Con's need to watch out for Red F**g laws.. (Page 2): :sm24: :sm24: :sm24: :sm24: :sm24:...

debeda

Blade_Runner wrote:

Now, look at what you've done. You just opened the door for the progressive morons to unload more of their TDS sewage. This isn't about Hillary, Clapper, Brennan, and Comey.

As debeda said, red f**g laws are a slippery slope that will effect EVERYONE, not just "cons", or even gun owners. Someone has issues with you, doesn't like you, doesn't have a clue whether or not you have guns, thinks you are a threat, they can report you under the assumption that you are armed.

"Yes, officer, I think that asshole has guns in his house and he is acting really weird."

"OK, mam, you think he has guns, have you seen him with any guns?"

"Well, no, but he looks like he has guns, he reminds me of all of those goddamned gun nuts. He has the evil eye."

"OK, mam, we'll check him out."

The Dangerously Slippery Slope of Red F**g Laws
By Tom Stark
August 16, 2019

In the current cycle of news and sensationalism surrounding the recent mass shootings, we are hearing a continual litany of calls for the passage of federal “Extreme Risk Protective Order” statutes, aka ‘Red F**g’ statutes, (aka Gun Control) in regards to our 2nd Amendment rights.

These proposed laws would allow untrained law enforcement officers, judges, or other citizens to make accusations and determinations when a report is made against a citizen who owns firearms.
In a nutshell (so to speak), based on someone’s allegations–that perhaps you are unbalanced and/or prone to violence–you will be given what amounts to a death sentence on your constitutional rights.

Recently I read two articles about Red F**g laws.They helped paint a picture of what is going to be a serious malfunction of our system of justice if this is any indication of what is in store under a federal Red F**g statute.

The first article (here) discusses a study done back in 1973 demonstrating that medical professionals are not capable of distinguishing between someone who is legitimately insane from someone who is faking it.

The extensive study brings into question whether the psychiatric profession isn’t simply making subjective judgments about people. Or he is merely able to pigeon-hole them into diagnoses that seem to fit a pre-conceived notion of what a particular mental illness is supposed to look like.

A recent statement from a noted psychiatrist seems to affirm the findings of the old study when he said that psychiatrists are actually making nothing more than a subjective decision about someone’s behavior because there is no way to know what is in the mind of a person with existing science.

The second article discusses the new DSM5 that is being published soon, and it is predicted to make matters worse as it attempts to medicalize even more normal human behavior is various circumstances.

The question that needs to be asked is this:

We have known for nearly 45 years that mental health “professionals” are unable to objectively establish criteria that allows someone’s mental health status to be evaluated. They are also unable to identify any violent tendencies in that person. So how can we even consider putting those responsibilities in the hands of untrained people that can deprive a citizen of their constitutional rights?

Put the above facts on top of these two very important items that separate America from every other country in the world:

For 240+ years America has based its entire existence on the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

U.S. citizens cannot be charged with a crime that he/she “might commit”

On the surface, Red F**g measures might sound necessary and appropriate. But let’s take Maryland, for example, because they enacted such a law.

Within a short time of Maryland’s Red F**g, one citizen was shot and k**led while two police officers were injured. They were attempting an early morning court order to seize a citizen’s firearms based solely on a claim by a third party that the citizen had presented a risk of violence. That citizen had every right to believe he was innocent until proven guilty. He even had the right to believe he hadn’t committed any crimes before anyone entered his home to take his property without first having a hearing in which he could confront his accusers and present his defense against such action. That citizen died.

It is almost guaranteed that others will also die or face injury. Not to mention exceedingly high legal expenses to defend themselves against actions by those who decide to use these laws to exact vengeance or harass someone they don’t like or have a disagreement with.

Think ex-spouses, jealous co-workers, random people who may not like you for wh**ever reason from your past. ANYONE CAN REPORT YOU AS BEING UNFIT TO HANDLE A FIREARM.

It is simply not worth the risk to either the citizens targeted by such laws or our entire system of justice that hangs in the balance.

Consider this:

If the government can show up at your door in the wee hours of the morning to take your firearms without due process, what is to stop them from enacting laws that say that they can come and take your children, your money, your belongings, or your life?

The answer is: absolutely nothing!

Think about it…then call the White House and tell President Trump that you do not want him to sign any “Red F**g” legislation that makes it to his desk. Then pray he listens. If he doesn’t, then our only hope for the American Constitution is five members of the Supreme Court that see the danger and the clear violation of at least five Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Hope springs eternal.

