Sen. Lindsey Graham: I Approve of Red Flag Laws Taking Guns from Law-Abiding People

courtesy The American Conservative

“The Emergency Risk Protection Order is designed to fill a gap in current law,” [Senator Lindsey] Graham said upon introducing the [red flag] bill with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal last March. “It can be utilized when an individual has moved into crisis, but has not yet committed a crime.”

“The bill we introduce today is a starting point,” Graham continued. “It’s the place where we begin a long-overdue discussion about firearms and mental health. But we must start.”

“This is a domestic retribution act, that is what they should call it,” said Dudley Brown, head of the National Association of Gun Rights, which is firmly against any red flag laws. “Anyone who has been in a divorce or custody battle should cringe when they hear this.” – Kelley Beaucar Vlahos for The American Conservative, Emergency Confiscation is Easy Target in New Gun Control Congress

comments

  1. avatar Shire-man says:

    Due process = gap in the law. Nice to see politicians being honest. Accelerationism at its finest.

    1. avatar Dan B says:

      What’s next. Revocation of free speech?
      Might as well be called “White Flag.”

      Essentially we will have surrendered to tyranny if this becomes law.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        “What’s next. Revocation of free speech?”

        actually, *YES*.

        Get into heated argument with someone?

        Someone who can’t control their temper has no business owning a gun.

        Just *imagine* how far they can run with this one!

        1. avatar Sgt Bill says:

          Minority report = pre-crime offenses

        2. avatar TryMe says:

          I don’t care how bad your temper is, normal people don’t threaten to kill you. There, of course, should be due process in everything, including this, but I wonder how many people complaining here have had there life threatened by a “law abiding” (not yet caught) citizen? I’m sorry, but those nuts should have their firearms taken from them until they decide to join civil society.

          How many times have we heard about a murderer that has a record of threats?

          You also have to consider how horrible and unfair it is for someone to live in fear of their life or their loved ones lives. This is what happens when someone makes a threat, and you know, under certain circumstances, that they’re capable of it. Even if you don’t know that they’re capable of it, you should never assume anything. Take all threats seriously! By the way, usually nothing happens if you call the law on someone making these threats. People deserve to be punished for their criminal actions.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          If I understand you correctly, there is some sort of justification for allowing a person to be deprived of rights and property because of what they might one day do. Pursuing that reasoning, what are the limits? You can see the overwhelming complications here.

          Are you comfortable with just any random person simply “Swatting” gun owners? Does your theory contemplate unverified(able) claims that a person is abusive, is physically harming another? Would you require two witnesses? Four? Six?. Assault is already illegal, why is it necessary to confiscate firearms from an “assaulter”, yet not charge them with a crime (which would result in confiscation)?

          Are you trying to have government intervene when the victim lacks the willpower to make a formal charge? At the risk of an angry relative/neighbor/random citizen simply making one call to police, and denying your rights/property? Acting to save the victim from themselves? Where does that stop?

          As a 2A absolutist (and constitutionalist), I understand the issue of guns available to domestic abusers. I want domestic abusers stopped before they can permanently injure their target. I want the government to keep its hands off my RTKBA. Yet, I cannot ignore the unintended (actually intended) consequences of “pre-crime” punishment. You see, the issue is the sloppy thinking and laws designed to virtue signal, while undermining legal rights of “the accused”. The subject of guns (any weapon) in the hands of domestic abusers is not really amenable to sloganeering, bravado, virtue signaling, “just do something”. But all that satisfies most people, while further extending the abuse of constitutionally protected rights of the individual.

          At present, there is no suitable answer to the problem. As unfortunate as that is, just “doing something” is too dangerous a thought process. Never forget, every law you think is reasonable and just can, and will, be used against you in a court of law.

        4. avatar Ing says:

          @TryMe, imagine what this law could do if your worst enemy could use it. That’s the litmus test.

          If due process holds, the ill will of any individual doesn’t matter much. There are protections built in for you. There’s a presumption of innocence; guilt needs to be proven.

          With this law, it’s backwards. You’re treated as if you were guilty based solely on someone else’s say-so — and then the government dares you to try and get your stuff back.

          Do you want a law like that available to anyone who hates you?

          Imagine what a vindictive ex or a crazy neighbor or a power-hungry POS like Mario Cuomo — or that unhinged psycho you already mentioned — could do to you with it. That should make your skin crawl.

        5. avatar TryMe says:

          To SamIam and ING: for some reason, I can’t directly reply to you. I refer you to the second sentence of my original reply: “There, of course, should be due process in everything, including this…” So, it would be absurd to create a law where someone could “swat” anyone for any reason, and police come to take their guns. Do you guys actually believe a national law like that would pass? I think there’s a fair bit of hysteria among firearm owners when it comes to this subject.

          To Sam I Am: telling someone you will kill them is illegal (it’s criminal assault). The problem, as I mentioned, is that it is not enforced. When you call the police and say someone threatened to kill me, they say, ” *yawn* go to court and get a restraining order.” It’s time to take these nuts seriously. Are you okay with a known crazy person with firearms that wants you and your children dead? Try walking in someone’s shoes that’s been there.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Again, what are the limits to the functioning of the law? If the police are of a mind to disarm the public on general principles, as are the politicians who make the laws, where is the limit to random lawlessness under color of law? The problem with pre-crime punishment is there is no penalty for mere viciousness. Also, there is the whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing. Or do you find the constitution provides exceptions for when something really, really needs to be done that would violate human and civil rights?

          If someone wants to report an abuser, then that person should be required to swear out an affidavit that a judge will use to issue an arrest warrant. Then the accused is put under arrest. A “no bail” recommendation based on availability of weapons could be argued. Then comes the trial.

          I don’t need to be an oncologist to understand the devastation of cancer, and the issues with cancer treatments. Nor do I need to be the victim, or instigator of domestic violence to understand the dynamics for all involved. What you seem to be proposing is a crutch to act in place of reluctant police response, and people reluctant to file formal charges. In other words, big brother stepping in to save us from ourselves. And to top it off, you would easily support laws that are simple and easy for authorities to abuse.

          We have already seem examples of false reporting (one leading to death of an innocent gun owner), where a person falsely accused never regained their property, and the false accuser suffered no consequence. Which is why I said reacting out of emotion is a playground for mischief. Under a theory similar to “better a thousand guilty persons be acquitted, than an innocent person be punished” (better a thousand false accusations result in gun confiscation, that one false accuser be punished), “take guns first, due process later” would become the norm, not the exception.

          BTW, once rode along with a cousin who is a cop. We encountered more than one domestic abuse event. In one instance, the battered wife demanded to be taken to jail to be safe from her husband (she was accommodated). You can’t see that stuff and not think “someone needs to do something”. But bad circumstances lead to bad law for everyone else.

        7. avatar Ing says:

          Yes, I believe a law like that could pass — and this is that law.

