Leftists owe the rest of us an explanation for the Florida shooting

[bendog]

You wanna do better on mental health? "Better" is, by definition, going to require DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Otherwise, it is not only not "better", it isn't even good.

Exactly. I'd be totally willing to specifically develop court processes and standards for people who are accused by government bureaucrats of being too insane to have a gun. However, eliminate due process as Lewdog keeps demanding? No way.

My other question is if someone can be proven to be a danger to themselves and/or others and their right to buy a gun removed, why are they on the street at all? Prove it in court and lock them up for all our safety.

It's just so massively ignorant of the left as well to keep arguing that we can make people safe from someone while leaving them free on the streets who wants to commit mass murder.

Virginia Tech was done with handguns.

Timothy McVeigh didn't use guns at all.

They're just as dumb as the day is long

Right. I have less problem with the idea of committing people who are a danger to themselves and others to mental institutions than leftists do (give that they're the reason those people were released to live on the streets), but I am 100% against achieving that commitment by simply going out and rounding up everyone who looks weird to me. All that would accomplish is to virtually depopulate the local college campus.

Obviously you aren't paying attention. The law that the CONSERVATIVE Congress and Trump passed referred to people who have been PROVEN to have a mental illness and get a disability check for it... not just any person that looks weird on the street. Maybe if you cared more about reading the important information instead of arguing about idioms, you'd have noticed that.

Getting a disability check isn't due process.

DUE PROCESS IS A JUDICIAL PROCESS

How do you not understand that? And you have a criminal justice degree? I actually believe you, which is even more stunning to me.

So answer the question I've asked you over and over. Should a member of the executive branch on his/her own have the right to restrict your Constitutional rights? Answer the question

Of course they do. What's the question? Constitutional rights are limited all the time. I think the confusion may be people are mixing and matching due process with equal protection. Due process requires notice and an opportunity to challenge any decision to make sure it's not arbitray and it's related to a public policy and it's necessary to address the public policy, and there's not a more limited way to do that. You have a right soc sec if you're eligible, and a right to own a gun. There's not a hell of lot of difference in what due process one gets, although nominally a limitation on a individual constitutional right gets more scrutiny than eligibility for a gummit program.

Equal protection just means every one fitting the same definition gets treated equally.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Name one person who has had their right to buy a gun removed with their due process of law rights intact who's being allowed to buy a gun.

If it's "fucking retarded" to believe in Constitutional rights, then I'm guilty and you're a despot

I just explained it as clear as possible to you and you STILL don't get it.

So do you think Felons and people who are guilty of domestic violence should be able to buy guns too?

Not once have you addressed my point on due process even though I say that back to you every time.

I've said if you provide people due process, you can remove their right to buy a gun.

Stop dancing away from that and address it. What exactly do you disagree with on that?

There is no DUE PROCESS with what I posted. The people were PROVEN to have a debilitating mental illness that they get a government check for disability.

I guarantee your position would change quite quickly if someone with mental illness shot up a building with your loved ones or friends in it, or someone you love with a mental illness committed suicide with a gun.

OK, what the hell. Since you have no idea what due process is and you're not willing to learn, I'll give you the primer.

Due process means that with your rights recognized (trial by jury, no warrantless searches, ...), you are convicted in a court of law.

Passing laws is not "due process." someone in the medical community saying you're nuts is not "due process." A bureaucrat saying you're nuts is not due process.

My God, you're an American and you don't even understand the bill of rights?

Now that you know, what is your objection to our view that removing people's rights is fine as long as you grant them "due process" as the fifth amendment demands?

And to answer your question. No, removing due process is not worth the cost of removing it.

So you're here asking why we bothered with that whole Bill of Rights thing? Seriously?

I know what the fuck Due Process is. For fuck's sake my BS is in Criminal Justice.

Having conditions placed on the ability to buy and own guns does NOT violate due process.

You clearly DON'T know what due process is, and you should sue any college that gave you a degree in anything other than drooling and screeching hysterically (women's studies, in other words).

Revoking the right to buy and own guns without proving in court that the citizen in question qualifies to have them revoked violates due process. It violated it the last sixteen times you repeated this bullshit, it violates it this time, and it's going to violate it every damned time you try to say it after this.

 

[kaz]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

You want HS kids carrying?

I never said that, you jack shit fucking piece of garbage. Where do you people get this inane crap?

I said TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS who have CONCEALLED CARRY PERMITS should be allowed to have guns.

Show where that means "HS kids," fucking retard. Why do you need to lie and make up shit if you're right?

 

[Lewdog]

Not once have you addressed my point on due process even though I say that back to you every time.

I've said if you provide people due process, you can remove their right to buy a gun.

Stop dancing away from that and address it. What exactly do you disagree with on that?

There is no DUE PROCESS with what I posted. The people were PROVEN to have a debilitating mental illness that they get a government check for disability.

I guarantee your position would change quite quickly if someone with mental illness shot up a building with your loved ones or friends in it, or someone you love with a mental illness committed suicide with a gun.

OK, what the hell. Since you have no idea what due process is and you're not willing to learn, I'll give you the primer.

Due process means that with your rights recognized (trial by jury, no warrantless searches, ...), you are convicted in a court of law.

Passing laws is not "due process." someone in the medical community saying you're nuts is not "due process." A bureaucrat saying you're nuts is not due process.

My God, you're an American and you don't even understand the bill of rights?

Now that you know, what is your objection to our view that removing people's rights is fine as long as you grant them "due process" as the fifth amendment demands?

And to answer your question. No, removing due process is not worth the cost of removing it.

So you're here asking why we bothered with that whole Bill of Rights thing? Seriously?

I know what the fuck Due Process is. For fuck's sake my BS is in Criminal Justice.

Having conditions placed on the ability to buy and own guns does NOT violate due process.

You said that laws do not violate due process. How can you possibly have a BS in criminal justice and think that's a coherent statement? Due process is by definition a JUDICIAL process.

And why do you keep asking if felons Constitutional rights can be restricted when we keep saying YES! That is our point.

And geez man, why would you ask what the difference between a "felon" and a "convicted felon" is.

Did you go to Rolling Rock University?

Jus sayin
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/slippery-rock-university-3327

He said Rolling Rock, as in the beer.

 

[kaz]

Name one person who has had their right to buy a gun removed with their due process of law rights intact who's being allowed to buy a gun.

If it's "fucking retarded" to believe in Constitutional rights, then I'm guilty and you're a despot

I just explained it as clear as possible to you and you STILL don't get it.

So do you think Felons and people who are guilty of domestic violence should be able to buy guns too?

Do you think people should be declared felons and guilty of domestic violence without due process of law?

Taking away the ability to buy and own guns isn't the same thing as someone being tried and convicted of a crime...

Actually, you've been mixing that and talking about both in your points. Either way, you are entitled to due process of law.

Here's a question you ignored at least a dozen crimes.

Is the opinion of a government bureaucrat sufficient in your mind of removing your Constitutional rights? That is what you are arguing. We are arguing it's not. Take it to court and prove it

Due process has nothing to do with having laws that define who can own a gun.

You have NEVER answer my questions. If you think laws that take away the rights of certain groups of people to buy and own guns, then do you think felons and those convicted of domestic assault should be able to own guns?

I'm also waiting for you to post where in the Constitution it says felons can't own guns.

Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative process

My Gawd, and you have a criminal justice degree

 

[Cecilie1200]

You wanna do better on mental health? "Better" is, by definition, going to require DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Otherwise, it is not only not "better", it isn't even good.

Exactly. I'd be totally willing to specifically develop court processes and standards for people who are accused by government bureaucrats of being too insane to have a gun. However, eliminate due process as Lewdog keeps demanding? No way.

My other question is if someone can be proven to be a danger to themselves and/or others and their right to buy a gun removed, why are they on the street at all? Prove it in court and lock them up for all our safety.

It's just so massively ignorant of the left as well to keep arguing that we can make people safe from someone while leaving them free on the streets who wants to commit mass murder.

Virginia Tech was done with handguns.

Timothy McVeigh didn't use guns at all.

They're just as dumb as the day is long

Right. I have less problem with the idea of committing people who are a danger to themselves and others to mental institutions than leftists do (give that they're the reason those people were released to live on the streets), but I am 100% against achieving that commitment by simply going out and rounding up everyone who looks weird to me. All that would accomplish is to virtually depopulate the local college campus.

Obviously you aren't paying attention. The law that the CONSERVATIVE Congress and Trump passed referred to people who have been PROVEN to have a mental illness and get a disability check for it... not just any person that looks weird on the street. Maybe if you cared more about reading the important information instead of arguing about idioms, you'd have noticed that.

There still continues to be a major difference between proving qualification for Social Security benefits, and proving valid revocation of Constitutional rights.

Maybe if you cared more about the concept of having and respecting rights instead of trying to defend your substandard use of the English language, you'd have noticed that.

 

[Lewdog]

I just explained it as clear as possible to you and you STILL don't get it.

So do you think Felons and people who are guilty of domestic violence should be able to buy guns too?

Not once have you addressed my point on due process even though I say that back to you every time.

I've said if you provide people due process, you can remove their right to buy a gun.

Stop dancing away from that and address it. What exactly do you disagree with on that?

There is no DUE PROCESS with what I posted. The people were PROVEN to have a debilitating mental illness that they get a government check for disability.

I guarantee your position would change quite quickly if someone with mental illness shot up a building with your loved ones or friends in it, or someone you love with a mental illness committed suicide with a gun.

OK, what the hell. Since you have no idea what due process is and you're not willing to learn, I'll give you the primer.

Due process means that with your rights recognized (trial by jury, no warrantless searches, ...), you are convicted in a court of law.

Passing laws is not "due process." someone in the medical community saying you're nuts is not "due process." A bureaucrat saying you're nuts is not due process.

My God, you're an American and you don't even understand the bill of rights?

Now that you know, what is your objection to our view that removing people's rights is fine as long as you grant them "due process" as the fifth amendment demands?

And to answer your question. No, removing due process is not worth the cost of removing it.

So you're here asking why we bothered with that whole Bill of Rights thing? Seriously?

I know what the fuck Due Process is. For fuck's sake my BS is in Criminal Justice.

Having conditions placed on the ability to buy and own guns does NOT violate due process.

You clearly DON'T know what due process is, and you should sue any college that gave you a degree in anything other than drooling and screeching hysterically (women's studies, in other words).

Revoking the right to buy and own guns without proving in court that the citizen in question qualifies to have them revoked violates due process. It violated it the last sixteen times you repeated this bullshit, it violates it this time, and it's going to violate it every damned time you try to say it after this.

This coming from a person who's first post in the argument was to critique the use of an idiom.

I laugh when I see people on this forum accusing me of being a lefty fascist. In my Grad classes the other students and professors view me as being ultra Conservative. Posters like you and Kaz have absolutely no clue what a real lefty fascist is.

 

[kaz]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

You want HS kids carrying? They shouldn't be. That's sort of one of the points. An 18 year old shouldn't be able to buy beer let alone an AR-15

...and oddly someone needs to be 21 to buy a handgun, but can buy an assault rifle at 18.

That's a stupid law. I see why you want more of them

 

[Lewdog]

You wanna do better on mental health? "Better" is, by definition, going to require DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Otherwise, it is not only not "better", it isn't even good.

Exactly. I'd be totally willing to specifically develop court processes and standards for people who are accused by government bureaucrats of being too insane to have a gun. However, eliminate due process as Lewdog keeps demanding? No way.

My other question is if someone can be proven to be a danger to themselves and/or others and their right to buy a gun removed, why are they on the street at all? Prove it in court and lock them up for all our safety.

It's just so massively ignorant of the left as well to keep arguing that we can make people safe from someone while leaving them free on the streets who wants to commit mass murder.

Virginia Tech was done with handguns.

Timothy McVeigh didn't use guns at all.

They're just as dumb as the day is long

Right. I have less problem with the idea of committing people who are a danger to themselves and others to mental institutions than leftists do (give that they're the reason those people were released to live on the streets), but I am 100% against achieving that commitment by simply going out and rounding up everyone who looks weird to me. All that would accomplish is to virtually depopulate the local college campus.

Obviously you aren't paying attention. The law that the CONSERVATIVE Congress and Trump passed referred to people who have been PROVEN to have a mental illness and get a disability check for it... not just any person that looks weird on the street. Maybe if you cared more about reading the important information instead of arguing about idioms, you'd have noticed that.

There still continues to be a major difference between proving qualification for Social Security benefits, and proving valid revocation of Constitutional rights.

Maybe if you cared more about the concept of having and respecting rights instead of trying to defend your substandard use of the English language, you'd have noticed that.

Sorry but I care more about the rights of students to be alive and feel comfortable in their school getting an education, than some mentally ill person to own a gun.

/argument

 

[Lewdog]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

You want HS kids carrying? They shouldn't be. That's sort of one of the points. An 18 year old shouldn't be able to buy beer let alone an AR-15

...and oddly someone needs to be 21 to buy a handgun, but can buy an assault rifle at 18.

That's a stupid law. I see why you want more of them

I'm sorry do you need a reminder to post where in the Constitution where it says a felon can not vote or buy and own a gun?

 

[Lewdog]

I just explained it as clear as possible to you and you STILL don't get it.

So do you think Felons and people who are guilty of domestic violence should be able to buy guns too?

Do you think people should be declared felons and guilty of domestic violence without due process of law?

Taking away the ability to buy and own guns isn't the same thing as someone being tried and convicted of a crime...

Actually, you've been mixing that and talking about both in your points. Either way, you are entitled to due process of law.

Here's a question you ignored at least a dozen crimes.

Is the opinion of a government bureaucrat sufficient in your mind of removing your Constitutional rights? That is what you are arguing. We are arguing it's not. Take it to court and prove it

Due process has nothing to do with having laws that define who can own a gun.

You have NEVER answer my questions. If you think laws that take away the rights of certain groups of people to buy and own guns, then do you think felons and those convicted of domestic assault should be able to own guns?

I'm also waiting for you to post where in the Constitution it says felons can't own guns.

Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative process

My Gawd, and you have a criminal justice degree

I'm sorry do you need a reminder to post where in the Constitution where it says a felon can not vote or buy and own a gun?

 

[kaz]

It's the way leftists argue.

No one has denied government the ability to remove the right to restrict gun purchases to mentally ill people through due process.

When we demand that people accused of mental illness get due process, Lewdog hears we are "giving the mentally ill the right to buy arms." He actually hears that, it's remarkable.

He only believes the Constitution is valid when it says what he wants. In times like this, it's toilet paper. Due process, shoe flosses, that's Lewdog's motto.

Then he wants to know why only leftists believe in the Constitution ...

Good lord you are so fucking retarded. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The CONSERVATIVES voted to allow people with mental illness to buy guns DESPITE the fact that A. Most deaths with guns come by suicide and B. These mass shootings are almost ALWAYS by people with mental illness.

The first major piece of legislation passed by Trump and this current CONSERVATIVE Congress was to allow the mentally ill to buy guns.

The Parkland school shooting happens almost an exact day to the year of the CONSERVATIVE Congress and Trump passing the bill, and the sponsor of the bill Chuck Grassley says:

""It seems to be common for a lot of these shootings, in fact almost all of the shootings, is the mental state of the people," said Senator Grassley. "And we have not done a very good job of making sure that people that have mental reasons for not being able to handle a gun getting their name into the FBI files and we need to concentrate on that."

Senator Grassley calls on gov't to do better on mental health & guns

Chuck Grassley authored a bill that allowed people who are PROVEN to have mental illness and get a government disability check for it, to buy guns! Due Process has fucking NOTHING to do with the bill they passed. These people are PROVEN to have a debilitating mental illness, and despite the fact that guns are most often used in suicides and mass shootings by people with mental illness, the CONSERVATIVE Congress and Trump approved that law.

Senate Republicans vote to expand gun access for mentally impaired

1) The phrase is correctly "eat your cake and have it". It makes no sense the way you said it.

2) Conservatives have never "voted to allow people with mental illness to have guns", and you can quit right now with trying to push this bullshit meme right now. Conservatives acknowledged the simple fact that EVERY citizen of this country has a Fifth Amendment right to due process, and no amount of leftist hysteria invalidates that. Far from us being ashamed of requiring protection of Constitutional rights, YOU should feel ashamed of your rabid eagerness to strip away rights (from everyone but you) to build your dream of a leftist utopia.

3) You wanna do better on mental health? "Better" is, by definition, going to require DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Otherwise, it is not only not "better", it isn't even good.

What? lmao The way I said is a widely known idiom. I don't give a rat's ass if that isn't the way YOU say it.

have your cake and eat it (too) Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

If you and the idiot Kaz think that any law added after the Constitution was written ignores Due Process, you are VERY misguided. Does it say in the Constitution that felons can't own guns? Does it say in the Constitution that people found guilty of domestic violence shouldn't own guns? Do you want those people having the right to purchase guns?

People widely say a lot of things incorrectly. Doesn't make it any less meaningless.

You can have your cake and eat it; what you cannot do is eat your cake and have it . . . which is the whole point of the phrase: you can't have something both ways. The difference between actually thinking and letting every other mental doorknob around you think for you: investigate it.

Meanwhile, neither Kaz nor I said that "any law added after the Constitution . . . ignores due process", but thank you so much for offering the suggestion of this utterly ridiculous assertion as a topic of conversation. Sadly, we will have to decline, and insist on you actually arguing against THINGS WE'VE ACTUALLY SAID. You drooling mouthbreather.

Felons are deprived of their right to own guns through due process, otherwise known as "the legal trial in which they were convicted of a felony". They are not deprived of their right to own guns through some bureaucrat deciding they shouldn't have them and putting them on some secret list without proving a fucking thing to anyone.

Likewise, people found guilty of domestic violence have their right to own guns removed through due process, ie. THE PROCESS IN WHICH THEY WERE FOUND GUILTY OF IT.

If you'd like to suggest a similar due process of law procedure by which people are PROVEN to be dangerously mentally ill and unable to own guns, with them having all those silly little rights like a trial and the right to face their accusers and be represented by an attorney and inconsequential fluff like that (which I'm sure YOU wouldn't demand for yourself AT ALL in a similar situation, right?), then you just come on with it, and we'll discuss it.

Yeah you're right... you and Kaz only yell out Due Process when you don't like the law.

So Due Process for a felon to own a gun has to do with the court case for the crime they committed? Yeah, that's a reach that doesn't even come close. You do realize that a lot of felons who are affected by this are convicted of crimes that may not even involve a gun?

Liar. Name any time I don't support due process. Now you're just an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.

Question you continually refuse to answer. Should the executive branch be allowed to remove your Constitutional rights on their own? So?

 

[Cecilie1200]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

Conservatives and Trump made their very first piece of major legislation passed, giving the mentally ill the right to buy guns.

That's what you'd like to believe happened. Never mind the fact that reality refuses to conform to your fever dreams.

It's the way leftists argue.

No one has denied government the ability to remove the right to restrict gun purchases to mentally ill people through due process.

When we demand that people accused of mental illness get due process, Lewdog hears we are "giving the mentally ill the right to buy arms." He actually hears that, it's remarkable.

He only believes the Constitution is valid when it says what he wants. In times like this, it's toilet paper. Due process, shoe flosses, that's Lewdog's motto.

Then he wants to know why only leftists believe in the Constitution ...

Fucking liar. The rule under Obama had recourses if your guns were taken.

You people keep blabbing about some fictional due process that you can;t define. You asswipes can't even identify which of Cruz's "signs" warranted a ban to gun ownership.

I wonder, if I reported you as a crazy person who shoots at animals & talks about killing people & the cops forced you into psychiatric testing, you'd be on here ? "OMG OMG OMG they can't make me do this shit OMG OMG OMG".

Ban the damn assault type rifles now. Ban the bump stocks, ban the silencers ban the gigantic clips.

If you need yo get your rocks off, lets allow shooting ranges loan them out & you can get off there.

"Some fictional due process we can't define?" Did you suffer a head trauma?

We've defined it repeatedly, mushbrain. And far from being fictional, it's actually the cornerstone of the American system of law and justice. It's called the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it.

I'm amused by your "damning" accusation that we "can't identify which signs" would have kept Cruz from owning guns, given that neither of us has so far claimed that there were any, or were ever asked to. It's not much of a "gotcha!" moment to point out that we haven't answered questions that haven't been asked and weren't the current topic of conversation.

If you reported me as a crazy person who shoots at animals and talks about killing people, I'd still be here, but YOU would be elsewhere, defending yourself against charges of making false reports to the police. Care to find out?

Demand your bans now. Your tears of helpless frustration amuse me.

 

[Lewdog]

Good lord you are so fucking retarded. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The CONSERVATIVES voted to allow people with mental illness to buy guns DESPITE the fact that A. Most deaths with guns come by suicide and B. These mass shootings are almost ALWAYS by people with mental illness.

The first major piece of legislation passed by Trump and this current CONSERVATIVE Congress was to allow the mentally ill to buy guns.

The Parkland school shooting happens almost an exact day to the year of the CONSERVATIVE Congress and Trump passing the bill, and the sponsor of the bill Chuck Grassley says:

""It seems to be common for a lot of these shootings, in fact almost all of the shootings, is the mental state of the people," said Senator Grassley. "And we have not done a very good job of making sure that people that have mental reasons for not being able to handle a gun getting their name into the FBI files and we need to concentrate on that."

Senator Grassley calls on gov't to do better on mental health & guns

Chuck Grassley authored a bill that allowed people who are PROVEN to have mental illness and get a government disability check for it, to buy guns! Due Process has fucking NOTHING to do with the bill they passed. These people are PROVEN to have a debilitating mental illness, and despite the fact that guns are most often used in suicides and mass shootings by people with mental illness, the CONSERVATIVE Congress and Trump approved that law.

Senate Republicans vote to expand gun access for mentally impaired

1) The phrase is correctly "eat your cake and have it". It makes no sense the way you said it.

2) Conservatives have never "voted to allow people with mental illness to have guns", and you can quit right now with trying to push this bullshit meme right now. Conservatives acknowledged the simple fact that EVERY citizen of this country has a Fifth Amendment right to due process, and no amount of leftist hysteria invalidates that. Far from us being ashamed of requiring protection of Constitutional rights, YOU should feel ashamed of your rabid eagerness to strip away rights (from everyone but you) to build your dream of a leftist utopia.

3) You wanna do better on mental health? "Better" is, by definition, going to require DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Otherwise, it is not only not "better", it isn't even good.

What? lmao The way I said is a widely known idiom. I don't give a rat's ass if that isn't the way YOU say it.

have your cake and eat it (too) Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

If you and the idiot Kaz think that any law added after the Constitution was written ignores Due Process, you are VERY misguided. Does it say in the Constitution that felons can't own guns? Does it say in the Constitution that people found guilty of domestic violence shouldn't own guns? Do you want those people having the right to purchase guns?

People widely say a lot of things incorrectly. Doesn't make it any less meaningless.

You can have your cake and eat it; what you cannot do is eat your cake and have it . . . which is the whole point of the phrase: you can't have something both ways. The difference between actually thinking and letting every other mental doorknob around you think for you: investigate it.

Meanwhile, neither Kaz nor I said that "any law added after the Constitution . . . ignores due process", but thank you so much for offering the suggestion of this utterly ridiculous assertion as a topic of conversation. Sadly, we will have to decline, and insist on you actually arguing against THINGS WE'VE ACTUALLY SAID. You drooling mouthbreather.

Felons are deprived of their right to own guns through due process, otherwise known as "the legal trial in which they were convicted of a felony". They are not deprived of their right to own guns through some bureaucrat deciding they shouldn't have them and putting them on some secret list without proving a fucking thing to anyone.

Likewise, people found guilty of domestic violence have their right to own guns removed through due process, ie. THE PROCESS IN WHICH THEY WERE FOUND GUILTY OF IT.

If you'd like to suggest a similar due process of law procedure by which people are PROVEN to be dangerously mentally ill and unable to own guns, with them having all those silly little rights like a trial and the right to face their accusers and be represented by an attorney and inconsequential fluff like that (which I'm sure YOU wouldn't demand for yourself AT ALL in a similar situation, right?), then you just come on with it, and we'll discuss it.

Yeah you're right... you and Kaz only yell out Due Process when you don't like the law.

So Due Process for a felon to own a gun has to do with the court case for the crime they committed? Yeah, that's a reach that doesn't even come close. You do realize that a lot of felons who are affected by this are convicted of crimes that may not even involve a gun?

Liar. Name any time I don't support due process. Now you're just an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.

Question you continually refuse to answer. Should the executive branch be allowed to remove your Constitutional rights on their own? So?

I'm sorry do you need a reminder to post where in the Constitution it says a felon can not vote or buy and own a gun?

 

[bendog]

If you and the idiot Kaz think that any law added after the Constitution was written ignores Due Process, you are VERY misguided.

That sentence makes no logical sense. You don't know what due process is. You're on the Internet, man. Open a tab and browse

Does it say in the Constitution that felons can't own guns?

The way you phrased it, no. But it does say that with due process you can violates their rights to life, liberty and property, which includes guns. Assuming by "felon" you mean "convicted felon"

you are VERY misguided. Does it say in the Constitution that people found guilty of domestic violence shouldn't own guns?

Same answer

you are VERY misguided. Do you want those people having the right to purchase guns?

Nope. Convict them of their crime and remove their right to a gun, which is what we always advocated

Yeah I know what Due Process is, and having laws on guns doesn't violate that.

Is it written in the Constitution that felons can't vote?

If someone calls someone a felon, why would I need to say convicted felon?

You didn't answer my question however, do you think felons and those that commit domestic violence should own guns?

Having laws where rights are revoked without a fair trial DOES violate it.

We've answered your question repeatedly. Now the question is, why do you continue to ignore the fact that felons and violent criminals HAVE RECEIVED THE DUE PROCESS WE INSIST ON?

Here's another question: would you insist on a trial and a lawyer if we passed a law that your ignorance and dishonesty was a mental illness that should remove your First Amendment rights? Or would you consider the mere passage of that law to be "due process of law"?

That's an absurd analogy. Mental illness and gun violence undoubtedly go hand in hand. Not every person with a MI will become violent, but a MI by definition may result in irrational behavior. The only appropriate question for limiting rights to those with MI diagnosis is what is the temporal connection? A person diagnosed with depression, for example, twenty years ago but who has been successfully treated should not have any limitation.

Felons acted to break the law because they rationally chose to do so. People with MI never broke any laws ... at least in relation to their MI. Or they could be both MI and felons.

Having rights limited without a trial does not necessarily implicate due process. Any assertion a trial is required is just wrong. A person has to have a way to challenge it, though.

 

[kaz]

This is what you are. He told you he has a weight problem, this isn't some fact you cleverly figured out.

Then you keep attacking him with that because all you have is playground. I was so happy when I went from high school to college and graduate school and left people like you who were destined to be janitors and trash collectors behind.

Though trash collection for you would strike of canibalism

Which is worse? Being called fat or being told that you want kids to be shot up and killed in school?

Fuck off, ya whiney little bitch, ya.

Swish. I didn't say that fat jokes are strong insults. I said that like a playgrounder, all you're doing is calling the guy who told you he struggles with his weight, fat.

That is playground level humor. That's what I'm mocking you for.

And here's your plan

- Let's pretend we can keep someone who wants to murder people from getting a gun in a country with 300 million of them, no southern border (which you support), and any high school kid can buy all the illegal drugs they want. Then, let's pretend that works and and prevent people who have CCs (which you claim to have) the ability to us them and protect themselves and children.

Obviously something is going on dishonest there. My answer is that you want only government to be armed, so you want the death toll to justify your advocacy of a totalitarian, authoritarian leftist government.

The facts are pretty strong to support that, buttressed by your reliance on an argument a ten year old could see through

How much of your millions are you willing to lose on a bet regarding my CC permit status, chief?

When will you stop being a moron and misrepresenting what everyone else wants?

Why are you unable to discuss this matter honestly? Because you know you are wrong. You are unable to
admit it when you are wrong.

Official notice: As you have systematically refused to answer any question I've asked you, your right to ask questions has been revoked

You have some kind of delusion going on, chief. Why won't you stop accusing people of wanting dead children? Are you mentally ill?

Why else would you support a plan as stupid as let's prevent someone who wants to commit mass murder from getting a gun, actually remove the right of others to defend themselves, then defend the plan when 17 people die?

You're not offering any other explanation of why you support that. You can't say I didn't ask, it was the OP

 

[Cecilie1200]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

You want HS kids carrying? They shouldn't be. That's sort of one of the points. An 18 year old shouldn't be able to buy beer let alone an AR-15

Where does it say "high school kids carrying"? Where, precisely, was that point made, such that you feel the need to jump in and attack it?!

 

[bendog]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

You want HS kids carrying? They shouldn't be. That's sort of one of the points. An 18 year old shouldn't be able to buy beer let alone an AR-15

Where does it say "high school kids carrying"? Where, precisely, was that point made, such that you feel the need to jump in and attack it?!

Well carry on. LOL. I think open carry and having 18 year olds being able to buy AR-15's makes my post clear. LOL

But I think you might want to study on due process. LOL

 

[Lewdog]

If you and the idiot Kaz think that any law added after the Constitution was written ignores Due Process, you are VERY misguided.

That sentence makes no logical sense. You don't know what due process is. You're on the Internet, man. Open a tab and browse

Does it say in the Constitution that felons can't own guns?

The way you phrased it, no. But it does say that with due process you can violates their rights to life, liberty and property, which includes guns. Assuming by "felon" you mean "convicted felon"

you are VERY misguided. Does it say in the Constitution that people found guilty of domestic violence shouldn't own guns?

Same answer

you are VERY misguided. Do you want those people having the right to purchase guns?

Nope. Convict them of their crime and remove their right to a gun, which is what we always advocated

Yeah I know what Due Process is, and having laws on guns doesn't violate that.

Is it written in the Constitution that felons can't vote?

If someone calls someone a felon, why would I need to say convicted felon?

You didn't answer my question however, do you think felons and those that commit domestic violence should own guns?

Having laws where rights are revoked without a fair trial DOES violate it.

We've answered your question repeatedly. Now the question is, why do you continue to ignore the fact that felons and violent criminals HAVE RECEIVED THE DUE PROCESS WE INSIST ON?

Here's another question: would you insist on a trial and a lawyer if we passed a law that your ignorance and dishonesty was a mental illness that should remove your First Amendment rights? Or would you consider the mere passage of that law to be "due process of law"?

That's an absurd analogy. Mental illness and gun violence undoubtedly go hand in hand. Not every person with a MI will become violent, but a MI by definition may result in irrational behavior. The only appropriate question for limiting rights to those with MI diagnosis is what is the temporal connection? A person diagnosed with depression, for example, twenty years ago but who has been successfully treated should not have any limitation.

Felons acted to break the law because they rationally chose to do so. People with MI never broke any laws ... at least in relation to their MI. Or they could be both MI and felons.

Having rights limited without a trial does not necessarily implicate due process. Any assertion a trial is required is just wrong. A person has to have a way to challenge it, though.

Personally I feel that if a person signs up and gets a government check for a mental illness they are deciding to give away their right to own a gun, not only for the safety of others but for their own safety. The law that was passed, was only for that group of people. Now if they decided that owning a gun is more important to them than being labeled as disabled, and they decided to go back to work, I'd be okay with them owning a gun as long as they got a psychiatrist or psychologist to sign off a waiver.

 

[kaz]

Name one person who has had their right to buy a gun removed with their due process of law rights intact who's being allowed to buy a gun.

If it's "fucking retarded" to believe in Constitutional rights, then I'm guilty and you're a despot

I just explained it as clear as possible to you and you STILL don't get it.

So do you think Felons and people who are guilty of domestic violence should be able to buy guns too?

Not once have you addressed my point on due process even though I say that back to you every time.

I've said if you provide people due process, you can remove their right to buy a gun.

Stop dancing away from that and address it. What exactly do you disagree with on that?

There is no DUE PROCESS with what I posted. The people were PROVEN to have a debilitating mental illness that they get a government check for disability.

I guarantee your position would change quite quickly if someone with mental illness shot up a building with your loved ones or friends in it, or someone you love with a mental illness committed suicide with a gun.

You're right. There IS no due process with what you posted. That would be the problem.

Those people proved that they are sufficiently qualified for a government entitlement program. There actually IS a level of due process of law there, since the standards that must be met to get Social Security benefits are set by law. However, THAT due process and those laws are something completely different from the due process necessary to strip someone of Constitutional rights.

I guarantee YOUR position would change quite quickly if it were YOUR rights that were going to be abrogated on the say-so of a bunch of bureaucrats and their lists.

In order for those people to get approved for disability, it most often has to go through a hearing. According to YOUR definition, that counts as Due Process.

That you claim to have a BS in criminal justice then would be so vague.

First, the hearing must be by definition a JUDICIAL hearing. The executive branch has hearings and those are not due process BY DEFINITION.

Second, hearings cannot just remove your rights. It would be difficult to remove Constitutional rights other than on a temporary basis if you have committed no crime. Say they send you to a psych facility for 30 days of evaluation.

Not to mention if they really decide you're a threat and leave you on the street, all you need to do if you're determined to kill people is buy an illegal gun or find another way, like Timothy McVeigh did