Gun Rights

States Are Depriving Innocent People of Their Second Amendment Rights

"Red flag" laws leave gun owners defenseless.

|

Shortly after 5 a.m. on November 5, 2018, two police officers arrived at Gary Willis' house in Glen Burnie, Maryland. They were there to take away his guns. They ended up killing him instead.

According to the Anne Arundel County Police Department, the 61-year-old man, who at that hour presumably had just been awakened by the officers' knocking, answered the door with a gun in his hand. He put it down when he saw who was there. Upon learning that the two officers had come to serve him with an "extreme risk protective order" (ERPO) that barred him from possessing firearms, police said, Willis became "irate" and picked up the weapon again. As one officer tried to wrestle the gun away from Willis, it went off, whereupon the other officer shot him.

Police Chief Timothy Altomare subsequently argued that the incident illustrated the need for Maryland's ERPO law, which had taken effect barely a month before. "If you look at this morning's outcome," he told the Annapolis Capital, a newspaper whose headquarters had been the site of a mass shooting the previous June, "it's tough for us to say 'Well, what did we prevent?' Because we don't know what we prevented or could've prevented. What would've happened if we didn't go there at 5 a.m.?"

Well, for one thing, Gary Willis probably would still be alive.

Altomare invites us to speculate that Willis might have used a gun to kill someone. Yet at the time of his death, the only evidence to support that concern seems to have been a complaint from his sister, who reportedly obtained the temporary ERPO against her brother after a family argument during which he said something that alarmed her. Willis had no opportunity to challenge that claim, and he had no idea he had been stripped of his Second Amendment rights until police arrived at his door early in the morning with the court order in hand.

Anne Arundel County police did not respond to my inquiries, and the Maryland courts have declined to provide records of the case, which are confidential under state law unless a judge rules otherwise. Based on interviews with relatives, local news outlets reported that the ERPO stemmed from an argument the day before about the care of Willis' elderly mother. According to WBFF, the local Fox station, "Gary Willis struggle[d] with alcoholism" but "family say he wasn't dangerous, just strongly opinionated."

Michele Willis, Gary's niece, gave a similar account in an interview with The Baltimore Sun, saying her uncle "likes to speak his mind" but "wouldn't hurt anybody." She added that his fatal encounter with the police seemed senseless. "I'm just dumbfounded now," she said. "They didn't need to do what they did."

Maryland is one of 17 states with so-called red flag laws, most of which were enacted following the February 2018 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. After the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton in August, President Donald Trump endorsed red flag laws as a way of preventing such crimes by disarming would-be mass murderers. But judging from the available data, the court orders authorized by such laws are usually aimed at preventing suicide rather than homicide. The evidence on whether they succeed in doing that is mixed. So far there is no solid evidence that they prevent homicides, even though the oldest red flag law was enacted two decades ago.

One thing is certain: Taking away people's guns based on predictions of what they might do with them raises thorny due process concerns. That's especially true with laws like Maryland's, which authorize broad categories of people to seek ERPOs based on scant evidence and effectively put the burden on gun owners to demonstrate that they don't pose a threat to themselves or others. While the benefits of these laws are mostly speculative, they inevitably deprive law-abiding people of the constitutional right to armed self-defense, even when it is quite unlikely that they would use guns to hurt themselves or anyone else.

A 95 Percent Approval Rate

Maryland's law, which was enacted two months after the Parkland attack and took effect in October 2018, authorizes law enforcement officers, physicians, mental health specialists, and various relatives, intimates, and cohabitants to seek ERPOs. That list includes housemates, spouses, dating partners, people who have "a child in common with the respondent," and anyone "related to the respondent by blood, marriage, or adoption." A temporary ERPO, lasting up to a week, can be issued if there are "reasonable grounds" to believe the respondent poses "an immediate and present danger" to himself or others.

At that stage, as Gary Willis discovered, respondent is a misnomer: The initial ERPO is an ex parte order, meaning its target does not have a chance to respond. A judge can extend the ex parte order for up to six months if there is "good cause." A final ERPO, which lasts up to a year and can be extended for another six months, can be issued after a hearing based on "clear and convincing evidence" that the respondent "poses a danger" to himself or others. In light of that language, extreme risk protective order is also a misnomer, since any level of danger—slight, great, or middling—suffices to obtain one. But at least at this point, the respondent is allowed to rebut the claims against him, although he has no right to legal representation if he can't afford it.

During the first five months after the ERPO law took effect, according to statewide data published by the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office, judges or commissioners (low-level judicial officers) approved 422 temporary or interim orders. Requests for those initial orders are almost never rejected in Maryland, and the same is true in Florida, which enacted a red flag law in March 2018.

It is not surprising that judges are disinclined to be skeptical of an applicant who claims a gun owner poses an imminent threat, since they do not want to take the blame if something terrible happens before they can hold an adversarial hearing. But what happens at the next stage, when the threat need not be imminent but the burden of proof is heavier? In Maryland, when a hearing was actually held (in some cases the petitioners did not show up), judges granted final ERPOs 62 percent of the time. In Florida, according to data from the Office of the State Courts Administrator, 1,482 hearings had been held as of March 31 and 1,409 orders had been granted, which translates into an approval rate of 95 percent.

Although the standard of proof in Florida is the same as in Maryland (clear and convincing evidence), Florida's law allows petitions only by law enforcement officers or agencies, which judges apparently find more credible than the reports of possibly aggrieved (or sincerely mistaken) spouses, dating partners, cohabitants, in-laws, or blood relatives, who accounted for most of the applications in Maryland. But that trust can be misplaced.

'I'm Not a Violent Person'

Consider Chris Velasquez, a University of Central Florida (UCF) student who owned no firearms, had no history of violence, and had never threatened anyone, but who nevertheless was an early target of his state's red flag law because he said some stupid things on Reddit. In a thread titled "You guys are too weak to be a school shooter," Velasquez replied, "Maybe for now but not forever." Later, he posted "RIP Paddock my hero" in a thread about the autopsy of Las Vegas mass shooter Stephen Paddock and wrote "Cruz is a hero!" in reference to Nikolas Cruz, perpetrator of the Parkland massacre.

Those three comments resulted in a March 2018 interview with a UCF police officer, Jeffrey Panter, during which Velasquez explained that he was just "trolling" and trying to look tough but regretted his tasteless comments. "I'm not a violent person," Velasquez told Panter. "I would never, ever act out in violence against anybody in a mass shooting or anything of the sort." He called the Parkland massacre "a senseless tragedy" and noted that a mass shooter may get his "15 minutes of fame" but will "eventually be remembered as a piece of crap." Listening to the interview, you do not get the impression that Velasquez had ever seriously contemplated committing a crime of this sort, let alone made any plans or taken any steps in that direction.

Panter refused to accept Velasquez's explanation or his assurances. During the interview he pressured, cajoled, and manipulated Velasquez into agreeing with statements that, taken out of context, made it seem like he genuinely admired Paddock and Cruz, that he identified with Cruz because both of them had been bullied as kids, and that he had repeatedly fantasized about returning to his former middle school or high school in Orlando and shooting it up.

A mandatory psychiatric assessment after the interview found that Velasquez did not meet Florida's criteria for involuntary treatment, which would have required clear and convincing evidence that, because of mental illness, there was a "substantial likelihood" that he would "inflict serious bodily harm" on himself or others "in the near future." Panter nevertheless referred the case to the Orlando Police Department, where Sgt. Matthew Ochiuzzo twisted Velasquez's online comments and his interview with Panter into a portrait of a deeply troubled man who was just one disappointment away from committing mass murder.

On a list of 15 possible grounds for issuing a risk protection order (as it's known in Florida), Ochiuzzo checked five, including "there is evidence that the respondent is seriously mentally ill," "respondent has committed a recent act or threat of violence," and "respondent has used or threatened to use any weapons against him or herself or others." None of that was true.

Ochiuzzo claimed Velasquez "disclosed that he has had thoughts and urges to commit a mass shooting since his sophomore year of high school." But Velasquez never said that. To the contrary, when Panter asked about his state of mind in high school, he said, "I didn't have any thoughts of a school shooting."

Ochiuzzo also claimed "the respondent indicated that he wanted to commit the mass shootings so that he could feel the 'adrenaline rush' from the shooting." In reality, Velasquez repeatedly said he would never commit such a crime.

Based on an affidavit that was highly misleading and in some respects blatantly inaccurate, Circuit Judge Bob LeBlanc issued a temporary risk protection order against Velasquez. But at a hearing about two weeks later, when Velasquez finally had a chance to defend himself, LeBlanc found the city had failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Velasquez posed "a significant danger."

Velasquez's lawyer, Kendra Parris, says LeBlanc realized the threat described by Ochiuzzo was never more than theoretical. "The judge asked, 'Did he actually make any threats, or was this all in response to hypothetical questions?'" she says. "And of course, it was all in response to hypothetical questions. Fortunately, the judge noted that this essentially amounted to thought policing and declined to issue the order."

'They're Treating Me As If I'm a Criminal'

Although that decision may look like a victory for due process, Parris notes that LeBlanc could have reached a different conclusion, since Florida's law says judges "may consider any relevant evidence." The statute gives 15 examples but says the list is not exhaustive.

The law also leaves crucial terms undefined. Ochiuzzo claimed Velasquez was "seriously mentally ill," for example, even though he had no diagnosis and a psychiatrist found he did not meet the criteria for commitment. Nor is it clear what "a significant danger" means in this context. Even assuming that judges apply such standards with precision, should they consider a 5 percent risk "significant"? One percent? Ten percent?

"Because we can't figure out what 'significant' means, you have this high burden of proof," Parris says—but it relates to a probability that may be "extraordinarily low," based on any evidence a judge considers relevant. "The 'clear and convincing evidence' standard is meaningless, because the criteria are open-ended. The court literally can look at anything."

One of Parris' clients, who lives in Broward County, Florida, posted a photo of an AR-15 rifle he had built, accompanied by the comment, "It's done. Hooray." On another occasion, he posted a comment criticizing teenaged gun control activists, who he said were trying to take away people's Second Amendment rights. Those two posts were enough to obtain a temporary gun confiscation order, although Parris ultimately persuaded the city to drop its petition for a final order.

Another client, former professional football player Oliver Hoyte, did not have the benefit of a lawyer at his hearing, but he really could have used one. After an argument with his aunt and her boyfriend, he says, they told police he had threatened them with a gun. In addition to that claim, Tampa police presented several other unverified allegations against Hoyte—including some they had never questioned him about, he says. They even cited a 2013 case in which he was acquitted of aggravated assault. He says video evidence contradicted the testimony of a man who claimed Hoyte had pulled a gun on him.

Parris notes that an Orange County judge last year rejected an application for a final risk protection order because it was based on events that predated the red flag law. Since the law does not say it applies retroactively, the judge said, the presumption is that it does not. That is one of the points Parris planned to raise if she managed to get a rehearing for Hoyte. She hoped to get that hearing by arguing that the government should have provided him with a public defender, although at press time she also was trying to negotiate dismissal of the case with the city.

"I feel like I should have the right to representation," Hoyte says. "The judge said, 'You do have the right to representation, but the court is not going to appoint it for you.'"

Police confiscated Hoyte's Taurus 9 mm pistol, and he was forbidden to buy any other firearms for a year (possibly longer, if the order is extended). As a result, Hoyte says, he does not feel safe visiting certain neighborhoods, including the one where his family lives. "I'm not on an equal footing with everyone else," he says. "I don't have the right to bear arms, and I haven't done anything wrong. I haven't been convicted of any crime. I haven't been hospitalized. I haven't harmed anyone. This law is wrong because it eliminates due process. They're treating me as if I'm a criminal."

The high approval rate by judges in Florida suggests the deck is stacked against respondents like Hoyte. "All the pressure is on the other side," Parris says. "There's absolutely no downside to just going ahead and issuing the order."

Parris argues that the "significant danger" standard is unconstitutionally vague and that Florida's law impermissibly delegates legislative and prosecutorial authority to the police. But while such arguments can be raised on appeal, the process typically takes longer than the risk protection order lasts. "By the time your appeal works its way through the District Court of Appeal, it's already going to be 12 months," Parris says. "There's no real recourse."

Do Red Flag Laws Work?

Connecticut enacted the country's first red flag law in 1999, following a mass shooting at the Connecticut Lottery Corporation's headquarters the previous year. The statute allows police officers or prosecutors to seek a gun confiscation order when they have "probable cause" to believe someone poses "a risk of imminent personal injury" to himself or others. A hearing is required within 14 days of the seizure, at which point the standard becomes "clear and convincing evidence" of an imminent risk. If police meet that burden, they can keep confiscated guns for up to a year.

Indiana came next, enacting a red flag law in 2005, after a man diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia used a rifle to kill one Indianapolis police officer and injure another four. That law allows a police officer to seek a gun confiscation order against someone he believes poses an imminent threat to himself or others. It also applies to someone who poses a threat that is not immediate but who "has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct" or who "has a mental illness that may be controlled by medication" but has not been diligent about taking it.

Under Indiana's law, a police officer can seize guns without a court order, in which case he is supposed to file an affidavit explaining his reasons after the fact. If a judge agrees that the officer had probable cause, police can keep the confiscated weapons. A hearing is required within 14 days, at which point the state has to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the gun owner meets the law's criteria. After at least six months have passed, the gun owner can seek the return of his property. He has to prove by "a preponderance of the evidence" that he "is not dangerous."

