[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! "The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent" 7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza? What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225 EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start? "Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work" test "Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working" "Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly" "Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home" "The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity" "How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy" Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes Status: Not Logged In; Sign In 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: 8987 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 Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 40. #2. To: Deckard (#0) I read the first sentence where Ron Paul has written that … 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 … I thought – WOAH – and would read no further because I don’t understand what Ron Paul was saying or meant tjere. I therefore ask you, Deckard, since you are a strong supporter of libertarianism and a devoted Ron Paul admirer and one who should understand what Ron Paul was saying – to explain to me what he meant when he said: “[Red flag laws] take away a person’s guns without due process.” I can’t understand that because it is my belief that the red flag law permits police or the family of individuals to petition a state court for an order yp 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. My question therefore to you, Deckard, is twofold: First, what does Ron Paul mean “without due process?” Secondly, is my understanding of the red flag law correctly stated? Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-27   14:58:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: Gatlin (#2) (Edited) 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". Deckard  posted on  2019-08-28   8:28:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: Deckard (#15) So you have a minor argument with your girfriend, she calls the cops - your guns are taken away. Not SO!!! 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. Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-28   9:28:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #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. Even if there's NO real threat. Get it yet gun-grabber? Deckard  posted on  2019-08-28   9:36:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #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. Even if there's NO real threat. The law DOES not say: “… temporary remove firearms from any person who MAKES a THREAT to others …” What does the law say? The law says: “… temporary remove firearms from any person who MAY present a DANGER to others …” Definitions: MAY - A possibility. THREAT - A statement in which YOU TELL SOMEONE that you will cause them harm or trouble if they do not do what you want. DANGER - The POSSIBILITY of suffering harm or injury. 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? Salute, Gatlin Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-29   1:33:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: Gatlin (#35) (Edited) 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? Deckard  posted on  2019-08-29   5:47:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: Deckard (#36) Oh wait - you just want the red flag laws applied to GUNS? Oh “wait” you say. 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, Gatlin Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-29   7:34:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #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. 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..." Deckard  posted on  2019-08-29   7:37:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: Deckard (#38) You would agree there, right? Nope. 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, Gatlin Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-29   7:51:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 40.         There are no replies to Comment # 40. End Trace Mode for Comment # 40. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com