Posted On: Saturday - June 1st 2019 3:51PM MST
In Topics:   US Police State  Pundits  Liberty/Libertarianism
As the chief organ (of some sort...) of Conservatism, Inc, the National Review magazine/site is not one read or visited by Peak Stupidity. We will cop to having "taken" the print version for a year or two in the 1990's at some point. There's 50 bucks we'll never get back, though I did love the late Florence King, with her column in the back, she understood by me to be the sole female curmudgeon there ever was (that link is to OUR FIRST POST!) OK, I may have accidentally clicked on a link to an NR-online article, but I redeemed myself afterwards with a bit of Vin Suprynowicz.
OK, this is not the post in which to trash National Review, as the editor of the on-line version, one Mr. Charles C.W. Cooke, is a big 2nd Amendment proponent, and I only learned this via reading his great article on "Red Flag" laws in the June issue of America's 1st Freedom magazine. Yes, it was the paper copy, as I am one of the > 5,000,000 members. I'll now preemptively take back anything I may still accidentally write about him in the future, as this is one great piece of writing. It's really above the usual style of the NRA (political*) magazine, as Mr. Cooke presents, and argues against, even the most reasonable possible arguments from the anti-gun people. That's not to say America's 1st Freedom is not a good magazine anyway, BTW. I tend to leave already-read copies in doctor's offices and other places, usually based on where they will piss off the largest number of people.
Please read Charles Cooke's article if you have a chance, as it's very timely if you look at the headlines today on the shooting in Virginia Beach, Virginia. What I'm getting at is that, whether False Flags or not, the mass shootings America has seen are never wasted by the ctrl-left as opportunities to blame the inanimate gun as the culprit rather than say, the usual over-medicated kid or a disgruntled often-non-white or immigrant employee.
The Red Flag laws, not to be confused with False Flags, are those that have been drawn up to allow individuals to expeditiously (meaning without due process) have individual American's guns taken from them based on here-say by, well anybody. As a 2nd article in the same NRA-mag issue, Colorado Sheriffs Unite Against "Red Flag" Law**, very un-politically-correctly states with regard to the "petitioner" having resided with said gun owner, "in other words, any vengeful ex-spouse or romantic partner". Yep, the crazy ex-wife can decide to take away your right to defend yourself and the remains of your family at will.
That may not be the most egregious use of these unconstitutional laws even. They can, AND WILL (as they say), be used by political opponents of patriotic Americans to take revenge for any on- or off-line speech, as, just like in the old USSR, you can be deemed just "too crazy" to own a gun. (Well, OK, in the USSR, you wouldn't have had the gun anyway; they'd have just sent you to the institution and drugged you into oblivion.)
First let me excerpt the portion that illustrates how Mr. Cooke see the people pushing these laws as having good intentions (the "road to hell", and all that aside, no, not all of them do):
As is typically the case with gun control measures, “red flag” laws are sold to voters as riskless guarantors of public safety and come replete with the bad-faith accusations of villainy to which advocates of the Bill of Rights have become sadly accustomed. “If you oppose this idea,” critics are told, “then you must support terrible outcomes.” In Colorado and beyond, opponents have been told that they are bad people who desire the abuse of women, do not care about the death of police officers, covet a general reduction in public safety and so forth. Which, of course, is dangerous nonsense. If one so chooses, one can always demagogue support for the Bill of Rights into enthusiasm for nefarious behavior—and, indeed, the same people always do. In the eyes of the wannabe authoritarian, champions of the First Amendment are mere advocates of “hate speech” or “lobbying” or “religious intolerance”; champions of the Fourth are trying to ensure that criminals have a safe place to hide; champions of the Fifth want “the guilty to walk free” and the evil to “stay silent”; champions of the Sixth hope to permit defendants to “revictimize the accused” and so forth.He's right, you can't trash one freedom from government prescribed by the Founders and not hurt the others. The 2nd Amendment though, is the last bulwark.
There is, as a matter of fact, not a single American liberty that cannot be cast in this light. Depending on what the accuser is selling, the details may change. But the instinct most definitely does not. Thus it is that opposition to stripping rights away from Americans whose names have been placed unilaterally onto secret government lists is transmuted into support for “terrorists buying guns.” Thus it is that opposition to the government snooping around one’s social media and search histories is transmuted into support for “giving crazy people access to guns.” And thus it is that opposition to “red flag” laws that lack even basic protections for due process is transmuted into indifference toward women or children or anybody who is generally liked.
The correct response to this tactic is as simple as it is universally applicable: “No, I’m in favor of the Constitution.”
That, of course, is precisely what the sheriffs in Colorado are saying. And not just once, but twice. Critics of the sort of vaguely written “red flag” laws that have prompted otherwise law-abiding people to meditate aloud upon the likelihood of being sent to jail are concerned with the protection of not one, but of two core rights—the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to due process. As a matter of political rhetoric, it may make sense for the architects of “red flag” laws to pretend that merely to utter “but the children” or “but women” or “but the terrorists” is magically to change the facts on the ground or amend America’s legal and cultural foundations. But as a matter of fact, it does no such thing. For those who have taken an oath, for those who hope to defend the American constitutional order, and, yes, for those who merely seek the protection of the highest law in the land, there can be no “good intentions” exception.That is the core of Charles Cooke's great argument against the "good intentions" business. In the rest of the article, and probably another post about this, there is/will be discussion of the position that local law enforcement will be put in (in particular, in the case of Sheriffs of Colorado, location of one of the Red Flag laws proposed). For them, there's an obvious RIGHT THING TO DO, and we'll see which law enforcement officers in the country even THINK about this.
Anyway, kudos to Mr. Charles C.W. Cooke, of (yes) National Review for very well explaining this threat to Americans and the US Constitution.
* The NRA also publishes more magazines about hunting/fishing and guns in general. NRA members can get one free with their membership, and I tend to be more interested in the political, hence this blog and all...
** This article written by Dave Hardy should be read along with Mr. Cooke's article. It has the view straight from the Colorado Sheriffs' mouths, and should be the subject of a 2nd post.