kids will be our future conservative leaders.
-
@txradioguy
I agree and I think those kids will be our future conservative leaders.
If there are to be any conservative leaders in our future they will almost certainly come with that kind of background @austingirl.
-
I have direct personal experience with it. It takes the signature of a physician and a concerned person (generally a relative). Takes about 2 hours start to finish.
Isn't the criteria "a threat to self or others"?
-
I can't tell you how rare that is. I live in a very rural Texas area and I taught in a rural Texas area. Again, very, very few non-leftist indoctrinated teachers in both areas.
That's right - even here.
Brings to mind the day they had my daughter on a prayer rug bowing toward Mecca... Where Christian prayer is banned, mind you.
That was a red letter day... Me leaning over that principal's desk, pokin my finger in his chest... Why I said things right there that would make @Jazzhead and @Maj. Bill Martin wanna take all my guns, I'll tell you what!
-
@txradioguy
I agree and I think those kids will be our future conservative leaders.
@austingirl
I sure hope they are. We're not likely to find them coming from big city government run education centers.
-
@austingirl
I sure hope they are. We're not likely to find them coming from big city government run education indoctrination centers.
Fixed it for you @txradioguy.
-
Fixed it for you @txradioguy.
888high58888
-
@austingirl
I sure hope they are. We're not likely to find them coming from big city government run education centers.
I think there are many, including myself, who have raised their children to think for themselves. I believe my children are well prepared to deal with others with different opinions, having been exposed to that environment in public schools.
A big mistake in my opinion, is to send children anywhere and not be involved in their lives. Don't take any school or team or group for granted that they will match your personal beliefs. Know what others tell your children and teach them to evaluate what they are told, not to only soak it in without thought.
They are well prepared as they move forward exposed to all ideas and still retain who they are.
And I don't pretend they think exactly as I do. But they do think for themselves.
-
I think there are many, including myself, who have raised their children to think for themselves. I believe my children are well prepared to deal with others with different opinions, having been exposed to that environment in public schools.
A big mistake in my opinion, is to send children anywhere and not be involved in their lives. Don't take any school or team or group for granted that they will match your personal beliefs. Know what others tell your children and teach them to evaluate what they are told, not to only soak it in without thought.
They are well prepared as they move forward exposed to all ideas and still retain who they are.
And I don't pretend they think exactly as I do. But they do think for themselves.
@thackney I think a lot of us raised our kids in just that manner. I just hope enough of us did to blunt what's being done to kids in public schools who don't have parents that took the same interest that you and I did.
-
@thackney I think a lot of us raised our kids in just that manner. I just hope enough of us did to blunt what's being done to kids in public schools who don't have parents that took the same interest that you and I did.
It is my opinion that for every @thackney and @txradioguy there are a hundred who have children who only know what they have been indoctrinated to believe. I sincerely hope to be proven wrong about that.
-
That's the point of ensuring that the law is drafted correctly regarding the burden of proof and required evidentiary standards.
That is a very good theory, but what is to prevent a different administration from modifying it or some judge from interpreting it differently.
Sorry NO SALE.
-
It is my opinion that for every @thackney and @txradioguy there are a hundred who have children who only know what they have been indoctrinated to believe. I sincerely hope to be proven wrong about that.
I hope you are too.
-
@thackney I think a lot of us raised our kids in just that manner. I just hope enough of us did to blunt what's being done to kids in public schools who don't have parents that took the same interest that you and I did.
By the time they were a Sophomore in High School, it was obvious to them they were different than most. They were already into leadership positions in whatever they joined. And they realized most of their classmates were too lazy and unengaged to be more than cattle. Cattle have their purpose and we would be less without them. But they learned not to depend on them any more than they would cattle.
Honestly, I believe they were better for being in public school. They are going to have to deal with those folks for the rest of their lives. Learning how to lead them and when to avoid them are worthwhile skills in their lives.
Honestly, I worry homeschool only children may end up expecting far too much from the general public.
-
Isn't the criteria "a threat to self or others"?
All I had to do was describe their actions over the past 24 hours to the physician, he talked to that person for all of 5-10 minutes. Transfer to the psych ward and they were confined in about 2 hours time total. One of the hardest things I ever had to do, but they finally got the proper diagnosis and the meds they needed. That person has not had an episode in over 2 years and is living a full and happy life now (knock on wood).
-
All I had to do was describe their actions over the past 24 hours to the physician, he talked to that person for all of 5-10 minutes. Transfer to the psych ward and they were confined in about 2 hours time total. One of the hardest things I ever had to do, but they finally got the proper diagnosis and the meds they needed. That person has not had an episode in over 2 years and is living a full and happy life now (knock on wood).
There you go.
And, bless you for being a good relative.
-
Maybe that’s why some people call gun owners and enthusiasts, gun nuts. To non gun owners, they seem almost to worship unfettered access to guns [...]
And by the way, @aligncare , it ain't about the guns. It's about the Liberty. I think you will find most 'gun owners and enthusiasts' to be just as vociferous in their defense of speech, or any other BOR or Constitutional principle.
-
And by the way, @aligncare , it ain't about the guns. It's about the Liberty. I think you will find most 'gun owners and enthusiasts' to be just as vociferous in their defense of speech, or any other BOR or Constitutional principle.
Damned right! Even when it makes them very unpopular in some circles.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wbj6NNSK/Screenshot-2019-08-13-Dana-Loesch-on-Twitter-With-one-Tweet-POTU.png)
Good, hopefully his stupid Tweet will sink this statist ship that he is trying to launch while it is still docked!!
-
And by the way, @aligncare , it ain't about the guns. It's about the Liberty. I think you will find most 'gun owners and enthusiasts' to be just as vociferous in their defense of speech, or any other BOR or Constitutional principle.
Another one that obviously didn't bother to watch the video....
We've now seen the political expediency trolling run another thread into the ground...
We had a dumpster file going for that purpose and it got shitcanned over here: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,371119.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,371119.0.html)
**nononono*
-
By the time they were a Sophomore in High School, it was obvious to them they were different than most. They were already into leadership positions in whatever they joined. And they realized most of their classmates were too lazy and unengaged to be more than cattle. Cattle have their purpose and we would be less without them. But they learned not to depend on them any more than they would cattle.
Honestly, I believe they were better for being in public school. They are going to have to deal with those folks for the rest of their lives. Learning how to lead them and when to avoid them are worthwhile skills in their lives.
Honestly, I worry homeschool only children may end up expecting far too much from the general public.
If folks here think I'm stubborn about arguing a point and not letting go of my belief in what I'm saying they need to meet my daughter...she's me on steroids LOL!
Both of my kids are very independent thinkers and know bullsh*t when they see it. Wouldn't want them any other way.
-
Good, hopefully his stupid Tweet will sink this statist ship that he is trying to launch while it is still docked!!
@EdJames
Don't bet on it...Ivanka is out there doing arm twisting as we speak.
-
@EdJames
Don't bet on it...Ivanka is out there doing arm twisting as we speak.
Sadly I've seen that....
-
Another one that obviously didn't bother to watch the video....
We've now seen the political expediency trolling run another thread into the ground...
We had a dumpster file going for that purpose and it got shitcanned over here: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,371119.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,371119.0.html)
**nononono*
Yep! Seems to be the norm here after a few pages.
-
No, I simply don't share your paranoia, @sneakypete . Of course, freedom requires citizen vigilance, but in the context of a constitutional republic, that vigilance is exercised by means of the vote and political action, not by acquiring arsenals so as to be prepared to kill peace officers.
You demand we be ready to kill the king. In America, WE are the king. We govern OURSELVES, with the ballot not the bullet. You advocate the destruction of our beautiful nation. That is not the mindset of a patriot, and that is the reason I reject your warped ideology, totally.
I had to laugh, guess you never heard of the Battle of Athens? Where that ballot was stolen at the point of a gun (after shooting a black fellow) and only took back at the sounding of many guns (and some dynamite).
I now know why someone in their tagline makes sure not to be mistaken for you... We all say, I am not Jazzhead, I am not Jazzhead, I am not @Jazzhead
-
Damned right! Even when it makes them very unpopular in some circles.
And why I will not be moved. Not a single inch.
:beer: :patriot: :seeya:
-
By the time they were a Sophomore in High School, it was obvious to them they were different than most. They were already into leadership positions in whatever they joined. And they realized most of their classmates were too lazy and unengaged to be more than cattle. Cattle have their purpose and we would be less without them. But they learned not to depend on them any more than they would cattle.
Honestly, I believe they were better for being in public school. They are going to have to deal with those folks for the rest of their lives. Learning how to lead them and when to avoid them are worthwhile skills in their lives.
Honestly, I worry homeschool only children may end up expecting far too much from the general public.
I have taught in Urban, suburban and rural districts. I will agree with you about the urban and some of the suburban students. The vast majority of the urban ones are just occupying space. going through the motions to get by and the same is true for the about 30 percent of the Burbs kids. But in the rural districts the opposite is true. Most of them work on the family farm or a neighbors farm and know the meaning of hard work. When i worked up north it took me about a day to figure out who were the "Townies" and who were the farmers. In five years I saw maybe 2 townies on the football and wrestling teams.
Over the years I have seen quite a few students that transferred in from Home schooling situations. Some did very well on standardized tests, some did "okay" quite a few did mediocre or well in one area, but other areas were severely lacking. We had one student when I taught up north that was off the charts on reading and writing, but he could not pass a math or science test to save his life. after speaking to the parents it turned out that they only let him "read" about biology, chemistry, and physics. He did no hands on lab work at all.
Some programs are great but so much depends on the externals.
For the record I am an "All of the above" guy Whatever suits your child's ability is what you should do. If your child needs the structure and discipline and structure of a Military or parochial school go for it. If they have the drive to get through a Montessori program God bless 'em go for it. If they want to specialize in a charter school program, more power to them. I also believe that if you use something other than a public school program that you should get either a tax credit for the amount that the public school is not using or you should get some sort of tuition assistance equal to that amount.
-
I have taught in Urban, suburban and rural districts. I will agree with you about the urban and some of the suburban students. The vast majority of the urban ones are just occupying space. going through the motions to get by and the same is true for the about 30 percent of the Burbs kids. But in the rural districts the opposite is true. Most of them work on the family farm or a neighbors farm and know the meaning of hard work. When i worked up north it took me about a day to figure out who were the "Townies" and who were the farmers. In five years I saw maybe 2 townies on the football and wrestling teams.
We moved from a typical suburb to a mostly rural, oldest daughter in the former, youngest in the latter. Our rural HS has a significant amount of very poor, and over half the school defined as economically disadvantaged. We moved for the Ag, very strong FFA program. But it is still a minority of students who are actually involved in Ag.
-
If the fight over what to do is as intense as it is in this little forum, imagine the intensity when it’s being debated in the halls of Congress or even the nation as a whole
-
We moved from a typical suburb to a mostly rural, oldest daughter in the former, youngest in the latter. Our rural HS has a significant amount of very poor, and over half the school defined as economically disadvantaged. We moved for the Ag, very strong FFA program. But it is still a minority of students who are actually involved in Ag.
That is very surprising, in my school (student pop. about 770) I would say we have about 200+ in the FFA, about 100 participate in contests. All the guys want to do Ag Mech, the want to do Small animal or Horticulture. Having a hard time recruiting for Parle. I have been doing some recruiting for Ag Dept.
-
That is very surprising, in my school (student pop. about 770) I would say we have about 200+ in the FFA, about 100 participate in contests. All the guys want to do Ag Mech, the want to do Small animal or Horticulture. Having a hard time recruiting for Parle. I have been doing some recruiting for Ag Dept.
We are nearly 2,000 kids total. We have 4 Ag teachers this year, up from 3. So a minority of the population is still a significant amount of kids, but far from the majority of the school. I just don't know the total numbers.
https://schools.texastribune.org/districts/angleton-isd/angleton-high-school/
-
If the fight over what to do is as intense as it is in this little forum, imagine the intensity when it’s being debated in the halls of Congress or even the nation as a whole
There are obvious parallels between 2A absolutists and abortion rights absolutists. (I'll use that term instead of "extremist", which appears to ruffle feathers around here.) Neither will abide any restriction or regulation of their favored right (while, in what can only be described as hypocrisy, often seeking to abolish entirely the right they disfavor) .
Of course, most citizens see the need for reasonable and constitutionally-sound regulation of both rights. But it is the absolutists who man the barricades and condemn those who dare to speak common sense as weak advocates of "compromise". There's no dirtier word to an absolutist.
-
There are obvious parallels between 2A absolutists and abortion rights absolutists. (I'll use that term instead of "extremist", which appears to ruffle feathers around here.) Neither will abide any restriction or regulation of their favored right (while, in what can only be described as hypocrisy, often seeking to abolish entirely the right they disfavor) .
Of course, most citizens see the need for reasonable and constitutionally-sound regulation of both rights. But it is the absolutists who man the barricades and condemn those who dare to speak common sense as weak advocates of "compromise". There's no dirtier word to an absolutist.
Lol. You really need to stop evoking the Constitution as if it backs up your position here. It most definitely does not, quite on the contrary.
Your argument has more in common with that of the abortion absolutists, in fact. Both of you read things into the Constitution that just aren't there.
-
There are obvious parallels between 2A absolutists and abortion rights absolutists. (I'll use that term instead of "extremist", which appears to ruffle feathers around here.) Neither will abide any restriction or regulation of their favored right (while, in what can only be described as hypocrisy, often seeking to abolish entirely the right they disfavor) .
Of course, most citizens see the need for reasonable and constitutionally-sound regulation of both rights. But it is the absolutists who man the barricades and condemn those who dare to speak common sense as weak advocates of "compromise". There's no dirtier word to an absolutist.
Jazzhead, a bit of friendly advice - you need to stay out of this discussion. You don't have a clue, and you don't have a clue that you don't have a clue.
-
There are obvious parallels between 2A absolutists and abortion rights absolutists. (I'll use that term instead of "extremist", which appears to ruffle feathers around here.) Neither will abide any restriction or regulation of their favored right (while, in what can only be described as hypocrisy, often seeking to abolish entirely the right they disfavor) .
Of course, most citizens see the need for reasonable and constitutionally-sound regulation of both rights. But it is the absolutists who man the barricades and condemn those who dare to speak common sense as weak advocates of "compromise". There's no dirtier word to an absolutist.
When we already follow thousands of laws on gun regulations already, I don't see how you claim we won't accept any regulations or restrictions. But there seems to be no end of the ever chipping away of the law abiding citizens rights. You demonize us with such hyperbole that doesn't reflect reality.
-
Jazzhead, a bit of friendly advice - you need to stay out of this discussion. You don't have a clue, and you don't have a clue that you don't have a clue.
That’s a demeaning thing to say to @Jazzhead
He doesn’t deserve that characterization. His point of view is shared by many in both parties and the non affiliated, opinion polls suggest.
These folks, my relatives, friends and neighbors) are equal American participants in our republic’s politics. And we’ve got to learn to negotiate with them the way Reagan did, by bringing people on board, not by trying to kick them off the train.
-
That’s a demeaning thing to say to @Jazzhead
He doesn’t deserve that characterization. His point of view is shared by many in both parties and the non affiliated, opinion polls suggest.
These folks, my relatives, friends and neighbors) are equal American participants in our republic’s politics. And we’ve got to learn to negotiate with them the way Reagan did, by bringing people on board, not by trying to kick them off the train.
Well, something else we disagree about.
-
That’s a demeaning thing to say to @Jazzhead
He doesn’t deserve that characterization. His point of view is shared by many in both parties and the non affiliated, opinion polls suggest.
These folks, my relatives, friends and neighbors) are equal American participants in our republic’s politics. And we’ve got to learn to negotiate with them the way Reagan did, by bringing people on board, not by trying to kick them off the train.
So it's ok for him to refer to people as extremists absolutists and lawless but someone telling him he's clueless is a no go?
-
So it's ok for him to refer to people as extremists absolutists and lawless but someone telling him he's clueless is a no go?
Rules for radicals would approve.
-
Rules for radicals would approve.
Good point.
-
These folks, my relatives, friends and neighbors) are equal American participants in our republic’s politics. And we’ve got to learn to negotiate with them the way Reagan did, by bringing people on board, not by trying to kick them off the train.
@aligncare
No, first thing y'all have to do is to quit trying this crap at the federal level. If you want to impose limits in your state or municipality (no doubt like you already have) then knock yourself out. But don't think your priorities are equally shared across the country, even if there are more people in metro areas. Your ways don't work around here.
NOBODY has trigger locks, and few, other than collectors, have gun safes. And most guns not in storage are loaded and ready to go (My big iron is clean and unloaded and stored until hunting season). There has been a loaded 45 above my right hand on my headboard through my whole life, to include when children were in the house, as well as a loaded short shotgun hanging above the exterior door, and a long pump shotgun inside the closet. When you need em, you need em now.
And with a 30/30 and a .357mag that live in the truck, and all the rest I have laying around, I have never had a gun stolen, with the exception of 2 shotguns my former gunsmith ran off with when he split town, And a 45 colt that got confiscated by the cops after my involvement in a fist fight over in Spokane Wa.
Guns are just part of every day life out here, and that CANNOT change.
Your negotiations are meant to take place in your state, and not at the federal level. This country is way, way too big and diverse to dictate a one-size-fits-all solution. As long as you reject the natural federalism that is supposed to be the norm, there can be no negotiations. What y'all want doesn't work where you are, so why the hell do you think it will work here? When you have something that provably works, then other states may well adopt it. That is how this is supposed to be.
Predictably your federal dictates and impositions will be summarily ignored by most rural states, and that is the least damaging outcome. Certainly the Rockies will give you the finger. At the worst, civil war - and y'all are pushing for it HARD.
Mind your own business and write your idiotic laws for yourself. Leave me and mine out of it.
I am imposing nothing on you. It would be right neighborly if you did the same.
-
As is everyone who has ever put on a uniform! As far as I know, none have ever been released from that oath.
@Bigun
If I have ever been released from it,nobody told me about it.
-
Fair question.
The Baker Act - which permits the voluntary and involuntary temporary commitment of someone who is mentally incompetent -- is only the law in Florida, so you'd have to make a national version. Assuming you did that, there are two problems:
1) It is entirely possible that the person in question is not so mentally impaired that they meet the high standards mental illness standards required under the Baker Act. They're just an extraordinarily dangerous, angry a-hole. Perhaps they are just a committed Islamic radical, Antifa goon, or Nazi who has published a desire to kill people with guns. Or just some really pissed off, antisocial young adult who talks about shooting up schools. The Baker Act is useless against all those people.
2) The Baker Act permits involuntary commitment via an ex parte court order, meaning you don't even get a say before you're locked up. That level of due process...isn't. How is it better for an accused gun owner to be thrown in jail as "insane" rather than be temporarily deprived of a gun? That's what the Soviets did -- define conduct they didn't like as insanity, and then just have people committed.
@Maj. Bill Martin
This whole discussion makes my head hurt. If you are arrested,they automatically take your weapons from you,and you don't get them back without a court order.
If you are a suspect in a violent crime the cops generally get a court order to seize all your weapons until the court releases you and the weapons.
Sooooo,WTH is everybody arguing about? There is nothing new about this. It was SOP back in the 1800's.
OOOPS! That's right,I forgot. The 'murikan left equates gun owners to criminal suspects or outright criminals merely BECAUSE they own a gun,and they want the line between suspect and citizen to be so narrow as to be non-existant.
Bad,sneakypete,bad!
-
Sooooo,WTH is everybody arguing about? There is nothing new about this. It was SOP back in the 1800's.
They want federal red flag powers.
-
They want federal red flag powers.
@roamer_1
I must be even slower than usual today,because I still don't get it.
-
@roamer_1
I must be even slower than usual today,because I still don't get it.
Right now 'red flag' laws are local to county or municipality, and vary state to state, county to county, etc. They are looking for a universal federal law.
And they are looking for a lesser reasonable cause, lesser level of proof, and a larger pool of athoratative witnesses that have standing.
So my ex wife can make crap up and use the feds to swirl me down the tubes for crap I ain't done yet... And don't think she won't.
-
@roamer_1
I must be even slower than usual today,because I still don't get it.
They want the federal government to be able to confiscate the guns of those flagged by a red flag "violation".
-
They want the federal government to be able to confiscate the guns of those flagged by a red flag "violation".
@Sanguine
Ok,I will admit to having a bad case of "chemo brain" today,but what is new about that? Once again,the cops confiscated all your firearms when you were arrested for felonies,even back in the 1800's. Granted,they didn't call it a "red flag violation" back then,but so what?
-
@Sanguine
Ok,I will admit to having a bad case of "chemo brain" today,but what is new about that? Once again,the cops confiscated all your firearms when you were arrested for felonies,even back in the 1800's. Granted,they didn't call it a "red flag violation" back then,but so what?
First, it is without having committed a crime, and secondly, it would be the feds doing it, not your local police force.
-
@Sanguine
Ok,I will admit to having a bad case of "chemo brain" today,but what is new about that? Once again,the cops confiscated all your firearms when you were arrested for felonies,even back in the 1800's. Granted,they didn't call it a "red flag violation" back then,but so what?
You are assumed to have committed felonies. The new standard is that you may be thinking of committing felonies... Or maybe just running your mouth down at the bar...
-
You are assumed to have committed felonies. The new standard is that you may be thinking of committing felonies... Or maybe just running your mouth down at the bar...
@roamer_1
Ahhhhhhh,now I get it!
Being charged or punished for something you MIGHT be thinking about doing changes everything.
-
@roamer_1
Ahhhhhhh,now I get it!
Being charged or punished for something you MIGHT be thinking about doing changes everything.
Yeah, don't it?
:boring:
-
Well, I do wish that woman would get to the point. After 12 minutes, I decided to go work out at the gym.
But here's my beef with her and those who think like her: The 2A as written is obsolete. This is not about killing the king. We threw out the king, and installed in its place a representative government of the people, by the people, with explicit protections for individual rights. We don't need pitchforks and assault weapons to take down our leaders, we have the ballot box. I am offended by this notion that guns secure our freedoms - our Constitution and our traditions of self-government do. When a President or Congress overreaches (like, say, after what Obama did with the ACA), the voters throw the bums out. That's going to be the battleground next year - whether to throw the bums out. I agree that, nowadays, the biased and unprofessional media has their thumb on the scales, but the answer is still not armed insurrection. Our institutions still work.
The 2A protects no natural, individual right. The 2A addresses matters of civil and community defense, from a time when a key role was played by citizen militias. It is obsolete in today's world. The natural right to self defense of person and property is an unenumerated right similar to the individual rights of privacy and self-determination. These are protected by Constitution, to be sure, but there is an ongoing tension between the courts and the legislatures since a sizable portion of the population disagrees with the courts that these rights are in fact protected. If close to half the nation wants to abolish the Constitution's protection for abortion, then I'd think a similar percentage likely wants to abolish the Constitution's protection (by means of Heller) of the individual right to keep a firearm for self protection.
The angst and anger that folks feel has as its source this tension. We are all hypocrites. Rights for me but not for thee. Those who most zealously guard their RKBA are often the first to demand that a woman's right to choose be denied. And those who most zealously guard the woman's choice right see no hypocrisy in demanding laws that would take away a man's right to defend his home and family.
Can a constitutional republic survive when half the country doesn't share the values of the other half? That's the open question, but matters would be helped if both sides could manage to recognize their selfishness.
There you go with somehow finding in the Constitution a Right to kill innocents. That supposed Right was fabricated by a handful of judges, and there is NO WAY you will ever convince me that the Founders would have asserted that such a natural Right exists. So, Poppycock.
Now, the Second Amendment wasn't about killing the King, (nor was the Revolution, for that matter.)
What it was about, was resisting tyranny, from any source. Period.
That had just been done magnificently by colonists armed with muskets and rifles with which they were familiar, because they owned them, for the most part. Some of the most significant shots of the war were made by riflemen who knew (and owned) their firearms.
In later conflicts, breech loading firearms, metallic cartridges, lever action repeating rifles, Gatling guns, bolt actions, semiautomatic rifles, machine guns, and finally select fire infantry arms have carried the day, each an improvement in the fight against tyrannical governments--or improvements in technology made by those defending that tyranny. There is no reason to assume that anyone trying to impose tyranny would limit themselves to single shot rifles, but instead, they will use whatever best technology is available to them.
Therefore, the best available technology should be available to resist that tyranny.
No one ever said the Second Amendment was about duck hunting, or even just self defense unless they are misguided as to the intent of the Amendment. Those are such fundamental Rights, the founders would not have even mentioned the possession of arms for such mundane causes--it was assumed that all knew they had the right to hunt for food, and to defend themselves against marauders of any stripe.
The purpose was so every man (and woman) could resist tyrannical forces, regardless of that source, and for that reason the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms was enshrined as sacrosanct. This was and is a Right reserved to the People, and not to be infringed by the machinations of government, which have been many already.
There comes a point where no more ground can be given in the cause of compromise, where any more is to accept the very tyranny which the enumeration of the Right exists to resist.
Tyrannical governments and those who would impose them have not gone away, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Today's totalitarians cloak their aims in the guise of everything from protecting children to saving the planet, and while their approach may be more subtle than just marching troops down the street, their aim is no less a tyrannical government.
Thus it remains, and being able to resist tyranny is more relevant than ever.
Never in the history of humanity have so many been exterminated by tyrants as in the last century, and frankly, that shows no signs of just going away.
-
Oh. So you're okay with gun owners being locked up -- just not having their guns taken away? And for exactly how long do we keep them locked up?
What is the sentence for conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, or more simply, to commit murder in the first degree?
-
So what is the purpose of having laws? This lawless mentality on the part of "conservatives" is disturbing, especially because it is not rooted in principle, but selfishness.
Yeah, we have a selfish need to uphold principles.
Is that all you got?
-
Good question. He hasn't yet acted on his threat. If the state has gotten it wrong, it is a far lesser injustice that his gun be removed, rather than his liberty.
Where is your compassion man? Get the fellow the mental health care he needs!
-
It's like the practice of step therapy in medicine. If a man's a substantiated potential threat, but hasn't yet acted, take his dangerous tool away. That is a far lesser deprivation than of his liberty.
Why do you fetishize the tool? Why is that "property" more important to be protected than the man's liberty?
His kitchen knives? his claw hammer? his axe, hatchet, machete? His lawnmower (he can remove the blade) Every rock for miles around (It worked for Cain.).
Pick a tool, any tool, and scrub the barren landscape down to fine sand. If he is nuts and still intends to kill people, he'll use his belt or shoelaces as a ligature.
If someone on Suicide Watch in a Federal Prison can find a way to do themselves in, how much easier would it be for someone on the outside to find a way to kill a bunch of people?
-
That's a convenient way to dodge the issue -- attacking one person who is making the argument because you don't like him. Maybe you don't like me either, but I'm not a liberal.
In this case, I think @Jazzhead made a going point. There are clearly some circumstances under which the vast majority of citizens -- even if not the particular people in this thread -- would agree that someone should have guns taken away from them. Making the argument that "under no circumstances should someone ever be deprived of their guns regardless of the threat they present to others" -- which is the essence of what is being argued here -- is massive loser politically. I also think it's stupid policy.
The right argument is to permit red flag laws, but only those with strong due process guarantees, a "shall return" legal mechanism that doesn't require the gun owner to sue to get his stuff back, but rather places the burden on the government to periodically prove their case all over again, expedited appeals, etc.. But if you refuse to enter into any discussion for red flag laws of any kind at all, then you're going to let the gun grabbers draft all those laws by themselves, and we'll end up with something much, much worse.
In 1492, the vast majority of people thought the world was flat.
In 1850, heavier than air flight was considered impossible.
In 1940, the vast majority of people thought we'd never break the sound barrier.
THe vast majority of people have been wrong before.
Our government doesn't exist to protect the 'vast majority' but the Rights of the individual.
Otherwise, the vast majority would cross the land like locusts, taking anything they want.
-
What kind of "grounds" are you talking about? Coffee grounds?
You can't arrest someone who has not yet committed a crime, and you can't lock someone up for mental incompetency if they're just an bleep rather than mentally incompetent.
Also, I hardly see how you've made things better for gun owners if we say "well, you can have red flag laws to toss gun owners in jail indefinitely. You just can't take their guns."
Enough speculative BS
To secure treatment during or following a psychiatric crisis, it is essential to know the civil commitment laws and standards that determine eligibility for intervention where the individual in crisis lives.
Three forms of involuntary treatment are authorized by civil commitment laws in 46 states and the District of Columbia. Two forms are available in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts and Tennessee, where court-ordered outpatient treatment has not yet been adopted.
Emergency hospitalization for evaluation is a crisis response in which a patient is admitted to a treatment facility for psychiatric evaluation, typically for a short period of fixed time (e.g., 72 hours). "Psychiatric hold" or "pick-up" and other terms may be used to describe the process.
Inpatient civil commitment is a process in which a judge orders hospital treatment for a person who continues to meet the state’s civil commitment criteria after the emergency evaluation period. Inpatient commitment is practiced in all states, but the standards that qualify an individual for it vary from state to state. “Involuntary hospitalization†or another term may be used to describe the practice.
Outpatient civil commitment or “assisted outpatient treatment (AOT)“ is a treatment option in which a judge orders a qualifying person with symptoms of mental illness to adhere to a mental health treatment plan while living in the community. AOT laws have been passed in 46 states, but the standards for its use vary from state to state. “Outpatient commitment,†“involuntary outpatient commitment,†“mandated outpatient treatment†and other terms may be used to describe the practice.
Use the map on this page to navigate to information about the laws in your state.
To find out who can initiate court-ordered psychiatric intervention, see "Initiating Court-Ordered Assisted Treatment: Inpatient, Outpatient and Emergency Hospitalization Standards by State."
https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/component/content/article/183-in-a-crisis/1596-know-the-laws-in-your-state (https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/component/content/article/183-in-a-crisis/1596-know-the-laws-in-your-state)
-
There you go with somehow finding in the Constitution a Right to kill innocents. That supposed Right was fabricated by a handful of judges, and there is NO WAY you will ever convince me that the Founders would have asserted that such a natural Right exists. So, Poppycock.
Now, the Second Amendment wasn't about killing the King, (nor was the Revolution, for that matter.)
What it was about, was resisting tyranny, from any source. Period.
That had just been done magnificently by colonists armed with muskets and rifles with which they were familiar, because they owned them, for the most part. Some of the most significant shots of the war were made by riflemen who knew (and owned) their firearms.
In later conflicts, breech loading firearms, metallic cartridges, lever action repeating rifles, Gatling guns, bolt actions, semiautomatic rifles, machine guns, and finally select fire infantry arms have carried the day, each an improvement in the fight against tyrannical governments--or improvements in technology made by those defending that tyranny. There is no reason to assume that anyone trying to impose tyranny would limit themselves to single shot rifles, but instead, they will use whatever best technology is available to them.
Therefore, the best available technology should be available to resist that tyranny.
No one ever said the Second Amendment was about duck hunting, or even just self defense unless they are misguided as to the intent of the Amendment. Those are such fundamental Rights, the founders would not have even mentioned the possession of arms for such mundane causes--it was assumed that all knew they had the right to hunt for food, and to defend themselves against marauders of any stripe.
The purpose was so every man (and woman) could resist tyrannical forces, regardless of that source, and for that reason the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms was enshrined as sacrosanct. This was and is a Right reserved to the People, and not to be infringed by the machinations of government, which have been many already.
There comes a point where no more ground can be given in the cause of compromise, where any more is to accept the very tyranny which the enumeration of the Right exists to resist.
Tyrannical governments and those who would impose them have not gone away, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Today's totalitarians cloak their aims in the guise of everything from protecting children to saving the planet, and while their approach may be more subtle than just marching troops down the street, their aim is no less a tyrannical government.
Thus it remains, and being able to resist tyranny is more relevant than ever.
Never in the history of humanity have so many been exterminated by tyrants as in the last century, and frankly, that shows no signs of just going away.
As usual, you nail it, @Smokin Joe.
This is the essence of the message that is being resisted by our opponents, whether in your post above, or in the OP video.
I see them in three classes, those that:
- place political expediency above all,
- truly want the RKBA abolished,
- want to "feel good" about themselves by kowtowing to emotion.
I find each of the classes contemptible. Personally I may be a bit more willing than some to overlook some of the current administration's failings, but when it gets to the point of these sacred Principles being eroded, I draw my line.
-
That had just been done magnificently by colonists armed with muskets and rifles with which they were familiar, because they owned them, for the most part. Some of the most significant shots of the war were made by riflemen who knew (and owned) their firearms. In later conflicts, breech loading firearms, metallic cartridges, lever action repeating rifles, Gatling guns, bolt actions, semiautomatic rifles, machine guns, and finally select fire infantry arms have carried the day, each an improvement in the fight against tyrannical governments
I'll admit that you really do have a feel for gun-porn, @Smokin Joe . Happiness is a warm gun!
Again: We are not a tyranny, we are a Constitutional republic. We are not ruled by a king; rather, our government is led by our elected representatives. What you brand as "tyranny" is just politics. And the solution for bad politicians is to vote them out. This insistence that your right to own an arsenal is so you can be prepared to shoot peace officers is an insult to the Founders and the system of SELF-governance they created.
The 2A by its plain language is obsolete. The right of citizens to keep (that is, own and store) and bear arms is in service to the "well-regulated militia". Those are militias organized at the state or local level, and the 2A was an admonition to the federal government that those systems of common defense not be disturbed.
But the 2A doesn't address the individual right. Like many, I consider the right to protect one's self and property to be God-given (that is, a natural right of the individual), and strongly support the Heller decision's conclusion that the Constitution secures this natural right as it does others, like the rights of privacy and self-determination.
I've stated before that the individual RKBA derives from the same authority as the Constitution's protection of the right of abortion. Now before you flip out again, consider this: The law that has developed around the abortion right is instructive for what SHOULD be the courts' approach to the individual gun right. Laws regulating abortion must pass the "undue burden" test - they must not place an undue burden on a woman's free exercise of her right. A similar test should be applied to the gun right. If it were, a whole heck of a lot of gun regulation would be unconstitutional.
That's why I keep saying that the right deemed secured by Heller should be codified. Doing so would not only minimize the chance that a future SCOTUS majority will take the right away, but can also establish the statutory test for determining whether a regulation or restriction of the right is reasonable, or onerous.
-
I'll admit that you really do have a feel for gun-porn, @Smokin Joe . Happiness is a warm gun!
Like I said... You have no idea how very out-of-touch you are with vast, vast tracts of America.
-
That's why I keep saying that the right deemed secured by Heller should be codified. Doing so would not only minimize the chance that a future SCOTUS majority will take the right away, but can also establish the statutory test for determining whether a regulation or restriction of the right is reasonable, or onerous.
Can only be changed through a Constitutional Amendment:
Amendment II
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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment)
Can be changed by a 5-4 Supreme Court Decision:
In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment)
-
Can only be changed through a Constitutional Amendment:
Can be changed by a 5-4 Supreme Court Decision:
The 2nd amendment is the right to self-preservation. A right that existed LONG before any government came along. Let them try to take that away and see what happens.
-
Can only be changed through a Constitutional Amendment:
Can be changed by a 5-4 Supreme Court Decision:
I'm going to keep posting this until it soaks in!
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/67742118_2463809650349699_6189002647530373120_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQnp2ugkfdOC6Gisk7oIC3H3miheBNTCGGH9HkICzcIeLZnX0PqVF_7KKA7efCzW8Mw&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=649c30618ab4ad3621e42480efd88463&oe=5DE7F531)
-
The 2nd amendment is the right to self-preservation. A right that existed LONG before any government came along. Let them try to take that away and see what happens.
Unfortunately, it is not. By its plain language, it is concerned with the common defense, not individual defense. I agree with your conception of the natural right. But the issue is whether the Constitution secures that natural right. That was addressed by Heller, but that 5-4 ruling can be easily overturned by a future SCOTUS.
My message through this and other threads is to recognize the tenuous nature of your individual RKBA. The best way to keep your right is to ensure the Dems don't control the Presidency and Senate. Adhering to "principles" and six bits will buy you a cuppa joe. What is needed is practical political engagement, not retreat to a mountain or bunker with your guns locked and loaded.
-
What is needed is practical political engagement, not retreat to a mountain or bunker with your guns locked and loaded.
@Jazzhead
If the time ever comes when it is time to take up your guns and start marching,only the cowards will head for the hills. Patriots will either head for state capitals or for DC,and will be taking ropes with them when they leave home.
I SINCERELY hope the first place any of them head for when they get there are airports (especially private airports),bus stations,and train stations. They also need to set up roadblocks and encircle the towns they march on to keep the rats from leaving the sinking ships. After all,if you are forced to go to the trouble of marching on the traitorous politicians,the ropes need the opportunatiy to dance in the wind.
-
But the issue is whether the Constitution secures that natural right. That was addressed by Heller, but that 5-4 ruling can be easily overturned by a future SCOTUS.
No the 2nd Amendment addresses the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right.
All Heller did was reaffirm that right. And no future SCOTUS will decision will change that.
-
Unfortunately, it is not. By its plain language, it is concerned with the common defense, not individual defense. I agree with your conception of the natural right. But the issue is whether the Constitution secures that natural right. That was addressed by Heller, but that 5-4 ruling can be easily overturned by a future SCOTUS.
My message through this and other threads is to recognize the tenuous nature of your individual RKBA. The best way to keep your right is to ensure the Dems don't control the Presidency and Senate. Adhering to "principles" and six bits will buy you a cuppa joe. What is needed is practical political engagement, not retreat to a mountain or bunker with your guns locked and loaded.
**nononono*
-
No the 2nd Amendment addresses the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right.
All Heller did was reaffirm that right. And no future SCOTUS will decision will change that.
Hey, it's your guns at stake. Delude yourself all you want; I'm not your mama.
-
Hey, it's your guns at stake. Delude yourself all you want; I'm not your mama.
You're right it's my guns at stake...which is why I'll never buy into or acquiesce to any of the anti Second Amendment schemes you and other gun grabbers advocate for.
-
You're right it's my guns at stake...which is why I'll never buy into or acquiesce to any of the anti Second Amendment schemes you and other gun grabbers advocate for.
What you call "schemes" are laws passed by the peoples' elected representatives. If you want to engage in armed rebellion, rather than working within the framework of our constitutional republic to change minds, leaders and laws, then may you die swiftly and with minimal suffering. Just so long as no peace officer's family needs to be told their daddy is dead at the hands of a selfish nutjob.
-
What you call "schemes" are laws passed by the peoples' elected representatives. If you want to engage in armed rebellion, rather than working within the framework of our constitutional republic to change minds, leaders and laws, then may you die swiftly and with minimal suffering. Just so long as no peace officer's family needs to be told their daddy is dead at the hands of a selfish nutjob.
That sure ain't how that's gonna work.
-
That sure ain't how that's gonna work.
And how is it going to work, sir?
-
That sure ain't how that's gonna work.
SHHHH!!! Let him think the LEOs are going to be on his side.
-
What you call "schemes" are laws passed by the peoples' elected representatives. If you want to engage in armed rebellion, rather than working within the framework of our constitutional republic to change minds, leaders and laws, then may you die swiftly and with minimal suffering. Just so long as no peace officer's family needs to be told their daddy is dead at the hands of a selfish nutjob.
I see you've spread your arrogant extremism to another thread...no wonder it's up to 12 pages now.
*****rollingeyes*****
-
Passing laws is one thing. Forcing compliance in many cases is another. I suspect either a law will be passed that will lead to both sides satisfactions or both sides unhappy
And I don't believe there’s army of peace officers that want to shoot a gun owner simply for wanting to own a gun anymore than there’s an army of gun owners wanting to shoot peace officers
We don’t have a tradition of blind obedience to a federal government. And I don’t understand the people who flippantly talk about shooting and/or arresting gun owners to force compliance or shooting police officers just doing their job. I guess the further right you go you eventually become the left
-
We don’t have a tradition of blind obedience to a federal government.
We haven't had a "Federal" government in a long time. It's a "National" government now, and blind obedience is exactly what they are demanding. They no longer "serve," they "rule."
-
And how is it going to work, sir?
MIL and LEO are overwhelmingly pro R2KBA.
These flags fly together all the time:
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/322292458235-0-1/s-l1000.jpg)
(https://diversityflags.com/1482/img/sz4/gadsden-flag.png)
-
SHHHH!!! Let him think the LEOs are going to be on his side.
OOPS! Too late. :shrug:
-
We haven't had a "Federal" government in a long time. It's a "National" government now, and blind obedience is exactly what they are demanding. They no longer "serve," they "rule."
With your permission, I would like to borrow that @Cyber Liberty.
-
What you call "schemes" are laws passed by the peoples' elected representatives.
No I'm referring to your obtuse schemes of requiring insurance and/or registration of firearms. National red flag laws and the rest of the rot you propose and support.
THOSE are schemes by gun grabbers and the Left to confiscate legally owned firearms or to severely restrict their purchase (a back door gun ban) by law abiding citizens for whatever purpose they feel they need them.
If you want to engage in armed rebellion,
No I don't and I've never said anything to the indicate I would. So stop with the broad brush.
rather than working within the framework of our constitutional republic to change minds, leaders and laws,
I'm more than willing to work within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
It's you and your ilk that want to go outside the lines and boundaries created by the Framers.
then may you die swiftly and with minimal suffering.
Hear that folks. Anyone supporting the Second Amendment...in Jazzy's very liberal opinion needs to die swiftly.
Just so long as no peace officer's family needs to be told their daddy is dead at the hands of a selfish nutjob.
You know I haven't seen you this unhinged and totally out of control on your rants since INVAR used to have you all wild eyed and frothing at the mouth.
-
MIL and LEO are overwhelmingly pro R2KBA.
These flags fly together all the time:
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/322292458235-0-1/s-l1000.jpg)
(https://diversityflags.com/1482/img/sz4/gadsden-flag.png)
If he thinks the military will just blindly obey an unlawful order to start seizing law abiding citizens weapons then someone doesn't know the military very well.
Either that or everything they know about the military they learned at DU.
-
With your permission, I would like to borrow that @Cyber Liberty.
Feel free, my friend!! The Bookfacers will love it. Well, some of them will. The others will probably report you for going against "community standards."
-
We haven't had a "Federal" government in a long time. It's a "National" government now, and blind obedience is exactly what they are demanding. They no longer "serve," they "rule."
Perfectly stated. 888high58888
-
You know I haven't seen you this unhinged and totally out of control on your rants since INVAR used to have you all wild eyed and frothing at the mouth.
I'd blame myself for that, but I'm 12 pages tardy to this thread.
-
With your permission, I would like to borrow that @Cyber Liberty.
Yes, it is very good.
-
Perfectly stated. 888high58888
:yowsa:
-
If he thinks the military will just blindly obey an unlawful order to start seizing law abiding citizens weapons then someone doesn't know the military very well.
Either that or everything they know about the military they learned at DU.
That's right. Their side spits on LEO and MIL... And then expects them to obey and enforce any edict handed down.
Our side respects and reveres MIL AND LEO, and buys their lunch for em, and never misses an opportunity to thank them for their service...
Their side mocks and distorts the Constitution. Our side reveres ad preserves it.
I wonder which side the MIL and LEOs will defend?
-
@Bigun @austingirl @Sanguine
Thank you all so very much....I hope I haven't used up my daily allotment of profundity, it's so early in the day here out West.. :laugh:
-
Feel free, my friend!! The Bookfacers will love it. Well, some of them will. The others will probably report you for going against "community standards."
We are on our way to finding out!
-
That's right. Their side spits on LEO and MIL... And then expects them to obey and enforce any edict handed down.
Our side respects and reveres MIL AND LEO, and buys their lunch for em, and never misses an opportunity to thank them for their service...
Their side mocks and distorts the Constitution. Our side reveres ad preserves it.
I wonder which side the MIL and LEOs will defend?
There will be some of the above who will test that concept. They are the ones who won't go home safely at the end of their watch.
-
I'd blame myself for that, but I'm 12 pages tardy to this thread.
@Cyber Liberty
I'm not even upset he wished me a speedy death because he equates standing up for and believing in the 2nd Amendment equals a wanton desire for armed rebellion...and there for I need to die.
If he thinks people get upset over the Federal government trying to take our guns...he needs to read history and see what Americans did over a 2 cent stamp tax!
-
There will be some of the above who will test that concept. They are the ones who won't go home safely at the end of their watch.
I will bet you that if this scurrilous crap passes, most of the sheriffs, if not governors, will ignore it with a direct command not to enforce it.
-
We are on our way to finding out!
So I see!
-
I will bet you that if this scurrilous crap passes, most of the sheriffs, if not governors, will ignore it with a direct command not to enforce it.
Sheriffs for sure. They really care about the lives of their Deputies. I wish I could say the same about Governors and Mayors.
-
If he thinks the military will just blindly obey an unlawful order to start seizing law abiding citizens weapons then someone doesn't know the military very well.
There you go, assuming that the intent behind firearms regulation is to confiscate guns. It is that paranoid mindset that is, I fear, going to get peace officers killed.
-
@Cyber Liberty
I'm not even upset he wished me a speedy death because he equates standing up for and believing in the 2nd Amendment equals a wanton desire for armed rebellion...and there for I need to die.
If he thinks people get upset over the Federal government trying to take our guns...he needs to read history and see what Americans did over a 2 cent stamp tax!
Those same Americans were none too pleased with the Whiskey Tax, either. Taxation without Representation sucks, but Taxation with Representation isn't much better. Today we have Representation without Taxation, and that's the worst thing of all because a working majority of voters pay almost nothing and have no skin in the game.
-
There you go, assuming that the intent behind firearms regulation is to confiscate guns. It is that paranoid mindset that is, I fear, going to get peace officers killed.
You are just about the only person here who thinks the intent is not to seize the weapons of law abiding citizens, this in spite of the arguments of many other posters. I expect you to observe our rights with an equal vigor used to understand our arguments.
-
@Cyber Liberty
I'm not even upset he wished me a speedy death because he equates standing up for and believing in the 2nd Amendment equals a wanton desire for armed rebellion...and there for I need to die.
If he thinks people get upset over the Federal government trying to take our guns...he needs to read history and see what Americans did over a 2 cent stamp tax!
I don't wish you a speedy death. I just don't want to see peace officers killed by nutjobs obsessed that laws duly and constitutionally passed by our elected representatives be countered with armed resistance.
If you don't like such laws, then work within the system to change them. That constitutional system of self-governance is why we are not a "tyranny". But it requires both winners and losers of transitory political conflict to respect the system. When one side or the other insist on bypassing the system in favor of shooting, that is not patriotism, that is treason.
-
There you go, assuming that the intent behind firearms regulation is to confiscate guns.name one regulation plan in any other country that didn't end in confiscation?
These red flag laws you love and embrace...besides the fact they are an unconstitutional confiscation scheme...won't work unless there is a national database of all firearms in the country. It doesn't take a tax lawyer to figure out what the next step is from there.
That's not paranoid...that's reality and understanding history and how governments and politicians who think like you do end up treating their citizens.
It is that paranoid mindset that is, I fear, going to get peace officers killed.
Yours is the paranoid mindset that believes law abiding citizens who don't want their 2nd Amendment rights infringed upon any further would kill a law enforcement officer.
Wheres your fear over all the criminals who don't give a rats ass about some red flag law...or a requirement to have your guns insured and registered who kill LEO's all the time?
That's what people like you SHOULD be worrying about...instead of continually coming up with ways to make ordinary citizens less safe.
-
I don't wish you a speedy death. I just don't want to see peace officers killed by nutjobs obsessed that laws duly and constitutionally passed by our elected representatives be countered with armed resistance.
If you don't like such laws, then work within the system to change them. That constitutional system of self-governance is why we are not a "tyranny". But it requires both winners and losers of transitory political conflict to respect the system. When one side or the other insist on bypassing the system in favor of shooting, that is not patriotism, that is treason.
To the contrary, we are the ones wanting to "work within the system," it's called the US Constitution. It's you who is coloring outside the lines.
-
You are just about the only person here who thinks the intent is not to seize the weapons of law abiding citizens, this in spite of the arguments of many other posters. I expect you to observe our rights with an equal vigor used to understand our arguments.
So I am the only one here not consumed by cynicism and paranoia? That I do not believe. The President himself is willing to support new laws to address mass shootings.
-
There you go, assuming that the intent behind firearms regulation is to confiscate guns. It is that paranoid mindset that is, I fear, going to get peace officers killed.
Here is the EXACT quote:
What you call "schemes" are laws passed by the peoples' elected representatives. If you want to engage in armed rebellion, rather than working within the framework of our constitutional republic to change minds, leaders and laws, then may you die swiftly and with minimal suffering. Just so long as no peace officer's family needs to be told their daddy is dead at the hands of a selfish nutjob.
Emphasis added by me.
-
So I am the only one here not consumed by cynicism and paranoia? That I do not believe. The President himself is willing to support new laws to address mass shootings.
Your ignorance calling us "paranoid" moves us as much as calling us "racist." IOW, not a wit. Try again, with intellect instead of emotion.
-
Your ignorance calling us "paranoid" moves us as much as calling us "racist." IOW, not a wit. Try again, with intellect instead of emotion.
Not to mention "selfish nutjobs".
-
Here is the EXACT quote:
Emphasis added by me.
I have no understanding why this one feels it necessary to truck with such paranoid, cynical and stupid nut jobs. :shrug: I guess it's supposed to be a "teachable moment," or some such drivel.
-
Your ignorance calling us "paranoid" moves us as much as calling us "racist." IOW, not a wit. Try again, with intellect instead of emotion.
James Madison was paranoid. That would make quite a thesis for a term paper.
-
I don't wish you a speedy death.
And yet you did.
If you want to engage in armed rebellion, rather than working within the framework of our constitutional republic to change minds, leaders and laws, then may you die swiftly and with minimal suffering.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,371867.275/topicseen.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,371867.275/topicseen.html)
I just don't want to see peace officers killed by nutjobs obsessed that laws duly and constitutionally passed by our elected representatives be countered with armed resistance.
Your fantasies and hysterical hyperbole aside...LEO's have to worry far more about some gang banger...MS 13 thug or an anti cop member of BLM gunning them down as they sit in their patrol car eating lunch or trying to serve a warrant than they do out of anyone on this forum or 99.9% of the registered gun owners in America.
IMHO you secretly want this armed rebellion just to prove your wrongheaded belief about gun owners.
If you don't like such laws, then work within the system to change them.
They don't need changing per se. People just need to follow the Constitution and quit trying to read things into and out of it that aren't there.
That constitutional system of self-governance is why we are not a "tyranny".
And yet you long to have it that way. You by your own words here want and believe in things done either by Judicial fiat when it serves your purposes or by the over arching Imperial federal government and their weight and power when the courts don't work in your favor and the people won't go along with what you think should be the norm.
But it requires both winners and losers of transitory political conflict to respect the system.
Besides the fact the Constitution wasn't written to determine winners or losers and that never was the intent of the Founders nor the Framers for how America should be...
The gun grabbers have lost...continually. But they..and you won't accept defeat. You keep finding reasons to ignore not only case law on the Issue (Heller and McDonald) but you find the thinnest of reeds to cling to to justify why they should be ignored or interpreted in any way other than what they were written.
When one side or the other insist on bypassing the system in favor of shooting, that is not patriotism, that is treason.
And I can guarantee you that it won't be the lawful gun owners...80 million strong in this country that will fire the first shot.
Not if you and the rest of your fellow Dems get their way.
-
I have no understanding why this one feels it necessary to truck with such paranoid, cynical and stupid nut jobs. :shrug: I guess it's supposed to be a "teachable moment," or some such drivel.
Your guess is as good as mine.
-
There have been numerous instances of LEO lives being saved by private citizens with legal guns!
-
There you go, assuming that the intent behind firearms regulation is to confiscate guns.
As history attests.
-
The President himself is willing to support new laws to address mass shootings.
Like the NYC liberal that he is.
-
There you go, assuming that the intent behind firearms regulation is to confiscate guns. It is that paranoid mindset that is, I fear, going to get peace officers killed.
Oh, I thought this was satire when I read it because I didn't notice who had written it. Oh, well. :shrug:
-
@txradioguy The concept of "Tyranny of the Majority" is lost on this one. If a majority of voters want something, they can have it, the rights of others be damned. Very similar to the "Democratic Socialists" crapola.
-
Which law is that?
Most of those laws have conspiracy as an element, which means multiple people must be involved. They also require that a predicate act, which cannot simply be statement of intent, be committed. That doesn't help in a lot of scenarios.
I'll toss out another. Woman breaks up with boyfriend, who calls her and tells her that he's going to come over there and shoot her. She has an actual recording of his voice saying that so it's not just his word against hers. To me personally, that should trigger the ability to red flag the dude, have a hearing, and deprive him of firearms for a 14 or 30 day cooling-off period. If you don't want to lose your guns, don't directly threaten to kill someone with them.
One undercover talking with the person about the crime is all it takes to make a conspiracy charge stick.
-
We haven't had a "Federal" government in a long time. It's a "National" government now, and blind obedience is exactly what they are demanding. They no longer "serve," they "rule."
I've been thinking about this insight and truly believe that the national government is the problem. Our nation is too large to be run by a central government and are living through the consequences of the national power grab.
It is past time to break up into separate countries with like-minded states banding together. When you have such opposite states as Texas and California advocating for secession, will it become a reality?
-
@txradioguy The concept of "Tyranny of the Majority" is lost on this one. If a majority of voters want something, they can have it, the rights of others be damned. Very similar to the "Democratic Socialists" crapola.
@Cyber Liberty
I don't think it's completely lost on him...he's all for the tyranny of the majority even when that tyrannical majority sits on a judicial bench and as long as it backs one of his favorite Liberal causes (open borders, gay "marriage", gun restriction/confiscation etc)
-
It is past time to break up into separate countries with like-minded states banding together. When you have such opposite states as Texas and California advocating for secession, will it become a reality?
Federalism, the sovereignty of the various states, would be much better.
-
One undercover talking with the person about the crime is all it takes to make a conspiracy charge stick.
Sadly, you are correct, even if there is no predicate act.
-
I've been thinking about this insight and truly believe that the national government is the problem. Our nation is too large to be run by a central government and are living through the consequences of the national power grab.
It is past time to break up into separate countries with like-minded states banding together. When you have such opposite states as Texas and California advocating for secession, will it become a reality?
There is nothing wrong with the arrangement (Constitution) IF we could get them to adhere to it!
-
Federalism, the sovereignty of the various states, would be much better.
"Mr. Franklin, what kind of government did you give us?"
A Republic, if you can keep it.
-
I've been thinking about this insight and truly believe that the national government is the problem. Our nation is too large to be run by a central government and are living through the consequences of the national power grab.
It is past time to break up into separate countries with like-minded states banding together. When you have such opposite states as Texas and California advocating for secession, will it become a reality?
Maybe a sort of commonwealth thing. Like maybe Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas form the Commonwealth of the whatever, and Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico form the Four Corners Commonwealth and so on. Maybe four or five commonwealths with a small body that is limited to governing over inter-commonwealth issues. I don't know who gets stuck with California or Maryland.
-
Federalism, the sovereignty of the various states, would be much better.
@roamer_1
Can we get back to federalism? Have we lost our Constitutional Republic as Franklin feared?
-
"Mr. Franklin, what kind of government did you give us?"
A Republic, if you can keep it.
That's right.
-
@roamer_1
Can we get back to federalism? Have we lost our Constitutional Republic as Franklin feared?
Principled.Conservatism.
And nothing else.
or we are indeed done.
-
Maybe a sort of commonwealth thing. Like maybe Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas form the Commonwealth of the whatever, and Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico form the Four Corners Commonwealth and so on. Maybe four or five commonwealths with a small body that is limited to governing over inter-commonwealth issues. I don't know who gets stuck with California or Maryland.
Cali can suck up to Oregon and Washington state. Maryland can enjoy the collection of monuments formerly known as the District of Columbia.
-
Principled.Conservatism.
And nothing else.
or we are indeed done.
@roamer_1
How does that work with half the population not paying taxes and vote? Many have their hands out, and the open borders are providing our replacements, who will have both hands out. Aren't principled conservatives outnumbered?
-
The usual paranoid bullshit
:silly:
Two incidents, fewer than one in ten million Americans killed, and you want to take away firearms from 80+million people, and you call US paranoid?
:silly:
You cite a slaughter, but half that many people are killed every day crossing the street (5,987 people in 2016 alone). source (https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html)
Yet you don't want to ban crosswalks, cars, or walking.
We know you mean to take our property and our freedom. If someone is out to 'get you', and you have professed that desire on countless occasions when it comes to taking firearms Rights, well, by definition we aren't paranoid at all. And it isn't even just taking the means of actively defending against whatever comes along,the putsch is for taking the passive means of defense as well. The only possible reason for that combination is to render the populace as helpless as possible in the face of government--and, historically, that means incipient tyranny.
One in ten million: That's 0.000001% on one nasty day.
Pedestrians: (one in twenty milllion) That's 0.0000005% every day.
-
Maybe a sort of commonwealth thing. Like maybe Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas form the Commonwealth of the whatever, and Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico form the Four Corners Commonwealth and so on. Maybe four or five commonwealths with a small body that is limited to governing over inter-commonwealth issues. I don't know who gets stuck with California or Maryland.
@Sanguine
California can implode all on its own or they could join Oregon and Washington state for the slide into leftist hell.
-
@roamer_1
Can we get back to federalism? Have we lost our Constitutional Republic as Franklin feared?
We lost the Constitutional Republic a century or so ago. The struggle now is to get it back.
-
We lost the Constitutional Republic a century or so ago. The struggle now is to get it back.
Turtle ain't helping things any.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,372127.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,372127.0.html)
-
We lost the Constitutional Republic a century or so ago. The struggle now is to get it back.
@Cyber Liberty
Yes, we did. I can't see a path to getting it back with so many having no skin in the game (paying taxes) and yet they still can vote themselves more "free" stuff.
-
@roamer_1
How does that work with half the population not paying taxes and vote? Many have their hands out, and the open borders are providing our replacements, who will have both hands out. Aren't principled conservatives outnumbered?
"Taxation without Representation" may suck, but "Representation without Taxation" ain't no great shakes, either.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Yes, we did. I can't see a path to getting it back with so many having no skin in the game (paying taxes) and yet they still can vote themselves more "free" stuff.
There is a quote about what happens when the takers outnumber the makers. It doesn't end well: It ends with the Tyranny of a select minority.
-
@roamer_1
How does that work with half the population not paying taxes and vote? Many have their hands out, and the open borders are providing our replacements, who will have both hands out. Aren't principled conservatives outnumbered?
The only way forward is grownups at the helm of the federal government, with an intent to balance budgets and reduce the federal behemoth. that automatically dries up the government teat, which would require liberal state governments to become responsible... And colleges and schools to become responsible... and, and, and...
That cannot be done in one fell swoop. It will have to take place over years. A methodical deconstruction.
That is why Tump is a waste of time. The president can't do a dang thing. It is Congressional statesmen that matter most, in league with statesmen governors. A conservative President would be a plus, but less important than the others. That is what the TEA Party was trying to do, from the ground up.
This is why I keep asking people to look at what we get to keep out of this or any other administration.
-
We lost the Constitutional Republic a century or so ago. The struggle now is to get it back.
That's right.
-
That's right.
I peg that at the same event @Bigun does: The 17th Amendment that erased the States' representation. The 16th, too.
-
I peg that at the same event @Bigun does: The 17th Amendment that erased the States' representation. The 16th, too.
Actually, Bigun says it was before that, about 1860ish, but 1913 put the final nails in the coffin for sure.
-
I peg that at the same event @Bigun does: The 17th Amendment that erased the States' representation. The 16th, too.
YEP. The 17th has to be rectified, particularly.
-
I've been thinking about this insight and truly believe that the national government is the problem. Our nation is too large to be run by a central government and are living through the consequences of the national power grab.
It is past time to break up into separate countries with like-minded states banding together. When you have such opposite states as Texas and California advocating for secession, will it become a reality?
Heck, you have mainstream conservative pundits like Levin talking and writing about this nation being in a "Post-Constitutional" phase with ever increasing TYRANNY for quite a few years now....
And a 888high58888 for @Cyber Liberty's concise and impactful quote that you were responding to!!
-
Actually, Bigun says it was before that, about 1860ish, but 1913 put the final nails in the coffin for sure.
I can agree with that. Honest Abe took a wrecking ball to the Constitution and we're still paying the price for it.
-
Heck, you have mainstream conservative pundits like Levin talking and writing about this nation being in a "Post-Constitutional" phase with ever increasing TYRANNY for quite a few years now....
And a 888high58888 for @Cyber Liberty's concise and impactful quote that you were responding to!!
I definitely don't qualify as a pundit but I've been on the case for more than 40 years now. Glad to see others finally catching on. Hope it's not too late.
-
I can agree with that. Honest Abe took a wrecking ball to the Constitution and we're still paying the price for it.
:yowsa:
-
:yowsa:
The 16th Amendment was a direct result of the SCOTUS clipping the wings of a Congress that had become unmoored from the Constitution. I miss the old SCOTUS, today's would never have the testicles to do it.
-
And they are looking for a lesser reasonable cause, lesser level of proof, and a larger pool of athoratative witnesses that have standing.
And I absolutely oppose all of that, and wouldn't support any law that contained any of those provisions.
But that's different from saying I'd oppose all red flag laws, no matter what the specific language was.
-
Heck, you have mainstream conservative pundits like Levin talking and writing about this nation being in a "Post-Constitutional" phase with ever increasing TYRANNY for quite a few years now....
And a 888high58888 for @Cyber Liberty's concise and impactful quote that you were responding to!!
Thanks, @EdJames! 888high58888
-
And I absolutely oppose all of that, and wouldn't support any law that contained any of those provisions.
But that's different from saying I'd oppose all red flag laws, no matter what the specific language was.
I certainly will. Mind police are for socialists.
And never ever at the federal level.
-
What is it that gentlemen wish, what would they have? Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
And, you know the rest....
-
I certainly will. Mind police are for socialists.
And never ever at the federal National level.
Fixed it. We slipped the surly bonds of "Federalism" a long time ago. Hence, my new sig line.
-
Maybe that’s why some people call gun owners and enthusiasts, gun nuts. To non gun owners, they seem almost to worship unfettered access to guns, above every consideration of a gun’s potential—in the wrong hands—to visit unspeakable carnage on innocent people at school, at work or at a busy market.
The gun is a tool. I have lots of tools. I use my tools. I like my tools. But, they’re just tools. A gun however, is a tool that comes with a great responsibility and an even greater potential for harm—again, if in the wrong hands.
A home grown Islamic terrorist, someone on the edge of sanity, a disgruntled, agitated or threatening employee, an 18-year-old acting out violently, an anarchist or subversive advocating violent overthrow of the government; If these types of people own guns, there should be a codified, due-process way to legally challenge that ownership.
It is a lot easier to defend your family with a gun than a claw hammer, not that what comes to hand isn't fair game. But even more, those guns have been handed from father to son, grandfather to grandson, along with a longstanding tradition of hunting, outdoorsmanship, and defense of family and others.
Not only are those family heirlooms, but the traditions they represent go deep, to the heart of what being an American means to those of us who don't live in places where traditions are sacrificed on the altar of the 'new' and avant garde.
Oddly enough, the places which so willingly toss those traditions to the wind, where you can't see wide open spaces within 10 minutes of the house, are the places where these shooting events tend to take place.
-
It is a lot easier to defend your family with a gun than a claw hammer, not that what comes to hand isn't fair game. But even more, those guns have been handed from father to son, grandfather to grandson, along with a longstanding tradition of hunting, outdoorsmanship, and defense of family and others.
Not only are those family heirlooms, but the traditions they represent go deep, to the heart of what being an American means to those of us who don't live in places where traditions are sacrificed on the altar of the 'new' and avant garde.
Oddly enough, the places which so willingly toss those traditions to the wind, where you can't see wide open spaces within 10 minutes of the house, are the places where these shooting events tend to take place.
Ironically, those will cease to be "heirlooms" the instant "universal" background checks become the law of the land. It's why this shit has to be stopped, and stopped now. Maybe it's not so ironic, come to think about it....
-
What you call "schemes" are laws passed by the peoples' elected representatives. If you want to engage in armed rebellion, rather than working within the framework of our constitutional republic to change minds, leaders and laws, then may you die swiftly and with minimal suffering. Just so long as no peace officer's family needs to be told their daddy is dead at the hands of a selfish nutjob.
@Jazzhead
Is that you,Beato?
-
Two incidents, fewer than one in ten million Americans killed, and you want to take away firearms from 80+million people, and you call US paranoid?
Oh, cut the crap. I have no goal or desire to "take away firearms from 80-plus million people". Stop this baldface lying about my position.
To the contrary, I have advocated time and again to take steps to strengthen and codify the individual RKBA. You're going to lose it, especially if your obsession with this single issue causes you to fail to vote for your Republican candidates for office. One SCOTUS vote away . . . .
-
It's why this shit has to be stopped, and stopped now.
So why do you threaten to withhold your vote from Sen. McSally unless she sees things your absolutist way? Will having a Dem as your Senator help to secure your precious right?
*****rollingeyes*****
-
If he thinks the military will just blindly obey an unlawful order to start seizing law abiding citizens weapons then someone doesn't know the military very well.
@txradioguy
MAYBE not the military of today,but once the military is primarily composed of illegal aliens and other foreigners who enlisted for the money and the benefits,they will follow any orders given to them because that is all they have ever known,and because they don't want to lose their "golden eggs".
-
We know you mean to take our property and our freedom. If someone is out to 'get you', and you have professed that desire on countless occasions when it comes to taking firearms Rights, well, by definition we aren't paranoid at all. And it isn't even just taking the means of actively defending against whatever comes along,the putsch is for taking the passive means of defense as well. The only possible reason for that combination is to render the populace as helpless as possible in the face of government--and, historically, that means incipient tyranny.
:silly: :silly:
My God, this is paranoid nonsense.
-
By the time they were a Sophomore in High School, it was obvious to them they were different than most. They were already into leadership positions in whatever they joined. And they realized most of their classmates were too lazy and unengaged to be more than cattle. Cattle have their purpose and we would be less without them. But they learned not to depend on them any more than they would cattle.
Honestly, I believe they were better for being in public school. They are going to have to deal with those folks for the rest of their lives. Learning how to lead them and when to avoid them are worthwhile skills in their lives.
Honestly, I worry homeschool only children may end up expecting far too much from the general public.
Frankly, I think you are right. We have a tendency to believe that others believe like those in our social circles, and one thing public school does is expose a kid to a whole slew of belief (and disbelief) systems. Granted, most of them are Leftist, but an engaged parent will be able to gently refute them.
We always told the kids, say what you have to on the test to get the grade, but know better, that there are other viewpoints, other accounts, and considerably more to the topic than you are being given, and the reason that information is so severely filtered is to keep you from thinking other than what they want you to think.
-
@txradioguy
MAYBE not the military of today,but once the military is primarily composed of illegal aliens and other foreigners who enlisted for the money and the benefits,they will follow any orders given to them because that is all they have ever known,and because they don't want to lose their "golden eggs".
Not sure entirely what you've heard about the Army of today...but from my foxhole and years of experience...there's not as many of what you describe in the ranks as the media wants you to believe. I'm still leading some really good really tough soldiers. Ones that think for themselves.
-
That’s a demeaning thing to say to @Jazzhead
He doesn’t deserve that characterization. His point of view is shared by many in both parties and the non affiliated, opinion polls suggest.
These folks, my relatives, friends and neighbors) are equal American participants in our republic’s politics. And we’ve got to learn to negotiate with them the way Reagan did, by bringing people on board, not by trying to kick them off the train.
I have been kicked off the train, not that I was ever really on it. Big whoop.
As for the polls, who? where? in what urban enclave were these polls taken?
-
So why do you threaten to withhold your vote from Sen. McSally unless she sees things your absolutist way? Will having a Dem as your Senator help to secure your precious right?
*****rollingeyes*****
If she caves on this issue, she's no different than the average Rat, so yes. You just roll them eyes outta here.
-
Not sure entirely what you've heard about the Army of today...but from my foxhole and years of experience...there's not as many of what you describe in the ranks as the media wants you to believe. I'm still leading some really good really tough soldiers. Ones that think for themselves.
@txradioguy
Good to hear. I confess I never saw much evidence of thinking in any of my exposures to the regular army,and the NCO'S and officers were typically bigger slackers and dummies than some of the privates. I was temporarily attached to regular army units twice while healing from injuries,and both times I felt more like a babysitter or prison guard than an NCO,and some of the officers were worse than the Privates when it came to ducking responsibility.
-
@txradioguy
Good to hear. I confess I never saw much evidence of thinking in any of my exposures to the regular army,and the NCO'S and officers were typically bigger slackers and dummies than some of the privates. I was temporarily attached to regular army units twice while healing from injuries,and both times I felt more like a babysitter or prison guard than an NCO,and some of the officers were worse than the Privates when it came to ducking responsibility.
We've had our share of screw ups and misfits...happens even in a professional army...but for the most part we're still the best around...there's more than a few old school guys like me left around that are teaching these new kids what right looks like.
-
If she caves on this issue, she's no different than the average Rat, so yes. You just roll them eyes outta here.
So you'll cut off your nose to spite your face? Brilliant . . .
-
Not sure entirely what you've heard about the Army of today...but from my foxhole and years of experience...there's not as many of what you describe in the ranks as the media wants you to believe. I'm still leading some really good really tough soldiers. Ones that think for themselves.
That's good to know. Honest Question: What would you do if your CO gave you an order to disarm Citizens? I know what you would do personally, but what would you do with your men? Tell them about the order, or not say anything?
-
So you'll cut off your nose to spite your face? Brilliant . . .
If she votes for more gun control, my nose would have already been separated from my face. Not my doing.
-
:silly: :silly:
My God, this is paranoid nonsense.
You have spent this entire thread decrying the individual ("...Right of the People...") Right to Keep and Bear Arms, you have denied the intended violation of the 4th, 5th, 14th Amendment Rights of the individual the whole time you have promoted violating those Rights, and you call us paranoid?
One isn't paranoid, by definition, if someone is really out to do them harm (take their Liberty, their stuff, deny them their Rights), and between you and the lovely folks in Congress, enough people have declared just that intent.
The only nonsense is what you are spewing.
-
888high58888
You have spent this entire thread decrying the individual ("...Right of the People...") Right to Keep and Bear Arms, you have denied the intended violation of the 4th, 5th, 14th Amendment Rights of the individual the whole time you have promoted violating those Rights, and you call us paranoid?
One isn't paranoid, by definition, if someone is really out to do them harm (take their Liberty, their stuff, deny them their Rights), and between you and the lovely folks in Congress, enough people have declared just that intent.
The only nonsense is what you are spewing.
-
You have spent this entire thread decrying the individual ("...Right of the People...") Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Can't you flippin' read? I don't "decry" the individual RKBA, I support it. But I am realistic enough to know that its survival depends on conservatives of all stripes acting in solidarity.
-
Can't you flippin' read? I don't "decry" the individual RKBA, I support it. But I am realistic enough to know that its survival depends on conservatives of all stripes acting in solidarity.
We are realistic enough, and the lesson is well taught in multiple countries histories, that what you support will lead to the eventual confiscation of guns and destroy the right.
This isn't new. This isn't different.
It is a line in the sand that many millions will stand against. In the voting booth and in the home.
-
We are realistic enough, and the lesson is well taught in multiple countries histories, that what you support will lead to the eventual confiscation of guns and destroy the right.
This isn't new. This isn't different.
It is a line in the sand that many millions will stand against. In the voting booth and in the home.
"This Time It Will Be Different! The Right People Are In Charge Now."
-
So why do you threaten to withhold your vote from Sen. McSally unless she sees things your absolutist way? Will having a Dem as your Senator help to secure your precious right?
*****rollingeyes*****
That's your definition of absolutism, @Jazzhead?
Oh, by the way, what did you think of the information that KrisAnne presented?
-
I'll admit that you really do have a feel for gun-porn, @Smokin Joe . Happiness is a warm gun!
Your words, not mine. I'm happy to never have to use any of my firearms against someone coming to injure or kill me, no matter who that might be. But that won't stop me from using them to defend self, family, home or even others in need, if that need arises.
By your very implications, police are pistol packing blood letters who get off on killing people, after all, they not only have guns, but have been (by law) given access to firearms the general public can't have. What a decidedly urban viewpoint. **nononono*
[/quote]Again: We are not a tyranny, we are a Constitutional republic. We are not ruled by a king; rather, our government is led by our elected representatives. What you brand as "tyranny" is just politics. And the solution for bad politicians is to vote them out. This insistence that your right to own an arsenal is so you can be prepared to shoot peace officers is an insult to the Founders and the system of SELF-governance they created.
The 2A by its plain language is obsolete. The right of citizens to keep (that is, own and store) and bear arms is in service to the "well-regulated militia". Those are militias organized at the state or local level, and the 2A was an admonition to the federal government that those systems of common defense not be disturbed.
But the 2A doesn't address the individual right. Like many, I consider the right to protect one's self and property to be God-given (that is, a natural right of the individual), and strongly support the Heller decision's conclusion that the Constitution secures this natural right as it does others, like the rights of privacy and self-determination.
I've stated before that the individual RKBA derives from the same authority as the Constitution's protection of the right of abortion. Now before you flip out again, consider this: The law that has developed around the abortion right is instructive for what SHOULD be the courts' approach to the individual gun right. Laws regulating abortion must pass the "undue burden" test - they must not place an undue burden on a woman's free exercise of her right. A similar test should be applied to the gun right. If it were, a whole heck of a lot of gun regulation would be unconstitutional.
That's why I keep saying that the right deemed secured by Heller should be codified. Doing so would not only minimize the chance that a future SCOTUS majority will take the right away, but can also establish the statutory test for determining whether a regulation or restriction of the right is reasonable, or onerous.
[/quote]Few sane would maintain that those who had just fought off tyranny with their own weapons and who were eminently cautious about the tendency of governments to accrue power to themselves would (especially in the face of the discussion, documented) even begin to suggest that the intent of the Founders was anything but the ability to be able to (again) resist the tyrannical machinations of any government.
Your cherry picking my comments, out of context and attempting to apply meaning to them clearly not intended, along with your perfidy concerning the Second Amendment, are despicable. We all know codifying a Right is not only unnecessary, but implies that the Right can be removed by repealing the law codifying, it, in effect, making the Government the grantor of that Right. It just isn't so. Your implications that desiring to remain armed, to keep property lawfully acquired, paid for by the sweat of our brow, somehow makes us bloodthirsty killers, is beyond my ability to decry in language acceptable to this forum.
The Constitution established a few narrow and limited powers ceded to the Federal Government and specified how those few powers were to be implemented. The rest of the document is all about limiting that power, and reserving all else to the States and the People, and it even says so.
The Courts, quick to usurp, have taken on the mantle of interpreting the Constitution, of finding Rights not mentioned, and denying those specifically protected, when their purpose was to interpret the law (as written) and see if that conformed with the limitations of the original document, as amended. If any question exists, those phrases and clauses were discussed in the media of the day, in the Federalist Papers, primarily, and in communications by the writers of those phrases. There is little room for misinterpretation, unless one chooses to ignore that supporting documentation and engage in the sort of semantic gymnastics we have seen you utilize here. Utter crap.
You have been presented with enough refutation that you have reverted to name calling, from "extremist" to "paranoid" (implying someone needs to be red-flagged?) and a host of other nonsense. You have no real arguments which have not been solidly refuted yet persist in attempting to disrupt conversation rather than join in in any meaningful way. There is a word for such behaviour on the internet, and I really doubt I need to specify it (others have).
-
That's good to know. Honest Question: What would you do if your CO gave you an order to disarm Citizens? I know what you would do personally, but what would you do with your men? Tell them about the order, or not say anything?
Advise them that the order is one that appears for all tense and purposes to be an unlawful order and that they were not under any obligation to carry it out. I'd tell them to do what they think their conscience can handle and that any decision from that point forward was their to make...but I personally would not make them carry out that order under any circumstances.
-
I want to know what Jazzhead thinks about the topic of this thread.
-
Advise them that the order is one that appears for all tense and purposes to be an unlawful order and that they were not under any obligation to carry it out. I'd tell them to do what they think their conscience can handle and that any decision from that point forward was their to make...but I personally would not make them carry out that order under any circumstances.
That's the part I knew you would do, personally. Good man! 888high58888
(Pssst...it's "for all intents and purposes." :laugh: :police: )
-
I want to know what Jazzhead thinks about the topic of this thread.
Jazzhead thinks? He reminds me of the Communist we had in the Geology department where I went to college. It's the same tired fallacies, over and over, in the same terms, with the same arguments, seldom phrased much different than in the Manifesto. Parrot noise.
-
(Pssst...it's "for all intents and purposes." :laugh: :police: )
LOL! You say potato..I say po-tahto :silly:
-
I want to know what Jazzhead thinks about the topic of this thread.
I'd like to know what he really thinks, because it cannot be what he avers.
(I was a fan of WF Buckley.)
-
What you call "schemes" are laws passed by the peoples' elected representatives.
Like The Fugitive Slave Act?
You act as if those representatives accurately represent. And as if they are incapable of getting it wrong, but continue. If you want to engage in armed rebellion, rather than working within the framework of our constitutional republic to change minds, leaders and laws, then may you die swiftly and with minimal suffering. Just so long as no peace officer's family needs to be told their daddy is dead at the hands of a selfish nutjob.
There you go, again, equating standing up for a Right with armed insurrection and evil. It is just that sort of ridiculous hyperbole that you, the media, and such notable statespersons as Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein use to shape the argument in the public eye, with the wholehearted help of the Leftist Media.
If you honestly believe such people have the best solutions for the problems of this Republic, then vote for them, but seriously, don't urinate on our heads and tell us it is raining.
As for all who would surrender their Rights, for the illusion of protection, those who would surrender liberty for the illusion of safety deserve neither. As has been pointed out to you, the utility of firearms in a rural contest is much like the utility of a chainsaw. Folks who live in cities understand neither, likely don't own one, haven't ever held or used one. We get that.
You act as if anyone, especially those who have engaged in combat, would wish to again have these shores bloodied by internal conflict, or even conflict between Americans on a grand scale. WHile Conservatives have asserted their Rights to remain armed (as much as a deterrent to the totalitarian dreams of the Left as anything), we understand the horror it would perpetrate upon our progeny, our kin, and our communities to have such conflict. We aren't insisting on anything of the kind, in fact, we are just insisting on maintaining the means to respond in a meaningful fashion should such be thrust upon us. THe millions who were carried like cattle in the 40 & 8s of Europe are mute testimony to what happens to a people who are deprived of the means to resist.
It is, instead, the Leftists, the Communists, the totalitarian wannabes who have been calling for violent revolution since the 1960s, and are growing more shrill with the divisive babble from the Left, from Congresspersons and Senators, from professional agitators, from the street level Alinskyites who, well 'community organized', are daily promoting violence and revolution. Who is calling for blood? Not Conservatives, not gunowners who want to retain their property and Rights, but those who want to take those items away and quash that Right, with all others soon to follow. It would be foolish to disarm in the face of that nonsense, it would only encourage such more.
Note that Rights are not about what the majority wants (that's that whole "Democracy" fallacy),
Rights simply are.
Our government was founded on the principle of protecting those Rights, from the masses, including those who would use the power of government to deny them. Departure from that is not in keeping with the Constitution, and not in keeping with the intent of those who crafted this Republic.
As for wishing me a painful death, I leave you with the words of Sam Adams...“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.â€
-
To the contrary, I have advocated time and again to take steps to strengthen and codify the individual RKBA. .
Australia.
-
So why do you threaten to withhold your vote from Sen. McSally unless she sees things your absolutist way? Will having a Dem as your Senator help to secure your precious right?
*****rollingeyes*****
No, but then, neither will the Republican. So what is the difference?
-
So I am the only one here not consumed by cynicism and paranoia? That I do not believe. The President himself is willing to support new laws to address mass shootings.
Well that wouldn't be the first time someone I didn't vote for was willing to throw my Rights to the wolves, now would it?
-
Like The Fugitive Slave Act?
You act as if those representatives accurately represent. And as if they are incapable of getting it wrong, but continue. There you go, again, equating standing up for a Right with armed insurrection and evil. It is just that sort of ridiculous hyperbole that you, the media, and such notable statespersons as Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein use to shape the argument in the public eye, with the wholehearted help of the Leftist Media.
If you honestly believe such people have the best solutions for the problems of this Republic, then vote for them, but seriously, don't urinate on our heads and tell us it is raining.
As for all who would surrender their Rights, for the illusion of protection, those who would surrender liberty for the illusion of safety deserve neither. As has been pointed out to you, the utility of firearms in a rural contest is much like the utility of a chainsaw. Folks who live in cities understand neither, likely don't own one, haven't ever held or used one. We get that.
You act as if anyone, especially those who have engaged in combat, would wish to again have these shores bloodied by internal conflict, or even conflict between Americans on a grand scale. WHile Conservatives have asserted their Rights to remain armed (as much as a deterrent to the totalitarian dreams of the Left as anything), we understand the horror it would perpetrate upon our progeny, our kin, and our communities to have such conflict. We aren't insisting on anything of the kind, in fact, we are just insisting on maintaining the means to respond in a meaningful fashion should such be thrust upon us. THe millions who were carried like cattle in the 40 & 8s of Europe are mute testimony to what happens to a people who are deprived of the means to resist.
It is, instead, the Leftists, the Communists, the totalitarian wannabes who have been calling for violent revolution since the 1960s, and are growing more shrill with the divisive babble from the Left, from Congresspersons and Senators, from professional agitators, from the street level Alinskyites who, well 'community organized', are daily promoting violence and revolution. Who is calling for blood? Not Conservatives, not gunowners who want to retain their property and Rights, but those who want to take those items away and quash that Right, with all others soon to follow. It would be foolish to disarm in the face of that nonsense, it would only encourage such more.
Note that Rights are not about what the majority wants (that's that whole "Democracy" fallacy),
Rights simply are.
Our government was founded on the principle of protecting those Rights, from the masses, including those who would use the power of government to deny them. Departure from that is not in keeping with the Constitution, and not in keeping with the intent of those who crafted this Republic.
As for wishing me a painful death, I leave you with the words of Sam Adams...“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.â€
It seems that we have a few that don't understand this. They also can't seem to comprehend (try as many have to thoroughly explain it) that the natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms existed long before, and totally independent of, Amendment II.
Amendment II was drafted into the Bill of Rights as an explicit safeguard against the government from ever thinking about infringing upon it.
So simple, yet resisted so thoroughly....
-
(Pssst...it's "for all intents and purposes." :laugh: :police: )
You mean, 'for all intensive porpoises'. happy77 :beer:
-
There have been numerous instances of LEO lives being saved by private citizens with legal guns!
n
Yep! And the chance of doing so with an accurate rifle is far better than with a pistol, especially over 25 yards.And that semiautomatic? "large" magazines? Well, suppressive fire can give someone the opportunity to drag a wounded person out of harm's way. It can make the difference between life and death.
-
It seems that we have a few that don't understand this. They also can't seem to comprehend (try as many have to thoroughly explain it) that the natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms existed long before, and totally independent of, Amendment II.
Amendment II was drafted into the Bill of Rights as an explicit safeguard against the government from ever thinking about infringing upon it.
So simple, yet resisted so thoroughly....
Absolutely right! 100%
-
I've been thinking about this insight and truly believe that the national government is the problem. Our nation is too large to be run by a central government and are living through the consequences of the national power grab.
It is past time to break up into separate countries with like-minded states banding together. When you have such opposite states as Texas and California advocating for secession, will it become a reality?
We tried that once. That's how we ended up being The United States instead of These United States. That conflict sealed the deal.
What we need is reigning in Federal Power, returning to the Constitutional Duties of the Fed without legal gymnastics to stretch those powers, and returning the bulk of those powers to the States, and letting the States decide and fund their own programs. I think that would cut a lot of the excess. Peoplewould be able to live under the government that best suits them. To some degree, the Left has partially done this (ironic, what?) by ignoring immigration and drug laws in some states. They just want to have their cake and eat ours too.
-
Sadly, you are correct, even if there is no predicate act.
It is a two edged sword. In some cases, it is enough to put some nasty people away. On the other hand, opportunities for entrapment, especially with those plied with liquor or other substances, are ripe.
Loose lips and all that.
-
Breaking on Fox News:
Multiple officers hurt in Philadelphia shoot out.
-
I certainly will. Mind police are for socialists.
And never ever at the federal level.
Bear on your porch? You must be crazy....say the people who live here:
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/famous-times-square-landmark-new-600w-1043889826.jpg)
-
Bear on your porch? You must be crazy....say the people who live here:
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/famous-times-square-landmark-new-600w-1043889826.jpg)
If ever there was a place where carrying a gun would be necessary...it’s there.
-
Absolutely right! 100%
Here is a secret! 888mouth
Between you and me and the lamp post, the reason that I posted that video in the thread starter was that I thought it may be a way to begin to open some minds to the truth of our founding principles....
And via discussion of the content, we would possibly make progress to dispelling the misguided notions that allow some to spring forth with their invalid and illicit appeals to emotions and political expediency. For if one truly understands the basis of natural law, one can not argue in good faith to use the violence of government to abolish or erode them.
.
-
Bear on your porch? You must be crazy....say the people who live here:
Nobody really needs a gun... AmIRight? *****rollingeyes*****
-
Oh, cut the crap. I have no goal or desire to "take away firearms from 80-plus million people". Stop this baldface lying about my position.
To the contrary, I have advocated time and again to take steps to strengthen and codify the individual RKBA. You're going to lose it, especially if your obsession with this single issue causes you to fail to vote for your Republican candidates for office. One SCOTUS vote away . . . .
Bullshit, @Jazzhead You want to codify the RKBA to reduce it to something passed as a law, because that law can be revoked or repealed.
The Right exists.
If you want the "registration and insurance" you are arguing for one of the precursors to confiscation, and history bears that out. You can't ignore the inevitable result of that which you advocate--nor can anyone here.
-
:silly: :silly:
My God, this is paranoid nonsense.
You keep with the laughing guys and trying to paint me as a paranoid.
Nope. Just a student of history, and I have read your nonsensical babble from the git-go.
The things you advocate inevitably lead to the loss of property and freedom, and often life. Tell it to the Kulaks, the Jews of Europe of the 1930s, those who fell under Mao, or Pol Pot or PapaDoc or Idi Amin, or BabyDoc, or Che and Castro, and the list goes on. Well over 100 million people were murdered by their own governments in the last century, and you say I'm paranoid?
Nope. I'm rightfully concerned that the same mechanisms which enabled those slaughters are not imposed upon the American People. I have five kids and step children (all treated the same), over a dozen grand children, nearly that many great-grandchildren, and far more to think of than just me.
-
Here is a secret! 888mouth
Between you and me and the lamp post, the reason that I posted that video in the thread starter was that I thought it may be a way to begin to open some minds to the truth of our founding principles....
And via discussion of the content, we would possibly make progress to dispelling the misguided notions that allow some to spring forth with their invalid and illicit appeals to emotions and political expediency. For if one truly understands the basis of natural law, one can not argue in good faith to use the violence of government to abolish or erode them.
.
Kudos on the attempt, @EdJames , but there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Typical Leftists, fingers in their ears, shouting LALALALALALALALA.....
-
Note that Rights are not about what the majority wants (that's that whole "Democracy" fallacy),
Rights simply are.
Our government was founded on the principle of protecting those Rights, from the masses, including those who would use the power of government to deny them. Departure from that is not in keeping with the Constitution, and not in keeping with the intent of those who crafted this Republic.
As for wishing me a painful death, I leave you with the words of Sam Adams...“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.â€
Rights are not subject to a vote, or a Court's decision (no matter how corrupt the Court is). God giveth, and only God can taketh away.
Thanks for the Sam Adams. He's not just a good beer.
-
Here is a secret! 888mouth
Between you and me and the lamp post, the reason that I posted that video in the thread starter was that I thought it may be a way to begin to open some minds to the truth of our founding principles....
And via discussion of the content, we would possibly make progress to dispelling the misguided notions that allow some to spring forth with their invalid and illicit appeals to emotions and political expediency. For if one truly understands the basis of natural law, one can not argue in good faith to use the violence of government to abolish or erode them.
.
From my perspective, you did great! I churned some of my best material here.
-
Here is a secret! 888mouth
Between you and me and the lamp post, the reason that I posted that video in the thread starter was that I thought it may be a way to begin to open some minds to the truth of our founding principles....
And via discussion of the content, we would possibly make progress to dispelling the misguided notions that allow some to spring forth with their invalid and illicit appeals to emotions and political expediency. For if one truly understands the basis of natural law, one can not argue in good faith to use the violence of government to abolish or erode them.
.
It may well have done exactly that @EdJames . Many of the people who visit these latitudes never say a single word.
-
If ever there was a place where carrying a gun would be necessary...it’s there.
But they are practically forbidden...
...and 176 homicides to date in NYC, being touted as a 'drop in crime'.
**nononono*
In the meantime, no homicides here (maybe a few coyotes, prairie dogs, or gophers shot, though)...(https://img-aws.ehowcdn.com/700x/cdn.onlyinyourstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/4753827644_f187392f7e_b-700x525.jpg)
But the people who live in the hive want to make rules for those in the badlands, even though they've never seen them.
-
I'd like to know what he really thinks, because it cannot be what he avers.
(I was a fan of WF Buckley.)
It just doesn't seem right to come onto a thread and take up so much of the oxygen without knowing what you're talking about. :shrug:
-
Breaking on Fox News:
Multiple officers hurt in Philadelphia shoot out.
Temple U, drug bust gone bad, several officers hit.
-
But the people who live in the hive want to make rules for those in the badlands, even though they've never seen them.
That makes me want to get on a paint pony and see what's over the rise... Pretty country.
-
You mean, 'for all intensive porpoises'. happy77 :beer:
(https://s16-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcS_adz3yo4Yu3BkaqYGjgjvqijdbBUCzqEywL_K6g83jaA4v4ae&sp=87a30ee3eb2fe186d97edb67b558b64d&anticache=577358)
-
Bear on your porch? You must be crazy....say the people who live here:
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/famous-times-square-landmark-new-600w-1043889826.jpg)
That reminds me...the 'Yotes are back.
-
From my perspective, you did great! I churned some of my best material here.
:yowsa: One of the best threads I've seen in ages.
-
Beautiful country, @Smokin Joe.
-
Temple U, drug bust gone bad, several officers hit.
4 possibly 5 now wounded.
-
It just doesn't seem right to come onto a thread and take up so much of the oxygen without knowing what you're talking about. :shrug:
It's telling we don't really know. :shrug: :shrug:
-
:yowsa: One of the best threads I've seen in ages.
I'll have you know, I resisted "the urge" a couple times, thanks to your sound advice! I'm learning.
-
4 possibly 5 now wounded.
Your thread, Sir: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,372144.0/topicseen.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,372144.0/topicseen.html)
-
Bear on your porch? You must be crazy....say the people who live here:
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/famous-times-square-landmark-new-600w-1043889826.jpg)
It’s exciting when you’re young and moving out to the city, and you first walk up those subway steps onto the streets of Manhattan. You’re immediately struck be the rush of people moving with urgency and purpose, the street vendors and narrow storefronts lining the avenues, the stream of yellow cabs, and the noise!
A lot of people come here with dreams of making it in New York, New York. And, if you don’t hit it big, at least you had a blast and stories to tell your grand kids.
-
(https://s16-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcS_adz3yo4Yu3BkaqYGjgjvqijdbBUCzqEywL_K6g83jaA4v4ae&sp=87a30ee3eb2fe186d97edb67b558b64d&anticache=577358)
LOL! :beer:
For some reason I feel like I need to salute or something. :shrug:
-
I'll have you know, I resisted "the urge" a couple times, thanks to your sound advice! I'm learning.
888high58888
-
It’s exciting when you’re young and moving out to the city, and you first walk up those subway steps onto the streets of Manhattan. You’re immediately struck be the rush of people moving with urgency and purpose, the street vendors and narrow storefronts lining the avenues, the stream of yellow cabs, and the noise!
A lot of people come here with dreams of making it in New York, New York. And, if you don’t hit it big, at least you had a blast and stories to tell your grand kids.
UGH... No thanks.
-
UGH... No thanks.
When I was a lad I clearly wanted out of the farm belt, and into a warm city in the South. I knew I did not want a New York kind of a city (I'd been to Chicago several times), so I settled for Phoenix Suburbia where I could get a good job.
That era is O V E R. We're on the far edge of a mid-sized city now, in our own Castle with a private bar. The Mrs. and I love it. Barron foothills rise above us on one side, and a view of the Casino Resorts of Laughlin below, with a range of mountains as backdrop all around. 360 degree porches, too, on both floors. But for the 110F plus temps you would probably like it well enough.
-
It’s exciting when you’re young and moving out to the city, and you first walk up those subway steps onto the streets of Manhattan. You’re immediately struck be the rush of people moving with urgency and purpose, the street vendors and narrow storefronts lining the avenues, the stream of yellow cabs, and the noise!
A lot of people come here with dreams of making it in New York, New York. And, if you don’t hit it big, at least you had a blast and stories to tell your grand kids.
I remember driving through NYC when I was 18. Couldn't get out of there fast enough. Different strokes.
-
I remember driving through NYC when I was 18. Couldn't get out of there fast enough. Different strokes.
I've been there more times than I can count but never once by choice. Unless wanting to remain gainfully employed counts as a choice.
-
When I was a lad I clearly wanted out of the farm belt, and into a warm city in the South. I knew I did not want a New York kind of a city (I'd been to Chicago several times), so I settled for Phoenix Suburbia where I could get a good job.
I was born in Chicago, came out here in 5/6th grade... Went back a handful of times to visit, the last of which was better then 30 years ago. There is nothing at all back east for me. Not a thing.
That era is O V E R. We're on the far edge of a mid-sized city now, in our own Castle with a private bar. The Mrs. and I love it. Barron foothills rise above us on one side, and a view of the Casino Resorts of Laughlin below, with a range of mountains as backdrop all around. 360 degree porches, too, on both floors. But for the 110F plus temps you would probably like it well enough.
I have always wanted to see the desert.The closest I came was Animas Canyon/Moab country.
Never seen an ocean either. Might could get talked into heading for Dixie, or another trip to see my kin in the southern plains... But to tell you the truth, it'd have to be the right woman to come along and pry my roots out of this rocky ground. I'm in God's Country, and if I never get 100 miles from right here, that'd suit me fine.
-
I was born in Chicago, came out here in 5/6th grade... Went back a handful of times to visit, the last of which was better then 30 years ago. There is nothing at all back east for me. Not a thing.
I have always wanted to see the desert.The closest I came was Animas Canyon/Moab country.
Never seen an ocean either. Might could get talked into heading for Dixie, or another trip to see my kin in the southern plains... But to tell you the truth, it'd have to be the right woman to come along and pry my roots out of this rocky ground. I'm in God's Country, and if I never get 100 miles from right here, that'd suit me fine.
I've lived in the desert purt near 40 years now, and it agrees with me and the Missus. I saw the Ocean Sunday on our travels to San Diego/Orange Counties. I never lived by the ocean, but the Missus did for a long time. I asked her the other day if she misses it, and she said, "No, it's boring. Mountains are exciting." She misses the family there, which we rectified last weekend.
ETA: Until a year ago, I lived in the Sonoran Desert, now I'm in the Mojave Desert. Two different natural worlds.
-
It’s exciting when you’re young and moving out to the city, and you first walk up those subway steps onto the streets of Manhattan. You’re immediately struck be the rush of people moving with urgency and purpose, the street vendors and narrow storefronts lining the avenues, the stream of yellow cabs, and the noise!
A lot of people come here with dreams of making it in New York, New York. And, if you don’t hit it big, at least you had a blast and stories to tell your grand kids.
Yeah, I enjoyed my visit in '74, up on the Empire State Building, seeing who could spot the most hookers for a dime in the telescopes...
But live there? No thanks, no way. I really like being able to see the stars (celestial) at night.
-
Yeah, I enjoyed my visit in '74, up on the Empire State Building, seeing who could spot the most hookers for a dime in the telescopes...
But live there? No thanks, no way. I really like being able to see the stars (celestial) at night.
A neat feature in my new Castle. In Phoenix, I could not see the Milky Way at all, nor the vast majority of the stars. I see them now.
-
We've had our share of screw ups and misfits...happens even in a professional army...but for the most part we're still the best around...there's more than a few old school guys like me left around that are teaching these new kids what right looks like.
@txradioguy
I am sure of that. All military units are what they are based on the leadership ability of the commanding officer,and the command Sergeant-Major. If the CO is a slacker just filling time while waiting for a hand-picked "slot to the stars" to open up for him,chances are it's like the ones I described.
If it is one of those units that has a hard-charger at the top who cares more about training and readiness than he does sucking up and flying to DC on weekends,chances are it is a good unit.
The last conventional unit I was in was a NG Signal unit out of Texas stationed at Nha Trang. I was sent there because when I reported into the SFOB at Nha Trang in 68, I had a dislocated shoulder and a pulled muscle in my back. If I had already been signed in,it wouldn't have been a problem,but they couldn't keep me with those profiles. 90 days later my profile ended,and SGM Odom send a driver over in a jeep to pick me up,and I was happy again. There was not ONE SINGLE NCO or Officer in that unit that wasn't a slacker piece of crap,hiding out in that signal company to pull their VN tour while making certain they were never exposed to fire. I got into a dust-up with a 1st Lt one day because I spotted his infantry insignia on his lapel,and asked him why he was there instead of a line unit. I was honestly curious,but he thought I was screwing with him and threatened to beat my ass if I ever asked him something like that again. He came to regret that within seconds. Luckily for me,I had witnesses to being threatened with violence by him,so he couldn't do squat. I didn't even hurt the SOB. I just scared him a little. Come to find out he came from a political family in Texas,and they used their influence to make sure "Precious" served his tour like the hero he was,but never had to go on patrols.
My job there was a the company armorer. I had been trained as a communications center specialist right after basic,but had never even been close to a com center since graduating from Signal School and going to jump school. Since I was useless for anything else,they made me the company armorer. M-14's locked away in rifle racks in squad bays,and the ammo and mags were in a munitions bunker nearby. I was the only enlisted swine in the company with the keys to the ammo bunker. The rest of the guys would get on a bus in the morning or in the evening,depending on their shift,and ride to a commo center downtown to work their 12 hour shifts before coming back to the barracks.
It was like serving time. I really didn't have anything to do,and was bored out of my mind. Because of this I spent most of my time over at the SFOB,drinking in the Delta or Recondo Club bars,and reminding SGM Odom that I needed a new home. One of the happiest days of my life was when that MSG showed up in that jeep with orders returning me to the 5th.
The US Army is one of the greatest jobs in the world if you are working with professionals,but sucks beyond all belief if you are in a unit populated with NCO's and officers who are clowns just trying to put in their 20 while doing the absolute minimum.
-
Advise them that the order is one that appears for all tense and purposes to be an unlawful order and that they were not under any obligation to carry it out. I'd tell them to do what they think their conscience can handle and that any decision from that point forward was their to make...but I personally would not make them carry out that order under any circumstances.
@txradioguy
Good man!
-
Yep! And the chance of doing so with an accurate rifle is far better than with a pistol, especially over 25 yards.And that semiautomatic? "large" magazines? Well, suppressive fire can give someone the opportunity to drag a wounded person out of harm's way. It can make the difference between life and death.
@Smokin Joe
For any of you who don't know,"suppressive fire" is weapons fire aimed in the general direction of the enemy regardless of if they can be seen,or not. It's purpose is to make them keep their heads down and not fire at your troops as they maneuver to advance on the enemy forces,retrieve wounded left laying in the open,etc,etc,etc.
Truth to tell,there seems to be damn little aimed fire once the cork pops and the party starts.
-
Nobody really needs a gun... AmIRight? *****rollingeyes*****
@roamer_1
Some people seem to need a REALLY strong door more than anything else.
-
But they are practically forbidden...
...and 176 homicides to date in NYC, being touted as a 'drop in crime'.
**nononono*
In the meantime, no homicides here (maybe a few coyotes, prairie dogs, or gophers shot, though)...(https://img-aws.ehowcdn.com/700x/cdn.onlyinyourstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/4753827644_f187392f7e_b-700x525.jpg)
But the people who live in the hive want to make rules for those in the badlands, even though they've never seen them.
@Smokin Joe
I remember reading years ago about one of Woody Allens friends buying a ranch in Montana or Wyoming,and living there when not working on a play or similar project. Woody had never left NYC in his whole life,so his friend decided to expand his horizons by inviting him to the ranch and providing the airplane to bring him there.
Allen refused to get off the airplane after it landed. He was terrified at all the open country and no police escort or bodyguards anywhere in sight.
-
@Smokin Joe
I remember reading years ago about one of Woody Allens friends buying a ranch in Montana or Wyoming,and living there when not working on a play or similar project. Woody had never left NYC in his whole life,so his friend decided to expand his horizons by inviting him to the ranch and providing the airplane to bring him there.
Allen refused to get off the airplane after it landed. He was terrified at all the open country and no police escort or bodyguards anywhere in sight.
I find that reasonably credible. SO many city folks can't handle open space. They can't control it, it isn't made by humans, and often they have discarded the God (not a Religion, but God) most out here trust.
-
Yeah, I enjoyed my visit in '74, up on the Empire State Building, seeing who could spot the most hookers for a dime in the telescopes...
But live there? No thanks, no way. I really like being able to see the stars (celestial) at night.
@Smokin Joe
One of the saddest thoughts I have had today is that probably 90 percent of the Americans living today have no idea what you are talking about because they have never seen a sky filled with stars with no artificial light anywhere around. There is not a sedative in the world that can match the feeling of peace and wonder you can get staring at a full-power night sky. It's priceless.
The unfortunate reality is most people have to live where they can earn a living,and the jobs are in the cities.
-
@Smokin Joe
I remember reading years ago about one of Woody Allens friends buying a ranch in Montana or Wyoming,and living there when not working on a play or similar project. Woody had never left NYC in his whole life,so his friend decided to expand his horizons by inviting him to the ranch and providing the airplane to bring him there.
Allen refused to get off the airplane after it landed. He was terrified at all the open country and no police escort or bodyguards anywhere in sight.
Wellll, the Daughter-raper is a self-described neurotic. :whistle:
-
Wellll, the Daughter-raper is a self-described neurotic. :whistle:
@Cyber Liberty
He is a rat that grew up in and never left a maze,so what else could he be?
-
It just doesn't seem right to come onto a thread and take up so much of the oxygen without knowing what you're talking about. :shrug:
Sorry you believe I should not comment in the discussion unless I watch a 45 minute video. It usually won't ever happen for me.
If it is information worth sharing, it should be worth writing down.
I am not wired for oral lectures.
-
Sorry you believe I should not comment in the discussion unless I watch a 45 minute video. It usually won't ever happen for me.
If it is information worth sharing, it should be worth writing down.
I am not wired for oral lectures.
I daresay she wasn't talking about you, @thackney. :whistle:
-
@txradioguy
Good man!
My best friend...a retired Navy CPO reminded me too that it violates posse commitatus. Further making this kind of order highly unlawful.
-
Sorry you believe I should not comment in the discussion unless I watch a 45 minute video. It usually won't ever happen for me.
If it is information worth sharing, it should be worth writing down.
I am not wired for oral lectures.
I dislike videos too; I want to read it.
However, as far as you are concerned I assume that you have the appropriate background and education to express an intelligent opinion on this subject.
-
My best friend...a retired Navy CPO reminded me too that it violates posse commitatus. Further making this kind of order highly unlawful.
That kind of order would be the sort I'd expect of a Rat President, to deafening applause, as @INVAR would say. I greatly appreciate your discussing it. I know what I would do but I'm a Civilian and don't know what the Manual says. And thanks for the tip on the Insurance, that will be one of my first calls after I check what Insurance the Dr. I want to get takes..
-
I dislike videos too; I want to read it.
Dittos. I can't hear very well, and videos are a major chore for me. YouTube CC, when available, is for crap.
-
That kind of order would be the sort I'd expect of a Rat President, to deafening applause, as @INVAR would say. I greatly appreciate your discussing it. I know what I would do but I'm a Civilian and don't know what the Manual says. And thanks for the tip on the Insurance, that will be one of my first calls after I check what Insurance the Dr. I want to get takes..
It’s something I’ve been thinking long and hard about since January of 2009. How I would handle something like that. It’s a decision full of risk no matter which way you go with it. But as a Sr NCO and someone who takes the NCO Creed to heart...I couldn’t uphold my oath AND carry out an unlawful order like that.
I hope they’re able to help you on the insurance.
-
@thackney
@Sanguine
@Cyber Liberty
Oh you video-phobes!!
Now you’ve done it!
Guilted me but good..... I’ll spend a hour when I get one tomorrow to create a quick transcript....
It will be worth it, for our collective prosperity.....
(It will be largely outline form, and I will skip her references to the details of the Massachusetts Constitution.)
-
It’s something I’ve been thinking long and hard about since January of 2009. How I would handle something like that. It’s a decision full of risk no matter which way you go with it. But as a Sr NCO and someone who takes the NCO Creed to heart...I couldn’t uphold my oath AND carry out an unlawful order like that.
I hope they’re able to help you on the insurance.
Let's hope all Sarges have their heads screwed on like yours, my friend.
And thanks again about the other! :beer: :beer:
-
Let's hope all Sarges have their heads screwed on like yours, my friend.
And thanks again about the other! :beer: :beer:
It would be too much to believe all of them will. I just hope there’s enough if/when the time comes.
-
@thackney
@Sanguine
@Cyber Liberty
Oh you video-phobes!!
Now you’ve done it!
Guilted me but good..... I’ll spend a hour when I get one tomorrow to create a quick transcript....
It will be worth it, for our collective prosperity.....
(It will be largely outline form, and I will skip her references to the details of the Massachusetts Constitution.)
Oh, I download them (horrible internet service) and listen to them, but I whine while I'm doing it.
Thanks, Ed. We all appreciate it. Or, will.
-
Oh, I download them (horrible internet service) and listen to them, but I whine while I'm doing it.
Thanks, Ed. We all appreciate it. Or, will.
I don't whine, but Mrs. Liberty does if I don't use my headphones....
-
@Smokin Joe
One of the saddest thoughts I have had today is that probably 90 percent of the Americans living today have no idea what you are talking about because they have never seen a sky filled with stars with no artificial light anywhere around. There is not a sedative in the world that can match the feeling of peace and wonder you can get staring at a full-power night sky. It's priceless.
The unfortunate reality is most people have to live where they can earn a living,and the jobs are in the cities.
It is that awesome feeling of practically falling off the planet. On a crisp winter night (if you can keep your breath cloud out of the way), you can see forever out there. Now, if there are even a few ice crystals in the air, the well flares shoot beams up into the sky from the flare pits. It's unreal and quite beautiful, like some sci fi cover art....
-
It is that awesome feeling of practically falling off the planet. On a crisp winter night (if you can keep your breath cloud out of the way), you can see forever out there. Now, if there are even a few ice crystals in the air, the well flares shoot beams up into the sky from the flare pits. It's unreal and quite beautiful, like some sci fi cover art....
@Smokin Joe
Interesting you would say that. It had never occurred to me before I read it,but I now believe it was staring at the rural night sky in wonder when I was a child that opened my mind to possibilities,and made me a fan of science fiction.
I truly believe the best gift you can give an intelligent teen with a curious mind are subscriptions to "Asimov's Science Fiction" and to "Analog,the magazine of science fiction and fact". If those two can't fire their imaginations and inspire them,they are doomed to be drones.
-
@Smokin Joe
Interesting you would say that. It had never occurred to me before I read it,but I now believe it was staring at the rural night sky in wonder when I was a child that opened my mind to possibilities,and made me a fan of science fiction.
I truly believe the best gift you can give an intelligent teen with a curious mind are subscriptions to "Asimov's Science Fiction" and to "Analog,the magazine of science fiction and fact". If those two can't fire their imaginations and inspire them,they are doomed to be drones.
I haven't read either magazine in years, but I did as a kid. My cousin handed down copies of her Science fiction magazines and the books she read to me and I ate that up. I still like decent SciFi to read and occasionally watch shorts on youtube (Dust seems like a good group, but there are others).
Yeah, as a kid in the sticks, the night sky meant more than just a surge in human stupidity (full moons), and still does.
-
@thackney
@Sanguine
@Cyber Liberty
Oh you video-phobes!!
Now you’ve done it!
Guilted me but good..... I’ll spend a hour when I get one tomorrow to create a quick transcript....
It will be worth it, for our collective prosperity.....
(It will be largely outline form, and I will skip her references to the details of the Massachusetts Constitution.)
I saved the video, the audio, and would appreciate a ping to the transcript too.... For son's education.... this whole thread has been a blast.
-
@roamer_1
Some people seem to need a REALLY strong door more than anything else.
@sneakypete
You mean like the ones they have on padded cells? :beer:
-
One of the saddest thoughts I have had today is that probably 90 percent of the Americans living today have no idea what you are talking about because they have never seen a sky filled with stars with no artificial light anywhere around. There is not a sedative in the world that can match the feeling of peace and wonder you can get staring at a full-power night sky. It's priceless.
@sneakypete
You have never said anything more true.
The unfortunate reality is most people have to live where they can earn a living,and the jobs are in the cities.
Yeah, that is what is believed.
But there are differing definitions of 'making a living'
There's the broad way, well lighted, well marked, and made for speed
And then there's the narrow twisting rocky way - Hard to find, not well marked, easy to lose your way....
On that narrow way, you wpn't find gold, you won't find fame, and you won't find fancy degrees. You'll often find hunger, awful heat, and bitter cold, and always hard, hard work. You'll find fear, and loneliness and pain, raw as they come.
I left the one for the other... The broad way looks so easy, and once you're on it, it tends to suck you along - services cost money - ease has value... So the cost requires income, and income requires time, and soon you are a slave to your conveniences.
By the time I figured it out, and even so, it was terribly hard to take that exit ramp, and head for the foothills, above which that narrow way could be found. The best things in life are truly free - They have to be, because they are up there on that narrow way I wish I'd never left.
-
@thackney
@Sanguine
@Cyber Liberty
@Everyone
OK, in this post is the transcription up through 25:16 of 46:52. I will post the rest tomorrow.
Speaker: KrisAnne Hall, JD
Title: The Truly Insidious Nature of Red Flag Laws
Location: Second Amendment Rally in Massachusetts
Date (Approximate): Jue 17, 2019
Video Length: 46:52
About KrisAnne Hall:
KrisAnne Hall is an attorney and former prosecutor, fired after teaching the Constitution Conservative groups & public schools – she would not sacrifice liberty for a paycheck. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor’s wife and a patriot. She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents. KrisAnne Hall does not just teach the Constitution, she lays the foundations that show how reliable and relevant our founding documents are today. She presents the “genealogy†of the Constitution – the 700 year history and five foundational documents that are the very roots of American Liberty. -
See more at: http://krisannehall.com/ (http://krisannehall.com/)
Quick Transcription:
All people say: knowledge is power... but that is not true, knowledge is not power until it is activated...
And until we actually accept the truth... and I don't mean me just throwing ideas at you... because if I am just here to give you statements and ideas.... can't you just admit to me that by the time that you get out to the parking lot you are going to have forgotten about 75% of what I am have been saying...
{gestures to crowd to raise their hands and nods}
So what I want to do is to give you something that lasts... something that becomes motivation... something that will drive you to activation... an activation that is more than just being a member of a group... more than just being a keyboard warrior... more than just being somebody that emails your representative every now and then.... or Tweets or posts.... or whatever
We are creeping into a time and day where the complacency in which we operate is going to drive us into a den of despotism that will be nearly impossible for us to peacefully escape... I just want you to know, those whose gave us America, gave us amazing, wonderful things.... but the greatest gift that they gave to us, was the opportunity to self-govern....
You see they just didn't declare independence from Great Britain, they declared independence from kings and rulers forever...
{applause from crowd}
And one of the greatest problems that we have in American politics today.... is not the President of the United States.... is not your congressman.... Samuel Adams said that no people will tamely surrender their liberties nor be easily subdued when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved.... he said that on the contrary, when the People become.... when the People become universally ignorant and debauched in their manners, they will sink underneath their own weight.... without the aid of foreign invaders....
I would tell you in my experience in History, and in learning History, and in seeing what is happening in government today, the greatest challenge that we have in politics today.... is that the American society constantly seeking a political savior.....
Donald Trump can not fix what is wrong with America today.... nor do you want Donald Trump to fix what's wrong with America today.... for Donald Trump to fix what is wrong with America today, he would need to cease being a President and start being a king.... and that is quintessentially the opposite of who we are....
We have to stop searching for people who will make the difference, and start accepting that responsibility upon our selves.... stop looking for George Washington to return.... stop yearning for Thomas Jefferson or James Madison to come back and teach our children.... and BE the Founders of our Future!!
{applause from crowd}
You have the same power that they had.... you have the same authority they had.... and if you're simply honest with yourself, every Liberty loving American carries the same Spirit that they had.... you just have to activate it... and I believe that that activation can only come through knowing the Truth.... a commodity that's a little hard to come by in America today....
So what I want to talk to you about today... I know that you heard a couple of speakers talk about this today..... we have activists that talk about this today, we have politicians that talk about this today... But I want to teach you something that I think that we are not finding enough of.... and I believe it is because we don't have the depth and understanding necessary to really become passionate about this.... I want to talk to you today about Red Flag Laws....
Now I'm knowing this problem..... when I was praying about what to teach today.... because I have.... I have Liberty First University.... I have been traveling this country for 9 years... in those 9 years, I've averaged 265 classes in over 22 States, every single year.... I have a lot of different things that I teach to a lot of different people on a lot of different occasions....
So when I was praying today about what to bring to you, I thought to myself.... these people do not need an education on the Second Amendment... of all the people that I address, if anybody is going to have a firm foundation of what "Shall not be infringed" means.... these people have that....
But what we need to understand is the intricacy and intimacy of all of our Rights... how they are intertwined, how they are entangled upon each other.... how they are incumbent upon each other for their own existence.... let me give you an example...
Just a little pop quiz that I like to give when I go around and teach... so I know that I told you to get your pocket Constitutions out.... but at this point in time.... close them.... no cheating on your cell phones.... because I am going to give you a pop quiz...
The First Amendment contains 5 liberties.... to yourself.... not out loud.... name all 5 of those liberties found in the First Amendment....
Now I've been doing this for 9 years.... I also know that since I've been doing this there have been national polls... that in any given crowd, at best.... less than 2% of the people will be able to name all 5...
So we love the Second Amendment... we love our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.... but what about the others?
You see if you do not know what your Rights are, how do you know that they are not already gone?
If you can not define your Rights... how are you going to defend them?
And here's the thing.... your Right to Freedom of religion.... Freedom of speech... Freedom of press... the Right to peaceably assemble.... the Right to petition the government to redress of your grievances... is incumbent on your Right to Keep and Bear Arms... and Right to Keep and Bear Arms must also have your Right to freely communicate...
How many of you have heard of the Weaver problem.... in Ruby Ridge? Right, you remember Ruby Ridge....
How many of you remember Bundy Ranch?
Can I tell you from a Constitutional Property Rights perspective those two situations were very, very similar....
But they had very different endings..... Why? Not because of the RKBA, the Weaver family had Arms.... Bundy Ranch had Arms.... why were they different? Why did they end differently? Because at the Weaver household.... they didn't have cell phones.... they didn't have social media.... they did not have a way to communicate their plight with the outside world and bring in those of like minds, with like passions, and like knowledge to defend them...
Your RKBA is essential.... but let me tell you, if you don't have the Right to Freedom of Speech.... the Right to Freedom of press, the Right to petition the government, if you don't the Right to peaceably assemble.... it is you alone with your gun against the king.... and you lose....
The power in the RKBA is the power to Keep and Bear them together as a community...
And that is the sole purpose of community.... the only reason that community exists.... the Declaration of Independence tells us.... We hold these truths to be self evident... that all men are are created equally and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights... and that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed....
There is only one reason for organized society that we call government to exist.... and that is for people to come together in a unified body, and that is to secure each other's rights....
But when we allow... when we, as Samuel Adams says, when we tamely suffer a lawless attack upon our Liberty, we actually encourage it...
When we diminish the.... the necessity of one Right or the other and we lift one up and ignore the other.... we are actually bringing about the destruction of them all....
Can you have Freedom of speech without Freedom of press?
Can you have Freedom of speech without the Right to peaceably assemble?
If you don't have the Right to complain to your government, where is your Freedom of speech?
Do you have a Freedom of religion if you don't have a Freedom of speech? Or Freedom of press..... whose going to print your Bibles if it is now illegal?
You see, when one falls, they all fall.... and that's why the Bill of Rights exists in the manner it does.... the entire purpose of the BOR is not to control government.... because paper and ink does not control government.... our Framers referred to them as parchment buries (?).... the only thing that controls government are an educated People who are devoted and in love with the posterity and liberty....
{much applause from audience}
But how can we love something that we do not know? How can you have an affinity and attachment for something that you do not know exists?
I want to show you,.... about these Red Flag Laws.... and why it is more than just a Second Amendment issue... now you have your pocket Constitutions.... How many of you have pocket Massachusetts Constitutions? This is your State.... within in your State, your Constitution is just as important, if not more so, than the US Constitution.... you ought to know where the essential protections of your liberties exist within your own State Constitution....
Can I just admit to you that I think what we have today.... is that we've been so deceived and distracted by the circus of Washington, DC that it has caused us to turn our attention and our minds away from the things that are truly important... and the placement of our true power.... do you know if we were truly, truly in love with our Liberty.... and truly educated at the same time.... a Presidential election would be in the order of importance.... lower then the election of your sheriff.... because in your county your sheriff has more power and more control than the President of the United States.... has more power and more control than your state legislator and your governor....
If we were honest about where our Liberty and where our power really exists, we wouldn't be so.... fawning over US Representatives and we would be visiting our statehouses instead.... we wouldn't send another dime to a Presidential election, we wouldn't send another dime to a national election... we spend all of our resources and all of our time state and local because that is where we make change....
{applause from audience}
So I want to talk to you today about Red Flag Laws, both national and local.... because you know that there is a push national too.... but that you already have RFL here... and I think that the reason these RFLs so easily seeped in to our societies.... is because the people have been..... led down a primrose path..... and have been deceived into believing that laws stop crimes.... and that is just really.... you know.... a Second Amendment issue.... it's just a small regulation.... on your ability to KBA.... if we understood how BIG it actually was.... how all encompassing of multiple divisions of Rights... we wouldn't be sitting at a gun rally today, we be occupying your capitol right now... until something was changed....
So let me show you.... if you don't have a Massachusetts Constitution, I would encourage you to follow along on your cell phone... because it is online... and I want you to see these words ... not just with your hearing mind.... but with your seeing mind as well.... now when we talk about Rights.... we should begin with Rights.... I have a video on my YouTube channel called "Rights versus Benefits" because it is a serious point of confusion in America.... the difference between Rights and benefits.... so I want to establish for you today.... the foundation of Rights... and I want you to make me a promise.... from this day forward.... these words will never escape your lips again.... are you ready? "Second Amendment Rights" I don't want you to ever say these words again.. because what you speak out of your mouth, affects your mind.... and every time we say "Second Amendment Rights" we somehow convince our mind and our spirits that our RKBA comes from a document benefited to us by those in government....
Your RKBA does NOT come from the Constitution.... it does not come from a government document.... it doesn't come from any document at all.... your RKBA emanates from the first Law of Nature.... commonly known as the Duty of Self Preservation...
Samuel Adams wrote in 1772.... among the Natural Rights of the colonists are these.... first the Right to Life.... secondly to Liberty.... thirdly to Property.... together.... number four..... your Right together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can... These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the Duty of Self-Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.
Your RKBA comes from God.... by the nature of your Creation and your Duty to preserve your life to the glory of God....
{much applause from audience}
But KrisAnne..... I don't believe in God..... does that mean my Right does not come from God?
NO! It does not.... but if you don't believe in God you have to admit that your Rights do not come from government because if they come from government they are no longer Rights.... they are privileges... you must admit.... even the unbeliever must admit that there is a higher power that bestows upon every living creature the Right to breathe and the Right to protect that breath....
{applause from audience}
Because the bottom line is.... if you don't have the Right to protect your own breath.... you are a slave.... the property of another.... the one who protects you,... and assigns the value for your body....
This is why the Second Amendment reads: "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."
The Second Amendment doesn't emanate from the BOR, the Second Amendment originates in Natural Law.... your Duty to live.... and your Right to protect that life...
{at this point in the presentation she focuses on where to find the Natural Law Rights in the Massachusetts Constitution.... I have skipped that part in this transcription, but suggest that each of us locate them in our own State constitutions.}
James Madison wrote in 1792, an essay called "Property" in which he defined the term, "Property." He said this term in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.â€
(refer to the OP of this thread for a ready reference to the "Property" essay.)
That's a no-brainer right? So in layman's terms Madison is simply saying what you call your property is your stuff... your car... your cell phone.... your house.... everybody knows that....
But he goes on to say in a larger and juster meaning of this word "Property," it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.
James Madison, the man that we refer to a the father of the Constitution, is trying to explain to us that our Rights are more than ideas.... they're more than thoughts are desires.... are Rights are actual Property.... and listen to what he says....
You have a property very dear to you in the safety and liberty of your person.
Can I just let that sort of sink in a little bit....
If you were to ask your friends... OK let's have a little fun thing.... I'm going to show you the Second Amendment... I want you to identify the property issues within the Second Amendment... and I guarantee you very quickly they'll go "Oh... the RKBA.... because Arms... you know guns.... that's the property.... guns are property.... that's the issue...."
James Madison would agree... but he would say.... yes, but you're missing the most important part... the Right itself is Property....
-
Pinging @Sighlass to the above post. (Sorry pal, forgot you in the ping.)
-
OK, in this post is the transcription up through 25:16 of 46:52. I will post the rest tomorrow.
Hey @EdJames ...
https://www.hongkiat.com/blog/three-ways-transcribe-youtube-videos/ (https://www.hongkiat.com/blog/three-ways-transcribe-youtube-videos/)
Jussayin... :shrug:
-
Thank you @EdJames!
-
@EdJames
Bless you. Thank you for your work.
-
@EdJames Thank you! Thank You! Thank You!
I'm going to Copy that into Word, and send that transcript around to some friends. Let's see if we can't light some fires. :patriot:
First half, down!
-
@Bigun
@thackney
@Smokin Joe
You guys are more than welcome! It is a pleasure for me to work on as it makes me reflect more deeply as I go through the video at 1/2 speed. Plus I will now have the text to share, in particular want this for my grandsons as they get a tad older.
Should be able to finish it off tomorrow, going to try the 2nd tool in @roamer_1's link to gather some of the raw text for refinement.
:patriot:
-
Should be able to finish it off tomorrow, going to try the 2nd tool in @roamer_1's link to gather some of the raw text for refinement.
@EdJames
Not an expert, but I can tell you it will likely be a fair copy - Requiring some editing.
Don't use it for anything redneck... Google doesn't understand redneck, as Google Assistant proves to me by the hour.
-
@Bigun
@thackney
@Smokin Joe
You guys are more than welcome! It is a pleasure for me to work on as it makes me reflect more deeply as I go through the video at 1/2 speed. Plus I will now have the text to share, in particular want this for my grandsons as they get a tad older.
Should be able to finish it off tomorrow, going to try the 2nd tool in @roamer_1's link to gather some of the raw text for refinement.
:patriot:
@EdJames, thank you for doing that. That is going above and beyond!
-
Pinging @Sighlass to the above post. (Sorry pal, forgot you in the ping.)
Thank you EdJames, that took a pretty penny of time to type up... I know, I have tried to transcribe a few things and it ain't fun. I appreciate it sir. Please ping me when you have time to do the rest... I appreciate it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3rZmKNZj/Trump-Conservatives-Gun-Control.jpg)
-
@EdJames
Not an expert, but I can tell you it will likely be a fair copy - Requiring some editing.
Don't use it for anything redneck... Google doesn't understand redneck, as Google Assistant proves to me by the hour.
The link to the second tool gave me a nice block of text for editing... thanks for that info, I was unaware of the tools!!
:beer:
(Tried the first tool a few times, which is the transcription option in the YouTube video, and it just churned away for hours without producing anything.... utility may vary by video...)
-
@Sanguine
@Bigun
@Cyber Liberty
@Sighlass
@Smokin Joe
@thackney
@roamer_1
@Anyone time-impaired, hearing-impaired, or otherwise impaired, or just wants the text of the presentation!!
Here it is, the rest of the transcription, from 25:17 through 46:52.
===
So let me ask you this question..... let's just say three individuals in black suits and ties with a clipboard.... they come to your house.... and they say to you: we want to show you the legal survey of your property boundaries.... now we recognize that when you bought this property the boundaries were laid out, everybody has a legal survey of their property... we understand that you own this property, but we're looking at this survey of your property and we're realizing that you know this survey was done 20-30 years ago... and you have to admit, life has changed a lot in the last 30 years... so in order to keep up with the changing times, here's what we want to suggest to you... what we're gonna do is we're gonna reinterpret the boundary lines of your property in towards your home just two feet... we're not actually changing the legal boundaries they will still say legally in your property appraiser's office these are your boundaries but we're gonna reinterpret them in two feet on all sides... now don't worry we're not discriminating against you, because we're gonna do this for everybody... and what I need you to see because we're doing this for everybody, you have to understand the benefit of this means we're gonna have a four foot buffer between everybody's property, so we can provide you with greater security and greater services...
How many of you are gonna sign on the dotted line? Oh yeah sure, how many you might be tempted to stand on the front porch and go "click-shhh, no thank you, leave my property?"
So here's what James Madison is trying to tell you.. if you are willing to take and defend the physical property upon which your grass grows to that extent, why would you not take the same passion to your Right to Freedom of speech? to the property of your Freedom of press? to the property in your RKBA?
As they're always trying to say we're not amending this amendment... we're just going to reinterpret it a little bit, for the benefit of everyone else...
You see, I think we fail to see the magnitude of what is happening today, because we have failed to teach the Principles for a very long time...
I mentioned to you your property is an essential Right, your property is a Natural Right... your property, and the Right to secure that property is an inalienable Right...
Which is why the Fourth Amendment reads, once again the Right of the People... not the right of the government, the Right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects... you see that the word "effects," it's the catch-all...
It's everything that Madison was talking about.... the effects is everything that you put value in, it's everything that you have a Right to...
And you are to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures... now what's interesting is because even in law school we don't actually study the Constitution anymore.... Does that shock anybody? Lawyers haven't learned the Constitution in law school for decades.... What we learn, is what other people write about the Constitution... and quite often it's more like what other people wrote about other people, who wrote about the other things that other people wrote...
It's like that game when we were kids called "telephone" where you whisper in somebody's ear and then by the time it gets back to you it doesn't even closely resemble what you said... that's what's happened to our Constitution...
Back in ancient days kings used to make it illegal to read and write... King William the first, the Conqueror, made the legal language of England, French! It was illegal to speak anything but French in England... Why? That's because the people couldn't understand French, they couldn't understand the laws, so they couldn't object...
That is the deception America is under today... we have been deceived into believing that the Constitution is to difficult to understand... so we have to leave it... to politicians, and professors, and pundits... all the while, their goal is to keep us enslaved, docile, and obedient...
Those people will tell you that that's that the Fourth Amendment is very clear... you are not free from all searches and seizures... you're only free from unreasonable ones... But there's a problem my dear America... how do we define what is "reasonable?"
And they spent decades... and billions of dollars in law school brains, to come up with a definition of "reasonableness" You may not believe me but this is actually the legal standard of what is "reasonable." A reasonable search-and-seizure is something that some "reasonable" person would find "reasonable" under "reasonable" circumstances...
That is a legal definition.... Yeah, my husband likes to say you got to go to college to get that stupid....
[laughter from crowd]
But what we fail to recognize is that the Fourth Amendment already tells us what is reasonable... because it doesn't stop right after the words "shall not be violated..." it says no warrant shall issue but based upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place, or the place to be seized, the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A reasonable search-and-seizure is one that completes five elements... and the language of the Fourth Amendment proves that... no warrant, probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized... that word, "and," means in order to have a reasonable search and seizure ALL five elements must be present at the same time... not four out of five, not four and a half out of five, all five... by the definition established by our drafters of the Constitution.... Anything beyond that is an unreasonable search and seizure...
And yet, we have somehow allowed the government to rewrite the Constitution without an Amendment... and invent exceptions like... except in national security... except in matters of exigent circumstances... except, in the war on drugs...
Do you know, article 16 of the Massachusetts Constitution says: every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures? The same terms apply here in the State of Massachusetts, as they do on the federal level...
Now don't think that KrisAnne has wandered off... she said she's gonna be talking about Red Flag Laws... but I'm establishing to you, the foundation of our Rights... we have a RKBA, because we are property Rights in securing our bodies and our lives and our property... we have a Right to be secure in our property... both on federal and state levels, we cannot tolerate unreasonable searches and seizures.... But do you not also know, you have a Right to not be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law?
That's the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution... nor shall any person be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law... If you are being deprived of your property outside the rules of due process, that is a violation of your Rights... it is a violation of the supreme law of the land...
You have the Sixth Amendment, which says that you are innocent, until proven guilty... in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense....
Article 16 of the Massachusetts Constitution says you are innocent until proven guilty, no subject shall be arrested or imprisoned, or despoiled or deprived of his property, or be deprived of his Life, Liberty or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the judgment of the law... not just simply because they write a law, can they seize your property, that's not what this is saying, it is saying that you have the right to a trial to be judged under the law... that way, the lawyers who write the laws don't become the legislators, the enforcers, and the executors at the same time...
You have a Right to be assumed innocent, you are innocent until proven guilty, by both federal and national standards... and State standards....
In Madison's essay "Property," I want you to listen very closely to the warning that he gives... this is not a just government, nor is property secured under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens, for the service of the rest....
He says, "a magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan," and they are the most.... they are the examples of the most complete despotism....
When your property is taken by arbitrary terms, James Madison says, you have a despotic government....
What about the Eighth Amendment? Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments.... The Massachusetts Constitution contains the same provision in article 26... no magistrate or court of law shall demand excessive bail or sureties, impose excessive fines, or inflict cruel and unusual punishment...
In the Seventh Amendment, it says, in suits at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed $20, the right of a trial by jury shall be preserved.... In the Massachusetts Constitution under article 15, it says in all controversies concerning property, and in all suits between two or more parties, the parties have a right to a trial by jury...
I just showed you your Rights!! Essential, Natural, Inalienable.... you have a Right to defend your Life, your Liberty, your Property... you have a Right to the Property itself... you have a Right to be secure in that property, you have a Right to a government that respects your Rights, and is limited by the rules of due process... government can't take your Property without due process... if they're going to take your Property, you have a Right to a trial by jury... you have a Right to be innocent until proven guilty, and you have a Right to be free from arbitrary and despotic governments...
So let's look at these Red Flag Laws, because the RFLs say that any family member, any romantic involvement, past or present... Can you imagine your ex having the power to take your Rights away? Or any law enforcement officer, has the power to go to a judge, make a petition that says they FEEL you may be a danger to yourself, or to someone else... without your appearance in court.... without being able to face your accusers... without the obligation of the accuser to prove your guilt... the judge now issues a pseudo warrant that authorizes the government to come and take your property on completely unsubstantiated, arbitrary terms....
And then you are left... to stand before the government, and try to prove your innocence...
These RFLs take your Right to self-defense... they take your Property without due process... they are an unlawful, arbitrary search and seizure... they deny you of your Right to a trial...
I want you to see this is a taking of your Property... without due process... if you're driving down the road, and somebody calls the police officer from the neighboring town and hands them your the tag on your plate, and says "hey I want you to look for this car because I think they might be speeding sometime soon." And the officer, because that's dangerous right? You're a danger to yourself, and other people when you violate the speed limit.... how many people die every year because people violate traffic laws? So now, the officer pulls you over because somebody thinks you might be a danger to yourself or to someone else in your vehicle... and as a defense of somebody else's accusation, they impound your car...
Do you think taking and impounding your entire vehicle is an excessive fine for speeding? Why wouldn't taking your entire Property of your Right to self-defense, your Right to Property, your Right to due process, having your Rights violated by searches and seizures, your Right to a trial all eliminated from you... Why is that not considered an excessive fine?
[murmuring in the crowd]
And a cruel and unusual punishment? And if that's not bad enough, our entire legal system has devolved to the simple Marxist principle of guilty until proven innocent...
John Locke, the father of Liberty wrote, "if the innocent honest man must quietly quit all he has for peace sake, to him who lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be considered, what kind of peace will they'll be in a world which consists only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors?"
If you have to violate my Rights to do your job, you are the criminal, not me...
[applause from the audience]
And I will end with Patrick Henry, his famous "give me liberty or give me death speech," I think he's speaking to us today... because why do we have these Red Fag Laws? We are told that we need them to keep us safe... we need them for a peaceful society... Patrick Henry says this, "what is it the gentleman asked, what is it the gentleman wish, what would they have? Is life so dear, and peace so sweet, to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"
You know what he's telling us... without Liberty your life is nothing but servitude... without Liberty, your peace will become your prison, and that's why he said, "forbid it Almighty God, I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Liberty or give me death."
[rousing applause from the audience]
God Bless you, and thank you very much!
[musical outro]
-
The link to the second tool gave me a nice block of text for editing... thanks for that info, I was unaware of the tools!!
:beer:
:beer: :patriot: :seeya:
-
@EdJames
God Bless you for the time and effort.
I appreciate you.
-
What I get from her speech is along the same lines I have suggested. The standard for removing someone's firearms needs to be due process demonstrating a substantial and proven risk to others. It needs to be of a level that it is beyond reasonable doubt.
The concept of a lower standard to remove the legal firearms is to devalue the right.
In my opinion, the level required to take away that right should be no less than level required to imprison or otherwise remove that person from open society. No lower standard should be accepted.
-
What I get from her speech is along the same lines I have suggested. The standard for removing someone's firearms needs to be due process demonstrating a substantial and proven risk to others. It needs to be of a level that it is beyond reasonable doubt.
The concept of a lower standard to remove the legal firearms is to devalue the right.
In my opinion, the level required to take away that right should be no less than level required to imprison or otherwise remove that person from open society. No lower standard should be accepted.
Absolutely agree with that and the same is true for ALL of our rights so why do we still have an income tax and the IRS which trample all over our fourth and fifth amendment rights?
-
What I get from her speech is along the same lines I have suggested. The standard for removing someone's firearms needs to be due process demonstrating a substantial and proven risk to others. It needs to be of a level that it is beyond reasonable doubt.
The concept of a lower standard to remove the legal firearms is to devalue the right.
In my opinion, the level required to take away that right should be no less than level required to imprison or otherwise remove that person from open society. No lower standard should be accepted.
Precisely so - and the precedent once set, which other rights will be diminished by exception?
Speech? Can the mind police extend their grip to removing your speech by way of your supposed intent? This scurrilous path must be forever avoided.
-
Precisely so - and the precedent once set, which other rights will be diminished by exception?
Speech? Can the mind police extend their grip to removing your speech by way of your supposed intent? This scurrilous path must be forever avoided.
Bravo and :amen:
-
What I get from her speech is along the same lines I have suggested. The standard for removing someone's firearms needs to be due process demonstrating a substantial and proven risk to others. It needs to be of a level that it is beyond reasonable doubt.
The concept of a lower standard to remove the legal firearms is to devalue the right.
In my opinion, the level required to take away that right should be no less than level required to imprison or otherwise remove that person from open society. No lower standard should be accepted.
The due process has to come before the seizure of anybody's property, not after. The only lip-service I've seen to due process so far has been, "Seize first, with a government guarantee of due process later." This is unacceptable. It turns the standard, "innocent until proven guilty" on its head because the accused is put in the position of having to prove his innocence to get his property returned. Possession remains 9/10ths of the law.
-
The due process has to come before the seizure of anybody's property, not after. The only lip-service I've seen to due process so far has been, "Seize first, with a government guarantee of due process later." This is unacceptable. It turns the standard, "innocent until proven guilty" on its head because the accused is put in the position of having to prove his innocence to get his property returned. Possession remains 9/10ths of the law.
And foremost in due process, lest we forget, is indictment for a crime
-
And foremost in due process, lest we forget, is indictment for a crime
It's hard to have a proper Hearing without it. We have an adversarial legal system, and it's hard to be adverse to nothing.
-
Precisely so - and the precedent once set, which other rights will be diminished by exception?
Speech? Can the mind police extend their grip to removing your speech by way of your supposed intent? This scurrilous path must be forever avoided.
But a red flag law on speech would mean you would be incarcerated because someone allegedly thinks you MIGHT say something (offensive/threatening violence/provoking violence/whatever), not because you actually said anything.
With preemptive regulations, no offense is necessary, only that someone says they think you might.
So they take your spoon because (someone says) you might eat too much ice cream (before you have any)
Or take your car because (someone says) you might go faster than the posted speed limit...
Or take your house because (someone says) you might turn it into a brothel....
That's the standard for action with this sort of law.
-
But a red flag law on speech would mean you would be incarcerated because someone allegedly thinks you MIGHT say something (offensive/threatening violence/provoking violence/whatever), not because you actually said anything.
With preemptive regulations, no offense is necessary, only that someone says they think you might.
So they take your spoon because (someone says) you might eat too much ice cream (before you have any)
Or take your car because (someone says) you might go faster than the posted speed limit...
Or take your house because (someone says) you might turn it into a brothel....
That's the standard for action with this sort of law.
That is exactly right - Once ever invoked, its expansion is unlimited.
-
That is exactly right - Once ever invoked, its expansion is unlimited.
And in order to get your stuff back you have to prove that their assertion was unfounded
In other words, prove your innocence, not of a crime that was committed, but that you were not going to commit one.
It's tough enough to prove you didn't do something (why the standard is innocent until proven guilty), but to prove that you would not do something that hasn't even been done? Good luck with that.
-
And in order to get your stuff back you have to prove that their assertion was unfounded
In other words, prove your innocence, not of a crime that was committed, but that you were not going to commit one.
It's tough enough to prove you didn't do something (why the standard is innocent until proven guilty), but to prove that you would not do something that hasn't even been done? Good luck with that.
Right... You can't prove a negative in the first place... Not to mention a negative twice removed...
How the hell can one be found guilty of a crime not yet committed?
That ANYONE would promote such a thing is just plain crazy.
-
And in order to get your stuff back you have to prove that their assertion was unfounded
In other words, prove your innocence, not of a crime that was committed, but that you were not going to commit one.
It's tough enough to prove you didn't do something (why the standard is innocent until proven guilty), but to prove that you would not do something that hasn't even been done? Good luck with that.
Yup. If your stuff is seized, then it becomes your burden to get it back, reliant upon the tender mercies of a government that may have someone (like an officer serving the seizure order) who wants to keep that AK-47 in your collection for himself. Or swap it out with one that has a dirty serial number.
-
Right... You can't prove a negative in the first place... Not to mention a negative twice removed...
How the hell can one be found guilty of a crime not yet committed?
That ANYONE would promote such a thing is just plain crazy.
Mere possession of a firearm is not evidence that you would misuse it.
It isn't like someone with a kilo of controlled substance broken down into street level units for sale (possession with intent to distribute) because there is no proof of intent with the firearm, whereas the controlled substance being or having been (re)packaged for distribution is prima facie intent.
Even more dangerous is the idea that they might pull something akin to current Civil Asset Forfeiture, where the object is accused of a crime, just by being present, and seized. (Unconstitutional, imho, and only upheld by the most perverted and contorted legal logic--in the end, a person is deprived of their property whether they were using it in or received it as the result of criminal activity or not)
-
@Anyone time-impaired, hearing-impaired, or otherwise impaired, or just wants the text of the presentation!!
Here it is, the rest of the transcription, from 25:17 through 46:52.
Awesome, Thank you !
Again here is the Mp3 (and a slightly lower tone) audio also for those that just want to listen while reading your transcript...
The Truly Insidious Nature of Red Flag Laws- KrisAnne Hall,.mp3
https://mab.to/pdgQwWcSi
Mp3 @194kbps
3 days only..
-
@Sighlass @EdJames
Just a thought but you guys should send copies of those files to KrisAnne, too. SHe could archive them on a server, send links in e-mails, and it could really go viral.
-
Even more dangerous is the idea that they might pull something akin to current Civil Asset Forfeiture, where the object is accused of a crime, just by being present, and seized. (Unconstitutional, imho, and only upheld by the most perverted and contorted legal logic--in the end, a person is deprived of their property whether they were using it in or received it as the result of criminal activity or not)
That's what frosts me about asset forfeiture. They don't arrest the person because he has rights and must be charged with a crime in a set period of time, then must be released absent an indictment. No, they "arrest" an inanimate object that has no such rights.
"You are not under arrest, but the cash you have that you need to start a business or buy a house is." Happens every damned day, and pie-in-the-sky lawyers, who are detached from the actual consequences, think this is an excellent state of affairs. People need to pay them to get their stuff.
-
That's what frosts me about asset forfeiture. They don't arrest the person because he has rights and must be charged with a crime in a set period of time, then must be released absent an indictment. No, they "arrest" an inanimate object that has no such rights.
"You are not under arrest, but the cash you have that you need to start a business or buy a house is." Happens every damned day, and pie-in-the-sky lawyers, who are detached from the actual consequences, think this is an excellent state of affairs. People need to pay them to get their stuff.
For most folks, this is why we can't have nice things. Someone, somewhere, might want to buy it at the police auction...
-
For most folks, this is why we can't have nice things. Someone, somewhere, might want to buy it at the police auction...
Yeah, like the cop who served the seizure order, and therefore knows it exists.
-
@Sighlass @EdJames
Just a thought but you guys should send copies of those files to KrisAnne, too. SHe could archive them on a server, send links in e-mails, and it could really go viral.
Great idea, @Smokin Joe! I left her the links via the Contact page on her site... mentioned that you suggested that she may want to collect them for wider availability. Thanks for sharing the thought!!
:beer:
-
Great idea, @Smokin Joe! I left her the links via the Contact page on her site... mentioned that you suggested that she may want to collect them for wider availability. Thanks for sharing the thought!!
:beer:
You're welcome, but you guys did the heavy lifting! Thank You for that!
-
That's what frosts me about asset forfeiture. They don't arrest the person because he has rights and must be charged with a crime in a set period of time, then must be released absent an indictment. No, they "arrest" an inanimate object that has no such rights.
@Cyber Liberty
I am shocked you overlooked the most obvious reason this happens.
They can't sell the gun owners for a profit to buy new toys with or to fly to Hawaii for LEO conferences.
YET.
-
@Cyber Liberty
I am shocked you overlooked the most obvious reason this happens.
They can't sell the gun owners for a profit to buy new toys with or to fly to Hawaii for LEO conferences.
YET.
@sneakypete Joe reminded me about that a few posts downthread.
-
I just know that my beloved Roy Moore got it right when asked about "red flag" laws... and he pointed out how dangerously they imposed on more than just the second amendment.
5 minute interview on the subject... and I dare you to point out any other candidate in state that nails it like Roy does.
Roy Moore Red Flag laws.mp3
https://mab.to/Jnx51Za8Y
-
I just know that my beloved Roy Moore got it right when asked about "red flag" laws... and he pointed out how dangerously they imposed on more than just the second amendment.
5 minute interview on the subject... and I dare you to point out any other candidate in state that nails it like Roy does.
Roy Moore Red Flag laws.mp3
https://mab.to/Jnx51Za8Y
Butt But But Roy Moore is a true statesman and thus a danger to the "how do I get another slice of meat on MY sandwich" crowd currently inhabiting Washington DC.
-
Red Flag Gun Laws: Connecticut Man's Firearms Seized Because His Son Shared A Meme On Facebook
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-23/red-flag-gun-laws-connecticut-mans-firearms-seized-because-his-son-shared-meme (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-23/red-flag-gun-laws-connecticut-mans-firearms-seized-because-his-son-shared-meme)
-
Let's face facts, truth and reality here, folks. If these red flag laws are enacted nationally, the radical left WILL be using this method to disarm any of us that they deem too "rightie" for their tastes. And that will include all of us, probably. All who dare to support Trump, that is.
They will have and develop a database and network (assuming they don't already have one) consisting of lists with the names and locations of any and all of their "opponents" that own guns. It won't be hard to do, either, since most of us have mentioned our legally owned weapons on the internet at one time or another. Wait for it...
they're coming for our guns. Don't doubt it. I sure as hell don't.
-
I just know that my beloved Roy Moore got it right when asked about "red flag" laws... and he pointed out how dangerously they imposed on more than just the second amendment.
5 minute interview on the subject... and I dare you to point out any other candidate in state that nails it like Roy does.
Roy Moore Red Flag laws.mp3
https://mab.to/Jnx51Za8Y
One thing that I have always noticed about the radical left. The ones they attack and oppose the most viciously are the ones they are the most worried about as their opponents. They wouldn't have even bothered with the bimbo eruption routine on Moore had he not 'worried them'.
-
One thing that I have always noticed about the radical left. The ones they attack and oppose the most viciously are the ones they are the most worried about as their opponents. They wouldn't have even bothered with the bimbo eruption routine on Moore had he not 'worried them'.
Bingo! @XenaLee
But IMHO your statement would be more correct if it said Washington establishment instead of liberal left.
-
Bingo! @XenaLee
But IMHO your statement would be more correct if it said Washington establishment instead of liberal left.
Well.... I consider the Washington establishment so-called right (I call them RINOs) to be part of the radical (liberal) left, since they so seldom, if ever, really stand up to and oppose the radical left. Almost like they are in agreement with said "liberal left" most of the time. :whistle:
-
Bingo! @XenaLee
But IMHO your statement would be more correct if it said Washington establishment instead of liberal left.
A distinction without a difference! 333cleo 333cleo 333cleo :cool:
-
A distinction without a difference! 333cleo 333cleo 333cleo :cool:
Perhaps that is true. :shrug:
-
Perhaps that is true. :shrug:
More often than not, token opposition.
As the Bard said..."...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...."