Posted on 08/15/2019 7:10:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
When tragedy strikes, as it did in two mass killings earlier this month, there is always the urge to pressure the government do something. Governments are animated by the belief that doing something -- any demonstrable overt behavior -- will show that they are in control. I understand the natural fears that good folks have that an El Paso or a Dayton episode might happen again, but doing something for the sake of appearance can be dangerous to personal liberty.
When the Constitution was written, the idea of owning arms and keeping them in the home was widespread. The colonists had just defeated the armies of King George III. The colonial weapon of choice was the Kentucky long rifle, while British soldiers used their army-issued version of Brown Bessies. Each rifle had its advantages, but the Kentucky (it was actually a German design, perfected and manufactured in Pennsylvania) was able to strike a British soldier at 200 yards, a startlingly long distance at the time. The Bessies were good for only about 80 yards.
Put aside the advantages we had of the passionate defense of freedom and homeland, to say nothing of superior leadership, it doesn't take any advanced understanding of mathematics or ballistics to appreciate why we won the Revolution.
It is a matter of historical fact that the colonists won the war largely by superior firepower.
Six years after the war was over, delegates met in Philadelphia in secret and drafted what was to become the Constitution. The document, largely written in James Madison's hand, was then submitted to Congress and to the states, which began the process of ratification.
By then, Americans had already formed two basic political parties. The Federalists wanted a muscular central government and the Anti-Federalists wanted a loose confederation of states. Yet the memory of a Parliament that behaved as if it could write any law, tax any event and impair any liberty, coupled with the fear that the new government here might drift toward tyranny, gave birth to the first 10 amendments to the Constitution -- the Bill of Rights.
The debate over the Bill of Rights was not about rights; that debate had been resolved in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence declared our basic human rights to be inalienable. The Bill of Rights debates were about whether the federal government needed restraints imposed upon it in the Constitution itself.
The Federalists thought the Bill of Rights was superfluous because they argued that no American government would knowingly restrict freedom. The Anti-Federalists thought constitutional restraints were vital to the preservation of personal liberty because no government can be trusted to preserve personal liberty.
Second among the personal liberties preserved in the Bill of Rights from impairment by the government was the right to self-defense. Thomas Jefferson called that the right to self-preservation.
Fast-forward to today, and we see the widespread and decidedly un-American reaction to the tragedies of El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. Even though both mass murders were animated by hatred and planned by madness, because both were carried out using weapons that look like those issued by the military, Democrats have called for the outright confiscation of these weapons.
Where is the constitutional authority for that? In a word: nowhere.
The government's job is to preserve personal liberty. Does it do its job when it weakens personal liberty instead? Stated differently, how does confiscating weapons from the law-abiding conceivably reduce their access to madmen? When did madmen begin obeying gun laws?
These arguments against confiscation have largely resonated with Republicans. Yet -- because they feel they must do something -- they have fallen for the concept of limited confiscation, known by the euphemism of "red flag" laws.
The concept of a "red flag" law -- which permits the confiscation of lawfully owned weapons from a person because of what the person might do -- violates both the presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of proof of criminal behavior before liberty can be infringed.
The presumption of innocence puts the burden for proving a case on the government. Because the case to be proven -- might the gun owner be dangerous? -- if proven, will result in the loss of a fundamental liberty, the presumption of innocence also mandates that the case be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Republican proposal lowers the standard of proof to a preponderance of the evidence -- "a more likely than not" standard. That was done because it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an event might happen. This is exactly why the might happen standard is unconstitutional and alien to our jurisprudence.
In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the Supreme Court that the right to keep and bear arms in the home is an individual pre-political right. Due process demands that this level of right -- we are not talking about the privilege of driving a car on a government street -- can only be taken away after a jury conviction or a guilty plea to a felony.
The "might happen" standard of "red flag" laws violates this basic principle. The same Supreme Court case also reflects the Kentucky long gun lesson. The people are entitled to own and possess the same arms as the government; for the same reason as the colonists did -- to fight off tyrants should they seize liberty or property.
If the government can impair Second Amendment-protected liberties on the basis of what a person might do, as opposed to what a person actually did do, to show that it is doing something in response to a public clamor, then no liberty in America is safe.
Which liberty will the government infringe upon next?
Push Constitutional Carry. That’s what you do.
You can expect to be “red flagged” if you order one of President Trump’s books from Amazon or be caught in public wearing a MAGA hat. Once the red flagging really kicks in, you will be “red flagged” if it is found out that you are a Caucasian registered as a Republican. The ‘RATS defend Muslims by saying “all Muslims are not terrorists” while at the same time saying that all gun owners are “mass murderers” and all Caucasians are “white supremacists”. What the …?
I would love it if SCOTUS would throw out all gun control laws. Everything since 1934 has been a bad decision.
Stopped Clock moment for “Judge” Napalitano.
He hasn’t given POTUS Trump the same considerations lately.
This is my LIKE Button.
Been saying the same thing since the moment this latest round of Crazy happened.
An Armed Society is a Polite Society.
Yep. I half expected Nap to go with the “that was true then, but times have changed” argument.
If you donate money to our President’s re-election or even had donated to the first election, that is a public record and expect it to be used as a source of information for red flag swatting by the left.
When the blood was still flowing from injuries to police officers in Philadelphia, Don Lemon and Wolf Blitzer were agitating viewers (and the already unhinged Kamala) to “do something” about guns. Good chance to use the crisis while people are irrational instead of thinking calmly.
And repeating “Trump slowed down the gun control initiatives” implying he is to blame for a ghetto resident who illegally bought guns and disobeyed officers. That was HIS choice. WE are now supposed to suffer for him?
No.
When you see Lemon, Wolf and Kamala do one thing, go the other direction and do something else. A good policy.
Excellent point. I could not have said it any better.
Red Flag purpose is getting jumbled.
I thought it was about simply Including and not Expunging the records of these young adult mass shooters. Period. No one knows, so they Pass background! Even military recruiters wouldn’t know, I think.
Current law, in states, scrubs their Record and their multiple and obvious insane or terrorizing threats and actions and obsessions for killing or harming others.
EX: PARKLAND, Dayton, El Paso.
“Why would I tell anyone what I order from Amazon.”
You tell Amazon. Amazon won’t deliver if you don’t tell them what you are ordering.
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.To say, “Do something!” is to admit that you don’t know what to do - or can’t be frank about your intentions.Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness;Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one . . .the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices.
The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.
The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest . . . — Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)Journalism exists to attract attention, and it does so by loudly asserting that “Things couldn’t be worse!” Of course, if that’s true, society in its present state desperately needs reforming - and only tyrannical government can "discipline society adequately.” This is rank cynicism directed at society, and touching naiveté towards government.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)Via the medium of the wire services, “people of the same trade" - journalism - have been meeting together,” virtually, on a continual basis since before the Civil War. It is consequently silly to presume that journalists are not only are not in a “conspiracy against the public,” they actually define the public interest. There is such a thing as the public interest, but journalism interesting the public for fun and profit is not it. In fact, journalism’s interest in denigrating society in favor of government is close to being opposite of the public interest.
The bloodlust for power started with the bumpstock ban, called for by trump. I had moved on thinking he was done. Door to door campaign plans, etc.
Hust glad he revealed his gun grabber true colors before I put that much energy in it.
For those who thought the bumpstock ban would equal votes and political power.. read a history book.
I suggest the Black Book of Communism, if you can stomach the truth.
Rhe media is touting a 40 percent approval for red flag and coomon sense gun laws.
Based on anecdotal evidence, I am seeing that here on FR.
The last place I thought I would hear one voice support another anti- Constitutional gun grab.
You’re on the right track; I always think of the standard scene in every disaster movie in which the angry too-macho man, if they are in a lifeboat with some water leaking into it, starts to chop a hole in the bottom to let the water out; when the sane people try to stop him, some idiot like an alcoholic Toti Fields shrieks, “Well, at least he’s DOING something!”
“Doing something” is not the same as making things better.
On local radio news in Orlando a guy thought someone was breaking in to his garage. He called 911, then went to investigate and “started shooting” is what the news dork said. Turned out no one was there so the man was then, you guessed it, taken into custody for a “mental evaluation.”
It has begun. The elimination of the ability to defend ourselves.
Posts;thread BUMP! Trojan horses painted red. Who’da thunkit?
Shall we not forget ObaMAO really had this list.. http://thetruthwins.com/archives/72-types-of-americans-that-are-considered-potential-terrorists-in-official-government-documents Imagine what they will
do if they ever get back total power.
It was probably a raccoon in his garage.
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.