One huge political difference between Dems and Reps...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by nat4900, Oct 3, 2017.

  1. SavannahMann
    Online

    SavannahMann Silver Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2016
    Messages:
    1,622
    Thanks Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Ratings:
    +1,128
    In our constitution, you can not be deprived of life, liberty, or freedom without due process of law.

    What if it wasn’t the Second Amendment we were talking about. What if it was the First? Let’s wonder what would happen if you were not allowed to speak because you were on a secret list. No one went to a Judge, they just decided you were on a list because of whatever reason they felt like. Perhaps your name was similar to one that was a suspected terrorist, or perhaps you said something someone did not like.

    Well you could appeal, you could hire a lawyer and hope to find the truth. But you don’t have the right to an attorney, because you are on that list. You don’t have a right to your day in court, you are on a list.

    Due process of law is the mechanism we use to deny people their rights. A person is not just declared incompetent because a daughter, husband, friend, or random acquaintance says so. There is a process to be followed. A process that seeks to determine the truth, and apply a wise judgement.

    Due process of law allows for all the things you want to do. But you have to go through the process. You can’t take away the rights, and then decide that if they meet some administrative standard, then you will reconsider. That is an abomination of our system.

    Due process of law first, and then the loss of life, liberty, freedom, or property. Due process first.

    IF you want to determine that someone is in fact, insane. It isn’t the judgement call of some social worker, it is a legal determination, with far reaching consequences. That determination deserves the day in court, or at least a hearing to allow the accused to present evidence on their own behalf.

    Otherwise who gets to decide? Would you allow me to decide who is crazy? I’m not a Psychiatrist. I am not a legal expert. I have no training in either field. Yet, the people you want making that determination are no more qualified than I to make it.

    I had a discussion with a friend about what God wants or what God would think. I told him I had two truths in my heart. One, There is a God. Two, I’m not God. I don’t want the religion where I am the one deciding things. I don’t want to be the one who decides who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. I also don’t want a world where I decide who is allowed to have rights, and who isn’t. I am arrogant, certainly. I am not so arrogant that I feel comfortable being the one voice who decides such things.

    I will state my opinion, but it is one voice among many. It is one opinion among many. When serving on a Jury, I am one vote, among the others. Perhaps I can carry the day with my opinion, and perhaps I can change mine in the face of other arguments.

    I swore an oath once, actually more than once, but you get the point. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constituion. That meant all of it. Not just the parts I agreed with. It meant every single section. You disagree with the Supreme Court on the decision about Heller, and the money in politics argument. I disagree with their decision on Kelo, and others. It is my opinion, and like everyone I have an opinion on somethings, and not on other issues.

    Due process of law is one of those things I have a very strong opinion on. I am always opposed to Civil Asset Forfeiture. I believe it is an abomination. I am always opposed to restricting rights of the citizens. As for free speech, my answer is an old one. I may disagree with what you say, but I would fight to the death for your right to say it.

    I will always argue against depriving anyone of their life, freedom, or property without that due process. Always.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    15,807
    Thanks Received:
    2,319
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,356
    And passing laws not based in fact but rather based in emotion that will not have a positive outcome is irresponsible as well.

    That is what the gun control laws that are constantly introduced these days are.
     
  3. P@triot
    Offline

    P@triot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    35,560
    Thanks Received:
    4,110
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    United States
    Ratings:
    +17,702
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. nat4900
    Offline

    nat4900 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    26,110
    Thanks Received:
    3,558
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +17,702

    An idiot (like you) would concentrate on the acts of ONE fucked up individual and extrapolate that to an entire group......

    Given THAT moronic "logic" we should still be killing off ALL Germans or Vietnamese, or Koreans. et al.

    Crawl back into your hole, Patsy..... .
     
  5. nat4900
    Offline

    nat4900 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    26,110
    Thanks Received:
    3,558
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +17,702
    Another screwed up right winger DEMANDS that military style weaponry.....designed to kill MORE people in the LEAST amount of time possible, be in the hands of ANYONE who can afford to buy one.....

    The similarities between these fuck heads and the Taliban or A-Q, are uncanny.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    15,807
    Thanks Received:
    2,319
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,356
    I didn't demand anything - just pointed out a simple truth. One that you prove yet again as you fly off the handle with emotional rage absent a single logical point.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. Daryl Hunt
    Online

    Daryl Hunt Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,495
    Thanks Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +382
    I believe we are all in agreement that the line has to be drawn. What we differ on is where that line is. I really don't blame the bump stocks on this one. I do believe that the weapon used along with the large capacity clips are across the line. Today we might regulate the bump stocks but some other bright engineer type will find a way to get around the changing the semi auto AR style to fire automatic to fire like or similar to it's full auto cousin. The worst mass shootings in the US in the last 10 years have all been done by Civilian AR-15s with large capacity clips or Magazines. This one holds the record. The Shooter was better prepared with the money to do just about anything he wanted to do.

