https://www.breitbart.com/poli...un-confiscation-law/


Red flag laws, yada yada. IOW, as I understand the article, he supports confiscation of firearms on "red flag" laws.

"They are now pressing for $50 million in annual funding to bring academia into the gun control push."

More opinions, more laws, more lawbreakers ...

I thought he had turned over a new leaf lately.

Looks like he’s now back to being the commie lovin POS that he always was.

The whole "red flag" gun confiscation method is ripe for abuse by a number of people-anyone from your vengeful ex-spouse to the guy who never liked you for whatever reason, the liberals in your HOC, local politicians trying to make a name for themselves, that cop who really covets that "cool" gun of yours. If you happen to be a violent nut for real there would be few complaints about disarming you but seriously how often does that happen in advance?

The article is fairly vague on details.
Arbitrary confiscation of guns without due process (or with little criteria) is one thing but the details here are lacking.
Article is misleading, IMO.
Huge gap from Dem gun confiscation and keeping those insane from weapons.

Somehow, I have never trusted him, and this latest piece of crap proves what I have believed about him for a long time. He is not to be trusted! He will do anything, say anything to keep his face in the press, and polish his chances for another trip to the hog trough.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
Somehow, I have never trusted him, and this latest piece of crap proves what I have believed about him for a long time. He is not to be trusted! He will do anything, say anything to keep his face in the press, and polish his chances for another trip to the hog trough.

Yep. Every six years, he becomes a conservative for as long as it takes to get re-elected. As a SC resident, I’ve seen it every election cycle since his first term. I wanted to believe he had changed, based on the Kavanaugh hearings, but he’s back to normal.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
The article is fairly vague on details.
Arbitrary confiscation of guns without due process (or with little criteria) is one thing but the details here are lacking.
Article is misleading, IMO.
Huge gap from Dem gun confiscation and keeping those insane from weapons.

Are you familiar with the “red flag” laws presently on the books in states that aren’t Texas?

Arbitrary confiscation without due process is exactly what is being discussed.

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.9mm:
Yep. Every six years, he becomes a conservative for as long as it takes to get re-elected.

That's how our former Sen. Baucus kept his job for 30+ years. He taught his protege Tester the same trick, and he'll likely be there that long as well.

Every sixth year they tell the voters what they want to hear. Then, they go back to DC and vote liberal every single time.

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
The article is fairly vague on details.
Arbitrary confiscation of guns without due process (or with little criteria) is one thing but the details here are lacking.
Article is misleading, IMO.
Huge gap from Dem gun confiscation and keeping those insane from weapons.

Are you familiar with the “red flag” laws presently on the books in states that aren’t Texas?

Arbitrary confiscation without due process is exactly what is being discussed.

-Rob

I agree it is what is discussed here but the article which list sources as CNN and CNBC.
Furthermore the title of the article (and this thread) trashes Graham but as far as I can read only says he is willing to talk.
Now, there may be more to the story but not in the article.
Hence, IMO a bit misleading.
I am in no way supporting the "red flag" implementation of the commie states.
No.
Just the article is weak on content.
If the purpose of this thread is to discuss the "Red Flag" shit - I am all for it.
However, the OP wasn't really going in that direction, IMO.
YMMV

quote:

I agree it is what is discussed here but the article which list sources as CNN and CNBC.
Furthermore the title of the article (and this thread) trashes Graham but as far as I can read only says he is willing to talk.

There should be NO talk about red flag confiscation! NONE!!!

It is blatantly unconstitutional!!

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:

There should be NO talk about red flag confiscation! NONE!!!

You see, there is where I disagree with you.
You can't expose the falsies and pitfalls without exposure.

This is the old "we've got to do something!" routine. When the next mass shooting happens, Graham can say that he voted to take the guns before the tragedy happened. Confiscation of private property is one of the worst abuses of government power. I dont like it when due process is involved either.

I’m about to step in it. I think most if not all gun laws necessary are already written and then some.

I am willing to consider that the INTENT of red flag laws has some validity. Now, confiscation without prior due process is unconstitutional and I’m not a fan of ignoring the Constitution “for the greater good” nonsense.

These type of laws are very ripe material for abuse. Incredibly so. Identifying people who are a danger to themselves and others and removing weapons from them is seemingly reasonable to me though.

I certainly would discuss it. The actual language of the law would be critical. Oversight and appeal process strength absolutely necessary. But I would discuss it.

To ignore obvious threats isn’t protecting the Constitution. Strong reasonable due process is key. I will concede I’m willing to discuss it at this point and might be convinced I’m wrong. So far the arguments presented are mostly shrill emotion and little reasoning though.

As long as we are being unconstitutional, why not just capture the individual who is a danger and keep him locked up indefinitely? Kind of a 'leave the gun. Take the canolli' deal.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:

There should be NO talk about red flag confiscation! NONE!!!

You see, there is where I disagree with you.
You can't expose the falsies and pitfalls without exposure.

How about the plain and simple concept that the whole concept is unconstitutional?

Some idiot says he/she heard "Sam" say something about shooting somebody and the next thing is the police stage a raid and confiscate his/her firearms.

How about the concept that if we allow all guns on the planet to be confiscated and destroyed, we will have no more violence? After all, it is for the greater good!

There are more than enough laws on the books that address this issue.

Is murder against the law? How about armed robbery?

Check out Britain and see how well that is working for them. They are now down to discussion of making various sharp items illegal. In fact, as I understand it, they have already outlawed a number of such items.

Here is a question: Suppose someone decides that they do not like the idea that you have guns, and tells the police that you are a threat to society because you have those guns.

Red Flag? As I understand it, it is or could be. Next step, they arrive at your house and seize your guns.

Elk we must be talking about different things.
Are we debating the merits of "red flag" shit or debating just "talking" about it?

I repeatedly said I do not support the laws especially the way the commie states implement it.

I do think if we "talk" (not compromise) about it and expose the shortcomings then the truth wins.

Sooner or later one of these cases is going to end up in SCOTUS with them having to rule on due process with these red flag laws.

quote:

Originally posted by fiasconva:
Sooner or later one of these cases is going to end up in SCOTUS with them having to rule on due process with these red flag laws.

Yes, eventually a case will probably end up at SCOTUS. How long will it take for some case from Podunk Kalifornistan to wend its way thru all the various steps to get to SCOTUS.

And who knows what the SCOTUS composition will be when that happens?

As I have said, in my opinion, there is no need or legitimate purpose for these red flag laws.

They are simply one more way to apply pressure on gun owners, with the end game of confiscation.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:

quote:

Originally posted by fiasconva:
Sooner or later one of these cases is going to end up in SCOTUS with them having to rule on due process with these red flag laws.

Yes, eventually a case will probably end up at SCOTUS. How long will it take for some case from Podunk Kalifornistan to wend its way thru all the various steps to get to SCOTUS.

And who knows what the SCOTUS composition will be when that happens?

As I have said, in my opinion, there is no need or legitimate purpose for these red flag laws.

They are simply one more way to apply pressure on gun owners, with the end game of confiscation.

This should be drilled into every gun owner's head.