Senator: We Need Gun Control Because ‘Due Process Is What’s Killing Us Right Now’

a reply to: VivreLibre

I am waiting for a 'technoterrorist' that way they can scream 'BAN THE INTERNET'.

a reply to: neo96

No neo, they would just ban you.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: neo96

Due process is what's killing us. You're taking his statement out of context. There is currently zero defense against a lone wolf attack because you cannot arrest a person for what they haven't yet done. Our only way around this is conspiracy charges, but lone wolves can't have conspiracy brought against them, because there's no agreement with another person.

Either we start with gun control or we accept that these sorts of attacks are unavoidable. Personally, I can understand that freedom carries risks, but many people can't and won't.

So with gun control, we won't have any more attacks?

of course not.
The Good Old SS I Mean US Gov will just Shoot Everyone.
Plain and Simple.
Disarm The People that Vote for You and They won't need Elections
OR Our Permission

originally posted by: neo96
EVERY SINGLE person in this country gets their day in court and crimes proven beyond ALL reasonable doubt in front of a jury of their peers.

The issue is getting them into court in the first place. Prior to shooting up the club, the Orlando shooter didn't violate any laws. The same is true of Newtown as well as the theater shooting and every other massacre. The legislature is trying to preemptively stop these attacks. We can't do that with the legal system because the legal system requires guilt. Instead it has to focus on stopping people from wanting to commit these attacks or make it difficult for them to get what they need to follow through on their plans.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So with gun control, we won't have any more attacks?

No, but it's one factor out of a bunch that can reduce them. Whether that's worth it or not I can't say but gun control could eliminate x% of attacks, the media not publishing these stories and hammering them so hard could eliminate another x%, and so on.

I don't know if gun control is the right move or not because so many people like their guns but I do think it would be effective over time.

a reply to: Aazadan

What other freedoms and liberties, if given up, would reduce the threat of terrorist attacks and mass shootings?

a reply to: Aazadan

The issue is getting them into court in the first place. Prior to shooting up the club, the Orlando shooter didn't violate any laws. The same is true of Newtown as well as the theater shooting and every other massacre. The legislature is trying to preemptively stop these attacks. We can't do that with the legal system because the legal system requires guilt. Instead it has to focus on stopping people from wanting to commit these attacks or make it difficult for them to get what they need to follow through on their plans.

No they aren't.

They have been pushing the same crap for the last 8 years, and 8 decades.

Seems to me IF they actually believed the SNIP they were shoveling they Fast and Furious never would have happened, Arming AQ in Syria would never have happened.

The only thing gun control is about is disarming the entire people of this country. Which is in direct conflict of that supposed OATH they took to uphold, and defend this nations laws.

And there is NO laws higher than whats written on that piece of paper, and those ten amendments called the Bill of Rights, and the 14th.

I don't know if gun control is the right move

It's not nor has it ever been.

Our entire legal process is based on the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty in courts of law.

They don't get to skip over that to push the same AGENDA they have been for decades.

The legislature is trying to preemptively stop these attacks

Here is another take on that.

Like how some guy illegally invaded two countries to kill terrorists, and didn't care who got caught in the cross fire.

I know let's call Gun Control

Operation Enduring Social Justice.

"" ‘Due Process Is What’s Killing Us Right Now’ ""

You would think the Senator would thought twice about using the word "killing" ?

originally posted by: xuenchen
"" ‘Due Process Is What’s Killing Us Right Now’ ""

You would think the Senator would thought twice about using the word "killing" ?

He was probably equating constitutional rights to terrorism.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

What other freedoms and liberties, if given up, would reduce the threat of terrorist attacks and mass shootings?

Many, but there's also a big difference between all out gun confiscation and getting certain weapons off the streets.

originally posted by: neo96
Here is another take on that.

Like how some guy illegally invaded two countries to kill terrorists, and didn't care who got caught in the cross fire.

I know let's call Gun Control

Operation Enduring Social Justice.

Just because mistakes were made with foreign policy in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't try to correct those mistakes in the future.

a reply to: Aazadan

Just because mistakes were made with foreign policy in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't try to correct those mistakes in the future.

Nothing says 'correcting' mistakes like doing the SAME THING ALL OVER.

So... due process for prisoners of war but not for citizens?

They got their undies in a bunch over due process every time someone mentioned "Gitmo", but for American citizens?

Ah, f# them.

Lost their damn minds, I tell ya.

originally posted by: NthOther
So... due process for prisoners of war but not for citizens?

They got their undies in a bunch over due process every time someone mentioned "Gitmo", but for American citizens?

Ah, f# them.

Lost their damn minds, I tell ya.

Thank you for that GRADE A quality post.

They got their panties in a bunch over GITMO.

And look at them now!

originally posted by: neo96
Nothing says 'correcting' mistakes like doing the SAME THING ALL OVER.

How is it doing the same thing all over?

a reply to: Aazadan

By creating a virtual GITMO.

For starters.

By ILLEGALLY invading practically every home in the US

For another.

I can go on if you wish.

1) fascism is a right wing form of government, not political hand wringing

2) the point is obvious, the measures they want passed have been on the table for a long time, and our enemies are using that against us

being hysterical and ignorant doesn't make you persuasive

a reply to: syrinx high priest

) fascism is a right wing form of government, not political hand wringing

Interesting.

FDR famous LEFT WINGER.

Created the National FireArms Act 1934

Threw Japanese Americans in to Fema camps of their day.

Confiscated Americans gold, and silver.

Created that absolute farce called social security that brand every American with a number like cattle.

Moving on to another Famous LEFT winger Johnson.

The Gun Control Act of 1968

The creation of those farces called medicare, and medicaid.

Moving on to another famous LEFT WINGER CLinton.

The Assault weapons ban in 1993

The Brady Hand gun Prevention Act later on. That said for the first time in American history American had to prove their innocent to the STATE.

2013 Another famous LEFT Winger Feinstein and her FAILED Assault Weapons Ban.

Operation choke point, and Executive orders under the current LEFT WINGER.

How anyone can sit there and say 'fascism is form of right wing government' is absolutely ludicrous.

since when can the government take away your rights based merely on a suspicion that you might commit a crime at some point in the future? This will never hold up in court.
Where is the due process and the right to defend yourself before they put you on this list that takes away your rights?
If they put you on this list you will automatically lose one of your rights without any due process or ability to defend yourself.
Basically it won`t be a no-fly list anymore it will be a no-rights list.
Take away the list and what you have is a some guy (or guys) in an office somewhere deciding who gets to retain their rights and who gets their rights taken away,not based on something that the person may have done but based on a suspicion that the person isn`t a good moral person.
Why not just cut out the middle man (the list) and have a bunch bureaucrats in an office sit there all day deciding who gets to keep what rights based on where they live,their income, their lifestyle etc, because that`s exactly what they are doing anyway.
since anyone can be put on the list at anytime with no due process or right to defend themselves,the list is just a diversion to cover for a panel of people that dispense rights and revokes rights at their pleasure.
oh, but they can`t get rid of the list because then it would be unconstitutional to have a government panel that decides who gets to keep their rights and who gets their rights revoked.How does a list make it any more constitutional? it doesnt! the list has no constitutional power or authority to revoke anyone`s rights,just because the DOJ thinks they can bestow constitutional power and authority to the list, doesn`t make it so.

a reply to: syrinx high priest

All authoritarian government policies are born Left Wing.

Genuine Conservatives (and some Libertarians) don't condone authority.

The Ivory Tower/Academic complex has many brainwashed on that.

a reply to: neo96

In light of this, can we call them Nazis now?

Fits.