But how do you think its unconstitutional. Scotus never spoon fed you that answer. Just like you dont know if taking someone's property without due process is unconstitutional
Beto is not coming for your guns.
- Thread starter Marine Cpl
- Start date
But how do you think its unconstitutional. Scotus never spoon fed you that answer. Just like you dont know if taking someone's property without due process is unconstitutional
Wow, words really do have meaning.
No a good portion of us do know that red flag laws are unconstitutional. Its actually a simple process of reading the 4th and 5th amendment of the
..
Constitution
I am sorry, you are to advanced for me. This is like having a conversation with a serious mental patient. Gotta say ta ta.
So unless the SCOTUS ever decides to take up the safe act (they wont) and say it's unconstitutional in your mind that means it must be constitutional
I mean yea you must have some mental issues if you cant read 2 constitutional amendment (specifically in the bill of rights) and think hmm this one thing happening doesnt mesh with the words in those amendments... oh well cops wont leave empty handed so who knows if it's really constitutional or not
Based on your banner I get why you are trying to are tying to borderline support or atleast downplay red flag laws by saying
it may just be you trying to give your self some feeling like if you have to go and take someone's property without due process that well your not doing anything wrong because SCOTUS hasn't made a decision..
So hey what ever let's you sleep at night.
Thankfully there are a large portion of us 2A and constitution supporters that actually do know that erpo/red flag laws are unconstitutional
This is not about the police, holy shit. This is about the Power of those that have it in the United States. You do not have that power, neither do I.
Again, if you are so secure with your knowledge, do something in direct violation of the current laws and tell those that arrest, prosecute and judge you, that you know your rights and see how far that gets you.
Absolutely no where. That is how far it will get you.
Keep ;living in your fantasy world; the fantasy world that you think knowing something is all you need for pure protection.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
You are right about knowing something and being able to use your rights being different, but your rights don't cease to exist just because they are being infringed. No amount of pomp and circumstance will change that.
If a bunch of gang members accost you in an alley and demand your wallet they may have the power to take it. They do not have the right.
If they all get together and hold a vote and even give you a vote. If that vote says you need to give them your wallet, they still do not have a right.
If they call their little gang a government, and get some fancy robes for a few members, and some nice uniforms for some others, and get the ones in robes to agree that you need to hand over your wallet, and they send the ones with uniforms to collect it, they still do not have the right.
Slavery was 100% unconstitutional, doesn't matter that the opposite was recognized by 100% of the legal bodies and even the people who wrote the constitution.
There are absolute truths in the world, and it doesn't matter how many or what people deny them, they are still the truth.
For instance, if the Indiana Pi bill had been passed, ratified, and upheld by every court in the land, it still wouldn't have made the ratio of the diameter of a circle it's circumference a rational number.
Indiana Pi Bill - Wikipedia
spat
.700 Nitro Express
If a bunch of thugs accost you in an alley, telling them that what they are doing is illegal isn't going to get you anywhere either.
It doesn't mean you are wrong. It just means that you need to be prepared to defend yourself with force because they DGAF if what they are doing is wrong or not. Many of them will even probably justify their actions to themselves with things like "he's got all this privilege, he owes us his wallet" and "his people have been oppressing ours for centuries, he's just getting what he's got coming". Or even "our gang leader told us to do this, so we're not responsible"
I can see Lisper has already won.
I dont see how spat proves your point of
Where is he from? Odds are I make a fuck ton more money than he did and won't have to make videos against my former brothers to afford my meds when I'm retired on a pension double what his working salary was.
Last edited:
lol and I'm sure he uses that line to convince his minions that all cops think that way, just like a good leftist projects their emotional issues onto everyone else.
This fucking guy is a piece of shit.
What do you consider "without due process"?
I've repeatedly said I don't like these laws, but mainly because some allow relatively random people to start the process of removal.
A judge's order is not "without due process".
