|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 19, 2019 12:13:59 GMT -5
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. Apparently you're having a problem with that actually. In the case of the Parkland shooter they had received multiple reports months in advance for example. This isn't a case of the due process being too slow, this is a case of the police utterly failing their job multiple times. If there is a real threat, they can get an emergency court order to temporarily take the guns, but they should never have the ability to violate someone's rights and not have a guarantee they'd have to prove they had exigent circumstances. But that's not what we're talking about, stay focused. We're talking about the police being able to kick in your door, take your guns, and say "yeah maybe you'll get a date in court, we still gotta do the due process sometime later in the future. Maybe." In any of these cases there would be a process afterwards. Interesting, so you DON'T support due process. How weird coming from someone who supposedly gets so worked up about liberties, specifically the kind of idiot who yells "YOU'LL NEVER TAKE MY GUNS FROM ME GUNS!" Especially when the person they support said just that we should ignore due process. 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.
You seriously believe trump wouldn't abuse this power despite abusing all of his other powers? Also, I noticed you failed to address like 90% of what I posted. You didn't address the potential for abuse, you didn't address how taking guns without due process is different than Booker wanting to take guns, you didn't address what makes someone "dangerous" (again, are you dangerous for threatening to shoot someone else? Why not? Assuming they threatened you first instead of you threatening them, are they dangerous?), how this wouldn't stop seemingly normal shooters like the Las Vegas one, and you sure as fuck ignored everything about the parkland shooter being a massive police failing, not a due process failing. |
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Jul 19, 2019 13:50:37 GMT -5
Yeah, I remember that now. There was major backlash to that the Trump simply dropped it. (good) The issue in Parkland, was governmental malfeasance at several levels. As for Booker, I don't recall any specific on any 2A policy changes. Only thing I remember was Swallwell's and Gillibrand's support for confiscatory polices...akin to what Australia has done. |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 19, 2019 14:25:39 GMT -5
Yeah, I remember that now. There was major backlash to that the Trump simply dropped it. (good) The issue in Parkland, was governmental malfeasance at several levels. As for Booker, I don't recall any specific on any 2A policy changes. Only thing I remember was Swallwell's and Gillibrand's support for confiscatory polices...akin to what Australia has done. Only after a talk with the NRA (one of the republicans' biggest donors) did trump drop it. |
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Jul 19, 2019 14:33:15 GMT -5
Yeah, I remember that now. There was major backlash to that the Trump simply dropped it. (good) The issue in Parkland, was governmental malfeasance at several levels. As for Booker, I don't recall any specific on any 2A policy changes. Only thing I remember was Swallwell's and Gillibrand's support for confiscatory polices...akin to what Australia has done. Only after a talk with the NRA (one of the republicans' biggest donors) did trump drop it. Right. Because it was pants on stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 19, 2019 15:08:55 GMT -5
Only after a talk with the NRA (one of the republicans' biggest donors) did trump drop it. Right. Because it was pants on stupid. But more than that, it's directly against the NRA's interests. The NRA couldn't give a fuck what stupid stuff goes on so long as they get to cling to their guns. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 19, 2019 15:31:27 GMT -5
Also, I noticed you failed to address like 90% of what I posted. You didn't address the potential for abuse, you didn't address how taking guns without due process is different than Booker wanting to take guns, you didn't address what makes someone "dangerous" (again, are you dangerous for threatening to shoot someone else? Why not? Assuming they threatened you first instead of you threatening them, are they dangerous?), how this wouldn't stop seemingly normal shooters like the Las Vegas one, and you sure as fuck ignored everything about the parkland shooter being a massive police failing, not a due process failing. Actually, I did address how Booker's plan was different. He wants to use the no-fly list to ban gun purchases, which I specifically spelled out has no due process and is virtually impossible to appeal.
As for what constitutes "dangerous", I'm actually unsure. It's something that can be debated and if anyone else has any input I'd love to hear it. Saying that you will self-defense yourself against someone that shows up intending to shoot you? No, I don't believe that crosses the threshold.
I don't think laws like this should have stopped the Las Vegas shooter, at least not in the way it played out. Not every law is a cure-all. Now, in a hypothetically different timeline where a maid saw the guy loading up dozens of weapons, staring out the window, muttering about how there's going to be some dead people soon, yes, I believe that would qualify if she reported it.
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Jul 19, 2019 15:49:37 GMT -5
Booker will not be the nominee. Cons who are still going to vote next year better start thinking up way to fool themselves into figuring Biden is the worse choice compared to Trump.
Biden is not a great choice, not by a long shot. But an old tennis ball would make a better leader than anything that currently infests the GOP at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Jul 19, 2019 15:57:09 GMT -5
Booker will not be the nominee. Cons who are still going to vote next year better start thinking up way to fool themselves into figuring Biden is the worse choice compared to Trump. Biden is not a great choice, not by a long shot. But an old tennis ball would make a better leader than anything that currently infests the GOP at this point. I think Biden would curbstomp Trump from what its worth. As long as he doesn't do things stupid (like campaigning on "you can keep your doctor" on his healthcare plan). Just provide a rational contrast to Trump. Shouldn't be too hard...  |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 19, 2019 16:25:49 GMT -5
While I want to say that Biden would curbstomp trump, I almost want to take a step back and look again after the last election. No one thought that Trump would even be a serious contender for the Republican nomination, and people that suggested he was were mocked and laughed at. Then they predicted that Hillary would win in a landslide, I think one CNN personality predicted she might get over 300 electoral votes.
Now, is Biden better than Hillary? Marginally so I think. Plus he's had time to review Hillary's mistakes. On the other hand Trump was a political novice in 2016, and he's had time to grow too. Also, the Democrats seem to be having infighting with a huge chunk of voters both hating the newer influx of Democrats and also seeing them as the public face of the Democratic party.
If Biden wins the nomination I still think He's going to win, but if the economy stays strong and the Democratic infighting gets worse he's going to have a more uphill fight than many think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2019 16:32:58 GMT -5
I do support heavy restrictions on full-auto and explosive devices. See, I don't. As written, they're more annoyance to legal owners than hindrance to criminal possession. Effectively, they're written to penalize people for owning them more than they are preventing criminal activity. |
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Jul 19, 2019 16:37:54 GMT -5
I have no illusions that 'rationality' will win over anyone who isn't already too disgusted to vote GOP.
I guess maybe I just live in a part of the world where anyone who is as nakedly racist as Trump is a total pariah. I personally know one person who is a fervent "Trump is going to save us from the (((globalists)))" and she is a severely mentally ill shut-in. If I lived in MAGA county and knew a bunch of otherwise regular folks who constantly repeated Trump's evil lies, maybe I'd start to think differently. Maybe I'd start to get to a point where I felt I needed to split hairs about what technically constitutes rape or concentration camps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 19, 2019 17:18:10 GMT -5
Actually, I did address how Booker's plan was different. He wants to use the no-fly list to ban gun purchases, which I specifically spelled out has no due process and is virtually impossible to appeal.
As for what constitutes "dangerous", I'm actually unsure. It's something that can be debated and if anyone else has any input I'd love to hear it. Saying that you will self-defense yourself against someone that shows up intending to shoot you? No, I don't believe that crosses the threshold.
I don't think laws like this should have stopped the Las Vegas shooter, at least not in the way it played out. Not every law is a cure-all. Now, in a hypothetically different timeline where a maid saw the guy loading up dozens of weapons, staring out the window, muttering about how there's going to be some dead people soon, yes, I believe that would qualify if she reported it.
This is a lot of gymnastics to defend trump advocating for police to ignore due process. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 19, 2019 22:09:00 GMT -5
Actually, I did address how Booker's plan was different. He wants to use the no-fly list to ban gun purchases, which I specifically spelled out has no due process and is virtually impossible to appeal.
As for what constitutes "dangerous", I'm actually unsure. It's something that can be debated and if anyone else has any input I'd love to hear it. Saying that you will self-defense yourself against someone that shows up intending to shoot you? No, I don't believe that crosses the threshold.
I don't think laws like this should have stopped the Las Vegas shooter, at least not in the way it played out. Not every law is a cure-all. Now, in a hypothetically different timeline where a maid saw the guy loading up dozens of weapons, staring out the window, muttering about how there's going to be some dead people soon, yes, I believe that would qualify if she reported it.
This is a lot of gymnastics to defend trump advocating for police to ignore due process. The topic started with me saying I had problems with Cory Booker. It was then derailed into the discussion of immigrant detainment. If anything it was gymnastics to lead me away from that topic. Also, I was specifically asked more than once to actually discuss this. In fact, you berated me for NOT discussing the nuances.
Nice try at a strawman though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 19, 2019 22:51:21 GMT -5
This is a lot of gymnastics to defend trump advocating for police to ignore due process. The topic started with me saying I had problems with Cory Booker. It was then derailed into the discussion of immigrant detainment. If anything it was gymnastics to lead me away from that topic. Also, I was specifically asked more than once to actually discuss this. In fact, you berated me for NOT discussing the nuances.
Nice try at a strawman though.
The topic started with you saying you don't like Booker because he'd ignore the laws we have in place. People pointed out you had a massive double standard because trump is ignoring the laws we have in place. I then used an example closely related to your issue with Booker, and you've been twisting and turning to explain how it's OK for trump to ignore the law and do something unconstitutional (taking away guns without due process), but not for Booker. |
|
|
|
Post by dabbler on Jul 19, 2019 23:47:53 GMT -5
Americans who just assume that Swedish prisons are as shitty as their own and that ASAP Rocky bloke must be in terrible conditions really speaks to you as a country.
|
|
