HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Complain to the families ...

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:02 PM

Complain to the families of the Pulse and Sandy Hook victims about your right to due process

I'm sure your due process for being on an FBI no fly list is foremost on their minds today.

Not getting a semi-assault rifle on demand is not exactly the same as losing ypur right to freedom, a fair trial, an education, housing, clean food air medicines and water. You actually need all of those things.

You don't NEED a semi-automatic assault rifle. If you think you need a semi-automatic assault rifle, then the authorities will want to know why.

Because you can't do anything with a semi-automatic assault rifle but kill alot of people very quickly. Why do you NEED to kill alot of people quickly????????????

164 replies, 9066 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 164 replies Author Time Post
Reply Complain to the families of the Pulse and Sandy Hook victims about your right to due process (Original post)
lindysalsagal Jun 2016 OP
DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2016 #1
Squinch Jun 2016 #2
lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #30
LineLineLineLineReply .
Squinch Jun 2016 #35
tk2kewl Jun 2016 #131
BlackLivesMatter Jun 2016 #3
Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #154
RobertEarl Jun 2016 #4
sarisataka Jun 2016 #6
XRubicon Jun 2016 #40
sarisataka Jun 2016 #50
Straw Man Jun 2016 #100
TeddyR Jun 2016 #65
lancer78 Jun 2016 #93
linuxman Jun 2016 #5
RobertEarl Jun 2016 #8
linuxman Jun 2016 #11
Name removed Jun 2016 #113
davidn3600 Jun 2016 #16
calimary Jun 2016 #54
TeddyR Jun 2016 #66
jmg257 Jun 2016 #84
SickOfTheOnePct Jun 2016 #138
calimary Jun 2016 #139
SickOfTheOnePct Jun 2016 #140
lapislzi Jun 2016 #120
ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #161
TransitJohn Jun 2016 #122
pipoman Jun 2016 #7
RobertEarl Jun 2016 #9
pipoman Jun 2016 #12
RobertEarl Jun 2016 #21
pipoman Jun 2016 #23
TeddyR Jun 2016 #67
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #74
RobertEarl Jun 2016 #89
Marengo Jun 2016 #43
COLGATE4 Jun 2016 #153
sarisataka Jun 2016 #10
REP Jun 2016 #13
davidn3600 Jun 2016 #14
Orrex Jun 2016 #114
Abq_Sarah Jun 2016 #145
Orrex Jun 2016 #146
Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #155
REP Jun 2016 #15
shadowrider Jun 2016 #17
RobertEarl Jun 2016 #19
beevul Jun 2016 #149
Donald Ian Rankin Jun 2016 #18
RobertEarl Jun 2016 #20
Straw Man Jun 2016 #101
jmg257 Jun 2016 #22
REP Jun 2016 #24
jmg257 Jun 2016 #26
REP Jun 2016 #28
NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #25
Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #27
jonno99 Jun 2016 #56
Crunchy Frog Jun 2016 #68
lancer78 Jun 2016 #94
Democat Jun 2016 #104
The_Casual_Observer Jun 2016 #29
NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #31
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #33
NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #38
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #36
The_Casual_Observer Jun 2016 #37
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #39
Scootaloo Jun 2016 #41
Straw Man Jun 2016 #102
lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #32
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #34
Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #157
hack89 Jun 2016 #42
lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #44
hack89 Jun 2016 #45
lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #47
hack89 Jun 2016 #52
geomon666 Jun 2016 #55
hack89 Jun 2016 #60
lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #61
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #82
TipTok Jun 2016 #87
geomon666 Jun 2016 #64
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #83
geomon666 Jun 2016 #92
Straw Man Jun 2016 #103
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #107
hack89 Jun 2016 #108
anigbrowl Jun 2016 #124
hack89 Jun 2016 #130
Straw Man Jun 2016 #78
geomon666 Jun 2016 #91
Straw Man Jun 2016 #96
geomon666 Jun 2016 #97
Straw Man Jun 2016 #98
X_Digger Jun 2016 #57
TeddyR Jun 2016 #71
Straw Man Jun 2016 #76
Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #158
LongtimeAZDem Jun 2016 #46
lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #48
LongtimeAZDem Jun 2016 #62
Crunchy Frog Jun 2016 #73
NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #106
Skittles Jun 2016 #51
Skittles Jun 2016 #95
Straw Man Jun 2016 #99
LongtimeAZDem Jun 2016 #116
Skittles Jun 2016 #142
geomon666 Jun 2016 #49
Straw Man Jun 2016 #79
X_Digger Jun 2016 #53
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #59
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #58
geomon666 Jun 2016 #63
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #69
oneshooter Jun 2016 #72
jmg257 Jun 2016 #75
BootinUp Jun 2016 #70
lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #77
Straw Man Jun 2016 #80
lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #85
Straw Man Jun 2016 #86
Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #159
Post removed Jun 2016 #125
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #81
Donald Ian Rankin Jun 2016 #118
SheilaT Jun 2016 #88
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #90
anigbrowl Jun 2016 #127
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #132
Democat Jun 2016 #105
Orrex Jun 2016 #109
Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #110
Orrex Jun 2016 #111
Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #112
Orrex Jun 2016 #115
SheilaT Jun 2016 #123
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #133
SheilaT Jun 2016 #135
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #137
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #148
lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #143
Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #160
lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #162
Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #164
Kang Colby Jun 2016 #144
SheilaT Jun 2016 #163
smirkymonkey Jun 2016 #156
anigbrowl Jun 2016 #128
treestar Jun 2016 #136
leeroysphitz Jun 2016 #117
lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #119
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #134
sarisataka Jun 2016 #121
SickOfTheOnePct Jun 2016 #126
uppityperson Jun 2016 #129
L. Coyote Jun 2016 #141
LongtimeAZDem Jun 2016 #151
TheKentuckian Jun 2016 #147
Rex Jun 2016 #150
LongtimeAZDem Jun 2016 #152

Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:04 PM

1. We're a largely anti-gun website, so I'm not sure who you're addressing.

 

That said, due process is enshrined in our Constitution for a reason, and in my opinion, it's very important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:10 PM

2. There are plenty here who are pro-gun and who are apologists for private citizens owning

weapons that can kill hundreds of people in minutes. They show up in the vast majority of threads that attempt to discuss gun control.