        8. avatar TryMe says:

          I’m not at all advocating for pre crime punishment. I’m advocating for actual crime punishment. I can’t make this any more clear: the crime is the death threat, the punishment is not being allowed to possess firearms. For the third time: due process is a must. As it stands now, death threats aren’t punished. In my opinion, that needs to change. All new laws must be in step with the constitution. I don’t know how this proposed law will be written, and neither do you. I’m giving my opinion on what it should be.

          If you choose not to play by the rules, then you get a piece of your freedom taken from you. That’s how it works. I’m fine with throwing these people in jail as well. If you think it’s bad being without your guns, try living in jail.

        9. avatar Geoff says:

          They’ve already done that with “hate speech” laws, arresting and charging you with a “hate crime” for calling somebody a “racial slur”( you know what) if in a heated argument and a complaint is filed.
          So much for Free Speech.

        10. avatar Dave says:

          Tryme: Sam I Am has it absolutely correct when he said “If someone wants to report an abuser, then that person should be required to swear out an affidavit that a judge will use to issue an arrest warrant. Then the accused is put under arrest. A “no bail” recommendation based on availability of weapons could be argued. Then comes the trial. ”

          This is exactly how the system works now, and is exactly how it should work. If anyone ever threatened me or my family I have NO problem filing charges against them.
          They will be arrested and charged with the crime, and they’ll be afforded due process, where they and I will testify to the facts in court, and if found guilty they’ll be punished.

          There is NOTHING in that series of events that needs fixing.
          These “Red flag” laws are NOT about protecting ANYONE. They are all about DENYING LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS who have committed NO CRIME, their Constitutional Rights.

        11. avatar David says:

          TryMe, two things. 1. If someone threatens you or your family, why are you not capable of defending them or yourself? Why do you need big brother to step in and save you? Are you lazy or incompetent? The police do not have a duty to protect you from crime. The Supreme Court said so. That leaves your personal protection entirely up to you. 2. If a person threatens you with death and are so dangerous because of that threat, why are you only taking away their firearms? Why are they being left free to roam the streets and carry out their threat in a different manner with different tools? Shouldn’t such dangerous people be taken off the streets because of all the ways that may be available to them to carry out their threats even after their firearms are taken? This is why red flag laws are so dangerous. They are designed to strip constitutional rights and disarm the populace under the guise of state-sponsored safety and security. The only entity whose safety and security benefits from laws like these is the state.

      2. avatar JasonM says:

        New York’s proposed social media history check for gun permits essentially kills free speech. Post something “racist”, like “I oppose affirmative action”, and you can’t buy guns.

        1. avatar TryMe says:

          New York’s gonna New York. That’s not surprising. If most people there had a problem with it, they would change their voting habits.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          “If most people there had a problem with it, they would change their voting habits.”

          On the one hand I tend to agree that people “get the government they deserve” in this country, especially at the State and local levels.

          That said, this line of thought leads to one of the hardest questions revolving around government. The question not being so much the size and scope of government but rather the proper role of government and where exactly the limits on that role are.

          It gets to be a tough nut to crack in certain regards. On one hand we’re supposed to be a Republic. OTOH, sometimes the government really does have to do things the public doesn’t particularly like for said public’s own good. For example, in 1943 public support for WWII was lagging and lagging badly. War Bond sales were down significantly and there was a real possibility that the US couldn’t continue the war due to funding issues and public sentiment. The government took, for the US, relatively drastic measures such as basically using “The Hero of Guadalcanal”, John Basilone, as a propaganda mouthpiece to keep the War Bond drive going and thereby fund the war and raise public support for that war.

          Now, the public certainly should have a say in what wars we get involved in but we can’t get into such conflicts, “get tired” and then simply leave. This isn’t a pick-up game at the local park where you can leave when you want. Wars don’t end when you want them to, they end when both sides agree that they are over. If the enemy doesn’t agree that the war is over then it’s not really over and quitting is a pretty bad idea. How to reconcile the fact that wars don’t just end because the public wants them to and the fact that the public does indeed often get “war weary” before they end? Well, in certain regards the government has to tell people what’s what, that is that we don’t get involved only to withdraw when the “timetable” is exceeded.

          The question is where is the reasonable limit of the government telling us what’s what? That limit is open to debate in many regards. Where is the line? How does that intersect with rights granted by the Constitution of the United States and those of the several states that make up the union?

          No one can deny that there is a proper role for government that involves telling people rules that some people don’t want to hear and enforcing those rules. The question is which rules are reasonable, legal, moral, ethical and justifiable? Some people don’t like the idea of the Selective Service. Some people hate mandatory vaccination programs. Some people are anti-war under any circumstances. Some people would love to off their neighbors. Some people have a sick desire to harm children.

          Some rules seem entirely rational and reasonable to the vast majority because they are. Some seem unreasonable to the vast majority but are necessary. Some seem reasonable to certain groups and not to others while some rules seem reasonable to the majority but in fact are repugnant to the very concept of a Republic made up of citizens with rights.

          It’s a sticky fucking wicket. As are many things with government/society.

        3. avatar barnbwt says:

          Strych9 (are you the new-new-new-new name of the Arsenal pistol, lol?) the frustration you are feeling is society collapsing. At one time, the line of “what the government can be allowed to tell me/us to do” was rather clear since society was strong, and people had realistic expectations of competence from each other. People could rely upon each other to function in certain productive & unproductive ways.

          That is breaking down in modern society.

          For example, the whole arrangement of checks & balances was predicated on pitting different government groups’ ambitions against each other. Today, the congress delegates 90% of its job to regulators in the Executive branch, the courts use Chevron Deference to give the Executive Branch a rubber-stamp for said regulations, and the Executive himself has a permanent layer of plausible deniability between himself and even his highest-ranking underlings. The inmates now run the asylum.

          The same goes for electorates. The line “they get what they vote for” is very true, but it is equally true that no electorate was supposed to be capable of denying the right to keep & bear arms (for example). The fact that the electorate is now trying to do this, is evidence that the electorate is no longer capable of governing properly. No different than a tyrannical president abusing his authority to declare this & that illegal at a pen stroke (which he is, but no matter). The fact that these abuses are not being handled aggressively by legal corrective action is evidence the judiciary no longer functions as a moderating or restorative force in our system; it has become undamped and is swaying ever more out of control.

          Whatever happens, the only logical result is going to be the loss of popular participation in government, be it by despot or by a restoration of non-universal suffrage in a constitutional republic. When people with no money to put in the game get to play nonetheless, they will play to hustle the people who do (and will tolerate the house taking a hefty cut in the process since it’s still free money)

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          Barn:

          You’re thinking of my cousin strike-9. LOL!

          As for the rest. My personal opinion is that the root of the problem lies in education. Not to get all conspiratorial and shit but it seems to me that the breakdown of the educational system has happened in a way that makes it pretty clear it’s not an accident. So as not to end up writing yet another internet novel here, I’ll simply say that the result is an electorate that by and large is ignorant and apathetic and therefore easy to control. People who are brought up in such a way are willing to trade freedom, not necessarily for security, but for ease.

