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

[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.

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 they have committed no crime. Say you send them to a psych facility for 30 days of evaluation

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?

 

[kaz]

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

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

Didn't you know it's "fucking retarded" to think anyone should have any rights that the left doesn't specifically want them to have right at this specific moment? You must not have gotten the DNC memo on this.

Cool, then say it. You want felons to own guns, because it doesn't say in the Constitution they can't.

If I want to say something, I do. There is no amount of you trying to force your words into my mouth that will make them what I want to say or what I AM saying.

Why don't YOU just admit that you can't argue against my actual words, and so you want to debate the voices in your head?

I think it's very telling, though, that your response to the accusation that you only want people to have the rights you're willing to give them when you want to give them is "Cool". Yeah, I'll just bet a world where no one has any rights is cool with you.

When you get that stick out of your ass, and decide to actually read the material provided in the argument, let me know.

You want to pick and chose when a law violates Due Process, despite the fact that they follow the same path as each other.

"laws" cannot violate due process, that doesn't even make sense. And you have a criminal justice degree? Did you get this degree in Iran?

 

[Lewdog]

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

Didn't you know it's "fucking retarded" to think anyone should have any rights that the left doesn't specifically want them to have right at this specific moment? You must not have gotten the DNC memo on this.

Cool, then say it. You want felons to own guns, because it doesn't say in the Constitution they can't.

If I want to say something, I do. There is no amount of you trying to force your words into my mouth that will make them what I want to say or what I AM saying.

Why don't YOU just admit that you can't argue against my actual words, and so you want to debate the voices in your head?

I think it's very telling, though, that your response to the accusation that you only want people to have the rights you're willing to give them when you want to give them is "Cool". Yeah, I'll just bet a world where no one has any rights is cool with you.

When you get that stick out of your ass, and decide to actually read the material provided in the argument, let me know.

You want to pick and chose when a law violates Due Process, despite the fact that they follow the same path as each other.

"laws" cannot violate due process, that doesn't even make sense. And you have a criminal justice degree? Did you get this degree in Iran?

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?

 

[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.

I'm not aware of anyone who's argued that keeping insane people off the streets is a violation of their Constitutional rights as long as they are allowed court hearings

The ACLU did, back in the 70s and 80s. That's when we got the upswing in crazy homeless people on the streets. Check their website. They actually brag proudly about how they sued New York for involuntarily committing people to mental hospitals. They insisted there was a "civil right" for these people to wander around, unmedicated and completely unable to take care of themselves adequately.

 

[kaz]

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.

The term "hearing" is too vague. Many "hearings" are conducted by the executive branch and are therefore not due process.

If the "hearing" is in the judicial branch, than it could certainly be due process to remove their right to buy a gun, at least temporarily

It's too broad?

I'm sorry the word hearing confuses you.

The word broad doesn't appear in my post.

I did say the term "hearing" was too vague, then I told you why.

If the "hearing" is conducted in the judicial branch, then it can be part of due process. If not, it can't.

You couldn't read that three sentence post? Seriously?

 

[kaz]

The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)

.......was signed into law by a Republican president

Thread fail

Why? What difference does that make? Are you admitting that Democrat presidents are your God and therefore cannot be questioned, so you assume anyone else considers a Republican President to be the same?

 

[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.

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.

Well, the pt I "tried" to make was that either being a convicted felon or having a MI diagnosis is a rational basis on which to deny a person 2nd Amend rights. However, a MI diagnosis and felon status are not alike in that a person with a MI has not shown an unwillingness to abide by law. Rather, they've shown they are ill ... or were ill at sometime. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who've have a MI diagnosis at some time or another, but have not manifested any irrational or violent ideations in many years. Any restriction on a right has to be rationally tied to accomplishing the goal. We shouldn't let 18 year olds buy weapons, but their legal disability ends after a time.

And a person under a restriction has to have "right" to a hearing to challenge that they don't fit the restriction.

I go in peace. LOL

 

[Lewdog]

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.

The term "hearing" is too vague. Many "hearings" are conducted by the executive branch and are therefore not due process.

If the "hearing" is in the judicial branch, than it could certainly be due process to remove their right to buy a gun, at least temporarily

It's too broad?

I'm sorry the word hearing confuses you.

The word broad doesn't appear in my post.