That is who the OP is addressing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:29 PM

30. Thank you. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #30)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:49 PM

35. .


... and reading through the thread, the thought I had was, "And look, here they all are."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 04:20 PM

131. making lists of people for whom rights will be denied is a very bad idea

 

Denying due process to challenge inclusion on such a list makes it far worse.

If you want to be safer from guns then start by limiting magazine size to something like 6 and tax the hell out of ammunition.

I do not own a gun and have zero interest in guns.

I have had a family member threatened with a gun an another one murdered with a gun - in both cases a shotgun. No gun law would have made a difference there.

if I had my way the only guns people would be permitted to own would be shotguns and hunting rifles. No hand guns, no military style weapons. No cops with guns either.

Of course that's not likely to happen, so let's do something sensible. Lists and suing gun makers for producing legal weapons are neither fair nor sensible. Limit the magazines and tax the crap out of the ammo and then go from there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:38 PM

3. Complain to the families of 9/11 about your due process

 

Complain to the murder/rape/domestic violence victims and families about your due process

When will it stop?

(I support strongly the current sit in by the way in the US House, but am just objecting to anti due process rhetoric only here)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlackLivesMatter (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 03:35 PM

154. With No-Fly extending to No-Buy, indeed it has "not stopped."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:50 PM

4. Indeed

 

There is nothing in the 2nd that says every person who wants an AR, or other such mass killing weapon, has the right to put their hands on such a weapon.

Our laws clearly state that some individuals should never be legally allowed to bear such arms as those. And those laws have been found constitutional.

So what we have witnessed again on DU are some posters demanding everyone and anyone who wants to bear arms be allowed to bear arms that can be used for mass killings.

There being no constitutional basis for such claims they should all delete any further postings if they can't control themselves from hitting send.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:52 PM

6. Link please

So what we have witnessed again on DU are some posters demanding everyone and anyone who wants to bear arms be allowed to bear arms that can be used for mass killings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to XRubicon (Reply #40)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:18 PM

50. Any link

To a non-removed post that was made prior to the claim? The removed post was made over an hour after the claim. Unless our above poster is precognitive...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #50)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 03:24 AM

100. Wait a minute ....

Any link

To a non-removed post that was made prior to the claim? The removed post was made over an hour after the claim. Unless our above poster is precognitive...

Is it possible that the post was removed before it was made? Doesn't that mean we're getting swallowed into a wormhole or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:55 PM

65. There may indeed be folks on DU claiming that "everyone and anyone who wants to bear arms be allowed

 

To bear arms." But I haven't seen those types of posts. I agree that the state/feds can institute all types of gun control, and maybe Congress will pass a no fly/no buy law. At lease Susan Collins' contains some due process protections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #65)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:19 AM

93. then we need

 

A way to remove our names free of charge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:52 PM

5. Yeah, fuck due process!

 

Who needs it? Criminals, that's who.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:04 PM

8. Fuck the NRA!

 

They have the blood of many innocents on their hands.

They have made it so that laws that would keep guns out of the hands of those few who should never be legally able to bear arms, have been defeated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:11 PM

11. The NRA wrote the fifth ammendment?! COOL!

 

I'm starting to like those fellas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #11)


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:21 PM

16. The NRA didnt write the Bill of Rights

 

Maybe you need to pick up a history book.

A "no-fly, no-buy" law will be struck dead the courts.

And this crap in the House and Senate is meaningless political theater. NONE of these laws being proposed would have stopped Omar Mateen nor Adam Lanza.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:26 PM

54. As I understand it, the Feinstein bill called for anyone on the No-Fly list any time within the

last five years, whether they were/are on it now or not. That WOULD have stopped Omar Mateen. He would have satisfied that stipulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #54)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:57 PM

66. I thought Mateen was on some other super-secret government list

 

But not the no-fly list? I could be mistaken - I've lost track of all these secret lists that the DU members want to use to keep folks from buying firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #66)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:49 PM

84. I wonder what percentage of people on the list are Muslim?

Its a secret, but what are the odds of profiling being involved?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #54)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:33 PM

138. He wasn't on the no-fly list n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #138)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:46 PM

139. Yes. You're correct. He wasn't on the no-fly list at the time of the massacre.

But he HAD been on it previously, and certainly within the last five years. That's what the Feinstein bill stipulated - at any time within the last five years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #139)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:48 PM

140. No, he had not

He was on the terrorist watch list a few years ago, which is not the same as the no-fly list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 11:25 AM

120. Okay, then...how about being part of the solution?

Then what WOULD have stopped Adam Lanza? Riddle me that, please.

Assuming you are right, and I believe some of your comments have merit, what would YOU propose to reduce/end gun violence in this country? Because literally NOTHING so far has been done. Nothing. Zero. No expanded access to mental health, no expanded background checks, no requirements to actually know how to use a weapon when you buy one. Nothing. That is unacceptable.

