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

[kaz]

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.

Really? Cool. Maybe you've met my daughter. She's in graduate school at Berkley too. Seriously, she is

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Out of curiosity, where were you on the subject of drug testing for welfare recipients?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

No, the question needs to be and is, what kind of dumbass do you have to be to assume "It's difficult for me to work" automatically equates to "I'm completely irresponsible and unstable"?

Although it's a rhetorical question, because everyone can see exactly the kind of dumbass you are.

 

[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?

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.

Wrong.

An order of protection is provisionally issued upon receipt of a valid request. The issuance of that order is itself a hearing, by a judge, and involves that judge reviewing the reasons offered and confirming to the extent possible that they are not frivolous.

As per the law regarding due process, the subject of the order is served with a clear notification of the order and its provisions, and also of the steps necessary to argue the order and have it possibly vacated. If the subject chooses to oppose the order, then there is a second hearing, at which both sides present evidence on which the judge can base his determination.

So once again, there is due process of law and respect and observance of the rights of the accused, not simply a capricious vacating of Constitutional rights based on the whims of bureaucrats and doctors and other people outside the legal and judicial system.

 

[Nosmo King]

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 ...

Leftists "owe"? Americans have been laying the bullet-riddled corpses of innocent victims on the High Altar of Intransigence and Indifference in the Cathedral of LaPierre of the Sacred NRA for decades and you think you are 'owed' something?

In the last assault weapon debate the gun nuts bogged down progress by haggling over cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppressors have NOTHING to do with the essential problem of the rate of fire.

Surviving kids rally and march and for their efforts they are demeaned, disparaged and mocked by the gun lovers.

Gun lovers say movies and video games are the cause of mass shootings, yet no one has every killed 17 people in mnutes with an XBox.

Gun nuts say the mentally frazzled should not have guns, yet when given the opportunity to make that a reality, the gun lobby said that the rights of the mentally ill was being infringed.

Gun nuts are "owed' something? Perhaps you're right. We owe you our scorn.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Only if you're too fucking stupid to recognize and understand sarcasm . . . oh, wait, forgot who I was talking to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yes, which is exactly why such decisions are made by an actual judge, rather than the bureaucratic paper-pusher in the office who processes the application.

 

[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.

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

No, you clearly do not.

You're living in a fantasy world where there are not 300 million guns in this country, an open southern border (which you support) and gun laws magically make guns disappear. That while any high school kid can buy all the drugs they want.

And you believe in that so fully, that you remove the ability of educators to defend themselves or their children, even the ones who are trained and have a CC permit.

Obviously you have political objectives which the death of children advances. Authoritarian leftist government specifically where the population is unarmed and unable to resist

 

[kaz]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

You want HS kids carrying? They shouldn't be. That's sort of one of the points. An 18 year old shouldn't be able to buy beer let alone an AR-15

...and oddly someone needs to be 21 to buy a handgun, but can buy an assault rifle at 18.

That's a stupid law. I see why you want more of them

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?

it's still the 5th amendment like every other time you asked

 

[kaz]

Your post was not limited to CC permits.
"We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them

"CC" stands for "concealed carry," dumb ass

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Aaaaand no one gives a fuck, because it's irrelevant.

 

[kaz]

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.

First, you didn't know that CC stands for concealed carry.

Then you thought that trained CC holders means high school students.


Now you're switching that to open carry which no one said but you.

No student has the right to carry any weapon. No one is talking about that but you, lying delusional piece of shit. Say high to the voices in your head for me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Leftists "owe"? Americans have been laying the bullet-riddled corpses of innocent victims on the High Altar of Intransigence and Indifference in the Cathedral of LaPierre of the Scared NRA for decades and you think you are 'owed' something?

Yeah... I stopped reading after that...

 

[kaz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely. The idea is absurd that government could offer money to former government employees only on condition they yield their Constitutional rights.

Leftists constantly fight for any technicality to get the guilty off. Yet they are so loathe to preserve the right to have your day in court to preserver your rights.

It just goes again that they have no true beliefs other than authoritarian leftist government

 

[Cecilie1200]

Leftists "owe"? Americans have been laying the bullet-riddled corpses of innocent victims on the High Altar of Intransigence and Indifference in the Cathedral of LaPierre of the Scared NRA for decades and you think you are 'owed' something?

Yeah... I stopped reading after that...

I didn't even read that far. I yawned and scrolled past.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Leftists "owe"? Americans have been laying the bullet-riddled corpses of innocent victims on the High Altar of Intransigence and Indifference in the Cathedral of LaPierre of the Scared NRA for decades and you think you are 'owed' something?

Yeah... I stopped reading after that...

I didn't even read that far. I yawned and scrolled past.

Well, I think it's only fair to give folks a fair hearing... but there is only so much asininity I can stand.

 

[Nosmo King]

Leftists "owe"? Americans have been laying the bullet-riddled corpses of innocent victims on the High Altar of Intransigence and Indifference in the Cathedral of LaPierre of the Scared NRA for decades and you think you are 'owed' something?

Yeah... I stopped reading after that...

I didn't even read that far. I yawned and scrolled past.

Yeah. I can understand why. There are a lot of concepts in there which may prove too difficult to defend.

 

[Lewdog]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So then why were the laws enacted in the first place if they violated due process?

Why were they not reviewed and over turned by the Supreme Court?

I love watching people like you make such ridiculous statements... like your opinion and knowledge is better than people who are actually in the profession.

So you think you know the law better than Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court? Go ahead and share,

 

[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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftists like Lewdog flip sides more than a greasy spoon diner. It's so predictable. Whatever supports the Democrat party is their position. That is the only consistency.

They want to grant Constitutional rights to foreigners in foreign countries (when it helps Democrats).

They want to strip Americans in the United States of Constitutional rights (when it helps Democrats).

On that they are consistent

 

[Lewdog]

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

You said it was in the Constitution that felons couldn't own guns and that felons couldn't vote. You were wrong and you will not admit it.

Instead you keep talking about due process, which doesn't matter... in this instance.

You just sound like a blathering idiot.