          IMHO the best examples of this are as follows: I note that today most people not only don’t know how the stuff they own functions but also, and even more worrisome, is the fact that they don’t care how it works or to learn how it works. Now, I’m not suggesting that everyone spend every waking moment learning every trade imaginable. I’ll simply say that I’m not very old by most standards and by 16 I knew the basics of carpentry, electrical systems, plumbing, tools, engines etc. In other words I was raised to be able to fix the stuff I own because the ability to do so affords you greater freedom. That freedom comes in the ability to make a choice: Do I fix it or pay someone to do it for me? If you can’t fix something yourself you have no choice but to pay someone else to do if for you. In most cases you don’t even know if the price is reasonable because you have no idea what’s involved in fixing the item.

          It’s my belief that a broken educational system, specifically the K-12 system, is the root cause of many, if not most, of our ills. It has resulted in situations where even the people getting elected don’t have a fucking clue about basic civics, economics, math, arithmetic, history and on and on down the line. Just look at that Ocasio-Cortez lady.

          It’s my estimation, based on the writings of Thomas Aquinas, that in order for someone as ignorant and lazy as Ocasio-Cortez to get elected the electorate in her district must be even more ignorant and lazy. That is to say that they’re fucking stupid. Ignorance is one thing, willful ignorance based on laziness is one of the most virulent forms of stupidity (The last is my opinion, not that of Aquinas, at least not that I know of.).

          However, maybe it’s not stupidity because it’s painfully obvious to me when I deal with people my age and younger (as well as a great deal of people up to double my age) that they’ve been taught this behavior. In fact, they’ve basically been taught that what you and I might consider “normal” behavior is, well, frankly somehow wrong.

          IMHO, the real issue is how to fix the problem and therefore reduce the symptoms. Unfortunately I don’t think there is time to take it step by step. Serious, relatively quick intervention is required and the only way I can really think to do that is not something that would be popular even here on TTAG. Really, even I’m not comfortable with it because of the potential for abuse. The anecdote would be chemotherapy or the use of some cyanide-based therapies for certain parasites: you have to hope it cures the problem before killing the patient.

        5. avatar 8 ball says:

          If a law doesn’t work for the whole situation, it shoudln’t be established, so… would any of the gun control laws which the dems, libs, commies, socialists and rinos advocate in the name of “saving lives”, have stopped the 4 people killed and other hurt by the guy that was stabbing people a couple of weeks ago. You know, that multiple homicide incident that wasn’t reported by fake news because the terrorist didn’t use a gun. No, so will they stop all of the multiple homicides in cities like Chicago, New York, Boston, etc…? No, they won’t.
          How about this though, and it proves what all of us usually and until currently, silent majority, have been saying, that the answer to bad people with guns is MORE GOOD people with guns… this mornings OAN news had an article about how the gun safety classes in San antonion have had a meteoric rise in class size since the shooting, from around 11 per class to around 34 (numbers might not be exact, but close) and the majority of the new gun owners are latino. Apparrently, latinos in america are smarter than the rest of us because when the see bad people using guns to hurt them, they go out and get guns to protect themselves… So simple, SOOO logical! Thank you guys, all of you GOOD guys, getting guns and learning how to responsibly use them. I hope the rest of america wakes up and smells the coffee.

  2. avatar FJ says:

    Many Republicans want to screw you just as bad as the libtards. Millions of Americans vote for political parties rather than focusing on a specific candidate and his/her resume and ideas. This is dangerous. You need millions of $ just to have a chance to get elected in a major election, that’s NOT democracy, it’s rigged and crooked from the start. The swamp will not be drained. POTUS even appoints some of them in his administration every other month or so. We are so doomed, little by little we will lose what made us a great nation for its people.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      The only way to fix this is term limits. Way too many senators-for-life out there. Many of them even started out good, but you can’t spend decades in a cesspool like DC without getting infected. 12 years in the house and 12 in the senate and it’s time to go back to the private sector.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        And that has to apply to all of the government bureaucrats as well — and to all levels including clerks, prosecutors, janitors, whatever.

        Of equal importance, your time limit is cumulative and applies to ALL government jobs. If the limit is 10 years for example and you worked for the Florida government for 5 years, then you can only work for the federal government for 5 years, after which you cannot work for any local, state, or federal government.

        1. avatar Rusty Williams says:

          That will screw over all the teachers in every school in America! 12 years as a teacher, janitor, ect in a public school and you lose your job and can never work in a school or any government job EVER?!?! Should only apply to elected and appointed positions, not the common rank and file.

        2. avatar Kenneth Wallace says:

          Rusty Williams: That just highlights the problem we have with schools being federally funded.

          FJ is right, Republicans are every bit as bad as the Democrats. They just want to ban different things. They spend your money just as poorly, they are overrun with special interests, and they don’t abide by the Constitution any more than Democrats.

          The US was supposed to be an experiment in freedom, not which “freedoms” the government decides you can have. I just don’t know if it would ever work. The only people who run for Congress are the sort that should never be allowed to govern and create laws.

        3. avatar Tom says:

          Where do COPS, first responders go to work, ex-FBI, ect. after 10 years? McDonalds?

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        Term limits would get some bad politicians out for sure. And good ones too. Fresh faces like Alexandra Maduro-Chavez for example.
        And there is no way you can throw government workers out of their positions after a time period. They can’t even fire them for poor performance, that option got taken away a few months ago when Trump proposed it.

        As Dylan once said the times they are a changin. But don’t look for dramatic changes that actually affect those making the decisions. No way is Congress going to vote limits on themselves. They got the presidental limit passed and that was a miracle but goes to show that FDR was seen as imperial.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          ‘No way is Congress going to vote limits on themselves.’

          They don’t have to. Article V – Convention of States. Ironically it was the threat of a convention that led to the passing of the 17th Amendment providing for the direct election of senators. If they were still picked by the state legislatures I don’t think there’d be nearly so many senators for life.

      3. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

        “The only way to fix this is term limits. Way too many senators-for-life out there.”

        So, you will be fine with half of Congress being clones of fuckwits like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

        *Shudder*…

        Today’s micro-sized ‘Daily Digest’, non-firearm Christmas edition :

        “Christmas event organizers apologize after Santa yells at kids to ‘get the fuck out!'”

        “Organizers of a Christmas event in a town in the U.K. have apologized after the event’s Santa Claus reportedly yelled at children to “get the fuck out” in response to a fire alarm.”

        https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/421178-christmas-event-organizers-apologize-after-santa-yells-at-kids

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          And we thought Bad Santa was just a movie

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Alexandria Occasional Cortex getting elected has no bearing on the virtue of term limits. First, she didn’t fill a vacant seat, she won a primary fair and square against another (entrenched) Demoncrat who felt so entitled to his seat that he didn’t bother to campaign. Then she was elected in a district that is 90% Demoncrat. At best you could use her to claim that term limits aren’t necessary, but even then, she’s a representative not a senator and voters will have the opportunity to change their minds in 2 years instead of 6.

        3. avatar Tom says:

          So, you will be fine with half of Congress being clones of fuckwits like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?***** Well, do you want her still there when she’s 80?

