Posted on 08/13/2019 11:32:24 AM PDT by RandFan
Paul, a strong gun-rights advocate, signaled his willingness to support something along the lines of "red flag" laws that allow guns to be removed from those who may be a danger to themselves and others.
"I'm not opposed to sort of an emergency order for 48 hours and then you get a hearing in a court where you get the full due-process protections," he said in the interview. "It's the one thing that could fix a lot of stuff. I think most of these homicidal attackers ... are sending off signals to their family and community."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Rand Paul, Libertarian, my foot.
A strange kind of libertarian who loves gubmint control.
Liberal-tarian.
The thought police are being outfitted with their black boots
Red flag laws are too easily abused
It’s the perfect plan.
Leftist go out and kill a bunch of people to make political statements, all the while serving to deflect attention from Epstein, and the Republicans can’t run fast enough to give the anti-American leftist the politically motivated power to eliminate liberty the leftists were trying to take in the first place.
Great scheme.
I’m talking about one plan, and even then only generically. The whole red flag thing to me, is a catch-all term. I’m using it based on that paradigm.
This kinda gets to my points when I discuss “red flag” laws. I use it as a generic term that encapsulates taking people’s guns who have not actually physically committed a crime. I also argue it the way I do simply to expand the discussion. I suspect that may be what Rand is doing too.
Frankly, if we just enforced the law, as was done in your link, many of these shootings would be prevented. No law can be 100% enforced, of course, but it wold bring it down from the already incredibly rare occurrence to a “very” incredibly rare occurrence.
Verbal threats to kill or do bodily harm to someone.
Like when Fredo threatened to push that kid down the stairs.
But the line will always move, and just lmao if you think the leftists will respect any “safeguards.”
I agree. The Second is pretty darned clear, but look where we are.
Most people believe the bumper sticker or headline and look no further.
Still guilty until proven innocent.
Who pays the lawyer bills?
Who pays for the damage to the firearms when they are thrown in a pile at police headquarters?
[[3. As Rand said, it is only temporary until the person gets their “day in court” to make it permanent or long term.]]
Who pays for the thousands in lawyer bills for a BS claim against the accused?
I feel a bit like a guy saying, at the dawn of the automobile age, that maybe we should come up with some standard laws of the road, and people are pointing out how particular details - inferred from my statement - would simply not work.
I’m not a proponent of “red-list” laws, but I acknowledge that something could be at least discussed. We will not hammer out the nuances in this thread, though. :)
In virtually every one of these cases the person acted, said or exhibited signs of a potential problem that was NOT acted on.
How about starting there first?
I will state unequivocally after all is said and done, the mental health component of this problem will still not have been dealt with. They will not put mental health issues on a background check. Especially in the case of minors.
Instead, everyone else will have their rights eroded over this.
[[But as I’ve said, it would need a LOT of safeguards to prevent abuse of it.]]]
Like the FISA court.
This law will be something for Democrats to build on once they are in power.
Giving government control over our firearms is the suicide pact.
How does the country balance all the shootings in the cities and these mass murders with everyone’s right to use arms? It seems to me a few individuals might ruin it for all the rest of us.
Eroded, hell, Mr. Headstamp 2, they will be gone. From that point forward, one will have only what privilege that the Government bestows on one. But few tend to believe this, thus they will experience it. it is very difficult for one to see the Government as evil. This is what largely happened to the Jews in Germany in the 30s. They could not imagine that their Government would exterminate them. Especially since that they had done their Government no harm. History tells us how wrong they were. The Same thing thing, just under different circumstamces is being played over here. The only question remaining to be answered is,will it end the same? Time will tell.
That's an incomplete answer to the question.
People say stupid things in the heat of the moment all the time. My question was, who is going to determine what speech is actionable, and what is not?
Honestly. Where is the demarcation line between a temporary bout of anger or grief, and real psychosis, and who is responsible to legally determine this? Your local PD?
Are you willing to enter a new era where anything you say, can and will be used against you, whether you've committed a crime or not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.