Notwithstanding the requirement that a hearing be held within two weeks, a 2015 study reported in the journal Behavioral Sciences and the Law found that gun owners waited an average of more than nine months before a court decided whether police could keep their firearms. When a hearing finally was scheduled, most of the gun owners did not show. But when they did, they usually prevailed, meaning judges decided the state had not met its burden of proving them dangerous. During the last 71 months covered by the eight-year study, gun owners won every contested case.

In Connecticut, by comparison, judges ruled that guns should be kept by the government in 68 percent of cases where the outcome was known, according to a 2014 Connecticut Law Review article. But outcomes were reported in less than 30 percent of cases.

Although Indiana and Connecticut both enacted red flag legislation in response to mass shootings, the laws are used mainly to protect people from their own suicidal impulses, a justification cited in 68 percent of Indiana cases from 2006 through 2013 and in 61 percent of Connecticut cases from 1999 to 2013. A study reported last year in the journal Psychiatric Services found that Indiana's law was associated with a 5 percent reduction in the overall suicide rate, while Connecticut's law was associated with a net increase in suicides. Using a different (and contested) method, a 2017 study published in Law and Contemporary Problems estimated that one suicide was prevented in Connecticut by every 10 to 20 gun seizures. A 2019 study of Indiana's law by the same researchers, reported in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, reached a similar conclusion.

Duke University medical sociologist Jeffrey Swanson, the lead author of those last two suicide studies, thinks due process needs improvement in Indiana. "The state's apparent failure to comply with the statutory guideline of holding a hearing within 14 days puts a damper on the success story of suicide prevention," he writes in an email. "This should be the focus of efforts to improve implementation of the law."

'It's a Great Idea on Paper'

Even taking the results of Swanson's studies at face value, the implication is that the vast majority of people whose guns were seized—90 to 95 percent—would not have committed suicide had they retained their firearms. Meanwhile, none of these studies reported any effect on homicides.

David Kopel, a gun policy expert at the Independence Institute in Denver, says red flag laws may have an impact, even if it is too small to be detected by looking at suicide and homicide rates. "I think it would disarm some people who are suicidal," he says. "And I think you have some people who are acting dangerously enough that a person with common sense would say, 'Wow, that guy should not have a gun.' It would address folks like that."

But Kopel emphasizes the importance of procedural safeguards to protect the constitutional rights of gun owners, such as requiring that petitions be submitted only by law enforcement agencies after an independent investigation, allowing ex parte orders only for good cause, limiting them to one week, limiting subsequent orders to six months, requiring clear and convincing evidence, providing counsel to respondents, giving them a right to cross-examine witnesses, and letting them sue people who file false and malicious petitions. He also recommends giving gun owners advance notice of confiscation orders unless there are special reasons not to do so, a policy that might have made a crucial difference in Gary Willis' case.

Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, an expert on mass shootings, shares Kopel's concern that suddenly seizing guns can make violence more likely. "If you have an individual who's angry, bitter, threatening other people, [and] owns a gun," Fox told Reason's Nick Gillespie in August, "the attempt to take that gun away can actually precipitate the very violent act that you're trying to prevent."

No existing law meets all of Kopel's criteria. Washington state allows an even longer list of people to file petitions than Maryland does, including former spouses, former girlfriends and boyfriends, and former roommates. California's list is almost as long, and a pending bill would expand it further, adding employers, co-workers, and school personnel. Colorado is the only state that guarantees a lawyer for respondents, and no state provides a civil remedy when petitioners lie.

In Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington, and the District of Columbia, a final order can be obtained based on a mere preponderance of the evidence: anything more than a 50 percent probability that the respondent poses a "significant" danger. Depending on what counts as significant, this formula implies that people can lose their gun rights even if it is nearly certain that they would not have hurt themselves or others.

After the El Paso and Dayton massacres, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) introduced a bipartisan bill that would provide federal grants to encourage the passage and enforcement of red flag laws. "The Second Amendment is not a suicide pact," Graham told Fox News, while dismissing critics of red flag laws as "libertarians." He likened gun confiscation orders to involuntary psychiatric treatment, saying "that process would apply to gun ownership," when in fact the criteria for civil commitment are substantially stricter. Graham also promised that "nobody's going to lose their gun unless they have their day in court," which is clearly not true in light of ex parte orders that can last as long as six months.

"It's a great idea on paper," says Dave Workman, senior editor at the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Washington. "The problem is the execution." In practice, he says, red flag laws mean "you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent."

NEXT: Bombay Sapphire Maker Sued Over Stupid Florida Gin-Ingredient Ban

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The key to prosperity is getting rid of progressives.we will be freer, and safer, as progressives tend to be the ones who are violent criminals.

    Some form of steady exile would likely work.

    1. Open wider, clinger. More progress on the way, thanks to your betters.

      1. Which church are you affiliated with? “Our betters”?

        1. He means white liberals.

      2. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
        October.6.2019 at 11:02 am
        “Open wider, clinger. More progress on the way, thanks to your betters.”

        Here’s a short list of ‘our betters’; I’m sure the asshole bigot can add to it, right asshole bigot?
        Partial List of ‘Elites’ Supporting Mass Murderers

        1) Lincoln Stephens
        2) Walter Duranty
        3) Joseph Davies
        4) Julian Huxley
        5) Upton Sinclair
        6) John Dewey
        7) Jean Paul Sarte
        8) Henry Wallace
        9) Alger Hiss
        10) Malcom Cowley
        11) Edmund Wilson
        12) G. B. Shaw
        13) Lillian Hellman
        14) C. Wright Mills
        15-20)Donald MacLean, Kim Philby, and the remainder of the Cambridge useful idiots
        21) Harold Lasky
        22) Jacques Derrida
        23) Harrison Salisbury
        24) Norman Mailer
        25) Graham Greene
        26) Harry Bridges

        1. Hell they still proudly accept awards named after the racist eugenicist margaret sanger. Also still have awards named after democrats who supported segregation.

        2. NEVER A SOURCE! (lol)

          1. “(lol)”

            A 5 year old? Or just abysmally stupid?

            1. Por que no los dos?

            2. NEVER A SOURCE …. GOES INSANE WHEN CALLED OUT
              The supreme arrogance of the Authoritarian Right.
              Trumptards ALL think they are royalty

              Thank GOD Trump is going down. Hard

              1. So dumbass, what does he need a source for?

                1. So dumbass, what does he need a source for?

                  Same reason we were taught in high school.

          2. Never a source? He listed the sources. All you have to do is read what those people wrote and listen to what they said. To do that, though, you have to know who those people are. Democrats are only better at being completely ignorant of all things.

            1. Never a source? He listed the sources.

              You don’t know what a source is. Singular.
              It’s a a link to where he of the list from, just like using “original sources” as we learn in high school.

              In your sense of the word, they can only be “sources” (plural) of something (what they wrote)

              Democrats are only better at being completely ignorant of all things.

              Better than you! 🙂

              To do that, though, you have to know who those people are

              HOW? WHERE?
              And where he got the list, or do you REALLY expect us to research and read all of ten.

              Here’s how it works. If his SOURCE is reliable, nobody had to read a single word by any of the people. But it sounds like a rightwing wacko website. Libertarians and independents do not accept anything on blind tribal faith, because both sides are loaded with too many psycho liars, and too many gullible believers.

              Short version: We aren’t lap dogs for the political elites.

      3. But…you’ve been losing on guns lolololo. The court keeps slapping you down and calling you retarded.

        1. lolololo. The court keeps slapping you down and calling you retarded

          lolololo, what’s the topic of the article?
          On this page?
          At reason.com?

          SOMEBODY has been slapped down for being retarded. 🙂

      4. So progress means less freedom and less fidelity to the Constitution and equal protection? Thanks but you can keep your “progress” (seems fairly regressive actually butb whatever).

        1. Says the THUG who supports deporting everyone into exile he disagrees with.

          Conservatards be as “smart” as progtards.

      5. Yeah, no totalitarian ever called themselves “betters” over their enemies. Hitler definitely didn’t think his side was the “betters” over Jews.

      6. You talk like a Klansman.

        1. Of course he talks like a Klansman! He’s a Democrat, after all.

          1. Ancient history. Charlottesville is still today’s greatest shame.

            1. Yes, but even now, if you scratch the surface of a neoNazi, or any modern American white supremacist, you’ll find someone who 100% supports the Democrat platform, but cannot be Democrats today because Democrats have been forced to give up slavery.

      7. “More progress on the way, thanks to your betters.”

        And by “progress” you mean “death, poverty, and misery”. And by “your betters” you mean “evil tyrants bent on destroying all liberties the US Constitution”.

        1. Like YOU defending the exiling and deportation of anyone who doesn’t conform to your diktats — while babbling about the US Constitution?

          Left – Right = Zero.

      8. None of my betters are “Progressives.”

        1. They say the same about you.
          And to libertarians, you both are correct, of course.
          Still true: Left – Right = Zero

    2. I am making $92 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now.I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do……☛☛ http://earny.xyz/hNef

    3. More good reasons to make sure that one or more of your firearms aren’t registered.

    4. Does anyone have a lawsuit in the works, to sue everyone from the local cops up to the state legislature, for the unnecessary death of Gary Willis? What about the other victims of these stupid and unconstitutional laws? Enough expensive-to-lose lawsuits would discourage these laws like nothing else.

    5. It’s high time that the outdated second amendment is thrown in the dustbin of history. Because of it we have that nice Nancy Lanza buying 7 weapons and allowing her disturbed son free access to them. Will the red flag effort work? I hope so.

  2. So they went to a man’s house and killed him. He hadn’t committed a crime.

    1. They tried to steal from him. They killed him when he would not let them.

      1. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

        Never open the door for police. If they try to pull this theft shit, take as many with you as possible. There has to a cost in blood to stop these tyrants.

        1. Perhaps this guy should have organized his neighbors…

      2. Mickey Rat
        They tried to steal from him. They killed him when he would not let them.

        1) It wasn’t theft
        2) You seem unaware of what makes a law constitutional.
        3) Do you have a source for your assertion of how it happened, which is TOTALLY different than reported here?

        1. I’m gonna assume you’re not missing his point intentionally. From the anarchist perspective, it was most assuredly theft, if it happened precisely as described here. Even some of the non-anarchist libertarians around here would contend that you have a right to violent resistance against an attempt to violate your constitutional rights – and further contend that the unconstitutionality of red flag laws is clearly apparent, despite your evident doubt.

          Myself, I intend to simply find a few good hiding places for a few good guns, and surrender anything in my house if the cops happen to show up at my door. I prefer the situations that I live through relatively unmolested, but I respect those who are more doctrinaire on the question.

    2. …Then he pulled a gun on a cop. I mean, I don’t really like cops but my sympathies for victims of police violence only go so far.

      1. Your as bad at reading comprehension as you are argumentation.

        1. Probably nut much good at anything.

      2. HOW crazy is alt-right hysteria?
        OVERFLOWING WITH BULLSHIT!

        LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
        …Then he pulled a gun on a cop.
        I mean, I don’t really like cops but my sympathies for victims of police violence only go so far.

        JesseAz
        Your as bad at reading comprehension as you are argumentation

        bend over (smirk)

        Sevo
        Probably nut much good at anything.

        says the PSYCHO!

        PROOF: NOT CONSERVATARD BABBLING

        Upon learning that the two officers had come to serve him with an “extreme risk protective order” (ERPO) that barred him from possessing firearms, police said, Willis became “irate” and picked up the weapon again.

        (sneer)

          1. PROVING somebody full of shit is not crying. What you did is called whining.

        1. Dumb and homophobic. Definitely a white liberal.

          1. Not sure. I’ll bet he enjoys having big black dudes tear his ass up.

            1. Opps. ANOTHER fuckup, Last of the Shitheads.
              It was JesseAz who just admitted he’s homosexual. I never knew.

          2. hmm. I prove JesseAz’s assault was …. mindless. And cited the exact words to prove him wrong. Now he says that makes me homophobic.

            Until you came out here, I had no idea you are homosexual.
            Please accept my deepest apology. I did not prove you full of shit because of your homsexuality, oI honest to God did it SOLELY because you’re full of shit, plus it was ANOTHER unprovoked assault that you fucked up.

            You might try counting to 10, before losing control of your raging hatred. Then again, for you it may require counting up to a thousand bazillion.

        2. Who let Hinh in here?

          1. Does this Hinh person also call out crazed bulshit from both the right and left, with proof not just babbling, as we’ve been doing for over 50 years? What’s your problem with facts and proof?

            Do *I* also need your permission to be here?
            Don’t hold your breath.

            1. This Hinh person likes to (sneer) a lot. Regardless of whatever name Hihn uses, we know who he is when he does that.

              1. This Hinh person likes to (sneer) a lot.

                Only when slapping down personal attacks, from what I’ve seen,

                Regardless of whatever name Hihn uses, we know who he is when he does that.

