Why Background Checks Are A TERRIBLE IDEA In ONE Easy Lesson, Thanks To Dennis Williams. [National, US]

Why background checks are immoral.

Dennis Williams wrote:

Red Flag Laws are the beginning of the end of the 2nd Ammendment.

Point-blank period.

"Mental Unfitness" will be used as a catalyst to seize firearms, in true authoritarian fashion.

I can't agree with the President on this one. Perhaps there's a strategy in place.

Here's how it'll happen:

1. Red Flag Laws get passed.

2. Society accepts it as the new normal.

3. The definition of Mentally Unfit is appended with something like, "anyone possessing dangerous political views."

4. Gun seizure becomes political.

This is how it always happens.

Dennis Williams On Twitter Here.

Folks, this is how it starts, with magical lists.  
How your name gets on the list is usually a mystery.
How your name gets off the  list is almost certainly a mystery.
Then, the rules change but you wouldn't know because you are not privy to the rule making.
Then men in brown shirts knock on your door, cite the fact that your name is on their list, and take you away.
Where they take you and for how long?  Well, we will find out.
Don't tell me no, this is how it goes, always...

Bottom line....

When an individual is not free to defend his life, liberty and rights as he sees fit, it is at that very moment he doesn't have those rights.
There is no argument here, if you can't defend your rights, you don't have them.
Of course some will argue about not needing "assault weapons" or 30 round magazines, why does anyone in a civilized world need those?
Well, there are two answers for this.
The first is, why does anyone have to justify anything to you, especially if they haven't threatened to harm anyone?
In other word, none of your business.
The second answer is you can make this statement about any gun, knife or weapon of any sort.  Why limit it to just guns?
The third reason is there is a thing called due process.  Everyone is innocent until or unless proven guilty.
This means no one can take away the freedom and rights of another to do as they please, as long as they don't threaten anyone else.
Possessing something you may not like or are scared about is not a valid reason, due process still applies.
Are they threatening you?  If the answer is no, then they have a right to be free from your interference, period.
And by the way, being "scared" is not a valid reason.
I am scared of you taking away my gun rights, what about my scaredness or does that not matter as much as yours?
It does.  In fact, it matters more because I demand nothing of you.
The burden of proof is on you before you can deny me any right to live as I wish, period, always.

Kaptainsteve

[size=32]Kafkaesque 'red flag laws' strip gun owners of their constitutional rights[/size]

Michael Hammond , Opinion contributorPublished 2:30 p.m. ET April 19, 2018

Red flag laws let police confiscate guns without due process. Suspending the Constitution in a secret hearing is a Rubicon from which there is no return.

To listen to the media's anti-gun drumbeat, no one does — or could — oppose the concept of stripping Americans of their constitutional rights in secret proceedings where they have no voice. 
But this is exactly what is at stake with Gun Confiscation Orders — cynically disguised as "red flag laws." 
Six states have enacted these laws. At their core, they allow the police to convene a Kafkaesque secret proceeding, in which an American can be stripped of his or her gun rights and Fourth Amendment rights, even though gun owners are barred from participating in the hearings or arguing their side of the dispute.


The first thing gun owners learn is when police knock on the door — ready to ransack their house and, if they resist, to arrest or even shoot them and their family.



The standard is not whether there is probable cause to believe that the gun owner has committed a crime, as the Constitution would seem to require. Rather, the standard is some subjective determination about whether the owner represents some "danger." 
As in the film Minority Report, Americans are stripped of their fundamental constitutional rights based on the subjective possibility of a "future crime." And we know from our limited experience that many accusers lie or make mistakes — even more reach delusional conclusions — and the target is frequently an abused victim who is most in need of the wherewithal to protect against an abuser. "

[size=13]Source/More Here.

[/size]