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

[kaz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same answer as every other time you asked me. The fifth amendment

 

[Lewdog]

No one is FORCED to sign up for disability because of a debilitating mental illness. If they chose to do so because they feel their mental illness is so severe that they can't hold down a job, then they certainly don't need to own a gun because they won't be able to handle that responsibility.

So the question needs to be, why would you want someone that can't hold down a job because they are so mentally impaired, to own an object that they can kill themselves or someone else with?

 

[Lewdog]

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?

There is NOTHING in the 5th Amendment that answers my question. The law about felons owning guns is a federal law, not included in the Constitution, and the law regarding felons being able to vote is deferred to the states.

I take it you can't read? I posted it.

 

[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.

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

Don't. Just don't.

I did nothing but t post @kaz’s words and point out what a disturbed rightwingnut he is.

 

[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.

I did nothing but t post @kaz’s words and point out what a disturbed rightwingnut he is.

No. He's perfectly sane. You intentionally quoted him out of context.

Don't you dare lie to me.

 

[Rustic]

No one is FORCED to sign up for disability because of a debilitating mental illness. If they chose to do so because they feel their mental illness is so severe that they can't hold down a job, then they certainly don't need to own a gun because they won't be able to handle that responsibility.

So the question needs to be, why would you want someone that can't hold down a job because they are so mentally impaired, to own an object that they can kill themselves or someone else with?

 

[Faun]

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.

Restraining orders are often issued without the target of the order being involved in any court proceedings. Anyone can request a restraining order against anyone they know; and based on the reasons given for the restraining order, can be issued by a court very quickly, not to mention, often fraudulently. The person on the receiving end can certainly challenge the order, but they’ve already lost their 2nd Amendment rights by then — with no due process. And of course, this varies from state to state.

 

[Faun]

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.

I did nothing but t post @kaz’s words and point out what a disturbed rightwingnut he is.

No. He's perfectly sane. You intentionally quoted him out of context.

Don't you dare lie to me.

Oh, quit crying like a bitch. They’re his words. Sick and disturbed in any context.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

Restraining orders are often issued without the target of the order being involved in any court proceedings. Anyone can request a restraining order against anyone they know; and based on the reasons given for the restraining order, can be issued by a court very quickly, not to mention, often fraudulently. The person on the receiving end can certainly challenge the order, but they’ve already lost their 2nd Amendment rights by then — with no due process. And of course, this varies from state to state.

Not to mention, many times domestic partners that get into an argument, will both file for restraining orders against each other, because the person who gets their's in first often uses it as leverage in future proceedings including custody hearings.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

I did nothing but t post @kaz’s words and point out what a disturbed rightwingnut he is.

No. He's perfectly sane. You intentionally quoted him out of context.

Don't you dare lie to me.

Oh, quit crying like a bitch. They’re his words. Sick and disturbed in any context.

A context you set. Learn to bring an effective argument with you next time, maybe then you wouldn't need to resort to childish tactics like these. Don't like it? Feel free to put me on ignore like Lewdog has. You both are jelly-spined cowards who can't handle a cogent, fact based argument.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm going to lay my fat ass down before I get myself banned.

Bye.

 

[Faun]

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.

I did nothing but t post @kaz’s words and point out what a disturbed rightwingnut he is.

No. He's perfectly sane. You intentionally quoted him out of context.

Don't you dare lie to me.

Oh, quit crying like a bitch. They’re his words. Sick and disturbed in any context.

A context you set. Learn to bring an effective argument with you next time, maybe then you wouldn't need to resort to childish tactics like these. Don't like it? Feel free to put me on ignore like Lewdog has. You both are jelly-spined cowards who can't handle a cogent, fact based argument.

Crying bitch, for the 3rd time... there is no context his words are sane or not disturbed.

And no, I won’t put you on ignore since I don’t put anyone on ignore. If you don’t like it, tough shit.

 

[Faun]

I'm going to lay my fat ass down before I get myself banned.

Bye.

I thought you’re leaving? How are you giving my posts ratings if you left? Can’t you even keep your word?

 

[J.E.D]

The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)

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

Thread fail

Proposed by a Democrat. Troll fail.

Aaaand still signed into law by a Republican president. Run along, little narc.

 

[J.E.D]

I'm going to lay my fat ass down before I get myself banned.

Bye.

I thought you’re leaving? How are you giving my posts ratings if you left? Can’t you even keep your word?

He’s like a child who leaves the room in anger, but listens from around the corner for what’s being said about him.

 

[Papageorgio]

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 ...

So in your perfect world the killer should have been able to waltz into the school, an AR15 in one hand and a Glock in the other,

and no one should have had the right to confront him.

fuckinay, that is some crazy shit right there.

How could you possibly come to that conclusion without being mentally ill?

I like when people every so often quote NYCryBaby so I see his post and it reminds me why I have him on ignore.

Almost always, I only put malignant posters on ignore. The race whores, like JoeB and JakeStarkey, the ones like RightWinger and Franco who go after my family, that sort of thing. Leftists always go after the women, have you noticed that? RW my daughter and Franco my mother and sister. NYCryBaby is the only one I have on ignore for just being relentlessly inane. But he's just so damned determine to prove it

LOL

Thanks for revealing that you’re lying about having him on ignore. Had you really had him on ignore, you still wouldn’t see his posts even when someone else quotes him.

Shows how mentally sick you are, pretending to have posters on ignore.

Too bad you can’t answer this post, huh? Since you’re pretending to have me on ignore too.

If you are using an app on a phone or tablet the app will block the person however you still see them in replies, on the actual website it blocks everything.

 

[kaz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senate Republicans vote to expand gun access for mentally impaired

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A law cannot violate due process. Creating laws is legislative process and due process is a judicial process. You're a referee in a football came calling travelling ...

You seriously need to sue your school where you got a BS in criminal justice and sue for your money back. Seriously

 

[kaz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A "hearing" is only due process if it is conducted in the judicial branch ... by definition. How stupid are you?

 

[kaz]

I think the confusion may be people are mixing and matching due process with equal protection

Fail

Due process is judicial

Equal protection is a legislative

You're stopping a baseball game because you called icing

 

[kaz]

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

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

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

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

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

Same answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irrelevant to the discussion. The fifth amendment says you can restrict their Constitutional rights with due process of law. There is nothing that makes those connections. If they're a convicted felon, you can restrict their gun rights.

What you're talking about is a legislative objective. You have every right to lobby legislators to not make losing gun rights a consequence for embezzlement