                I’ll assume you’ve been online for less than 15 years. The practice traces back to forums back in about the mid-90s, (The first libertarian one was ’91 or ’92, at Compuserve)

                Anyhow, you know what an emoji is? We weren’t very graphic yet so, developed text equivalents, like the (snear) one. lol traces to the period, but always in brackets. (g) meant grin. But we used angle brackets > around everything which no longer work. A smiley was (smile) for a while , until the obvious parentheses.

                The “complaints” that seem silly trace to English Composition. How emphasis was added. I had thought boldface and all caps were still universally known as being for what one would stress (emphasise) if verbal, All caps is, of course, easier to do and everyone knows how. Bold and italic need computer code.

                I finally figured it out. Now, I know somebody has lost an argument, or had a claim dispoven, when they start a fight over … punctuation? Having lost the first fight or statement. It’s been a sure sign, since I figured it out, a few weeks ago.

                1. We’re not fighting over punctuation. We’re merely pointing out that there’s exactly one person who has a certain punctuation style, and that one person, when using sock puppets, will hide that punctuation style until made sufficiently angry.

                  The only person using (sneer) these days, particularly in bold, and particularly in the Reason comments, is Hihn.

                  It’s not the only way to uncover Hihn sock puppets — after all, his style is very distinctive — but it’s one of the more obvious ways.

                  1. Cowardly evasion. Or perhaps you don’t call it punctuation — which would be bullshir either way. Lose on the message. Shoot the messenger is for people who have NO content, and you just proved it/

                    I said you are full of shit and explained why. You simply ignored it. And you’re into the sock puppet conspiracy. which again traces to your FAILURE on the issue.

                    You’re like Trump. Invent a bat-shit excuse to cover anything.
                    If there are 3-4 people using emphasis the way we learned in high school … and they’e ALL your ass. You ignore what you’re losing at … sneer .. and dismiss them all as sock puppets.

                    There are words for what you do. “Cowardice” is your chicken-shit avoidance of actual issues.

                    “Aggression” is the launching of unproved attacks.

                    “Cyber-bullying” is doing it to slap down someone, or to force a change in their viewpoint — because you’re incapable of discussing and/or debating … anything,

                    “Puppet” or “Robot” is saying all this is second hand, just repeating what your tribe has programmed into you.

                    This is self-defense, will you launch another cowardly aggression.
                    To sink even lower?

      3. Uhh… They threatened HIM with violence if he didn’t turn over his legally owned tools.

        1. Uhhh … do you have a source for the exact opposite of what is reported here? Needs a link.

    3. I’ll bet his sister is happy, she won that argument.

      1. Sadly, in far left Maryland, where the women are crazy feminists, she almost certainly is happy he’s dead.

  3. “The problem is the execution.’ In practice, he says, red flag laws mean “you’re guilty until you prove yourself innocent.'”

    That can be said of any law that seeks to bypass normal rules of evidence and due process, which suggests it not even being a great idea on paper.

    1. It’s like when people say that communism is a good idea on paper even though the paper reads, “Step 1: Seize all factories and farms.”

    2. The Progressive (Authoritarian) Left has been trying to get around that pesky ‘innocent until proved guilty’ standard for as long as there have been Progressives.

      They also loooooove pre-emptive laws, like DWI. You don’t have to have damaged property to get a DWI. you don’t even have to be seen driving erratically. So instead of being on patrol, and possibly spotting sOmebody wandering across the center line and otherwise being a hazard, cops are tired up at checkpoints.

      Progressives also love checkpoints. Except when they interfere with Progressive Plans.

      1. Find a 12-year-old to explain DWI
        Tell her to go ver-r-r-r-r-y slow

        1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano standing up for pre-emptive laws.

        2. Hihn runs a NAMBLA cell.

  4. But Kopel emphasizes the importance of procedural safeguards to protect the constitutional rights of gun owners, such as requiring that petitions be submitted only by law enforcement agencies after an independent investigation, allowing ex parte orders only for good cause, limiting them to one week, limiting subsequent orders to six months, requiring clear and convincing evidence, providing counsel to respondents, giving them a right to cross-examine witnesses, and letting them sue people who file false and malicious petitions. He also recommends giving gun owners advance notice of confiscation orders unless there are special reasons not to do so…

    This. Where I ‘evolved’ :} on this question was reading previous commentary on this topic right here at Reason. If the State is going to deprive anyone of their 2A constitutional rights, there has to be a legal process BEFORE doing so. I would also shorten any judicial order to a maximum of three months.

    Look, the 100MM+ people who own guns are sober, serious citizens who handle firearms responsibly. They are not a problem and this is not what we are talking about here. I do think we need some kind of process to separate mentally/emotionally disturbed people from firearms. This is just common sense. The problem has never been guns. The problem has always been, and remains, mentally and emotionally disturbed people with guns who use them on everyone else around them.

    One thing I would have like from Kopel….what are example of special reasons to ‘confiscate first’ and not to have a legal process prior to confiscation.

    1. If the State is going to deprive anyone of their 2A constitutional rights, there has to be a legal process BEFORE doing so.

      Or a SCOTUS ruling. Balancing two absolute rights NEVER deprives anyone of rights. Picking either, over the other, TOTALLY violates the “other.” By what right?

      I would also shorten any judicial order to a maximum of three months. How soon after your dictatorship begins?

      1. Proving once again you are an authoritarian dick wad.

      2. Lolol you mean the one from Scalia you keep getting wrong because you’re stupid?

        1. There is no greater joy on earth (other than sex) than watching some brainwashed conservatard thug. call you stupid … while being stupid!

          Lolol you mean the one from Scalia you keep getting wrong because you’re stupid?

          (sneer)

          https://reason.com/2019/10/06/states-are-depriving-innocent-people-of-their-second-amendment-rights/#comment-7961201

      3. Except BY DEFINITION two absolute rights can NEVER conflict, otherwise they are NOT absolute rights.

        What you are talking about is balancing absolute rights with government power.

        1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano is incapable of explaining how the right to keep and bear arms and the right to life are in conflict.

          Every time this is pointed out, he’s reduced to even more of a babbling, incontinent mess than usual.

          1. Every time this is pointed out, he’s reduced to even more of a babbling, incontinent mess than usual.

            Anyone else find these numbers … INCOHERENT? (sneer)

            Second Amendment – propaganda and lies EXPOSED
            Inconvenient facts (fully documented
            (ignore the screeching guntards)

            Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
            5.3 United States
            3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
            1.7 Canada
            0.9 UK

            SAYS THERE ARE NO DEATHS IN A HOMICIDE!

            5.3, 3.0, 0.9 …..ALL “INCOHERENT” TO GUNTARDS!

            What about MASS SHOOTING?

            1. Hihn, you need to commit suicide immediately. Don’t delay.

              1. I PROVE my stalking aggressor is full of shit.
                The aggressor demands I commit suicide.
                But I’ve proven him full of shit on this several dozen times

                Yet, he STILL went full bully. KNOWING he was lying,

                eDumbfuck Hihnsano is incapable of explaining how the right to keep and bear arms and the right to life are in conflict.

                Every time this is pointed out, he’s reduced to even more of a babbling, incontinent mess than usual.

                “Babbling” means making a total fool out of him, CITING TWO SUPREME COURT HEARINGS … over, and over and over again

                https://reason.com/2019/10/06/states-are-depriving-innocent-people-of-their-second-amendment-rights/#comment-7961230

                If the precious snowflake doesn’t like the facts shoved up his ass … why does he keep inviting it? Because a blowhard.
                .

                1. You’re relying to Red Rocks there, not me. You senile old fuck. I’ll I did was tell you to kill yourself.

                  So get to it you piece of shit. Die.

                  1. You’re relying to Red Rocks there, not me.

                    Sorry, probably because you two are similar asshole bullies.

                    I did was tell you to kill yourself.
                    So get to it you piece of shit. Die.

                    Ahh, and you’re both alt-right.

                  2. OOOPs. Look again. I did “reply” to you, but must have forgotten who was assaulting me for daring to prove something … as YOU have now done twice,

                    Might you be saying you were not hoping I’d die because I’d proven something. It was because you’re a subhuman asshole.

                    I await another cowardly insult, to this.

            2. Break those numbers down by race to see what the actual problem is.

              1. Diversion, racist.

              2. Break those numbers down by race to see what the actual problem is.

                How many mass shootings have been committed by non-whites? I’ll need a link to a source that’s as “official” as mine.

          2. MASS SHOOTINGS

            FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
            Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … We had 250 in 7 months. Do the math.
            Mass Shootings Per year
            UK = 0.2 per year
            US = 426.7 per year = 2,130,000% higher mass shootings

            INCOHERENT? OR HUMILIATING?
            NO LIVES MATTER.

            (Australia had one in 23 years).

            NEXT: THE QUESTIONS THEY’VE BEEN RUNNING AWAY FROM FOR OVER A YEAR … PUSSIES

          3. Inconvenient questions … they REFUSE to deal with:

            1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first? (DOUBLE-DUH

            2) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did?

            3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

            4) What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict? Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
            4a) THOUSANDS OF LIVES … BUT NO CONFLICT! Only if NO LIVES MATTER to puppets of the gun manufacturers

            No, PSYCHOS … I’m NOT advocating gun grabs, just want HONEST debate – the difference between libertarians and the bellowing blowhards of the Authoritarian Right.

            Left – Right = Zero
            Libertarians: speaking Truth to Power, both left and right, for over 50 years.
            Listen now to their death rattle, amidst the shrieking and bellowing.

            Again: How many find these simple numbers … INCOHERENT?
            And what is their IQ? Red Rock has seen these at least 50 times … STILL finds them “incoherent.” HIS IQ is as low as his sanctity of human life

            THIS is why hate me … and gang up on me …
            Facts and Sources …. vs Bellowing, snarling and bullying.

            Before your very eyes …
            The Moral Degenerates of the Authoritarian Right
            And 5.3 vs 0.9 is INCOHERENT!!!

            1. 1. No one at a school where teachers are armed. Mass shootings at schools only occur at places where degenerate, evil assholes like you prevent anyone from being able to defend themselves.

              2. No. The nuclear arms race resulted in the least violent time in human history, which, I know, to people like you is a horror story.

              3. Because they are stupid, so violent crime skyrockets in areas enriched by different cultures.

              4. They don’t come into conflict.
              4a. Again, there is no conflict. The thousand dead are ONLY dead because evil, degenerate assholes like you deny people their right to keep and bear arms.

              “I’m NOT advocating gun grabs, just want HONEST debate”

              That you so thoroughly lie with the dishonest and biased statistics you bring forth shows that you are the opposite of wanting “honest debate”. Your previous comments make clear you DO advocate gun grabs.

              “How many find these simple numbers … INCOHERENT?”

              Anyone who actually knows how those statistics are tabulated and computed.

              1. ?1. No one at a school where teachers are armed.

                There are too few of those to tell you anything at all on that. Learn how to tabulate data … and the brains to APPLY the data.
                How many school shootings in schools with far better trained armed guards?
                .

                Mass shootings at schools only occur at places where degenerate, evil assholes like you prevent anyone from being able to defend themselves.

                If teachers are thought to be armed …. who will be shot first?

                Why should they have to defend themselves from anything?
                You repeated contempt for individual liberty is quite common in the Authoritarian Right and their equivalents on the left.

                2. No. The nuclear arms race resulted in the least violent time in human history, which, I know, to people like you is a horror story.

                So, you’re also an ignorant snot about libertarians. And world history.

                3. Because they are stupid, so violent crime skyrockets in areas enriched by different cultures.

                That’s not the reason. It’s mostly income and education Being black ghettos is the consequence not the cause. Are you really so ignorant about inner-city schools? REALLY?
                The teacher’s union has far more power than the residents, because they vote more, and contribute more. This has been common knowledge for at least 30 years, to informed conservatives and libertarians. Maybe the next time you are programmed.

                4. They don’t come into conflict.

                Not if you close your eyes, cover your ears, and sing, “la la la la la la …”

                ioyteThat you so thoroughly lie with the dishonest and biased statistics you bring forth shows that you are the opposite of wanting “honest debate”.

                My sources are quite prominent. WHERE ARE YOURS, punk?

                Your previous comments make clear you DO advocate gun grabs.

                How so. (smirk)
                (He’s bat-shit crazy AND full of shit on that one)

                Anyone who actually knows how those statistics are tabulated and computed.

                Your MASSIVE screwup in the very first question, conveys almost total ignorance of INTERPRETING tabulated data. Also known as … thinking

                You fucked up on my SOURCES, which is elementary school reading comprehension.

                And you reveal yourself a fucking liar:
                Since you don’T know who the sources are ,., HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW HOW THEY TABULATE??

                Did you get ALL your memorized soundbites in? (sneer)

              2. Khm, you’re wasting your time. Hihn is a piece of suit who will attack you no matter what. Don’t engage him. Either ignore him, or at taco him mercilessly as I and others do.

                1. NOW you fuck up an assault with self-defense. Is THAT it?
                  You launch do so many unprovoked assaults because … you don’t know what you’re doing?

        2. Consider the Irony
          Calls himself Patrick Henry.
          SAYS UNALIENABLE RIGHTS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE!

          …..Why? Why do they ALL shit on 200+ years of Natural Law?

          Which rights of YOURS does THIS thug deny?

          Be VERY afraid of the Authoritarian Right

          1. The ONLY people who ever claim a right is absolute are democrats in their support of slaughtering 3000 children a day. All others understand any right can be denied after the application of due process, where the burden lies with the state to prove a citizen should lose their right. All rights presume citizens have can exercise that right until the state proves their case.

            1. The ONLY people who ever claim a right is absolute are democrats

              UNALIENABLE rights are absolute. By definition.
              You’re off to another fine start!

              in their support of slaughtering 3000 children a day

              How so? Why is your data so shitty?
              And why did you swallow such blatant nonsense?

              All others understand any right can be denied after the application of due process,

              Due process applies to crimes, not rights. Rights are not determined by trial juries.

              In OUR Constitution, rights are defined by the judiciary — as they have been for over two centuries now

              Have you never read the 9th Amendment?
              “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

              That incorporates the Declaration’s Unalienable Rights.
              The 9th guarantees that we have rights, even if never mentioned in the Constitution, which no level of government my deny or disparage.

              Can you list those rights? The Founders refused to name them. So, unless you can name them, all of your stuff on rights is … uninformed (in addition to the due process thing) I’ll explain.

              no person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,

              The THINGS can be deprived, not the rights to them If YOU lose your liberty (jailed for something), why do you believe everyone loses the right to Liberty?

              OMG. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT MEANS NONE OF US HAS A RIGHT TO LIFE!

              Sorry to be so blunt. No offense intended. It’s not you I’m ridiculing, it’s whoever’s word you trust so totally to inform you on these matters. Get another one. Or invest the effort in educating yourself. You put total blind faith in one or more people who
              1) Have no clue what due process means, and applies to
              2) Never heard of unalienable rights (or what that means)
              3) No idea how rights are derived or acknowledged

              Add just those three, not all the others uppage. and PERHAPS they are why you are also misinformed on 2A.

        3. Wrong definition.

        4. Except BY DEFINITION two absolute rights can NEVER conflict, otherwise they are NOT absolute rights.

          Check the definition of unalienable.
          There are many.
          Absolute, for rights, is not the same as absolute elsewhere.
          Some people’s minds EXPLODE at the notion of conflicting rights.
          But even most junior high kids have heard the best-known example, “There is no Free Speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.”

          Yet, Free Speech is an unalienable right, even if the concept is beyond your grasp.

      4. “Balancing two absolute rights NEVER deprives anyone of rights. Picking either, over the other, TOTALLY violates the “other.””

        It’s not balancing two absolute rights it’s a violation of two absolute rights. It’s not picking either, it’s violating both.

        1. Scary. Do these people know anything?

        2. It’s not picking either, it’s violating both

          No, it’s determining how to BEST DEFEND BOTH.
          Wiser minds have known how to do this for several centuries. It’s rooted in the common law. based on the core principles of Natural Law.

          Have you ever heard, “There’s no Free Speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater?” … 99% of ll Ameruicans a

          1. Part 2

            Have you never heard, “There’s no Free Speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater?” … 99% of all Americans know it.

            This links to thousands of examples, definitions and history. Pick your own choice. (They’re also called “competing rights”)

            1. “There’s no Free Speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater?”

              This is my favorite example tyrants bring out to justify their tyranny.

              First off, nothing would happen. People aren’t mindless idiots who will simply trample on each other because some idiot said a word. People are smart enough to check things out because they know liars like you exist in the world who would love nothing more than to create death and violence.

              Second, the evil justice Holmes created this example to justify jailing a man for passing out pamphlets speaking against the draft during WWI.

              In short, all you’ve done is shown what a malevolent twerp you are.

              1. “There’s no Free Speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater?”

                This is my favorite example tyrants bring out to justify their tyranny.

                It’s called conflicting rights, or competing rights. Google either phrase, you’ll find literally millions of definitions examples and context use.

                First off, nothing would happen. People aren’t mindless idiots who will simply trample on each other because some idiot said a word.

                What if it’s crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide?.

                People are smart enough to check things out because they know liars like you exist in the world who would love nothing more than to create death and violence.

                Google the term.

                Question: If we assume you do not understand quantum physics, does that mean it never existed?

            2. ““There’s no Free Speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater?” … 99% of all Americans know it.”

              Then 99% of Americans are wrong. That was based on Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919):

              “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
              Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919) at 52

              But that decision was overturned:

              “These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
              Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) at 447

              It’s pretty sad that you’re basing your argument for restricting free speech on a century old decision that was overturned 50 years ago. Your knowledge of Constitutional law is decades out of date.

              You’d think that having instant access to vast amounts information would have produced a more informed idiot.

              1. You’re off-topic. or confused.
                Ahh, CONFUSED. Totally

                It’s pretty sad that you’re basing your argument for restricting free speech

                I sure hope you didn’t waste a LOT of time on that! The issue is NOT Free Speech, but competing rights.

                ?Your knowledge of Constitutional law is decades out of date.</blockquote Bzzzt. WRONG AGAIN

                Plus, you SERIOUSLY have NO CLUE what the "crowded theater" is an example of? One of the most used EVER?

                Wow

                Why is it always true.
                When a thung charges in, slinging insults and self-righteous indignation… They ALMOST always fuck up a critical part. Or two fuckups like LiberCon's

                Can you imagine ANYTHING more enjoyable than some goober calling you stupid ,… while BEING stupid

                NOTHING is more enjoyable. (NON-sexual)

                THANK YOU

                1. Sorry dude, that Competing Human Rights nonsense you keep ranting about isn’t real. We have Fundamental Rights and they don’t “compete” with each other; they complement each other. Just because you don’t like the fact that Americans have a right to own guns doesn’t mean you can make up a fake right that lets you infringe on those rights.

                  You people can’t win with the truth and reality, so you just make up your own. You should apply at CNN, your fiction writing skills and hyperbolic rants would serve you well there.

                  1. Sorry dude, that Competing Human Rights nonsense you keep ranting about isn’t real.

                    ROFLMAO
                    104,000,000 internet uses (google) CONFIRMS you full of shit, and/or …. DUMB … as already shown.

                    YOU want more? MAKE MY DAY.

                    THIS hissy fit of yours PUNISHES me for calling out your ORIGINAL FUCK UP … also braying like a jackass … THEN because you ranted and raved about … THE WRONG TOPIC! …. as in BEING ILLITERATE.

                    Precious snowflake has been triggered ,.. based on his brainwashing … so he BELLOWS on things he knows NOTHING ABOUT.

                    The best known conflict is “No free speech right to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”

                    The easiest to grasp is abortion … where YOU say the fetal child’s UNALIENABLE right to Life .. and the woman’s UNALIENABLE right to Liberty …. COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER! OMFG

                    Uh-oh, did l trigger him again? How many BRAINWASHED by the Christian Taliban will leap in…. DENYING THAT UNALIENABLE RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE??)

                    They USED to be called “God-given” rights … until they decided to defy the Will of Almighty God

                    “The right to Liberty is unalienable, yes … BUT ONLY FOR MEN. Almighty God, in his infinite wisdom … HE created a temporary suspension of unalienable rights, but on a strictly limited basis. ONLY when she’s pregnant.”

                    Can any other rights be suspended? For how long? And how do we know this.

                    “It’s also the Will of Almighty God that the SOLE purpose of sex is … PROCREATION. She had the sex. She MUST procreate.”

                    Umm, Almighty God created ANIMALS to have sex ONLY for procreation. Do you know their females must be in heat?.
                    It was the Will of Almighty God to created man and woman, with the ability to obtain great joy from sex … EVEN WHEN PROCREATION IS IMPOSSIBLE …. or do you REALLY believe a human female MUST be in heat?

                    “Don’t be silly. NOBODY thinks a woman must go into heat.”

                    Then why do you defy the Will of Almighty God on this … as you do for unalienable rights?

                    “pffffft ….”

                    I have 140,000,000. You have NOTHING BUT SCREECHING.

                    PROVEN AGAIN: A bellowing blowhard and bully

                    My tone and boldface in response to ANOTHER unprovoked assault .. by a typical bully on the Authoritarian Right (a small sunset of goobers, within the overall Right).

                    For the next revenge assault
                    1) How many God-Given Rights does He suspend, for how long, and how so we know. (Needs a source)

                    2) Who taught you that women must go into heat for sex to occur at all … and why did God create men and women to experience joy from sex, even when procreation is impossible?

                    Mess with the bull, you get the horns. YOUR choice.
                    Or find some pussy you can actually bully.

                    Anything else?

    2. I do think we need some kind of process to separate mentally/emotionally disturbed people from firearms.

      That was precisely what militia training was about. You muster and drill – and if some individual is disturbed enough to be dangerous to his unit, then he’s disturbed enough to be dangerous to everyone else as well. But that’s it. There is no attempt to parse generic danger or generic mental health or anything else that is always going to revert to mere ‘dangerous cuz other’.

    3. “One thing I would have like from Kopel….what are example of special reasons to ‘confiscate first’ and not to have a legal process prior to confiscation.”

      It’s the same as the list of reasons for asset forfeiture before conviction (or charging).

    4. It’s already federal law that a *convicted felon* (who has not yet served their sentence and legally received restoration of rights) or a person *adjudicated mentally incompetent by a board of licensed experts* is forbidden to purchase a firearm. That’s all the prevention that we need, thank you. The key words are “convicted” and “adjudicated”. Any law which allows for the confiscation/theft of a person’s firearms — or any other property — is unconstitutional.

      1. That’s all the prevention that we need, thank you

        NOT your call. And your contempt for human life is troubling..

        You are SATISFIED with the status quo on mass shootings?
        (adjusted for population)
        England @ 0.2 per year. Ours is higher per day!
        US @ 450 per year 2,250,000% higher

        Intentional Homicides (per 100,000 population)
        5.3 United States
        3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
        1.7 Canada
        0.9 UK

        I suspect most Americans would not be satisfied.
        two MILLION percent higher

  5. I see rampant anti-conservative bias in these “red flag” laws! If you are a knuckle-dragging flyover-country red-flag carrying kinda guy, they take away your gun(s) and de-platform you!

    If you are a blue-flag-flying kinda antifa thug, and you crack people’s skull open for carrying an American flag, then they don’t do much of anything about it! Maybe a bit of hand-wringing or pearl-clutching, is all!

    They take your rights away for flying a red flag but not a blue flag! It’s right there in the “red flag” name of the rights-stealing operation! QED!

    https://reason.com/2018/08/21/antifa-portland-evan-welch-violence/
    This Liberal Carried an American Flag to Protest Fascism in Portland. Antifa Cracked His Head Open With a Bat.
    Masked Antifa agitators told Welch, a Hillary voter, to hand over the flag. He resisted. They attacked.

    1. Charlottesville alone makes you a sick joke.

      1. Not to mention all the shootings every weekend by the Trumptards in MAGA-country Chicago. I mean, sure, a white supremacist killing a peaceful demonstrator with a car in Charlottesville is a pretty damn good argument that gun violence is almost exclusively a problem of the right, but I’m just pointing out that there’s even more evidence than that if anybody needs it.

        1. Clearly, we need common-sense car-control laws! Red-flag laws for car ownership, AND blue-flag laws for car control also!

          Now I’m gonna go outta my expertise here a wee tad… Any NASCAR dads out there? At the car races, they do a pretty good car-controlling job based on flags, right? Checkered flags, right? Are red or blue flags allowed? Checkered flags are more multi-culti, with 2 different shades on the same flag, right? Isn’t that how it works?

          1. Absolutely! And cars are used as almost every crime getaway vehicle!

            1. Listen closely to their smirks and sneers: NO lives matter (to them)
              Not even your own children

        2. What happened in Charlottesville is that a *certified schizophrenic* went off his meds, was pursued by one bunch of Antifa/BLM protesters, panicked, got into his car and tried to drive away from them, saw his immediate escape-route blocked by more A/BLM protesters, and rammed his car into the crowd while trying to escape. This is hardly evidence of a political trend.

          1. I’m curious, Might you be the only person in America who’s totally clueless on what happened, that terrifying day? (anyone past high school)

            Initial assault, Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking with clubs, against peaceful protesters
            “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
            Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
            Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.

      2. Charlottesville is the story of the violent left showing up to cause death and violence.

        1. ANOTHER BRAINWASHED PUPPET – khm001

          Charlottesville is the story of the violent left showing up to cause death and violence.

          Let’s try an experiment where I provide UNDENIABLE proof that he is TOTALLY wrong, AND that Trump is a psycho liar. What will he do?

          Will he say sonofagun and correct his brainwashing? Or will he REFUSE to accept it , or continue his unthinking conformity with whatever his primitive tribe is?

          Initial assault, Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking with clubs, against peaceful protesters
          “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
          Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.

          Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.

          Next, PROOF Trump is a lying sack of shit, and how your loyalty has been so betrayed.

        2. The actual video …Trump’s own voice … stating a PROVEN lie… as the snotty punk he is.

          “What about the alt left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt right? Do they have any assemblage of guilt? What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do.”

          Trump lied … shamelessly — to defend Nazi and racist assaults.
          Alt-left initiated violence. PROOF: Alt-right
          Wearing black helmets. PROOF: Alt-right.
          Charged with clubs PROOF: Alt-right
          Trump saw it personally on TV! PROOF: Obama born in Kenya. (snort)

          So … will you accept such solid proof… or refuse to, out of tribal loyalty?
          To what are you most loyal?
          a) America
          b) Your partisan tribe.

