• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Current Attempts to destroy Gun rights in Congress

Helix said:
Seems we're at an impasse. Dumb luck, that.
Click to expand...
Sort of. We were always going to end up this way, though I at least hoped you had more in you than just repeated regurgitated stupid comments. Looking back on it though I cant really say why I thought you were capable of more or better. My bad.
 
VanceMack said:
Sort of. We were always going to end up this way, though I at least hoped you had more in you than just repeated regurgitated stupid comments. Looking back on it though I cant really say why I thought you were capable of more or better. My bad.
Click to expand...

If I respond last, do I win?
 
marke said:
Dummasses have got it in their stupid heads that guns are bad for people and need to be outlawed. I wish we could outlaw stupidity.
Click to expand...

Guns ARE bad for over a hundred thousand Americans a year.
 
Helix said:
Not really. Sort of a future reference thing.
Click to expand...
Better solution from my perspective...lessons learned. No more assumption of capacity.
 
VanceMack said:
Better solution from my perspective...lessons learned. No more assumption of capacity.
Click to expand...


It reminds me of the tale of the old man and the reading comprehension. I won't spoil it for you, but he ends up falling off of a cliff.
 
Helix said:
It reminds me of the tale of the old man and the reading comprehension. I won't spoil it for you, but he ends up falling off of a cliff.
Click to expand...

:lamo

So you support states rights to ban abortion? To ban gay marriage?
"i support plane tickets to Somalia for JimBobs who want to carry howitzers at Sam's Club because they chose that as a hobby. if we can afford billions for a stock buyback slush fund, we can afford that. "

"i don't engage in abortion fistfights, and i'm not eskeered of gay people. i'm perfectly fine with the federal government preventing right wingers from denying gay people their rights."

So, no...not a 'comprehension' problem...a problem with a guy either not smart enough to answer a question directly or too cowardly to answer the question directly because he knows how badly his answer would **** on his anti-gun argument.

So we are back to the "dishonest or stupid" conundrum and the problem with assuming the intellectual capacity of the person I chose to engage with.

But really...last words...go....
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

So you support states rights to ban abortion? To ban gay marriage?
"i support plane tickets to Somalia for JimBobs who want to carry howitzers at Sam's Club because they chose that as a hobby. if we can afford billions for a stock buyback slush fund, we can afford that. "

"i don't engage in abortion fistfights, and i'm not eskeered of gay people. i'm perfectly fine with the federal government preventing right wingers from denying gay people their rights."

So, no...not a 'comprehension' problem...a problem with a guy either not smart enough to answer a question directly or too cowardly to answer the question directly because he knows how badly his answer would **** on his anti-gun argument.

So we are back to the "dishonest or stupid" conundrum and the problem with assuming the intellectual capacity of the person I chose to engage with.

But really...last words...go....
Click to expand...

I stand by my initial statement.
 
Rich2018 said:
That's the foundation of gun control.

We can't know if those "good guys" will ever turn "bad"


Sadly we can't allow mass shootings to be addressed by some kind of "honor system".
Click to expand...
I support a free society where people are presumed innocent until proven guilty., You apparently do not. we will never agree
 
TurtleDude said:
where do you come up with that number?
Click to expand...

40,000 (approx) firearms related deaths a year (yes, I know a lot of those are suicides)
70,000+ firearms related injuries per year


I support a free society where people are presumed innocent until proven guilty., You apparently do not. we will never agree
Click to expand...

So do I
But if you are indeed a lawyer, you'll know only humans are innocent until proven guilty, an inanimate object (like a gun) is guilty until proven innocent.
 
Rich2018 said:
40,000 (approx) firearms related deaths a year (yes, I know a lot of those are suicides)
70,000+ firearms related injuries per year




So do I
But if you are indeed a lawyer, you'll know only humans are innocent until proven guilty, an inanimate object (like a gun) is guilty until proven innocent.
Click to expand...

that is silly to try to apply things like guilt and innocence to objects. In fact it is hilariously inane.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is silly to try to apply things like guilt and innocence to objects. In fact it is hilariously inane.
Click to expand...

But you say you're a lawyer so you should know this:

Example No1: If you leave the USA for say Dubai and come back wearing a Rolex.
You have to prove that you bought it in the USA otherwise US customs will tax you on it or just plain seize it

Example No2: Let's say you see an item in Craig's list - not a gun as we all know Craig's List doesn't allow that.
Let's say it's antique piano. You call the seller and he only wants cash - $10,000. You take out that amount from your bank in cash, stick it your back pocket and head off....
On the way your stopped in a routine traffic stop. The cop notices the bulge in your back pocket and seized the cash on the ground it could be drug money
The cop needs no proof it is
You have to get proof from your back that your earned the money legally you have paid tax on it etc



Hence, an inanimate objects is considered guilty until you prove otherwise.
 
Rich2018 said:
But you say you're a lawyer so you should know this:

Example No1: If you leave the USA for say Dubai and come back wearing a Rolex.
You have to prove that you bought it in the USA otherwise US customs will tax you on it or just plain seize it

Example No2: Let's say you see an item in Craig's list - not a gun as we all know Craig's List doesn't allow that.
Let's say it's antique piano. You call the seller and he only wants cash - $10,000. You take out that amount from your bank in cash, stick it your back pocket and head off....
On the way your stopped in a routine traffic stop. The cop notices the bulge in your back pocket and seized the cash on the ground it could be drug money
The cop needs no proof it is
You have to get proof from your back that your earned the money legally you have paid tax on it etc



Hence, an inanimate objects is considered guilty until you prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

I doubt you will ever meet someone who has more understanding of civil asset forfeiture than I do and you are completely wrong. The actions are based on what a human does-and pretending the inanimate object is "innocent or guilty" is silly.
 
TurtleDude said:
I doubt you will ever meet someone who has more understanding of civil asset forfeiture than I do and you are completely wrong. The actions are based on what a human does-and pretending the inanimate object is "innocent or guilty" is silly.
Click to expand...

No it's true, do you doubt either example is accurate ?

Because they are.

In both cases YOU have to prove their "innocence"
ie: they are not guilty of being what the policeman/customs officials suspects they are.


The cops/customs will seize your property on mere suspicion. They can't seize/arrest you on mere suspicion, because you are innocent until proven guilty.
 
Rich2018 said:
No it's true, do you doubt either example is accurate ?

Because they are.

In both cases YOU have to prove their "innocence"
ie: they are not guilty of being what the policeman/customs officials suspects they are.


The cops/customs will seize your property on mere suspicion. They can't seize/arrest you on mere suspicion, because you are innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

they have to have probable cause to seize the property. Its not as simple as you make it out to be
 
TurtleDude said:
they have to have probable cause to seize the property. Its not as simple as you make it out to be
Click to expand...

No they don't - do you really not know this ?


To be clear; if a cop stops you for say running a stop sign and he notices you have $10,000 cash

Are you saying that he can't say that he merely suspects it as being money made from selling drugs and seize it ?



(You can of course go to court later with proof that the money was earned legally and tax paid on it and get it back)
 
Rich2018 said:
No they don't - do you really not know this ?


To be clear; if a cop stops you for say running a stop sign and he notices you have $10,000 cash

Are you saying that he can't say that he merely suspects it as being money made from selling drugs and seize it ?



(You can of course go to court later with proof that the money was earned legally and tax paid on it and get it back)
Click to expand...

He best have probable cause. If you have a receipt that you withdrew it from your account or a bill of sale, and he seizes it, you have a 42 USC 1983 claim against him and his department
 
Rich2018 said:
Guns ARE bad for over a hundred thousand Americans a year.
Click to expand...

And yet they are good for tens of millions of Americans, especially when it comes to keep thugs from killing more people than they do.
 
TurtleDude said:
He best have probable cause. If you have a receipt that you withdrew it from your account or a bill of sale, and he seizes it, you have a 42 USC 1983 claim against him and his department
Click to expand...

I have bad news for you:


YouTube


The cop doesn't need probable cause at all, just his mere suspicion. Now if you have proof that it is your money, legally earned and taxed you'll probably be OK. But if you don't the $10,000 cash is deemed "guilty" and the cop takes it.
 
marke said:
And yet they are good for tens of millions of Americans, especially when it comes to keep thugs from killing more people than they do.
Click to expand...

So the NRA tell us.

If you believe them, you'll believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.
 
Rich2018 said:
So the NRA tell us.

If you believe them, you'll believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.
Click to expand...

Tens of millions of Americans own guns and see no problem with them. Thousands of closed-minded leftist socialists are scared to death of guns and don't give a flip whether other people value them or not.
 
Rich2018 said:
I have bad news for you:


YouTube


The cop doesn't need probable cause at all, just his mere suspicion. Now if you have proof that it is your money, legally earned and taxed you'll probably be OK. But if you don't the $10,000 cash is deemed "guilty" and the cop takes it.
Click to expand...

The minimum standard in any state is probable cause. In many, it’s preponderance of evidence, in others it’s clear and convincing evidence, while some require a conviction and New Mexico doesn’t allow it at all.
Source: Policing for Profit - Institute for Justice

In any case, I disagree with civil forfeiture (except under the strictest of rules) so I certainly wouldn’t agree with using that as a standard.
 
marke said:
Tens of millions of Americans own guns and see no problem with them. Thousands of closed-minded leftist socialists are scared to death of guns and don't give a flip whether other people value them or not.
Click to expand...

Jesus never owned a gun
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom