Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
You mean, why he didn’t follow the law?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 ...
No, the Shooter does.
Good point. Doc1 says shooting people is against the law. What else can they be expected to do? How would they have known someone wouldn't follow the law?
Isn't there some term for people who break the law? I can't think of it right now
Republicans control Fla. and own the recent school massacre.
Feeble attempt to dodge, really. GOP strategy 101. Pass the buck.
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?
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
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,
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.
It’s entirely relevant in the context of this failed partisan threadAaaand still signed into law by a Republican president. Run along, little narc........was signed into law by a Republican presidentThe Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)
Thread fail
Proposed by a Democrat. Troll fail.
Aaaaand no one gives a fuck, because it's irrelevant.
"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
View attachment 178154
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?
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,
I was a math major. For you to claim you're a criminal justice major and you have no idea whatsoever what due process means would be like me claiming I don't know what algebra is. Due process is the whole basis of criminal justice. What exactly WERE you studying?
It’s entirely relevant in the context of this failed partisan threadAaaand still signed into law by a Republican president. Run along, little narc........was signed into law by a Republican presidentThe Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)
Thread fail
Proposed by a Democrat. Troll fail.
Aaaaand no one gives a fuck, because it's irrelevant.
Republicans control Fla. and own the recent school massacre.
Feeble attempt to dodge, really. GOP strategy 101. Pass the buck.
Sorry, Sparkles, but "Republicans control Florida" is not even REMOTELY enough to address where the fault lies.
It's called "in-depth thought". Try some, and get back to us.
We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.
You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?
Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...
So in your perfect world the killer should have been able to waltz into the school, an AR15 in one hand and a Glock in the other,
and no one should have had the right to confront him.
fuckinay, that is some crazy shit right there.
Ad Hominem. The death of an argument...I really had fun in this thread!
Let's re-cap a couple things to show just how stupid Spaz and Cecille are.
Spaz started this thread because of his hatred for Liberals and wanted to place the blame of the Florida shooting on them without any solid proof of anything other than his hatred.
I posted that was untrue, because in fact it is Conservatives that make it EASIER for people to get their hands on guns, even those that absolutely shouldn't own guns. For example, the Conservative Congress and Trump passing the law to allow people getting Social Security for a disability of debilitating mental illness.
Now Spaz and his partner went off for 10+ pages arguing about due process, and hell I went along with the argument for fun and really enjoyed them thinking I don't know what due process is.
Spaz and his sidekick are the kind of people that get off on an unrelated tangent and will try to hard to argue that tangent and be intelligent sounding, that they totally forget what the original discussion was in the first place. This was proven when Spaz just admitted he supports the idea of people who receive disability from the government for a debilitating mental illness waiving their right to own a firearm.
Now the moral of this story is, it is people in government that act like Spaz and his cohort, that nothing ever gets done because they spend so much time trying to argue about shit that has nothing to do with the issue, that they can't even pass common sense laws.
Good luck Spaz and Kato. This argument has well run its course.
Hmmm yes, yes it isIt’s entirely relevant in the context of this failed partisan threadAaaand still signed into law by a Republican president. Run along, little narc........was signed into law by a Republican president
Thread fail
Proposed by a Democrat. Troll fail.
Aaaaand no one gives a fuck, because it's irrelevant.
No, it's really not.
Aaaand still signed into law by a Republican president. Run along, little narc........was signed into law by a Republican presidentThe Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)
Thread fail
Proposed by a Democrat. Troll fail.