Limiting access to weaponry has to be part of the solution. That does not necessarily entail suspension of due process.

Just complaining about "meaningless political theatre" does nothing to advance the discussion.

If you are not prepared to offer anything constructive, then your posts are also meaningless political rhetoric.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #120)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 04:30 PM

161. A locked gun safe would have stopped Adam Lanza.

But his mother left it open/unlocked, and she became the first victim of that day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 11:41 AM

122. Well, we (DU) already support the extrajudicial killing of American citizens on the POTUS' say-so,

so why not this, as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:54 PM

7. It is completely undemocratic to advocate for unconstitutional

 

Removal of rights of any kind without due process....in fact it sounds completely republican...sort of like Guantanamo Bay only worse because it is actually on US soil.. so no, you nor the victims get to ignore or repeal my civil rights and liberties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:05 PM

9. You don't know the 2nd, or laws

 

It is obvious you should not hit send.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:12 PM

12. Why are you arguing from the losing side then?

 

You are arguing republican think...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:53 PM

21. Fuck the NRA

 

If it wasn't for the NRA buying some in congress we would have better laws that might have halted many mass murders of innocents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:13 PM

23. Complete silliness to apply so much credence to such a relatively small amount of money

 

Say in relation to the banking industry, wall street, the automotive industry, the oil industry, the grocery industry, the farming industry, the entertainment industry, ect. Ect.....

No, this has nothing to do with the NRA. The only thing the NRA can do is challenge in the basis of constitutionality. Little things like DUE PROCESS OF FUCKING LAW are slam dunks on challenge...only the US Law 101 flunkies don't understand this very basic premise of our freedom..most surely as hell understood the disaster when arguing against Bushs Guantanamo ..passing unconstitutional laws is something democrats should avoid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:03 PM

67. None of the laws currently being proposed would have prevented Mateen

 

Or Lanza, or any other mass killer from purchasing (or stealing) his or her weapon. I support an individual's right to keep and bear arms but am not a NRA supporter, primarily because that organization strikes me as completely pro-Republican. But the NRA doesn't have a vote in the house or senate and doesn't decide our laws. I don't think the NRA is the bogey-man people make it out to be, or at least not an all-powerful entity that prevents our government from enacting gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #67)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:17 PM

74. Good post

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #67)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 01:14 AM

89. On what planet?

 

There have been millions of dollars 'donated' to congress people by the NRA. And not to get them to vote for gun control.

I find it hard to believe you could post such a thing as you have denying the NRA has no influence. Incredible, simply incredible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 08:51 PM

43. Have you studied law? Where did you receive your degree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #43)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 01:28 PM

153. Probably from the 'Close cover before striking' School of Law. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:07 PM

10. What is wrong

With the Fifth Amendment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:13 PM

13. Doesn't apply to people we don't like

I wish I were more shocked to see Trumpian ideas filter down to this side of the aisle. They're scared of non-white people. We're* scared of different non-white people, but for the right reasons.

*obviously not you nor I and certainly not all on this site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:15 PM

14. Those who give up freedom for security will lose both

 

-Benjamin Franklin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 07:12 AM

114. "Stop misquoting me on the internet." -- Ben Franklin

Last edited Thu Jun 23, 2016, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

The actual quote reads as follows:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
That, of course, is from Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755

If we could enact a minor restriction on gun access, for instance, in exchange for a significant reduction in annual gun deaths, then would neither be a surrendering of "essential Liberty" nor "a little temporary Safety."


So the actual quote has very little do to with the ongoing gun debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #114)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 08:54 PM

145. I guess that depends on what you consider a "minor restriction"

I don't consider eliminating due process for any group of citizens to be a "minor restriction".

I prefer the rule of law to the rule of the mob.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Abq_Sarah (Reply #145)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 09:21 PM

146. Yeah, gun advocates are fond of hyperbolic slipery-slope thinking

Personally, I don't support restrictions on minigun ownership, because obviously that will lead to the banning and confiscation of all firearms.

Make the watch list subject to appeal, as is currently being proposed in Congress. That satisfies due process, and that hair-on-fire objection vanishes.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #146)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 03:42 PM

155. Well, we "slipped" from No-Fly to No-Buy with fluid-drive ease.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:18 PM

15. Remember this for-sure 100% guaranteed terrorist?



Richard Jewell? Remember him?

Who in fact wasn't a terrorist?

Let's keep due process, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:22 PM

17. First

You do NOT get ANY firearm on demand. You have to pass a background check.

Second,
There is NO United States Department of Needs, and no one but I will determine what I do or do not need, your proclamation not withstanding.

Third,
It's not the business of any government agency to find out why I need/want something. It's called this freedom thing.

How would you like me to walk through your house and determine what items you own that you don't need? You wouldn't like that, would you?

Due process is codified into United States law. It can't be discarded based on emotion. Like it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:49 PM

19. First

 

Yes you can get guns on demand. At gun shows and the like.

Second
We have laws made all the time that determine what you can and can't do.

Third
See Second

In your own house you can pretty much do whatever you want. It's when you leave your house and try to purchase, say, a nuclear weapon, you have then made cause for the law to mess you up.

I have never heard of any gunner being deprived of due process. No one is gonna grab your guns. However, laws, absent the NRA big money buying congress, will be passed that will effect those who venture into public with weapons. Already such laws do exist, we just need more and better laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #19)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 11:56 AM

149. Fluff.

 

First. Yes you can get guns on demand. At gun shows and the like.


Go to a gun show and demand a gun and see what happens.

Second. We have laws made all the time that determine what you can and can't do.


No, Robert. We have laws made all the time that determine what society does not want one to do.

They have very little to do with what an individual can or can not actually do.

This is what you 'more gun control' pushers fail to understand.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:41 PM

18. I NEED not to be singled out as someone who doesn't have the same rights everyone else does.

The reason this bill is so appalling can be summed up in one word: precedent.

I am all in favour of restricting everyone from being able to buy assault rifles. But I'd far rather that no-one had this restriction placed on their freedoms than that some people are singled out for it without trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:51 PM

20. Who says no trials?

 

Our society is based upon denying some from going into public areas with certain items which would cause danger to the general public.

If one stays home, and does not present a danger to the general public, they can almost get away with murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #20)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 03:27 AM

101. The Watch List says.

Our society is based upon denying some from going into public areas with certain items which would cause danger to the general public.

Not when that "item" is the person him/herself, as in the no-fly lists. Please don't tell me our society is based on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:08 PM

22. Due Process is very over-rated, especially for suspicios people. CHicago PD has a great list,

with 1400 people that are responsible for 80% of the gun violence in the city.

Time we skip the due process bullshit and just lock 'em up. (likely already illegal for many of them to get guns, so we need further action).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:14 PM

24. If they have proof, then they can get warrants to arrest them

Then they can be adjudicated guilty or not in a court of law.

Due process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to REP (Reply #24)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:19 PM

26. Proof? FBI doesn't need any proof, or even evidence. Reasonable suspicion is plenty.

At least according to someone, depending on the credibility of the source.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #26)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:25 PM

28. Gotcha

That's why Chicago is such a safe city!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:18 PM

25. Nah - Fuck your Police State.

You can ban semi-automatic rifle sales to everybody without needing some secret list that magically strips rights from anyone who is put on it for whatever reason an Official in the agency that wants to search our emails deems necessary.

George W. Bush's watch lists... Just pass Connecticut's Gun laws nationwide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:20 PM

27. Ok

 

So why do we bitch about people who were locked up in gitmo without due process.

Tell then to complain to the victims of 911.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #27)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:30 PM

56. ^^THIS^^ +1000! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #27)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:12 PM

68. So losing your assault weapons is equivalent to being locked up in Gitmo?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crunchy Frog (Reply #68)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:25 AM

94. what is good

 

For the goose is good for the gander. If a right is violated, it doesn't matter the reasoning behind it. We have to stop being a nation of cowards willing to lose our rights at the slightest thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 04:06 AM

104. Due process only applies to issues I care about

This is DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:28 PM

29. This due process shit didn't come up about the no fly list

Nobody cared who or what was on that list.

Now that they would like to leverage it, it all of a sudden deeply flawed and can't be trusted.

Bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The_Casual_Observer (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:32 PM

31. It came up many times and has been opposed by many.

DU2 was full of posts railing about the illegality of the watch lists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #33)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:56 PM

38. There has to be thousands of threads on DU2.

This is just a meme to make this into a pro-gun/anti-gun issue when it's a Liberty/Totalitarianism issue. Look at the terrorism angle, we ALL know that's used to emotionally sway people to give up rights. And we ALL have watched the law enforcement agencies immediately use those new powers to arrest [strike through]terrorists[/strike through] POT SMOKERS!

And here we go again, but with the 5th Amendment. But don't sweat, a Coup de grāce for the 4th was attempted in the Senate by John McCain just today. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/22/after-orlando-senate-bill-seeks-to-allow-fbi-web-searches-without-court-order/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The_Casual_Observer (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:52 PM

36. No, your claim is bullshit. This was posted years *after* you joined:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:55 PM

37. I don't care what was posted here I'm talking about

The congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The_Casual_Observer (Reply #37)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:57 PM

39. That doesn't make it any better, or less odious

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The_Casual_Observer (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 08:31 PM

41. Maybe you just didn't notice

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The_Casual_Observer (Reply #29)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 03:30 AM

102. Wrong.

This due process shit didn't come up about the no fly list

Nobody cared who or what was on that list.

Now that they would like to leverage it, it all of a sudden deeply flawed and can't be trusted.

Bullshit.

I call bullshit on your "Bullshit."

It has been much debated on here. You just weren't paying attention.

The watch lists were, are, and ever shall be, bullshit and an infringement on the rights that constitute the basis of a free society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:34 PM

32. Mass-shooting victims deserve due process, too. But they're dead.

That's the part that gets lost in the philosophical debate. When you're dead, you've lost your due process, for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:48 PM

34. Fuck that police-state cheerleading. Here's how DU *used* to feel about attitudes like that:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #34)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 03:49 PM

157. History. It's what's for dinner.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 08:34 PM

42. So their feelings trump constitutional protections of civil rights?

really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #42)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 08:54 PM

44. Not ALL civil rights: just assault semi-automatics. So, yes . You have no right to deprive people of

Their lives, the ultimate civil liberty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #44)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:02 PM

45. So who gets to choose what civil rights don't deserve due process?

politicians?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #45)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:12 PM

47. Representatives. And americans overwhelmingly want semi-automatics banned.

We all bear responsibility in a representative govt.

That's why they're occupying the house floor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #47)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:23 PM

52. No they don't

support for gun bans is about 50/50 at best. There is overwhelming support for stronger background checks but not for gun bans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to geomon666 (Reply #55)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:39 PM

60. 54% support is not overwhelming.

toss in polling error and it is about 50/50, wouldn't you say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #60)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:43 PM

61. Don't bother. Ignore. Goodbye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #61)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:46 PM

82. Way to have a civil discussion

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #61)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 12:07 AM

87. Wow...

 

Do you just come to get your own opinions reinforced?

