Dems stage sit-in on House floor to push for gun vote

a reply to: luthier

If there is enough solid evidence then shouldn't the person be arrested? The house arrest law until you prove you aren't a threat that I'm talking about would be done similar to the way they want to restrict 2nd amendment rights of people on the list.

a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog


Well yes. But it gets tricky before you have actually done something. Not now a days you can be accused of almost anything. But in philosophy there is an issue of precrime.

Also an issue of protecting society. So I think you can say precrime is ok for mass murder situations if you have proof of planning and organizing such a thing.

In the case of talking with foreign terrorists over the net or phone you should be arrested immediately and brought to trial swiftly. But it also should be declared when the law is made. This is what happens if you even talk to these people.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog
.....[SNIP FOR BREVITY ONLY].........
In the case of talking with foreign terrorists over the net or phone you should be arrested immediately and brought to trial swiftly. But it also should be declared when the law is made. This is what happens if you even talk to these people.

But, that is in violation of the 1at Amendment, which states:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Peaceably assemble is akin to associating with someone. Assembly, be it in person, on the phone, or electronically is the same. As long as it is peaceful and does not break any laws...you cannot be arrested for that. Speaking about killing is not illegal....unless you actually begin to carry out those plans. If it is with another person, then conspiracy laws come into effect and it is easier to arrest someone on that charge. So, if there is proof of conspiring to kill someone, that is chargeable and it would be within the Constitution to seek a warrant for their arrest. However, if it is just one person. alone, then there is no conspiracy. The really bad guys know this, and now have begin to use that against us in an attempt to get us to change our way of life, and make our way of living further away from our core ideals.

I say, let us not succumb to that fear and manipulation. The probability of being involved in a situation such as Orlando is much lower than dying in a freak accident.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Thats not necessarily true. Treason has been used historically as an exception

A trial gives you due process.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Krakatoa

Thats not necessarily true. Treason has been used historically as an exception

During a time of declared war, yes. However, we are not in that state at the moment.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Really?

Treason is also giving aid to enemies of the state.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Krakatoa

Really?

Not officially, no. There has been no congressional declaration of war.

www.usatoday.com...

seems ryan held a vote on matters anyways (not gun bills) so i guess they are voting on things while the democrats sit in still ,cant find text supporting this but its on the breaking news portion of my link

a reply to: luthier

But, not being at war, there are not "enemies of the state". You cannot legally have an enemy if you are not in a declared war.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Which is another point I have made for about 20 years.


This is why the supreme court and the amendment process was created though.

The court can interpret what that means today when we don't declare war but do declare enemies of the state.

An amendment could address the issue as well.

I guess we both know it's all broken though and that won't happen.

a reply to: Krakatoa

We do actually declare people enemies of the state and enemy combatants though without declaring war.

Even though that is dangerous grounds.

a reply to: luthier

I know, that pesky Constitution again. This is why the Democrats in congress want to side-step it, because it is hard to find something that will not be in violation. But, being this hard is a good thing. I truly believe that alone is what has staved off any full scale trampling of it over these 200+ years. There have been things that got past ("Patriot Act" being one of the most egregious)...but, we all need to be vigilant and not allow emotion and knee-jerk reactions affect our thinking here.

a reply to: luthier

Only when they were caught in the "theater" of war, which is not within this country and therefore not covered under the Constitutional protections. Why do you think ISIS and their ilk are putting a full court press on now to recruit U.S. citizens. It makes our job a lot harder, and theirs a lot easier.

originally posted by: introvert
Have to respect them for following-through on what they believe strongly about.

No, really, we don't. They swore an oath to the constitution, and they are going against it with a non-solution to a questionable problem, all in typical political fashion I might add.

Their actions are explained by either wilful ignorance or just down right stupidity. Or both.

Like many have already said, their "solution" is to point blame at an inanimate object. God forbid politicians actually thought this one out. The fact they are doing a sit in is evidence they havent thought anything through. Again...typical. But likely they have thought about it and it only made sense for them to do this so they can keep their overpaid useless jobs via mindless votes from the tyranny of the unthinking majority.

Perhaps, instead of blaming objects they could focus on the lack of mental health care the world over? Maybe ask WHY people shoot others and not steep their assumptions in misguided religious morality before they answer? Couldnt have anything to do with income inequality could it?

This reason for the sit in (ban a gun) is literally the same mentality as "LETS TAKE OUT ASSAD, BECAUSE HE'S BAD". Oh, ok...then who fills that hole? ISIS? A never ending US occupation?

I'm sure taking away a type of firearm is going to set the world straight.

Bunch of mindless friggin idiots the whole lot of em!

Treasonous at best is what these actions are.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I think you misunderstand me.

I don't think we should go against the constitution.

However I think we can come up with a way to declare war against the Islamic state and deal with anyone talking with them as treason. Particularly giving them money or information.

If someone is caught finding these yahoos they should be treated as if they are responsible for the actions of the group. Like blowing up world heritage sites.

It's not exactly a knee jerk reaction to address unique problems and address them within the philosophy of the constitution .

Yes there always needs to be a watchdog . But people start cutting head off and blowing up time square we need to act within the framework of the philosophy.

and slightly off topic but im sure you guys are way smarter then me on this but as i was debating on facebook(i knwo first step twords failure) i was acuesed of making a straw man argument when i stated that a new assultweapons ban would not do anything to nessicarialy reduce gun violence as during the last awb the weapons were all grandfathered in and then eventually reppealed....i dont think this is a straw man but if i am wrong id kind of like to get an opinion from some of the smarter then me members if that makes sense?


more on topic any one got ny bets on how long this will go on

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

You would only be making a strawman if you were addressing someone elses arguement with another topic or arguement.

If you aggressively went after someone's arguement without addressing the actual point and making it sound as if you had with a different point or when asked with a question answer a totally different topic or make it seem as if you answered the question but answered a totally different question.

Similar to the red herring.

These are more formal things than a Facebook discussion unless you really engaged in a debate.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Krakatoa

I think you misunderstand me.

I don't think we should go against the constitution.

However I think we can come up with a way to declare war against the Islamic state and deal with anyone talking with them as treason.

It's not exactly a knee jerk reaction to address unique problems and address them within the philosophy of the constitution .

Yes there always needs to be a watchdog . But people start cutting head off and blowing up time square we need to act within the framework of the philosophy.

How do you legally declare war on a group of people what do not have a "state". See, that is the rub. I believe, as the laws are written, you can only declare war on a state/country entity or within such area. Since these people do not represent a state and are globally decentralized (like the Internet is designed to be) it is not possible to declare war on an idea or movement. What we need to do as a country, is together, all political factions, develop a comprehensive set of constitutionally valid rules of war that do not require a state/country as the target of the declaration. That is even harder to do than this current fiasco. Besides, declaring war on them would only validate their rhetoric against us, and strengthen their recruiting power. We need to keep it as a policing type of action. Yet, craft a set of laws that protect the innocent while prosecuting the guilty. That is difficult but possible only if the two parties agree to play together toward that goal. As long as partisanship and infighting is involved, it will never happen.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I disagree.

First off these folks fully admit their allegiance to the state. Which philosophically speaking is also only an ideal, the territory and border is fluid.

All of this can be altered through the amendment process with debates. The constitution by design was not set in stone. It was set up for a process of making calm decisions by consensus.

But this is an issue worth debating with the public.

What is a state? If someone declares themselves allegiance to an organization that has declared war on us do we really treat it as law enforcement?

I am not saying change the laws without debate. I am saying if we debate the issue with intellect the brain trust has the ability to come up with solutions you or I may not that stay within the constitutional framework.

We changed the 10th a bit right?

The 18th?

Sure the are different but using the public for dialogue and ideas is a good step in democracy rather than politicians keeping he debated amongst themselves.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Oh look at me I use hashtag's because I'm cool.