Bull Ring @ Bluzman61: Get in the ring

[Natural Citizen]

I have to say our president was most likely quoted out of context on that. You know and I know our hideously biased Left leaning media LOVES to quote him out of context. He is someone that is for ANYONE that is qualified and goes through proper screening being able to own a gun. I believe our president has NEVER shown blatant disregard for EITHER the second OR fifth amendment. President Trump is, if anything, a true American patriot that cares deeply about his and our country. He would NEVER slander our Bill of Rights or Constitution.

No. Huh uh. The Republican president was rather clear and direct. He said take guns first, give due process second. Do you understand the nature of due process? If so, please explain it for us from a conservative perspective. We'll wait.

Now. Let's expand on your latter thoughts on the topic. ''Anyone who is qualified through proper screening.'' Where is that stipulation in the second amendment? Please share it. As a liberal, my contention is that any second amendment screening violates the first amendment because it compels the electorate to speak. Further, second amendment screening violates the fifth amendment because it compels the electorate to speak and to provide information about itself. This is not even to speak of the tenth amendment. Would you not agree? What's the conservative position? Given the context of your words, it appears that you, as a conservative, are of the view that Constitutional rights are arbitrarily granted and given by the federal government.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'll come back and check on you here and there, Bluz. I'm gonna browse through the threads. K?

 

[Natural Citizen]

And we're going to have to resume our "competition" tomorrow.

Good Morning, Bluz! That's fine. I'm in no hurry. As I'd mentioned, I'll be in and out. I'm not gonna spend all of my time on this thread. I was just gonna twist the knife around nice and slow anyway. I'm kind of a dick like that.

 

[bluzman61]

And we're going to have to resume our "competition" tomorrow.

Good Morning, Bluz! That's fine. I'm in no hurry. As I'd mentioned, I'll be in and out. I'm not gonna spend all of my time on this thread. I was just gonna twist the knife around nice and slow anyway. I'm kind of a dick like that.

You ARE an arrogant, smug prick, I'll give you that much. It's also apparent that you ARE afflicted with TDS, in a big way. And you probably don't even realize you have the horrific malady. I should have realized this before we started this "competition". Your first reply was nothing but a parroting of the lies put forth by our biased media, which I answered quite astutely. This lying media, and you're obviously brainwashed BY it, has produced a hatred of our president that is a bit frightening. I truly believe President Trump could come up with a plan to give all of those who qualify, $10,000 tax-free, and you'd still find a fault in his behavior. So, please do something about the awful affliction that seems to occupy your brain 24/7, rent-free. And I won't be responding to any more replies you post on this thread, because I know it will just be more of the same lies YOU believe. Post all you want, I won't waste MY time answering it. Thank you.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Post all you want, I won't waste MY time answering it. Thank you.

That's probably the smartest thing I've ever seen you say on here, Bluz.

Alright, then. Guess I'll se ya around the board. Heh heh.

 

[buttercup]

 

[toobfreak]

So, in other words, you're all for leaving violent and crazy people armed on the street with guns killing more innocent people rather than simply holding the guns in lieu until the case (due process) has been adjudicated? You see, a man has due process, but an inanimate object DOES NOT.

I'd like to see you defend that position if you had a violent ex who was hell bent on stalking and killing for jilting him.

 

[buttercup]

So, in other words, you're all for leaving violent and crazy people armed on the street with guns killing more innocent people rather than simply holding the guns in lieu until the case (due process) has been adjudicated? You see, a man has due process, but an inanimate object DOES NOT.

I'd like to see you defend that position if you had a violent ex who was hell bent on stalking and killing for jilting him.

First of all, I didn't say anything one way or the other, I just posted the clip. So why are you putting words in my mouth? Secondly, they weren't talking about taking guns away from violent criminals who have killed people, so everything you said is a straw man. He was for throwing out due process BEFORE anything happens. Do you not see how the "take guns first, due process second" trashing of the 2nd and 5th amendments could lead to the government accusing ANYONE of being a potential criminal? We have due process for a reason. Are you a Democrat? They're usually the ones who disregard constitutional rights.

 

[toobfreak]

So, in other words, you're all for leaving violent and crazy people armed on the street with guns killing more innocent people rather than simply holding the guns in lieu until the case (due process) has been adjudicated? You see, a man has due process, but an inanimate object DOES NOT.
I'd like to see you defend that position if you had a violent ex who was hell bent on stalking and killing for jilting him.

First of all, I didn't say anything one way or the other, I just posted the clip. So why are you putting words in my mouth?

Because when you don't say anything one way or the other, you leave it up to the reader to assume that you posted the clip because it supports your own beliefs. Next time you post something you disagree with, you might consider saying something like: "Listen to this Fool!"

Secondly, they weren't talking about taking guns away from violent criminals who have killed people, so everything you said is a straw man. He was for throwing out due process BEFORE anything happens.

HE MOST CERTAINLY WAS. Why else would he want to take guns off a person than to protect other people from what was seen as a HIGH RISK situation until due process could be held?

Do you not see how the "take guns first, due process second" trashing of the 2nd and 5th amendments could lead to the government accusing ANYONE of being a potential criminal? We have due process for a reason. Are you a Democrat? They're usually the ones who disregard constitutional rights.

There is potential for abuse in any law. But what about when a wife getting a paper ordering an ex husband not come within 500 feet of her house? Has there been due process? What about when an ex-felon is denied the right to carry guns or vote? I can name 500 situations where a situation is deemed too high a risk to others that a person's rights are temporarily infringed for the greater public good until a hearing can permanently decide the outcome.