I can't even wrap my head around that kind of mindset.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #60)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:48 PM

64. No, I wouldn't say.

I'd say according to pretty much every poll in existence, Americans want these weapons of war banned off of our streets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geomon666 (Reply #64)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:48 PM

83. My bolt action rifle is more a weapon if war than my AR

 

No army uses the AR-15 as an infantry rifle. My bolt action rifles were actually used during the wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #83)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:08 AM

92. The AR-15 is just a modified M16

Besides who cares? We're talking about a total assault weapons ban, all of them. These things were built for war, whether they actually saw war is irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geomon666 (Reply #92)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 03:36 AM

103. Semi-auto vs. full-auto

The first has always been legal for civilians in the US. The second has been heavily restricted since 1934.

The semi-auto AR15 was not built for war. It was built for civilian sales. That's why it's not full-auto.

If you succeed in banning semi-autos, will that be it? Will you be satisfied?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geomon666 (Reply #92)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 05:14 AM

107. Yes, modified

 

To make it function different than the military eeapon. It functions the same as any other semi-automatic rifle, even the ones that are not scary and black.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geomon666 (Reply #64)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:22 AM

108. Not according to the poll the poster gave me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #60)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:46 PM

124. You're on the losing side of this argument

 

Everyone except a few loons now accepts the stiff licensing and operation requirements for automatic firearms, and indeed gun aficionados are the first to give a detailed explanation of how hard it is to get and maintain a federal firearms license. Since this is apparently not incompatible with the second amendment there's no reason we can't increase the licensing requirements for high-power semi-automatic weapons.

I don't want sweeping gun bans and I'm not opposed to private ownership of weapons, but I have a hard time with people who tell me they need anything other than a revolver, a shotgun, or a quality low-caliber rifle. Oh sure, you can imagine circumstances where you'd want more, but you can imagine anything. Tell me about the last instance you know of where someone went down shooting to defend themselves or their family but tragically ran out of ammo or couldn't reload quick enough.

Yeah yeah, the second amendment is to prevent tyranny yadda yadda. Frankly I trust the integrity of the armed services a lot more than some wannabe guerillas to safeguard my liberty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anigbrowl (Reply #124)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 03:05 PM

130. I have heard that particular song and dance for 20 years now

yet every year more and more gun rights laws are passed. I would recommend that you actually accomplish something before you try to lecture me. Right now it is nothing but empty threats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geomon666 (Reply #55)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:36 PM

78. From your link ...

Monmouth University Poll. June 15-19, 2016. N=803 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.

"Do you support or oppose banning the sale of assault weapons like the kind used in the Orlando shooting?"

6/15-19/16

Support 52%

Oppose 43%

Depends 3%

Unsure 3%


This is overwhelming? A year ago the number that support the ban in a CBS poll was 44%. These numbers bounce all over the place. Sorry, but a mandate this isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #78)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:05 AM

91. It is what it is.

People want it now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geomon666 (Reply #91)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:49 AM

96. Yes, it is.

It is what it is.

People want it now.

Some people -- slightly more than half now, slightly less that half a year ago, or a year from now, or who knows when.

It's not a mandate. Not even close. You can't claim to speak for "the people."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #96)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:58 AM

97. Who gives a fuck about a mandate?

Answer me this. Why can't there be a debate on it on the floor of the House? Not one debate, why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geomon666 (Reply #97)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 03:04 AM

98. The person you were defending when you entered this thread.

Who gives a fuck about a mandate?

Remember? The one who said "americans overwhelmingly want semi-automatics banned"? And I said they didn't, and you said they did?

When the voters overwhelmingly want something, that's a "mandate." It gives legislators carte blanche to go ahead and get it done. That's not the case now. Not even close.

Answer me this. Why can't there be a debate on it on the floor of the House? Not one debate, why?

I'm guessing there can't be a debate because the Democrats know that it won't pass anyway, but they want to use the issue to make the Republicans look bad. The Republicans don't want to allow them to do that. They control the House. It's called politics, and both sides are playing it to the hilt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #47)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:33 PM

57. Fuck that. Say it with me.. CON-STI-TU-SHUN. 5th, and 14th.

Congress doesn't get to pass unconstitutional laws.

Derp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #47)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:15 PM

71. So a couple of thoughts

 

First, if you are referring to semi-automatic rifles, colloquially referred to as "assault weapons," then yes there is a bare majority that want those guns banned. But if you include semi-automatic pistols, which are much more prevalent (and responsible for many more deaths), then the public does not favor a ban. So the devil is (as always) in the details.

Second, my opinion is that Democrats need to think long and hard about supporting proposals that arguably violate the Constitution but have majority support. I get that a lot of folks on DU think some sort of gun ban would be great, but a massive majority in Alabama wants to ban same-sex marriage, while an equally massive majority of Oklahomans want to ban abortions. Are we going to support these infringements on constitutional rights just because they have majority support?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #47)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:28 PM

76. Umm ... no, they don't.

Representatives. And americans overwhelmingly want semi-automatics banned.

We all bear responsibility in a representative govt.

Wrong. The nation is about evenly split, with each position hovering around 50%:

According to a new CBS News poll conducted in the days following the Orlando shooting, 57 percent of Americans now say they support a nationwide ban on assault weapons. That's up 13 percentage points from the 44 percent support for a ban that the same poll showed in December.

The December poll showed the lowest level of support for an assault weapons ban in at least 20 years of polling. It was conducted in the aftermath of the mass shooting in San Bernardino, in which a man and woman used assault rifles to kill 14 people and wound 21 more.

-- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-orlando-shooting-assault-weapons-ban-20160615-story.html

And that's for an "assault weapons" ban, which is much lower-hanging fruit than a ban on all semi-autos. Such a ban would include most modern handguns, the best-selling .22 rifles, and even antiques like this:



Among European nations, only the UK comes close to an all-out semi-auto ban, but even they exempt .22 rimfire rifles, which leads to the ludicrous situation of UK citizens being able to buy rifles that residents of New York and California cannot.

Attempting such a ban would be political suicide for the Democratic party. We could kiss rural Democrats goodbye forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #47)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 03:53 PM

158. Oh, no, no. Fundamental misunderstanding of a constitutional democracy!

 

In our system, popular governance is constrained by the Constitution; that constraint is intentional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:03 PM

46. That's how it starts (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LongtimeAZDem (Reply #46)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:13 PM

48. "It" being your paranoia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #48)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:43 PM

62. Would you feel the same way?

If it was Trump talking about deporting Muslims?

I don't care what the justification is; once you abandon due process, you've joined the wrong side.
If that has to be explained to you, you're in the wrong party, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LongtimeAZDem (Reply #62)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:17 PM

73. Not having an assault weapon is the equivalent of being deported?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crunchy Frog (Reply #73)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 04:25 AM

106. Once the precedent is set, it won't matter.

Our entire legal system is based on precedent. And here is a way to create one that can't be challenged by anyone with standing since no one will inform them they are on the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LongtimeAZDem (Reply #46)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:20 PM

51. I beg your paranoia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LongtimeAZDem (Reply #46)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:31 AM

95. LOL, the NRA slippery slope excuse

it never seems to be brought up regarding ANYTHING but their precious guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #95)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 03:18 AM

99. Actually ...

LOL, the NRA slippery slope excuse

it never seems to be brought up regarding ANYTHING but their precious guns

... it gets brought up quite often concerning the erosion of civil liberties by such programs as secret watch lists and no-fly lists. Deprival of rights without due process? That kind of thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #95)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 08:24 AM

116. Not in my case; I apply it across the board

and I am not now, nor have I ever been, affiliated with the NRA in any way.

I do, however, support the ACLU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LongtimeAZDem (Reply #116)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 08:04 PM

142. LOL

could you be any more transparent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:18 PM

49. It's simple, add due process to the bill.

All we ask is for a fucking talk, A TALK, about it. Why can't there be a discussion about it in our government?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geomon666 (Reply #49)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:41 PM

79. The Cornyn bill had due process in it.

It was voted down along party lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:23 PM

53. Wait, were either of them on the no-fly list?

No? Then your post doesn't make a lick of sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #53)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:37 PM

59. No, they were not

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:37 PM

58. Well let's look at some fact for a second

 

In Sandy Hook, the rifle that was not an assault weapon was purchased legally and a federal back check was passed by the mother who owned the weapon. Her son murdered get and stole the rifle and committed murder.

In Orlando, the murder purchased the weapons and passed the federal background check. He additionally went through addition more extensive background checks for his CCW licence and security officer endorsement. He also was not on any watch list at time of purchase.

So, would these laws have made a difference at all? By the way, I am for UBC and due process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #58)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:46 PM

63. What the hell are you talking about?

"In Sandy Hook, the rifle that was not an assault weapon"

Really? Cause it was reported that he used a Bushmaster .223 caliber M4 carbine. Which is a fucking assault rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geomon666 (Reply #63)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:13 PM

69. Connecticut had an assault weapons ban in place

 

The federal law expired but the state continued it. The weapon used was a Bushmaster AR pattern weapon that had the cosmetic features like the bayonet lugs removed, fixed stock and no removable flash hider. So by legal definition, it was not an assault weapon. It was a legal semi-automatic rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geomon666 (Reply #63)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:16 PM

72. Not according to Connectcut law

They have a"assault rifle " law, and the rifle used was LEGAL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geomon666 (Reply #63)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:21 PM

75. I think the point being the xm-15 "assault weapon" was perfectly legal

So must not have been an "assault weapon" as defined by law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:13 PM

70. Exactly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:29 PM

77. Your bickering over details doesn't bring those beautiful children back.

You'll have to hope it's not your loved one on the receiving end of all of these monstrous weapons. Because you don't sound like you care about anyone else's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #77)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:44 PM

80. So you think our legal system should ...

Your bickering over details doesn't bring those beautiful children back.

... dispense with due process because of a tragedy? That wouldn't bring them back either, and it would open a Pandora's Box of government and police overreach and bring us several giant steps closer to a police state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #80)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:49 PM

85. 1 more time: Keep laws, eliminate semi automatic assault weapons.

No one wants to tear down civilization.

Stop with the exaggerations. No one is convinced by these non-arguments.

Putting another gun lover on ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #85)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:53 PM

86. What laws?

You're talking about a government not of laws, but of whim and fiat, wherein a governmental agency can strip you of any right it wishes and you are powerless to do anything about it. Wait until we have a far-right administration that wants to put people on terror watch lists if they've had an abortion.

Whenever you feel like handing government a bit more power, imagine what it would be like for that power to be wielded by someone on the other side. If you're comfortable with that, then go ahead. If not, then don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #85)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 04:02 PM

159. "...another gun lover on ignore" because he/she put-paid to your argument? Understandable.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #80)


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #77)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:45 PM

81. Unfortunately in the real world, details matter

 

And yes we care and wish for laws that would do more the ban cosmetic features and watch lists being used to to ban people who were not on them and by the way, passed a federal background check or murdered to get a weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #77)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 09:50 AM

118. This bill is about gesture politics, not about saving lives.

Approximately 35k Americans are killed by guns every year, in a mixture of murder, accidents and suicides.

