Here's a hint, you stupid SOB, in that supposed 72 hour "window", is the American who has just had his/her 2A rights notified of the hearing? Are they permitted to retain competent counsel? Are they allowed to review the charges? Are they permitted to mount a defense?
If the answers are "no", you congenital f'kin' idiot, then it is NOT DUE PROCESS.
Add to that, even if all that occurs on WHOSE dime are they billing this; their own to prove their own innocence? If so, THAT is NOT DUE PROCESS.
I realize that you're scared and stupid, but try to follow along, or admit that you're both and simply in over your head.
The answers are "yes"
Within 72 hours? You're delusional. PROVE that the American whose rights are stripped away by secret list is: 1) notified; 2) permitted to retain competent counsel; 3) allowed to review the charges; and, 4) mount an adequate defense. Within 72 hours, this is not possible. Not only does that defy logic and show that yet again you haven't a clue about Due Process, but even if true (which it isn't and you're guessing) it certainly goes against the premise of an adequate defense (which is required for Due Process).
Last edited by 4ager; 07/02/16.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Here's a hint, you stupid SOB, in that supposed 72 hour "window", is the American who has just had his/her 2A rights notified of the hearing? Are they permitted to retain competent counsel? Are they allowed to review the charges? Are they permitted to mount a defense?
If the answers are "no", you congenital f'kin' idiot, then it is NOT DUE PROCESS.
Add to that, even if all that occurs on WHOSE dime are they billing this; their own to prove their own innocence? If so, THAT is NOT DUE PROCESS.
I realize that you're scared and stupid, but try to follow along, or admit that you're both and simply in over your head.
The answers are "yes"
Where? Will my "appeal" be scheduled in my Federal Court locally or where I was "listed"?
Will I be provided with adequate Counsel if I can afford Bob?
How is .gov going to list me, provide me with notice of Hearing and get it scheduled in a timely manner. Hell, it's like pulling teeth to get DV offenders scheduled the next day for arraignment at the local level, do you expect me to believe the Feds can pull this off.....bullshit!
�Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.�
The FBI can't catch a raghead that they were warned about multiple times but they think that arbitrarily revoking God given rights under the false flag of security will make us safer?? GMAFB
If you're too dangerous to have all your rights, you should have none.
�Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician.� �General George S. Patton, Jr.
Get off your high horse. YOU come in and disparage two people - one of them related to you - by insinuating they shouldn't have all the rights guaranteed them by the Constitution, and somehow I'm the prick by saying that it's a family matter? I see no reason to take away their rights because YOU are uncomfortable with them having those rights. That's the point.
As to five year olds - my daughter was given her first rifle at 5. The 2A doesn't say "buy", it says "keep and bear". It is kept for her, by her, in OUR safe and borne by her when we go shooting or hunting. Perish the thought, eh?
I disparaged no one, except you. I realize I shouldn't have done that because it's become apparent to me that you can't help the fact that you're a loud-mouthed ignorant prick. And yes, I'd still like to say that to your face. Next time you come to CO to hunt, drop me a PM and we can make it happen.
Saying that there are people on the streets who through no fault of their own have diminished mental capacity to the point that they shouldn't own firearms is not disparaging, it's just acknowledging a fact. A fact that you choose to ignore because it doesn't fit your tidy little black and white concept, "either they should have full rights or be locked up." What a crock of horsesh**.
I know these people, I've spent time with them. They span a broad spectrum in terms of ability, demeanor, and being able to tell right from wrong. Some can hold jobs, some can't hold a conversation. Some have no reliable filter for their actions and can't tell right from wrong. There's no doubt in my mind that many have no business purchasing or owning firearms. These are people who couldn't get close to getting a driver's license.
One thing they all have in common is that their families take care of them and keep them out of institutions when the easiest thing for the families to do would be to institutionalize these people. You took a cheap shot at these families, and you want to tell me to get off my high horse. Go fu** yourself.
And as far as what the second amendment says or doesn't say about buying firearms, This entire thread is about denying certain people the ability to buy firearms. Moron.
You're the moron. Explain how this or any proposed law will prevent terroists from getting guns?
This law will only prevent law abiding people from LEGALLY buying guns.
But once again, the point so.many of you can't let seep into your thick heads is this....who determines the criteria for being put on the list....the answer to that is Noone knows. So therefore whatever agenda the governing body wants to push. Can be furthered by such a list and provisions. We have already heard DHS give their definition of "domestic terrorist" what makes you think that that that defining will not be included on the no fky/no buy list?
Sean is right you mudder Dugger are so scared of the boogeyman man its pathetic.
You dolt, show me where I said anything remotely supportive of this proposal?
Get off your high horse. YOU come in and disparage two people - one of them related to you - by insinuating they shouldn't have all the rights guaranteed them by the Constitution, and somehow I'm the prick by saying that it's a family matter? I see no reason to take away their rights because YOU are uncomfortable with them having those rights. That's the point.
As to five year olds - my daughter was given her first rifle at 5. The 2A doesn't say "buy", it says "keep and bear". It is kept for her, by her, in OUR safe and borne by her when we go shooting or hunting. Perish the thought, eh?
I disparaged no one, except you. I realize I shouldn't have done that because it's become apparent to me that you can't help the fact that you're a loud-mouthed ignorant prick. And yes, I'd still like to say that to your face. Next time you come to CO to hunt, drop me a PM and we can make it happen.
And I "insinuated" nothing. I flat out said that there are people on the streets who through no fault of their own have diminished mental capacity to the point that they shouldn't own firearms. That's not disparaging them, it's just acknowledging a fact. A fact that you choose to ignore because it doesn't fit your tidy little black and white concept, "either they should have full rights or be locked up." What a crock of horsesh**. I guess the kid I see at the gym who is profoundly handicapped and has Down's Syndrome should be locked up? Or would you prefer to give him a gun?
I know these people, I've spent time with them. They span a broad spectrum in terms of ability, demeanor, and being able to tell right from wrong. Some can hold jobs, some can't hold a conversation. Some have no reliable filter for their actions and can't tell right from wrong. There's no doubt in my mind that many have no business purchasing or owning firearms. These are people who couldn't get close to getting a driver's license.
One thing they all have in common is that their families take care of them and keep them out of institutions when the easiest thing for the families to do would be to institutionalize these people. You took a cheap shot at these families, and you want to tell me to get off my high horse. Go fu** yourself.
And as far as what the second amendment says or doesn't say about buying firearms, This premise of this entire thread is about denying certain people the ability to buy firearms. Moron.
So, you want to threaten to punch me out the next time I'm in CO because I said it was a FAMILY responsibility to take care of those who can't take care of themselves? Because I'm not afraid of people who aren't a threat to themselves or others having their full slate of Constitutional rights, and saying that those that are ought to be locked away?
Hey, if that's what makes you feel better about thinking that YOU ought to get to decide who ought to have their Constitutional rights or not, fine.
That still doesn't relate to the gov't creating secret lists of people and stripping them of their rights - and THAT is the topic of this thread. That's STILL WRONG, will ALWAYS be WRONG, and is about as anti-American, anti-Constitution, and anti-Freedom a concept as has EVER been considered by our gov't. That folks are okay with it is incredible in many ways.
I don't want to threaten anything just tell you to your face that you're a loudmouthed ignorant prick. What happens next would be up to you. I'm betting not much.
But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
Get off your high horse. YOU come in and disparage two people - one of them related to you - by insinuating they shouldn't have all the rights guaranteed them by the Constitution, and somehow I'm the prick by saying that it's a family matter? I see no reason to take away their rights because YOU are uncomfortable with them having those rights. That's the point.
As to five year olds - my daughter was given her first rifle at 5. The 2A doesn't say "buy", it says "keep and bear". It is kept for her, by her, in OUR safe and borne by her when we go shooting or hunting. Perish the thought, eh?
I disparaged no one, except you. I realize I shouldn't have done that because it's become apparent to me that you can't help the fact that you're a loud-mouthed ignorant prick. And yes, I'd still like to say that to your face. Next time you come to CO to hunt, drop me a PM and we can make it happen.
And I "insinuated" nothing. I flat out said that there are people on the streets who through no fault of their own have diminished mental capacity to the point that they shouldn't own firearms. That's not disparaging them, it's just acknowledging a fact. A fact that you choose to ignore because it doesn't fit your tidy little black and white concept, "either they should have full rights or be locked up." What a crock of horsesh**. I guess the kid I see at the gym who is profoundly handicapped and has Down's Syndrome should be locked up? Or would you prefer to give him a gun?
I know these people, I've spent time with them. They span a broad spectrum in terms of ability, demeanor, and being able to tell right from wrong. Some can hold jobs, some can't hold a conversation. Some have no reliable filter for their actions and can't tell right from wrong. There's no doubt in my mind that many have no business purchasing or owning firearms. These are people who couldn't get close to getting a driver's license.
One thing they all have in common is that their families take care of them and keep them out of institutions when the easiest thing for the families to do would be to institutionalize these people. You took a cheap shot at these families, and you want to tell me to get off my high horse. Go fu** yourself.
And as far as what the second amendment says or doesn't say about buying firearms, This premise of this entire thread is about denying certain people the ability to buy firearms. Moron.
So, you want to threaten to punch me out the next time I'm in CO because I said it was a FAMILY responsibility to take care of those who can't take care of themselves? Because I'm not afraid of people who aren't a threat to themselves or others having their full slate of Constitutional rights, and saying that those that are ought to be locked away?
Hey, if that's what makes you feel better about thinking that YOU ought to get to decide who ought to have their Constitutional rights or not, fine.
That still doesn't relate to the gov't creating secret lists of people and stripping them of their rights - and THAT is the topic of this thread. That's STILL WRONG, will ALWAYS be WRONG, and is about as anti-American, anti-Constitution, and anti-Freedom a concept as has EVER been considered by our gov't. That folks are okay with it is incredible in many ways.
I don't want to threaten anything just tell you to your face that you're a loudmouthed ignorant prick. What happens next would be up to you. I'm betting not much.
Oh, is that all? I can tell you what would happen next. I'd chuckle, say "yeah, maybe so", and still offer to buy you the beer I offered had we met up last fall when I was out that way. Being called "a "loud mouthed prick" don't mean schit, especially given the circumstances. It don't bother me now, and wouldn't bother me then.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Here's a hint, you stupid SOB, in that supposed 72 hour "window", is the American who has just had his/her 2A rights notified of the hearing? Are they permitted to retain competent counsel? Are they allowed to review the charges? Are they permitted to mount a defense?
If the answers are "no", you congenital f'kin' idiot, then it is NOT DUE PROCESS.
Add to that, even if all that occurs on WHOSE dime are they billing this; their own to prove their own innocence? If so, THAT is NOT DUE PROCESS.
I realize that you're scared and stupid, but try to follow along, or admit that you're both and simply in over your head.
The answers are "yes"
Within 72 hours? You're delusional. PROVE that the American whose rights are stripped away by secret list is: 1) notified; 2) permitted to retain competent counsel; 3) allowed to review the charges; and, 4) mount an adequate defense. Within 72 hours, this is not possible. Not only does that defy logic and show that yet again you haven't a clue about Due Process, but even if true (which it isn't and you're guessing) it certainly goes against the premise of an adequate defense (which is required for Due Process).
You want delusional? Look in a mirror. Ryan is trying to put the burden of proof back on the government to prove that someone on a terror watch list should not have a gun. Only a compete idiot would claim that any police investigation has to notify any subject at the beginning of their investigation.Like in the first 72 hours????? You don't know the difference.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
You don't lose a "right" in the opening stages of an investigation.
George
�Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.�
A "list" shouldn't be based on PC for just that reason. Establish PC and make an arrest. My "gut" tells me that their "list" is likely lacking in the actual "crime" scenario and more on jumbled together Intel.
�Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.�
When is Ryan going to announce his party switch ? He's been doing the democrats work since he became speaker. I have given money to his primary opponent but that's all I can do. Wisconsin republicans need to Cantor his sorry ass.
7/6/16 TCTribune: Ryan, R-Wis., said Democrats' plans to broaden required background checks for gun buyers and to bar firearm sales to terror suspects were unconstitutional.
And though he did not directly say he would block votes on the Democrats' bills, he said Republicans had no intention of rewarding Democrats for their lengthy House floor sit-in two weeks ago to demand gun-control votes.
"Win elections and get the majority, then you can set the agenda," Ryan said on the "Midday with Charlie Sykes" show on WTMU radio in Milwaukee.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
Due Process - Due Process stems from the Magna Carta and is further established in the Constitution of the United States of America. It is the concept that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without full consideration by law. This must take place PRIOR to the individual being stripped of their inherent rights or of their property. In the case of your secret list issue, Due Process is NOT afforded PRIOR to the gov't stripping them of their Constitutionally protected RTKBA. In fact, what you are advocating is most akin the "mob-justice" situation that the SCOTUS threw out in Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923), where a mob of whites ganged up on several black defendants, accused them of crimes and summarily threw them in jail under a sham "trial". In the secret list situation, Due Process is violated because there is no charge, no trial, no right to counsel, no right to a proper and well argued defense, and the 72 hour window is wholly inadequate to be informed of the information against the defendant and for them to mount a competent defense (Gideon v. Wainwright, for reference on that one as it applies here). Due Process is not an ex post facto situation, as you support; it happens before rights are taken away. As usual, you're ass-backwards in your understanding of the situation and your position on the matter.
Probable Cause - Probable Cause is a reasonable suspicion for a search, or to arrest a suspect. It is NOT grounds, nor has it ever been grounds, for the stripping of Constitutionally guaranteed rights. In fact, in the litany of Probable Cause cases that have been decided by the SCOTUS (from Illinois v. Gates, to Terry v. Ohio, to New Jersey v. T.L.O.), Probable Cause is ONLY the reasonable suspicion that gives police the opportunity to investigate whether a crime has occurred or is taking place. At NO time during that investigation are a suspects rights taken away, and at NO time during that investigation - from the first instance of the investigation - is a suspect denied the right of competent counsel and adequate defense (again, Gideon v. Wainwright).
You, BOWSINGER, haven't a clue WTF you're talking about. You have no concept of Due Process and no concept of Probable Cause. You haven't any idea as to the actual Constitutional rights involved, or how a secret list violates them. You are nothing more than a scared twit who thinks .gov is going to keep the boogeyman from your door if only they can toss out that pesky Constitution to do it. You're a fool, and it's easily seen.
Now, do the honorable and proper thing - admit you're wrong, admit you haven't a clue, and toddle along.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
I am so very sorry. I completely forgot what a total idiot you are... Ryan and the NRA are backing the House version of the Cornyn Senate bill.
US Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) “My amendment is called the Shield Act, and it would stop terrorists from buying guns while ensuring law-abiding citizens placed on a watch list by mistake don't have their rights taken away because of some secret list created by the Obama administration or by this government.”
Background Under the SHIELD Act, if an individual who (1) is a known or suspected terrorist, or (2) has been the appropriate subject of a terrorism investigation within the last five years, attempts to purchase a weapon.
The Attorney General or designee has the authority to delay the transfer of a weapon for up to three (3) business days while relevant law enforcement agencies conduct an investigation.
Federal, state, and local law enforcement officials are notified immediately so they can monitor the situation. A U.S. Attorney could permanently block the transfer upon a showing of probable cause before a judge that the individual is involved in terrorism.
Further, the Attorney General or designee then has the authority to immediately take the prospective purchaser into custody if a judge determines there is probable cause that the individual is involved.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
