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

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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

No, being a convicted felon is a rational basis, because they've been provided the full scope of due process available. A person whose doctor diagnoses him/her with anorexia? Not so much.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, yes, there's also the fact that stripping rights from anyone who gets disability checks due to mental defect ALSO violates their federal HIPAA rights.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative process

My Gawd, and you have a criminal justice degree

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

No, it might not be specifically implied in the Constitution, but, however, via the legislative process, Congress can pass laws which can deny a felon the right to own a gun.

Like so...

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)
18 U.S.C. § 922(n)
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)
18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(20) and (a)(33)(B)(ii)

If you ever bothered to read the 10th Amendment, it gives power to the states to decide those things. All but four states in our Union prevent incarcerated felons from voting.

Just because it isn't directly implied in the Constitution does not mean that there is no law which pertains to it in the State law or the US Code.

I don't need a BS in Criminal Justice to run you into the ground. You simply don't know how the law works.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I understand that YOU think so. Do YOU understand that I don't give a fuck what you think, and wouldn't take your good opinion of me if you offered on a platter with an apple in its mouth?

I never said I thought any law was about all mentally ill people. It doesn't matter. It's unacceptable when it's about mentally ill people who get Social Security - which topic I have been addressing all along, regardless of your inability to understand that - just as much as any other time. I don't give a fuck what kind of weaseling around and goalpost-moving you attempt to use to somehow pretend that anything you've said is not the exact, Unconstitutional pile of shit I have eviscerated it repeatedly for being.

I'm going to give YOU a little advice. If you don't want to be talked down to, don't be a shit-crawling worm who's beneath everyone.

 

[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?

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.

You DO see the words "concealed carry" in the huge, bolded phrase you're quoting prior to babbling on about something else, right?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

How many times have you asked this already?

 

[Lewdog]

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

No, being a convicted felon is a rational basis, because they've been provided the full scope of due process available. A person whose doctor diagnoses him/her with anorexia? Not so much.

lmao, using anorexia as a basis for saying someone can't own a gun. You've officially jumped the shark.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

I understand that YOU think so. Do YOU understand that I don't give a fuck what you think, and wouldn't take your good opinion of me if you offered on a platter with an apple in its mouth?

I never said I thought any law was about all mentally ill people. It doesn't matter. It's unacceptable when it's about mentally ill people who get Social Security - which topic I have been addressing all along, regardless of your inability to understand that - just as much as any other time. I don't give a fuck what kind of weaseling around and goalpost-moving you attempt to use to somehow pretend that anything you've said is not the exact, Unconstitutional pile of shit I have eviscerated it repeatedly for being.

I'm going to give YOU a little advice. If you don't want to be talked down to, don't be a shit-crawling worm who's beneath everyone.

You sure have made quite a few responses to my statements you don't give a fuck about.

 

[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.

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.

Sorry, Chuckles, but the point remains the same. If a person chooses to apply for disability, it remains a violation of their Fifth Amendment right to due process of law to make that application about something OTHER than Social Security disability.

Thanks for playing. Can't remember the last time someone made it so easy to reveal them as a blithering lackwit.

 

[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.

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.

Sorry, Chuckles, but the point remains the same. If a person chooses to apply for disability, it remains a violation of their Fifth Amendment right to due process of law to make that application about something OTHER than Social Security disability.

Thanks for playing. Can't remember the last time someone made it so easy to reveal them as a blithering lackwit.

No, it doesn't. If there is a law on the books that says they can not own a gun if they get disability for a mental illness, they CHOSE to forgo that right in order to get a check.

It would be nice if you could understand simple logic. Do you even understand that you can waive your rights?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I realize that you think you have suddenly come up with an incredibly clever way to get around the fact that you've been vivisected like a fetal pig in a biology classroom, but saying, "We're not taking your rights; we're just requiring you to 'choose to surrender them'" still remains a violation of due process.

The only way you can Constitutionally remove someone's rights is by proving, in court, that you have adequate justification for doing so.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

I realize that you think you have suddenly come up with an incredibly clever way to get around the fact that you've been vivisected like a fetal pig in a biology classroom, but saying, "We're not taking your rights; we're just requiring you to 'choose to surrender them'" still remains a violation of due process.

The only way you can Constitutionally remove someone's rights is by proving, in court, that you have adequate justification for doing so.

Wrong. People waive their rights EVERY day. Feel free to take a few minutes and see if you can figure it out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

It is neither my fault nor hers that your ignorance is vast enough to require enormous amounts of reason and facts to fill it, nor that your posts are so wrong on so many levels that they provide vast opportunity to do so.

We also have in common an utter lack of interest in or concern about being thought ignorant by one of the few people in history whose IQ required negative digits to measure it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I care about living in a nation where EVERYONE has rights and freedoms which are respected and protected from hair-on-fire hysterics who don't give Shit One about whether their demands yield any positive results, so long as they can "feelz" like they did something.

Am I going to apologize for considering that important? Hold your breath waiting.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

It is neither my fault nor hers that your ignorance is vast enough to require enormous amounts of reason and facts to fill it, nor that your posts are so wrong on so many levels that they provide vast opportunity to do so.

We also have in common an utter lack of interest in or concern about being thought ignorant by one of the few people in history whose IQ required negative digits to measure it.

You sure make a lot of effort to respond to my posts... that just a few minutes ago you said you didn't care about.

Have you ever heard the saying, "can't see the forest through the trees?" That saying fits you to a "t."

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

No, being a convicted felon is a rational basis, because they've been provided the full scope of due process available. A person whose doctor diagnoses him/her with anorexia? Not so much.

lmao, using anorexia as a basis for saying someone can't own a gun. You've officially jumped the shark.

Dumbass, YOU are the one suggesting doing that; I'M not. YOU are the one who thinks that people who receive Social Security disability for mental illness should lose the right to own a gun. That's been your fucking call to battle this entire fucking time! And that means you are suggesting that people with anorexia should lose the right to own guns.

Could you at least PLEASE put down the crack pipe long enough to keep straight who's making which fucking argument here?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I understand that YOU think so. Do YOU understand that I don't give a fuck what you think, and wouldn't take your good opinion of me if you offered on a platter with an apple in its mouth?

I never said I thought any law was about all mentally ill people. It doesn't matter. It's unacceptable when it's about mentally ill people who get Social Security - which topic I have been addressing all along, regardless of your inability to understand that - just as much as any other time. I don't give a fuck what kind of weaseling around and goalpost-moving you attempt to use to somehow pretend that anything you've said is not the exact, Unconstitutional pile of shit I have eviscerated it repeatedly for being.

I'm going to give YOU a little advice. If you don't want to be talked down to, don't be a shit-crawling worm who's beneath everyone.

You sure have made quite a few responses to my statements you don't give a fuck about.

Yes, because I DO care about what I'M saying.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I realize that you think you have suddenly come up with an incredibly clever way to get around the fact that you've been vivisected like a fetal pig in a biology classroom, but saying, "We're not taking your rights; we're just requiring you to 'choose to surrender them'" still remains a violation of due process.

The only way you can Constitutionally remove someone's rights is by proving, in court, that you have adequate justification for doing so.

Wrong. People waive their rights EVERY day. Feel free to take a few minutes and see if you can figure it out.

It's not waiving your rights if you're REQUIRED to do it, you fucking moron! Waiving your rights, by definition, must be VOLUNTARY, and what you're suggesting amounts to coercion. Just so you know, Mr. "Bullshit in Criminal Justice", that's also illegal, just like revoking rights without due process.

I'd offer you a few minutes to see if you can figure it out, but we all know you're unequipped for the process.

 

[otto105]

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?

Marriage isn't in the Constitution, so the leftists on the Supreme Court made it up when they said the Constitution requires gay marriage.

I mean duh. You have any more butt obvious questions?

BTW, my personal view is marriage should not be a function of government at all. But I recognize that isn't in the Constitution either. I'm a completely different animal than you. I'm not willing to make up whatever I want and claim it's in the Constitution

I’m not making anything up.


If “marriage” isn’t in the Constitution then how to you get assume it requires gay marriage?

If the Constitution is silent on marriage how has it not been up to consenting adults to decide to marry or not without government interference?

Gay people merely asked why they could not marry if the Constitution didn’t mention who could or couldn’t marry.

 

[Lewdog]

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

No, being a convicted felon is a rational basis, because they've been provided the full scope of due process available. A person whose doctor diagnoses him/her with anorexia? Not so much.

lmao, using anorexia as a basis for saying someone can't own a gun. You've officially jumped the shark.

Dumbass, YOU are the one suggesting doing that; I'M not. YOU are the one who thinks that people who receive Social Security disability for mental illness should lose the right to own a gun. That's been your fucking call to battle this entire fucking time! And that means you are suggesting that people with anorexia should lose the right to own guns.

Could you at least PLEASE put down the crack pipe long enough to keep straight who's making which fucking argument here?

Anorexia? Really? For being so "smart" you sure do use a lot of logical fallacies.