How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[RF667799]

No! I want to deprive people of their property WITH due process. That's why Congress passes criminal legislation: to DEFINE due process.

You characterized "without due process" as "AKA Red Flag Laws".

Quit denying you said things you obviously said. Or...keep it up. It's revealing.

Post 761, you selectively quoted Clax:

That's the ability to take firearms before adjudication or due process.

Your response:

aka Red Flag laws.

 

[CLAX1911]

You characterized "without due process" as "AKA Red Flag Laws".

Quit denying you said things you obviously said. Or...keep it up. It's revealing.

Red flag laws is just a way for people in power to Target dissidents.

 

[RF667799]

Red flag laws is just a way for people in power to Target dissidents.

Regardless of its intent, it's inordinately stupid.

But my point is that @Feynman Lives! has taken to lying about things he obviously said. This is an indication he is trolling, perhaps out of bitterness at having his ass handed to him in rational discussion.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Adjudication can only happen after a trial or Court proceeding of some sorts for the accused can face their accuser.

Not if the law says otherwise. As YOU have proven is the case in 21 states and DC.

I don't know where you think laws (as in "due process of law") come from. They come from CONGRESSS!!! If CONGRESS approves, and the President signs it, it's The Law of the Land

You appear to believe that laws are some sort of "magical" thing that just... exist...

Very naive argument!

 

[RF667799]

Not if the law says otherwise. As YOU have proven is the case in 21 states and DC.

I don't know where you think laws (as in "due process of law") come from. They come from CONGRESSS!!! If CONGRESS approves, and the President signs it, it's The Law of the Land

You appear to believe that laws are some sort of "magical" thing that just... exist...

Very naive argument!

Tell a lie, deny it, and go straight into some convoluted strawman shit.

Fer Chrissake...at least try for coherence.

 

[CLAX1911]

Not if the law says otherwise. As YOU have proven is the case in 21 states and DC.

So you're making a legalistic argument?

I don't know where you think laws (as in "due process of law") come from.

5th and 14th amendment

They come from CONGRESSS!!! If CONGRESS approves, and the President signs it, it's The Law of the Land

No. Congress is bound by the Constitution

You appear to believe that laws are some sort of "magical" thing that just... exist...

The 5th and 14th amendments do exist not sure they are magical.

Very naive argument!

Your strawman is but then again it's the standard I've come to expect from you

 

[Feynman Lives!]

So you're making a legalistic argument?

I don't know. Am I?

5th and 14th amendment

And there is a reason why you won't quote it. Because you don't understand what it says, right?

Like I SAID in my post

[from the 5A]
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

[from the 14A]
"... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Again WHO do you think defines what the process of law IS? Who do you think DEFINED it for the 21 states (plus DC) that PASSED the law that makes it PART of "due process of law" for a judge to take away the guns of somebody who they DEEM to be a danger to others or themselves (despite the fact that "being a danger" is not even a crime). Which has been in the law for DECADES in some of those states....

 

[RF667799]

I don't know. Am I?



And there is a reason why you won't quote it. Because you don't understand what it says, right?

Like I SAID in my post

[from the 5A]
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Again WHO do you think defines what the process of law IS? Who do you think DEFINED it for the 21 states (plus DC) that PASSED the law that makes it PART of "due process of law" for a judge to take away the guns of somebody who they DEEM to be a danger to others or themselves (despite the fact that "being a danger" is not even a crime). Which has been in the law for DECADES in some of those states....

But you said Red Flag laws are outside due process...

You aren't trying to argue that laws that remove due process, are themselves due process, are you?

 

[CLAX1911]

I don't know. Am I?

Seems like it

And there is a reason why you won't quote it. Because you don't understand what it says, right?

I

Like I SAID in my post

[from the 5A]
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Again WHO do you think defines what the process of law IS?

Nobody is a process not a person.

Who do you think DEFINED it for the 21 states (plus DC) that PASSED the law that makes it PART of "due process of law" for a judge to take away the guns of somebody who they DEEM to be a danger to others or themselves (despite the fact that "being a danger" is not even a crime).

Dictators.

Which has been in the law for DECADES in some of those states....

So. Laws can exist due decades that violate the constitution.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

But you said Red Flag laws are outside due process...

Sorry dude. You're TOO prone to make up CRAP. You did that before and you do it again. I'm just not bothering with it anymore.

It's nothing personal, but it's just not worth the effort to keep telling you over and over what I said or didn't say.

If you have a question about something I say, quote it. If you don't quote it, I'll just ignore your post..

 

[CLAX1911]

But you said Red Flag laws are outside due process...

But because dictators say it's due process it magically is.

You aren't trying to argue that laws that remove due process, are themselves due process, are you?

Seems like he's arguing that because it's law it must be right because the system is infallible.

Another point in the dictator triangle.

 

[CLAX1911]

Sorry dude.

For what

You're TOO prone to make up CRAP.

So these laws do not deprive someone if property before adjudication?

You did that before and you do it again.

You just say things for no reason.

I'm just not bothering anymore.

Giving up.

It's nothing personal, but it's just not worth the effort to keep telling you over and over what I said or didn't say.

Lol run away.

If you have a question about something I say, quote it. If you don't quote it, I'll just ignore your post..

In other words you forfeit

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Dictators.

Ok. So you believe that legislators are Dictators.

The proper thing to do when somebody says something like that is ignore it. Just in case you don't see a response to a post of yours in the future.... I just don't even BOTHER with nonsense like this.

 

[CLAX1911]

Ok. So you believe that legislators are Dictators.

If they just get to ignore the Constitution show that they aren't

The proper thing to do when somebody says something like that is ignore it.

I didn't care if you withdraw.

Just in case you don't see a response to a post of yours in the future.... I just don't even BOTHER with nonsense like this.

K bye

 

[Feynman Lives!]

For what

Why are you responding to a post directed to another poster? Do you have some sort of "dual personality"?

 

[CLAX1911]

Why are you responding to a post directed to another poster?

Felt like it. If you don't want that to happen you don't make posts publicly

 

[Feynman Lives!]

If they just get to ignore the Constitution show that they aren't

The NRA challenged each and every one of those states. And LOST. EVERY time!

 

[CLAX1911]

The NRA challenged each and every one of those states. And LOST in courts. EVERY time!

And?

 

[Feynman Lives!]

And?

I don't know how long you've lived in this country. But it's amusing that TODAY you learned that, according to YOUR definition (and yours alone), you live in a dictatorship.

Funny as hell!!!

But, my job is to bring facts to the public. So my task is done!

 

[CLAX1911]

I don't know how long you've lived in this country. But it's amusing that TODAY you learned that, according to YOUR definition (and yours alone), you live in a dictatorship.

Yet another strawman

Funny as hell!!!

Glad you can laugh at your own nonsense

But, my job is to bring facts to the public.

So my task is done!

Failing.

 

[jaeger19]

False! Only 21 states have Red Flag Laws.

Are you up for a SERIOUS discussion or just looking to waste our time. Please READ MY SIG!!!!

Are you up for serious discussion. ? Your number 10 was empowering a judge to take firearms if they determine a person was a threat to themselves or others . ALL STATES HAVE THAT PROVISION
Red flag laws in the states are superfluous to that provision.
The only difference is some red flag laws allow a judge to issue an order without the accused being allowed to defend themselves.l or even know they are being accused.

Ok. So your best argument is that they cost money. Idon't know how much you think it costs to pass a law making it illegal to sell assault weapons. But it doesn't appear to be too much more than the cost of cleaning up the mess from just ONE classroom in the next school shooting.

Well. First is the cost in wasted time as you try to get an assault weapons bill passed . Getting the assault weapons video got democrat because of the bill passed cost democrats the congress and eventually gore lost . Because tge assault ban will be widely unpopular. It has no gain politically. No one is going to decide to vote democrat because of gun control. But lots of democrats and independents will cross the aisle to vote against gun control.
So all that political time wasted on a ban that won’t do anything. When you could have a bipartisan mental healthcare bill passed.
Then if you do get it passed ? There is the cost of all the manufacturing lost, jobs lost , ammunition manufacture lost, the cost of gun buybacks , the cost of enforcement , you are talking millions of guns you have to buy back at the cost of close to 1000 a piece.
Then there is the cost of enforcement as a number of normally law abiding citizens will refuse to comply. And then you will be filling jails with people that aren’t a threat . The list of costs go on and on.

But, if that's all you got, my case is made....!

Nope.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Are you up for serious discussion. ? Your number 10 was empowering a judge to take firearms if they determine a person was a threat to themselves or others . ALL STATES HAVE THAT PROVISION

AND that I'm referring to "red flag laws".

In any case, you were challenged to give us your BEST argument against my proposals. If your best is something like "we shouldn't enact red flag laws because states take guns from people AFTER they are convicted"..... Great! A pretty lame reason. given that the proposal is for taking guns away BEFORE they're convicted. Like it's done in 21 states and DC.

Even worse.... you then CHANGED to something equivalent to "it costs too much money to save lives". First of all, it doesn't. Just a few dollars can get an order mailed to gun shops, wholesalers and manufacturers that they can't sell a list of assault weapons to the general public (for example). Second.... so what if it did! The REASON we pay taxes is not for Trump to spend them defending against lawsuit after lawsuit that he KNOWS he'll lose. The number ONE priority of government is to protect We The People.

So you were given ample chance to show your BEST argument. You even tried TWO arguments. But they were a huge [insert sad trombone sound "wah wah wahhhhh"]

 

[RF667799]

Sorry dude. You're TOO prone to make up CRAP. You did that before and you do it again. I'm just not bothering with it anymore.

It's nothing personal, but it's just not worth the effort to keep telling you over and over what I said or didn't say.

If you have a question about something I say, quote it. If you don't quote it, I'll just ignore your post..

I provided the receipts (post 776), and you're desperate.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

I provided the receipts (post 776), and you're desperate.

So you don't know how to use the forum's quote function?

Well... you better learn. Because it's not like you've contributed anything worthwhile that one would waste time to go hunting for your old posts.

 

[RF667799]

So you don't know how to use the forum's quote function?

Well... you better learn. Because it's not like you've contributed anything worthwhile that one would waste time to go hunting for your old posts.

"Hunting" Please do keep up the disingenuous denial. Not everyone is as averse to "hunting" as yourself.

Post 776 is where I provided the receipts. It's at the top of this very page you're complaining on.

Clax said:

That's the ability to take firearms before adjudication or due process.

You responded:

aka Red Flag laws.