    2. Pretty sure antifa flies black flags, red flags (like the law?), and black and red flags. But certainly no blue flags. And they harass people with red, white, and, blue flags.

      1. I’m pretty sure you intentionally ignored Charlottesville, to express your tribal bigotry

        1. Pretty sure you ignored the fact that the person in Charlottesville was surrounded by masked thugs who have a proven track record of violence and were beating on their car and probably threatening them.

          Too bad they only got one of the terrorists.

          1. Pretty sure you’re both a liar ,.. and stupid
            HOW DARE YOU ignore the MASS ASSAULT on peaceful “alt-left” by the nazis and white nationalist, which was THE worst violence there, by far.

            I’ll assume you never saw the video of the car assault — who was found guilty. So, I’ll show you PROOF of what you tried to ignore. Will you date to watch it?

            But first ….

            4 men charged in violent Charlottesville rally described as ‘serial rioters’

            Three members of a white supremacist group were sentenced to prison Friday for kicking, choking and punching multiple people during the 2017 “United the Right” rally in Charlottesville and other rallies in California. The three were members of the California-based militant white supremacist organization “Rise Above Movement.” The group no longer exists, according to the attorney’s office.

            A fourth defendant, Cole Evan White, will be sentenced at a later date, the attorney’s office said.

            “These defendants, motivated by hateful ideology, incited and committed acts of violence in Charlottesville, as well at other purported political rallies in California,” U.S. Attorney Thomas T. Cullen said.

            “They were not interested in peaceful protest or lawful First Amendment expression; instead, they intended to provoke and engage in street battles with those that they perceived as their enemies.”

            See part 2

            1. Part 2

              Now Trump’s totally shameless lie about Charlottesville, sucking up to white supremacists and neo-nazies. Bad enough that he said both sides were to blame. But he also went bat-shit crazy, saying the counter-protesters charged the nazis, swinging clubs. TOTAL psycho.

              Initial assault, Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking with clubs, against peaceful protesters
              “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
              Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
              Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.

              Now Trump’s fucking lie

              1. The actual video …Trump’s own voice … stating a PROVEN lie… as the snotty punk he is.

                “What about the alt left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt right? Do they have any assemblage of guilt? What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do.”

                Trump lied … shamefully — to defend Nazi and racist assaults.
                Alt-left initiated violence? PROOF: Alt-right
                Wearing black helmets? PROOF: Alt-right.
                Charged with clubs? PROOF: Alt-right

                Trump says he saw it personally on TV! PROOF:he’s a psycho. Then again, he was right about Obama being born in Kenya.(/sarc)

                Anything else, ooddballz?
                Would you like me to find video proof that you were totally manipulates and flim-flammed about the car assault? A lie as shameful as the ones I’ve proven here.

                  1. OMG … Sevo is WHINING.

                    Why?

                    I provided TOO MUCH PROOF (3) that his Orange God is a deranged psycho liar …. ALL VIDEO!! … plus Trump’s own words/voice/appearance!!!

                    Trumptards go full bully mode …

                    ============

                    Sevo
                    October.6.2019 at 1:42 pm

                    Fuck off, Hihn.
                    That’s not Trump you crazy asshole.
                    That’s a body double and an impersonator, PAID BY GEORGE SOROS.

                    As big a video fraud as the moon landing hoax.

                    1. ” Sevo is WHINING”

                      You mean like you are about him? Lolool
                      Lolol i lovecthat knowing you were wrong sent you into a bold faced seizure lolololol

                    2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks a car is a gun.

                1. Wow, this is seriously off-topic. However, since I happened to read the entire report from this incident, cover-to-cover, I’ll throw out there that the counter-protestors guilt lies in blocking access to the park by the people with the permit to protest. Had they not done that, the permitted protestors would have entered the park and bloviated to each other in an enclosed area. Since they were rebuffed, and scattered, the event turned into a moving shit-show. Anyone who cares about freedom of speech should be alarmed by cancel culture. That girl would 100% still be alive if moving mobs of people and cars had not become involved. Hence: I find it hard to place blame on only one “side”. Read it yourself, It’s actually an interesting report: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/c869fb_a573de9ad4f04b0491b927ca9d48252c.pdf

                  1. BULLSHIT …. HOW TOTALLY SHAMEFUL

                    However, since I happened to read the entire report from this incident, cover-to-cover

                    R-i-i-i-i-ght
                    BUT REFUSED TO WATCH TWO SHORT VIDEOS? (SNEER)

                    Trumpster collapses IMMEDIATELY

                    l throw out there that the counter-protestors guilt lies in blocking access to the park by the people with the permit to protest

                    (sneer)1) THE ASSAULT WAS ON CITY STREETS, MUCH LATER, ON THE VIDEO HE NEVER SAW.

                    2) THE GIRL WAS HIT EVEN LATER, AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION

                    I HAVE MORE UNDENIABLE PROOF — LAWN DARTS IS SPREADING MASSIVELY STUPID LIES (he may not be the liar, just a loyal and obedient puppet)

                    Read it yourself, It’s actually an interesting report:

                    WATCH THE VIDEOS — IN 1/10 THE TIME — YOU’LL KNOW LAWN DARTS IS LYING SACK OF IN
                    FIVE SECONDS .
                    … WHEN YOU SEE THEM MARCHING DOWN A MAIN CITY STREET.

                    WHO LAUNCHED THE ASSAULT? LAWN DARTS NEEDS YOU TO BELIEVE IT WAS THE LEFT CARRYING NAZI AND CONFEDERATE FLAGS … THE LEFT WEARING THOSE NAZI HELMETS FROM WWII

                    THERE IS OTHER BULLSHIT EXPLAINING THESE VIDEOS … “YES, BUT THAT ASSAULT (THE VIDEO) HAPPENED LATER … THE LEFT HAD INITIATED VIOLENCE EARLIER

                    ***THINK****

                    1) ALT-LEFT ASSAULTS NAZI TRUMP SUPPORTERS, CHARGING AND SWINGING CLUBS.

                    2) LATER, THE ALT-LEFT STANDS IN THE STREET, PEACEFUL AND UNARMED, AS NAZIS MARCH TOWARD THE, CARRYING CLUBS AND SHIELDS.

                    3) THEN THE NAZIS — FOR IRONY — REPEATED WHAT THE ALT-RIGHT HAD DONE — CHARGED THE OPPONENT. SWINGING CLUBS
                    (exactly as Trump described, for the wrong side.

                    Do you STILL need to see Lawn Dart’s report … its is NOT an official report

                    ****FINALLY*** HEY LAWN DARTS … WHO WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED FOR LAUNCHING THE ASSAULT?

                    Follow my link, if you need to confirm the accuracy of my cites

                    4 men charged in violent Charlottesville rally described as ‘serial rioters’
                    Three members of a white supremacist group were sentenced to prison Friday for kicking, choking and punching multiple people during the 2017 “United the Right” rally in Charlottesville and other rallies in California. The three were members of the California-based militant white supremacist organization “Rise Above Movement.” The group no longer exists, according to the attorney’s office.

                    A fourth defendant, Cole Evan White, will be sentenced at a later date, the attorney’s office said.

                    “These defendants, motivated by hateful ideology, incited and committed acts of violence in Charlottesville, as well at other purported political rallies in California,” U.S. Attorney Thomas T. Cullen said.

                    “They were not interested in peaceful protest or lawful First Amendment expression; instead, they intended to provoke and engage in street battles with those that they perceived as their enemies.”

                    Trump’s not the only psycho on the alt-right.
                    Nor the only one loyal to party, NOT country,
                    (U.S. Attorney means Trump’s DOJ)

                    This is what Trump has accelerated (not started) in America. That people would sink SO LOW to defend actions SO VILE

                    TOP BE FAIR:
                    Bernie and Elizabeth have zealot’s just as bad, but they don’t have as much to lie about … just claim the rich don’t pay their fair share — WHEN THEY SUBSIDIZE NEARLY HALF THE MIDDLE-CLASS SHARE OF THE INCOME TAX!

                    But you know what would be BEAUTIFUL?
                    If Lawn Darts posted a sincere apology

                2. NOTHING in life is more enjoyable (excluding sex) than an unprovoked assault by a serial stalking thug, calling you stupid …
                  WHILE BEING STUPID OMG!!!!

                  Red Rocks White Privilege
                  Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks a car is a gun

                  If you hadn’t REFUSED to see the video PROOF, you would not have made such a GIGANTIC ASS of yourself!

                  Car??? For THAT fuckup I assume he references the woman who was murdered by that speeding car, which I NEVER dealt with, and I recall only one comment, a lie on what happened. But, God only knows what the hell he’s babbling about this time,

        2. Hey did you about how Michael Hihn was really a new nazi? He was Richard Butler’s right hand man. A total leftist, racist piece of shit.

          1. Just look directly above this. (smrk)

          2. Now it’s two messages back.
            Starts with … BULLSHIT HOW TOTALLY SHAMEFUL.

  6. If a person is too mentally unstable to own a gun, then they are too unstable to be able to drive a car, rent a truck, buy fertilizer and diesel fuel, or interact with the rest of humanity. So, a red flag order, if signed by a judge, should result in a mandatory admittance to a mental hospital, not the confiscation of something that shall not be infringed.

    CB

    1. Great point. Hell… they should have their hands and feet confiscated, too, as they are more likely to use those to kill someone over a long gun.

      Dealing with a potential (we are seeing signs become evident for the first time) schizophrenic in the family, the bar you have to overcome to push them into treatment is crazy. You are in a limbo area where you are fearful but of they havent actually said or done anything explicit you cant get them help really. You may not even be scared for safety reasons but your hands are tied.

      But if someone looks at you funny, you can red flag them straight to a grave via the cops. Go figure.

    2. If two absolute rights are both balanced, then neither is infringed.
      All rights have boundaries. No rights are absolute, not even Life.

      1. If two rights appear to be in conflict, then one of them is not a right.

        1. Bullshit. Have you attended high school yet?

          1. We get it you’re a pedophile. Stop solicitng dates here pedo.

          2. Ahahahahha look at the pedo upset because hes wrong and has no citations ahahahahah you lost pedo ahahahahah

            1. These are the RESULTS of a google search for “conflicting rights” A few thousand proofs showing your ignorance of elementary Natural Law.
              https://www.bing.com/search?q=conflicting+rights&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN

              1. OOOO A SEARCH!

                So wrong though. Rights cannot conflict.

                1. OOOO A SEARCH!

                  The faux Patrick Henry DENIES proof that he’s a psycho.
                  (Is that a psycho squared)

                  The same psycho who says Unalienable Rights are NOT ABSOLUTE …
                  … not LIFE
                  … not LIBERTY
                  … not PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
                  … not PROPERTY …
                  …..
                  ….
                  …..only HIS right to own a gun
                  https://reason.com/2019/10/06/states-are-depriving-innocent-people-of-their-second-amendment-rights/#comment-7961226

                  How many of YOUR rights is he SNEERING AT? (Starting with LIFE)

              2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues to prove that he has no clue how the right to keep and bear arms and the right to life are in conflict.

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues to prove that he has no clue how the right to keep and bear arms and the right to life are in conflict.

                  JAMMED IT UP YOUR ASS HERE ,… FOR AT LEAST THE 50TH TIME

                  https://reason.com/2019/10/06/states-are-depriving-innocent-people-of-their-second-amendment-rights/#comment-7961230

                  1. P.S. Try not to pee your pants laughing … when Red Rocks SCREECHES that “Jammed it up your ass” means … SEXUAL!!!

        2. “If two rights appear to be in conflict, then one of them is not a right.”

          If you have two rights you probably have two lefts in the closet somewhere.

      2. There are no rights in conflict.

        1. If you’re THAT ignorant, you’d REFUSE to accept the facts.

          Readers can google either phrase to humiliate khm001 in MAYBE 10 seconds. Either “competing rights” or “conflicting rights”

          You’ll see MILLIONS of listings: definitions, examples …
          … and tens of millions of in-context uses, EVERYWHERE WORDS ARE USED. .

          This is a VERY common term, among even moderately educated people. If you do the search, khm001’s denial is, indeed the equivalent of denying the earth round!

          Here, the competing rights are gun ownership and …. LIFE.
          England is down to 0.6 mass shootings PER YEAR. We’re higher PER DAY.

          Let’s be clear. It’s ONLY the guntards demanding their guns outrank human life.

          Conflicting rights BEGINS by acknowledge that gun rights are equal to even, yes, the Right To Life (gasp) …. BUT THEY WANT MORE … ABSOLUTE AUTHORITARIANS.

          Now see the REALLY crazy denials follow this.

          P.S. Many have whined that it’s RACIAL. Yes, they’re back to “disarm ‘dem niggahs” (/sarc)

          1. On British gun laws: the UK never did have that many guns, or gun crimes, to begin with. However, in the years since the UK banned almost all civilian gun ownership, its homicide and general violent-crime rates have steadily risen. Last year, London’s violent-crime rate surpassed New York’s. This is not progress, people.

            1. ANOTHER GUNTARD SCREWS UP BIGLY1l
              1) London is not the UK
              2) Violent crime is not MASS SHOOTINGS

              You know what’s scary? These people will swallow ANYTHING, then scurry around like cockroaches spewing it.