I did say the term "hearing" was too vague, then I told you why.

If the "hearing" is conducted in the judicial branch, then it can be part of due process. If not, it can't.

You couldn't read that three sentence post? Seriously?

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?

 

[kaz]

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

I know you don't get it, but that sentence is hilarious. It also proves that you don't know what due process is.

Due process is judicial.

Passing laws is legislative

To say passing laws is not a violation of a judicial process is what's called a non-sequitur

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

No, but it's written in the Constitution that you can deny voting to felons.

Also, the Constitution doesn't say that anyone can vote, the right to vote is not in the Constitution at all

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

If someone has murdered someone, they are a felon. But they are not a convicted felon unless they are convicted of the crime in a court of law. Due process requires the latter. The former is not sufficient

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

I've answered that a half dozen times. Here you go again.

If by "felon" you mean "convicted felon," hell no. If you were smarter and knew what you'd talking about, this was what Celia and I both advocated

If by "commit domestic violence," you mean "convicted of domestic violence in a court of law," then hell no. If you were smarter and knew what you'd talking about, this was what Celia and I both advocated.

What part of convicted don't you understand? Why is that is so completely confusing to you?

You keep saying things are in the Constitution but not once have you provided proof of that.

Please show me where in the Constitution that felons can not own a gun or vote

Due process clause in the fifth amendment

I'm not going to continue to argue with you here until you show support for your argument.

Um ... yeah. The due process is very complicated. It would take a criminal justice BS to understand it. Oh wait, you have one ...

 

[Lewdog]

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

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"

Same answer

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.

Well, the pt I "tried" to make was that either being a convicted felon or having a MI diagnosis is a rational basis on which to deny a person 2nd Amend rights. However, a MI diagnosis and felon status are not alike in that a person with a MI has not shown an unwillingness to abide by law. Rather, they've shown they are ill ... or were ill at sometime. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who've have a MI diagnosis at some time or another, but have not manifested any irrational or violent ideations in many years. Any restriction on a right has to be rationally tied to accomplishing the goal. We shouldn't let 18 year olds buy weapons, but their legal disability ends after a time.

I go in peace. LOL

I get all that, but the law I am referencing only included those that got a disability check for mental illness, not every person that has seen a mental health professional in their life.

 

[kaz]

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

Then you're the guy who thinks that people with CC permits are high school students ...

 

[Lewdog]

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

I know you don't get it, but that sentence is hilarious. It also proves that you don't know what due process is.

Due process is judicial.

Passing laws is legislative

To say passing laws is not a violation of a judicial process is what's called a non-sequitur

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

No, but it's written in the Constitution that you can deny voting to felons.

Also, the Constitution doesn't say that anyone can vote, the right to vote is not in the Constitution at all

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

If someone has murdered someone, they are a felon. But they are not a convicted felon unless they are convicted of the crime in a court of law. Due process requires the latter. The former is not sufficient

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

I've answered that a half dozen times. Here you go again.

If by "felon" you mean "convicted felon," hell no. If you were smarter and knew what you'd talking about, this was what Celia and I both advocated

If by "commit domestic violence," you mean "convicted of domestic violence in a court of law," then hell no. If you were smarter and knew what you'd talking about, this was what Celia and I both advocated.

What part of convicted don't you understand? Why is that is so completely confusing to you?

You keep saying things are in the Constitution but not once have you provided proof of that.

Please show me where in the Constitution that felons can not own a gun or vote

Due process clause in the fifth amendment

I'm not going to continue to argue with you here until you show support for your argument.

Um ... yeah. The due process is very complicated. It would take a criminal justice BS to understand it. Oh wait, you have one ...

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]

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.

Well, the pt I "tried" to make was that either being a convicted felon or having a MI diagnosis is a rational basis on which to deny a person 2nd Amend rights. However, a MI diagnosis and felon status are not alike in that a person with a MI has not shown an unwillingness to abide by law. Rather, they've shown they are ill ... or were ill at sometime. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who've have a MI diagnosis at some time or another, but have not manifested any irrational or violent ideations in many years. Any restriction on a right has to be rationally tied to accomplishing the goal. We shouldn't let 18 year olds buy weapons, but their legal disability ends after a time.

I go in peace. LOL

I get all that, but the law I am referencing only included those that got a disability check for mental illness, not every person that has seen a mental health professional in their life.

Oh I understand. The more restrictive limitations would require mental health professionals to disclose the names of people to put them in a database ... along with felons. I'm a bit uneasy in placing people with MI backgrounds on the same standing to challenge restrictions with felons. Restrictions on felons have already been tested in courts, and felons lose.

 

[bendog]

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

Then you're the guy who thinks that people with CC permits are high school students ...

Your post was not limited to CC permits.
"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"

 

[Lewdog]

Since Kaz is full of shit, and that laws prohibiting felons from voting or owning guns is not in the Constitution, I'll show where it is.

18 U.S. Code § 921 - Definitions

It's a federal law, but not in the Constitution.

Also, in the Constitution, when it comes to felons being able to vote, the Constitution leaves the decision up to the states, and does not have a federal law that disenfranchises them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Well, since we don't like the law when it violates due process, that would make sense. There's no point in yelling about due process when it's being observed.

Okay, Mr. "BS in Criminal Justice" ("BS" sounds about right), let me clarify something you seem to have missed in your apocryphal college courses.

The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life,liberty, and property. While the Fifth Amendment was originally construed to restrict just the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment specifically expanded the protection to the states as well.

Due process comes in two forms: procedural and substantive. The government must apply the laws equally to everyone, and it must prove adequate justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. The second one would be the part that pertains to this discussion.

The entire purpose of a criminal trial, such as convicted felons receive, is to require the government to prove justification for depriving that person of their liberty (ie. sending them to prison and revoking certain of their rights, such as gun ownership). That is what a trial DOES. It also allows the accused the opportunity to defend himself against the loss of liberty.

You will notice that in no definition of due process of law ANYWHERE is the phrase "applying for Social Security disability" mentioned. Not as due process of law itself, nor as adequate justification for removal of rights.

And FYI, no one ever said felons had to be convicted of gun crimes to revoke their right to own guns. That's just a little goalpost-moving you decided to throw in. I said a criminal trial constitutes due process of law, and it does.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Well, we know that's why YOU keep doing it.

 

[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?

Well, since we don't like the law when it violates due process, that would make sense. There's no point in yelling about due process when it's being observed.

Okay, Mr. "BS in Criminal Justice" ("BS" sounds about right), let me clarify something you seem to have missed in your apocryphal college courses.

The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life,liberty, and property. While the Fifth Amendment was originally construed to restrict just the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment specifically expanded the protection to the states as well.

Due process comes in two forms: procedural and substantive. The government must apply the laws equally to everyone, and it must prove adequate justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. The second one would be the part that pertains to this discussion.

The entire purpose of a criminal trial, such as convicted felons receive, is to require the government to prove justification for depriving that person of their liberty (ie. sending them to prison and revoking certain of their rights, such as gun ownership). That is what a trial DOES. It also allows the accused the opportunity to defend himself against the loss of liberty.

You will notice that in no definition of due process of law ANYWHERE is the phrase "applying for Social Security disability" mentioned. Not as due process of law itself, nor as adequate justification for removal of rights.

And FYI, no one ever said felons had to be convicted of gun crimes to revoke their right to own guns. That's just a little goalpost-moving you decided to throw in. I said a criminal trial constitutes due process of law, and it does.

Do you understand how dumb you sound? You are trying to talk down to me when you didn't even read the source information for the argument. You thought the law was just about anyone with mental illness or who could be perceived as mentally ill.

I'm going to give you a little advice. Before you go trying to talk down to others and putting down their education on a subject, you should probably at least make sure you are talking about the same topic and issues they are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

All due process requires is the gummit not do arbitrary things, and any rules have to be uniform and restrictions on individual rights/liberties be as minimally reduced as is necessary to accomplish some valid policy. There are scores of gun crimes committed by former felons, and scores of former felons convicted and imprisoned for possessing guns.

The whole debate is depressing. What people in Fla who propose tighter regulations want has nothing to do with what "conservatives" in Wash accuse them of, and the "conservatives" in Fla are also carefully avoiding actually discussing the proposals.

Wrong. Procedural due process requires that the government not be arbitrary or biased. Substantive due process requires that the government must prove justification before depriving someone of life, liberty, or property.

 

[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?

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?

Fucktard, if there's open carry and kids have right to own an AR-15, even you can do the math ... maybe.