Confiscation has begun

[benenglish]

it does not contain adequate due process provisions,

I agree, as I hope I've made clear during my analysis thus far in this thread.

If this dealt with any other civil right, it would never have gotten off the ground.

That's an major overstatement.

I have a basic human right to walk around unmolested. But if I'm suspected of breaking the law, a police officer can take that right away from me with force, handcuffs, and a cell. It's temporary, until I can see a judge. We accept that infringement on a basic human right because the world can't work properly without some reasonable give-and-take in these matters.

The same principle is at work with ERPOs. The problem with ERPOs isn't the denial of due process; it's the delay of and foreshortened nature of the due process that's built into the statutes.

The Washington law kinda sucks because it's stacked against the "respondent". However, the concept of the ERPO, just like the concept of an involuntary psychiatric commitment or an arrest, isn't bad. It's the implementation that's sub-optimal.

 

[busykngt]

DwnRange, you’re drilling down into what will ultimately be the core of the problem. Nobody wants violent crazy people to have firearms. But to wait for them to be officially adjudicated as a nut case by a court (especially while they’re in possession of such weapons), is perhaps asking too much of the public. It’s the proverbial, “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” situation. I’m not at all sure how this gets solved without stepping on someone’s rights!

 

[oldag]

The people in the neighborhood repeatedly complained to the police. After getting enough credible complaints to become officially concerned, the police department then filed for the order.

Thanks for the explanation.

But this goes back to my initial concern. Enough anti-2A people complain merely because someone has a gun, police will pick it up. And depending on their attitude that could be all she wrote. And more than a few LEO's don't want any non-LEO with a gun (not so much in Texas).

I am not convinced that a good law could be written in this area. And I would prefer to err on the side of not taking away guns.

 

[Younggun]

What if the same had happened to the douche guy in Florida?

As of now we don't know the guys name in Washington or what he actually did. So imagine a story came out of Florida 1 month ago that law enforcement went in to a guys house and took all of his firearms due to a large number of complaints over the last year or so. They won't release his name at this time so you can't look up what the individual calls were for. We would likely have a thread just like this one questioning the actions of LE and the law that allowed them to take the firearms. That didn't happen and a school was shot up instead.

In the article I read pertaining to Washington it was stated that he made threats, followed people, and stared them down through store windows. Are those statements exaggerated? I have no idea. I don't know the nature of the threats made, and I don't know the body language of the guy while he was staring through store windows at people.

I'm glad Ben has been so good at explaining his opinion on the subject because it describes how I feel about it better than I could.

 

[oldag]

What if the same had happened to the douche guy in Florida?

As of now we don't know the guys name in Washington or what he actually did. So imagine a story came out of Florida 1 month ago that law enforcement went in to a guys house and took all of his firearms due to a large number of complaints over the last year or so. They won't release his name at this time so you can't look up what the individual calls were for. We would likely have a thread just like this one questioning the actions of LE and the law that allowed them to take the firearms. That didn't happen and a school was shot up instead.

In the article I read pertaining to Washington it was stated that he made threats, followed people, and stared them down through store windows. Are those statements exaggerated? I have no idea. I don't know the nature of the threats made, and I don't know the body language of the guy while he was staring through store windows at people.

I'm glad Ben has been so good at explaining his opinion on the subject because it describes how I feel about it better than I could.

All valid points.

But recall that the Florida shooter had made explicit threats. It was not just a matter of "He looked mean to me."

This is exactly the difficulty of this topic. Which is why I have stated that we need to address the root cause:

• Disintegration of the family structure
  
• Parents abdicating the raising of their children to daycare and the school system
  
• Moving away from the traditional Judea/Christian principles upon which this country was founded
• Lack of discipline in the home
• Schools being prohibited from applying discipline

When the above problems were minimal, we did not have these school shootings.

The confiscation issue is closing the gate after the horse is out of the barn.

What happens when the kid's guns are taken away and he just drives a car through the crowded parking lot when school lets out? Will we then talk about taking cars away from people?

 

[Vaquero]

"This is exactly the difficulty of this topic. Which is why I have stated that we need to address the root cause:

• Disintegration of the family structure
  
• Parents abdicating the raising of their children to daycare and the school system
  
• Moving away from the traditional Judea/Christian principles upon which this country was founded
• Lack of discipline in the home
• Schools being prohibited from applying discipline"

And how do we address these issues?
Certainly not by law or decree.

 

[Younggun]

Nope. You can't legislate morality, it must be taught.

And people have to ve able to see the advantages of a moral life. When immoral lifestyles are rewarded the disadvantages become less apparent. As well as the advantages of morality.


But there will always be crazy and evil people.

