Joe Biden made a very dangerous and foolish statement about Constitutional Amendments

When I saw articles such as this my blood began to boil Biden on the Second Amendment: ‘No amendment is absolute’.  The level of constitutional ignorance demonstrated by Joe Biden when he made this statement is quite staggering.  The fact that he is currently inhabiting the Oval Office and intends to govern by executive order made this statement exceedingly dangerous.

No amendment, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute,” he said. “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater — recall a freedom of speech. From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.”

That statement is made up of several complete mistruths and a couple of half truths about the Second Amendment in particular and constitutional amendments in general.  A careful examination of the transcripts from the drafting of the Bill of  Rights in House of Representatives will prove just how wrong he is.. 

This  quote from June 8 of 1789 explains the general purpose of the Bill of Rights.  As you can see the Bill of Rights was specifically drafted to protect the most important rights of the people by denying the federal government the power and authority to regulate them in any way at all.  That prohibition on the federal government was in fact absolute.

But whatever may be the form which the several States have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. 

This quote from the drafting of the Bill of Rights in the Congress of the United States which was begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, 1789 explains that several states demand that the Bill of Rights be added to the US Constitution to protect our most important rights by chaining the hands of the federal government

The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;–

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the legislatures of the several states, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said legislatures, to be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, namely,–

Articles in Addition to, and Amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution.

This quote from the House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution August 17, 1789 by Elbridge Gerry informs us that the Second Amendment was added specifically so the people could deal with the federal government if it became abusive to the rights of the people of the United States.   A standing Army was believed by the drafters of the Constitution to be very much a threat to the liberty of the people.  Defense of the United States and the individual states was to be maintained by unorganized state militias made up of the people of the states. That can only be achieved if we the people have military weapons.  When the Bill of Rights was written and ratified all weapons held by the people were military weapons.

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”

Mr. Gerry.–This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.

It has been maintained by many revisionist historians, college professors, and liberal politicians that the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment was a formal military unit, the same as the modern National Guard.  George Mason put the kibosh to that mistruth during the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1787

I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.

Richard Henry Lee echoes this in Federal Farmer 18. The National Guard would be considered by Mr. Lee and the rest of the founding fathers to be a select militia rather than one made up of all of the people.

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. As a farther check, it may be proper to add, that the militia of any state shall not remain in the service of the union, beyond a given period, without the express consent of the state legislature,

The creation of the modern National Guard did not begin until the passing of the Militia Act of 1903.  At that time the National Gard was created as a select militia.  That is completely different from the unorganized militia that existed here well before the formal beginning of the United States.  The modern National Guard is the exact type of select militia that was warned against by Richard Henry Lee and the rest of the founding fathers.

No article or Amendment of the US Constitution prevents the states from regulating or interfering with our rights. Every state does however have a Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the people living in the state,  I believe every state’s Bill of Rights protects the right to bear arms.  Here are the two articles of the Massachusetts Constitution that protect the right to bear arms of the inhabitants of this state.

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Article XVII.  The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

If no amendment to the Constitution is absolutely then the clause protecting us from double jeopardy can be taken away from us at the whim of the federal government along with trial by jury, and due process.  Slavery could be reinstated if the Thirteenth Amendment is not absolute.  That is extremely scary.

The Virginia gun control proposals will result in violence

Almost immediately upon gaining control of both houses of congress and the governorship of Virginia the Democrats announced rather extreme gun control proposals. The proposals are so extreme that a firestorm of dissent erupted from the people, sheriffs, and county officials.  There was so much dissent one representative threatened to sick the National Guard on sheriffs and county officials who refused to comply.  If the proposals are carried out I can see the whole mess resulting in violence.  I’m not the only who came to that conclusion, check out this Washington Times article Virginia Dem mulls National Guard to enforce upcoming gun laws, an idea likely to end in violence

Democrats in Virginia have already pre-filed bills to mandate universal background checks; to limit handgun purchases; to raise age limits on would-be firers; to redefine the term assault weapon and impose bans on buys of certain guns and magazines. And more.

And dozens upon dozens of county officials around the state have rushed to pass resolutions declaring their jurisdictions sanctuaries from the state’s gun control storm and announcing that their police chiefs have no intent of enforcing the Dems’ laws.

Democrat Representative McFachin kicked up the tension on the whole situation into high gear with this proposal.

