Gun Control

Redux said:
Assault rifles are not legal
Click to expand...


Are we really trying to split hairs between "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" here? Like the amendment to ban assault weapons that was voted out of a FL state legislature bill to ban bump stocks?

Like the assault rifles that d!(k's just announced they would stop selling, which is good, because they are illegal? Sorry -- assault-style, which is also good, because those are imaginary?

Like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (are "semiautomatic assault weapons" real enough for you?) which expired in 2004, has never been renewed, and efforts to pass a new one similar in kind were defeated by Republicans in 2012 and 2013? 

If you're going to argue that this distinction is meaningful -- and sure, maybe it is --  then you cannot simultaneously assert that "assault weapon" is not a real thing. People are not confused that AK-74s or M-16s or other full-auto rifles and machine guns can be purchased. In fact there seems to be good, general literacy that we are talking about semiauto weapons like the AR-15. 

 
zoogs said:
Are we really trying to split hairs between "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" here? Like the amendment to ban assault weapons that was voted out of a FL state legislature bill to ban bump stocks?

Like the assault rifles that d!(k's just announced they would stop selling, which is good, because they are illegal? Sorry -- assault-style, which is also good, because those are imaginary?

Like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (are "semiautomatic assault weapons" real enough for you?) which expired in 2004, has never been renewed, and efforts to pass a new one similar in kind were defeated by Republicans in 2012 and 2013? 

If you're going to argue that this distinction is meaningful -- and sure, maybe it is --  then you cannot simultaneously assert that "assault weapon" is not a real thing. People are not confused that AK-74s or M-16s or other full-auto rifles and machine guns can be purchased. In fact there seems to be good, general literacy that we are talking about semiauto weapons like the AR-15. 
Click to expand...


If I smack you with a baseball bat, it becomes an "Assault Baseball Bat".  And you have WAY too much faith in people being informed on the difference between an AR15 and M16.

 
To every conservative, libertarian, liberal, Dem or Repub - this should send chills down your spine and make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.  This is something we can or should all agree to be a breach of presidential responsibility.  The Presidents says due process should be laid aside when it comes to guns and the mentally ill.  The executive branch is to

enforce the laws and the rights guaranteed in the constitution.  This flies in the face of that responsibility.

This begs the question:  Who defines & how can one define  'mentally ill' outside of due process. Next thing we know, the President or his brown boots henchmen can say Zoogs is mentally ill :o , then BRB :o then Dude :o   then me :ahhhhhhhh .   Due process is one of the foundation stones of our constitution and our society.  

So, I wonder how the communication dept covers up for Trump this time.  He once again shows that he is not up for the job.  (Amendment 25 anyone -  he isn't thinking right - speaking of mentally ill)

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/trump-guns-mental-illness-due-process/2018/03/01/id/846118/

President Donald Trump on Wednesday asserted that due process should be shelved in some cases in order to first confiscate guns from a mentally unfit individual, like the confessed Florida school shooter who killed 17 on Valentine's Day.

Trump made the startling comment during Wednesday's school safety and gun violence powwow at the White House with a bipartisan group of lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence.

It was Pence who was talking about due process when it comes to potentially dangerous individuals when Trump jumped in.

"I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man's case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time," Trump told the gathering.

"Take the guns first, go through due process second."

At another point during the meeting, Trump asserted he doesn't want "mentally ill people to be having guns," earning a response from Sen. Chuck Grassley that many people with mental illness "are not a danger" and should not be the subject of any policy that restricts their rights.
Click to expand...


NRA disagrees for a different reason:
 

"While [Wednesday's] meeting made for great TV, the gun control proposals discussed would make for bad policy that would not keep our children safe," NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said in a statement.
Click to expand...
 Sen Ben Sasse weighs in:

Neither was conservative Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska. 

"We're not ditching any constitutional protections simply because the last person the President talked to today doesn't like them," Sasse was quoted by CNN.
Click to expand...

 
This is going to become a very politically touchy and legally technical subject moving forward.  Due process can be swift.  I'm not a lawyer, but I could force a situation where it's similar to finding a judge to get a search warrant.  Evidence is presented to the judge as to why there should be a Gun Violence Protection Order.  Authorities show up, present the order, take the guns into custody.  If the person then chooses to fight it, they can present evidence to why the order was wrong.  The guns would be held in their name.  They still own them and they are locked up in a safe place.  Once the court is presented with evidence that it is safe for the person to have a gun, they guns are released back to them.

I just find it amazingly funny that TRUMP is the President that flat out said he wants to take guns away from people.  

 
TGHusker said:
To every conservative, libertarian, liberal, Dem or Repub - this should send chills down your spine and make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.  This is something we can or should all agree to be a breach of presidential responsibility.  The Presidents says due process should be laid aside when it comes to guns and the mentally ill.  The executive branch is to

enforce the laws and the rights guaranteed in the constitution.  This flies in the face of that responsibility.

This begs the question:  Who defines & how can one define  'mentally ill' outside of due process. Next thing we know, the President or his brown boots henchmen can say Zoogs is mentally ill :o , then BRB :o then Dude :o   then me :ahhhhhhhh .   Due process is one of the foundation stones of our constitution and our society.  

So, I wonder how the communication dept covers up for Trump this time.  He once again shows that he is not up for the job.  (Amendment 25 anyone -  he isn't thinking right - speaking of mentally ill)

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/trump-guns-mental-illness-due-process/2018/03/01/id/846118/

NRA disagrees for a different reason:
 

 Sen Ben Sasse weighs in:
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree. I'm in favor of doing something to curb or eliminate mass shootings but not at the expense of due process.

 
BigRedBuster said:
This is going to become a very politically touchy and legally technical subject moving forward.  Due process can be swift.  I'm not a lawyer, but I could force a situation where it's similar to finding a judge to get a search warrant.  Evidence is presented to the judge as to why there should be a Gun Violence Protection Order.  Authorities show up, present the order, take the guns into custody.  If the person then chooses to fight it, they can present evidence to why the order was wrong.  The guns would be held in their name.  They still own them and they are locked up in a safe place.  Once the court is presented with evidence that it is safe for the person to have a gun, they guns are released back to them.

I just find it amazingly funny that TRUMP is the President that flat out said he wants to take guns away from people.  
Click to expand...
I'm good with this sort of due process. As long as there is a defined way to both seize the guns (with judicial oversight) and return the guns (with judicial oversight). Your analogy of getting a search warrant is the right way to go, I think.

 
RedDenver said:
I'm good with this sort of due process. As long as there is a defined way to both seize the guns (with judicial oversight) and return the guns (with judicial oversight). Your analogy of getting a search warrant is the right way to go, I think.
Click to expand...




I still would not want to be the law enforcement officer that has to do this.

 
I would assume the "due process" would be similar to a search warrant.  Our right to refuse a search and seizure is forfeited by a judges decision after making a ruling including LEO's and attorneys.  I don't see why this would be different, depending on the parameters I may be strongly for it.

In the case in Florida the boy posted videos, made threats, had police called on him more than a couple dozen times.  Sounds to me like a good reason to hang on to his guns until he has completed some type of counseling.

Now in a case like the dummy from UNL, it could get tricky.  Clear boundaries on the types of threats would need to be discussed.

 
funhusker said:
Now in a case like the dummy from UNL, it could get tricky.  Clear boundaries on the types of threats would need to be discussed.
Click to expand...


I personally don't see how the UNL student is different.  He clearly has admitted he is planning violence "at the appropriate time".  What more evidence is needed to make sure he doesn't have access to a gun?

 
BigRedBuster said:
I personally don't see how the UNL student is different.  He clearly has admitted he is planning violence "at the appropriate time".  What more evidence is needed to make sure he doesn't have access to a gun?
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you.  But some people will definitely argue there is a difference between the two.  Possibly that one made a threat towards a specific location (his former school) and the other made a threat "in general".  I can understand why some people would call the threat by the UNL kid "vague" and not immediate.  Now if campus police finds him trying to get into locked rooms or scouting positions to shoot from, it would start to become a lot clearer.

I like the idea.  I just know that everyone is going to disagree on what is appropriate or not, so clear lines need to be established.

 
Moiraine said:
Everyone (conservatives and liberals) should be against $ from groups like the NRA going to politicians. But I think both just don't like it when it's someone they don't like. Part of "draining the swamp" should be to not care what the NRA thinks.
Click to expand...
This should read "ALL" groups, not just groups "like" the NRA.  No group should be able to influence our politicians just because they have a bunch of money they "donate" to said politicians.

 
Back
Top