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

[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.