      4. avatar Omer says:

        The only way to fix this is to limit the scope and power of the state.

      5. avatar burley says:

        Sorry, Gov. The only way to fix this has already been pointed out by Mr. Jefferson…

      6. avatar GunTotinDem says:

        My only issue with term limits ( which is what the electoral process should be ) IS the fact that the staffs stay in place. just putting a new face on the same corruption every couple of years doesn’t thrill me in the least

      7. avatar Danny338 says:

        Term limits would help to keep a relatively small group of people from becoming a “ruling elite,” but election laws in general need to change. What I mean by that is the power of political parties needs to be utterly destroyed. Each candidate, regardless of party affiliation or endorsement, should have to go through the same process, i.e. gather enough signatures of registered voters in each district, as any other candidate to be put on the ballot. Then there is the money issue. If the parties were not allowed to fund any candidate then those candidates would be less beholden to the party. To take that even further, no organization (corporate, non-profit, whatever) should be allowed to fund, contribute, donate to any candidate or campaign. The use of such organizations in many cases is to hide where the money actually comes from. Note that I do not include advocating, advertising, or endorsement of a candidate in the above prohibition, but such things should be kept track of and declared and be part of the public record. Only individual persons should be allowed to contribute to a candidate or their campaign and the name and amount of each contributor should be declared and made part of the public record. That record should be published before the election as well, so that any voter that stays informed can know who is funding whom.

        My two cents.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          The really big money comes from the PACs and they’re pretty much untouchable without repealing the First Amendment. You have the right to uncensored political speech, the right to assemble and the right of freedom of association. If you want to run ads lauding Hillary Clinton as the greatest candidate and you can get all your rich friends to chip in to buy air time, it’s your right, just as it’s your right to send $40 to the NRA.

          Rather than trampling on the First Amendment or scrapping the 2 party system (there are alternative parties if that’s the rout you want to go), the real solution is an educated citizenry that shows up for state and local primaries and not just presidential ones.

      8. avatar Sherry Correnti says:

        And just how do we do that set term limits?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Republicrats established term limits for the presidency (to prevent another 16yr run like FDR did), and they are still paying for that one.

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      Yes you are so right, absolute power absolutely corrupts. The Republican Governor of Vermont recently passed the biggest gun grabbing bill in the history of the state. Ditto for Colorado a few years ago. The Republican Governor of Ohio just announced he will veto the reformed concealed carry bill that would have ended immediate attacks on a concealed carry owner who used his firearm for self defense and he said he would veto automatically the new anti-abortion bill. And the Supreme Court down through its entire history only heard a Second Amendment case just twice. Once in the 1930’s which was an anti gun ruling and then under Anthony Scalia whose decision on the Second Amendment is now being completely forgotten and ignored as all of the anti-gun grabbing bills of the last 2 years have never had their appeals heard by the power mad anti-gun Supreme Court.

      And you are correct about elections being rigged. The corrupt process of Gerrymandering lets the corrupt politician prostitutes pick who votes for them not the other way around letting the people elect the politicians. And we have the corrupt Electoral College that is not always to the advantage of gun owners either as States with low population numbers often actually have more political power in the election than the will of the majority of the people. In France it is the people who elect the president thorough majority rule. Our Government was founded by the filthy rich and for the filthy rich because they feared democracy and the will of the people. When you have a parliamentary government you can get things done that need to be done quickly and if you make a mistake you can correct it just as quickly. After decades of wrangling by special Capitalvanian big business interests the U.S. still does not have a policy for fighting global pollution and warming. This is what you get in a sham and fake democracy which is again a dictatorship of the filthy rich which makes a complete mockery of democracy here in Capitalvania where the working mans life is considered expendable and cheap.

      1. avatar Rik says:

        How’s that working out for France at the moment? Is France a place friendly to law-abding Gun Owners? Secondly, the states with lower populations are generally ones who are more friendly to gun-ownership. By doing away with the Electoral College system, you are dooming everyone to the popular vote which is manipulated in big cities like New York, Los Angeles, and San Fransisco. Had we had a popular vote, Hillary Clinton would have been your president, and there would have been three anti-gun Surpreme Court picks already, and likely there would have already been attempts to ban semi-automatic rifles. Legislation like the one we are arguing about would have been a foregone conclusion with the SC’s blessing. So, please, tell me again about how bad the Electoral system is.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “So, please, tell me again about how bad the Electoral system is.”

          The electoral college is good if you like the rule of the few for the benefit of the few. Look, the founders were a bunch of smart guys, but they got this “republic” thing all wrong. The largest number of people who are affected by laws and court rulings should have the largest say in those laws and rulings. People in New Jerk City are affected more by national law than the people in North Dakota…simply because there are more people in New Jerk City.

          The 17th Amendment made Senators more responsive to “We the People..” The 17th moved more power to the public. With two thirds of elected government subject to the direct will of the people, only one obstacle remains – the presidency. Why should the president not be subject to the same will of the people as representatives and senators?

          The truth is that the founders set up our government as a blatant power grab by what we now call “Big Brother”, the idea being to protect we the people from ourselves. While our republic somewhat distances the ruling class from view, the result is nonetheless rule by a remote elite, with safety valves in place to ensure the rulers remain in power, and we the people remain locked in servitude when it comes to electing our premier leader.

          Time to banish elite rule, and give real power back to the people; direct voting for president would truly reflect the will of the people in their own governance. We have a sovereign nation, sovereign states, and pretend sovereign people. Let’s put the power back in the hands from which power to govern springs.

    3. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      And I forgot to mention the biggest Republican enemy of all gun owners Reagan who passed the biggest federal permanent gun ban of all time the machine gun ban. Even the insidious Clinton ban had a provision to sun set it in 10 years which happened. Yes the gun owners get it from both the right and the left but only remember when the left bans guns.

      1. avatar ollie says:

        Congress wrote the notorious bill you are referring to. The McClure-Volkmer Act passed by huge margins. The Senate 79 to 15 and the House 292 to 130. While Reagan did sign the bill, he had no control over it’s passage. Had he vetoed it, the veto would have been easily overruled. You should be blaming Congress, as Reagan had no real control over the matter, whether he agreed with it or not.

        Gun folks need to push Nikki Haley to lead the GOP instead of Rino Cretins like Kaisich or Bush or Graham or Scott.
        Forget democrats, they are hopelessly controlled by the far left now. The last time democrats controlled Congress, the unemployment rate doubled, 8,000,000 jobs were lost and the stock markets lost half their value.

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          Reagan himself said he agreed 100 per cent with the ban and he actually pushed hard for it. His exact words were” No one needs to own any fully automatic arms as they are not needed for hunting. end quote. Yes the far right makes up the most amazing excuses when Republicans ban guns but screams like a banshee in the night when the left bans them as well.

    4. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      Gov. Kasich a Republican made the statement this year ” I hate the AR 15 and wish I could ban them all” end quote.

      1. avatar TryMe says:

        Kasich outed himself as a joke, when he essentially began campaigning for Hillary after Trump won the republican nomination.

