Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The utter and complete lack of due process for the accused to defend themselves PRIOR to being deprived of their liberty and property. Gone. All of presumption of innocence, rights of the accused, guilt must be proven, etc. Gone.
You console yourself over such tyranny by babbling about how it is temporary, but that is nonsense. The accused is harmed by the State with neither knowledge that it is happening nor any chance whatsoever to defend themselves prior to execution of sentence.
If they are deemed fit they can get their guns back, we should be erring on the side of safety. There are plenty of examples of borderline people that go over the edge, this is a practical law that is long overdue.
Should read: "----the beginning of the end for gun ownership abuse in this country". If this is true, it shows that there are actually a few public-minded republican politicians, after all. What a wonderful thing this would be, if it turns some of Trump's base against him. They may be learning that in the end, he is bad news for everyone.
So you like Trumps gun ban but don't like any of his other policies?
The utter and complete lack of due process for the accused to defend themselves PRIOR to being deprived of their liberty and property. Gone. All of presumption of innocence, rights of the accused, guilt must be proven, etc. Gone.
You console yourself over such tyranny by babbling about how it is temporary, but that is nonsense. The accused is harmed by the State with neither knowledge that it is happening nor any chance whatsoever to defend themselves prior to execution of sentence.
We must suspend your rights to protect your rights.
If they are deemed fit they can get their guns back, we should be erring on the side of safety. There are plenty of examples of borderline people that go over the edge, this is a practical law that is long overdue.
You mean like when Trump snapped and killed an 8-year-old American girl?
Or a few years earlier when Obama snapped and killed her 16-year-old brother...also an American?
Or are there separate rules for them because they wear a government badge?
If they are deemed fit they can get their guns back, we should be erring on the side of safety.
No, we should be erring on the side of upholding the law, and if the laws don't provide enough safety we should change the law.
Might seem like a small difference, but in fact it's huge.
BTW, since the law in question is the U.S. Constitution, the way we change that law is to get 2/3 vote of each house of Congress, and then 3/4 of the states to agree.
Shouldn't be hard if the problem is as severe as you say it is. It's been done 20-plus times already. What's stopping you?
You just have to persuade that many people, that American society will be safer if they give Government the power to decide which of us can own and carry a gun and which cannot. Or would society be safer and more free, flatly forbidding govt to make any such laws at all (which is what that law currently says)?
I mean, what could go wrong?
Get going. Let us know how your project proceeds, OK?
The rest of your people made it this way for you. You had a gun. As long as I dont have a gun, I can look down on you when you get abused, so its not my worry. The police are never wrong when it comes to those people. Lets see what you have to say when you get your face kicked in when you werent resisting.
"My people?"
My people are anarchists, old school punks and revolutionaries. Hating authority is baked into "my people's" DNA. Not sure what people you are referring to, but they aren't mine.
I have said that when confronted with an opponent who outguns you and has the monopoly of force and violence on their side, compliance is best advised because you'll live longer. But even diehard anarchists have common sense where life and limb are concerned. Doesn't mean I cannot speak truth to power about tyranny though.
Don't lump me in with whatever people you think I belong to. I choose what people I am part of, not my skin color.
My people are anarchists, old school punks and revolutionaries. Hating authority is baked into "my people's" DNA. Not sure what people you are referring to, but they aren't mine.
I have said that when confronted with an opponent who outguns you and has the monopoly of force and violence on their side, compliance is best advised because you'll live longer. But even diehard anarchists have common sense where life and limb are concerned. Doesn't mean I cannot speak truth to power about tyranny though.
Don't lump me in with whatever people you think I belong to. I choose what people I am part of, not my skin color.
Good ole' Harry thinks that anyone who isn't a liberal is a conservative, and vice versa.
Good ole' Harry thinks that anyone who isn't a liberal is a conservative, and vice versa.
As usual your crutch is bringing up partisan garbage. Nothing of what I said had anything to do with party lines. Reading is fundamental.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
