United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Who Are The Real Extremists?
Source:
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
URL Source: http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archive ... 6/who-are-the-real-extremists/
Published: Aug 26, 2019
Author: Ron Paul
Post Date: 2019-08-27 06:57:55 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 7747
Comments: 50
The recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton have re-ignited efforts to pass “Red Flag” laws, which allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due process, and expanded background checks on those wishing to purchase a gun. Some supporters of these measures acknowledge they would not have prevented the Dayton and El Paso shootings, but they think the government must “do something,“ even if that something only makes it more difficult for average Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
The fact that one of the shooters may have been motivated by anti-immigrant views has led to calls for government surveillance of “right-wing extremists.” There are talks of developing computer programs to search social media and identify those whose extreme views supposedly make them likely to commit violence. There are also calls for legislation giving the government new powers to prevent “domestic terrorism.”
Proposals targeting individuals based on their political beliefs — no matter how noxious they are — are a step toward criminalizing those beliefs. If the government gains new powers to treat those with abhorrent beliefs as potential criminals, it will not be long before those powers are used against anyone who challenges the welfare-warfare status quo.
The current use of “right-wing extremism” as a justification for expanding the surveillance state is the mirror image of the use of “Islamo-fascism” to justify the post 9-11 infringements on civil liberties. That is why it is distressing to see progressives and Muslim advocacy groups pushing for new federal authority to crack down on “domestic terrorism,” just as it was disappointing when so many conservatives who opposed Bill Clinton’s attempt to expand the surveillance state endorsed the exact same proposals when they were included in the PATRIOT Act. It is ironic that progressives are supporting new laws against domestic terrorism while simultaneously protesting FBI targeting of Black Lives Matter activists as domestic terrorists.
This is not to say there are not those with extreme ideologies who threaten our liberty and safety, but they are the Republicans and Democrats located in Washington, DC! The most obvious example of DC-based violent extremism is the war party propagandists who spread falsehoods to build support for regime change wars. By the time their falsehoods have been exposed, it is too late: America is stuck in another no-win quagmire and the war party has moved on to its next target.
Demagogic politicians also fan fear and hatred to protect and expand the welfare state. Right-wing nationalists scapegoat illegal migrants without distinguishing between those who come here to take advantage of the welfare system from those who come here seeking economic opportunity — while left-wing progressives demonize the wealthy without distinguishing between those who made their fortunes in the market serving consumers and those who made their fortunes by manipulating the political process. These extremists use scapegoating and demagoguery to gain power and keep the people from focusing on the real source of their discontent: the welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system that makes it possible.
As the welfare-warfare-fiat money system collapses, we will see increased violence. This will result in an increase in police state power. The only way to avoid this fate is for good people to unite and replace the extremist ideologies of the mainstream of both left and right with the ideas of liberty. A good start would be applying “Red Flag” laws to remove neocons from any influence over US foreign policy!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-9) not displayed.
.
.
.
#10. To: Tooconservative (#9)
You forgot that Ron Paul is also America's sweetheart. Oops ...
Will Wilkinson of the libertarian Niskanen Center has posted two much-discussed articles criticizing Barry Goldwater’s famous statements that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” and “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” He is particularly eager to persuade libertarians that they are too prone to extremism, and should instead embrace moderation. Wilkinson makes some solid points.
They are on the spectrum of left-libertarian/open borders policy. They're the only ones who bother to call them libertarian. The rest of us have no use for them. They speak only for themselves. They were part of the Kochtopus but after a fight for control, they started leaning Left on a lot of issues, so much so that most libertarians don't want them to call themselves libertarian. They're closer to liberal Main Street Republicans than to any flavor of actual libertarians. I expect they will lose all their funding over the next few years. They simply have no audience, given their policy portfolio and staffing.
They are on the spectrum of left-libertarian/open borders policy. … The rest of us have no use for them. It should come as no surprise to anyone that each of you libertarians has no use for any other libertarian. And therein lies “one” of the major impediments to “libertarianism.” With each and everyone one of you libertarians “speaking only for yourself” when combined with the fact that libertarianism is a complete mish-mash collection of seemingly unlimited political philosophies and movements [35 at last count – and growing] shows that libertarianism has the disastrously misdirected undertaking of a big “clusterfuck.” My thanks to Clint Eastwood for the use of the word – “clusterfuck.”
Wilkinson advocates instead that libertarians should see polities and economies alike as dizzyingly complex emergent systems that we should try to understand and improve, but not as the sorts of things about which we can make reliably decisive moral judgments, and certainly not the sorts of things we ought to seek to replace wholesale with castles of imagination built on philosophical theory. A libertarianism that has a place for democratic politics has a place for the virtue of pursuing liberty and justice through moderate, democratic means. A libertarianism that can see dignity and virtue in democratic participation, that doesn't need to insult potential political allies, or scare them off by constantly pining for what most people see as a crazy, scary, speculative utopia … a libertarianism like that can win friends and influence people. This sort of libertarianism, comfortable with moderation, can actually move the needle—can actually deliver incremental pro-liberty policy reform. Extracts from LIBERTARIAN HISTORY/PHILOSOPHY. Wilkinson thinks the slogan from Barry Goldwater's 1964 acceptance speech for the Republican Party's nomination, where Barry said … Wilkinson says: Wilkinson points out that … Salute,
The fact that you are FOR Red Flag Laws when it's the gun grabber politicians (on both sides) who are pushing this bullshit makes me more certain that you are a leftist posing as a conservative. First, what does Ron Paul mean “without due process?” New York's New 'Red Flag' Law Illustrates the Due Process Problems Posed by Gun Confiscation Orders The new law allows a long list of people to seek an "extreme risk protection order" that bars the respondent from possessing firearms. Potential petitioners include police officers, prosecutors, blood relatives, in-laws, current and former spouses, current and former housemates, current and former girlfriends or boyfriends, people who have produced a child with the respondent, and school administrators or their designees, such as teachers, coaches, and guidance counselors. The "school personnel" covered by the law can even report a former student if he graduated within the previous six months. So you have a minor argument with your girfriend, she calls the cops - your guns are taken away. You don't think ex-wives and girlfriends will spitefully use these red flag laws out of vengeance. Basically you are being punished for "thoughtcrime".
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. I read the article in your link twice. After finishing, I see where the article tells what “the red flag law in New York will do. I can deduct nothing there that in any way shows it is as Ron Paul – that red flag laws will allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due. … “without due process” … I simply can’t understand why he is saying this because the red flag laws permit police or the family of individuals to petition a state court for an order to temporary remove firearms from any person who may present a danger to others or to themselves. A judge must make a determination to issue the temporary removal order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question. The gun owner may have legal counsel present at the hearing. And if that, you misguided libertarian asshole, is not DUE PROCESS – then you will need to explain to me why. Can you? Salute,
So, how is that NOT due process? If you LIMIT the number of people to seek an “extreme risk protection order” – then you indeed do not have due process. Right?
So, how is that NOT due process?
Can you? Asked and answered. And if that, you misguided libertarian asshole... Attaboy - stay classy!
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. And your post is pure bullshit, dung beetle. If a girlfriend feels that her boyfriend may present a danger to others or to himself, then she petitions a state court for an order to temporary remove firearms from her boyfriend. A judge must then make a determination whether or not to issue a temporary removal order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question and witnesses. The gun owner may have legal counsel present at the hearing. How is that NOT due process? "Jesus H. Christ" – Deckard. Get to know the damned red flag laws and stop pulling irrational comments like the one you just made out of your ass.
Can you? then you will need to explain to me why. Can you? Asked and answered. ... answered ... Where?
Even if there's NO real threat. Get it yet gun-grabber?
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Due Process is Due Process – Remember?
Basically you do not understand the red flag laws. That is so extremely evident ...
Apparently - Trump does: Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Stop with the bullshit hondo memes ... I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment. I don’t give a shit whether you believe that or not. I know I am and that is the only thing important to me. I do concealed carry. All I have ever asked you to do during this exchange is to show me how it is that Ron Paul states red flag laws allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due process. … without due process … I ask you again, Deckard – How is there no due process?
Oh - so Trump didn't say that?
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. no... he was an obsTeTrician and gynecologysT...
They advertise their own operation as intended primarily to influence policy makers in D.C. They don't really write or speak to influence the public. This is one of the hallmarks of a Kochtopus operation. I keep thinking you'd finally realize that most libertarians are not represented by Cato or the Kochs and their many self-styled propaganda organs. The Kochs claim to be libertarians but, after funding their propaganda organizations for decades, they still have never convinced more than a tiny fraction of the large majority of libertarians to agree with them, then how are they "libertarian" in any sense? These Kochtopus entities are, in effect, just lobbyists and political influence operations. They are not, in any meaningful sense, political. They serve only the financial interests of the Koch family. That's all they've ever done.
