They Are Coming For Your Guns!

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Oh, my do we not have a sense of humor.
Well seems a lot of that is going around in the liberal community. So I forgive you for not seeing it as humor.

I'm not a liberal. Nice deflection, though.

 

[sayak83]

Well let's see, you said"


and President Reagan said
"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense,” he said. “But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”
So let's compare:
You: AK-47--and called it a "machine gun"- Reagan "But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun"
So yes basically the same thing
You: saying machines guns are not for sport, defense, or hunting and regular civilians shouldn't have them. Reagan: " I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”
Well almost but not exactly. He did not say that civilians should not own them. Correct?
I know nitpicking again. But, when we basically say someone said something we should tell the truth and not embellish or change anything. Do you not agree.

I think you have not provided any reason as to why not allowing under 21s access to such dangerous killing machines as guns is supposed to be a bad idea.

 

[oldbadger]

No but getting re-elected does

Even GOP and Republican voters are leaving the gung-ho gun-nut ranks.
Change looks to be coming.

 

[esmith]

Even GOP and Republican voters are leaving the gung-ho gun-nut ranks.
Change looks to be coming.

Maybe in some of the "liberal" States, but not in all States.
Idaho Has Declared It Won't Obey New Federal Gun Laws

Just for my edification what attributes do you ascribe to a "gun-nut". Please be specific since I don't know if I fall into your definition of a "gun-nut".

 

[oldbadger]

Maybe in some of the "liberal" States, but not in all States.
Idaho Has Declared It Won't Obey New Federal Gun Laws

OK....... but as the killings continue (like in the last few days) the pressure could just keep on rising.

Just for my edification what attributes do you ascribe to a "gun-nut". Please be specific since I don't know if I fall into your definition of a "gun-nut".

I don't remember that you posted anything to me which looked nutty.
My 'gun-nut' warning bell rings when folks refer to gun-control supporters as cowardly, or scared, or 'leftist'.......... those that write as if they would take up arms and kill their own police or soldiers if the Nations politics didn't suit them, the kind that writes as if they would kill a trespasser .......... now that really does worry us Brits because in the UK trespass is not a crime, and in many areas of the UK there is a 'Right to Roam' on most land.

There is a significant legal difference here between the words 'Trespass' and 'Intrusion', and even an Intruder (in a building like a home) should not be killed or hurt unless in self-defence. And so when folks show that they would shoot/kill a trespasser 'no questions asked', or rant on about their '#God given rights', etc, ..... yeah...... gun nuts.

You debate for gun rights in a much more intelligent way than that, imo, and I have previously enjoyed debating issues such as 'reload-use' etc with you.

.......................... for what all that is worth to you.

 

[esmith]

OK....... but as the killings continue (like in the last few days) the pressure could just keep on rising.


I don't remember that you posted anything to me which looked nutty.
My 'gun-nut' warning bell rings when folks refer to gun-control supporters as cowardly, or scared, or 'leftist'.......... those that write as if they would take up arms and kill their own police or soldiers if the Nations politics didn't suit them, the kind that writes as if they would kill a trespasser .......... now that really does worry us Brits because in the UK trespass is not a crime, and in many areas of the UK there is a 'Right to Roam' on most land.

There is a significant legal difference here between the words 'Trespass' and 'Intrusion', and even an Intruder (in a building like a home) should not be killed or hurt unless in self-defence. And so when folks show that they would shoot/kill a trespasser 'no questions asked', or rant on about their '#God given rights', etc, ..... yeah...... gun nuts.

You debate for gun rights in a much more intelligent way than that, imo, and I have previously enjoyed debating issues such as 'reload-use' etc with you.

.......................... for what all that is worth to you.

I'm just a old firearm enthusiast that thinks that the present incidents are not due to the tool but to the "nut" behind the tool.
I would like to see further steps taken to insure those that due to mental issues do not posses firearms. However I do not like the idea of removing someones rights without due process of law.
In addition I think that the present actions of certain companies are like those of Illinois legislature which are knee-jerk reactions based on opinion not facts. I suspect that the CEO's of many of these companies are in the camp of the we-don't-like-guns group. However, it is the right of every State to enact laws if their citizens so wish and those laws are subject to Constitutional review in addition the actions of companies will be judged by the actions of the consumer and as in looks now in a court of law.

 

[tytlyf]

I'm just a old firearm enthusiast that thinks that the present incidents are not due to the tool but to the "nut" behind the tool.
I would like to see further steps taken to insure those that due to mental issues do not posses firearms. However I do not like the idea of removing someones rights without due process of law.
In addition I think that the present actions of certain companies are like those of Illinois legislature which are knee-jerk reactions based on opinion not facts. I suspect that the CEO's of many of these companies are in the camp of the we-don't-like-guns group. However, it is the right of every State to enact laws if their citizens so wish and those laws are subject to Constitutional review in addition the actions of companies will be judged by the actions of the consumer and as in looks now in a court of law.

I get you're into 'due process.' How is due process going to happen when the NRA does everything they can to keep any due process from happening? Congress writes laws and the NRA buys up all the republicans to toe the line.

You think the NRA wants to even get talks on such a subject, let alone due process?

 

[oldbadger]

I'm just a old firearm enthusiast that thinks that the present incidents are not due to the tool but to the "nut" behind the tool.

....... ok............................

I would like to see further steps taken to insure those that due to mental issues do not posses firearms. However I do not like the idea of removing someones rights without due process of law.

Well, that's what might be happening. When States legislate to to control guns in various ways, that IS a 'due process of law'.

In addition I think that the present actions of certain companies are like those of Illinois legislature which are knee-jerk reactions based on opinion not facts.

No. If a company doesn't want to sell a particular product then it doesn't have to. It's different to legislation.

I suspect that the CEO's of many of these companies are in the camp of the we-don't-like-guns group.

I don't think so...... these CEOs are more likely to respond to trends in public opinion. They're in business and so need to move with the crowd.

However, it is the right of every State to enact laws if their citizens so wish and those laws are subject to Constitutional review....................

OK...... but the meaning of various sections and amendments in your Constitution can be reviewed as well, ..... true?

.................... in addition the actions of companies will be judged by the actions of the consumer and as in looks now in a court of law.

Companies can sell what they want.............
Companies don't need legislation to support their choice of products for sale.

 

[esmith]

I get you're into 'due process.' How is due process going to happen when the NRA does everything they can to keep any due process from happening? Congress writes laws and the NRA buys up all the republicans to toe the line.

You think the NRA wants to even get talks on such a subject, let alone due process?

I usually do not reply to you due to your strange(word within the guidelines of this forum) posts. However, when someone needs a lesson in facts I guess I have to.
Due process is not a function of Congress, it is the judicial system. Did you not pay attention in school.
So back to school you go.
due proc·ess
d(y)o͞o prəˈses/
noun

1. fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.

 

[Curious George]

I usually do not reply to you due to your strange(word within the guidelines of this forum) posts. However, when someone needs a lesson in facts I guess I have to.
Due process is not a function of Congress, it is the judicial system. Did you not pay attention in school.
So back to school you go.
due proc·ess
d(y)o͞o prəˈses/
noun

1. fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.

Due process is not only in the judicial system. It is true that due process is most commonly associated with the judicial system, however it is broader than that.

It is why law requires notice, it is why police read Miranda rights, it is why warrants are necessary and dictates the areas where they are not necessary. Due process, both procedural and substantive are very broad categories. But it is true that we look to the judicial branch to secure these rights when they are neglected.

 

[tytlyf]

I usually do not reply to you due to your strange(word within the guidelines of this forum) posts. However, when someone needs a lesson in facts I guess I have to.
Due process is not a function of Congress, it is the judicial system. Did you not pay attention in school.
So back to school you go.
due proc·ess
d(y)o͞o prəˈses/
noun

1. fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.

You missed my point. Gun laws are created in congress. Having a debate on mental illnesses and then having a vote on a bill is essentially due process. The NRA gets in the way to make sure no new bills are talked about or even voted on.

 

[esmith]

You missed my point. Gun laws are created in congress. Having a debate on mental illnesses and then having a vote on a bill is essentially due process. The NRA gets in the way to make sure no new bills are talked about or even voted on.

Back to school you go. Try and learn this time.
Congress makes the laws, they do not enforce the laws.
Definition of due process from Due Process

1: a course of formal proceedings (such as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles — called also procedural due process
2: a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual — called also substantive due process

Definition of Procedural Due Process from: Procedural Due Process

The phrase “due process” describes the legal principle that the government must respect the rights afforded to U.S. citizens under the law. It comes from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and the Fourteenth Amendment, in which it is repeated), which states that “no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Today, the phrase “due process” usually refers to one of two sets of rights. The first is substantive due process, which includes rights related to personhood, like the right not to be discriminated against or the right to privacy. The second is “procedural due process,” which govern how legal proceedings must be carried out.

The core procedural due process rights are the rights to notice and a hearing. In other words, in any legal or administrative proceeding, any person who might be negatively affected by the outcome of the proceeding has the right to be told that the proceeding is going to take place, the right to appear before a neutral judge or arbiter, and the right to explain his or her side of the case before a decision is made. This right applies to all types of government-related cases, from administrative decisions to civil cases to full-fledged criminal trials. It applies to cases that involve federal, state, or local government units. The U.S. Supreme Court has even held that limited rights to notice and a hearing apply even to people who are not U.S. citizens, such as undocumented immigrants, prisoners of war, or “enemy combatants” held in U.S. prisons or detention facilities.

Many procedural due process rights, especially those that govern criminal trials, are laid out in the Bill of Rights. The procedural due process rights in the Bill of Rights apply to all federal trials. Many of these rights also apply to proceedings in state and local courts as well, but not all of them. Those that do apply to state and local courts are said to be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees basic procedural due process rights in state proceedings as well as in federal ones.

Some of the procedural rights that apply in both state and federal proceedings include:

• the right to notice and a hearing,
• the right to remain silent in criminal investigations and trials so as to avoid incriminating oneself,
• the right to be represented by an attorney in certain criminal cases, and
• the right to have one’s case heard before a jury in criminal cases.

Federal civil trials must also include the right to a jury if the amount of damages being argued over is more than $20.00, according to the Seventh Amendment. However, this amendment has not been incorporated against the states, and so states do not have to provide this particular procedural due process right. (Some states do, however, provide a similar right in their own state constitutions.)

Procedural due process is often an issue in cases involving personal jurisdiction, because the question arises whether it is appropriate for a court to take away the property of a person it has no power over. Many of the cases that deal with procedural due process explore the question of how much connection a person or business has to have with a particular state before procedural due process allows that state to levy a judgment against that person or business.