              Next one MAY BE wackier than even the lie that semi-automatic rifles are protected by 2A (not for EIGHTY years,

              However, in the years since the UK banned almost all civilian gun ownership, its homicide and general violent-crime rates have steadily risen.

              ALSO not guns, ALSO bo source.
              PROOF WITH SOURCE

              Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
              5.3 United States
              3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
              1.7 Canada
              0.9 UK

              I explain this elsewhere, a common ruse in guntard brainwashing. I use mass shootings because 0.2 per year s more fun.

              Increases to 0.6 per year They race around like Chicken Little, “the sky is falling … the sky is falling … England’s mass murder has TRIPLED!!!

              They’re at 0.6 We’re still at 450.
              Instead of being TWO MILLION PERCENT higher, we’re now only about 700,000%. hgher, and the.sky is NOT falling

    3. BINGO.

      If they are that dangerous, they should not be free!

  7. Cops shoot people and dogs so that they could feel the ‘adrenaline rush’ from the shooting” all the time and are rarely accountable.

    Shouldn’t our thugs in blue have to pass the ‘red flag’ screen at least yearly? Maybe that would reduce the carnage. And why not have cops rotate into non gun carrying positions so they can be reminded of what it feels like to walk around unarmed.

    1. Yes this. Anybody got any information as to whether or not a red flag proceeding has ever been initiated against a cop and what the outcome of such a thing would be?

      1. Problem is that you’d have to know the cop. How many cops do you know personally?

      2. Known red-flag behavior by a cop would get him fired.

        1. Another parody account?

          1. Yours is the one who (laughingly) says conflicting rights are impossible!

            These are the RESULTS of a google search for “conflicting rights” A few thousand proofs showing your ignorance of elementary Natural Law.
            https://www.bing.com/search?q=conflicting+rights&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN

            Anything else?

            1. Yeah, and I could post hundreds of links to proof that the Earth is flat.

            2. Lololoo wut? A BING SEARCH AHAHHAAHAHHAAHAHA

              VERNON BROKE YOU AHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAAHAHAH

            3. They ARE impossible.

              1. Patrick Henry, the 2nd
                October.6.2019 at 5:49 pm
                They ARE impossible.

                He ALSO says that Unalienable Rights are NOT absolute!!
                … not YOUR life
                … not YOUR liberty
                …not YOUR pursuit of happiness
                … not YOUR property …
                …..
                ….
                …..only HIS right to own a gun (vomit)

                https://reason.com/2019/10/06/states-are-depriving-innocent-people-of-their-second-amendment-rights/#comment-7961226

                Guntards be THAT psycho. Be VERY afraid.
                For your life — which has no value to him

                1. Your liege has no value Hihn. You’re a new nazi pedophile racist.

                  1. Last of the Shitlords
                    Your liege has no value Hihn. You’re a new nazi pedophile racist.

                    bold so more people can see what lurks here.

  8. So what’s your solution, Jacob?
    We’ve been whining, pissing and moaning about government for
    50 years. And failing. Totally. We stopped offering solutions about 30 years ago. Are the two connected? Do we have a Constitution?

    A Cato survey, by a top independent pollster, found that 59% of Americans would SELF-identify as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But on that same survey, libertarianISM was rejected by 91% of libertariANS.

    Can there be any greater failure than total rejection by one’s own people? The very first comment here shows why. Just KILL OR DEPORT all the voters who disagree with your authoritarian diktats … which is the most common voice in the strongly anti-liberty commentariat.

    Is Reason a major cause for 91% rejection -by praising the growth of “independents”, on a website that repulses most independents.?

    Unless we create an entirely new Constitution, if you want government to stop doing something you must … propose an alternative … a VIABLE one, or it could get even worse … which has already begun.

    “Gun rights are NOT absolute” (Antonin Scalia in the Heller decision Jacob recently misrepresented here.) And gun ownership is sure as FUCK not superior to the Right to Life

    If libertarians keep whining, and FAILING to put gun rights back in line with Life — all unalienable rights are absolute, thus equal … if we keep snarling and bellowing, we could get something worse than a libertarian solution … like the Red Flag laws. And it WILL get worse.

    Don’t blame gummint, Jacob, blame yourself and others at Reason who pander to the alt-right. Libertarians DO accept responsibility for the consequences of our own actions. Until you get a new constitution ratified, supported by a MAYBE 5% of Americans.

    Do something wild and crazy, like defending individual liberty. Or continue demanding the expulsion of progressives, while LYING about who commits most gun violence.

    <blockquote?"Gun violence is caused by progressives … "
    (Wielding guns THEY say should not be allowed. LOL How to remain a laughing stock, and a failure)

    1. Reason panders to the alt-right? I’ve started binge-watching Man In The High Castle and I just have to ask – which side won WWII in your parallel universe?

      1. Reason panders to the alt-right?

        1) Scan this page
        2) No surprise that you have no idea what alt-right means (wink, wink)

        Here’s more.

        Several times a day, Reason denigrates/ridicules/etc “the left” or “progressives” NEVER conservatives or “the right” as a group. That’s a HUGE red flag for independents. And applying negative stereotypes to only selected (entire) groups is a definition of bigotry, and political bigotry is mostly associated with the alt-right.

        I understand why you’d not know that, being very NON-independent yourself.

        This very article on gun rights, for reasons already stated.

        SUPPORT for blatant bullying and assaults by all flavors of the alt-right … but banning and purging LIBERTARIANS (their victims, for the sin of defending libertarian values on a purportedly libertarian web site) … while Reason asserts they’re defending free speech!!!! Which is like a neo-nazi holding a Bar Mitzvah! (MANY prominent libertarians have expressed concern for the message being sent to web site visitors, by the ONLY major political site with NO moderating (even fraudulent “reviews”) …. or when did Free Speech began trumping the Non-Aggression Principle, dismissed with the “Free Speech” dodge)

        which side won WWII in your parallel universe?

        Hint: the alt-right of its day lost.

        Anything else?

        1. Not only low IQ, Hihn is also insane.

          1. 80% of the discussion on this article is Hihn ranting and raving.

            1. Most are self-defense, from you and your gang of thugs.

              Does THIS one count against me or you (smirk)

              And you’re full of shit AGAIN. I’m closer to 1/3 WITH the defense .again you guys’ unprovoked assaults,. Those can’t be counted in 2 second, or anywhere near that.

    2. And 99% of people think you’re nuts, but that doesn’t make you shut up.

      So much for 99%.

      1. No, Brian, 99% of alt-right fruitcakes like you think he’s nuts. I have my quibbles— as he does with me— but at least he’s an honest voice outside of the usual Trump apologia— which is largely the only thing you and others here have to offer. That shit is boring.

        1. Yeah, it’s so boring you love it.

          1. No, not really. I’d prefer to align myself with people who want limited government. Those people aren’t likely to be motivated by the type of arguments you make.

        2. 99% of those same people think you’re a sock and as stupid as hihn.

        3. Bro hes YOUR FUCKING SOCKPUPPETC0 LOLOLL YOU’RE NOT FOOLNG ANYONE LOLOOLLOOO

    3. Gun Rights protect Right to Life. End of story.

      Not defending gun rights is not defending individual liberty. So you fail your own test.

      1. HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE THEY?

        Gun Rights protect Right to Life. End of story.

        Not defending gun rights is not defending individual liberty. So you fail your own test.

        JAMMED UP YOUR ASS HERE, LOSER

        https://reason.com/2019/10/06/states-are-depriving-innocent-people-of-their-second-amendment-rights/#comment-7961197

        NOBODY IS EVERY SHOT TO DEATH!! that stupid.
        even crazier ….

        1. Even CRAZIER … The same psycho says Unalienable Rights are NOT ABSOLUTE …
          … not YOUR life
          … not YOUR liberty
          … not YOUR pursuit of happiness
          … not YOUR property …
          …..
          ….
          …..only HIS right to own a gun
          https://reason.com/2019/10/06/states-are-depriving-innocent-people-of-their-second-amendment-rights/#comment-7961226

          So you fail your own test.

          Also severely retarded. AGAIN said nobody loses their life when shot.
          This guntard was talking about YOUR children

  9. Nothing mentioned about the “takings clause” of the constitution. Taking guns without compensation seems a clear violation….

    1. Read the clause!

      … nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation

      Not sure it applies here, but when England and Australia banned possession … the “buy-back” was the compensation. No “gun grabbing”

      1. You can’t buy back something you didn’t sell. QED.

        1. That type of transaction is buying something back from the person who bought it. Grammar

          Also grammar that I put “buy-back” in quotes, because that’s what they’re called. .

          “Not sure it applies here” = I gave an example with no constitutional issues in what he cited.

          1. No, we call that “buying.”

            When I go to the store, I buy things from the store that bought it. We call that “buying”, not “buy back.” It would be a “buy back” if I had sold it to the store in the first place.

            And since it’s not voluntary, we don’t call it “buying” at all.

            English.

            1. One more time for the ethically challenged

              Also grammar that I put “buy-back” in quotes, because that’s what they’re called. .

              “Not sure it applies here” = I gave an example with no constitutional issues in what he cited.

              1. And “English” is what I’m pointing out: a “buy back” is neither a “buy” nor something done “back”.

                You can call it a “chocolate bunny” in quotes if you like, but my point still stands.

                I would point out that it’s a bad sign for an ideology when it can’t call a thing what it really is. In seizing guns is awesome, don’t feel ashamed and call it such.

                1. That’s 1984 shit right there: “We’re forcing you to give us your guns for a sum we choose. We call this a ‘buy-back.’”

                  Let me guess: they’re from the Ministry of “Love” (in quotes!)

                  1. Its still isnt a buy back you keep proving yourself wrong Whihny lololol

                    You lost on grammar and cant stand it ahahhaahahahah

                2. One more time for the ethically challenged

                  Also grammar that I put “buy-back” in quotes, because that’s what they’re called. .

                  “Not sure it applies here” = I gave an example with no constitutional issues in what he cites

                  1. That’s what it’s called… by mendacious cunts.

                  2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano loves his gun bans. That’s why he never read past page 1 of the Heller decision.

                    1. Scalia’s Heller decision PAGE TWO (snort) .
                      https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

                      2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues…

                      Miller’s holding (1939) that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

                      ((Pages 54-56 are a VERY lengthy list of gun prohibitions at and around ratification. Scalia was am originalist; NOBODY here, who opposes any and all regulations is even close. The psycho liars))

                      DC v Heller p 114
                      The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves.

                      “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.”

                      **That’s the issue, the militia clause.

                      But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

                      ***Weapons in common use in the 1800s. Miller and Heller, both page 1.

                      It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.

                      ****PERHAPS only more sophisticated weapons can be as EFFECTIVE. AND

                      Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

                      *** The modern equivalent of a musket may be USELESS against today’s bombers and tanks. BUT

                      But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

                      ****NONE of that can change how the right is interpreted (in Miller ) … RIDICULES Red Rock)

                      Now Miller (smirk)

                      The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

                      1) EXPLICITLY rejects military weapons …

                      2 ) “these men” are the citizens militia at ratification Also confirmed (if needed) by “when called for service” for the 1800s militia. S

                      3) “common use at the time” …. all one sentence … the TIME PERIOD does not change in mid-sentence, perhaps the worst guntard bullshit So it’s “in common use” AT RATIFICATION.

                      Now the rage, screeching and hatred … from the dancing puppets

              2. Lolool he gets the grammar worng so he switches to ethics, which unvolve violating rights ahahahaah he cant even freedom properly aahhahaahh

      2. “…the “buy-back” was the compensation. No “gun grabbing”

        Proof, if any was needed, that imbeciles exist who buy that sort of bullshit as other than laughable.
        Hihn’s nothing if no laughable.
        Well, “pathetic” does well also.

      3. Due Process of Law cannot override rights.

    2. There are multiple violations of the Constitution with these bullshit laws.

      Defend yourself through your door, if you have to. I would acquit anyone who shoots a cop when the cops try to steal from you.

  10. A Gallup poll released September 11, shows that 83 percent of American adults blame a “failure in our mental health system” as a reason for mass shootings. Perhaps it’s the law makers who need psychiatric care….?

    1. Tell is how to use that as a fix — without violating anyone’s rights, as reasonably summarized here.

      From that same poll
      *79% now say the spread of extremist views on the internet bears a great deal or fair amount of blame, up from 57% in 2013 — a 22-percentage-point increase
      *The majority, 58%, blame inflammatory statements by politicians or commentators, up from 37% in 2013 — a 21-point increase

      From a related poll: 67% support tougher gun laws.
      https://news.gallup.com/poll/234800/news-key-insights-americans-views-guns.aspx

      Cherry-picking polls rarely supports psychiatric care for anyone.

  11. The harder the gun absolutists push, the more severe the backlash will be.

    I hope the predictable snapback does not interfere with the right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home, but if it does the gun nuts will deserve ample blame.

    1. BINGO!

    2. You shouldn’t seen what she was wearing!

    3. I’m largely apathetic about the private right to own guns, but the more shrill these absolutists get the more I want jack-booted thugs to kick in doors

      1. The nationalism in your socialism is showing.

      2. And the more authoritarian you become, the more you deserve to get caught in a mass shooting.

    4. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
      October.6.2019 at 11:03 am
      “The harder the gun absolutists push,…”

      Proggy ‘tards must spend half of their time coming up with ‘clever’ monikers which not even 1st graders would find amusing.
      Fuck off, gun-grabber.

    5. “a reasonable firearm”

      That’s subjective enough to include a spud gun all the way to a gun that fires bullets that fire a smaller bullet.

    6. LOL! NOPE

  12. 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not only are these Red Flag laws unconstitutional for infringing on the right of the People to keep and bear Arms but they don’t even follow Due Process to give the person a chance to respond in court.

    1. Passing the law is due process. And since there’s no crime, there’s nothing to defend in court.

      Also no infringement. When two conflicting rights must BOTH be defended, NEITHER has been abridged or violated. But If EITHER of the two is favored over the other, then the other has been abridged. By what right?

      “2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.”
      (Antonin Scalia’s Heller ruling)

      Miller’s holding (1939) that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.(Scalia, same ruling, not relevant here, but one of SEVERAL clauses which confirm the right as non-absolute)

      To illustrate. When two absolute rights are in conflict, think of them as overlapping, like a Venn Diagram. Only the judiciary may resolve such conflicts. as a check against the other two branches. Back to Venn, imagine drawing a line between the two, which MUST best defend both.

      Colloquial example: “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.”
      The nose tip is the line that best defends BOTH rights.

      1. Lol. How fucking stupid a leap in logic. Passing an unconstitutional law makes it constitutional under the purview of due process. Why have a constitution then dumbfuck?

        1. How fucking stupid a leap in logic.

          BEND OVER. JAMMED UP YOUR ASS AGAIN.

          Passing an unconstitutional law makes it constitutional under the purview of due process.

          PASSING THE LAW IS DUE PROCESS … YOU PULLED “CONSTITUTIONAL” OUT OF YOUR ASS

          Passing the law is due process. And since there’s no crime, there’s nothing to defend in court.

          Why have a constitution then dumbfuck?

          SAME FUCKUP ,… in READING what I said!

          EVEN IF YOU WEREN”T A JACKASS …
          It’s not unconstItutional UNTIL A RULING,

          1. Passing and acting on an unconstitutional law isnt due process you ignorant fuck.

            1. I never said “acted on” … PSYCHO STALKER (sneer)

          2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano claims that the government has a right to ban handguns, then ignores Scalia saying that the handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.

            1. (snort) Scalia also ruled the second amendment protects ONLY the modern version of weapons brought from home for militia service (muskets and pistols) … confirming a 1939 ruling.

              Yes, chuimp, SCALIA ruled that 2A protects ONLY what we’d now call hunting rifles.

              I can cite and link Scalia. You have NOTHING to show your PSYCHO LIE that I EVER said handguns can be banned

              How psycho are they? DENY the NRA was TOTALLY helpless against the assault weapons ban (what it was called) .. for … ten … long … years …. It HAD to expire (could have been repealed, but wasn’t..

      2. Hihn, you really should follow the Grateful Dead’s advice; don’t dominate the rap Jack if you got nothing new to say.

        1. It was “new” to the dumbass I explained to, because … ummm … he didn’t know it!!!

          When ANYONE hears something for the first time …..
          IT IS NEW … TO THEM!!!

          Sometimes a Great Notion

          This is clearly NOT one of those times, Sluggo. (smirk)

          1. Any self-respecting ‘tard gets ‘way more bold and italics in a post.
            Fuck off, Hihn.

            1. ONE MORE TIME … BOLD AND ITALICS WHEN I RIDICULE STUPID FUCKUPS … LIKE I DO HERE. (SNEER)

              ALL the goobers .. when they LOSE … .babble about PUNCTUATION!!

  13. “Because we don’t know what we prevented or could’ve prevented. What would’ve happened if we didn’t go there at 5 a.m.?” The guy would have gone about his business and still be alive, you asshole, that’s what would have happened. By that logic, I could walk through my neighborhood shooting people before they leave for work in the morning, because I don’t know whether they’re going to cause an accident and kill someone with their cars. Since when is *not knowing* the basis for action? And why is the sister not charged with a crime? That stupid bitch was more dangerous using a phone than Willis was with his gun.

  14. First I pondered the reaction if we could enact a similar red flag law for speech, which clearly would violate the 1st amendment. But then I remembered the current progressive ethic, and the desire on the woke left to silence counter-revolutionary voices.

    So, never mind.

    1. It’s not progressive, it’s your ignorance of well established precedents.
      Like “No free speech right to yell Fire in a crowded theater,” which is merely the best-known.

      There’s no violation of 1A if it’s done to equally defend two rights, both of which are absolute.

      But you did get “woke” in there!

      1. Now you’re too dumb that a central DNC plank in 2018 was to amend the 1a. Do you ever have an intelligent thought?

        1. Posted in defense of MORE aggression by my stalker)
          JESSE az ANOTHER MASSIVE SCREWUP BY THE STALKING CYBERBULLY!!

          Now you’re too dumb that a central DNC plank in 2018 was to amend the 1a. Do you ever have an intelligent thought?

          (pees pants laughing)
          Here’s what I replied to, chump.
          (Boldface for dimwitted)

          First I pondered the reaction if we could enact a similar red flag law for speech, which clearly would violate the 1st amendment

          He talked about a hypothetical law … FALSELY said it would be unconstitutional.

          I ALSO failed to describe my recipe for blueberry pancakes … my first grade teacher’s name … my favorite color … the city I grew up in … and millions billions of other topics that have NOTHING to so with the exchange … or I’d have been a TOTAL ass like you!

          (Thug will likely assault me AGAIN ,,, for THIS … showing him to be a braying jackass … AGAIN. Why doesn’t he just stop stalking and assaulting me, since he’s such a TOTAL FAILURE at it? Because Trumptard.)

          1. Baby jeffrey should thank you. You make him seem somewhat intelligent.

          2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano having another manic-depressive episode.

  15. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    If you want it to change, amend the constitution.

    Go.

    1. Learn how it works.
      GO

      1. I am actually just fine with most of the way that’s been interpreted for the last couple of centuries.

        1. Then why don’t you know how it’s been done for this? Read Scalia’s Heller and the precedent he reaffirmed (US v Miller, 1939). Law of the land for 80 years. THEN you’ll know how it works (for this)

            1. Then you fucked up on needing to change the Constitution.
              Can’t claim both sides of the fence at once

              1. When did I say anyone needs to change the constitution?

                1. Are they ALL psycho???

                  Brian
                  October.6.2019 at 5:21 pm
                  When did I say anyone needs to change the constitution?

                  When you started THIS thread.

                  https://reason.com/2019/10/06/states-are-depriving-innocent-people-of-their-second-amendment-rights/#comment-7960943
                  If you want it to change, amend the constitution.

                  1. Yes, if you want the second amendment to change, you have to… amend the constitution.

                    Do you get that?

                    What ever else you’re talking about, I have no idea.

                    1. Yes, if you want the second amendment to change, you have to… amend the constitution.

                      No relevance here.

                      What ever else you’re talking about, I have no idea.

                      I noticed.
                      SCOTUS = Supreme Court of the United States.
                      They interpret the Constitution. Not you. For quite some time now.
                      For the two rulings I mentioned. I have since posted the relevant excerpts. You can educate yourself here.
                      https://reason.com/2019/10/06/states-are-depriving-innocent-people-of-their-second-amendment-rights/#comment-7961265
                      To avoid future screwups.

                    2. But I know all about those.

                    3. REPEAT:

                      But I know all about those.

                      So why the wacky screwup? Brain freeze?

                  2. What screw up?

                    STILL?
                    Your fucking stupidity on what 2a protects … for only the last 80 years.

                    First you fuckup on what requires a constitutional amendment.
                    Then you deny having said it
                    The LIE about the rulings you are clueless about .
                    Now you sit there, eyes totally blank, saying, “HUH?”

                    All this bullshit, sneering and snarling … but NEVER … not once … have said WHY you think it must be changed. WHAT caused you to ASS-ume that has anything to do with anything.

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano never read past page 2 of the Heller decision. That’s why he initially claimed only single-shot long rifles were authorized by the 2nd Amendment until I owned his ass by citing page 2 of the same decision.

            1. (sneer)
              Scalia’s Heller decision PAGE TWO .
              https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

              2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues…

              ****STILL PAGE TWO … PROOF Red Rocks is a psycho liar

              Miller’s holding (1939) that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

              ****BALLGAME OVER … MUST ADDRESS RELATED BULLSHI
              ((Pages 54-56 are a VERY lengthy list of gun prohibitions at and around ratification. Scalia was am originalist; NOBODY here, who opposes any and all regulations is even close. The psycho liars))

              DC v Heller p 114
              The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves.

              “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.”

              **That’s the issue, the militia clause.

              But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

              ***Weapons in common use in the 1800s. Miller and Heller, both page 1.

              It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.

              ****PERHAPS only more sophisticated weapons can be as EFFECTIVE. AND

              Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

              *** The modern equivalent of a musket may be USELESS against today’s bombers and tanks. BUT

              But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

              ****NONE of that can change how the right is interpreted (in Miller ) … Phrased to LITERALLY Red Rock)

              Now Miller (smirk)

              The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

              1) EXPLICITLY rejects military weapons …

              2 ) “these men” are the citizens militia at ratification Also confirmed (if needed) by “when called for service” for the 1800s militia. S

              3) “common use at the time” …. all one sentence … the TIME PERIOD does not change in mid-sentence, perhaps the craziest bullshit of guntards So it’s “in common use” AT RATIFICATION.

              Now the rage, screeching and hatred … from the dancing puppets.
              The ANTI-LIBERTY Authoritarian Right

      2. Yes, you need to. When will you start?

        1. Yes, you need to. When will you start?

          YOU still need to retract your BAT-SHIT CRAZY claim that Unalienable Rights are NOT absolute. WTF
          … NOBODY’S life
          … NOBODY’S liberty
          … NOBODY’S pursuit of happiness
          … NOBODY’s property …
          …..
          ….
          …..only YOUR right to own a gun
          https://reason.com/2019/10/06/states-are-depriving-innocent-people-of-their-second-amendment-rights/#comment-7961226

          To guntards: NO lives matter. (vomit)

          Now change to another sock ….

  16. While I find it refreshing to see a libertarian article here after a week or so, I do find it odd only 2 politicians called out by name when one could have mentioned these laws as the floor of regulation proposed by the entire democratic party.

    1. Entire parties do not propose regulations.
      How did the vote go?

        1. Entire parties do not propose regulations. How did the vote go?

      1. God. You’re actually this fucking stupid. The DNC doesnt have a plank consisting of goals they have every election cycle? Honestly, how dumb are you? Next you’re going to pretend the House hasnt been passing legislation with red flag laws as the floor acceptable regulation.

        1. Almost as stupid as this.
          https://reason.com/2019/10/06/states-are-depriving-innocent-people-of-their-second-amendment-rights/#comment-7961033

          The DNC doesnt have a plank consisting of goals they have every election cycle

          Diversion from original assertion

          Next you’re going to pretend the House hasnt been passing legislation with red flag laws as the floor acceptable regulation.

          That one’s DUMBER than the link above.
          Describe “floor acceptable regulation”
          And TRY to stop careening back and forth, between law and regulation.
          ,

          1. Looking at time stamps. Jesse has launched THREE more assaults .. each with a major blunder … while FAILING to address being called out just above. I wonder why … hmmmm

            1. Looking at the ransom notes, Hihn has abducted quite a few and is hoping to meet at the phone booth to get his extorted money.
              Fuck off, Hihn.

              1. STILL FAILS TO RESPOND TO BEING CALLED OUT.

                1. TheLibertyTruthTeller
                  October.6.2019 at 5:10 pm
                  “STILL FAILS TO RESPOND TO BEING CALLED OUT.”

                  Sorry, I refused to pay ransom to kidnappers.
                  Fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

            2. Assaults huh? Believe the correct term is “fuck off hihn.” This is just sad on your part.

          2. Hey look what the NYT spot out just today. Makes you look even dumber than usual.

        1. Another diversion!
          Did you miss five GOP co-sponsors?

          1. Did you miss the Democrat count dumbshit?

            1. I focused on the part you fucked up.

              1. What did I fuck up on. Again. You are terrible at reading comprehension.

        2. (boldface in defense of ANOTHER massive assault/blunder … and to heighten the ridicule)

          Here you raving idiot.

          YOU are the one confusing the red flag laws you began with, and BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!
          HELLO? HELLO?
          SEVEN MASSIVE BLUNDERS, ONE PAGE, A NEW RECORD FOR YOU!
          (sneer)

          If you’re having another hissy fit, just stop assaulting me with bonehead screwups, lies and diversions. YOUR choice. YOUR consequences.

  17. “Depending on what counts as significant, this formula implies that people can lose their gun rights even if it is nearly certain that they would not have hurt themselves or others.”

    There’s not much point in having a gun if you’re not willing to hurt yourself or others.

    1. If you’re not capable of great violence, you’re not peaceful, you’re just harmless.

      1. “you’re just harmless”

        You’d be surprised at the harm that can be caused by brandishing a gun you are not willing to use.

        1. “You’d be surprised at the harm that can be caused by brandishing a gun you are not willing to use.”

          Isn’t that ‘clever’?
          Bullshit posing as profundity; as good as trueman ever gets.

        2. Not everyone here has weak wrists.

  18. This is a great article Jacob. Awesome summarization of the issues surrounding red flag laws, especially on the legal and rights side.

  19. OT Post: Prepare to shit your pants! Economy about to crater!

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/06/investing/stocks-week-ahead-trade-talks/index.html
    America’s economy is slowing. Ending the trade war could fix that

  20. OT Post: Prepare to shit your pants! Economy about to crater!
    Part 2:
    https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-economics-experiment-failing-us-recession-2019-10
    Out-take below:

    Trump ran on a platform of ignoring the rules of economics and turning personal grievances into policy. Now we know what that can do to the mightiest economy on the planet.

    Trade wars have disrupted agriculture and manufacturing, ripping up supply chains and costing the government billions in aid. Erratic policies have spooked Wall Street and exhausted and frustrated our allies. The world is now a place where the United States cannot be trusted, and that is a world where growth is slower. Just about every respectable economist in the game told Trump this would happen, but he and his allies didn’t want to hear it.

    1. I have this theory that my investments haven’t really gone down if I don’t look at them. So I only click on them if it looks like good news. Haven’t checked in months.

      They really need to get a deal made this time around or at least a deal to make a deal. Things are starting to unravel.

      1. “Things are starting to unravel.”

        Yup-yup-yo and a bottle of rum! Sad to say, that’s what it’s looking like! (This is NOT a good time to buy a grand spanking new giant mansion, or to take a blow-out vacation! Don’t say I didn’t tell ya!).

    2. SQRLSY One
      October.6.2019 at 6:31 pm
      “https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-economics-experiment-failing-us-recession-2019-10”

      Citing BI immediately identifies you.
      As a fucking lefty ignoramus.

  21. I just read this:

    “Families of some victims from the 2012 shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.—during a screening of an earlier Batman film—wrote a letter questioning the AT&T Inc. -owned studio’s decision to release the film, which depicts how a social outcast became Batman’s nemesis.

    Police departments and theaters around the nation ratcheted up security measures for the movie’s opening weekend. Ahead of the film’s release, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said it was monitoring posts online for alarming behavior, encouraging “the public to remain vigilant and to promptly report suspicious activity to law enforcement,” according to a spokesperson.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/joker-dominates-box-office-11570387821?

    The FBI is monitoring social media because a movie was released, and they want you to report “suspicious activity”?

    WTF is that, people you don’t like saying something you don’t like?

    1. On the one hand, Swatting is a real thing.

      On the other hand, the FBI wants you to alert them to “suspicious activity”?

      1. If violent movies lead to violence shouldn’t porn lead to three way sex with hot chicks? Because if it does I haven’t been watching enough of it.

  22. Did the police wait for Mr. Willis´ hands to grow cold before taking his gun?

  23. a complaint from his sister, who reportedly obtained the temporary ERPO against her brother after a family argument during which he said something that alarmed her.

    Was the sister checked out for mental problems before taking action against Willis? Were her firearms taken, temporarily of course, just in case?

  24. Most responsible and legal gun owners would typically refrain from announcing such stupid remarks. Doing so in public sets you up for a fail. If you are gonna freak out then be prepared for the law to come down. It is dopes like you who ruin it for the rest of us 99.99%.

    1. If you don’t protect the rights of dopes, soon you’ll lose your own.

  25. BTW, my email source is front-paging news on ‘4 dead in KC bar shooting’. Of course that’s not good news, and while I have no idea what KC’s gun regulations are, it sort of sounds like a gang-shooting at the border; perhaps stuff most of us can easily avoid.
    I do know that Chicago’s are among the most stringent; It seems you can be arrested for thinking about owning a gun there, so it should be a wonderfully safe place to live:

    “Tracking Chicago shooting victims”
    […]
    “In Chicago, 2,101 people have been shot this year. That is 190 fewer than 2018….”
    https://www.chicagotribune.com/data/ct-shooting-victims-map-charts-htmlstory.html

    Hihn, the asshole bigot and others (Tony, why haven’t made an ass of yourself today?) all assume that ignoring A2 will just make things wonderful. The lot of them are fucking ignoramus statists who deserve to fuck off and die where we can’t smell the stink,

  26. Putting up a few music links lately. Not an easy week so wanted to find something.

    No better place to put this one. The foo fighters. Gettin tired of the soft stuff lately. David Grohl is a beast. tempo goes into 182. Holy crap. For anyone who cares to.

    Pretender – the Foo Fighters. Happy Monday.

    https://youtu.be/SBjQ9tuuTJQ

    1. CRUSHES!

  27. “Depending on what counts as significant, this formula implies that people can lose their gun rights even if it is nearly certain that they would not have hurt themselves or others.”

    Should not or no need of keeping gun with you to hurt yourself and people around you.

  28. They’re just testing the waters for total gun confiscation.

    1. Because Obama’s a Muslim from Kenya?
      Foment hysteria much?

  29. Red Flag laws are simply unconstitutional, full stop.

    1. Were you in the majority for that Supreme Court ruling.
      Or have you staged a coup?

  30. This is how it will be for all gun confiscation. See he resisted us taking away his rights, good thing we killed him and took his guns.

    1. Is your hysteria really appropriate?
      Did someone manipulate you into believing, “They want to seize your guns?”
      Still believe in the Easter Bunny?

      1. Several people running for president have said so many other politicians have said so and there were people protesting just last week wanting to take away all guns so Yes I do believe their intent. Its not Hysteria when they say they will. If a man says he will punch you in the face you may need to listen, I’m listening to those who say what they will do and taking precaustions

        1. It is most certainly hysteria to assert the notion that the man was killed because he resisted, even as a hypothetical. even worse to say it would become the not.

          The “seize your guns” hysteria has always meant all guns Semi-automatics are not protected by 2A, since a 1939 decision (US v Miller), more recently confirmed by Scalia in his Heller decision.

          Plus you’re talking intent, and it ain’t remotely possible … although 2A supporters could change public opinion with their lies (many on this page) and crazy nonsense about what’s protected and why.

          It is a FACT that gun confiscation in England and Australia has dropped their mass shootings to below one per year — closer to 1/2 per year.. And defending human life is a core purpose of a government.

          The Dems are now competing for their most extreme base, exactly as Trump did and does, because the extremes dominate each base, thus the primaries, as a growing majority of Americans have abandoned loyalty to both parties.

          I don’t mean to imply that his hysteria is any worse than what Trump foments. The Dem activity that concerns you is actually less than the claim that 2A was intended to allow an armed overthrow of the government … by violating the amendment? Nope.

          Then again, we libertarians have alway seen both parties as corrupt, certainly authoritarian. And politicians have been fueling hysteria for centuries. Like Chicken Little plus, “Only I/we can protect you from this deadly menace. Give me money and power.

          1. they actually use that claim in this case you are a moron. and your facts are shit since crime has risen in both England and Australia or would you be happy with American Women being raped at 10 times pre gun laws as has occurred in Australia. BTW gun violence is up in both countries killing far more people than were killed by their mass shooting ever did.

            1. WHY ARE THEY ALSWAYSFULL OFSHIT???

              THIS GUNTARD IS WHINING THAT ENGLAND’S MASS SHOOTINGS WENT UP.
              THAT’S A LIE. BUT WHAT IS HE “THINKING”

              ***ENGLAND’S MASS SHOOTINGS — THE LAST I COLLECTED ARE 0.2 PER YEAR.

              *** OURS ARE 1.16 … EACH AND EVERY DAY.

              *** SO THE NRA TRAINS THEIR PUPPETS TO GO OUT ,.. RAISE HYSTERIA … IF ENGLAND’S “GOES UP” TO … 0.4 … PER DAY
              “THEIR MASS SHOOTINGS DOUBLED! … THE SKY IS FALLING… THE SKY IS FALLING … THE SKY IS FALLING”.

              Yes, THAT is what we’re dealing with.

          2. You are aware that the Heller decision was regarding a ban on handguns in DC, the majority of which are in fact semi-auto, right? So clearly the concurrence from Scalia you’re referencing is not meant by the man himself to be construed as “semi-automatics are not protected by the 2nd amendment.”

  31. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

    CLICK HERE►► Aprocoin.com

  32. Libertarians have zero ideas to help with gun violence, and they spend thousands of words claiming no measure would work.
    Further, often Libertarians claim there is no gun violence sufficient to require any intervention from any government (state or federal).
    Further, the interpretation of the Second Amendment is not robust across interest groups, but conservatives (which include Libertarians) claim their interpretation is the only right one.

    We live in a gun culture where almost everyone can have as many guns as they want. In the case of people giving off red flags (behaviors or statements that have already been seen in people who did go shoot up a school, bar, or public place) before they had a chance to become a statistic are stopped before they can take that next step. That is prophylactic justice, just like we have prophylactic medicine for people who might get sick, but we can’t afford for them to get sick, so we medicate them before they do. Not every red flag person will go on to murder, but enough have that we are trying to mitigate that, and nothing ever works every time, not even antibiotics, much less laws dealing with people. We have laws against drunk driving but people still drive drunk and people die. Most laws don’t work all the time. Should we get rid of all laws? Do you have any decent ideas for regulations necessary to keep most people alive and on the right track?

    1. e conservatives (which include Libertarians) claim their interpretation is the only right one.

      ONLY on gun issues, and not all libs. But the rest of your critique is spot on.

      Wanna drive them INSANE? I’ve done this several times on this page.

      Mass Shootings Per Year(adjusted for population)
      England 0.2
      US 436

      They don’t know.. Their minds are programmed by the NRA gun manufacturers. With as little independence as Bernie’s and Elizabeth’s bots. 🙂

      1. Gee, would that be the same England which is currently working to outlaw all sharp knives?

        1. Gee, would that be the same England which is currently working to outlaw all sharp knives?

          So .. you are SATIsFIED our mass murder rate is TWO MILLION PERCENT higher than their.

          Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
          5.3 United States
          3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
          1.7 Canada
          0.9 UK

          THAT’S fine with you, too?

    2. “Libertarians have zero ideas to help with gun violence, and they spend thousands of words claiming no measure would work.”

      I wouldn’t say they have zero ideas — just for one example, why don’t we stop giving mass murderers free press, and thus normalizing this as an excellent attention-getter for loser copy-cats? The Press has standards for downplaying suicide, and if they have to talk about it, to use language that softens what happened, and this has been shown to work to reduce copycat suicides. We’re long overdue to do the same thing with mass murder.

      As for “spending thousands of words claiming no measure would work”, this is strictly true … but then, when one goes through each measure, and compares what it should have stopped to what a mass murderer actually did, and finds that there is almost no mass murderer who would be stopped by such measures, what are we supposed to conclude? That the measures would work? Are we supposed to pass these measures and hope that they would work, contrary to all evidence?

      “We live in a gun culture where almost everyone can have as many guns as they want.”

      Yes, we do, but considering that there are at least 80 million gun owners owning at least 300 million guns (and there’s good reasons to believe that both numbers are low) — and that most “gun deaths” are suicide, and of the remainder, most are gangland murders committed by felons already forbidden to own guns — and that, even will all that, only about 30,000 people a year die from gun violence, I don’t think it’s legal gun culture that’s the problem.

      Maybe, instead of trying to control guns, we should try to find ways to support people with suicidal thoughts (whether or not they have access to guns) and see what we can do to tame and perhaps even eliminate gang culture and their tendency to reach for violent solutions (whether or not they use guns). Then, maybe, we could lower the overall effects of all violence, and not punish peaceable people who own guns with measures that will have virtually no effect on people determined to commit violence.

      “Most laws don’t work all the time.”

      This is true. But laws that prohibit otherwise innocent behavior only creates resentment towards the law, which is why we should focus our efforts on laws that prohibit malicious behavior. It’s one thing to outlaw murder because murder is evil; it’s another thing to outlaw guns because murder is evil.

  33. Suicide, like abortion, isn’t illegal. Preventing suicide may be all well and good but no crime is committed other than perhaps some law against discharging a firearms within ‘x’ feet of an occupied dwelling. Like abortion, alcohol, and marijuana, people should be able to decide to do with their own bodies regardless. It seems suicide by excess alcohol or hemlock ingestion is fine but not when it’s by cranially injected lead.

  34. Red flag laws are for countries with red flags.

    1. I admire the bumper sticker brevity here, but you know some joyless pedant is going to be bound to point out the US flag is about ~30% red (like our voters, I guess).

  35. Although the “red flag” laws generally have “due process” protections, those protections take time and more money (attorneys fees & court costs) than many people have or want to expend to protect their 2nd Amendment rights. Many people may surrender their 2nd Amendment rights rather than to go through the long, arduous, & very expensive process to vindicate them.

    Due to the above, the “red flag” laws will likely burden lower middle class & poor people more than more affluent gun owners.

  36. The Marxists in government want our guns so that they can steamroll us and force their will upon us. Red Flag laws are akin to Communism where you have no rights and anyone can be seen as a threat to be taken out…innocent or guilty or not. These laws open the doors to unbridled theft of firearms and the destruction of the 2nd Amendment. It will not end with just RF laws…eventually all guns will be outlawed and banned from existence and citizen ownership. Failure to comply means death. The Dem Marxist dream is alive and well.

Please to post comments