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

[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.

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.

Wrong again, on both counts. First of all, most people receive disability benefits without a hearing. Second, a civil appeals hearing before an ALJ is a whole 'nother animal from the criminal trial, and the qualifications for receiving disability are a whole 'nother animal from government justification to revoke rights.

Thanks for demonstrating that you either didn't bother to read my definition, or didn't bother to get help with the big words.

 

[bendog]

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.

Substantive DP does not require any judicial hearing before a limitation on rights. However, any govt deprivation of rights may be judicially and or administravely challenge.

That is a substantive DP challenge arises AFTER a law is passed, and an individual sues to challenge the law is invalid or the gummit lacked the power to make it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

"Get the stick out of your ass" = "Admit that leftists are all-wise, all-knowing, and all-caring". Not interested.

Read the information. Laughed my ass off. Disproved it. Moved on.

I don't want to pick and choose, nor do I need to. The law already defines very clearly what is and isn't allowed, and what you want . . . isn't. Sorry . . . no, wait, I'm not sorry. I'm actually fiendishly glad that you're frustrated in your helpless desire to strip people's rights from them, especially since the biggest frustration comes from your own ignorance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)

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

Thread fail

Only if you thought the thread was about political parties. Personally, I'd call that a YOU fail.

 

[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.

Wrong again, on both counts. First of all, most people receive disability benefits without a hearing. Second, a civil appeals hearing before an ALJ is a whole 'nother animal from the criminal trial, and the qualifications for receiving disability are a whole 'nother animal from government justification to revoke rights.

Thanks for demonstrating that you either didn't bother to read my definition, or didn't bother to get help with the big words.

Yeah and you are missing the obvious. I was wondering if you two would ever catch on. A person CHOSES to apply for disability. If there is a law on the books that says a person who gets disability for having a debilitating mental illness, Due Process doesn't matter. They are CHOOSING to apply for disability despite what rights they will lose under the law.

Thanks for playing.

 

[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.

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

People who get a government check for a disability of mental illness DO GO THROUGH A HEARING TO PROVE THEY HAVE A DEBILITATING MENTAL ILLNESS.

You keep trying to play your little game both ways.

Yes, they go through an administrative hearing under civil law with an ALJ to determine if they meet Social Security regulations.

That's not even in the same galaxy as going to criminal court and being convicted in a jury trial of a felony.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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"?

Not all felons are violent, nor been convicted of a crime using a firearm.

Nobody said they were, or needed to be.

I have another surprise for you: not all felons are prevented from owning guns.

 

[J.E.D]

The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)

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

Thread fail

Only if you thought the thread was about political parties. Personally, I'd call that a YOU fail.

It’s not about political parties? Then why is the op demanding an apology from Democrats/liberals?

You’re not very good at this.

 

[Lewdog]

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

People who get a government check for a disability of mental illness DO GO THROUGH A HEARING TO PROVE THEY HAVE A DEBILITATING MENTAL ILLNESS.

You keep trying to play your little game both ways.

Yes, they go through an administrative hearing under civil law with an ALJ to determine if they meet Social Security regulations.

That's not even in the same galaxy as going to criminal court and being convicted in a jury trial of a felony.

They CHOSE to apply for disability. Sometimes when you CHOSE to do something, you do so knowing that you may be giving up some things in order to gain others. If they want to own a gun and feel they are well enough to handle that responsibility, then they can also CHOSE to get a job instead of getting a check from the government.

A person can CHOSE to waive some of their rights in certain situations... that means Due Process no longer matters.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, actually I was part of the argument well before that. Aside from that, I have no idea why you think taking the time out to also point out that you express yourself like a fool is somehow relevant to my now pointing out that due process hasn't changed and won't do so simply by your continued expression of your ignorance on the subject.

I laugh when I see people on this forum claiming that other ultra-leftists consider them too conservative, as though that means anything to anyone.

As with due process of law, I know the definition of fascist far better than you do.

Fascism: 1 a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual (Yup, that'd be leftists and their identity politics) and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (also leftists) headed by a dictatorial leader (as long as it's a Democrat), severe economic and social regimentation (the DNC platform in every election), and forcible suppression of opposition (and there we have your frothing-at-the-mouth demands to strip rights from people in job lots)

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control (that should have a flashing neon sign over it reading "LEFTISTS!")

Are there any other free tutoring sessions I should donate while I'm at it?

 

[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.

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.

No, actually I was part of the argument well before that. Aside from that, I have no idea why you think taking the time out to also point out that you express yourself like a fool is somehow relevant to my now pointing out that due process hasn't changed and won't do so simply by your continued expression of your ignorance on the subject.

I laugh when I see people on this forum claiming that other ultra-leftists consider them too conservative, as though that means anything to anyone.

As with due process of law, I know the definition of fascist far better than you do.

Fascism: 1 a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual (Yup, that'd be leftists and their identity politics) and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (also leftists) headed by a dictatorial leader (as long as it's a Democrat), severe economic and social regimentation (the DNC platform in every election), and forcible suppression of opposition (and there we have your frothing-at-the-mouth demands to strip rights from people in job lots)

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control (that should have a flashing neon sign over it reading "LEFTISTS!")

Are there any other free tutoring sessions I should donate while I'm at it?

Are you related to PoliticChick? Your posts are about as lengthy and ignorant as her's.

 

[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.

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

Suuuuure you do. And you're going to make them "alive and comfortable" by teaching them to huddle under desks, waiting for a violent nutcase to hunt them down, totally unopposed, and shoot them, because you're terrified that if one of the adults tasked with caring for them was allowed to carry a gun, "something bad might happen".

Don't even fucking waste my time sanctimoniously citing all the good intentions you consider yourself to have and expecting me to pretend they don't have disastrous consequences.

We both care about safe students. The difference is, only one of us has plans that might actually have that result.

 

[Lewdog]

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

Suuuuure you do. And you're going to make them "alive and comfortable" by teaching them to huddle under desks, waiting for a violent nutcase to hunt them down, totally unopposed, and shoot them, because you're terrified that if one of the adults tasked with caring for them was allowed to carry a gun, "something bad might happen".

Don't even fucking waste my time sanctimoniously citing all the good intentions you consider yourself to have and expecting me to pretend they don't have disastrous consequences.

We both care about safe students. The difference is, only one of us has plans that might actually have that result.

No, you care more about mentally ill people being able to have guns. The rest of your argument is numerous logical fallacies. If you are as smart as you claim, you already know that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

And from what I'm reading, it isn't the BS you thought it was. I'll let you figure that out.

 

[Faun]

Where does the Constitution mention marriage?

It doesn't. That's what I said, dumb ass

So if it doesn’t mention marriage at all, how is just gay marriage singled out by you, instead of all marriages?

Marriage is not in the Constitution, which means the Feds have no say over gay or any other marriage.

Well that’s pretty fucking rightarded. The Judicial branch absolutely has a say in marriage laws if marriage laws violate the Constitution.

Chalk this up to yet more subjects you know nothing about.

How can it violate the Constitution if it isn’t IN the Constitution?

Let’s say, for arguments’ sake, marriage laws violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment... the Judicial branch has the power to remedy that violation of marriage laws even though marriage itself is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Savvy?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)

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

Thread fail

Proposed by a Democrat. Troll fail.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You know what's absurd? The leftist belief that everything can be reduced to simplistic, blanket concepts printed in Crayola.

SOME mental illness leads to violence. Most does not, and comparatively rarely does it lead to gun violence.

You know almost as much about mental illness as you do about guns . . . or anything else you spew blather about, which is to say, you don't know shit.

Mental illness, as defined by Social Security disability requirements, includes anything that produces a serious impairment in your ability to conduct life normally. This includes things like anorexia nervosa and bulimia, severe phobias such as agoraphobia and mysophobia, disorders such as social anxiety or obsessive-compulsion, and somatic dysfunctions such as hypochondria.

All of these disorders make it difficult to provide for yourself financially and may require government assistance, but not a single one of them involves violence or danger to others. So do I think it's okay to strip every single one of these millions of people of their Constitutional rights without a trial, simply because it'll make a bunch of leftist yahoos - who are, in my opinion, more delusional and dangerous than any of the people I listed - feel warm and fuzzy and safe?

Having rights limited without a trial is EXACTLY the definition of "without due process". Doesn't require a full criminal trial, obviously, since severely mentally ill people usually haven't committed a crime. But does it, and should it, require the same level of legal process necessary to, for example, commit them to a mental hospital for treatment? Damned right it should.

 

[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?!

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

It would make your post clear if anyone had actually said anything about them. Unfortunately, the post you were responding to mentioned "people with CONCEALED carry permits trained to use guns safely", and you started pissing and raving on about high school students and open-carry, which makes me think SOMEONE needs to study SOMETHING, and it would be you and reading comprehension.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Personally, I THINK that leftists spend entirely too damned much time "feeling" things and expecting the rest of us to treat it as important and meaningful. Here's a newsflash for you, Chuckles: we don't give a fat rat's furry ass what you "feel" about anything, and neither does the Constitution.

But by all means, if you think it's a winning argument to tell Americans, "Hey, I think it would be smashing if we made sick people afraid to apply for government assistance", you just go right on with that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Lots of people have "hearings". The National Labor Relations Board has hearings. The Arizona Corporation Commission has hearings. The fucking City of Phoenix has hearings about zoning regulations and shit. The New York City Department of Education has hearings about God-knows-what. I know, because the transcription company I work for provides the transcripts for them.

Can't say I want my Constitutional rights decided by any of those.