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.
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
I addressed the question of drug testing already, and I'm sure you've seen that post by now.
On the subject of drugs being legal or illegal, I think it's a lot more complicated a question than that. If you know me at all, you know that "should" is a word I tend to be extremely uncomfortable with, because it's so often accompanied by pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic utopian demands.
I think we need to ask ourselves two questions: "What kind of society do we want to have?" and "What is the best way to achieve that?" I personally don't think widespread drug use and abuse is desirable for society OR for the individuals it affects, but I also think it's undeniable that the War on Drugs, as it has been waged, has been wholly ineffective for any of its goals. I think the whole issue requires a lot more creative, nuanced thinking than it has received from pretty much everyone.
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.
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.
I can't disagree with anything you said because you phrased it precisely. But I personally like the idea of discouraging people from getting welfare checks.
While I do think getting a check of money confiscated from other citizens at gunpoint is a sufficient reason to get you to agree to lose your Constitutional rights in return, I agree with your statement that agreeing to that does not mean you lose your individual right to due process. You would just lose in court since you agreed.
Also, I'd rather people losing their Constitutional rights for living on armed robbery performed by the government lose their right to vote rather than their gun. At least then the producers would be voting rather than the leeches.
It should apply to all welfare programs. You get money confiscated by government from other citizens, you lose your right to vote
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 president
Thread fail
Proposed by a Democrat. Troll fail.
Aaaaand no one gives a fuck, because it's irrelevant.
Left isn't partisan, sweetie. There are lots of left Republicans
Social Security is at least a program that requires MOST of the people who receive benefits from it to have put something into it in order to get them, so it is different from welfare in that regard
Social Security is at least a program that requires MOST of the people who receive benefits from it to have put something into it in order to get them, so it is different from welfare in that regard
This is the part of your post that is factually wrong.
The money they paid in was spent as it was received, no money was ever saved.
Welfare: 100% of the amount paid is paid by current taxpayers
Social Security: 100% of the amount paid is paid by current taxpayers
You cannot refute that. It's a fact
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.
But Slick, it's the only explanation coming from the left. Republicans passed the Fla gun laws. It's obvious they hold the profits of the gun manufacturers in higher regard than the lives of children.
My Gawd, think of the Children!
Yes you are correct, reality is much harder than politics.
Okay, first of all, just let me say that I'm well aware of the leftist tactic of "Show up after a long argument, pretend to be completely ignorant of anything that's been said, demand that the entire argument be repeated for you, and hope your opponent gets frustrated and gives up". Doesn't work on me, and never will. I will be perfectly happy to kick your ass for the next 60 pages just like I did Lewdog's in the previous 60, AND continue kicking his ass while I'm at it.
Now, having said that . . . you wanna go? Then giddyup, son.
As I have already said to JED, this is not about Republicans and Democrats. I'm not responsible for the Republican Party or any of its members, and I don't really give a damn about them. The OP said "leftists", and I've been talking very consistently about leftists, so this is about political philosophy, not political parties. I have no intention of letting you re-define the parameters of the debate because you're unable to mount a defense based on the current ones.
Furthermore, if you are planning on framing your argument on the basis that the gun laws of the state of Florida are directly responsible for this shooting, then by all means, present me with the specific law or laws and your reasoning as to how they are responsible, and we can discuss them. But I will not be blindly accepting your vague premise without substantiation.
Bring it on.
More armed security guards at schools please. Jobs, more jobs.
More armed security guards at schools please. Jobs, more jobs.
Barbed wire and Guard Towers. More construction jobs!
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.
But Slick, it's the only explanation coming from the left. Republicans passed the Fla gun laws. It's obvious they hold the profits of the gun manufacturers in higher regard than the lives of children.
My Gawd, think of the Children!
Yes you are correct, reality is much harder than politics.
Okay, first of all, just let me say that I'm well aware of the leftist tactic of "Show up after a long argument, pretend to be completely ignorant of anything that's been said, demand that the entire argument be repeated for you, and hope your opponent gets frustrated and gives up". Doesn't work on me, and never will. I will be perfectly happy to kick your ass for the next 60 pages just like I did Lewdog's in the previous 60, AND continue kicking his ass while I'm at it.
Now, having said that . . . you wanna go? Then giddyup, son.
As I have already said to JED, this is not about Republicans and Democrats. I'm not responsible for the Republican Party or any of its members, and I don't really give a damn about them. The OP said "leftists", and I've been talking very consistently about leftists, so this is about political philosophy, not political parties. I have no intention of letting you re-define the parameters of the debate because you're unable to mount a defense based on the current ones.
Furthermore, if you are planning on framing your argument on the basis that the gun laws of the state of Florida are directly responsible for this shooting, then by all means, present me with the specific law or laws and your reasoning as to how they are responsible, and we can discuss them. But I will not be blindly accepting your vague premise without substantiation.
Bring it on.
Blaming this monstrous act on the Gun Free School Zone acts of the 90's or even to say that those Bills were some kind of Leftist subversion of common sense is as ludicrous as saying either side is to blame. The one to blame is the guy who did the deed. Hanging's too good for him.
More armed security guards at schools please. Jobs, more jobs.
Barbed wire and Guard Towers. More construction jobs!
Yet cops and the judicial system abuse the 5th on asset forfeiture daily and you say not a word about it..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?
Amazing that people that write the laws for drug testing welfare applicants claim that they will not take drugs tests because it is unconstitutional....Yeah those elitist have rights but the plebs not so much...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.
Yet cops and the judicial system abuse the 5th on asset forfeiture daily and you say not a word about it.."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?
Yet cops and the judicial system abuse the 5th on asset forfeiture daily and you say not a word about it.."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?
Amazing that people that write the laws for drug testing welfare applicants claim that they will not take drugs tests because it is unconstitutional....Yeah those elitist have rights but the plebs not so much...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.
A brook..Amazing that people that write the laws for drug testing welfare applicants claim that they will not take drugs tests because it is unconstitutional....Yeah those elitist have rights but the plebs not so much...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.
What the fuck are you babbling about?
A brook..Amazing that people that write the laws for drug testing welfare applicants claim that they will not take drugs tests because it is unconstitutional....Yeah those elitist have rights but the plebs not so much...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.
What the fuck are you babbling about?
No sawdust..A brook..Amazing that people that write the laws for drug testing welfare applicants claim that they will not take drugs tests because it is unconstitutional....Yeah those elitist have rights but the plebs not so much...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.
What the fuck are you babbling about?
Are you bored?