 

[oldag]

"This is exactly the difficulty of this topic. Which is why I have stated that we need to address the root cause:

• Disintegration of the family structure
  
• Parents abdicating the raising of their children to daycare and the school system
  
• Moving away from the traditional Judea/Christian principles upon which this country was founded
• Lack of discipline in the home
• Schools being prohibited from applying discipline"

And how do we address these issues?
Certainly not by law or decree.

You are absolutely correct, this cannot be addressed by law.

How do we make progress?

• Start with how we raise our own kids
• Heck, raise our own kids rather than farming that out to strangers (and I do realize that single parents have no choice on this matter)
  
• Help our grown kids understand the importance of these things, so they will pass it down generation to generation
• Influence and encourage those around us
  
• Speak out and get involved (e.g., at schools)
  
• Pray for the healing of our country.

Not the answer most folks like to hear (and that comment is not directed at you, V).

 

[Younggun]

You are absolutely correct, this cannot be addressed by law.

How do we make progress?

• Start with how we raise our own kids
• Heck, raise our own kids rather than farming that out to strangers (and I do realize that single parents have no choice on this matter)
  
• Help our grown kids understand the importance of these things, so they will pass it down generation to generation
• Influence and encourage those around us
  
• Speak out and get involved (e.g., at schools)
  
• Pray for the healing of our country.

Not the answer most folks like to hear (and that comment is not directed at you, V).

I don't think it has to do with what most folks like to hear, at least not with the present audience. But how will you get this message to those who are on the opposite end of the spektrum. Those who celebrate a life devoid of moral responsibility?

 

[Vaquero]

I don't think it has to do with what most folks like to hear, at least not with the present audience. But how will you get this message to those who are on the opposite end of the spektrum. Those who celebrate a life devoid of moral responsibility?

Exactly .
The freedoms we cherish are helping to destroy our society.

 

[oldag]

I don't think it has to do with what most folks like to hear, at least not with the present audience. But how will you get this message to those who are on the opposite end of the spektrum. Those who celebrate a life devoid of moral responsibility?

Again, good insight.

Perhaps my last bullet point above is the best hope for this.

I do have hope that all the points can help with stemming the tide, and perhaps winning over the middle ground (which to me seems to be a shrinking population).

 

[benenglish]

But how will you get this message to those who are on the opposite end of the spektrum. Those who celebrate a life devoid of moral responsibility?

I've spent an idiotic amount of time with those sorts of people. From what I've observed, the question you ask is The Big One, bigger than I think anyone can truly appreciate.

 

[busykngt]

Personally (even if it takes passing a one time special law), I’d like to glean an insight into how many of (and to what extent) these killers were on SSRI drugs. I’m usually not into wild conspiracy theories but I am left wondering what role ‘Big Pharma’ might have played, along with the HIPA law covering for them.

The murderers are either dead or in prison, so I see the need for protecting their privacy as being far less important than knowing if there is a linkage (cause & effect) for these people who were either depressed, suicidal, had autism or other problems for which the SSRI drugs may have played a significant contributing roll in their actions.

 

[karlac]

Exactly .
The freedoms we cherish are helping to destroy our society.

And "social media" is looking like it will be the vehicle by which that is accomplished.

 

[karlac]

Wasn't but three decades or so ago that guns were much more visible and a lot more accessible. I brought a gun to school during hunting season so I could hunt afterwards. What's changed?

The environment we grew up in was a damned sight less permissive and children much more disciplined. Single income families are now almost nonexistent and more parents are relinquishing control of their children's upbringing to the schools.

Hell, the concepts of personal responsibility and civic duty are missing in many parents, thus not surprisingly in the children, and they are arguably taught the antithesis of that in public education in a monkey see, monkey do environment, where the inmates run the asylum in many urban schools.

Children have external influences not present in our time, including outright manipulation of their minds in public education and media. TV commercials routinely make a mockery of the father figure, once the basis of our family life. Take God out of the equation kiss your collective morality goodbye.

We'd have to turn back the clock three generations to change what we see today ... it's a people problem, and looking for a solution by putting the blame solely on an inanimate object is akin to putting a band aid on a cancer. It's also wishful thinking that guns can be banned in this country, and that laws are going to accomplish that. Dream on, it is not going to happen.

This country is neither a former penal colony, nor one with servile citizens weaned on the class distinctions of European monarchy, whom we have already had to bail out in two world wars.

In order to effect a solution to a heretofore rare, and almost unknown phenomenon of the "school shooter" something other than emotion based, band aid solutions need to be brought to the fight. Almost a "Mama, don't raise your babies up to be shooters" situation.

Arguably, the most effective solution starts at home, as it did back then. It won't happen until parents understand they are the root of the current problem. I'm not holding my breath ... the deck is staked against good in the battle with evil.

 

[easy rider]

The facts are, more and more people these days want more direction, and I'm afraid that in some point in the future Orwell's predictions or insights through his books will come true. 1984 may have been 30 or 40 years off. You can see it and hear it every time something happens and you hear the words "We need a law for that".

 

[benenglish]

You can see it and hear it every time something happens and you hear the words "We need a law for that".

Good point.

ERPOs would not be necessary if we still had relatively easy involuntary psychiatric commitments. But those got badly abused by heirs taking old people out of the way, husbands committing their wives to make divorce easier, prominent families hiding their "defectives" (*cough*Kennedy*cough*), et.al.

Will ERPOs be similarly abused? I'm sure people will try. Is that reason to throw out the concept? I don't think so...but I'm open to and sympathetic to the argument that says we should.

Principles vs. practicality questions really suck.

 

[DwnRange]

Exactly .
The freedoms we cherish are helping to destroy our society.

I'm sure she won't mind me posting this here, as I contribute to her cause:

http://krisannehall.com/can-we-legislate-morality/

Can We Legislate Morality?

June 26, 2013 By KrisAnne Hall


“Can we legislate morality?” This is a very relevant question that deserves a serious answer. But what is really meant by this question? The idea of “legislating morality” often gives people the impression that we can create a moral society through the creation of laws. Fact is – we cannot. As a prosecutor I became acutely aware of the apparently widely held view that the criminal justice system will “reform” people. We could save ourselves a lot of heartache and a lot of money if we just accepted the reality that the criminal justice system, our jails, our prisons, are not designed to reform people, they are designed to punish people for doing bad things. The punishment is what is supposed to make people change their mind about committing future crimes. More laws and more prisons will not magically create a moral society.


We cannot deny, however, that all laws are based upon shared moral values. When a society loses that morality, we find ourselves in a situation where we are tempted to compensate by creating more laws. This is what causes people to put the cart before the horse and believe morality can be, or should be legislated. We have become a society that treats symptoms instead of diseases. This situation is no different. The symptom is an ever increasing lawless society; the disease is an ever decreasing moral society. If we want the government to stop “legislating morality”, we must become, once again a society of individuals that upholds our shared moral values. We may not be able to legislate morality, but as our founders warned, we cannot afford to lose it.


John Adams stated in an address to Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts in 1798: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.


Adams believed that America’s unique moral character provided security for the future:


While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence.


He then issued this warning:


But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practicing iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.


Adams was attempting to impress upon these military men that the power wielded by an immoral society could not be restrained by the best Constitution and could be lethal to Liberty itself.


Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.

(see link for continuation - here's the last part)

Our Constitution is dedicated to the promises of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we want to maintain this Republic and its promises of Liberty, as Daniel Webster said, we must “hold onto to the Constitution”. In holding on to the Constitution, we must understand that Liberty is its end and morality is a vital bond that secures its survival. Our Liberty stands in peril because we have abandoned our moral foundation. Freedom AND morality are BOTH necessary to maintain Liberty. The sole pursuit of stuff and satisfaction of self creates a moral vacuum – we must reconnect with a higher purpose. We must be dedicated to fighting for ALL of the principles of Liberty that make this nation so great! Because some things remain true: sparrows still fall, whales break nets, and Liberty cannot last without morality.

(Yea I know that's it's long, but the woman has her head screwed on right and knows her stuff)

 

[Younggun]

I like Jordan petersons take on this broad subject. Too lengthy and detailed to boil down to a forum post, and I believe that is the reason he is able to articulate his opinion. There is no effort to condense it.

 

[Younggun]

I've spent an idiotic amount of time with those sorts of people. From what I've observed, the question you ask is The Big One, bigger than I think anyone can truly appreciate.

I've thoight about it alot.

My opinion is that these changes can't come from one source. They won't come through government influence either unless as a counter culture in resistance to a governemnt action.

I think the only way is for there to be small movements across the nation at the local level. Small neighborhood groups actively engaging the kids in the neighborhoods with different projects and activities. Avoiding any direct political commentary while quietly promoting good values and the consequences of poor choices. And we have to find a way to get people to think of themselves as individuals again.

In many cases across all demographics poor life choices have become a bit of a family tradition and those in such traditions have found themselves living in neighborhoods with others of similar lifestyles. A completly natural phenomenon.

In order to break such cycles it would almost require that an entire generation be pursuaded to take at different path, otherwise children are likely to return to tradition as they reach their teen years due to the general tendency to rebel and social pressure from other neighborhood kids.

Of course this is an overly simplified idea that doesnt account for the numerous variables and challenged currently faced in our society. Everything from drug addiction, to welfare, to racial divisions (on both sides).

Meant to make a short post, but I really don't believe there are any short or easy answers. I'm sure what I've said above could be picked apart by myself and others with just a minimal amount of critical thought applied.