Connect with us

Democrats

So-called Red Flag laws: An unconstitutional solution to a non-existent problem

Published

on

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.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Advertisement

0

Democrats

Can Lacy Johnson beat Ilhan Omar in Minneapolis?

Published

on

Can Lacy Johnson beat Ilhan Omar in Minneapolis

Minneapolis is one of the bluest major cities in America. The race for the Democratic nomination for the MN-5 district is essentially the general election because Democrats have held the seat belonging to Minneapolis since 1963. The closest a Republican has come to winning the district in this century was Alan Fine in 2006 who “only” lost to Keith Ellison by 34.3%. Oftentimes, the Democrat wins by over 50 points.

But Republican Lacy Johnson seeks to make history. He’s not making the attempt by being a moderate RINO trying to coax the people of Minneapolis into believing he’s basically a Democrat. His platform is boldly conservative and includes a balanced budget amendment, school choice, and a bear-hug embrace of President Trump’s economic policies.

Growing up with nine siblings in modest circumstances didn’t make him feel poor. It did make him realize it’s his responsibility to support his family as an adult and not rely on government. This is exactly the type of mentality we need more of in Washington DC. It’s the kind of mentality that will serve Minneapolis well.

Under normal circumstances, even being a strong candidate isn’t enough in Minneapolis when you have the letter (R) next to your name on the ballot. But in 2020, Johnson has one major advantage that should give the GOP hope. He’s going up against Ilhan Omar, the “Squad” member who has been nothing but an embarrassment to herself, Minneapolis, and the United States of America. Despite accomplishing essentially nothing outside of Twitter in her brief tenure, she still walks the halls of Capitol Hill as if she’s a diva rockstar. That’s part of the charade her “Squad” members portray; they’re a shame even to Democrats but because they’ve gained nationwide popularity among radical progressives, they’ve been allowed to keep playing their games. For now.

But even as Omar struts around Capitol Hill, she’s ignoring the people who put her in office in the first place. To Omar, Minneapolis is merely a place where she’s forced to campaign. We can see this based on her actions; literally nothing she has done in DC has even come close to affecting Minneapolis residence. That’s uncanny, even for a Democrat.

The people of Minneapolis may finally vote red for two reasons: (1) Lacy Johnson is a winner with great ideas, and (2) Ilhan Omar has been nothing but an embarrassment, absent from Minneapolis since her election. President Trump should endorse him.

Image source: Facebook.

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.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

Why Bernie Sanders failed so hard this time

Published

on

Why Bernie Sanders failed so hard this time

Elizabeth Warren is the new Bernie Sanders. Mark it down. Sanders will be out of the race before the Iowa caucus even though he won it in 2016. Why? Because he was replaced by a younger, sleeker model.

But there’s much more to the story of the Sanders 2020 failure than just another radical progressive using the same basic talking points. Warren is something that Sanders is not. In fact, Warren has the one piece to the puzzle that Sanders has always lacked. He’s an old white straight male.

Elizabeth Warren female and will therefore beat Sanders for the radical progressive votes. It’s as simple as that.

In fact, it’s already happening.

Bernie Sanders South Carolina crowd size one-third of Elizabeth Warren’s

Campaign events by Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, competing for voters on the Left flank of the 2020 Democratic primary field, proved a study in contrasts this weekend as far as crowd sizes are concerned.

Nearly 300 people attended a Sanders town hall in Columbia on Saturday, while over 900 showed up to see Warren in Aiken the day before.

It was conspicuous that Eric Swalwell, Cory Booker, and other male candidates declared they would have a female running-mate long before they ever were a blip on the polling radar. They’re reading the tea leaves, seeing the writing on the wall, and realizing this version of the Democratic Party values intersectionality more than anything else. If a lesbian minority non-Christian ran this election cycle and had an ounce of personality, she would have run away with the nomination. But today, one must pick their favored intersectional characteristic since nobody possess all of them.

Do they go with minority female Kamala Harris? Gay male Pete Buttigieg? Minority political outsider Andrew Yang? It seems like most are picking the same card that beat Bernie in 2016. The Democrats want a female, and even though Warren is Caucasian (plus 1/1024 Cherokee!), she has the advantage of advancing the Sanders agenda and at times doubling down on it. Harris is trying to do the same, but she’s a mess. She can recover, but her bouncing policies are not as endearing as Warren’s strict adherence to radicalism-at-all-costs. And by “all costs,” I mean ALL costs… to everyone.

Despite being 1-2 in the polls from the beginning, neither Joe Biden nor Bernie Sanders have a chance of getting the nomination. The new Democratic Party will not nominate an old white male because they’re neither racist nor sexist. Ironic.

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.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Do Omar, Tlaib oppose LGBTQ rights like the Palestinian Authority?

Published

on

Do Omar Tlaib oppose LGBTQ rights like the Palestinian Authority

Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib want Israel to be boycotted, divested, and sanctioned. They want the Democrats in the House of Representatives to take Congressional action against Israel. They want to drive a wedge between the United States and Israel. Most importantly, they want Israel to no longer exist, replaced by the Palestinian Authority and a “New Palestine.”

Do they also support the Palestinian Authority’s ban on LGBTQ activities? Do they agree with the anti-LGBTQ tenets of the Muslims organizations the Congresswomen support?

In a society in which the media handled things in an unbiased manner, these are questions the press would be asking Omar and Tlaib following the Palestinian Authority’s ban on LGBTQ activities in the West Bank, an area where Tlaib’s grandmother lives and where she petitioned to visit before declining to do so after Israel allowed it.

The press should ask them if they support the Palestinian Authority’s move against LBGTQ individuals:

Palestinian Authority bans LGBTQ activities in West Bank

The Palestinian Authority banned members of the Palestinian Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community from carrying out any activities in the West Bank.

The ban came after the grassroots group Al-Qaws for Sexual & Gender Diversity in Palestinian Society (Arabic for “the bow”), which engages and supports Palestinians who identify as LGBTQ, was planning to hold a gathering for its members in Nablus at the end of the month. The group operates both in the West Bank and among Arab-Israelis.

Both Tlaib and Omar claim to be supportive of LGBTQ rights. But they also have a not-so-subtle attachment to the Palestinian Authority and are actively working to put them in control of all of Israel. Does that mean they would approve of their ban of LGBTQ individuals “from the river to the sea”?

While many in America’s LGBTQ community continue to support and often partner with Islamic groups to help their friends in the Democratic Party, others in the community have spoken out against the anti-LGBTQ policies Muslim majority nations impose on their people. This needs to be addressed by LGBTQ leaders; they can’t (or at least shouldn’t) ignore the plight of the international LGBTQ community for the sake of political expediency.

The Palestinian Authority’s ban on all LGBTQ activities in the West Bank should be a point of contention that Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib need to reconcile. But they won’t. Mainstream media will bury the story and nobody will ask them how they feel.

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.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending