Kyle Nutt

@sl7171 @RN4Truth @SenRandPaul Hope I didn’t imply any confusion, just genuinely curious on different perspectives. I agree Due Process is mandatory, but any level of deprivation is technically infringement that strict construction would argue is unconstitutional. Any exceptions for emergencies w/o trial 1st?

A jury trial determines whether a person is fit to participate in society after allegation of criminal wrongdoing. If he is, his rights may not be infringed. An unbiased medical evaluation determines whether someone is suffering from mental illness to the point that for his own or others' safety he must be removed from general society until treated and shown to no longer be a threat. If he is not a threat, his rights may not be infringed. In both cases, the INDIVIDUAL must be evaluated, AFTER evidence of criminal wrongdoing or mental impairment, given a chance to oppose the restrictions and show reason why they should not be restricted, with competent assistance if needed, and if the restrictions must take place how long they last and what he can/must do to rejoin general society and exercise his rights again. Which currently basically is not happening WRT RKBA because government has treated RKBA as a second-class right for nearly a hundred years now despite Constitutional bars on such behavior. In ALL cases, there must be OBJECTIVE REASONS to suppress someone's rights, both explicitly-Constitutionally-protected and IMPLICITLY-Constitutionally-protected. And THAT'S not currently the 50-state standard either, because assorted states especially and fedgov to a lesser extent have treated RKBA as a second-class right for nearly a hundred years now despite Constitutional bars on such behavior. The Founders would have been bewildered by your confusion over this. And by the enormous expansion of what crimes are felonies worthy of depriving someone of rights and consequently permitting the state to take rights away from people. They'd probably wonder why the general populace is so restrained in their reactions, also.

Where in the Constitution do you see the word 'permit?' Exactly. Pass the National Constitutional Carry Act.

@SenRandPaul @DefiantLs Because policing here suffers from zero problems?

@DefiantLs So glad we got out of there 250 years ago.

British cops warn an elderly man that telling someone to "speak English" is a hate crime.

@Patrick84338896 @SenRandPaul So is your position that it’s up to gun dealers to decide who is qualified to buy a firearm? What about someone who already has lawful possession of firearms but starts displaying mental illness and/or threatening behavior—does the government get it step in to protect the public?

@Ky_Nutt @SenRandPaul If you know they are mentally ill or violent, or you know they intend to commit crimes, then you don't sell to them. You don't get to infringe on someone's rights because you don't know. Musket, revolver, or semi-auto doesn't matter.

@sl7171 @RN4Truth @SenRandPaul So you would acknowledge that even though the Constitution is silent on any such procedure, the founders never intended the right to bear arms to be unlimited or inalienable in all circumstances—a jury trial that determines someone is mentally unfit to carry would be enough?

"He was on our radar..." I am suggesting that, like all OTHER rights protected by the Constitution, if you wish and believe you have cause to restrict someone from exercise of their rights under the Second Amendment, you get to PROVE that in front of neutral and unbiased adjudicators. For each such *INDIVIDUAL* whose rights you wish to suppress. And they must have a viable (and neutral and unbiased) means of obtaining restoration of those rights available to them. As the Founders wrote and intended. Given government's malfeasance and inability or unwillingness to comply with its own legal requirements at all levels in doing things YOUR way so far, it would seem it's time to try doing things differently.

@SenRandPaul But what about the fact that the wealthy pay a lower effective tax rate than the working class because they earn through dividends and capital gains? Shouldn’t they pay the same rate as the working class wage earners?

Tax Day is as terrible as The View. ‘Tax the Rich’ is a scam; the government just needs to stop its wasteful spending.

“The real goal should be reduced government spending, rather than balanced budgets achieved by ever rising tax rates to cover ever rising spending.” - Thomas Sowell

@SenRandPaul Rand what about making the wealthy pay the same tax rate on their dividends and capital gains as the working class pay on their wages? Wouldn’t that be fair?

@sl7171 @RN4Truth @SenRandPaul But aren’t the rights created defined by intention of the drafters? Are you suggesting the Constitution allows someone diagnosed as mentally ill, or a violent criminal, to purchase a rocket launcher? Or an operational tank with weapons systems? If not, what decides the limits?

Ah? Then I shall have to insist that ye remain SILENT here 'pon yon Electric Webbe sirrah! An thou dost wish thy opinion be heard, hie thee to thy towne square there to mount thy soap-box and bellow to the crowd gathered therein to thy heart's content! Else set quill to parchment and despatche thy missive to its intended recipient by fast horse! Couldst spend the even setting lead type and woodcuts and hand-cranking broadsheets to be distributed 'bout towne on the morrow by oxcart! Or did the Founders seek to protect RIGHTS, rather than mere TECHNOLOGIES?