“I’m not the governor,” said Rep. Donald McEachin, Virginia Democrat, according to a report in The Washington Examiner, “but the governor may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the [new gun control] law[s].”

If called by the governor to perform this odious duty the Virginia National Guard would be required to carry it out by law, however, the Virginia Bill of Rights protects the Right to Bear Arms for all citizens,

Granted, this act, signed in 1878 to prohibit federal troops from being used to enforce domestic laws, carves out exceptions for National Guard members operating under the authority of the states. But the spirit of the restrictions should still apply.

With his proposal,  McFachin proved that gun confiscation has always been the end result of Democrat’s plans.

But with one quick quip, McEachin took a situation that’s already boiling with tension and fear — namely, the realities of the new blue Virginia and the realization of Democratic-promised gun controls — and made it worse. He went there; he tapped the darkest worries of the gun rights’ crowd — the deep-seated belief that Democrats’ end game is to obliterate the Second Amendment and destroy citizens’ rights to own firearms. And in so doing, he actually let it slip that yes, Democrats will stop at nothing, even violence, to take the guns.

One Sheriff came up with a novel proposal, Virginia Sheriff Vows to ‘Deputize Thousands’ to Defend Gun Rights.

Every Sheriff and Commonwealth Attorney in Virginia will see the consequences if our General Assembly passes further unnecessary gun restrictions. “Red Flag” laws without due process will create enormous conflict as well.

America has more guns than citizens and murder has long been illegal. At best, the proposed gun restrictions will disarm or handicap our law-abiding in their defense and possibly cause a criminal to choose another tool for evil.

I remain very optimistic that our General Assembly will not pass the proposed bills. Obviously, if passed, there are many of us willing to challenge these laws through the courts. In addition, if necessary, I plan to properly screen and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms.

The resistance has spread across the state: Report: Over 90 Virginia Counties, Municipalities Declared 2A Sanctuaries.  This shows how seriously the people of this nation take their Right to Bear Arms.

A report from WDBJ7 shows that more than 90 Second Amendment sanctuary declarations have been made by counties and municipalities in Virginia.

WDBJ7 reports that Rockingham County was one of the most recent sanctuary declarations. Breitbart News reported that over 3,000 residents attended the Rockingham Board of Supervisors meeting to demand Second Amendment sanctuary status.

Hopefully the Virginia Democrats will take not of the heated opposition and back down.

Northam Can Order the VA Guard Around

Or he can try to

by baldilocks

On Virginia, the National Guard, gun-grabbing, and Democrats wish-casting for civil war:

With dozens of Virginia counties declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, some Democratic lawmakers have said the governor should use the National Guard to enforce future gun control legislation — but can he?

Virginia Democrats, who control the legislature and governorship, have proposed several measures, including an “assault weapons” ban, universal background checks, and a red flag law. In response, 75 counties vowed they will not enforce future gun control legislation. Virginia Democratic Rep. Donald McEachin told the Washington Examiner on Thursday that Gov. Ralph Northam “may have to nationalize [sic] the National Guard to enforce the law” if local authorities refuse to do so themselves.

The president, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, is the only person who can nationalize [sic] the Guard, but state governors have the latitude to use it to enforce state law, legal experts said.

“Until nationalized [sic],  it’s a creature of the state. So that’s what leads me to believe that, yes, the governor can activate the National Guard to enforce even a state law,” Gary Solis, a military law professor at Georgetown University, told the Washington Examiner.

Note to Rep. McEachin and to Russ Read, the author of this article: ‘nationalize’ doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Allow me to expand on who commands the National Guard.

The governor of each state is the Commander-in-Chief of his/her state’s National Guard. When a governor wants his state’s national guard to go somewhere within the state and do a thing, he is giving orders to mobilize, not nationalize. And when a president calls a guard unit to active duty, he is activating that unit, not nationalizing it.

(All this talk about “nationalization” makes me think we have a bunch of socialists in government, media, and academia. Nah, that can’t be true … )

People may remember that Guard units have served in many of our overseas conflicts. When they do so, they are on active duty and the POTUS is their CinC. Here’s how that happens.

When a POTUS wants to activate a Guard unit, he requests to do so in writing to the governor. Almost always, the governor says “yes” and the POTUS then becomes the CinC of the Guard unit(s) for the duration of said Guard unit’s active duty period. That’s why it seems to be automatic.