    In the #2, the shooter was ill prepared, in an closed tightly packed field of fire with a 100 round mag. The AR mag jammed at about 50 rounds and he couldn't do the other 50. Otherwise, the kill rate would have been over 100. And he didn't use a bump stock.

    The line is in the weapon itself and size of mags. Those two, together, are the issue. Even with the 30 round mag, the AR can fire at least 2 mags in less than 5 seconds. If he has 4 mags then he can fire at least 120 rounds in less than 10 seconds and this is without something like the Bump Stock. With the Bump STock, it doesn't really get much worse in a closed target rich environment. You aren't limited in whether it's a full or simulated auto or not. You are limited to the number of clips or mags you can carry. Knowing that,. where do we draw that line?
     
  8. Spare_change
    Offline

    Spare_change Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,643
    Thanks Received:
    1,149
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,397
    No, as a matter of fact we don't agree about the line being drawn.

    We can't address the problem until we agree what the problem is. The problem ISN'T the weapon. The problem is the shooter. Until we agree on that, there is no need for further conversation.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  9. Daryl Hunt
    Online

    Daryl Hunt Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,495
    Thanks Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +382
    We can only regulate what we can regulate. You can't regulate a nut case. So we need to find another way. To think otherwise is just allowing every nutcase with a vengeance the tools to do what they want to do.

    Now, how can we regulate the nutjobs when we have no idea who they are? it could be your quiet next5 door neighbor or the pizza delivery dude or any number of people you would never suspect. Yes, we can do a better job in ....... actually, no we can't unless you wish to completely throw out the constitution.

    But we can regulate the toys. It was done in 1934 and has been very successful ever since. If you believe that there are a ton of fully auto weapons on the streets, step slowly away from your TV set because that's the only place the bad guys have access to fully auto weapons.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Spare_change
    Offline

    Spare_change Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,643
    Thanks Received:
    1,149
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,397
    Yes - we can regulate his toys. You know, things like fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, cars, knives, swords, etc., etc., etc. - none of which will stop him. When you choose to require a background check to get a driver's license, then we can talk. It is nonsensical to punish those who don't commit a crime for the actions of those who do.

    You will notice that, recently, the car bombs in Afghanistan killed 232 people -- and not a gun in sight. You will notice that crashing a truck through a crowd at a Xmas bazaar in Germany killed 13 - and not a gun in sight. You will notice that a machete wielding maniac in London killed two and wounded 6 - and not a gun in sight.

    In short, "controlling guns" (which is liberal-speak for "taking guns away because we don't know what else to do, and this is the easiest activity so we can FEEL like we did something), accomplishes nothing, other than to encourage crime.

    But, I disagree with your premise that we can't control the "nut case." A simple, centralized database (we already have it) expanded to include the mentally ill, those suffering mental issues, criminals, domestic abusers., etc. will provide a reasonable foundation for a permit denial program. You don't need to know where all the guns are - you need to know where all the "nut cases" are. You don't need to keep guns out of the hands of everybody - you need to keep your "nut cases" away from guns. I have absolutely no problem being required to inform the government that I take Xanax for depression, but am mightily opposed to telling them how many weapons I have.I have no problem telling all mental health providers that they are required to report their patients to the federal government, but I strongly object to requiring my weapons provider to register my purchases.

    Notice how you inherently object to telling the government about an individual's health conditions - as an invasion of privacy? Now, you know how I feel about my guns. You seem to object to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "nut cases", but not objection whatsoever to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "gun owners". An interesting dichotomy, I think.

    As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

    Funny you should mention the "no fully automatic weapons" thing ----- there are, virtually, no LEGAL automatic weapons on the street. However, within the past three months, I've had the opportunity to shoot an automatic weapon at two different shooting ranges (and can testify you can't hit a damn thing with them). But, we've had two shootings in the past three months using automatic weapons here locally. Frankly, if somebody were shooting at me, I would PREFER he use an automatic weapon. They are terribly inaccurate, and my odds of survival go up - not down. Automatic fire serves no purpose other than making loud noises and lots of smoke. A great suppression tool, but pretty useless as a killing tool.
     

Share This Page