You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Red Flag Laws are the ultimate tool of persecution against gun owners. They must be abolished! #2a #gunrights #shallnotbeinfringed #guns #boogaloo

in #memelast month (edited)

While I fully support the constitution's provision allowing citizens to bear arms, I most certainly support "Red Flag Laws". Some people should not have the right to bear arms as they are indeed a danger to others as well as to themselves. I also fully support a redrafting of the 2nd amendment.

When the 2nd amendment was first drafted, the weapon of the day was a single shot musket or rifle. Today, we have automatic rifles and handguns capable of expelling several rounds per second. What of tomorrow? Weapons capable of launching bullets with micro nuclear warheads? Should the 2nd amendment extend to such deadly weapons? Of course not! It's simply insane to think so.

Yes, I am a Republican supporter, NOT a Democrat!

Sort:  

You can't simultaneously support red flag laws and the Constitution. I'm particularly referring to due process. Due process isn't just whatever someone (including legislators) decides it should be today. Removal of a right without even a trial by jury as described by the Constitution is not acceptable.

When the second amendment was drafted, far more powerful weapons than muskets existed. Canons for instance. Does the same rule you are making up apply to free speech? I.e., it only counts if you are using your voice or a quill and parchment or other such tech that existed at the time? Free speech doesn't apply to the internet? Or creating a CD or mp3 or when using the internet or typing something?

As far as weapons go, far, far more people have been killed because of government than because of people acting of their own volition so why are governments more trustworthy to have powerful weapons than individuals (and I think your "micro nuclear warheads" violate the laws of physics)? You don't "fully" support the constitution's provision to allow citizens to bear arms. You support a selective interpretation that was never intended. What do you think the purpose of the 2nd amendment is?

Redrafting the 2nd amendment would be one thing but you would probably also have to redraft the 9th and 10th in order to Constitutionally limit the right to bear arms. In fact, since the Constitution was a delegation of powers to the Federal government, it would probably take more than even that, as in an explicit delegation of that power. Fortunately, changing the Constitution takes much more than a simple majority vote.

"You can't simultaneously support red flag laws and the Constitution."

Sure you can! A right is only a right insofar as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. The public has a right to safety; Allowing a mentally challenged person to carry a firearm infringes upon the public's right to safety; therefore invalidating the rights of the mentally challenged to carry the weapon must take priority.

A person may indeed have been grated a certain right under the constitution, but that right must be conditional upon the mental capacity of the one to whom the right has been bestowed. If that person's mental capacity or behavior changes to the extent that the public is in any danger, there much be a mechanism in place to remove, or at least limit that right. The Red Flag Law, while perhaps not perfect, is a good start in that direction.

Yes, canons also existed at the time of drafting the constitution, but people did not have the ability to carry canons around with them.

Red Flag laws are just political tools of oppression because they are enforced on a lower standard of proof ex parte.

You're on the internet, yet the internet wasn't around when the constitution was drafted.

So why don't you sign offline and stop using it?

"Red Flag laws are just political tools of oppression because they are enforced on a lower standard of proof ex parte."

As well they should be! Reasonable suspicion is more than enough to temporary suspend one's "right to bear arms" when the public is in danger, just as reasonable suspicion is more than enough for the police to search your car during a local traffic stop. And that is all Red Flag Laws are designed to do. To protect the public! Some people may not like that, but a few people's likes take very low priority when there is a danger to the public. Furthermore, sane, law abiding citizens have absolutely nothing to fear.

There's no such thing as a "right to safety". If someone harms you, they can of course be held accountable. Beyond that, you are responsible for your own safety. Any mechanism to remove a fundamental right would at the very least require a trial and a jury of your peers. Red flag laws don't provide that therefore they violate the Constitution.