Democrats
So-called Red Flag laws: An unconstitutional solution to a non-existent problem
As with most Leftist affronts to Liberty, unconstitutional gun confiscation SWATing or so-called ‘Red Flag’ laws are based on a lie. The usual contention is that these laws that eviscerate basic constitutional protections of due process are desperately needed because there are no other means to deal with people who are alleged to be a danger to themselves or others. Our previous article on the subject dealt with this outright falsehood. There are laws and procedures for involuntary civil commitments already on the books to handle these extreme situations. In the case of Florida and the Parkland mass murder, the “The Baker Act” was already in place, but the authorities failed to take action in time. Other states such as Colorado already have procedures in place for Mental Health Holds.
The existence of these laws have been ignored in the effort to ‘enhance’ the government’s ability to confiscate guns. Its just another case of the Left exploiting a tragedy to ‘Rahm’ through new laws to deprive the people of their means of self-defense.
Laws built on lies
Most articles on what is supposedly the urgent need for gun confiscation SWATing or ‘Red Flag’ laws will make vague allusions there are no other ways of handling these situations to the point of asserting that the government has never had the authority to deal with these situations.
State governments clearly have these abilities, but the existing laws protect the Constitutional rights of the accused without having the primary purpose of confiscating guns – an intolerable situation for the authoritarian Left that sees 120 million gun owners as a threat simply because they are gun owners.
Why violate one human right when several can be attacked at once?
Leftists seem to be in some perverse competition to see which one of them can conjure up new laws to attack Liberty in as many ways as possible. For them, it’s a more efficient form of tyranny with one law doing the work of several. What better way to suppress Liberty than to confiscate guns because of someone exercising their right of free speech while destroying due process protections?
The dangerous implications to the 1st Amendment
These laws will have devastating consequences for the natural right of free speech. It will only take one concerned person in the group of people who can initiate these actions to decide an innocent gun owner is guilty of ‘thoughtcrime’ to have their property confiscated. The odds are that the Left will also expand who can initiate these gun confiscation SWATings and streamline the process.
This will only serve to further stigmatize gun owners and suppress their right of free speech. Talk too much about the human right of self-defense and the law-abiding could experience a knock on the door at 5:00 AM with property confiscation conducted at gunpoint. One would then have a protracted legal battle on their hands to prove they are innocent after being treated as guilty with all manner of legal costs and red tape just to have their property returned.
The 2nd Amendment – the primary target
In their ongoing efforts to rid the nation of Liberty, the Left has decided that it should be illegal to defend oneself. Thus they have expended copious amounts of digital ink in demanding the death of the 2nd amendment and the confiscation of guns. They are perfectly willing to do this one innocent gun owner at a time if they have to. Never mind that the common sense human right of self-defense is the bedrock of the Bill or Rights. They have no use for the limitations of their power afforded by the Constitution, much less the Liberty conserving provisions of the Bill of Rights.
But wait, there’s more – The 4th and 5th amendments also on the chopping block
These laws turn the presumption of innocence on its head, forcing the victim of one of these gun confiscation raids to have to prove they aren’t guilty of thoughtcrime before they can get their property returned. Not to mention the ‘ex parte’ nature of these proceedings depriving innocent of the critical right of due process and the right to face one’s accuser before these confiscations take place. Lastly, there is the takings clause applicable to the private property being taken for public use since not many innocent gun owners will have the means for a protracted legal battle with the government, resulting in the loss of private property.
Why the focus on firearms?-
The existing laws for Involuntary Civil Commitment are not only superior in protecting everyone’s civil rights. They also serve to keep people from harm by other means. The unconstitutional practice of gun confiscation SWATing only addresses the issue of guns, leaving the supposed danger to society free to use alternative methods to cause harm.
If safety is the point of the so-called ‘Red Flag’ or ‘ERPO’ laws, then why aren’t their proponents concerned about this issue? If someone has their guns taken away suddenly by unconstitutional means, what’s to stop them from using explosives – flour, etc.- from carrying out their deadly deeds? Suppose an alleged ‘danger to society’ no longer has their guns, but still has a motorized vehicle or the ability to make edged weaponry. What about that circumstance?
Well, if it were really the case in that these people are concerned about other people’s welfare to the point of having them committed, they would have to follow the rule of law and afford the target their right of due process, etc. They wouldn’t be able to take someone’s means of self-defense just on the word of some other aggrieved party. It wouldn’t serve their desire for gun confiscation and gun confiscation alone, so it has no usefulness for them.
Things aren’t going according to plan for the Liberty Grabber Left
The progression for the Left has always been one of control, registration and then confiscation. They used to think that it was just a matter of time before Intergalactic Background Checks would be put in place, then registration would be required – both of which would do nothing to keep people safe or ‘cut down on the carnage’. It was all supposed to happen as it did in the UK and Australia. Intergalactic Background Checks, registration, then confiscation.
