Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2019 20:00:52 GMT -5
As a 'rabid second amendment nut', I take offense to that. He did say most. Still, equating gun ownership with Trump worship is a stereotype. One that both sides are guilty of. |
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Jul 18, 2019 20:10:49 GMT -5
I think that the point, Baron, is that most of the rabid 2A nuts are cheerleading the march into American fascism, not opposing it. As a 'rabid second amendment nut', I take offense to that. ...okay I have to jump in. I'm not even remotely a rabid 2A nut, but we're not marching into American fascism nor is "2A" supporters actively cheering such a march. Jesus christ, just because there are policies out there that you oppose doesn't mean it's "racists", or "fascism", or whatever "-ism" that you'd think make your points stronger. Stop it. Just say "I oppose 'x' because of these reasons". I agree that Trump and his administration do stupid things. But marching towards facism? I think you need remedial history lessons boyo. Baron's position, that he explained numerous times, is that the police isn't around to stop bad actors in time in his location. So, he supports the 2A for his own self defense. That doesn't mean that he's required to participate in an insurrection in order to overthrow the Trump administration... there are other avenues to stop Trump. You can vote against the GOP and against Trump in the next election. |
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Jul 18, 2019 20:11:59 GMT -5
Still, equating gun ownership with Trump worship is a stereotype. One that both sides are guilty of. Agreed. Hell both d-usa and ouze are avid gun owners, and I'd be willing to bet that they have much more firearms than I do. They *definitely* do not fit that stereotype. |
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Jul 18, 2019 20:14:38 GMT -5
Just so we're clear here, are you saying that we shouldn't be concerned about a candidates unconstitutional views because they will be overturned by the safeguards of the Supreme Court anyway?
If so, a great portion of this thread has been made redundant.
I'm really curious, you say certain dems would attempt to take away guns, so how do you feel when trump actually said that we should take away guns before the due process is done? Did he really say that? Freaking out? I don't think I've seen/heard that. I've seen some rando on twittah remarking that liberals are probably outgunned against the bulk of conservatives/2A defenders. But, we probably don't know for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 18, 2019 20:51:04 GMT -5
I'm really curious, you say certain dems would attempt to take away guns, so how do you feel when trump actually said that we should take away guns before the due process is done? Did he really say that? Freaking out? I don't think I've seen/heard that. I've seen some rando on twittah remarking that liberals are probably outgunned against the bulk of conservatives/2A defenders. But, we probably don't know for sure. You can do the rest of the leg work to find a video Still, equating gun ownership with Trump worship is a stereotype. One that both sides are guilty of. MOST rabid gun owners are trump supporters though. We're not saying "if you own a gun, you support trump" but "if you aggressively and rabidly defend 2A, you're most likely a trump supporter." The two are very different. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 18, 2019 22:02:10 GMT -5
Under most circumstances I am a pretty pro-gun rights guy. However, I'm not completely insane. I do support heavy restrictions on full-auto and explosive devices. I'd support expansive background checks if the government made them cheap and easily accessible.
However, I think it's vastly different to want blanket bans on common weapons and saying that a credible threat to the community from an individual requires specific exemption. Just like I support 4th Amendment rights, but realize that exigent circumstances mean a warrantless search is sometimes legal. This is especially true if due process and a right to appeal are given at a later date.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 18, 2019 22:09:50 GMT -5
That has nothing to do with how you support trump when he's advocating for taking guns without due process.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 19, 2019 0:18:03 GMT -5
UH... It has everything to do with it. The link you provided has Trump specifically referring to confiscation regarding dangerous people (The Parkland shooter in particular)where they have an imminent concern with public safety. This is fine with me as it would have been an exigent circumstance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 19, 2019 1:21:41 GMT -5
UH... It has everything to do with it. The link you provided has Trump specifically referring to confiscation regarding dangerous people (The Parkland shooter in particular)where they have an imminent concern with public safety. This is fine with me as it would have been an exigent circumstance. So, it's fine to take guns without due process then? You're ok with them violating your liberties and rights? Furthermore, how are you supposed to decide if someone is "dangerous"? Are you a dangerous person for inviting someone to fight you, so you could put a bullet in them? Why not? Let's assume the reverse is true, and they showed up to just shoot you, are they a dangerous person? On a slightly similar note, the Las Vegas shooter was described as normal person, who acquired all of their guns legally for example. This is in stark contrast to the Parkland shooter who was reported like, MONTHS ahead of his shooting. But the police didn't DO anything, not a single report filed, or attempt to get the process of having the guns taken away (legally). That's not a "they should have taken the guns away!" problem, that's a bad police work problem. (And if you haven't seen the report spelling this out, I suggest you go look it up) Plus, this opens it up to abuse where the government could actually just start taking guns. Dig around a little bit and you could find a reason to take away anyone's guns without due process because they're "dangerous." Seeing a therapist? DANGEROUS! History of mental illness (regardless of how "minor")? DANGEROUS! Being bullied? Why, they might snap and go shoot someone, they're DANGEROUS! Take away the parents' guns! Isn't that what you're scared Booker will do though? What the right has been saying democrats will do for decades now? But now, you're magically fine with it because a republican is proposing it. Fuck off with that bullshit. The whole point of DUE PROCESS is that it must be done to respect the rights of the people and the laws of the country. Trump's already heading down the path of fascism regardless of what idiots think, why the fuck would you trust him with a very easily abused power? |