While these proposed Red F**g measures ostensibly intend to prevent mass shootings, they have no more prospect of stopping such irrational behavior than spitting in the wind…

Now, look at what you've done. You just opened th... (show quote)

Mikeyavelli

Smedley_buzk**l wrote:

I think I'll report you, if Texas should ever pass... (show quote)

Red f**g laws would then find everyone. It's a way to confiscate every gun in America. No one would qualify to have a gun, only the government would have guns.

Rose42

Red f**g laws would expand to include more than guns. People like Kevyn would be f**gged as a threat. Free speech would no longer exist.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Mikeyavelli wrote:

Red f**g laws would then find everyone. It's a way to confiscate every gun in America. No one would qualify to have a gun, only the government would have guns.

There's around 80 million Americans who own approximately 300 million guns, who's gonna do the confiscating?

Mikeyavelli

Blade_Runner wrote:

There's around 80 million Americans who own approximately 300 million guns, who's gonna do the confiscating?

They would find a way to take our guns. National Guard, state and local police, even the military if they had to. Taking our guns is priority #1 for the kommiecrats. Then they can take away anything they want.

Ricktloml

debeda wrote:

EVERY American needs to by leery of red f**g laws.... (show quote)

Every American should be afraid of Red F**g laws. Guns are not the problem. The debasement and corruption of our culture is. And it is the left that debased and corrupted the culture. Those who trade their liberty for a false promise of safety, not only will get neither, they will set themselves up for tyranny. Which is in fact the reason the left uses these tragedies for political gain.

debeda

Ricktloml wrote:

Every American should be afraid of Red F**g laws. Guns are not the problem. The debasement and corruption of our culture is. And it is the left that debased and corrupted the culture. Those who trade their liberty for a false promise of safety, not only will get neither, they will set themselves up for tyranny. Which is in fact the reason the left uses these tragedies for political gain.

Well said, Rick

Oldsalt

peg w wrote:

A red f**g law would have saved my girlfriend's life. No one has the right to k**l someone.

K*****g anyone is illegal. That said all “red f**g” laws are un Constitutional, and no law on the books or proposed would have saved your girl friend. Who ever k**led her would have done it in another manner. Same results different process.

debeda

Oldsalt wrote:

K*****g anyone is illegal. That said all “red f**g” laws are un Constitutional, and no law on the books or proposed would have saved your girl friend. Who ever k**led her would have done it in another manner. Same results different process.

Sad but true

MR Mister Loc: Washington DC

permafrost wrote:

You got your directions mixed.. China putting tariffs on the US limits what we sell to China..

It is the trump tariffs that add cost to that harly you want..

Must be a heck of a bike if 15% tariff add $45,000 to the cost..

Send us all a picture when you get it.. Love to see it..

You obviously do not know much about bikes I see.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

MR Mister wrote:

You obviously do not know much about bikes I see.

Nearly nothing to tell the t***h..

How pricey are they??

MR Mister Loc: Washington DC

permafrost wrote:

Nearly nothing to tell the t***h..

How pricey are they??

A full dress Harly is around 35k and up.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

MR Mister wrote:

A full dress Harly is around 35k and up.

Wow!... A guy could buy a decent car for that much money..

But my original comment about the adding 45 grand to the cost still stands..

Many years ago when I did a one time look at motorcycles, the low end was not much over $1000.

Now that was for sure not a Harley top ender but it amazes me the cost of so many items these days..

Also back in the later days, a friend I worked with at a trucking company did buy a Harley gold some thing or other. While I was admiring it, he told me that he had to promise his wife a car for the same cost as the bike to calm her down a bit.. LOL..

they are fun..I have ridden on a couple, never owned one..

Oh, the one I road was a "big" Honda.. about 500 CC power.. in the 70s..

Ricktloml

permafrost wrote:

Wow!... A guy could buy a decent car for that much... (show quote)

Back 45 years or so when I first got married, we bought our little 2 bedroom starter home for $13,000.

debeda

Ricktloml wrote:

Back 45 years or so when I first got married, we bought our little 2 bedroom starter home for $13,000.

Yep. I remember a good friend of mine and her husband bought a very nice 4 BR split level in 1972 for 27k. I asked her "OMG are you going to be able to afford that big mortgage payment?". The payment was 300 per month.....