Police can confiscate citizens' guns "just in case" they might commit crime in future

Darla said:
Seriously, why do you guys call him a troll? He posts on topic very often, and has a lot of interesting stuff to say. And I know he spazzes out then, but that makes me laugh. I don’t get the troll designation though.
Click to expand...

You have to read what he says in his shorter posts. Usually the stuff he says at the beginning of threads is meant to goad the Right into some sort of straw-man type debate over something silly. They've figured him out for the most part and call him on it more often than they fall for it.

Once the debate gets rolling, his chance at derailing the thread slips out the window and he falls in line and makes some semi-intelligent observations now and again. But that never keeps him from attempting to distract the conversation.
 
Yeah it's really not a good development for the level of discourse on this site.

It's not like it was skyhigh before, but Water has really dragged it down with his commitment to trolling.

It makes debating all but impossible, and he mostly only does it so that he can avoid getting destroyed in real debates.
 
Epicurus said:
I overreacted. I'll admit. What I get for trusting World Net.
Click to expand...

fair enough. We all get caught believing crap that ain't true.

Basically, when I see a post from Little Acorn or World Net Daily, my rule is to assume its total bullshit
 
ib1reallystupidshithead said:
Threatening another individual and suicide are both crimes, GoodLiar.
Click to expand...
Yes, threatening another person is itself a crime.

Look at how many times another person was threatened in the cases where the law was used to confiscate weapons. Less than 10% of the cited cases was a crime actually committed before the law was used to dispossess a citizen of the U.S. (Amendment 14: no person shal be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.) And did they actually prosecute the crime of assault? Nope. They used it as an excuse to grab guns.

The intent of the law is not what is wrong here. It is allowing the state to dispossess a citizen BEFORE due process has taken place. That is simply wrong. Put due process in front of the procedure where it belongs, and then it would be a good law.
 
An excuse to grab guns. I'm really sure that's what gun-carrying, Republican leaning cops are really out to do.
 
Cypress said:
Cons, just admit....when you read the World Net Daily article, you were totally misled on the nature and scope of this sensible gun law.
Click to expand...
The article posted was quite badly slanted. That does not mean the law is without fault. Putting due process AFTER depriving a citizen of property is NOT what the 14th Amendment says. You can look up other articles about this law, and find arguments both in favor and against it. Proponents say it has never been abused. A defense attorney cites several cases where he believed it was abused. Not only that, but out of slightly more than 200 cases, 23 were overturned. 10% of "oops, shouldn't have done that" is a bit high for allowing law enforcement to take peoples' property. (and if one were honest, there were probably at least that many which SHOULD have been overturned, but were not so as not to weaken the law.)

And admit it - the only reason you personally find it a to be "sensible" law is because it is about guns. I'd bet you are totally against post-facto due process when it comes to tapping peoples' phones. (ie: FISA)
 
ib1yysguy said:
You have to read what he says in his shorter posts. Usually the stuff he says at the beginning of threads is meant to goad the Right into some sort of straw-man type debate over something silly. They've figured him out for the most part and call him on it more often than they fall for it.

Once the debate gets rolling, his chance at derailing the thread slips out the window and he falls in line and makes some semi-intelligent observations now and again. But that never keeps him from attempting to distract the conversation.
Click to expand...

I have an initial emotional reaction, and most of the time I suppress that and post something logical. Other times, I'm like, why not? And I post it anyway. It's a tad bit dissocial to act like this but I don't care.

It also good to goad them into straw-men, so it does serve some sort of purpose besides my own amusement.
 
As a matter of fact, I'm not against the FISA courts operating after the fact. That's how they've worked since Nixon. They have 48 hours to get a warrant after surveillance has begun, I believe. The problem I have with Bush's and Obama's FISA is the fact that removes the need for said warrants all together. Judicial oversight is gone completely.
 
I haven't read the thread, but does anyone find it interesting that the same folks that argue that you need to arm yourself because the cops can't and won't protect you get really riled up by the cops protecting people by taking away the guns of potentially dangerous people?
 
Dungheap said:
I haven't read the thread, but does anyone find it interesting that the same folks that argue that you need to arm yourself because the cops can't and won't protect you get really riled up by the cops protecting people by taking away the guns of potentially dangerous people?
Click to expand...
If you'd read the thread, you'd find that the objection is not about taking weapons from potentially dangerous people. It is about the process used to determine whether a person is potentially dangerous. Removing weapons from a dangerous person is a good thing. Using primary investigation techniques and suspicion to determine who is dangerous is NOT a good thing. Use due process first instead of later, and it would be a good law.
 
And while they're sitting in court waiting to get a judge to determine if someone is dangerous, said dangerous individual has access to weapons and is also aggravated that someone wants to take them away.

I could also draw a comparison to Iraq here, though I suspect to catch shit for it. Remember how you guys were all telling us how we needed to disarm Saddam first and ask questions later? We can't wait for a mushroom cloud, etc?
 
ib1yysguy said:
I'm pretty sure cops vote GOP.
Click to expand...
Depends where they are from. Connecticut police vote predominately democratic because most are in concentrated urban areas. Again - urban police tend to support democrats and democratic forms of gun control.

OTOH, rural law enforcement is not only mostly republican, but WAY right republican.
 
ib1yysguy said:
And while they're sitting in court waiting to get a judge to determine if someone is dangerous, said dangerous individual has access to weapons and is also aggravated that someone wants to take them away.

I could also draw a comparison to Iraq here, though I suspect to catch shit for it. Remember how you guys were all telling us how we needed to disarm Saddam first and ask questions later? We can't wait for a mushroom cloud, etc?
Click to expand...
Due process hearings do not have to involve the suspect. Grand juries indict people all the time before the person even knows they are being investigated.

And you still are making stupid ASSumptions about what I do and do not support.
 
I like to cage right wingers into the same place. It makes arguments much easier.

Most of the typical right wingers have left the site though. It's becoming more difficult to find consistency these days. Ever since WRL left and Dixie began to feel shame, the site's just not been the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top