I called it. Trump is the guy pushing this as national policy. He's going to facilitate all of the gun grabbing with red flags. No due process.

Hardly. LOL

I'd say we put funding towards conducting miltarized 'tests' with canada, perpetual warfare is the driving economic force, take note from Korea that's why there's two

This post was edited by A30N0fCH405 on Oct 17 2019 11:26pm

“I am directing Dept of Justice to work with state, and local authorities in partnership with social media companies to develop tools to seek out mass shooters before they strike” - DJT

This gives the government broad powers to detain people for their political opinions, while giving public cover in the form of “they’re a mental health risk, this is for their own safety as much as it is for yours.” Not just your stated political opinions—the opinions a privately-owned and privately-controlled algorithm will predict you to have.

Nobody will come to save you when you’re chained to a bed in the asylum.

And unlike other prisoners, they can conduct medical experiments on you against your will with no legal recourse. And the public won’t care because “you’re crazy.”

Trump is the front man for truly evil authoritarians, leading the charge to create a Minority Report style of system where you can be charged with pre-crime. And unlike Minority Report, you’re going through a psych system and not the criminal justice system so there is zero due process for you.

We don't need no thought control. But the government wants it. And they're close to having it.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Oct 17 2019 11:34pm

These red flag laws have been challenged in courts before and courts ultimately said they are constitutional, often citing District of Columbia v. Heller. A notable part of the Heller case decision is quote:

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding 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."

While this does not explicitly permit red flag laws I think it is vague enough to possibly make them permissable.

I have not expressed my personal opinion on the matter. I just felt this was worth pointing out.

This is fucking chilling on many levels.

He clearly said with rapid "due process". According to the NYTimes article, there was no due process involved. Also, it was not the feds that took his guns, but Washington State.

If a cop asks you for drivers license and ID you are required by law to present it.

A lot of younger folk seem to think that a traffic stop is a court of law. It isn't. A court of law is a court of law.






/e I see your video and I raise you this one...




This post was edited by Ghot on Oct 18 2019 12:10am

Will you offer to fellate the officer for his good, honest work after you hand over your guns?