I'll say it again: if you were a woman being stalked by a guy who had threatened you and had a history of violence, tell me you would defend his right to continue to carry guns until a year from now when his trial is resolved. A person's rights END where they infringe on someone else's.

 

[sparky]

He was for throwing out due process BEFORE anything happens.

I said the same thing when they passed the PA

~S~

 

[candycorn]

Post all you want, I won't waste MY time answering it. Thank you.

That's probably the smartest thing I've ever seen you say on here, Bluz.

Alright, then. Guess I'll se ya around the board. Heh heh.

1 punch knock out. Congrats.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Are you a Democrat? They're usually the ones who disregard constitutional rights.

Had Bluz not ran away with his tail between his legs, we'd have had a picture perfect public display for all to see that there really isn't a nickel's worth of difference between the party of one when it comes to pissing on civil liberties. Not at that level of politics anyway.

There's a growing, bipartisan trend in America which solicits the notion that Individuals should be willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to placate frightened nobodies. Mainstream Republicans pretend to be innocent in all of it. They are not. Not at all.

In every instance the phenomenon is witnessed, it should be pounded into the ground relentlessly, and at the moment it occurs.

I don't really even care about most of these cookie cutter issues. It's the hypocricy that's humorous. To routinely call someone else a 'liberal' and then turn right around and defend the same thing they were just complaining about is laughable at best.

 

[Natural Citizen]

1 punch knock out. Congrats.

THANK you! Thank you very MUCH!

 

[sparky]

would i be 'liberal' pointing out national emergencies incorporate a constitutional snooze button....?

~S~

 

[toobfreak]

Are you a Democrat? They're usually the ones who disregard constitutional rights.

Had Bluz not ran away with his tail between his legs, we'd have had a picture perfect public display for all to see that there really isn't a nickel's worth of difference between the party of one when it comes to pissing on civil liberties. Not at that level of politics anyway.

There's a growing, bipartisan trend in America which solicits the notion that Individuals should be willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to placate frightened nobodies. Mainstream Republicans pretend to be innocent in all of it. They are not. Not at all.

In every instance the phenomenon is witnessed, it should be pounded into the ground relentlessly, and at the moment it occurs.

I don't really even care about most of these cookie cutter issues. It's the hypocricy that's humorous. To routinely call someone else a 'liberal' and then turn right around and defend the same thing they were just complaining about is laughable at best.

TO BE SURE: for decades, there has been two definitions of "Liberal." True liberalism has all but disappeared today and in the modern context, a liberal is understood now to be the same as a Progressive.

That said, it's not quite true that both parties trample on your rights to the same extent. Trump is not for European socialism the same way as the Democrats are, nor will you find the Democrats fighting for your 2ndA. and religious rights the same way.

As I said elsewhere, taking your guns off of you temporarily as a known, suspected or potential violent criminal until you go through the courts to face charges isn't quite a violation of your Due Process of law! Your right to due process has not been harmed in any way. And your guns have no rights under forfeiture laws. What would be a travesty would be to be cleared of all accusations and not have your guns returned to you.

 

[L.K.Eder]

that was like tyson vs. spinks, if spinks was an obviously very intelligent quadriplegic.

 

[Natural Citizen]

As I said elsewhere, taking your guns off of you temporarily as a known, suspected or potential violent criminal until you go through the courts to face charges isn't quite a violation of your Due Process of law! Your right to due process has not been harmed in any way. And your guns have no rights under forfeiture laws. What would be a travesty would be to be cleared of all accusations and not have your guns returned to you.

Mm. Of course. I was reading an article where men with guns from the government showed up to relieve Gary J. Willis of his second amendment.

They took it from his cold, dead hands. Literally.

 

[toobfreak]

As I said elsewhere, taking your guns off of you temporarily as a known, suspected or potential violent criminal until you go through the courts to face charges isn't quite a violation of your Due Process of law! Your right to due process has not been harmed in any way. And your guns have no rights under forfeiture laws. What would be a travesty would be to be cleared of all accusations and not have your guns returned to you.

Mm. Of course. I was reading an article where men with guns from the government showed up to relieve Gary J. Willi of his second amendment right.
They took it from his cold, dead hands. Literally.

There is a difference between defending your 2ndA rights and abject paranoia. You are talking about a bad law in a bad state, and a guy who apparently proved the fears pretty well grounded as he showed up at his door carrying a gun. Then he got into a struggle with police getting killed in the process. Thus he indeed proved to be a danger to others and himself.

As a Benefactor, Golden Eagle and Lifetime member of the NRA, I feel the law is HIGHLY flawed. But then, Maryland is a highly flawed state probably second only to New York. Being a calmer and saner person than Willi, I would have chosen to submit to the officers who are only there doing their jobs then fight it out in the courts to get my guns back as well as sue the person who filed the charges. Willi could have done far more good by using his situation as an opportunity to defeat the law by showing that he had been deprived of his civil rights on nothing more than another person's word.

In a sane world, no judge should ever sign such a law as it violates the Bill of Rights, but then, this is Maryland.

 

[sparky]

In a sane world, no judge should ever sign such a law as it violates the Bill of Rights,

so this becomes a matter of perspective then?

~S~

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ah well. Feel free to start a thread if you like, toobs. I wasn't particularly interested in debating gun rights, to be honest. It was just a convenient placeholder for setting the table, so to speak. In fact, my interpretation of the 2nd would likely come as quite a surprise to some folks on here.

To be clear, I have a tremendous distaste for political hypocrisy and an even greater distaste for intellectual dishonesty among politicos. Had Bluz and I progressed in our little pow wow, the pieces of the puzzle would have fell into place and the hypocrisy would have been undeniable to any casual passers-by.

At the end of the day it simply isn't wise to toss around stones in glass houses.