Pence: Indiana’s red flag law could serve as blueprint...rest of the country

[MinutemanPatriot]

explain it to me like I'm five

I shouldn't have to; if you insist on devolving everything to the least common denominator, I'll leave. This country's in serious freaking trouble because everyone wants it all spoon-fed to them like they're five.

 

[JettaKnight]

But considering how the vast majority of Americans simultaneously claim to be Christians, yet refuse to learn/understand Christian doctrine or live by its' tenets, I'm not surprised either.

Somehow, someway, I think that discussion would be equally acerbic.

 

[JettaKnight]

I shouldn't have to; if you insist on devolving everything to the least common denominator, I'll leave. This country's in serious freaking trouble because everyone wants it all spoon-fed to them like they're five.

It's a simple question: "Do you think that US citizens, not incarcerated or involuntarily committed may be deprived of the right to posses firearms in certain case of mental illness?" I simply want to know where you stand on this pertinent issue.

[video=youtube;-Aii8E6krqw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Aii8E6krqw[/video]

 

[MinutemanPatriot]

It's a simple question: "Do you think that US citizens, not incarcerated or involuntarily committed may be deprived of the right to posses firearms?" I simply want to know where you stand on this pertinent issue.

[video=youtube;-Aii8E6krqw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Aii8E6krqw[/video]

This is the essence of what I was trying to tell the others, the answer is NO, and furthermore everything that passes for 'gun law' is actually an infringement.

 

[KLB]

May be or should be? Obviously the law says they may be.

 

[JettaKnight]

May be or should be? Obviously the law says they may be.

Indeed it does (question 11f on a F4473), but our resident patriot disagrees.

This is the essence of what I was trying to tell the others, the answer is NO, and furthermore everything that passes for 'gun law' is actually an infringement.

Thank you.


You must realize you are in a minority (out of all US voters) on this. Furthermore, I would not be surprised if your view was only held by a minority of Founding Fathers, especially if you used a guy covered in face tats, missing a shoe and arguing with a pigeon as an example.


But like I said, I think that trying to surmise the stance of large group of gentlemen from the 18th century on this one issue is likely to be as accurate as predicting their choice of breakfast cereal.

 

[HoughMade]

New one for me, being called un-American. I'll stand on my resume'.

....and I've been ashamed of myself more than a few times, but not for suggesting that people who are dangerously, mentally unstable shouldn't have guns while in the midst of their instability.

 

[VUPDblue]

Some relaxing needs done in this thread. Please.

 

[DadSmith]

Indiana state red flag law. Does it require a judge to sign off on it before action is taken? If not it is violating more than the 2nd amendment.

 

[JettaKnight]

Indiana state red flag law. Does it require a judge to sign off on it before action is taken? If not it is violating more than the 2nd amendment.

Not always. Seizure could come from the result of "the normal course of law enforcement duties". I.e. an LEO does a welfare check, finds a man threatening suicide, etc. After that, a judge must sign off within 5 days. (if I'm reading that right)


But don't take my word it, read it here.

 

[HoughMade]

 

[JettaKnight]

 

[jamil]

 

[HoughMade]

I feel like our friend hasn't found the "Scalia botched Heller" thread yet.

Based on what I wrote there, I may get thrown out of North America altogether.

Anyhoo, my position is and always has been...wait, no need to waste typing:

...Personally, I am in favor of a so-called “red flag” law in abstraction...I just haven’t seen one I like yet.

While I'm at it, let's talk about self-proclaimed III%ers...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Links?

It’s Facebook. If you can go back and find something specific, you’re a better man than me.

 

[JettaKnight]

It’s Facebook. If you can go back and find something specific, you’re a better man than me.

I don't do Facebook.

 

[Brad69]

Wow this thread went sideways while I was asleep!

Did Hillary win?

I am having a conversation with a pigeon and can’t find my shoe and suddenly feel like HoughMade is a communist!

 

[HoughMade]

 

[jamil]

In your conversation with the founders, where they told you how ashamed they were of the “gun owners” who you said, said things they didn’t say, weren’t even Americans; did you ask them how ****ty was their coffee back then? They had ****ty water and a pretty ****ty way of making it. Just had to be horrible. The tea had to be even worse!

..WTF does THAT have to do with the spirit of our nation's founders and their absolute hatred of things that gun owners ARE DOCUMENTED ON THIS VERY SITE having just said!!

I imagine that our nation's founders would be utterly aghast at the cavalier attitude of people LIKE YOU with regards to the state of our liberty!

PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ATTITUDES LIKE YOURS ARE THE VERY REASON WHY THIS COUNTRY IS SO F#CKED UP!!!!!
SHAME ON YOU!

Using the above for context...

My comments were a direct reaction to the statements of those I was responding to. Not insult but shaming. I can't help it if people choose to get butthurt over my speaking straight truth! And I believe NO ONE should be making excuses for or defending those who dismiss the supreme law of the land and embrace the dogma of the enemies of the Constitution.

But considering how the vast majority of Americans simultaneously claim to be Christians, yet refuse to learn/understand Christian doctrine or live by its' tenets, I'm not surprised either.

I'm not butthurt, nor do I feel any shame at all. I poked some fun at your confidence in your own ability to channel the "spirit" of the founders. C'mon man. They argued over this stuff too. The 2A as written was the best consensus they could agree to. It didn't mean the same thing to every person we would call a "founder". And I think you're taking it a little more seriously than intended. I don't think I live up to your opinion of me; I just don't see the issue as cut and dried as you do. That doesn't make me un-American because I don't see it as absolutely as you do.

This is a topic I've wanted to explore on INGO because the sentiment you're expressing is often stated in absolute terms on INGO as "if you're too dangerous to have a firearm, you're too dangerous to be in society." That kinda sounds plausible as a sound bite, or rally cry, but I don't think the philosophy behind it is logical. It's essentially saying that the right to keep and bear arms supersedes all rights, including a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of "happiness". I don't think the RKBA supersedes that.

And keep in mind, I'm just talking about the sentiment/philosophy behind that idea. I'm not addressing it at a practical level, or at a legal level. So, philosophically, it's most evident that the purpose of the constitution is to establish a framework of laws in which the people can have maximum liberty, given their personal compatibility with liberty. So for the sake of this discussion, assume we have a common definition of what "danger to society" means that we all agree on. So, if a person is a danger to society if armed, but not a danger if not armed, the maximum liberty that person can have without being a danger to society is to live freely except without firearms. If you're saying that if such a person should be locked away because he is a danger if he's armed, then that's not maximum liberty.

You assert that the 2A is the most important right we have. I kinda think they got the order correct in the billing. Free speech is more important, for example. Free worship/religion is more important. But to maintain that, we also need the right to protect those freedoms. That makes that right secondary. Necessary, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but not as important as the right life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness itself.

So where that puts me on the issue of red flag laws, I am skeptical of them on the practical level. I don't think that society can reach a consensus on the meaning of "danger to society", or at least dangerous enough that they can't legally own firearms. And also a practical point is, as we all know, being barred from firearm ownership doesn't mean the person won't have access to firearms. It takes a deeper dive to get to the bottom of that in terms of how practical red flag laws are.

 

[JettaKnight]

Shame on you for having a nuanced, thoughtful view and open to the possibility of compromising!


Oh wait - that's exactly like the Founding Fathers.