But that isn’t happening, despite the baseless polling to the contrary, everyone isn’t clamoring to have the government control their private property. Most of the Pro-Liberty see the danger in this control, with it leading to registration, followed by confiscation. Most on both sides have already admitted that Intergalactic Background Checks don’t work, that the dirty little secret being that these have no other purpose than as a stepping stones to confiscation.
The Takeaway
As others have indicated, Leftists aren’t anti-gun, they are anti-Liberty. They love to see them in the hands of the ‘politically correct’, but cannot deal with them in the hands of the right people.
Leftists desperately want to deprive the Pro-Liberty Right of their guns. These firearms represent a vitally important and final check on unlimited governmental power. It’s the primary bulwark against them attaining government power to attain their wondrous utopia they desire. They are so desperate to remove it that they will confiscate them one innocent person at a time, without a care for its effects on safety or Liberty.
Socialism is often a hive mind, as we see every Leftist outlet have the same take on a story, same arguments for a position, and the overall same mission. Conformity is the end goal; to Leftist-Socialism we will conform, if they have their way. In conformity, deviant thinking is often punished, as we saw how Joe Biden was forced to flip-flop on the meaningless Hyde Amendment and multiple feminists have been cast out for not accepting transgenderism.
The Left will eat their own for stepping out of line. But even within the confines of the conformity, there are notable distinctions between Democrats who can think for themselves and Democrats who cannot. The Joe Biden example with the Hyde Amendment shows he doesn’t have an original thought as it pertains to policy. Likewise Kamala Harris insisting on having that conversation indicates the same. Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand are the same exact person. So let’s take inventory of the original thinkers.
Bernie Sanders
This is probably the most obvious among the field of 24. Bernie Sanders was a socialist before it was cool, like back when the Soviet Union was collapsing. This guy loves communism, breadlines, and living off the government. And it’s doubtful anyone has pressured him into becoming more zealous, as opposed to the environment being safer to expose himself.
Elizabeth Warren
Elizabeth Warren is the brains of the socialist movement. She has come out with more policy proposals than any other Democrat candidate, it seems. When it comes to policy, she’s a wonk, kept warm in her Massachusetts log cabin by the burning of the US Constitution, coming up with ideas on how to implement her vision. From the unconstitutional wealth tax to Medicare (Medicaid) for all, she’s a thought leader.
Tulsi Gabbard
The only thing likable about Gabbard is her foreign policy stances, only to isolationist Libertarians. Otherwise she is a complete communist. Still, her differentiating on foreign policy is enough of a deviance from the hive mind to credit her on this list.
Marianne Williamson
She was the thought leader for the New Age cult back in the 1990’s. Since then she has been an activist on multiple fronts. Oprah’s spiritual advisor was a socialist before it was cool, dating back at least to her failed Congressional run in 2014.
Tim Ryan
Nothing demonstrates divergent behavior in the Democrat ranks quite like taking on Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House.
Andrew Yang
Andrew Yang does not fit in with the candidates at all. He has a grasp of economics and technology that far exceeds the field.
Democrat Presidential Primary Bracket
Are the candidates capable of thinking for themselves in a better position to win the nomination. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are among the top contenders, but the field is vast and socialist are legion. Fill out your bracket here.
We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.
10 things to do instead of watching the Democrats debate tonight
Progressives’ contradictions make their immigration goals crystal clear
Mainstream media censors images of dead bodies when convenient
Ami Horowitz: What is the Muslim Brotherhood?
AOTR 06-24-19: PolitiBunny joins Rick on KOKC 95.3FM, 1520AM
Very nice text animation of John 1:1-5
The state of conservative politics: Stick to our guns
The rise of citizen journalists
Strait is the gate and narrow is the way: Churches, stop pushing a ‘wide gate’ doctrine
Did Jesus die exactly 1000 years after King David died?
Joy Villa on being called the ‘N-word’
HHS Secretary Alex Azar on court ruling against abortion providers
Thomas Sowell on slavery
Psalm 77:11 – wonders of old
The importance of Ephesians 6:12
-
Culture and Religion19 hours agoImagine the Left being completely honest
-
Culture and Religion2 days agoBritish judge decrees child aborted – UPDATE: Appeals court overturns decree
-
Culture and Religion1 day agoDemise of LifeWay: Changing times or because they peddled heresy?
-
Foreign Affairs2 days agoMexico prevents illegal immigrants from entering U.S.
-
Media1 day agoMainstream media tried again with E. Jean Carroll. Then she told Anderson Cooper something insane.
-
Culture and Religion9 hours agoAmi Horowitz: What is the Muslim Brotherhood?
-
Democrats12 hours agoThe only 6 Democrats running that can think for themselves
-
Foreign Affairs18 hours agoRussia threatens new crisis in Cuba as warship harbors in Havana