The Truly Insidious Nature of Red Flag Laws - KrisAnne Hall, JD

[Cyber Liberty]

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."

[roamer_1]

And how is it going to work, sir?

MIL and LEO are overwhelmingly pro R2KBA.

These flags fly together all the time:

[roamer_1]

SHHHH!!!  Let him think the LEOs are going to be on his side.

OOPS! Too late. 

[Bigun]

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.

[txradioguy]

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.

[txradioguy]

MIL and LEO are overwhelmingly pro R2KBA.

These flags fly together all the time:

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.

[Cyber Liberty]

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."

[austingirl]

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. 

[Cyber Liberty]

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. 

[Sanguine]

With your permission, I would like to borrow that @Cyber Liberty.

Yes, it is very good.

[Bigun]

Perfectly stated. 

  

[roamer_1]

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?

[Cyber Liberty]

@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..   

[Bigun]

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!

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[txradioguy]

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!

[roamer_1]

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.

[Cyber Liberty]

We are on our way to finding out!

So I see!

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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]

@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.

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[Jazzhead]

@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.     

[txradioguy]

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.

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[Bigun]

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.

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[Bigun]

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".

[Cyber Liberty]

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.     I guess it's supposed to be a "teachable moment," or some such drivel.

[skeeter]

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.

[txradioguy]

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

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.

[Bigun]

I have no understanding why this one feels it necessary to truck with such paranoid, cynical and stupid nut jobs.     I guess it's supposed to be a "teachable moment," or some such drivel.

Your guess is as good as mine.

[Bigun]

There have been numerous instances of LEO lives being saved by private citizens with legal guns!

[roamer_1]

There you go,  assuming that the intent behind firearms regulation is to confiscate guns.

As history attests.

[roamer_1]

The President himself is willing to support new laws to address mass shootings.

Like the NYC liberal that he is.

[Sanguine]

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.   

[Cyber Liberty]

@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.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

[austingirl]

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]

@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)

[roamer_1]

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.

[Cyber Liberty]

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. 

[Bigun]

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! 

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[Sanguine]

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. 

[austingirl]

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?

[roamer_1]

"Mr. Franklin, what kind of government did you give us?"

A Republic, if you can keep it.

That's right.

[roamer_1]

@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.

[Cyber Liberty]

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.