Approximately 35k of those killings would not be prevented by making it a little harder for the small number of people on the terrorist watch list to buy certain sorts of weapons.

What *would* be accomplished by that is further establishing the principle that the state can single people out to have freedoms that the rest of Americans enjoy as rights taken away without trial or due process.

I would be all in favour of this bill if it applied to everyone (although it still wouldn't do very much good; what America really needs is controls on handguns, and I see zero prospect of those being introduced). If it applied to people on the watch list after due process, I would view it as empty gesture politics but possibly an inspiring and positive gesture. As it stands, it's appalling and I very much hope it loses a 14th amendment challenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 12:35 AM

88. Every time people defend our current gun situation,

 

I can only conclude that they would be perfectly okay if their daughter were slaughtered in a mass shooting like we had in Orlando, of if their five-year old were gunned down as in Sandy Hook, or if their kid were over at a friend's house, and someone found a loaded gun that wasn't properly concerned and their kid were maimed.

I sincerely wish that people would get to see exactly what bullets do to human bodies. Maybe more of them would understand that we simply don't need guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #88)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 01:35 AM

90. Your 'conclusions' are merely an old political tactic currently known as Lovejoying:



It is also known as "Think of the children":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

"Think of the children" (also "What about the children?" is a phrase which evolved into a rhetorical tactic.[1][2][3] Literally it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor).[4][5][6] In debate, however, as a plea for pity, used as an appeal to emotion, it is a logical fallacy.[1][2][3]

Art, Argument, and Advocacy (2002) argued that the appeal substitutes emotion for reason in debate.[1] Ethicist Jack Marshall wrote in 2005 that the phrase's popularity stems from its capacity to stunt rationality, particularly discourse on morals.[2] "Think of the children" has been invoked by censorship proponents to shield children from perceived danger.[7][8] Community, Space and Online Censorship (2009) noted that classifying children in an infantile manner, as innocents in need of protection, is a form of obsession over the concept of purity.[7] A 2011 article in the Journal for Cultural Research observed that the phrase grew out of a moral panic.[9]

It was an exhortation in the 1964 Walt Disney Pictures film Mary Poppins, when the character of Mrs. Banks pleaded with her departing nanny not to quit and to "think of the children!".[10] The phrase was popularized as a satiric reference on the animated television program The Simpsons in 1996,[11][12] when character Helen Lovejoy pleaded "Won't somebody please think of the children!"[13][14][15] during a contentious debate by citizens of the fictional town of Springfield.[13][16][17]

In the 2012 Georgia State University Law Review, Charles J. Ten Brink called Lovejoy's use of "Think of the children" a successful parody.[13] The appeal's subsequent use in society was often the subject of mockery.[8] After its popularization on The Simpsons, the phrase has been called "Lovejoy's Law",[15] the "Helen Lovejoy defence", the "Helen Lovejoy Syndrome",[18] and "think-of-the-children-ism".[19]


It has been employed by moral panic-mongers for decades, notably to promote
alcohol prohibition:










Why anyone would think a Prohibition 3.0 against guns would work when the one against
alcohol backfired spectacularly and the one against cannabis died of senility eludes me.

Why the same people are willing to grant such powers to the government
when there's a good chance of a right-wing government coming into power
in the future also eludes me.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #90)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:54 PM

127. Where you are completely wrong...

 

is in your equation of imaginary arguments of future negative consequences for children (a blatant emotional appeal) with the complaints of people about actual dead and injured children who have experienced actual rather than hypothetical suffering. We're talking not about imaginary potential victims of the future but the rather significant numbers of children who have experienced the real pain and horror of being shot with real bullets resulting in real injuries and real deaths.

these are not rhetorical arguments based on exaggerated but unprovable risks, these are actual casualties and deaths that need to be acted upon. We ban lawn darts and the sale of high-power magnets as toys, but apparently any kind of restriction on guns is intolerable regardless of how many actual deaths of children take place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anigbrowl (Reply #127)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 05:38 PM

132. A lot of children were (and still are) harmed by their families' alcohol use

That didn't make Prohibition a good idea.

Also, I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth:

but apparently any kind of restriction on guns is intolerable regardless of how many actual deaths of children take place.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #88)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 04:09 AM

105. Every time people defend due process

You think they want their daughter murdered?

Does this apply to all civil rights or only the ones you care about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democat (Reply #105)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:40 AM

109. What exactly is the violation of due process?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #109)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:44 AM

110. Using a secret government list to take away rights

 

And not giving people the right to appeal that decision or even know why they are on the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #110)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:47 AM

111. So you'd be ok if there were an appeals process?

And if, say, the list were published?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #111)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:58 AM

112. Yes, I would be ok with an appeals process

 

I have no problem with the republican proposal that was voted down. If somebody was denied, and appeal had to be filed within 3 business days. I realize 3 business days is not enough time, I would have no problem extending that to 10 business days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #112)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 07:13 AM

115. That seems reasonable. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democat (Reply #105)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 12:33 PM

123. All I can figure out is that

 

the gun apologists simply don't care who gets killed by guns, not even their own loved ones.

We hear all these pious statements about "responsible" gun owners, and a lot of hand-wringing and moments of silence when various gun tragedies are made public.

But actually do something about guns? Oh, my lord no! Apparently gun rights completely overshadow anyone else's right to remain alive, or unharmed. And I have zero respect for that attitude.

