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

[BlindBoo]

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.

Yep.

Next, Alex Jones is going to deny it ever happened too.

 

[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.

Yep.

Next, Alex Jones is going to deny it ever happened too.

and the trump loons will repeat the infowars insanity as if it were reality.

 

[Lewdog]

98% of NRA campaign contributions go to Conservatives... you think they have the betterment of the people in mind? No, it's all about money.

NRA contributions: how much money is spent on lawmakers?

 

[kaz]

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

I know you don't get it, but that sentence is hilarious. It also proves that you don't know what due process is.

Due process is judicial.

Passing laws is legislative

To say passing laws is not a violation of a judicial process is what's called a non-sequitur

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

No, but it's written in the Constitution that you can deny voting to felons.

Also, the Constitution doesn't say that anyone can vote, the right to vote is not in the Constitution at all

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

If someone has murdered someone, they are a felon. But they are not a convicted felon unless they are convicted of the crime in a court of law. Due process requires the latter. The former is not sufficient

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

I've answered that a half dozen times. Here you go again.

If by "felon" you mean "convicted felon," hell no. If you were smarter and knew what you'd talking about, this was what Celia and I both advocated

If by "commit domestic violence," you mean "convicted of domestic violence in a court of law," then hell no. If you were smarter and knew what you'd talking about, this was what Celia and I both advocated.

What part of convicted don't you understand? Why is that is so completely confusing to you?

You keep saying things are in the Constitution but not once have you provided proof of that.

Please show me where in the Constitution that felons can not own a gun or vote

Due process clause in the fifth amendment

I'm not going to continue to argue with you here until you show support for your argument.

Um ... yeah. The due process is very complicated. It would take a criminal justice BS to understand it. Oh wait, you have one ...

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

How many times have you asked this already?

And how many times have I answered it?

And how can a BS in criminal justice possibly not already know the answer that it's the fifth amendment, though he phrased it funky

 

[kaz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah and you are missing the obvious. I was wondering if you two would ever catch on. A person CHOSES to apply for disability. If there is a law on the books that says a person who gets disability for having a debilitating mental illness, Due Process doesn't matter. They are CHOOSING to apply for disability despite what rights they will lose under the law.

Thanks for playing.

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

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

Just curious. This isn't one we see entirely the same way. I consider that good. We're not leftists who just both parrot our Gods. We actually think.

Do you think it should be legal to drug test welfare recipients? I do, and I think drugs should be legal. I think we should even if drugs are actually legalized.

My objection was military who served their country. In that case, we're changing the terms of what we promised them for working for us later, in which case I agree they are totally entitled to due process.

Of course this is a red herring as my OP is about concealed carry. When leftists are losing, they call you a racist and move the goalposts

 

[TemplarKormac]

I know you don't get it, but that sentence is hilarious. It also proves that you don't know what due process is.

Due process is judicial.

Passing laws is legislative

To say passing laws is not a violation of a judicial process is what's called a non-sequitur


No, but it's written in the Constitution that you can deny voting to felons.

Also, the Constitution doesn't say that anyone can vote, the right to vote is not in the Constitution at all

If someone has murdered someone, they are a felon. But they are not a convicted felon unless they are convicted of the crime in a court of law. Due process requires the latter. The former is not sufficient

I've answered that a half dozen times. Here you go again.

If by "felon" you mean "convicted felon," hell no. If you were smarter and knew what you'd talking about, this was what Celia and I both advocated

If by "commit domestic violence," you mean "convicted of domestic violence in a court of law," then hell no. If you were smarter and knew what you'd talking about, this was what Celia and I both advocated.

What part of convicted don't you understand? Why is that is so completely confusing to you?

You keep saying things are in the Constitution but not once have you provided proof of that.

Please show me where in the Constitution that felons can not own a gun or vote

Due process clause in the fifth amendment

I'm not going to continue to argue with you here until you show support for your argument.

Um ... yeah. The due process is very complicated. It would take a criminal justice BS to understand it. Oh wait, you have one ...

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

How many times have you asked this already?

And how many times have I answered it?

And how can a BS in criminal justice possibly not already know the answer that it's the fifth amendment, though he phrased it funky

More than a dozen times.

(By the way, there's a reason he has me on ignore. He doesn't like being assaulted with facts and/or reason)

 

[dblack]

Do you think it should be legal to drug test welfare recipients?

Nope. We shouldn't have to give up our rights to use government services.

 

[kaz]

Getting a disability check isn't due process.

DUE PROCESS IS A JUDICIAL PROCESS

How do you not understand that? And you have a criminal justice degree? I actually believe you, which is even more stunning to me.

So answer the question I've asked you over and over. Should a member of the executive branch on his/her own have the right to restrict your Constitutional rights? Answer the question

People who get a government check for a disability of mental illness DO GO THROUGH A HEARING TO PROVE THEY HAVE A DEBILITATING MENTAL ILLNESS.

You keep trying to play your little game both ways.

Yes, they go through an administrative hearing under civil law with an ALJ to determine if they meet Social Security regulations.

That's not even in the same galaxy as going to criminal court and being convicted in a jury trial of a felony.

They CHOSE to apply for disability. Sometimes when you CHOSE to do something, you do so knowing that you may be giving up some things in order to gain others. If they want to own a gun and feel they are well enough to handle that responsibility, then they can also CHOSE to get a job instead of getting a check from the government.

A person can CHOSE to waive some of their rights in certain situations... that means Due Process no longer matters.

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

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

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

So are you conceding that only people who have agreed to remove their own rights for a check should be denied due process? Or is this not really a standard to you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh hi, jillian! Care to speak up in this thread?

 

[CowboyTed]

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

No, they don't.

We followed your plan, it was a gun free zone. 17 are dead. Damned straight you owe us an explanation for your failure

This is the guy (well his profile pic on instagram) who shot up that school, how is it the left's problem...

FACT CHECK: Did the Florida Shooter's Instagram Profile Picture Feature a 'MAGA' Hat?

 

[kaz]

So if it doesn’t mention marriage at all, how is just gay marriage singled out by you, instead of all marriages?

Marriage is not in the Constitution, which means the Feds have no say over gay or any other marriage.

Well that’s pretty fucking rightarded. The Judicial branch absolutely has a say in marriage laws if marriage laws violate the Constitution.

Chalk this up to yet more subjects you know nothing about.

How can it violate the Constitution if it isn’t IN the Constitution?

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

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

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

I’m not making anything up.


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

I never said it does, I said it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Equal protection is and should be literal, like the rest of the law. The role of the courts is to decide if two people are being treated literally differently. There is no provision in the law that people who want different things are treated differently.

Whether you are gay or straight, you can marry the exact same list of people. Equal protection doesn't apply.

Now if you don't like that, the legislature is the place to go.

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

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

For a private ceremony between the people? The government has no say.

For government benefits? Yes, the government can decide who is entitled to government recognition and handouts.

Your legitimate rights are negative rights. You have no legitimate right to a positive right. You can marry your honey, Steve. You and Steve have no right to demand recognition and handouts from anyone else, including government when you do it

 

[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 ...[/COLOR]

This is the pass out guns at the door approach.

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

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

You are major league stupid

The NRA solution is always more guns.

The NRAs position on alcoholism? Give them more alcohol.

false equivalency

When you have a shooting in a gun free zone and the only one with guns is the shooter, then yes, the solution to that situation is more guns.

Comparing that to giving an alcoholic alcohol is inane.

You masturbating to the thought of a bunch of shot up kids so you can politicize it for your real goal, 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.

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.

Saves a lot of time you might otherwise spend arguing with juvenile leftists about "that's not fair!" If I don't bother arguing such things with my own children, I'm certainly not going to with leftists.

 

[kaz]

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

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

It's too broad?

I'm sorry the word hearing confuses you.

The word broad doesn't appear in my post.

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

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

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

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

I've answered your question roughly eight times.

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

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

You NEVER answered my question.

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

I walked you through the detail several times, then just gave you the answer of the 5th amendment at least a dozen times by now.

There is no ... possible ... way that a BS in criminal justice doesn't grasp that due process in fifth amendment is how you Constitutionally remove someone's Constitutional rights.

You convict someone of a felony and you can remove their liberty and put them in prison. You can while they are on parole remove their protection from illegal search and seizure. You can remove their rights to voting and guns. You can even remove their life and kill them.

How is it possible that you don't already know that? Much less making me tell you that and explain it to you over and over and over. Call ANY of your old professors, TAs or classmates and ask them to explain due process to you.

This explains your grades, doesn't it?

LEWDOG. Read this over and over until you understand it. You were taught this LITERALLY in your intro to criminal justice class.

***

 

[kaz]

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.

You took Criminal Justice and you don't know what:

The fifth amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

For god fucking sakes, what is wrong with you? How does a CRIMINAL JUSTICE major possibly have to repeatedly ask that?

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Have you had a stroke?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

EXACTLY!

I am bang alongside the idea that people with violently unstable mental conditions should not have access to weapons - not just guns - and, in fact, should probably not be walking the streets unsupervised.

However, the decisions as to who those people are should be decided on a case-by-case basis, by the proper authorities, with the proper respect for their rights. And I am 100% opposed to making those decisions on blanket generalizations of entire groups of people, and to having those decisions made by doctors, bureaucrats, and paper-pushers, without regard to the legal and judicial safeguards our society depends on.

I am not willing to trade my freedom for the promise of safety, and I am DAMNED sure not willing to let someone else trade my freedom for THEIR idea of safety.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Saves a lot of time you might otherwise spend arguing with juvenile leftists about "that's not fair!" If I don't bother arguing such things with my own children, I'm certainly not going to with leftists.

Agreed.

 

[kaz]

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.

Great points, Templar. On another subject, do you remember when Obama wrote in his biography that he was born in Kenya? Then his ho called Kenya his home country? Then Hillary started her campaign by bringing up again? That was hilarious.

Leftists are idiots. The first three birthers were them. Trump came later and they blamed all the stuff that happened before him on him.

Also if you think about it, wow, they're saying Obama is such a liar, Trump never should have believed them. Obama, what a stupid douche. Who else has ever gotten their own country of birth wrong. Hahahahahahahaha

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

I'm for drug-testing of welfare recipients as well. A noticeable difference between the two scenarios is that drug-testing does not require the voluntary or coerced surrendering of any actual Constitutional rights, and certainly not a surrendering in perpetuity.

Personally, I consider my dislike of the Social Security system on Constitutional grounds to be a separate matter from my belief that requiring people to give up their rights in order to apply for assistance from them is Unconstitutional. Whatever I may think of the system, it IS the system at this time, and it's both ludicrous and outrageous to demand that, in order to access the existing system, people must give away their rights as citizens.

Again, if one wants to keep violently mentally ill people from owning guns, then it MUST be done on a case-by-case basis, by the proper authorities, through the proper procedures, with the appropriate level of evidence and justification. Application for disability benefits meets none of those standards.

 

[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.

Great points, Templar. On another subject, do you remember when Obama wrote in his biography that he was born in Kenya? Then his ho called Kenya his home country? Then Hillary started her campaign by bringing up again? That was hilarious.

Leftists are idiots. The first three birthers were them. Trump came later and they blamed all the stuff that happened before him on him.

Also if you think about it, wow, they're saying Obama is such a liar, Trump never should have believed them. Obama, what a stupid douche. Who else has ever gotten their own country of birth wrong. Hahahahahahahaha