However, I could see Northam saying “no” under these conditions. That’s federalism.

All that said, it’s so cute how members of the Democrat-dominated VA legislature publicly ponder pitting the military against the state’s LEOs and its gun owners — as if they thought that no one was paying attention and they could just blurt out their fantasies in friendly company.

Simply, it’s beyond ridiculous to think that even a small portion of the VA Guard units would carry out orders to make war against their neighbors, especially considering that many of the LEOs who are defying the tyrants in the VA government are probably guardsmen/guardswomen (and reservists) themselves.

We’re watching you and rooting for you, people of Virginia. Don’t lose heart.

UPDATE: Readers are telling me that the Guard chain of command is more complicated than I’ve laid out. I’m looking it over.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

Busting some myths about mass shootings

Every single time there is a mass shooting gun grabbers immediately flood news programs and social media with a great many myths, mistruths, and outright lies about guns and mass shootings. For this article I assembled a collection of quotes that bust the most outrageous myths I’ve encountered the past couple of weeks. I’ve included a link to the original article for each quote. I highly recommend that everyone check out the original articles because they contain a veritable wealth of information. Unfortunately links are not working at the moment on this website so you’ll have to copy and paste the links into your browser..

The first quotes I’ve included tackles the myth that mass shootings are becoming more frequent

https://fee.org/articles/mass-shootings-arent-becoming-more-common-and-evidence-contradicts-stereotypes-about-the-shooters/?fbclid=IwAR288VJRBph4_99ZazaB3lYJjvrD1b1Cj_drJaS7v1gNUP9Y5O3U3XKRBc0

“Mass homicides get a lot of news coverage which keeps our focus on the frequency of their occurrence. Just how frequent is sometimes muddled by shifting definitions of mass homicide, and confusion with other terms such as active shooter.”

“But using standard definitions, most data suggest that the prevalence of mass shootings has stayed fairly consistent over the past few decades.”

The next quote from the same article disproves the recent claims that mass shootings are a white male problem. The original article contains a really great chart.

“Overall, though, the ethnic composition of the group of all mass shooters in the U.S. is roughly equivalent to the American population.”

This next quote from the same article proves something that I’ve known all along but may be a surprise to many.

“Long-term studies of youth consistently find that violent games are not a risk factor for youth violence anywhere from one to eight years later. And no less than the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2011 that scientific studies had failed to link violent games to serious aggression in kids.”

The next quotes are a series of facts from an article that appeared on the website www.federalistpapers.org.

“Fact: There were 387 deaths from mass shootings in the United States in 2018 (defined as four or more shot—not necessarily killed—at one time). Of those, most were regular criminals as we expect to see in gang-related drive-bys, bar fights, and a strangely large number of shootings at parties (like this one). About 100 deaths were the result of the random, psycho-killer shootings that dominated news coverage for days and weeks at a time. Mercifully, those are quite rare. But that’s not the impression we are given by the news coverage.”

“Fact: There are more privately owned guns in the United States than ever before and the number of murders has been declining for decades and has been at or near a multigenerational low for several years. More guns, less crime.”

“Fact: There are between 1.2 million and 1.5 million defensive uses of guns per year in the United States. How many more murders, rapes, thefts, and assaults would there be without armed citizens?”

The next quotes disprove the myth that mass shootings are a curse that only the United States suffers from.

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/more-lies-mass-shootings-america-after-tragedies?fbclid=IwAR1-tiQG4QYPiZUq1gjH0J13paGOQpCmSAnalBNnGH99VCeFZjNF2inaUoI

“After the tragic events of El Paso, TX, and Dayton, OH many took to social media and the airwaves to perpetuate the myth that the U.S. leads the world in mass shootings.”

“When factoring in gun deaths per capita, homicide rates, and gun ownership rates compared to gun homicide rates – the U.S. is much safer than a plethora of other developed countries, according to a study by the Crime Prevention Research Center.”

The final quote proves that President Trump is not responsible tor the El Paso mass shooting, or any other mass shooting.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/the_mass_shooting_miasma.html?fbclid=IwAR0YSYqEmvusW7y1Bysu3jOM9YA8Twp4nw18okHXDhKB0jNnllRJ1SiejV4#.XUnNQ6t-GaA.facebook

“President Trump is no more responsible for mass shootings during his tenure in the White House than Barack Obama was for the shooting at the church in Charleston, nor the Sandy Hook school massacre. On the precipice of a presidential election, it’s convenient for Democrats and their media lapdogs to blame Trump.”

Red Flag Laws are a stealth attack on the Second Amendment

Whenever there is a man caused tragedy a large segment of the population immediately demand that the government does something, most often the something involves taking rights away from individuals that had nothing with the tragedy. That is most often true when the tragedy is a mass shooting. Red Flag Laws are currently the most popular solution proposed by politicians on the political left, the liberal news media, Hollywood, and even President Trump and Senate Republicans including Mitch McConnell

Red Flag Laws are a very bad idea because they violate several constitutional provisions, most especially the Second Amendment. Here is a description of Red Flag Laws and a discussion why they are such a bad idea from this Breitbart article;

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2019/08/08/rick-manning-red-flag-laws-raise-a-gigantic-red-flag/

“Red flag laws are designed to confiscate a person’s legally held property under the presumption that they may misuse that property in the future. And given that the accusation itself is that the accused has the possibility of doing violence to themselves or others, even the most well-intentioned prosecutor and law enforcement agents will err on the side of denying the rights of the accused due to the fear that the accusation may prove correct – and failure to aggressively enforce the law will be devastating to their personal careers regardless of the credibility of the complaint. The accused is then required to prove that the accusation is wrong with those sitting in judgment facing enormous political pressure to leave confiscation orders in place, destroying the presumption of innocence. What’s more, in today’s Internet age, the accused forever will be tainted by the accusation regardless of outcome.”

The article “7 Reasons to Oppose Red Flag Gun Laws “ contains a wealth of information.

https://fee.org/articles/7-reasons-to-oppose-red-flag-guns-laws/?fbclid=IwAR0jOCBCBKRcVzBITb134CHJPy3GVp4W13aYItQngYqQVt13ikNLTvRZrz0

“These laws, also called “extreme risk protection orders,” allow courts to issue orders allowing law enforcement to seize firearms from people who’ve committed no crime but are believed to be a danger to themselves or others.”

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from seizing the property of any individual unless they are charged with a specific crime and found guilty by a jury in a court of law. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment places the same restrictions on state and local governments.

”Regulating firearms is not among the powers listed in the Constitution (though this has not always stopped lawmakers from regulating them). In fact, the document expressly forbids the federal government from doing so, stating in the Second Amendment that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” “

This is true because the Second Amendment specifically prevents the federal government from interfering with the right to bear arms of any individual therefore Red Flag Laws are unconstitutional on the federal level. All but one or two states have clauses in their Bill of Rights that prevent that state from infringing on the right to bear arms of its citizens.

The Right to bear arms is one of our most important God-given natural rights, one that a great many individuals will defend passionately, especially if it is violated unjustly. Red Flag Laws will lead a large number of violent and deadly clashes with individuals who believe their right to bear arms is being trampled on. This has already happened once.

“In 2018, two Maryland police officers shot and killed 61-year-old Gary Willis in his own house after waking him at 5:17 a.m. The officers, who were not harmed during the shooting, had been ordered to remove guns from his home under the state’s red flag law, which had gone into effect one month prior to the shooting.”

Red Flag Laws are so bad they belong only in dystopian science fiction such as the movie Minority Report. Way too many of the people implementing and enforcing these laws now, and in the future, believe that only police and those in the government should have guns, and those on the political right are the enemy whose statements and positions on issues constitute hate speech.

https://fee.org/articles/red-flag-gun-laws-are-a-page-out-of-dystopian-science-fiction-novels/

“There is an understandable desire among Americans to feel safer and more secure following highly publicized mass shootings. Yet the idea that the government can prevent crimes before they happen whiffs of utopianism and could threaten individual liberty”.

President Trump has expressed support for Red Flag Laws. He is very much in error and should quickly reexamine his position on this issue.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/05/president-trump-calls-for-red-flag-laws-following-texas-ohio-shootings/

“Trump said, “I am directing the Department of Justice to work in partnership with local, state, and federal agencies–as well as social media companies–to develop tools that can detect mass shooters before they strike.” He then referenced the February 14, 2018, Parkland shooter, noting he had sent up many red flags with his behavior prior to the shooting, but no one took action to stop him.”

“Trump voiced support for “Red Flag laws, also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders.” He explained, “We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process.” “

Representative Crenshaw of Texas has a proposal for Red Flag Laws that might not violate the Constitution if they are implemented on the state level. Actual threats of violence and statements that an individual is planning to kill others are specific crimes. If those statements are reported to the proper authorities and the person is tried and convicted then due process is not violated

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/11/rep-dan-crenshaw-explains-his-support-red-flag-laws/

“Crenshaw said, “Clearly, when we said ‘Red Flag Laws’ you guys stop listening, you can’t hear what we are suggesting, because understandably you automatically assume that we are just agreeing with the left’s version of that law. And we all know the left’s version would not be good, it would not protect due process.” “

“Crenshaw continued, “At its heart what we are talking about is the ability to confiscate weapons where there is evidence that violence is about to be committed. It’s that simple, and this isn’t that controversial.” “

“He went on to explain that everything turns on due process and how due process would be protected under the type of Red Flag Laws Crenshaw supports. He suggested the difference between what he supports and the left’s “blatantly unconstitutional laws” all boils down to how due process is protected.

Government solutions to mass shootings will not solve the problem

History has proved that government solutions never solve problems, and most often make the problems worse. This is most definitely true when it comes to mass shootings. Banning guns is the remedy most often proposed for ending gun violence. Banning guns only produces a more plentiful supply of unarmed victims.

Gun free zones were instituted on the local, state, and federal level to prevent mass shootings. The title of this Breitbart article “Study: 97.8% of Mass Shootings Since 1950 Occurred in ‘Gun-Free Zones’” proves the utter insanity of these zones.

“According to CPRC, 97.8 percent of mass public shootings from 1950 to May 2018 occurred in gun-free zones. These include the Virginia Tech University attack, which killed 32 (April 16, 2007); the Fort Hood attack, which killed 13 (November 5, 2009); the Aurora movie theater attack, which killed 12 (July 20, 2012); the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack, which killed 26 (December 12, 2014); the D.C. Navy Yard attack, which killed 13 (September 16, 2013); the Chattanooga military base attack, which killed 5 (July 16, 2015); the Umpqua Community College attack, which killed 9 (October 1, 2015); the San Bernardino attack, which killed 14 (December 2, 2015); the Orlando Pulse attack, which killed 49 (June 12, 2016); the Parkland high school attack, which killed 17 (February 14, 2018); and the Santa Fe High School attack, which killed 10 (May 18, 2018).”

The El Paso and the Dayton Ohio mass shootings took place in gun free zones. In his manifesto the El Paso shooter states he specifically chose a gun free zone and urged others to do the same.

We must educate others that gun free zones do not live up to the good intentions of those that advocated for them, that they produce disastrous results that are the opposite of the intended results. Repealing all of these deeply flawed government solutions will greatly lesson the number and severity of mass shootings. I know this is extremely unlikely given the overwhelming opposition from the democrats, liberal news, and Hollywood. I for one enjoy a good fight against overwhelming odds.

Far too few individuals are armed in public. When a mass shooting begins to happen the shooter rarely faces any armed opposition. The liberals have not only won the government battle with all of the gun control measures on the books across this country, they have also won the education and culture battles, convincing too may that guns are responsible for the killings rather than just a tool that can be used for both good and bad.. So few of us still understand the tremendously positive benefits of individuals being armed in public, not to mention having a well armed population. Few still understand the original meaning and rationale behind the Second Amendment, something we need to change. Winning the hearts and minds about guns will result in the repeal of misguided infringements of one of our most important God-given natural rights. I know it’s another tall order but it is one worth fighting for.

Thanks to the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, which appears nowhere in the Constitution, religion and morality have been all but banished from the public square. This is one of the biggest drivers of the mass shooting crisis and this needs to be fixed to solve the crisis. The first instance of the Supreme Court using this unconstitutional doctrine was Everson v. Board of Education in 1947. That decision openned the flood gates of the banning of things religious. Is it a coincidence that as the banning of religion and morality in the public square become more prevalent mass shootings became more prevalent?

There are almost always warning signs leading up to mass shootings, yet these signs rarely ever get reported to the proper authorities, if they had then these tragedies could have been averted. I don’t believe red flag laws are the answer. They would be too easy for liberals to twist into a mechanism for disarming people who do not pose a threat. Individuals reporting other individuals who show warning signs to the proper authorities who would investigate is the answer.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/20/study-97-8-percent-mass-shootings-since-1950-gun-free-zones/