It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrat Rep. Debbie Dingell To Introduce Gun Confiscation Legislation

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Would Dingle want to remove knives, sharp objects, cars, hammers, bats, clubs, large sticks from the person as well?

If not, then it's just a leftist gun-grab and anti-Constitutional to boot.

####ing douche-bag leftists.




posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Wayfarer

... of course that doesn't fit within the underlying intent here, which is obviously removal of inconvenient rights with as little supporting rationale and evidence as possible and in as quick a time as possible.


How can you make that assertion with only soundbites to go on. Everything I've posited has been pure supposition, so if you've got some secret source that's fed you more details than the rest of us are privy to I implore you to share them.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

I don't need to even see a bill that advocates for even greater removal of rights at the cost of emotional appeal. As long as you understand the other side of the argument (which you have indicated as much) then all is good.

My point is that guns alone (or knives/vehicles/hand made weapons etc etc) will not solve this particular problem she is trying to pigeonhole this bill for. The problem is, as has always been, the person using whatever weapon they deem useful.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:04 PM
link   


if the person in question is viewed as a danger, then bring them before a judge and petition the court to imprison them until their full trial and conviction or exxoneration. If the evidence supports removal of Constitutional Rights, then one can only assume it is sturdy enough to support imprisonment during a trial...
a reply to: burdman30ott6

so, we can't temporarily take their guns away if we believe they are a danger, but we can take their freedom away and imprison them because we fear they might commit a violent crime?
you do realize that they aren't gonna be allowed to have their guns in their jail cell with them, don't you?



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
This article seems really disingenuous, full of vagaries and appeals to base emotion. How is what she is proposing (if she actually is proposing such a thing) bad in the case of mentally unstable or certifiably violent people not possessing firearms?


You seem to forget that they pass a bill with vague wording (Mentally unstable, who would vote against that?) and then expand the list of what mentally unstable is.

For instance, let's just make conservatives mentally unstable. After the bill passes.

This is EXACTLY what they do. By they, I mean progressives. And as for the Republican that co-sponsored, plenty of Progressive Republicans out there. McCain is a poster child for that particular type. As was Bush. As is McConnell.

What I remember is that I was deemed a domestic terrorist by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2007 because.. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary.

SoOo... not even a slippery slope here, it's just that the typical voter doesn't bother to think things through to the logical conclusion.

No thanks to anything resembling this bill. Only an idiot or a progressive pushing an agenda would even think about it.
edit on 3-4-2018 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Wayfarer

She can claim it's within due process, but that doesn't make it an accurate statement. This:

If her bill passes, individuals who have their guns confiscated will have 14 days to appear before a judge to “make a case” to get their gun back.


Is NOT due process. Due process mandates that the state must be the one who "makes the case" before a judge or jury PRIOR to seizure. We live in a country which is formed on "innocent until proven guilty" and what Dingell is proposing is exactly the opposite: "you're presumed guilty and have to prove you're not," which is essentially an impossible thing to prove in a scenario where the state's threshold for evidence is as flimsy as "that person may be a danger to others."


As I mentioned earlier, I suspect this proposal is meant to act preemptively in situations where there is a high likelihood of violence (domestic disputes, etc). I can understand your argument, just as I can understand what I believe to be her intent (to remove the firearms until the domestic disputes are resolved in the courts). I think at best your primary tactic/avenue of approach should be the 'slippery slope' argument.


So, thought crime?

Nice. Remind me to frame you if this passes. All it would take is a baseless accusation from me and few few friends after they beat me up for "evidence" of your abuse. But, then, false accusations NEVER happen do they ? Everyone is honest and forthright, with no ill will toward another (in your own mind perhaps).



C'mon man, obtuse silly threats aren't necessary (you're neither going to worry me nor frighten me with toothless hypotheticals). I've got no weapons to confiscate, so in my specific case I'm not sure what your scenario would change. Second, of course false accusations occur, and that is what she's referencing (I believe) when she mentions 'within the confines of due process'. I think the assumption she (and many have) is that ultimately truth will out (and someone who is in fact innocent would have their firearms returned to them).


You live in a fantasy land. Hypothetical? No. That happened to my brother-in-law. It took 20 years and thousands of dollars for him to be cleared of the accusations. And during that time, if his firearm was removed from his possession, he would have been defenseless against those *holes that tried to get him put in jail.

Not a good plan in practice.





Holy geeze, your brother-in-law actually used his firearm to defend himself against his accusers! Praytell....



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Wayfarer
This article seems really disingenuous, full of vagaries and appeals to base emotion. How is what she is proposing (if she actually is proposing such a thing) bad in the case of mentally unstable or certifiably violent people not possessing firearms?


You seem to forget that they pass a bill with vague wording (Mentally unstable, who would vote against that?) and then expand the list of what mentally unstable is.

For instance, let's just make conservatives mentally unstable. After the bill passes.

This is EXACTLY what they do. By they, I mean progressives. And as for the Republican that co-sponsored, plenty of Progressive Republicans out there. McCain is a poster child for that particular type. As was Bush. As is McConnell.

What I remember is that I was deemed a domestic terrorist by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2007 because.. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary.

SoOo... not even a slippery slope here, it's just that the typical voter doesn't bother to think things through to the logical conclusion.

No thanks to anything resembling this bill. Only an idiot or a progressive pushing an agenda would even think about it.


It wasn't the bills wording I was arguing was vague, but rather the article on it in the OP. As I've said repeatedly, nobody has seen the bill, so all this furor is over theoretical estimates.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Its funny , they CANT be doing this.

Everyone on ATS and on FB says they arent trying to come for our guns.

So this cant be happening.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

One follows due process, one doesn't... it matters to some of us.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Would Dingle want to remove knives, sharp objects, cars, hammers, bats, clubs, large sticks from the person as well?

If not, then it's just a leftist gun-grab and anti-Constitutional to boot.

####ing douche-bag leftists.


A Republican is co-sponsoring the bill. What are you going to suggest next, that Dingle forced him to with her lizard mind rays...?



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:17 PM
link   


let's just make conservatives mentally unstable.
a reply to: Lumenari

why not, they've been claiming the liberals as mentally deficient for some time now!!!
for those who asked why the liberals don't bother talking about mental illness when it comes to the school shootings, well....
here's your answer!!!
it doesn't do any good anyways..



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Wayfarer

She can claim it's within due process, but that doesn't make it an accurate statement. This:

If her bill passes, individuals who have their guns confiscated will have 14 days to appear before a judge to “make a case” to get their gun back.


Is NOT due process. Due process mandates that the state must be the one who "makes the case" before a judge or jury PRIOR to seizure. We live in a country which is formed on "innocent until proven guilty" and what Dingell is proposing is exactly the opposite: "you're presumed guilty and have to prove you're not," which is essentially an impossible thing to prove in a scenario where the state's threshold for evidence is as flimsy as "that person may be a danger to others."


As I mentioned earlier, I suspect this proposal is meant to act preemptively in situations where there is a high likelihood of violence (domestic disputes, etc). I can understand your argument, just as I can understand what I believe to be her intent (to remove the firearms until the domestic disputes are resolved in the courts). I think at best your primary tactic/avenue of approach should be the 'slippery slope' argument.


So, thought crime?

Nice. Remind me to frame you if this passes. All it would take is a baseless accusation from me and few few friends after they beat me up for "evidence" of your abuse. But, then, false accusations NEVER happen do they ? Everyone is honest and forthright, with no ill will toward another (in your own mind perhaps).



C'mon man, obtuse silly threats aren't necessary (you're neither going to worry me nor frighten me with toothless hypotheticals). I've got no weapons to confiscate, so in my specific case I'm not sure what your scenario would change. Second, of course false accusations occur, and that is what she's referencing (I believe) when she mentions 'within the confines of due process'. I think the assumption she (and many have) is that ultimately truth will out (and someone who is in fact innocent would have their firearms returned to them).


You live in a fantasy land. Hypothetical? No. That happened to my brother-in-law. It took 20 years and thousands of dollars for him to be cleared of the accusations. And during that time, if his firearm was removed from his possession, he would have been defenseless against those *holes that tried to get him put in jail.

Not a good plan in practice.





Holy geeze, your brother-in-law actually used his firearm to defend himself against his accusers! Praytell....


They tried to break in while he was home to beat the crap out of him. However, when facing down the barrel of a .357, they changed their minds and left with great dispatch.....never to return.

So, yes, it happens. Stripping a person of their god given right to defend themselves based upon nothing but accusations, with no due process of law is simply WRONG. Regardless if some might think it best to "save the children" in some myopic and short-sighted appeal to emotion.


edit on 4/3/2018 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

What I am aware of is the history of these discussions. While it would be wrong to say that all Democrats support policies which infringe on our Rights, it would not be wrong to say that all policies which infringe on our Second Amendment Rights seem to stem from Democrats (and RINOS). I am opposed to new laws in the face of existing laws which achieve the same ends without directly assaulting the Second.
edit on 3-4-2018 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Would Dingle want to remove knives, sharp objects, cars, hammers, bats, clubs, large sticks from the person as well?

If not, then it's just a leftist gun-grab and anti-Constitutional to boot.

####ing douche-bag leftists.


A Republican is co-sponsoring the bill. What are you going to suggest next, that Dingle forced him to with her lizard mind rays...?


Douche-bag republicans are leftists also.

You play your partisan games.

They all suck.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Wayfarer

What I am aware of is the history of these discussions. While it would be wrong to say that all Democrats support policies which infringe on our Rights, it would not be wrong to say that all policies which infringe on our Second Amendment Rights seem to stem from Democrats (and RINOS). I am opposed to new laws in the face of existing laws which achieve the same ends without directly assaulting the Second.


And there is nothing wrong with your opinion derived from your experience on this forum and elsewhere, however it seems unreasonable to pass judgement on something before reading it. There is a chance that our assumptions are entirely innacurate regarding this bill. I tried to intimate as such in my first reply (that a hyper partsan news source was being used to base assumptions from)



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Would Dingle want to remove knives, sharp objects, cars, hammers, bats, clubs, large sticks from the person as well?

If not, then it's just a leftist gun-grab and anti-Constitutional to boot.

####ing douche-bag leftists.


A Republican is co-sponsoring the bill. What are you going to suggest next, that Dingle forced him to with her lizard mind rays...?


Douche-bag republicans are leftists also.

You play your partisan games.

They all suck.


You're the one playing partisan games (calling anyone, even those of the opposite party douchebag leftist).



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:28 PM
link   
The devil is in the details, but near as I can figure out after some Google searches is that the article in the OP is hyped up partisan crap. Both sides are pushing credulity.

Where the devil lies here is I'm sure courts have the power already to take weapons from people who are a danger to others. The same old story about the laws are there, just not used. I'm going to have to agree there is more too this and likely some shady language in their Bill is to be expected.

No way anything will pass, so this is just fodder for their core constituents who never vote any other way anyway. It gets them on the news and that's about the extent of their real intent.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Would Dingle want to remove knives, sharp objects, cars, hammers, bats, clubs, large sticks from the person as well?

If not, then it's just a leftist gun-grab and anti-Constitutional to boot.

####ing douche-bag leftists.


A Republican is co-sponsoring the bill. What are you going to suggest next, that Dingle forced him to with her lizard mind rays...?


So far there's no confirmation anywhere from Upton.

The only statements are coming from Dingle.

Although Upton is kind of one of those "1/2 Republicans" on many issues.

😀



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

It will Go Nowhere , just like the Democratic Party in the Next 20 Years....Piff ..



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Would Dingle want to remove knives, sharp objects, cars, hammers, bats, clubs, large sticks from the person as well?

If not, then it's just a leftist gun-grab and anti-Constitutional to boot.

####ing douche-bag leftists.


A Republican is co-sponsoring the bill. What are you going to suggest next, that Dingle forced him to with her lizard mind rays...?


Douche-bag republicans are leftists also.

You play your partisan games.

They all suck.


You're the one playing partisan games (calling anyone, even those of the opposite party douchebag leftist).


Show me a douche-bag leftist that is for more freedoms, smaller government, free expression, secure borders, lower taxes and I'll apologize.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join