Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

What rights of yours are being restricted?

Quote:Want to significantly lower gun crime (since stopping mass shootings won't drop that statistic)? Get warrants for all the public housing projects and ghettos in the top 10 largest American cities then invade and confiscate all the illegal weapons. There is your something. Gun crime will drop HUGE percentage points overnight.

So you won't endorse mandatory background checks for gun ownership, but you endorse illegal search and seizures for poor people. Got ya Mr. Trump. This makes perfect sense to avoid massacres perpetrated by guys like that poor guy Nidal Hassan, that hoodrat James Holmes, ghetto dweller Jared Loughner and that no good gang banger Adam Lanza.


Don't address a problem. Blame the poor.

Quote:The thing is, he's not acting on the will of the people, he's acting on his own accord. That's not his job.


What's nice about executive action is that they can be pretty much erased by the next guy. Rightfully so, if that happens.


The people, not the president (little p for proper respect) have been undermined for far too long.


Clinton is a good example of a President working with Congress for positive results. My way or the highway, like the current admin demands, (especially when it's against the will and best interest - most importantly) isn't compromise. Not even close.

Again.. this congress (little c because we can both act like children) has had zero interest in working with this president. Or doing much else for the average American. It is unprecedented.

Quote:So you won't endorse mandatory background checks for gun ownership, but you endorse illegal search and seizures for poor people. Got ya Mr. Trump. This makes perfect sense to avoid massacres perpetrated by guys like that poor guy Nidal Hassan, that hoodrat James Holmes, ghetto dweller Jared Loughner and that no good gang banger Adam Lanza.


Don't address a problem. Blame the poor.

 

What part of warrant don't you understand? You said you wanted to do something, didn't you? You are seemingly OK with the absolute destruction of the 2nd amendment, but as soon as someone puts forth an actual solution you throw a hissy fit. Just admit it, you have no desire to solve the actual problem and would rather take guns from law-abiding citizens.

 

FYI, mass shootings make up less than 1% of gun violence. So Nidal Hassan, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, and Adam Lanza are all statistical anomolies and stopping them would have had little to no impact on total gun violence.

Quote:What part of warrant don't you understand?

Even warrants aren't safe anymore. Look up "no refusal DUI". The police officer doesn't have to establish cause. They just walk up to a judge at the site of the DUI checkpoint (also unconstitutional imo) and say that driver X is being a pain in the [BLEEP], and the judge writes in the person's name, signs a "fill in the blank" warrant and within minutes, the person is being compelled without probable cause to stick out their arm. What's to stop cops from doing "no refusal gun searches", where a judge is on call with a stack of fill in the blank warrants so that if someone refuses to allow cops into their home, all the judge has to do is sign a "reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed in the residence" warrant and the cops can flashbang the place, kick the door in and hold everyone at gunpoint for a few hours.

 

IMO, "no refusal" is in and of itself a violation of the Constitution and should be outlawed. As long as it exists, and especially given the happiness of police to accept warrants that have been scanned and emailed as a PDF in minutes vs. being presented in person within hours, it's a threat to everyone's freedoms. Between the concept of a warrant being crapped on and the now-implied ability of a President to use executive actions to circumvent Congress and the Constitution, there's a very, very real threat to our freedom being built brick by brick.

.

Quote:What part of warrant don't you understand? You said you wanted to do something, didn't you? You are seemingly OK with the absolute destruction of the 2nd amendment, but as soon as someone puts forth an actual solution you throw a hissy fit. Just admit it, you have no desire to solve the actual problem and would rather take guns from law-abiding citizens.


FYI, mass shootings make up less than 1% of gun violence. So Nidal Hassan, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, and Adam Lanza are all statistical anomolies and stopping them would have had little to no impact on total gun violence.

What about this executive order destroys the 2nd Amendment? I didn't throw a hissy fit. I just pointed out your argument is a bunch of bull manure. You are part of that growing demographic that feels being poor means you are presumed guilty or at least should be suspect. Attack the poor, not the problem.

Quote:What about this executive order destroys the 2nd Amendment? I didn't throw a hissy fit. I just pointed out your argument is a bunch of bull manure. You are part of that growing demographic that feels being poor means you are presumed guilty or at least should be suspect. Attack the poor, not the problem.

 

So you are choosing to ignore the fact that the majority of gun crime comes from the poor? You have the address that as well, being politically correct will NOT solve this issue.

Quote:So you are choosing to ignore the fact that the majority of gun crime comes from the poor? You have the address that as well, being politically correct will NOT solve this issue.

You didn't answer my question. What about this executive order destroys the 2nd Amendment? You say being PC won't solve the problem, but propose something completely unconstitutional instead. Plenty of people are killed by people who are not poor. I don't think gun violence is magically disappearing. But the uptick in mass shootings is undeniable. And ignoring the mental health of these people so you can find a scapegoat in poor people is ridiculous.

Quote:You didn't answer my question. What about this executive order destroys the 2nd Amendment? You say being PC won't solve the problem, but propose something completely unconstitutional instead. Plenty of people are killed by people who are not poor. I don't think gun violence is magically disappearing. But the uptick in mass shootings is undeniable. And ignoring the mental health of these people so you can find a scapegoat in poor people is ridiculous.

 

You didn't answer my question like two pages ago, but now demanding everybody answer all your questions? Come on man.

Quote:You didn't answer my question. What about this executive order destroys the 2nd Amendment? You say being PC won't solve the problem, but propose something completely unconstitutional instead. Plenty of people are killed by people who are not poor. I don't think gun violence is magically disappearing. But the uptick in mass shootings is undeniable. And ignoring the mental health of these people so you can find a scapegoat in poor people is ridiculous.

 

Doctors are now obligated to report patients who may have a mental illness, such as PTSD or depression, to the FBI (VERY subjective). The FBI can then condemn the individual to a no-buy list, thus restricting their rights to own arms, and in doing so shattering their second amendment right. The executive order also calls for research into smart gun technology, in which certain technologies can disable the use of your weapons through remote systems, denying you the use of your weapon, and also shattering your second amendment right. This is unconstitutional. My solution is at least has legal precedence with the use of a warrant.

 

What does plenty mean? Give me statistics. Your "uptick" is still less than 1% of total gun crime.

 

Lets take my solution a step further. The large majority of gun crime is not only performed by the poor, but also by young, black males. This is a statistical FACT. This narrows the warrant down to lets say 3% of the population. Narrow that down further to the top 10 largest cities ghetto's and public housing projects, and you are talking about 1%, probably much less. This may be politically incorrect, but looking at the statistics, this seems like the most efficient way to go about things.

 

But instead, you would rather restrict guns to potentially 330 million people, 99% law abiding, rather than perform a legal search for illegal weapons on less than 1% of the population? You, good sir, are the true tyrant.

Quote:Even warrants aren't safe anymore. Look up "no refusal DUI". The police officer doesn't have to establish cause. They just walk up to a judge at the site of the DUI checkpoint (also unconstitutional imo) and say that driver X is being a pain in the [BAD WORD REMOVED], and the judge writes in the person's name, signs a "fill in the blank" warrant and within minutes, the person is being compelled without probable cause to stick out their arm. What's to stop cops from doing "no refusal gun searches", where a judge is on call with a stack of fill in the blank warrants so that if someone refuses to allow cops into their home, all the judge has to do is sign a "reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed in the residence" warrant and the cops can flashbang the place, kick the door in and hold everyone at gunpoint for a few hours.

 

IMO, "no refusal" is in and of itself a violation of the Constitution and should be outlawed. As long as it exists, and especially given the happiness of police to accept warrants that have been scanned and emailed as a PDF in minutes vs. being presented in person within hours, it's a threat to everyone's freedoms. Between the concept of a warrant being crapped on and the now-implied ability of a President to use executive actions to circumvent Congress and the Constitution, there's a very, very real threat to our freedom being built brick by brick.

 

Yep, no refusal anything violates the 4th and 5th amendments.

Quote:is that a CNN poll?

N.Y. Daily News

Quote:You didn't answer my question. What about this executive order destroys the 2nd Amendment? You say being PC won't solve the problem, but propose something completely unconstitutional instead. Plenty of people are killed by people who are not poor. I don't think gun violence is magically disappearing. But the uptick in mass shootings is undeniable. And ignoring the mental health of these people so you can find a scapegoat in poor people is ridiculous.

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" doesn't really have any qualifiers. Any action that restricts said right violates it.

Quote:N.Y. Daily News

 

Well, that settles it.  No need for a vote. The poll says guns are bad mmkay.

Quote:Doctors are now obligated to report patients who may have a mental illness, such as PTSD or depression, to the FBI (VERY subjective). The FBI can then condemn the individual to a no-buy list, thus restricting their rights to own arms, and in doing so shattering their second amendment right. The executive order also calls for research into smart gun technology, in which certain technologies can disable the use of your weapons through remote systems, denying you the use of your weapon, and also shattering your second amendment right. This is unconstitutional. My solution is at least has legal precedence with the use of a warrant.


What does plenty mean? Give me statistics. Your "uptick" is still less than 1% of total gun crime.


Lets take my solution a step further. The large majority of gun crime is not only performed by the poor, but also by young, black males. This is a statistical FACT. This narrows the warrant down to lets say 3% of the population. Narrow that down further to the top 10 largest cities ghetto's and public housing projects, and you are talking about 1%, probably much less. This may be politically incorrect, but looking at the statistics, this seems like the most efficient way to go about things.


But instead, you would rather restrict guns to potentially 330 million people, 99% law abiding, rather than perform a legal search for illegal weapons on less than 1% of the population? You, good sir, are the true tyrant.

What you propose is targeting a demographic based on race and socio-economic class. Whether they are innocent or not, you want unannounced searches of their homes. Because that is what freedom and America are all about. But I am a tyrant for pointing out that aside from being unconstitutional it would also be baiting a race war. Get real.

Quote:What you propose is targeting a demographic based on race and socio-economic class. Whether they are innocent or not, you want unannounced searches of their homes. Because that is what freedom and America are all about. But I am a tyrant for pointing out that aside from being unconstitutional it would also be baiting a race war. Get real.

 

You wanted a solution, I gave you a solution. You chose not to accept it because it goes against the very nature of your politically correct self. You would rather overturn the Bill of Rights than see the actual problem solved. I get it, there will be a lot of innocent people who will be searched, and they will be found innocent. It would drastically lower gun violence though, and you know that. You don't want that though. You would rather people be murdered in the streets by guns, children shot in the head by gang members, and small businesses and homes invaded and vandalized than see what you perceive as the "underprivileged" get searched. Doesn't matter that they make up less than 1% of the population. You want everyone, all 100%, to suffer and lose their constitutional rights.

I choose not to accept your solution because it is wholly un-American. The majority of the victims of violence in low income areas are the people who live there. People from north Springfield aren't going to Queens Harbour. Your solution targets a demographic that is systematically targeted enough. It says. Being poor or black means you are more likely to be a bad person. Have you thought through the psychological message that sends? Your solution would breed more violence because it says because you are black or poor, you are not equal. We are going to target you.

Quote:I choose not to accept your solution because it is wholly un-American. The majority of the victims of violence in low income areas are the people who live there. People from north Springfield aren't going to Queens Harbour. Your solution targets a demographic that is systematically targeted enough. It says. Being poor or black means you are more likely to be a bad person. Have you thought through the psychological message that sends? Your solution would breed more violence because it says because you are black or poor, you are not equal. We are going to target you.

 

You do realize that when they eventually come to confiscate everyone's guns they will be doing the exact same thing on a national scale, right?

Quote:I choose not to accept your solution because it is wholly un-American. The majority of the victims of violence in low income areas are the people who live there. People from north Springfield aren't going to Queens Harbour. Your solution targets a demographic that is systematically targeted enough. It says. Being poor or black means you are more likely to be a bad person. Have you thought through the psychological message that sends? Your solution would breed more violence because it says because you are black or poor, you are not equal. We are going to target you.

 

The message it sends is irrelevant when it comes to saving lives. You are right, the victims of violence in low income areas are the people who live there, being killed by OTHER people who live there as well. If you want to lower gun crime, you have to face reality, look at the statistics, and do what is right. Save the people who live in the poor ghetto's and housing projects and confiscate the illegal weapons. They are the true victims of rampant gun crime. You choosing to ignore reality and the statistics will never solve the issue, which is why you prefer the destruction of the 2nd amendment. Rather than actually take action against the known, small group of people, you would rather EVERY person in the United States suffer, no matter the race.