Poll of the Day > "take the guns first, go through due process second."

(+) Yeah! (+)

- Donald Trump
---

...aaaaaaand this is why we have the Second Amendment in a nutshell.
---

Y'know, if you guys remove the 2nd amendment... get this, you can always add it back if things get worse!
---

Lokarin posted...

Y'know, if you guys remove the 2nd amendment... get this, you can always add it back if things get worse!

But how can we get it back if we have no guns hmmmmm
---

yutterh posted...

Lokarin posted...

Y'know, if you guys remove the 2nd amendment... get this, you can always add it back if things get worse!

But how can we get it back if we have no guns hmmmmm

Do what Canada did.... set fire to the White House
---

MrMelodramatic posted...

"take the guns first, go through due process second."- Donald Trump

Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Inb4 any 2nd amendment butthurt:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The well regulated part is most commonly overlooked-you have to observe all of it if you're going to quote it as a reason to be armed to the teeth with automatic assault class weapons.
Also, the primary "arms" of the time were muskets with a one-round magazine capacity, firing effectively around three rounds per minute in the hands of a highly proficient user, with a maximum accuracy range around 50m. Compare this to the hot item of the day, the AR-15, which has a magazine capacity of 30 rounds, an effective fire rate of 45 rounds a minute and an accurate range of 550m-hardly an like-for-like comparison.

We need to decide if we're going to follow the letter or the spirit of the law in all situations, on both sides or revise it entirely to suit modern requirements.
---

Syntheticon posted...

We need to decide if we're going to follow the letter or the spirit of the law in all situations, on both sides or revise it entirely to suit modern requirements.

Well regulated at the time meant up-to-date and properly maintained. And there were also much more efficient arms available at the time of the drafting of the 2nd amendment than the same tired musket argument that ignoramuses like to stroll out. Not to mention owning artillery and battleships at the time of the 2nd amendment's drafting was A-OK.
---

Rasmoh posted...

Syntheticon posted...

We need to decide if we're going to follow the letter or the spirit of the law in all situations, on both sides or revise it entirely to suit modern requirements.

Well regulated at the time meant up-to-date and properly maintained. And there were also much more efficient arms available at the time of the drafting of the 2nd amendment than the same tired musket argument that ignoramuses like to stroll out. Not to mention owning artillery and battleships at the time of the 2nd amendment's drafting was A-OK.

But that's exactly the issue-we need to agree if we're going to follow the letter or the spirit of the law in all situations, on both sides. Pro gun people say it gives them carte blanche to own any gun they want, with as few restrictions and oversight as possible so they ignore the literal "well regulated militia" part and anti-gun people argue that the spirit of the law with the comparison to older vs newer style weapons isn't being followed.
At the very least, it needs to be updated to use less exploitable language. There's not much point arguing about the issue if we can't even agree what the issue is-it's called an amendment for a reason so it needs updating ASAP.
---

Syntheticon posted...

well regulated militia

But well regulated militia translated into modern terms would mean a group of able-bodied people aged 18-49 with updated and properly maintained weaponry. It doesn't mean the modern version of well regulated, which would essentially be needlessly meticulous with rules and regulations and bureaucracy.
---

Rasmoh posted...

Syntheticon posted...

well regulated militia

But well regulated militia translated into modern terms would mean a group of able-bodied people aged 18-49 with updated and properly maintained weaponry. It doesn't mean the modern version of well regulated, which would essentially be needlessly meticulous with rules and regulations and bureaucracy.

My point exactly-the laws need to be clarified so that there is no question as to what it was "meant" to mean. In any argument, we should follow the letter of the law until it's changed because those are the sort of loopholes governments use to get what they want so that's how everyone needs to play it.
---

To recap what I said in the other topic:

The one clip I googled mentions taking the guns then giving due process (ie, the same thing that RC posted), which sounds like the gun equivalent of an involuntary psychiatric hold -- ie, immediate response then resolution. In that context, it doesn't sound entirely unreasonable at face value although I'm still not sure if it'd be a violation of civil liberties given the existent difficulties concerning civil forfeiture (an egregious practice which should be curtailed or outlawed).

As such, it's not a matter of "just taking everybody's guns" but would instead likely resemble an established process.
---

And? People act like it's the end of the world. Have you seen the crazies who are (possibly) sexually attracted to their guns? They need the government to force them to toe the line and put the good of the nation before their ridiculous power fantasies.
---

the government would surely never abuse its power and mislabel ppl as mentally ill to remove their right to own a gun

KaptainKiro posted...

the government would surely never abuse its power and mislabel ppl as mentally ill to remove their right to own a gun

Remember, it's take first, due process second. If it was taken, they'd have a hearing to get it back. It's not like the terrorist watch list ban --- which is being proposed by the very worst of our politicians (including goddamn fucking Chris Murphy, a shitstain senator from CT) --- where they can literally just put anybody on the list which then removes their right to own a firearm and there's no real appeals process.
---

Zeus posted...

If it was taken, they'd have a hearing to get it back.

so basically they can arbitrarily choose to make ppl jump thru 800 legal hoops to exercise one of the basic rights recognized in the bill of rights

haha what a fuckin nightmare this country is becoming

KaptainKiro posted...

Zeus posted...

If it was taken, they'd have a hearing to get it back.

so basically they can arbitrarily choose to make ppl jump thru 800 legal hoops to exercise one of the basic rights recognized in the bill of rights

haha what a fuckin nightmare this country is becoming

That's why I'm not sure if it'll be constitutionally sound. However, like I said, we ALREADY have involuntary psychiatric commitments so it's not like we don't have precedence for emergency measures before due process. And, within the context, it would only trigger when law enforcement receives credible information regarding a threat with the weapon so it's not an arbitrary measure either.
---

Syntheticon posted...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The well regulated part is most commonly overlooked-you have to observe all of it if you're going to quote it as a reason to be armed to the teeth with automatic assault class weapons.

there's actually two different things there.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

that and

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

are separate things.
---

This will never become a gigantic clusterfuck just like civil forfeiture, right?

You expect the government to go out and buy guns? Somebody has to arm those teachers to keep the schools safe. Why won't anybody think of the children?

HellHole_ posted...

Syntheticon posted...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The well regulated part is most commonly overlooked-you have to observe all of it if you're going to quote it as a reason to be armed to the teeth with automatic assault class weapons.

there's actually two different things there.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

that and

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

are separate things.

This. You need access to the guns first to be capable of creating a well-regulated militia if the time arises. Really the Second Amendment has been immensely violated but nobody has the balls to create a militia.
---

trump may be a fucking genius

the man figured out that all he had to do to get the left to flip on their insane gun control ideas was agree with them and take it a step further.
---

Y'all mans flipped on ya
---

So the right-wingers flipped out when they thought Obama was coming to take their guns.

Will be interesting to see what they do now that Trump has said he's actually going to do it.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Will be interesting to see what they do now that Trump has said he's actually going to do it.

The Rock. 2020.

Why did America false flag and weasel to attack Cuba to stop commies, but won't lift a finger against Venezuela who is under a commie regime and its citizenry is begging for help AND they have tons of oil.

...

Suspicious.
---

Lokarin posted...

Why did America false flag and weasel to attack Cuba to stop commies, but won't lift a finger against Venezuela who is under a commie regime and its citizenry is begging for help AND they have tons of oil.

...

Suspicious.

Because Trump doesn't know how to 'murica.
---