Unless there is a red flag law out there that allows a cop to say, "Hmm, yeah, sounds bad. I'm going in," that I haven't heard about, these laws require a judge's order.
Very few aspects of our legal system are determined only after a full on trial requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean everything else is "without due process."
spat
.700 Nitro Express
So which part is wrong ?
Do you think we will be able to avoid the Beto's of the world forever ? Demographics are not on our side.
Do you think that when enough of them end up in power they won't try to implement the policies he has outlined, and worse ?
Do you think that the majority of the people in law enforcement at the time will refuse to enforce those policies ?
Do you think that violent resistance to the "legitimate" government is never justified ?
I would like to think that if I lived in the 1770's I would have sided with the Patriots and not the Tories, With the Maquis and not the Nazi's in the 1940's, The underground railroad and not the slavers in the 1860's.
I fully believe that someone smuggling slaves out of the south was fully justified in killing anyone sent to stop them, regardless of what the law or "legitimate" government would have said about that.
You say it's going to happen and we'll be enemies then.
I'll leave it at that. You and lisper put a lot more stock in Beto than I do. But honestly maybe I should start using more of your logic. Maybe people like lisper and his watchers are threats to me and should be treated as such.
I'll leave it at that. You and lisper put a lot more stock in Beto than I do. But honestly maybe I should start using more of your logic. Maybe people like lisper and his watchers are threats to me and should be treated as such.
It gets a little tricky calling slavery unconstitutional btw. It was literally in the Constitution. I get the sentiment and agree with it, but if we're defining something as "Constitutional" or "Unconstitutional", being in the Constitution is pretty clear.
It shouldn't have been, but it was.
It shouldn't have been, but it was.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
There are a lot of things that judges can order from the bench that they shouldn't be able to.
Gag orders that violate the 1A, these confiscation orders that violate the 2A, overly broad and unsupported search warrants that violate the 4th. Hell you could probably go through the entire bill of rights and I think the 3rd is they only one they don't trample on regularly. When they have immunity from the consequences of violating someone's rights, why wouldn't they just do whatever they feel like.
I stand by my earlier statement about these orders though. No confiscation under any circumstances. If someone is a danger you lock up the dangerous person, not the inanimate object.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
With any luck you'll be retired before any of this comes home to roost.
I think Beto is going to disappear in a few months and we'll forget about him until someone tries the "nobody's coming for your guns" line.
I also think there are 1000000 more Beto's waiting in the wings though, and I think they are a much bigger danger to you than anyone on your radar, and that includes all the unlicensed pharmacists and gang bangers in your precinct.
Well let's take New York for instance...
A principal can tell a judge hey this student seems angry and suicidal. Judge says oh red flag go confiscate parents guns ...
Oh and if I have not committed any crime how can the state take my property??
Last edited:
The good news about Beto, he did to guns what Bernie did to free health care/college. That standard of taking guns has now been set and now the others have to get on board with that or they are not "democrat"
spat
.700 Nitro Express
It's in there, but it's in direct contradiction to other points in there and ultimately to the core principles of the document. It's an inconsistency born of the politics of the era. It's not a perfect document, just the best one we've got.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
And that’s exactly why he says what he says. It’s actually disappointing watching you break down like this. We will be your enemy. Your family and friends will be your enemy. The government will be your master.
ECU Pirates
.308 Win
He was still the best cop ever. Judging by his house he seems to be doing just fine.
ECU Pirates
.308 Win
the yankee Marshal continues to trigger this forum! Hahaha
Your logic goes both ways, sorry. I'm not going to hope begging for forgiveness works with people like this. I'm going to prepare to kill them if the need ever arises. I cannot change how people like this think. I can only be ready to react to them when they act.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
AMENDMENT VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Its seems clear as a cloudless spring midday that "Red Flag" laws are grossly unconstitutional.
Anyone initiating, granting or enforcing these laws is committing a crime.
Last edited:
Now who's a red flag test case?! Egads man!