"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."--George Santayana
We never learn.
In the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes.
Even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be--and has been--perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.
The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state's hands.
Mark my words: red flag gun laws, which allow the police to remove guns from people suspected of being threats, will only add to the government's power.
These laws, growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others, are yet another Trojan Horse, a stealth maneuver by the police state to gain greater power over an unsuspecting and largely gullible populace.
Thirteen states now have red flag laws on their books. That number is growing.
As The Washington Post reports, these laws "allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person's home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn't require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest."
In the midst of what feels like an epidemic of mass shootings, these gun confiscation laws--extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws--may appease the fears of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer.
Of course, it doesn't always work that way.
Anything--knives, vehicles, planes, pressure cookers--can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions.
With these red flag gun laws, the intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats.
At first glance, it appears to be perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an "immediate danger" to themselves or others.
Where the problem arises, of course, is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.
We've been down this road before.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
