Molon Labe: BANG!

[actaeon277]

I never before knew that was a Libertarian principle! You learn something new every day.

I don't think that's what he was trying to say.

 

[Thor]

Once power is taken it is rarely (ever) returned by those who have it.

 

[2A_Tom]

No, not entirely.

It was qualified.

Remove the qualifications and that is what is left.

 

[2A_Tom]

[video=youtube;IKZ3wz6yC3Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKZ3wz6yC3Y[/video]

 

[Gabriel]

Or the court of public opinion. Been there in the hot seat myself so I know firsthand how WRONG these stories can be and many times are.

Same here. Many times.

 

[alabasterjar]

Had Adam Lanza been red flagged they could have confiscated all of the guns that he had access to. (his mothers)

There would not be a big push to confiscate your guns today!

Could have. It didn't happen with the Florida school murderer.

 

[alabasterjar]

Here is one of the concerns I have with the "red flagging" concept: there are thousands and thousands of people who post stupid stuff, say hostile things, act in weird ways, everyday, AND DO NOTHING WRONG!!!

Now in theory I think they're fine, the problem is that we are trading rights for safety. And I don't mind the trade, to a point. But I am very concerned with the threshold we set on exactly what needs to occur to have rights oppressed.

The largest mass murder of almost 3,000 people used box cutters and airplanes. 169 dead in Oklahoma City, using diesel fuel and fertilizer. These weren't crazy, these were intentional. No guns needed.

Then we have to look at the laws themselves. Does the accused have an automatic right to a lawyer? Does the accused have an automatic right of appeal? Are LE legally required to store what they have taken indefinitely?

If we're going to trample rights for safety then we had better make certain that we have safety catches to try to return to full restoration of rights as soon as possible.

Regards,

Doug

I am not interested in giving up any (more) rights for safety...

 

[Libertarian01]

I never before knew that was a Libertarian principle! You learn something new every day.

Many folks who claim to be "Libertarian" are purists. Philosophically, I agree with them. However, I am also a realist. Yes, rights are infinite when you are alone on your island with no other humans around. We though, who live in something called the real world, understand that we must share the sandbox with others. And those others may not play nice, so we have laws written to bring some degree of order to society. So we all have our rights trampled to the minimal possible degree in order to protect all the rights to the maximum possible degree.

I am not interested in giving up any (more) rights for safety...
View attachment 72329

I agree with protecting rights, let us though be honest and understand that we already trample a massive amount of rights for improved safety. For example, we all have the right to drive down a public road. We also have the right to drink large quantities of alcohol. However, when we combine both we may be pulled over by some members of this board and arrested. Both acts are rights and legal, but combined illegal. We have traded our right to drive drunk for the safety of everyone else on the road.

Is that bar too low? Is that bar too high? Should the bar exist at all? These are all questions that could be discussed, but I do believe most people would agree that the third option of no bar at all is not what most people want. They trade a wee bit of rights (right to drive drunk) for that great peace of mind that they won't have to attend a loved ones funeral prematurely.

[video=youtube;IKZ3wz6yC3Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKZ3wz6yC3Y[/video]

My problem with your guy here, whom I believe I agree with mostly, is that he doesn't differentiate fact from opinion. He states things as a fact in his video linked regarding Maryland Red Flag Law Proves Fatal. In that video he says he is, "...just telling ya what happened..." He admits to "...not knowing all of the details..." but goes on to tell us what happened. What???

My biggest problem with this story is that we don't know what happened! We don't know any of the specifics and so cannot come to any reasonable conclusion beyond very broad strokes as to what happened. That is a very serious problem. And yet, video warrior makes sweeping comments without seeming to have done any other research to find out more. Little ol' me here on INGO and I got up off my duff and contacted the reporter to get some more information. Yet here he is just regurgitating what he was spoon fed from other stories. Meh...

(Plus, he says "uh" too many times. Bad speaker, bad...)
-----------------

I said in my previous post that I believe that IF these laws are going to exist, which I am not completely opposed to, THEN they must come with a host of protections to see that the rights of the individual are automatically protected to the maximum possible degree. I still stand by that! I am not uniformly opposed to oppressing rights for extremely good reasons, but the laws that do so must come with provisions for making certain that such oppression is kept in check and removed at the earliest possible time. So I would set the threshold for oppressing rights very high and restoring them very low.

We need a mechanism to remove HIPAA restrictions when it could interfere with the overriding concern to the public as to why someone was to have their rights removed and died from it.

Regards,

Doug

 

[2A_Tom]

Many folks who claim to be "Libertarian" are purists. Philosophically, I agree with them. However, I am also a realist. Yes, rights are infinite when you are alone on your island with no other humans around. We though, who live in something called the real world, understand that we must share the sandbox with others. And those others may not play nice, so we have laws written to bring some degree of order to society. So we all have our rights trampled to the minimal possible degree in order to protect all the rights to the maximum possible degree.



I agree with protecting rights, let us though be honest and understand that we already trample a massive amount of rights for improved safety. For example, we all have the right to drive down a public road. We also have the right to drink large quantities of alcohol. However, when we combine both we may be pulled over by some members of this board and arrested. Both acts are rights and legal, but combined illegal. We have traded our right to drive drunk for the safety of everyone else on the road.

