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
1 Comment

Democrats

10 things to do instead of watching the Democrats debate tonight

Published

on

10 things to do instead of watching the Democrats debate tonight

In 2016, I watched every debate the Democratic Party put on. Their policies were in a state of flux at the time and I wanted to learn more about that crazy up-and-coming whippersnapper, Senator Bernie Sanders.

This time, there are many reasons I won’t be watching the debate. First, the field is too big for now. I just don’t care enough about what 2/3rds of them have to say because less than 1/3rd actually have at least a minor shot of getting the nomination. The others are fundraising for their next election.

Second, I already know all the answers. Tim Young broke them down:

The third and final reason (there are more, but let’s not get boring) I won’t be watching tonight’s debate is because there are so many better ways to spend my time. Here are 10 things people should be doing that would be time better spent.

  1. Volunteer at a homeless shelter, especially if you live in a Democrat-controlled city like San Francisco, Seattle, or New York.
  2. Eat dinner at Chick-fil-A.
  3. Read the Constitution instead of listening to people who view it as a hindrance to their goals.
  4. Learn how we’re working to stop socialism from rising in America.
  5. Clean your guns. Too many gun owners aren’t doing proper maintenance.
  6. Learn about the growing threat of the Muslim Brotherhood.
  7. Preorder “Unplanned“.
  8. Spend time with family, friends, pets, or anyone you know who could use some encouragement today.
  9. Shop at Wayfair.
  10. Literally anything else.

Spoiler alert: They all hate Trump. They all want to stop America from being divided. They all want you to hate successful Americans. The Democrats’ responses will be variations of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

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

Progressives’ contradictions make their immigration goals crystal clear

Published

on

Progressives contradictions make their immigration goals crystal clear

Progressives are pushing what seems to be contradictory narratives on the same subject. The “concentration camp” narrative and all associated stories about poor conditions at migrant centers across the southern border is designed to invoke hatred that can be directed at the President for forcing migrants to live in terrible conditions. The “not a dime” narrative says American taxpayers should not spend anything additional on improving border housing quality and quantity.

Today, many Wayfair employees are walking out in protest because the company is selling beds to a contractor that supplies migrant centers. That’s the contradictory narrative in action, complaining that the kids aren’t comfortable while staying at migrant centers, then boycotting companies supplying the means to make them more comfortable.

Conservatives on Twitter responded:

The reality is this: They want the migrant centers to be so packed, so uncomfortable, and so inhumane that the outcry from America is to just let them go. Here is their narrative in a nutshell:

Give them their asylum hearing papers and let them go. In fact, take them wherever they want to go in America. If they show up for their hearing, so be it. If not, great! They’re immigrants like everyone else now. Give them a driver’s license, social services, free school, free housing, free healthcare, free food, free clothes, and anything else they can’t afford. Soon, we’ll give them voting rights. Because by coming here, they’re now Americans and deserve all of the rights of American citizens… plus plus plus.

If all of this sounds ludicrous, it’s because it is. If it sounds reasonable, you’re a modern-day radical progressive, in which case I welcome you to this site and I hope you read it thoroughly every day until you abandon your destructive ideology.

There is no contradiction in what progressives are promoting. They want all migrants released to the interior without hesitation. No stop at a migrant center. Just give them their papers and allow them to go if they want. If they don’t want to go immediately, take care of them until they do. That’s the current goal for progressives on border security. They want no security at all.

It’s time to stop arguing against progressives using logic. They won’t see it. They set their mind on a goal and will then do anything to achieve that goal. It doesn’t truly matter to them if migrants die in the process. In fact, it makes their case faster; the more deaths that happen at the border or in migrant centers, the easier it becomes for them to push their narrative.

Progressives don’t want beds for the migrants. They don’t want them to be held at all. We need to stop scratching our heads at their apparent contradiction and understand what progressives really want.

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

The only 6 Democrats running that can think for themselves

Published

on

The only 6 Democrats running that can think for themselves

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.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending