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

[Lewdog]

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

I've never been a lefty... but I have ALWAYS been consistent in my feelings on issues. Feel free to find any position I've flipped on and provide evidence.

 

[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.

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.

If we were discussing a private employer that's one thing.

But you believe government should be able to link disability checks for military service to loss of Constitutional rights? Seriously?

Why do you have this total aversion to simply taking people you believe are insane to court? Why are preserving Constitutional rights such an anathema to you?

Leftists keep saying we won't compromise. Actually, you won't.

Leftists: Let's prevent insane people from buying guns

Gun rights advocates. OK, but let's do it Constitutionally and give them their due process rights

Leftists: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO

Leftists: Why won't you compromise???

 

[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.

If we were discussing a private employer that's one thing.

But you believe government should be able to link disability checks for military service to loss of Constitutional rights? Seriously?

Why do you have this total aversion to simply taking people you believe are insane to court? Why are preserving Constitutional rights such an anathema to you?

Leftists keep saying we won't compromise. Actually, you won't.

Leftists: Let's prevent insane people from buying guns

Gun rights advocates. OK< but let's do it Constitutionally to preserve due process

Leftists: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO

Leftists: Why won't you compromise???

Where did military service come from? Hello? Are you having a brain aneurysm?

 

[kaz]

The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)

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

Thread fail

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

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

You’re not very good at this.

You realize we're two different posters, right? Why are you asking Cecilie what I think? It's interesting that you are admitting that to you, two people on the same side think alike. On your leftist side, you certainly do.

So here's the thing. I went back to the OP and looked at the thread title and I don't see the word "Democrat" ...

 

[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.

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

I consider "fair" to be a meaningless kindergarten word, and rarely give it much thought.

If people want my attention, they can earn it. If they want to be ignorant blowhards, they can do it without me.

 

[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.

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

I don't doubt that you find your concepts hard to defend. Personally, though, I just find them boring and inane.

 

[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.

I consider "fair" to be a meaningless kindergarten word, and rarely give it much thought.

If people want my attention, they can earn it. If they want to be ignorant blowhards, they can do it without me.

Point taken. Perhaps I should adjust to that mindset as well.

 

[kaz]

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.

Sorry, I did miss one thing here. You did say social security. The same happens to military veterans and I conflated them.

Since social security recipients are applying for welfare and want to receive other people's money, I have no problem forcing them to agree to waive their Constitutional rights to do that since the Feds have no Constitutional authority to confiscate other people's money and give it to them.

Veterans I don't agree with since they served their country and it's not welfare like social security.

What's the relevance though? My OP is the concealed carry permit holders should be able to carry at schools. I doubt a mental disability social security retiree would be approved for a CC

 

[kaz]

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.

Wow that's ignorant. I like politichic, but she does extensive cut and paste.

Cecilie is blasting you with reasoned arguments, very little outside references.

And you conflate them? Wow, talk ignorance

 

[kaz]

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

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

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

Virginia Tech was done with handguns.

Timothy McVeigh didn't use guns at all.

They're just as dumb as the day is long

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

Obviously you aren't paying attention. The law that the CONSERVATIVE Congress and Trump passed referred to people who have been PROVEN to have a mental illness and get a disability check for it... not just any person that looks weird on the street. Maybe if you cared more about reading the important information instead of arguing about idioms, you'd have noticed that.

There still continues to be a major difference between proving qualification for Social Security benefits, and proving valid revocation of Constitutional rights.

Maybe if you cared more about the concept of having and respecting rights instead of trying to defend your substandard use of the English language, you'd have noticed that.

Sorry but I care more about the rights of students to be alive and feel comfortable in their school getting an education, than some mentally ill person to own a gun.

/argument

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

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

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

Bottom line, intentions can be claimed by leftists before things happen. When the empirical data from shooting after shooting shows clearly they are protecting shooters, not their victims, the intentions of the left to have good intentions is just not defensible.

I changed my mind on several issues, like the war on drugs, because I had to look at the reality of my pro-war on drugs stance yielded zero benefits and massive harm. So I switched sides.

Leftists don't have the personal integrity to do that

 

[Cecilie1200]

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,

Why are Unconstitutional laws enacted? Because humans are often power-hungry assholes, and/or motivated by power-hungry assholes. In the case of laws trying to revoke 2nd Amendment rights without a judicial hearing, it would be the second, and YOU would be the power-hungry asshole in question. Take a bow.

As for the Supreme Court, I realize that your tyrannical little leftist heart just wuuuuvs the idea of an unelected oligarchy of lawyers in robes controlling everything, but it's not actually always necessary to go to the trouble, expense, and extensive wait of appealing things to the Supreme Court in order to get them corrected. As, witness, this Unconstitutional violation of due process no longer exists, does it?

Despite what elitists like you believe and wish for, a major purpose of the US system is that the laws are accessible by everyone, not just the ruling class.

 

[kaz]

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.

We favor removing the Constitutional right of mentally ill people through due process.

How on God's green earth could a criminal justice major hear that we want mentally ill people to have guns? How is that possible? We're talking massive stupidity here.

Tell me what school gave you a BS in criminal justice so I can print off and send your posts to them and they can demand your degree back

 

[kaz]

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.

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

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

Well, I do draw a massive line between people who were employed by the government, particularly military, and people who want government to redistribute other people's money their way, like social security and other welfare programs.

I don't mind at all discouraging the latter. I'm for drug testing of welfare recipients too for the same reason

 

[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.

Sorry, I did miss one thing here. You did say social security. The same happens to military veterans and I conflated them.

Since social security recipients are applying for welfare and want to receive other people's money, I have no problem forcing them to agree to waive their Constitutional rights to do that since the Feds have no Constitutional authority to confiscate other people's money and give it to them.

Veterans I don't agree with since they served their country and it's not welfare like social security.

What's the relevance though? My OP is the concealed carry permit holders should be able to carry at schools. I doubt a mental disability social security retiree would be approved for a CC

The whole thing has to do with how mental ill people shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, and the fact you blame liberals when it is Conservatives that are constantly making it easier for people that SHOULDN'T own guns to do so.

 

[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?

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

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

For sure, you listed all hearings that were non-judicial hearings. I know we're agreeing

 

[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.

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,

Why are Unconstitutional laws enacted? Because humans are often power-hungry assholes, and/or motivated by power-hungry assholes. In the case of laws trying to revoke 2nd Amendment rights without a judicial hearing, it would be the second, and YOU would be the power-hungry asshole in question. Take a bow.

As for the Supreme Court, I realize that your tyrannical little leftist heart just wuuuuvs the idea of an unelected oligarchy of lawyers in robes controlling everything, but it's not actually always necessary to go to the trouble, expense, and extensive wait of appealing things to the Supreme Court in order to get them corrected. As, witness, this Unconstitutional violation of due process no longer exists, does it?

Despite what elitists like you believe and wish for, a major purpose of the US system is that the laws are accessible by everyone, not just the ruling class.

Blah blah blah... The Supreme Court has an advantage of Conservatives to Progressives and the Congress didn't take the existing law for review by the Supreme Court, they instead had to write a new one and pass it.

So don't feed me that bullshit... especially when so many people in Congress are getting HUGE campaign contribution money from the NRA.

 

[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.

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.

If we were discussing whether someone's doctor should be able to authorize the police to break down a patient's door without a warrant or exercise their right to free speech, he would suddenly get it.

Unless they were putting up the ten commandments or Christmas decorations, then he wouldn't again

 

[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.

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.

We favor removing the Constitutional right of mentally ill people through due process.

How on God's green earth could a criminal justice major hear that we want mentally ill people to have guns? How is that possible? We're talking massive stupidity here.

Tell me what school gave you a BS in criminal justice so I can print off and send your posts to them and they can demand your degree back

You keep attacking my degree and saying it is a sham without giving me due process.

 

[BlindBoo]

Republicans control Fla. and own the recent school massacre.

Feeble attempt to dodge, really. GOP strategy 101. Pass the buck.

 

[jillian]

Republicans control Fla. and own the recent school massacre.

Feeble attempt to dodge, really. GOP strategy 101. Pass the buck.

they've controlled florida for 20 years.