Those murdered and maimed by guns didn't get due process. And even if every single gun in this country were confiscated next week, there'd still be plenty of due process left.

So go ahead and defend the guns. Just think real hard about those you care about getting on the wrong side of a gun some day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #123)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 05:44 PM

133. You keep making statements about how you "know" what your opponents really care about

Your telediagnoses are no different than:

https://www.google.com/search?q=frist+diagnosis+schiavo&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com#q=frist+diagnosis+schiavo+video+site:democraticunderground.com

The Constitution is more important than your dislike of guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #133)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:20 PM

135. If people were valued over guns, then many more people

 

would be in favor of limiting guns.

I'm so glad you think the Constitution, most specifically the second amendment is more important than human lives. I happen to disagree. I also think the higher moral ground is on my side.

So keep on defending guns. Even when those you know are slaughtered or merely maimed by them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #135)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:30 PM

137. I value *all* of the Constitution. In your own words, are there any other parts of it that...

...can be elided?

Murderers have been freed due to their rights under the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments
having found to have been infringed. Should the lives of their victims override such rights?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #137)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 11:22 AM

148. No reply? Ok then:Your stance is a moral-panic fuelled special pleading

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #123)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 08:10 PM

143. ^^^^^THIS^^^^^

Thank you! "responsible" would mean banning all kinds of automatic assaualt rifles, and serious background checks everywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #143)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 04:11 PM

160. Correction: No mass murders in the U.S. have occurred using "automatic assault rifles" (redundant).

 

Your arguments are discredited by the continued use of misinformation, even when corrected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #160)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 06:33 PM

162. Goodbye. Ignore. The list gets longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #162)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:20 AM

164. Extremist prohibitionism will not help solve anything.

 

I must say that you have a hair trigger for ignoring -- my quite accurate correction. That correction is among several increasingly cited by critics and news columnists as a major stumbling block for the credibility of national dialogue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #123)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 08:41 PM

144. Maybe we do care and we want to see something done. Something that works to save lives.

67% of gun deaths are suicides. I think we need to make resources available and educate the public to save lives. Everyone should have a place to turn to for counseling or treatment.

With respect to gun homicides, I believe we need a national state/local/federal partnership that implements programs like Boston Ceasefire, Project Exile, and Atlanta's Face5. We need immediate national prioritization of law enforcement efforts to address straw purchases, fraudulent buyers, and illegal dealers. We need enhanced mandatory minimums for people who are arrested on gun charges (prohibited persons in possession).

We also need drug policy and prison reform.

If you do those things, while a big effort, I believe we can save lives. All of those things make sense to me and don't involve bans on barrel shrouds or pistol groups. But what the hell do I know, I'm just a "gun humper".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kang Colby (Reply #144)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 06:41 PM

163. I know that most gun deaths in this country are suicides.

 

That doesn't make them any more acceptable than all the other gun deaths. Yes, some determined people will still kill themselves if there were no gun available, just as some crazy people will kill with other means if there's no gun handy, but it still remains that so many fewer people would die --and of course the serious and permanent life-altering injuries that also occur are never mentioned -- with fewer guns.

I've just had it with the defense of the 2nd Amendment, the weak, "Oh, we could never get all those guns away."

Then just flat out say, "Too bad. We just have to accept all this gun related horror" and go back to watching Dancing With the Stars of whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #123)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 03:43 PM

156. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democat (Reply #105)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:56 PM

128. Due process is not so important that you should expect others to be willing to die for it

 

I don't want to abridge other people's liberties, but nor do I see any reason to purchase the ones under discussion here at the expense of my own life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #88)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:27 PM

136. Agreed, and they are wiling to give their own lives

for their Second Amendment freedom. They are willing that lives be sacrificed to it. No other way around that. They refuse to say it but it is the factual result of their stances. And they depend on the odds being against it being them so let other people bear the sacrifice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 08:38 AM

117. Where was little Dylan's right to due process? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leeroysphitz (Reply #117)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 11:20 AM

119. NRA: "Due process" only applies to gun holders, not gun victims.

Gun lovers don't give a rat's ass about anyone else's "due process."

Hard to get "due process" from the grave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #119)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 05:45 PM

134. Really? Give a link to them saying that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 11:36 AM

121. ACLU on proposed gun legislation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027945642

Maybe they need to talk to the victim's families

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:49 PM

126. Moot point

Since neither of the shooters in the mass murders you mention were on the no-fly list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 03:01 PM

129. Neither of those murders were on the no fly list, were they? I don't understand the point here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:48 PM

141. Complain to the supporters of the Patriot Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L. Coyote (Reply #141)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 12:08 PM

151. Which, if the polls were correct, includes far more people than will admit it now (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 07:08 AM

147. Why? They really nothing to do with protection of rights.

Nor does due process depend on a lack of victims.

No matter what your problem is the solution is not setting a precedent that due process doesn't matter.It will never be a oh...that's just about GUNZ thing. That isn't how it works.

The increasing hostility towards fundamental civil liberties is beyond disturbing, always whipped by fear, anger, hate, ignorance, and reactionary emotional responses from both parties and/or going along with the other we are cannibalizing that basic protections that differentiate subject and citizen.

Not advocating due process is supporting our citizens being disappeared and summary executions without and the position is wholly reprehensible and myopic.

Yeah, I'll tell them all about it, the position is wrong headed and beyond dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 11:59 AM

150. Banning assault weapons would not have anything to do with due process and they know it.

 

They shifted the debate from banning assault weapons, to the no-fly list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 12:21 PM

152. The "where were the rights of the victim?" argument has often been used to defend abuses of

the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread