Pre-crime ... ?

[UCFBS]

Your thoughts?

 

[btbones]

There’s a pill for that

 

[sk8knight]

I voted no but that’s exactly what red flag laws are so...

 

[UCFBS]

I voted no but that’s exactly what red flag laws are so...

I probably should have phrased that, "No, that's right-wing BS"

 

[fried-chicken]

Its already happening and they are targeting conservatives. The main culprit behind this is George Soros who is funding the whole project. Anyone who gets close to it is immediately suicided by the Clintons. Its worse than you think.

 

[Knight_Light]

Pre-Crime? Minority Report was a great movie:

 

[UCFBS]

Pre-Crime? Minority Report was a great movie:

It had great themes, and a good plot, but I thought it could have been improved. But yes, those who control the law are the ones who abuse it and have special interest. Ergo, politicians and their lobbyists.

Virginia is going to get really interesting really quick, as the cities and counties are attempting to use Constitutional Law (and not just the 2nd Amendment, but the history of the early Constitution, Laws and Acts) to overturn state (and federal) limitations on civil liberties. We're seeing an exact repeat of the 1774-1775 Crown-Parliament-Governor assertion of authority that outlawed individual assemblies into militias, which was after the same trifecta's 1770+ assertion that outlawed individual assemblies into presses.

Spoiler

Americans rarely know the full history and fail to understand that the 'Continental Army' was not only mainly Massachusetts and Connecticut originally, even before and definitely once Washington was appointed commander, but that most, at first, and then a minority, later, of states were still against Massachusetts, Connecticut and then Virginia, until June 1776. Before it became a majority (and then unanimous by late June), Massachusetts and Connecticut were fighting 'on their own,' without sanction by a majority of the colonies, prior to Washington's appointment (which was when it became a majority support by early 1776).

There really were no 'regulars' before then, absolutely no 'federally trained' army. And the 'show of force' was initiated locally, by local militias, including in Boston, causing the Governor to request the Crown react, leading to the British further re-enforcing Boston, and eventually marching to confiscate supplies and weapons from illegal militias without the Crown's sanction, as only the Crown could define a militia, just like only the Crown could define a press. And we all know what finally happened in 1775 that was the 'straw that broke the camel's back.'

It's amazing what we don't teach our children in school these days. The 1st and 2nd Amendments are explicitly written to say the authority and power of both the press and militia come from not only the individual right to free speech and bare arms, but the right of both to assemble into something greater, without any say by the federating authority. I still cannot believe some teach the 'Militia Act' as when militias started, when it has everything to do with the ability of states and federal authorities to request the use of locally organized militias.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the National Guard, which is a federally trained army and reserve. Those came much, much later, and the historical reference to the militias is more of a pride, not actual let alone never legal, reference. In fact, the requirement that the federal Executive seek the permission of the state Executive to deploy that state's National Guard hasn't been well-addressed in the courts, and the terms of the Militia Act are unknown whether they apply or not. It's just been courtesy that the President asks the Governor.

So ... the larger question is whether or not the state can trump local authorities when it comes to the organization of a militias. If one looks at the historical context, as well as the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and everything leading up to the Militia Act, Constitutionally there is a strong case they do. Ironically, here, the federal Executive is supposed to protect the individual's civil rights, and to date, it's been anything but the opposite as of late.

We're relying solely on the federal Judicial these last 50+ years it seems, before the federal Executive moves to protect civil rights.

 

[fried-chicken]

It had great themes, and a good plot, but I thought it could have been improved. But yes, those who control the law are the ones who abuse it and have special interest. Ergo, politicians and their lobbyists.

Virginia is going to get really interesting really quick, as the cities and counties are attempting to use Constitutional Law (and not just the 2nd Amendment, but the history of the early Constitution, Laws and Acts) to overturn state (and federal) limitations on civil liberties. We're seeing an exact repeat of the 1774-1775 Crown-Parliament-Governor assertion of authority that outlawed individual assemblies into militias, which was after the same trifecta's 1770+ assertion that outlawed individual assemblies into presses.

Spoiler

Americans rarely know the full history and fail to understand that the 'Continental Army' was not only mainly Massachusetts and Connecticut originally, even before and definitely once Washington was appointed commander, but that most, at first, and then a minority, later, of states were still against Massachusetts, Connecticut and then Virginia, until June 1776. Before it became a majority (and then unanimous by late June), Massachusetts and Connecticut were fighting 'on their own,' without sanction by a majority of the colonies, prior to Washington's appointment (which was when it became a majority support by early 1776).

There really were no 'regulars' before then, absolutely no 'federally trained' army. And the 'show of force' was initiated locally, by local militias, including in Boston, causing the Governor to request the Crown react, leading to the British further re-enforcing Boston, and eventually marching to confiscate supplies and weapons from illegal militias without the Crown's sanction, as only the Crown could define a militia, just like only the Crown could define a press. And we all know what finally happened in 1775 that was the 'straw that broke the camel's back.'

It's amazing what we don't teach our children in school these days. The 1st and 2nd Amendments are explicitly written to say the authority and power of both the press and militia come from not only the individual right to free speech and bare arms, but the right of both to assemble into something greater, without any say by the federating authority. I still cannot believe some teach the 'Militia Act' as when militias started, when it has everything to do with the ability of states and federal authorities to request the use of locally organized militias.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the National Guard, which is a federally trained army and reserve. Those came much, much later, and the historical reference to the militias is more of a pride, not actual let alone never legal, reference. In fact, the requirement that the federal Executive seek the permission of the state Executive to deploy that state's National Guard hasn't been well-addressed in the courts, and the terms of the Militia Act are unknown whether they apply or not. It's just been courtesy that the President asks the Governor.

So ... the larger question is whether or not the state can trump local authorities when it comes to the organization of a militias. If one looks at the historical context, as well as the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and everything leading up to the Militia Act, Constitutionally there is a strong case they do. Ironically, here, the federal Executive is supposed to protect the individual's civil rights, and to date, it's been anything but the opposite as of late.

We're relying solely on the federal Judicial these last 50+ years it seems, before the federal Executive moves to protect civil rights.

I am legitimately concerned for you.