@loball @SenRandPaul Correction: the Constituion actually delegates the power to make rules for the people between the federal and state governments. It literally gives the government the power to tax you, and you know what they say about the power to tax…

@Ky_Nutt @SenRandPaul The Constitution is a list of restraints on Government rule and the structure to implement that. It has nothing to do with rules for the people. A Republic is as close as we can hope to get to an anarchy. Otherwise known as freedom. So, Yes.

@SenRandPaul But also, can the rich at least pay the same tax rate on their capital gains and dividends that wage earners pay on their income? That seems fair right?

STOP -SPENDING -BORROWING -WASTING -PRINTING -SENDING -RUINING THE TAX DOLLAR.

@loball @SenRandPaul I’m looking for your logic in how the Constitution functions, and it appears you are in support of mob rule, not the rule of law the Constitution is founded upon.

@Ky_Nutt @SenRandPaul No. For the people and by the people. Stop looking for a daddy to tell you how to act

@loball @SenRandPaul So mob rule, and the oppressed have no protection from the mob under the law? Doesn’t seem consistent with the rule of law

@Ky_Nutt @SenRandPaul It's so tiring... The concept is that the power of violence is controlled by the people to prevent tyranny, not the government. It is not a law that regulates the people.

@Uneducatedhlbly @Patrick84338896 @SenRandPaul Several federal courts have agreed with you on this where the taxes were excessively high

@Patrick84338896 @Ky_Nutt @SenRandPaul Tax on weapons and ammo is also an infringement in my opinion.

@TruthsinAz @progunz_1 @SenRandPaul So any radical terrorist group should be able to buy F35’s? This has taken an unexpected turn!

@Ky_Nutt @progunz_1 @SenRandPaul Bullcrap. What they meant was for citizens to have the ability to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. We should be able to own tanks and F35s, but we have allowed the government to whittle away at our rights.

@SenRandPaul Law enforcement disagrees. A national gun registry would help our law enforcement officers investigate crimes more efficiently, track stolen weapons, and better protect the public from disqualified individuals.

Almost all the gun-related crime in the U.S. is committed with illegal guns. Creating more gun laws for law-abiding citizens does virtually nothing to solve the crime problem in the United States.

@Patrick84338896 @SenRandPaul So is it your position that the founders intended people who were mentally ill, or violent criminals, to have unrestricted access to semi-auto rifles with 30 round mags, even if they were telling people they had the urge to shoot up a school or church? It not, limits are implicit

@Ky_Nutt @SenRandPaul The 2A also ends the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Having to get a permit is an infringement. It turns a right into a privilege. At the time, people owned things like field artillery, a.k.a cannons. So yes, we could own grenades and such.

@Regular333 @SenRandPaul I would agree that there is a process for amending the Constitution, and if the process is followed, rights granted can be affected. However, certain rights are (or should be) inalienable to our country, like the freedom from arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty. Agree?

@Ky_Nutt @SenRandPaul Due process cannot be violated in such a way. It must become law if the will of the whole body of the people. Now this will never happen, but one day the entirety of the people may well say no more guns. As such our representatives must be compelled to grant such an order

@Regular333 @SenRandPaul Federalist 28 is about the balance between federal and state governments, and is actually similar to the position of the confederates in the civil war—but we know who won that argument…

@Ky_Nutt @SenRandPaul If a whole body of the people agree on something, yes, 100% absolutely, we can compel our elected representatives to make laws. More so, should elected representatives fail to invoke the will of the whole body of the people, enjoy this tidbit of information!

@Regular333 @SenRandPaul So are you saying a group of people in a community can just decide to deprive a person of the or 2A rights for any reason, without any due process of law?

@Ky_Nutt @SenRandPaul As for who enforces such matters, that too can be found in historical documentation of our founders, particularly James Madison and Benjamin Franklin. Both establish that the people are the ultimate power.

@Regular333 @SenRandPaul By the way your tweet reads like this: youtu.be/dF_UctHOqHM?si…

@Ky_Nutt @SenRandPaul Therefore in the context of historical knowledge of our founders and the meanings derived from ratifications, letters, writings etc, often referred to by entities such as the Supreme Court, it is easy to see that the people control regulation of the militia.