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

[Lewdog]

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.

Sure you do. I knew that from the very beginning. You are ones of those people no one listens to, but that doesn't stop you from liking to hear yourself talk.

 

[otto105]

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 ...[/COLOR]

This is the pass out guns at the door approach.

Your response is the never finished grade school answer. Nowhere do I say that.

I said people with CCs should be able to yuse them, you hear "pass out guns at the door."

You are major league stupid

The NRA solution is always more guns.

The NRAs position on alcoholism? Give them more alcohol.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

If the law is ON THE BOOKS and someone applies for a disability KNOWING it is on the books... or if a person CHOOSES to continue receiving Social Security disability knowing the law is on the books... then they CHOSE to waive that right in order to continue to get a check.

If a person is so disabled that they can not hold down a job because of their mental illness, you think it is a good idea they own a gun? For their safety or the safety of those around them?

You can't even use common sense.

 

[otto105]

The NRAs position on drug addicts?

Increase excess to drugs for everyone.

 

[otto105]

The NRAs position on speed related vehicle deaths?


Raise the speed limit for everyone.

 

[Faun]

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?

What a dumb-fucking idea. That will only lead to more people getting shot in schools. Do that and any student who wants a gun only has to take if from their teacher and start shooting.

Imagine if the teacher in this video had a gun... he’d be dead...

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senate Republicans vote to expand gun access for mentally impaired

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh? What about folks who lose their right to arm themselves when they have a restraining order put out on them? Where’s the due process in those cases?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Die, children die!

Poor, deranged kaz. Such a sick fuck.

I just now noticed this... more rather skimmed by it a few times before responding. This was a blatant attempt to quote kaz out of context to make him appear like her wants to kill children.

Faun, does your political agenda drive you so much, that you're willing to pull bullshit like this? So dishonest.

 

[Faun]

Die, children die!

Poor, deranged kaz. Such a sick fuck.

I just now noticed this... more rather skimmed by it a few times before responding. This was a blatant attempt to quote kaz out of context to make him appear like her wants to kill children.

Faun, does your political agenda drive you so, that you're willing to pull bullshit like this? So dishonest.

Aww, you poor, idiot... that's sick and disturbed in any context.

 

[Lewdog]

Die, children die!

Poor, deranged kaz. Such a sick fuck.

I just now noticed this... more rather skimmed by it a few times before responding. This was a blatant attempt to quote kaz out of context to make him appear like her wants to kill children.

Faun, does your political agenda drive you so, that you're willing to pull bullshit like this? So dishonest.

Aww, you poor, idiot... that's sick and disturbed in any context.

Who are you talking to?

 

[Faun]

Die, children die!

Poor, deranged kaz. Such a sick fuck.

I just now noticed this... more rather skimmed by it a few times before responding. This was a blatant attempt to quote kaz out of context to make him appear like her wants to kill children.

Faun, does your political agenda drive you so, that you're willing to pull bullshit like this? So dishonest.

Aww, you poor, idiot... that's sick and disturbed in any context.

Who are you talking to?

No one of significance ... TemplarKormac

 

[Lewdog]

Die, children die!

Poor, deranged kaz. Such a sick fuck.

I just now noticed this... more rather skimmed by it a few times before responding. This was a blatant attempt to quote kaz out of context to make him appear like her wants to kill children.

Faun, does your political agenda drive you so, that you're willing to pull bullshit like this? So dishonest.

Aww, you poor, idiot... that's sick and disturbed in any context.

Who are you talking to?

No one of significance ... TemplarKormac

Ahh I have him on ignore. I put him on ignore again when he changed his name. Apparently someone told me he changes his name like once or twice a year to re-invent himself... or probably because so many people put him on ignore. He thinks being able to Google and then cut and paste information is the same as being intelligent.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Die, children die!

Poor, deranged kaz. Such a sick fuck.

I just now noticed this... more rather skimmed by it a few times before responding. This was a blatant attempt to quote kaz out of context to make him appear like her wants to kill children.

Faun, does your political agenda drive you so, that you're willing to pull bullshit like this? So dishonest.

Aww, you poor, idiot... that's sick and disturbed in any context.

Yet you insisted on doing it. It is you who are sick and disturbed.

Don't. Just don't.

 

[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?

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

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

Oh? What about folks who lose their right to arm themselves when they have a restraining order put out on them? Where’s the due process in those cases?

That would be in the court hearing where the order of protection is imposed by a judge.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Poor, deranged kaz. Such a sick fuck.

I just now noticed this... more rather skimmed by it a few times before responding. This was a blatant attempt to quote kaz out of context to make him appear like her wants to kill children.

Faun, does your political agenda drive you so, that you're willing to pull bullshit like this? So dishonest.

Aww, you poor, idiot... that's sick and disturbed in any context.

Who are you talking to?

No one of significance ... TemplarKormac

Ahh I have him on ignore. I put him on ignore again when he changed his name. Apparently someone told me he changes his name like once or twice a year to re-invent himself... or probably because so many people put him on ignore. He thinks being able to Google and then cut and paste information is the same as being intelligent.

Lol, says the guy with a "BS in criminal justice". Keep me on ignore, you coward.

 

[kaz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I go in peace. LOL

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

Getting a check isn't due process. And seriously, you were a criminal justice BS?

And you don't know what due process means or why it's important?

You're a joke

 

[kaz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's too broad?

I'm sorry the word hearing confuses you.

The word broad doesn't appear in my post.

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

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

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

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

I've answered your question roughly eight times.

How can a criminal justice not know that your Constitutional rights CAN be limited WITH due process of law? How can you possibly need to have that explained to you once, much less as I have done repeatedly?

Read the fifth amendment. I would have thought a criminal justice major would have done that by now

 

[kaz]

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

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

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

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

Virginia Tech was done with handguns.

Timothy McVeigh didn't use guns at all.

They're just as dumb as the day is long

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

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

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

That's actually the opposite of what I said.

You're pointing out that the ACLU argued you can be locked up without due process. Yes, that's grotesque as you said.

But I said no one is arguing that your Constitutional rights cannot be violated if you have received due process. That one I haven't seen other than anarchists who obviously don't believe in having a government anyway.

Yet Lewdog who claims to have a BS in criminal justice keeps asking if convicted felons can be deprived of the right to have guns WITH due process.

And he doesn't understand the meaning of the word "yes" so he asks it over and over and over even though the answer was "yes" every time

 

[Lewdog]

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

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

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

It's too broad?

I'm sorry the word hearing confuses you.

The word broad doesn't appear in my post.

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

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

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

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

I've answered your question roughly eight times.

How can a criminal justice not know that your Constitutional rights CAN be limited WITH due process of law? How can you possibly need to have that explained to you once, much less as I have done repeatedly?

Read the fifth amendment. I would have thought a criminal justice major would have done that by now

You NEVER answered my question.

You said that felons not being able to vote or own a gun was in the Constitution. You either lied, or were just flat out wrong. I'll let you decide which.

 

[kaz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've answered it probably 9 times now.

The fifth amendment. How can a "criminal justice" major POSSIBLY not know that?