Is that bar too low? Is that bar too high? Should the bar exist at all? These are all questions that could be discussed, but I do believe most people would agree that the third option of no bar at all is not what most people want. They trade a wee bit of rights (right to drive drunk) for that great peace of mind that they won't have to attend a loved ones funeral prematurely.



My problem with your guy here, whom I believe I agree with mostly, is that he doesn't differentiate fact from opinion. He states things as a fact in his video linked regarding Maryland Red Flag Law Proves Fatal. In that video he says he is, "...just telling ya what happened..." He admits to "...not knowing all of the details..." but goes on to tell us what happened. What???

My biggest problem with this story is that we don't know what happened! We don't know any of the specifics and so cannot come to any reasonable conclusion beyond very broad strokes as to what happened. That is a very serious problem. And yet, video warrior makes sweeping comments without seeming to have done any other research to find out more. Little ol' me here on INGO and I got up off my duff and contacted the reporter to get some more information. Yet here he is just regurgitating what he was spoon fed from other stories. Meh...

(Plus, he says "uh" too many times. Bad speaker, bad...)
-----------------

I said in my previous post that I believe that IF these laws are going to exist, which I am not completely opposed to, THEN they must come with a host of protections to see that the rights of the individual are automatically protected to the maximum possible degree. I still stand by that! I am not uniformly opposed to oppressing rights for extremely good reasons, but the laws that do so must come with provisions for making certain that such oppression is kept in check and removed at the earliest possible time. So I would set the threshold for oppressing rights very high and restoring them very low.

We need a mechanism to remove HIPAA restrictions when it could interfere with the overriding concern to the public as to why someone was to have their rights removed and died from it.

Regards,

Doug

I have no problem with laws that punish people when they break them.

I do have a problem with a law that puts the onus of innocence on a person with no due process.

I would have no problem with a red flag law that separates a suspect from their weapons. If a person seems dangerous then place them under observation in some kind of institution. Give them a psychiatric assessment. If they are determined to actually be dangerous, then and only then deprive them of access to their legal possessions. They should be the one to determine the disposition of that property.

 

[Denny347]

I have no problem with laws that punish people when they break them.

I do have a problem with a law that puts the onus of innocence on a person with no due process.

I would have no problem with a red flag law that separates a suspect from their weapons. If a person seems dangerous then place them under observation in some kind of institution. Give them a psychiatric assessment. If they are determined to actually be dangerous, then and only then deprive them of access to their legal possessions. They should be the one to determine the disposition of that property.

I guess we are fortunate that Indiana law has Due Process

 

[2A_Tom]

Really? Before the fact, or after?

I do not see it.

 

[Libertarian01]

I have no problem with laws that punish people when they break them.

I do have a problem with a law that puts the onus of innocence on a person with no due process.

I would have no problem with a red flag law that separates a suspect from their weapons. If a person seems dangerous then place them under observation in some kind of institution. Give them a psychiatric assessment. If they are determined to actually be dangerous, then and only then deprive them of access to their legal possessions. They should be the one to determine the disposition of that property.

You and I are on the same page, same paragraph. I would even go further and say that if we find someone dangerous and deprive them of their legal possessions, then we must return them as soon as that person can show that they have been cured or are receiving treatment that makes them no longer dangerous.

Due process is critical on the front end, during the process, and at the rear end. At all times a persons rights should be held very high in the list of priorities.

Perhaps my original post was a bit short on that matter, because while I do stand by oppressing rights, this is so long as there are massive barriers to such and an easy slope to getting them restored.

---------

To All,

This is one of the problems when we post in an email or online in a forum. We cannot read voice tone, body language, facial expressions, etc. All of the additional contributors to communication are void. So it becomes very easy to take what someone writes and read it very differently from how it was intended or with the nuance that was meant with it. It was incumbent upon me as the writer to be very clear on my meaning, and apparently I was not, not just with Blue Falcon but with others as well. That is why it is also our responsibility as a reader to try to not get fired up when we read something the first time (I plead guilty here myself.) We need to ask questions of the person who posted in order to determine whether we are really justified in getting hot under the collar or are misreading their intent.

Just a thought...

Regards,

Doug

 

[2A_Tom]

My point is specifically that NO confiscation should happen at all under any circumstances.

If a person is considered dangerous they should be brought into custody. While they are in custody they should be evaluated as to whether they are actually dangerous or not.

If they are adjudicated dangerous They should remain in custody and arrangements for the disposal of their property can be made.

At such time as their property is disposed of they may be allowed to return to their home. (I do not understand if you are dangerous the absence of firearms makes you less dangerous)

If you are adjudicated not to be dangerous you then can return to your home with your weapons intact, having had your EDC returned as you were released.

All of the expenses of your confinement and medical treatment fall on your wrongful accuser, or in the case that you are actually dangerous, the state. Yes I know that is you and me. If we make laws to protect the people the onus of proof and expense lies with us.

 

[Denny347]

Really? Before the fact, or after?

I do not see it.

Probable Cause

My point is specifically that NO confiscation should happen at all under any circumstances.

If a person is considered dangerous they should be brought into custody. While they are in custody they should be evaluated as to whether they are actually dangerous or not.

If they are adjudicated dangerous They should remain in custody and arrangements for the disposal of their property can be made.

At such time as their property is disposed of they may be allowed to return to their home. (I do not understand if you are dangerous the absence of firearms makes you less dangerous)

If you are adjudicated not to be dangerous you then can return to your home with your weapons intact, having had your EDC returned as you were released.

All of the expenses of your confinement and medical treatment fall on your wrongful accuser, or in the case that you are actually dangerous, the state. Yes I know that is you and me. If we make laws to protect the people the onus of proof and expense lies with us.

Yes, typically we would have to Immediate Detention (ID) them. At that time we "could" take their guns if appropriate. Then the judge will determine their fate after that.

 

[bwframe]

Probable Cause


Yes, typically we would have to Immediate Detention (ID) them. At that time we "could" take their guns if appropriate. Then the judge will determine their fate after that.

Not knocking you sir, I believe beyond doubt in your proper mindset. Aren't there a lot of bad calls made in this area though?

Whether we are talking about the Noblesville school shooter or our INGO member that is a victim of the red flag law, aren't there plenty of mistakes made here?

 

[hoosierdoc]

Exactly my point. Leave the inanimate objects out of it. The allegation is that the PERSON is dangerous, so why just take “stuff” and **** off the “dangerous” person?

My point is specifically that NO confiscation should happen at all under any circumstances.

If a person is considered dangerous they should be brought into custody. While they are in custody they should be evaluated as to whether they are actually dangerous or not.

If they are adjudicated dangerous They should remain in custody and arrangements for the disposal of their property can be made.

At such time as their property is disposed of they may be allowed to return to their home. (I do not understand if you are dangerous the absence of firearms makes you less dangerous)

If you are adjudicated not to be dangerous you then can return to your home with your weapons intact, having had your EDC returned as you were released.

All of the expenses of your confinement and medical treatment fall on your wrongful accuser, or in the case that you are actually dangerous, the state. Yes I know that is you and me. If we make laws to protect the people the onus of proof and expense lies with us.

 

[2A_Tom]

I agree that there can be PC that a person poses a threat to himself or others.

So, detain HIM/HER on that ground.

If they have a firearm, knife, belt, shoelaces, keys or anything else that could be used to harm themselves or others on their person, separate them from it, as you would in any arrest.

It is totally inconsistent that if they are allowed to return home that firearms are removed, but a million things that they could use to harm themselves or others are left at their disposal.

 

[Libertarian01]

My point is specifically that NO confiscation should happen at all under any circumstances.

If a person is considered dangerous they should be brought into custody. While they are in custody they should be evaluated as to whether they are actually dangerous or not.

If they are adjudicated dangerous They should remain in custody and arrangements for the disposal of their property can be made.

At such time as their property is disposed of they may be allowed to return to their home. (I do not understand if you are dangerous the absence of firearms makes you less dangerous)

If you are adjudicated not to be dangerous you then can return to your home with your weapons intact, having had your EDC returned as you were released.

All of the expenses of your confinement and medical treatment fall on your wrongful accuser, or in the case that you are actually dangerous, the state. Yes I know that is you and me. If we make laws to protect the people the onus of proof and expense lies with us.

OK! Well, I see I misunderstood completely.

So, under one method (red flag laws) one (1) single right is oppressed, the right to keep and bear arms. That is, until such time as "danger" element has been proven false or treated with medication.

Under another method (total commitment) EVERY SINGLE RIGHT is oppressed. You don't have a RTKBA, no right to privacy, no right to eat what you want when you want, no right to call your lawyer whenever you think of something, no right to travel, no right to take medication when you want as you need, no right to enjoy regular activities, no rights at all! That is, until such time as the "danger" element has been proven false or treated with medication.

I don't know about you, but if Denny or BBI or VUPDBlue came to my house because someone accused me of being dangerous I would FAR rather have them take my guns whilst I am on the phone with my lawyer and remain free than be shoved in the back seat of one of their cars going God knows where! I would far rather be free to get on MY computer and search for help, services, prior court cases, etc on my time than being processed into a facility.

Are you SURE you've thought this through? I am NOT being mean or pushy, but I do want ya'll to take a step back for a moment and think this through. Your way oppresses ALL rights from the go, and I don't think you want rights oppressed at all. I know we all hold the 2A in high regard, but consider that it too is oppressed once in custody. Also, your way greatly reduces the accused ability to help themselves by limiting or completely negating their ability to aid in their own defense. On the inside resources are diminished, on the outside (yes, without guns) you are still free to make all the calls you need and in greater privacy. You can still post on INGO and get helpful advise or ideas.

All in all I'd rather see one right oppressed than all of them, with the goal of getting that one right restored as quickly as possible.

Regards,

Doug

 

[2A_Tom]

I think you are dangerous.

 

[JettaKnight]