Little wonder. That's because Wilkinson is a statist internationalist Republican who likes to earn a nice living by pretending to be libertarian. People like him are enemies of libertarianism and certainly can represent no more than 5% of all those who consider themselves to be libertarian. IOW, Wilkinson is no more a libertarian than you are. Just a fake Kochtopus mouthpiece, a whore for hire whose job is to muddy the waters, not to advance a movement. As much as you've posted about libertarians, you still seem to know almost nothing about libertarians. Ayn Rand did not and does not represent libertarians. She was always an object of derision to serious libertarians, like Murray Rothbard for instance. The employees of the Kochtopus empire (numerous little think tanks funded by the Kochs to advance the Koch financial interests) also do not represent libertarians in any meaningful sense nor do they represent core libertarian values like the Non-Aggression Principle or ever do anything to advance the cause of electing libertarian candidates to public office. In fact, the Kochs have often worked to defeat actual libertarian candidates.
Yes. And a former Air Force flight surgeon who served in Korea, Iran, and Turkey (as I recall). Of course, he is most famous for being America's most beloved congressman. And America's sweetheart.
Cute ...
With your attempted diversion aside, we can bet back to where: … without due process … I ask you again, Deckard – How is there no due process? Salute,
To: Deckard I read the article in your link twice. After finishing, I see where the article tells what “the red flag law in New York will do. I can deduct nothing there that in any way shows it is as Ron Paul – that red flag laws will allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due. … “without due process” … I simply can’t understand why he is saying this because the red flag laws permit police or the family of individuals to petition a state court for an order to temporary remove firearms from any person who may present a danger to others or to themselves. A judge must make a determination to issue the temporary removal order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question. The gun owner may have legal counsel present at the hearing. And if that, you misguided libertarian asshole, is not DUE PROCESS – then you will need to explain to me why. Can you? I am still waiting for you to explain to me why ...
Even if there's NO real threat. The law says: Salute,
Why stop at guns? Someone MAY decide to kill someone or themselves using a car or truck. Didn't we see that a while back when a terrorist rammed a truck into a crowd? In fact, there has been more than one of those. Terrorist Attacks by Vehicle Fast Facts How about knives? Terrorist incidents involving knife attacks The red flag laws do not go far enough - we need to take cars and knives from anyone who MAY use them to harm themselves and/or others. Oh wait - you just want the red flag laws applied to GUNS? Yeah - that comes as no surprise. Get it yet gun-grabber?
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Well, sport, that is just what I have doing for a very long time now – “waiting” ever so impatiently for you to explain how Ron Paul can say that red flag laws laws will allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due process. Get that, you irrational libertarian fear-monger as you daily continue with your constant spreading of frightening and exaggerated rumors of ever impending danger – which has become a habit to you and never happen – as you go about purposely and needlessly trying to arouse public fear. Yes, I am still “waiting” … Salute,
Why stop at guns? Why not take trucks, cars and knives as well? You would agree there, right? After all - "if it saves one life..."
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Well, “how about” remembering that during each day in our communities across this great country we share time with our coworkers, neighbors, friends, family and sometimes even strangers as we are on our way to work or school, shopping, or the gas station – and that It is so easy to overlook things during these routine moments. However, as you’re going about your routine day, if you see something that definitely doesn't seem right, say something. It is by being alert and reporting very suspicious activity to your local law enforcement, that you can protect your family, neighbors, and community. “How about” that … Salute,
But I would agree if you say that you are unable to explain how Ron Paul can say that red flag laws will allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due process. You have been unable to explain that, right? Salute,
Nice dodge. Your reply is to "be a spy" for the government. How Orwellian! If the cops are called, they should definitely take away the car of the "suspicious person", right? After all - he or she might use it to harm himself or others. Oh - you only want the cops to "take the guns and worry about due process later".
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. “How about” that … Salute, Gatlin I don't call the cops unless there is something going on that needs them immediatly. Not because I have some hunch because i'm a geezer with to much imagination.
You are confused. It was Ron Paul who said that under red flag laws cops could take away guns “without due process”, Remember? It is a statement by him that you still cannot explain the reasoning behind. Right? Salute,
That is highly commendable and worthy of great praise. Your applaudable ability to save time and effort for your local cops should serve as a laudable example for all. And a cherry “Good Morning, Sir” to you on the beginning of this bright and wonderful new day. Salute,
Nope. Oh, why not? Cars can be used to "harm one's self or others". We need to apply red flag laws there as well. Knives too.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Oh, what a “set-up” question for an easy “lay-up” answer. Thank you for this. It has been said ad nauseam that: To respond to your question, I can say: Salute,
When did you decide that and
Good article and makes some really good points. On the above...I remember folks at LP lambasting the Patriot Act would come back to bite hard. They were right. It was Obama and his administration who used the powers of the Patriot Act to conduct surveillance of a rival political party campaign.
I am still checking back from time to time to see if you have come up with an explanation. I see that you haven;t yet. I can of course understand the difficulty you are having. Salute,
For it is written in Matthew 7:7 – in the New International Version of the Bible – that to: It applies to a “Swat Team” and the verse when applied to a “Swat Team” should read: You don’t remember that? Here, let me refresh your memory: The issue that usually arises is what is a reasonable time for officers to wait before a forced entry? The Supreme Court has upheld forced entries after the cops only waited 15-20 seconds. Courts don’t generally require the police to wait for extended periods because of concerns that defendants will try to dispose of evidence before the police enter. If the police do not knock and announce as required, most courts will not automatically find that the police entry and search were illegal. Instead, they will just consider it a “factor” in determining whether the forced entry in your home and subsequent search were reasonable. First Exception to the Knock and Announce Rule: Exigency Even though officers should knock and announce their presence before they break down a door or carry out another forced entry, exceptions apply. The first type is based on exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances describe an emergency situation. For example, if officers have a warrant to search for drugs in your house, they knock and then immediately hear flushing (activity consistent with the disposal of drugs); they can break down your door and enter your house without announcing their presence or waiting for you to answer. Another common exigent or emergency situation is when the police have been called to your house because of a domestic dispute. If they hear threats or screams coming from inside your home which would lead the officers to believe that someone was in danger, then officers are permitted to break down your door and enter your home to protect a victim or carry out another type of forced entry. Second Exception: Permission The second type of exception to the knock-and-announce rule is written permission granted by a judge. The courts have excused the knock-and-announce rule in drug raids where the officers know the suspect may have large dogs, a security system or have a history of violence. The officer must explain to the judge why it would be dangerous for officers to announce their presence. If the court thinks their fear is justified, he will grant them advance permission for a forced entry, allowing them to break down your door and enter your home to conduct a search or an arrest. Whether the entry into your home is forced or peaceful, stay calm and asked for a copy any warrants. As soon as possible, contact an attorney so s/he can review the warrant and basis for the warrant to ensure that your rights were protected. https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal- law/arrests_and_searches/police-break-door.htm Salute,
You like to look upon Ron Paul as “America’s most beloved congressman.”
#11. To: Deckard (#0)
… Extremists …
#12. To: Gatlin (#11)
Will Wilkinson of the libertarian Niskanen Center
#13. To: Tooconservative (#12)
Will Wilkinson of the libertarian Niskanen Center
You libertarians have such a limitless and boundless spectrum so broad that it encompasses a total of 35 branches and schools of libertarianism. [The libertarians at the Niskanen Center] speak only for themselves.
… “speak ONLY for themselves” …
#14. To: Deckard (#0)
Will Wilkinson is a Canadian American libertarian writer and former research fellow and managing editor at the Cato Institute. Wilkinson says that movement libertarians often argue from a position of such essential mistrust or moral condemnation of state action, a desire for a government of a size and function that has never been real in history, that it "takes nearly everything off the table of democratic negotiation…[leaving] no space for politics, as it is commonly understood." Thus, they tend to be bad atthe roiling adversarial mess of multiparty democratic politics. Accordingly, libertarians tend to see democratic politics as an ungodly festival of thuggery and mutual predation. Active political participation is seen as wicked, futile, or both. It's hard to think of a political philosophy less likely to inspire its adherents to throw themselves into the hard work of real politics, or to see any virtue in it….when fire- breathing dogmatists predictably fail to make any headway democratically —"working within the system"—they tend to perversely interpret this as evidence of the hopeless corruption of the system and the pointlessness of trying to get anything done using ordinary "moderate" democratic political tactics. This, in turn, confirms in their minds that extreme measures may be called for, since "moderation" seems to get nothing done. It's a cozy, self-reinforcing loop of principled ineffectuality.
Deckard, Will Wilkinson is the one libertarian whose libertarian movement ideas I find little to no disagreements with. "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of liberty justice is no virtue."
… has warped libertarian brains ever since. As Wilkinson notes, the words were "put" in the speech by future libertarian movement firebrand Karl Hess. In terms of practical life, political or otherwise, moderation in principle means hammering out workable compromises with people who hold to different principles….This need not be understood as moderation in the sense of watering down our principles, or admitting that they are wrong in order to get along. Milton Friedman and Martin Luther King, Jr. never backed down from their radical principles. We need "moderation in principle" in the sense of being willing to negotiate toward public rules that do not perfectly conform with our principles, and to abide by those rules, even as we act to change them in the direction of our principles….
A free-for-all of extremism isn't likely to bring anyone around, so what good is it? At best, extremists about rival conceptions of prime political values hive off into polarized camps and regard each other as bitter enemies in a high- stakes culture war. And this sort of enmity breeds mutual distrust. Cooperation breaks down and gains from cooperation go unrealized, even on matters about which where there's no underlying disagreement…. Real political change of necessity involves negotiation and persuasion with people who don't agree with you on core issues. It requires actual human interaction based on at least some trust and some sense of respect. The "spirit of moderation that engenders open-mindedness and mutual respects helps a lot in this regard. Maybe this is the most compelling reason to embrace moderation in pursuit of justice: it's more likely to work."
Deckard, I agree with Will Wilkinson and not with Ron Paul – Why can’t you? Is it that this libertarian is logical that he makes too much sense? Probably …
Gatlin
#15. To: Gatlin (#2)
(Edited)
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#16. To: Deckard (#15)
Gatlin
#17. To: Deckard (#15)
The new law allows a long list of people to seek an "extreme risk protection order" that bars the respondent from possessing firearms.
#18. To: Deckard (#15)
Potential petitioners include police officers, prosecutors, blood relatives, in- laws, current and former spouses, current and former housemates, current and former girlfriends or boyfriends, people who have produced a child with the respondent, and school administrators or their designees, such as teachers, coaches, and guidance counselors. The "school personnel" covered by the law can even report a former student if he graduated within the previous six months.
Great, everyone who wants to can present relevant testimony before a judge.
#19. To: Gatlin (#16)
then you will need to explain to me why.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#20. To: Deckard (#15)
So you have a minor argument with your girfriend, she calls the cops - your guns are taken away.
Not SO!!!
#21. To: Deckard (#19)
then you will need to explain to me why.
#22. To: Gatlin (#20)
If a girlfriend feels that her boyfriend may present a danger to others or to himself, then she petitions a state court for an order to temporary remove firearms from her boyfriend.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#23. To: Deckard (#15)
You don't think ex-wives and girlfriends will spitefully use these red flag laws out of vengeance.
Not if the red flag law is followed whereby ex-wives and girlfriends must petition a state court for an order to temporary remove firearms from any person who may present a danger to others or to themselves. When a judge must then make a determination to issue the temporary removal order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question. The gun owner may have legal counsel present at the hearing.
#24. To: Deckard (#15)
Basically you are being punished for "thoughtcrime".
#25. To: Gatlin (#24)
Basically you do not understand the red flag laws.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#26. To: Deckard (#25)
#27. To: Gatlin (#26)
Stop with the bullshit hondo memes ...
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#28. To: BorisY, Tooconservative, Gatlin (#4)
(Edited)
wasn'T ron paul a pediaTrician
#29. To: Gatlin (#13)
… “speak ONLY for themselves” …
#30. To: Gatlin (#14)
Deckard, Will Wilkinson is the one libertarian whose libertarian movement ideas I find little to no disagreements with.
#31. To: Willie Green (#28)
no... he was an obsTeTrician and gynecologysT...
#32. To: Willie Green (#28)
#33. To: Deckard (#27)
Oh - so Trump didn't say that?
Yes. Trump did say: “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”
Oh – so did Trump say that: “… We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process."
All I have ever asked you to do during this exchange is to show me how it is that Ron Paul states red flag laws allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due process.
Gatlin
#34. To: All (#16)
#35. To: Deckard (#22)
(Edited)
If a girlfriend feels that her boyfriend may present a danger to others or to himself, then she petitions a state court for an order to temporary remove firearms from her boyfriend.
The law DOES not say: “… temporary remove firearms from any person who MAKES a THREAT to others …”
What does the law say? “… temporary remove firearms from any person who MAY present a DANGER to others …”
Definitions:
You will now be read your “Gatlin Warning:” “You have the right to a clear understanding of the Red Flag Laws. Anything you say wrong through your misunderstanding can and will be used to ridicule you. You have the right to consult with Tooconvervative or any other libertarian. If you cannot understand the right stated here or the contents of this entire post, then that is your tough shit and I have no sympathy for someone who is so stupid.
You have been “Gatlindized.” Get it yet gun-grabber?
The proper question is: Do YOU get it NOW, illiterate libertarian?
Gatlin
#36. To: Gatlin (#35)
(Edited)
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#37. To: Deckard (#36)
Oh wait - you just want the red flag laws applied to GUNS?
Oh “wait” you say.
Gatlin
#38. To: Gatlin (#37)
(Edited)
how Ron Paul can say that red flag laws laws will allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due process.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#39. To: Deckard (#36)
“How about” knives and a truck …
… you ask.
Gatlin
#40. To: Deckard (#38)
You would agree there, right?
Nope.
Gatlin
#41. To: Gatlin (#39)
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#42. To: Gatlin (#39)
Well, “how about” remembering that during each day in our communities across this great country we share time with our coworkers, neighbors, friends, family and sometimes even strangers as we are on our way to work or school, shopping, or the gas station – and that It is so easy to overlook things during these routine moments. However, as you’re going about your routine day, if you see something that definitely doesn't seem right, say something. It is by being alert and reporting very suspicious activity to your local law enforcement, that you can protect your family, neighbors, and community.
#43. To: Deckard (#41)
Nice dodge.
It is you that has been “dodging” and tap dancing far too long with your inability to explain how Ron Paul can say that red flag laws will allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due process. How Orwellian!
How problematic that definitely is for you to explain a simple Ron Paul conclusion. If the cops are called, they should definitely take away the car of the "suspicious person", right?
Nope. Oh - you only want the cops to "take the guns and worry about due process later".
Nope.
Gatlin
#44. To: A K A Stone (#42)
I don't call the cops unless there is something going on that needs them immediatly. Not because I have some hunch because i'm a geezer with to much imagination.
Gatlin
#45. To: Gatlin (#43)
If the cops are called, they should definitely take away the car of the "suspicious person", right?
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#46. To: Deckard (#45)
Oh, why not? Cars can be used to "harm one's self or others".
Guns Don't Kill People -- People Kill People.
Cars Don't harm People -- People Harm People.
Gatlin
#47. To: Deckard (#45)
We need to apply red flag laws there as well. Knives too.
what was the reason behind your decision?
#48. To: Deckard (#0)
The current use of “right-wing extremism” as a justification for expanding the surveillance state is the mirror image of the use of “Islamo-fascism” to justify the post 9-11 infringements on civil liberties. That is why it is distressing to see progressives and Muslim advocacy groups pushing for new federal authority to crack down on “domestic terrorism,” just as it was disappointing when so many conservatives who opposed Bill Clinton’s attempt to expand the surveillance state endorsed the exact same proposals when they were included in the PATRIOT Act. It is ironic that progressives are supporting new laws against domestic terrorism while simultaneously protesting FBI targeting of Black Lives Matter activists as domestic terrorists.
#49. To: All (#43)
... explain the reasoning behind.
Gatlin
#50. To: Deckard (#38)
(Edited)
Morning News Report: One dead, nine injured during knife attack near Lyon, France
And in reference to Red Flag Laws, you asked: How about knives?
Be very careful here. Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
Uh, the last part of that verse does not apply to the knives you are speaking about. “… Police will knock and if you don’t open the door, then in some cases they will open it for you – by kicking it in.
Remember that the cops break down your door to enter your home. As a general rule, cops can never break down your door to enter your home in a forced entry. Before entering your home, officers must knock, announce their presence, and wait for you to come to the door like you would for any other visitor. This requirement is called the “knock-and-announce” rule. This purpose of this rule is to allow people an opportunity to respond so that violence can be averted and privacy protected. Keep in mind, however, that this is only a general rule. Once the cops knock and announce their presence, they only have to wait a reasonable amount of time for you to come to the door. If you do not come to the door, they are permitted to make a forced entry.
Gatlin
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]