Another insane person with aa assault weapon.

I’m not sure I understand the connection to the requirement that a person be incarcerated in order to be prohibited from possessing a firearm. Due process does not require incarceration. Someone’s home, for example, can be taken from them after due process, without them being incarcerated or committed. I understand it’s your opinion, but do you have any pieces for that being a constitutional requirement?

well, you're using an apples and oranges argument and that's not going to work. the connection you're not looking to see is that possession prohibition is nearly impossible to enforce. On top of that, it goes against the very fabric of limited government and protecting the exercise of rights to let people run around free, but not have certain rights. It is the proverbial slippery slope and it's why we are at the crisis situation we are in now.

You want to ignore the reasons the founders created the federal government and limited them in order to pursue your authoritarian positive rights environment...............it's only going to result in more violence and death.
 
It does, read the 5th. Are you saying the only thing the Constitution requires 5th Amendment Due Process for is incarceration?

Due Process is not only for wrongdoing. If they want to take your property, regardless of the reason, you have a right to due process.

civil asset forfeiture is NOT using due process of law, counselor. please don't be obtuse.
 
well, you're using an apples and oranges argument and that's not going to work. the connection you're not looking to see is that possession prohibition is nearly impossible to enforce. On top of that, it goes against the very fabric of limited government and protecting the exercise of rights to let people run around free, but not have certain rights. It is the proverbial slippery slope and it's why we are at the crisis situation we are in now.

You want to ignore the reasons the founders created the federal government and limited them in order to pursue your authoritarian positive rights environment...............it's only going to result in more violence and death.

It is the way it currently is, there is an entire spectrum of limited rights between fully free to incarceration.
 
It is the way it currently is, there is an entire spectrum of limited rights between fully free to incarceration.

and most of them are unconstitutional. of course if you WANT to continue down the path of restricting freedom in the name of safety theater, the government will gladly take them away.
 
Effectively, yes. They were fighting the idea of monarchism, where one power rules, in the name of democracy, where individual citizens make their own choices.

It was a really radical idea at the time; not just booting out a crazy monarch and the most powerful army in the world, but also the idea of giving power to the people. That power still allows the public to crown themselves a king, high priest, dictator, politburo or other governmental authority in trade for a blanket of security. To an extent, this makes sense, but as JPP proves, the extremists on both ends seek to empower the Federal government to remove or restrict more rights be it gay marriage, abortion, guns, drugs, whatever.

IMO, the only rule should be consenting adults....federally. Locally, they can give up their rights within Constitutional limits.

Like the Founders, I support the idea that our governments should be improving and expanding freedoms, not restricting them. It's easy to take away rights, but harder to preserve rights and still protect the public.

As the man said, we should pick goals "not because they are easy, but because they are hard". We, the People should be doing the harder thing.

I've said it for years, we should be handling our guns in the same manner at which we handles our automobiles.

Can you only imagine how safe the public would be, if we didn't have a licensing system in place to protect the public?

Or, if we didn't have a FINE system in place to punish the violators who abused the system, and a way to take those licenses away, depending on the severity of the violation?

I'll tell you what I see that we would be facing! Every Street and Highway would be like the Autobahn, and let the Road Games begin. Drunks would be cruising up and down the highway, 12 year olds would be out drag racing their Mommy and Daddies corvettes through our neighborhoods, and we would be squashing school children in the crossroads like rabbits, crossing the road on a Kansas highway after dark. Stop signs, and red lights, and speed limits would be like, WHAT'S THE USE? I can tell you right now, the chances of even getting back home alive after a drive just up to the store, would be like one in a thousand. No one would be safe anymore. It would be total anarchy. Automobiles would be used as a weapon, and let the road rage begin!

And can you even imagine what it would be like if we didn't have to register our automobiles with no title or no license plate available, or have them regularly inspected?

First of all, you would never even know if your car was stolen, or even safe to drive. Auto theft would mushroom into a total Black Market, and the resale of your car would be worth only as much as it is going for on the Black Market, and let the Carjackings begin!

Automobiles and guns have two things in common, in that they are both a PUBLIC SAFETY concern, and their must be controls in place to keep us all as safe as possible.

The Good News is, we have a system in place, in every state to handle the licensing of drivers, and a license plate unique to every automobile on the road for identification purposes, that comes with a penalty system for violators and abusers, with a well laid out code of rules to follow laid out in every states drivers handbook that explains the laws, and a written test as well as a driver's test to insure that they are known and understood, before anyone gets behind the wheel. This is handled through the DOT and regulated by every state's Department of Public Safety.

So all that would have to be done, is duplicate this exact system for GUNS that we have for automobiles.

I believe that this would prevent guns getting into the wrong hands just like we do not want automobiles in the wrong hands either.

I believe that owning a gun or a car is a privilege, that requires responsibility, and when one is irresponsible with either, owning, buying, or selling, or using automobiles or guns, that the privilege can be removed from abusers and violators of the system.

I only own 3 guns and 2 automobiles, but I am willing to acquire a license that says I have the proper training to drive my cars, or own or sell my guns, and willing to register my guns just like my automobiles, to insure my automobiles and guns are not stolen or have been used in crimes, BECAUSE I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE AND I WANT THE WORLD TO BE A SAFER PLACE FOR US ALL.

And anyone who does not have something to hide or fear, should feel the very same way about this.

So FUCK the FOREFATHERS, as they had no way to know about automobiles, or even know about how dangerous a gun could be, as all we had then were cap and ball guns, that takes a whole minute to reload each and every round.

Sorry, but I don't live in 1776, I live in today's dangerous world, and things change, and new rules must apply!
 
Last edited:
OK, ill tell the judge that next time I go to a hearing on getting money returned.

more obtuseness. Imagine, if you will, a black man in a poor neighborhood but he worked hard for 5 years and managed to save 20,000 dollars for a nearly new vehicle for his family. Now imagine that man being stopped by police and they find him carrying that money, so they confiscate it as suspected drug money. How does that man get his money back?
 
People v. $10,153.38 in United States Currency (2009) 179 Cal. App. 4th 1520, at 1530)

Just one I happen to know about that is written up.

did money commit a crime? was the plaintiff wealthy? is he a lawyer? If you want to consider the ability to appeal forfeiture, then due process is only for wealthy people. But that's how you libs want it, isn't it?
 
more obtuseness. Imagine, if you will, a black man in a poor neighborhood but he worked hard for 5 years and managed to save 20,000 dollars for a nearly new vehicle for his family. Now imagine that man being stopped by police and they find him carrying that money, so they confiscate it as suspected drug money. How does that man get his money back?

He files a for a due process hearing against the agency that took it. Every State has a different process for how you get the hearing. I have done it for criminal clients in florida several times.
 
Sections 932.701-932.706, F.S., comprise the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, which provides for the seizure and civil forfeiture of property related to criminal and non-criminal violations of law. Contraband and other property may be seized when utilized during or for the purpose of violating the Act.
 
He files a for a due process hearing against the agency that took it. Every State has a different process for how you get the hearing. I have done it for criminal clients in florida several times.

how much does all that cost? what if someone is not able to completely understand that process? what happens if they try to follow that process and make mistakes? how much did you charge those criminal clients?

you've heard the term 'policing for profit', correct?
 
how much does all that cost? what if someone is not able to completely understand that process? what happens if they try to follow that process and make mistakes? how much did you charge those criminal clients?

you've heard the term 'policing for profit', correct?

Just because you do not understand the process does not mean you do not have a right to it. Yes, it is misused, but you still have a due process right.

Your argument was that you do not have the right.
 
Just because you do not understand the process does not mean you do not have a right to it. Yes, it is misused, but you still have a due process right.

Your argument was that you do not have the right.

so your position is that if there's something that you don't like people having the right to do it, just make it as difficult and as expensive as possible for those you don't want being able to do it and it's all fine and dandy with you, is that right?
 
so your position is that if there's something that you don't like people having the right to do it, just make it as difficult and as expensive as possible for those you don't want being able to do it and it's all fine and dandy with you, is that right?

No, that’s not my position. Is it your position that unless people understand their rights they don’t have them?
 
Do you believe insane people should be allowed assault rifles?

All Hired Opinionists Are in the Same Insider Clique


If the fake Conservative talk-show gurus weren't students of the Illiterate Liberal Language Lords, they would call that weapon a "counter-assault rifle." Assault is a crime, so it's like accepting certain calibers being called "cop-killer bullets."
 
No, that’s not my position. Is it your position that unless people understand their rights they don’t have them?

good. and no, it's not. what it is NOT, is the governments power to make exercising someones rights so difficult that it's easier to just not exercise them. the federal government was created to protect the free exercise of a persons rights.
 
Back
Top