  3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    It’s about time our federal government took action against the scourge of pre-crime.

  4. avatar Kman says:

    Way to take a shit on the Constitution and due process Lindsey.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Graham has been around the senate long enough, he should recognize that anything supported by Blumenthal is toxic. Bad mistake.

  5. avatar Mike says:

    Where’s the due process? If I’m to be deprived of Life, Liberty or Property, I AM ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS.
    The 5th and 14th guarantee me this, and until due process is satisfied, to search my property for, and subsequently seize my legal firearms is illegal under the 4th.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      What you say is all very true except when it comes to guns. Politicians both on the left and right fear gun ownership its just that those on the right will not say it out loud like the left does. The courts have always been anti-gun down through their entire history as it threatens their absolute power and there have been plenty of politicians on the right that have voted to take guns away as well.

  6. avatar Felixd says:

    I approve of red flag laws that remove politicians from office before they do anything this stupid.

    1. avatar burley says:

      well, it’s up to us to enforce…

  7. avatar GS650G says:

    “if we have a gut feeling about someone we’ll just do whatever we want”

    Funny how even when they are aware of bad people and their actions they do nothing until a tragedy occurs. Europe is particularly bad at this but we have our own ostriches as well.

    They are going to red flag large groups of people and disarm them while others who may qualify for membership on the lists decide they don’t want to purchase firearms. Two prong approach. These people will most likely end up on a no fly list too. Watch what you say on line and who you associate with. Don’t piss off your significant other and their family. Keep your mouth shut at work.

    Once it’s accepted practice to boot doors in and strip guns out while news cameras roll there will be hand clapping for the policy. They can then take it all the way down to misdemeanor offenses like DUI. If you drive drunk surely you can’t own firearms, right? Get laid off from your job and your former co-workers you thought were backstabbers in the office will be telling 5-0 your a gun nut and want revenge. That guy who lives behind you that you had an argument with last summer might decide he’s afraid of you and make the call. This accepted policy will be easier than lawsuits and cheaper too!

    Several states have these policies in place, MD just killed a guy in his living room at 5 AM because he doth protest too much to SWAT. Using vast databases and data mining they will notify many others they are ineligible to own firearms , at 5 AM in the morning after the door is taken down.

    I don’t see the SCOTUS reversing these laws or limiting them any time soon so if you’re hoping for a Hail Mary from the bench forget it.

    1. avatar Elaine D. says:

      @GS650

      Hell, some of us are already on a list without ever having done any of those things. I’m pretty sure I am. Sigh. What are you gonna do. It’s like checking in at the Hotel California.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      “They are going to red flag large groups of people and disarm them while others who may qualify for membership on the lists decide they don’t want to purchase firearms.”

      I suspect it would be worse than that. Were the gov’t to really push the throttle on this sort of idea there would still be effectively untouchable “protected classes” just as there are today.

      Remember San Bernardino? It was reported, shockingly widely, that a bunch of the neighbors knew something was up but didn’t call the authorities about the sketchy shit going on at the perp’s house because they were afraid of a PC backlash that would label them as anti-muslim/racist bigots.

      I can see that sort of thing happening with a law like this. Though not codified the enforcement would probably be selective in two regards: Reporting and actual enforcement. In cases where the “crazy person” was a protected class people would likely hesitate to call the 5-0 and in cases where a member of a protected class was reported the cops would probably often play with kid gloves and never really enforce the law due to the same fear: accusations of bigotry. The last thing a PD wants these days is an accusation that they target minority groups and they would probably go out of their way to avoid such accusations.

  8. avatar Tom T says:

    Ok. Now let’s remove voting rights from anyone who expresses anti-American sentiments. Obviously they will vote AGAINST the best interests of their country. Everytime some left wing loon rants about how evil America is, it is a “red flag”, right?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Lord have mercy, I would absolutely LOVE to see Jane Fonda lose her right to vote *FOR LIFE*!!!

  9. avatar ROBERT Powell says:

    graham and the idiot bluminthal both need to be charged with PRE-TREASON, that would be as legal as their illegal attempt to go around the constitution.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      No need to charge anyone with pre-treason, we have a white house full of traitors right now that we’re dealing with so let’s not increase the workload for the prosecutors.

  10. avatar Fit2Btyed says:

    Any type of red flag law should require the confirmation of at least two witnesses and then an investigation into the accusers. Without these steps done first, one can envision gross abuses by vindictive spouses or ex spouses. Having gone through an ugly and vindictive divorce before, I can predict that the first question from from the opposing party’s attorney would be does he/she have firearms? If yes, they can then they will sit back gleefully and watch the dominoes start to fall on the others head as additional extortion is used to financially fleece the other spouse.

  11. avatar GunnyGene says:

    I suppose – no – I’m certain that eventually a blanket law that confiscates all firearms from all hunters, and former & current military/leo will be proposed. After all, those categories of people have already demonstrated a propensity and willingness to shoot people, right? Can’t have that now, can we.

  12. avatar GS650G says:

    “Reports indicate that police had been warned on numerous occasions about Cruz’s repeated threats of gun violence, but for whatever reason they did not arrest him (which would have prevented him from possessing a firearm) before the massacre.”
    Noticed that little nugget of bullshit in the story.
    Cruz had 37 police visits but no arrests. Even if they arrested and booked him, his status would not have PREVENTED him from possessing a firearm. They speak as though his hands would be mechanically prevented from holding a gun.
    This is more displaced faith in laws. Locking that little worm up would have prevented him from holding anything except his willy. And a police officer who had the guts to confront him would have done even more.
    It’s a shame Cruz didn’t make a move on the sidewalk when a cop pulled up on him, he would have been sentenced right there,.

  13. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Just like most sewer scum. Those who support red flag laws are committing treason. Take my property on the word of a nobody. They better have ground sweeping radar. There are lots of places to dig a hole and stash something.

  14. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    I wonder how this desire to penalize citizens based on “pre-crimes” would go over in a place like…..Chicago? Seems like they should test their theory there first. Let me know how that works out.

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      Illinois already passed its version of red flag law earlier this year. Our Republican governor happily signed it.

  15. avatar New Continental Army says:

    Well this is pretty much garunteed to pass. Everyone stock up now because we’re fixing to have all three branches controlled by dems in 2021.

    1. avatar Kenneth says:

      Do you really believe the Country as it currently exists can survive for three more years? I don’t think so. I predict the populism growing in Europe will spread, become the breakup of the EU, which will lead to uncivil war in the US… all prior to 2021.

  16. avatar Bob Jones says:

    There are some valid cases of dangerous persons possessing firearms needing action by the authorities. However, the system will be badly abused unless severe penalties are assessed for false accusations. There should be a mandatory five year prison sentence for persons making false “Red Flag” accusations. Includes members of the medical profession, neighbors, police, in-laws, ex-spouse, present spouse, etal. There should also be a $100,000 automatic reparation for persons falsely accused under Red Flag laws, paid by the government. The government can then recover their loss from liar(s). Sadly, there will be no redress for victims of liars under proposed legislation.

    There should also be an automatic five year prison term for politicians making false representations about their military service.

    1. avatar Michael Buley says:

      Of course, there will be no such penalties, because it’s not about justice for the accused. It’s about confiscating guns, regardless of the reasons. All of this ‘public safety’ talk is pure bullshit.

      By the way … did Elaine ever respond to ANY of the many comments on her article a couple weeks back on ERPO’s? Quite a thread there, and I don’t recall her responding to any of them, unless I missed it. If not, I don’t expect we’ll see any further articles from her. If you can’t stand the heat …

      1. avatar Elaine D. says:

        MBuley – I did not. Missed the ball on that one because I had a ton of work and family commitments for about 14 days. Couldn’t make it back to TTAG that week. What are you gonna do, sometimes life is like that. Too late now to pick up the ball in an age of 24-7 media where forward is the only direction…haven’t even found the time yet this week to go back to that post and read the responses.

      2. avatar Elaine D. says:

        TTAG ain’t a paying gig, so…

        1. avatar Michael Buley says:

          That I understand … lol … good to hear from you, Elaine.

    2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Not only will there be no penalties, but what judge would risk denying a “red flag” request and later being held responsible by the media for an ensuing death? This law is absolutely designed to be abused.

      1. avatar Rik says:

        They are never held responsible when they open the back door for an illegal, who then murders someone; or when they refuse to throw the book at some pedophile who goes out and rapes again. But, you make a point, guns are a different matter. They would probably held responsible by the same people who refuse to hold them responsible for their antics now.

      2. avatar 8 ball says:

        Yes, any such law is indeed WRITTEN to be abused, or rather used the way the writers intended, not the way they SAY it will be used. Just like FIZA. You’d think that trump would have learned his lession there, with it being a law that was intended to PROTECT americans from assault on their 4th amendment and other privacy rights. but yet it was illegally and unconstitutionally used to gather info on the trump campaing, and ow he wants to approve laws that do the same to our self protection rights. How frigging stupid and blind to recent history must he be?

        Any law (or policy) that infringes/assaults in even the slight way, our rights under the constitution (and more importantaly – given to us by our GOD), is wrong, no matter how small the encroachment is. i would like an amendment that wipes away any and all laws and policies and regulations that in ANY way encroaches on or detracts from our constitutional rights.

  17. avatar former water walker says:

    Minority Report strikes again.The “bro without a ho” mebbe thinks this makes him a hero. Tree of Liberty,Molon Labe and blah blah blah…

  18. avatar Rusty Williams says:

    Some have mentioned that you should be careful about what you post online for fear of “the man” coming and taking your guns hostage. I totally agree with that and that’s why I ALWAYS use a fake account whenever I post online. (Let those who can read and understand see what I just did there!) 😉

    1. avatar Rusty Williams says:

      Wink, wink, nudge, nudge!

      1. avatar Geoff "Kill a Commie for Mommy" PR says:

        “What’s it like?”

        *snicker* 😉

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      I hate to burst your bubble but the Feds can find out who you are in seconds fake account or not.

      1. avatar Elaine D. says:

        Yup. This.

  19. avatar Salty Bear says:

    It’s okay, Lindsey, because the vast, vast majority of gun owners are so enslaved by the two-party mindset that they will keep voting for you, because aT lEaSt YoU’rE nOt A dEmOcRAt.

    1. avatar NPC 511793252 says:

      SoRrY YoUr GiRl LoSt

      1. avatar Salty Bear says:

        Thanks for proving my point.

  20. avatar ollie says:

    This law will simply result in domestic abusers hacking their victims up with knives or machetes instead of shooting them. Like the spurned illegal immigrant in “Gun-restricted New Jersey” recently did to his 16 years old ex-paramour. As far as coconuts seeking mass mayhem, they will resort to arson or truck attacks or any one of thousands of other ways to achieve their goals.

    The world is NOT a safe place. Never has been. Never will be.

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      The entire point is to take away guns from someone, anyone, not to actually protect the victim(s) of some hypothetical future attack. Victim gets stabbed and hacked to death instead, they’ll just argue about how many more victims could have been killed if the attacker had a gun.

  21. avatar Icabod says:

    “a man with more than two dozen arrests dating back to the early 1990s, including four DUI convictions (he’s in the process of being prosecuted for a fifth, not including Friday’s incident).
    In the wake of the Friday’s collision, many have asked a reasonable question: How was Henderson allowed to get into a car and drive with so many DUI convictions?”
    https://patch.com/washington/renton/why-repeat-dui-offender-was-able-drive-hit-cyclist

    Pity, the politicians aren’t looking at taking cars away from potential drunk drivers like this.

    Truth is the uproar would drive them from office. The reality is that “There but for the grace of God” is used by people to no address the hard issues.

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      I don’t know about your stare, but here in IL. police can and does take cars from repeat DUI offenders.

  22. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Not to worry. Should such a law become fact. Kavanaugh will fix things. Just wait for it.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      I like you very much Sam because your wry humor is oh so true. To bad everyone else cannot see what you can see but sadly someday they will find out everything you say is oh so true. I salute you.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Thank you for a compliment for which I am truly not worthy.

  23. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    I guess it must time to “RED FLAG ” Anti-American Sen. Graham and Blumenthal ! Obviously NOT upholding their oath to protect the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights! Time for a WE THR PEOPLE recall! Get off YOUR collective @$$3rd and fight this Anti-American B.S.!

  24. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Once a person’s guns are to be returned, any missing or damaged firearms should be reimbursed at market value when confiscated, plus $1 million, each, from the budget of the police department responsible for collecting them.

  25. avatar Nanashi says:

    And here I was thinking Grahmansty found his balls after McCain died. Should have known it was an act for midterms.

    1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      Lindsey 1.0 is back, baby!

      ::: retching commences :::

  26. avatar Ark says:

    How many Americans does Lindsey Graham support being murdered by the police to make gun-grabbers feel better?

  27. avatar HP says:

    So, I’m curious. I live in Upstate New York. Should I still try to move to a free state? I’ve been smugly told that’s the only solution.