|
|
|
Post by adurot on Jul 19, 2019 1:50:47 GMT -5
Yeah, I Totally trust the guy calling elected members of the opposition party traitors and the press the enemy of the people to decide who the bad guys are that need their guns taken away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 19, 2019 4:27:29 GMT -5
Jesus christ, just because there are policies out there that you oppose doesn't mean it's "racists", or "fascism", or whatever "-ism" that you'd think make your points stronger. Well, the constant demonization of anyone not praising what the admin is doing is very reminiscent of the totalitarian regimes of the last century, along with the nationalism, the scapegoating, etc, that, yeah, reminds of fascism. As for the racism, I think we settled on bigotry. It doesn't end in "-ism" and that avoid tedious discussions about definition. Bigotry is bad, mmmkay? Baron's position, that he explained numerous times, is that the police isn't around to stop bad actors in time in his location. So, he supports the 2A for his own self defense. That doesn't mean that he's required to participate in an insurrection in order to overthrow the Trump administration... Well, maybe I misinterpreted this quote : I'll point out that the Trump administration is a sterling example on why the right to Keep and Bare Arms is still relevant today. I definitely read it as "We need guns to stop the government from doing bad things", but correct me if I was wrong about it. I don't currently see gun owners preventing the government from doing bad things by using their guns. I see much more the judicial powers curbing the government worst excesses. Hey Carlo87, It however goes further than that for Cory Booker, including unilateral removal of civil rights without due process or notification, no requirement to produce evidence, and virtually no way to appeal it. THAT is unamerican to me. Does the Trump thingy fit here? Unilateral removal of "civil rights" (lol!) without due process or notification, no requirement to produce evidence. Then stalling the process for long enough and you're golden. Here is the big difference: here, you don't believe it will affect you, it will only affect the bad guys. What's preventing you from being labelled a bad guy though? Not due process, in this case, obviously... |
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jul 19, 2019 8:02:17 GMT -5
"If you're a Somali refugee wearing a MAGA cap, [Trump] doesn't want to send you back ... what does that tell me? That it's about the criticism"
That's Lindsey Graham in an interview. How the FUCK is this to Trump's advantage? "He's not racist, he just wants to deport political opponents" is fucking insane.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 19, 2019 9:46:49 GMT -5
UH... It has everything to do with it. The link you provided has Trump specifically referring to confiscation regarding dangerous people (The Parkland shooter in particular)where they have an imminent concern with public safety. This is fine with me as it would have been an exigent circumstance. So, it's fine to take guns without due process then? You're ok with them violating your liberties and rights? Furthermore, how are you supposed to decide if someone is "dangerous"? Are you a dangerous person for inviting someone to fight you, so you could put a bullet in them? Why not? Let's assume the reverse is true, and they showed up to just shoot you, are they a dangerous person? On a slightly similar note, the Las Vegas shooter was described as normal person, who acquired all of their guns legally for example. This is in stark contrast to the Parkland shooter who was reported like, MONTHS ahead of his shooting. But the police didn't DO anything, not a single report filed, or attempt to get the process of having the guns taken away (legally). That's not a "they should have taken the guns away!" problem, that's a bad police work problem. (And if you haven't seen the report spelling this out, I suggest you go look it up) Plus, this opens it up to abuse where the government could actually just start taking guns. Dig around a little bit and you could find a reason to take away anyone's guns without due process because they're "dangerous." Seeing a therapist? DANGEROUS! History of mental illness (regardless of how "minor")? DANGEROUS! Being bullied? Why, they might snap and go shoot someone, they're DANGEROUS! Take away the parents' guns! Isn't that what you're scared Booker will do though? What the right has been saying democrats will do for decades now? But now, you're magically fine with it because a republican is proposing it. Fuck off with that bullshit. The whole point of DUE PROCESS is that it must be done to respect the rights of the people and the laws of the country. Trump's already heading down the path of fascism regardless of what idiots think, why the fuck would you trust him with a very easily abused power? Apparently you are having a problem with the concept of "exigent circumstances". Could this use at least some guidelines? Yep, should could and I'd like to have them spelled out. If police get a report from a real, credible source about someone with both intent and ability to do something imminent, that is the exception.
Tip comes from a bunch of drunken frat boys? Sorry, not credible. Person being reported is off kilter but not perceived to be an imminent threat, that's enough for a warrant only. Larry Flint shouts he's going to Las Vegas everyone? Well he's a stroked out paraplegic and elderly so he doesn't have the means, that's a no-go.
In any of these cases there would be a process afterwards.
That's a far cry from: Hey, your name is sort-of similar to the name on our secret list compiled by secret people with no accountability. No, we're not going to tell you anything and there's virtually no way to appeal this. Heck, even famous multi-millionaire politicians with heavy connections take years to get off this list.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 19, 2019 9:57:02 GMT -5
"If you're a Somali refugee wearing a MAGA cap, [Trump] doesn't want to send you back ... what does that tell me? That it's about the criticism" That's Lindsey Graham in an interview. How the FUCK is this to Trump's advantage? "He's not racist, he just wants to deport political opponents" is fucking insane. Yeah, totally cringe inducing there. |
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Jul 19, 2019 10:40:49 GMT -5
Still, equating gun ownership with Trump worship is a stereotype. One that both sides are guilty of. Maybe you've got a better view of it than I do. But I spend any amount of time in a pro-gun forum and the MAGA-hats are all over the place. |
|