    1. avatar Michael says:

      It’s not the only solution, for me, it was the best solution. It cost me both money and a career change. Ironically, I wound up working in the firearms industry and holding an FFL for nine years. Also cost me some “friends”, and amazingly enough, some relatives The worst parts of AZ are so much better than the best parts of ny. It’s so much more than just a lizard sunning itself on a flat rock. If you need a big city, Phoenix has everything you can get in LA (with no restrictive carry laws) except a beach, If you need beaches you can go to Lake Powell or Lake Havasu. You can actually see the stars at night, all of them. If you feel like it, you can drive out past paved civilization onto public land and shoot your class III stuff in the middle of the night without being hasseled. Mandatory local L.E. sign off on the stuff mentioned above. We have Constitutional carry and legally protected, state wide knife laws, automatic/assisted opening knives are legal, no “city determined” gray areas, and any folders under 4″ are tools. Unless you live in places above 5,000 ft. There is NO snow. The only prohibited weapons are karate sticks (you can only buy them in “smoke” shops). Truth be told, we are being californicated, but not as bad as most western states. One of the best selling bumper stickers here is, “We don’t care how you did it CALIFORNIA!”. We did just elect a “progressive” to the senate, maybe that’ll wake some people up, I don’t know. Mostly, people here mind their own business and expect the same. It is a border state, so it’ll probably get interesting in the near future, but, if it does, at least it’s a place worth standing up for. So you see, we need to get as many P.O.T.G. as possible to relocate here. Bottom line, I hated working so hard and seeing my taxes go to pay salary to anti-2nd Amendment politicians and pay for their communist agenda. I’m gonna’ borrow my closing from Texas, another great state. “I wasn’t born in Arizona, but I got here as fast as I could”. -30-

      1. avatar HP says:

        Interesting points. I agree with some and disagree with others.

        My point however was that moving is a temporary fix at best if the laws start changing Federally.

        1. avatar Michael says:

          Temporary, yes, but I’ve got no snow to shovel, Constitutional carry, state law mandated CLEO approval of all class III transfers and a state level prohibition of individual city anti-knife laws. My neighbors mind their own business and I mind mine and we all like it that way. I know it’s not perfect, but I’ve known worse and while I have no idea of what happens next, for right now, it’s pretty much OK for me. -30-

        2. avatar HP says:

          Well, on the weather, we’ll have to disagree. I’d rather be trudging through snow in the woods than living anywhere in the desert, though the desert isn’t necessarily bad. Just a matter of taste. Yes, you have better gun laws there. And my neighbors and myself all mind our own business, too. Remember, I’m in upstate, not that liberal sewer that is controlling (ruining) things here. Here’s to hoping gun laws don’t get worse for you and wind up getting better for me.

  28. avatar barnbwt says:

    WTF are we quoting serial-huckster Dudley Brown of NAGR?

    I thought that guy had been thoroughly disgraced & run out of town on a rail by actual gun rights advocacy groups? Brown is just about hustling donations and distracting the focus needed to actually lobby effectively.

  29. avatar Gary Cooper says:

    This may pass. We need to attach CCW reciprocity to it as a poison pill or if the Dems want this so bad, we get something in return for it.

  30. avatar IAmNotTheHulk says:

    And who decides, next up microchipping everyone because Think of the Children.

  31. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Consider the RINO source.

  32. avatar The Reel Ess says:

    Poor Lindsay. Riding high after the Kavanaugh confirmation. He intentionally set himself up as the New McCain. Now he shows a serious lack of principles…He really is the new McCain. You can’t be pro-2A and anti-5A and claim to be pro-constitution.

  33. avatar tmm says:

    This is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics
    But let me tell you, when it comes to this, you’re looking for a fair process, you came to the wrong town at the wrong time, my friend
    you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics

  34. avatar Anonymous says:

    Graham looks upset here. Unstable even. My subjective whim (instantiated in law) says that he isn’t safe around his own guns, and other people aren’t either. We need to get in there and take his guns away, immediately. The other weapons he has are ok though. Gas cans, glass bottles, cloth rags, rat poison, and that decorative mounted sword. Those are ok. Just the guns. We need to take those. And once we have them, we can keep them until a court order makes us give them back. Safer that way. If he asks for his guns back, just give him the run-around. And when we collect them, you know, they aren’t our guns. So just throw them in a pile in the back of the SUV. Who cares if they are antiques or are valuable and might get scratched up. Not our problem.

    Also, while we are in the house taking his stuff, look around for anything that could be interpreted as suspicious. We generally need a warrant to enter a home, so we need to take full advantage and full opportunities when we already have access in order to browse around for suspicious activity. It’s not like his privacy is important, we have been authorized to enter his home anyways.

    The whole 4th amendment thing about prohibitive unreasonable searches and seizures and requirements for search warrants based on probable cause. We don’t need those. We know there is no probable cause at all. There is just feelings from people that may or may not know him or spiteful or non-spiteful relatives. And based on those feelings, we can take his stuff. And then try to keep it as long as we can. And hopefully he’ll never come back to get his stuff. So eventually we’ll have his stuff. The good ones we can divide up amongst ourselves or we can sell off the valuable ones and get a new cappuccino machine in the office. Also, it’s not “unreasonable” search and seizure. We have good reasons. It’s called gun violence. So for the alter of “gun violence” its all reasonable.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Where did you get a copy of the boilerplate testimony script?

  35. avatar Jason says:

    We already have a law if you get a restraining order you cant have guns ,that takes proof though ,if its un justified you can appeal it ,they dont confiscate ,they serve you and you have to give your guns to a family member or put them in a pawn shop.you can still own just not posses while it is in effect.

    1. avatar frank speak.... says:

      the new law in PA just put an end to most of that…now you have to surrender your guns to the cops,,,a gun dealer…or a lawyer…..and god help you if you forget to turn one in…

  36. avatar Armyman19d says:

    All I or anyone can say, is that ALL you blind ass fools who don’t see this for what it is are truely stupid. Sorry for the insult, but what kind of fucked up life have you had or having that makes it ok to fuck someone whom you don’t know, never have or never will meet and want to randomly lump everyone into one big ass pot of stupid! But, hey, welcome to America, right!

    Well, the stupid part is you acually think this will solve your problems, but no. It’s kust the beginning of the government taking every or anuyhing they want from you!

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      it’s going to set a really bad precedent…and is likely to be ripe for abuse…thank you president trump…

  37. avatar Robert Charlton says:

    Gun bans, and confiscations of any kind, are an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. Democrats want a Tyranny type of Government, with control over the people, instead of working for the people like they are suppose to.

  38. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Maybe respond to a “red flag” about mental health by getting them some of that?

    You know enough to declare who’s not to be trusted, but not enough to step up n fix it. How convenient…

  39. avatar glenux says:

    The government has only it’s just powers from the consent of the governed.

    I am a Law-Abiding Citizen and I do not consent.

    I have the RIGHT and the DUTY “to alter or abolish” my government that violates the people’s right to due process.

    So, Senator Lindsey Graham, I approve of Law-Abiding Citizens shooting Tyrants.

  40. avatar StLPro2A says:

    Red Flag laws are Pre-emptive action just in case someone might do bad one day. If you believe in that concept, you should be calling for castration of anyone entering seminary to become a priest; immediately sending to jail any Democrat filing to run for governor of Illinois….let’s just go ahead and jail Prickster in the Governor’s Wing…you know he is going to be a criminal; arrest Chelsea Clinton…and her kid…..you know they are going to commit crimes coming from old Billy and Hillary.

  41. avatar Terclinger says:

    I approve of prohibiting armed security from the offices and homes of all politicians who do not stand 100% with the Second Amendment.

  42. avatar Henry Leeseberg says:

    You can not legislate morality ! How man is suppose to respect another human being! And control his or her temper! Even God can not he has laws to that man refuse’s to follow! a 100 years ago man had more respect then they do to day Why! Because Government and the Liberal leaders in the world has been working on man to have disrespect for every law God put forth for man to follow! People liberals holler they want guns banned! or laws to take them away! What about Knives there are more people stabbed with knives everyday then there are being shot even in the City like Chicago! But it is not reported It is the Go to weapon in every household the Kitchen Butcher Knife! For men or women! The Muslims like Knives,The Mexican’s like knives, the Black’s like knives! I seen people stabbed! i also seen guys running though the G.M. plant holding their gut’s in their arms going to first aid! from a fight!

  43. avatar Garth says:

    No matter what you do, you’re never getting our hidden supplies, N E V E R !!
    When push comes to shove, all your efforts will have been for nothing and we will still be armed to the teeth.
    In short, the opposition will stand ready !

  44. avatar MarcusAntonius says:

    Based on these assumptions of Guilty until proven innocent, Every Politician and certainly all Democrats/Socialists/Communists/Marxists/Fascists,Nazis,Republicans, should be disarmed and have their homes thoroughly searched, and all weapons including firearms removed.

  45. avatar 5WarVeteran says:

    Do you get paid enough to try and enforce this? Molon Labe

  46. avatar buddy says:

    Some gun-owner’s support of Red Flag law really shows how susceptible people are to brainwashing. Do you really think if a government were to nefariously disarm its population it would ever declare, “We are now going to take away your arms, starting with the most effective, then work our way backwards, because we want to do things to you that we wouldn’t be able to if you were armed.” That’s never happened at any point in time, historically.
    Governments behave exactly like individual organisms. They only take what they believe is “reward-positive” in a risk/reward equation. Just like when a person gets pulled over by the police, and the officer is carrying a firearm, the distribution of power between the citizen and officer is reflected in the behavior between the two, which is the same reason police try to render firearms inaccessible when a citizen is pulled over with a firearm. A police officer wouldn’t even consider pulling people over on highways without carrying a firearm, it would be illogical, considering what they’re doing, and how people personally feel about it. Carrying the firearm and it being known by all that police are in-fact armed, is a factor in the dynamic between a police officer and a subject. If the public knew that police were never armed, the number of curse-words, failures to stop, assaults, police-homicides and evasions would increase exponentially during traffic stops. It’s the exact same principle with gun control.
    They (the people who have stolen this nation from its people) know exactly what they can get away with and what they cant. The revolutionary war began because the british attempted confiscation of the armories, ball, and powder of the colonists and it resulted in the battles of lexington and concord. It didn’t work the first time, and it wouldn’t work now, so instead they are going to whittle away piece by piece claiming the whole way, “Oh no, we’re not trying to render the population defenseless, we’re just trying to make everyone safe.” Just like with NFA, GCA, FOPA, AWB. Over time, all that has happened in the realm of law since our founding, is a continuous, unyielding loss of rights for the citizens whom are supposed to be the proprietors of the form of government.

    Gun owners touted concealed carry licenses and states passing stand your ground law yet somehow had no historical recollection of the fact that there were never any restrictions on these things in the first place when we started. The American public is simply being dumbed down into forfeiting their constitution and thanking the theives afterwards. The entire synthesis that guns are dangerous is a coordinated effort by the foreign-backed subversives in media, academia and government. Does any sector of the government seem at all like they think firearms are too dangerous for the agents of the plethora of unelected executive agencies? Of course not.
    FBI UCR data plainly shows, year after year, that out of all homicides in the US, (even now at the height of civilian gun-ownership) the highest number of homicides committed with ALL rifles in the US is in the 600s. Generally it’s in the 400s. There are around ~2.5M deaths per year in the US. So obviously homicides caused by semi-auto rifles (which are only a fraction of all ~500 annual rifle homicides) is a statistical anomaly at a rate of *even less than .024%* of causes of annual death in the US. There are more homicides from beatings by hands and feet than there are rifle homicides, every year.
    So, if a US citizen is statistically more likely to be beaten to death on the street than murdered by a rifle, then why is every major news outlet and politician claiming that assault rifles, rifles and handguns are a major problem in the US?
    I will tell you the reason, since everyone else in the US seems too meek to say it. They want to take away guns from owners in the US, phase by phase, so that they can do away with the constitution, and impose world government. A part of that process, if they were to be successful, would include murdering anyone who opposes the change by using the elements of force that have been put into place. I know this because I’ve read about world history and because I did that exact same thing to iraqis as a US soldier. When I got back from the war, I came back to a country with much less freedom. The founders understood this and so they included a balance of power in the constitution. Since then, particularly since WW2, an entire library of alphabet agencies has been created. These agencies as of now, are staffed by Americans who generally have a good-intention at heart, but they fail to understand that their organizations have zero accountability to the public, and that should cause alarm. That group of alphabet agencies is a parallel government that has jurisdictional purview covering the entire span of the constitutional government. Some day, probably sooner than later, the same media thats telling the public to give up their guns is going to encourage the process of that parallel government taking over the function of elected government. In fact it’s already started when the anonymous authors of the NYT encourage subversion. This is the exact same process that occurred in the USSR, East Germany and every other communist state in the past, including arms confiscation and purging. You think because you’re American that you’re exceptional, but the only thing that really makes America exceptional is it’s constitutional restrictions against the state. At this point, youve lost nearly all of those restrictions except in spirit. The people of the USSR were no less human than you, and somehow they were guided into murdering somewhere from 60-80 million of their own citizens using their own government agencies who took a paycheck just the same as our own agencies here.
    The people who accept red flag law are the same people who complained that the founding fathers were too rebellious during the revolution, then claimed to be all-American after they had won. The people who say red flag law is just fine, are the same people who justified executing 60 million people in russia. Those executed russians didnt murder themselves. Russians and Germans and Vietnamese are human just like we are, the only difference between us and them is our constitution.

    If you want red flag law or suppression of free speech because it’s too mean, or assault weapon bans or a controlled-economy with controlled wages, you may think of yourself as an American because it’s the thing to do, but just know that you alone think yourself that way, to me, you are a Red-Coat and a traitor. See you on the battlefield.

  47. avatar Jim says:

    Next, I saw you drinking some brown liquid, I think it was liquor I’m afraid you’re an alcholic so I want the police to impound your car until you prove you are not. I don’t want anyone hirt by your dunk dring. i

  48. avatar CL says:

    Seems like Lindsey Graham has joined the enemy.

    Back when he was pushing Kavanaugh for Supreme Court he thought it was terrible
    that he was accused and guilty. Now he is pushing the same logic(?) regarding gun owners.

    I say your guilty and you get to spend thousands trying to prove your NOT GUILTY.

  49. avatar Icabod says:

    The strange thing is how there has been no follow up one the Willis death. The police chief, I believe the next day, declared the case closed.
    The man’s niece reported that the night before “it was family being family.” During the night her aunt made the complaint. Then at 5:15 AM the police were at the door.
    No media follow ups, no claims or lawsuits. The case has just disappeared.

    1. avatar Dave says:

      Of course they want to bury that story.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email