Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Lord Liaden]

In Canada we don't have the death penalty, so dangerous offenders of all types are supposed to be locked away where they can't hurt innocent people. I can't speak for my fellow citizens, but for my part I wouldn't care if they were locked in a prison or a mental hospital, as long as the public is kept safe from them.

[megaplayboy]

This law is more about family members and others being able to have firearms removed from unstable individuals. In theory, it could save lives, but the drawback is that it could open to abuse.

 

Section 2 (4) of the bill has a list of factors the court should consider, which seems reasonable. The PDF is here. I'm not sure if "shall consider" is the same as "must meet one of the following conditions," though. Granted, the latter is too strict, but could be worded to allow for some discretion on the court's part, I think.

 

Wife's bugging me, no time to read the entire thing. It certainly seems like a good idea and well-intentioned, but also worth serious vetting.

Legal FYI: In law, "shall" means "must".  So the court must consider all of those factors when deciding whether to remove firearms.  

[Iuz the Evil]

Firearms can (and are routinely) already be removed following a 5150 psychiatric hold in California. I coordinate with the District Attorney/law enforcement around this public safety function. There is definitely due process, including hearings and a right to appeal.

 

The guns get secured during that period, however.

[Pattern Ghost]

Legal FYI: In law, "shall" means "must".  So the court must consider all of those factors when deciding whether to remove firearms.  

 

Thanks for clearing that up. I know there are specific ways some phrases are to be read, so that's what I was wondering. In that case, doesn't seem like they did too bad of a job on outlining how the law is to be applied.

[Lord Liaden]

There are no absolute, total, unequivocal rights. Complete freedom on the part of one person is bound to conflict with the complete freedom of someone else; so society attempts to set reasonable boundaries, qualifications, and exemptions to balance the rights of the individual with the necessities for society as a whole.

 

Refusal to accept any sort of restriction on private gun possession or use (as one example) is just blindly dogmatic.

[megaplayboy]

There are no absolute, total, unequivocal rights. Complete freedom on the part of one person is bound to conflict with the complete freedom of someone else; so society attempts to set reasonable boundaries, qualifications, and exemptions to balance the rights of the individual with the necessities for society as a whole.

 

Refusal to accept any sort of restriction on private gun possession or use (as one example) is just blindly dogmatic.

Indeed.  Even the most sacrosanct rights can be restricted, so long as those restrictions meet the legal standard of "strict scrutiny".  Less rigorous or less targeted restrictions may only have to meet "rational basis" scrutiny, that is, so long as a rational basis for said restrictions exist, the courts are inclined to permit it.  As has been said, "The constitution is not a suicide pact."  There are plenty of circumstances where restrictions on rights are not only appropriate but prudent.  

[Tech priest support]

There are no absolute, total, unequivocal rights. Complete freedom on the part of one person is bound to conflict with the complete freedom of someone else; so society attempts to set reasonable boundaries, qualifications, and exemptions to balance the rights of the individual with the necessities for society as a whole.

 

Refusal to accept any sort of restriction on private gun possession or use (as one example) is just blindly dogmatic.

And unfortunately it's the policy of America's fourth branch of government,the NRA.

[Twilight]

So in their eagerness to denounce the left, Trump supporters actually called the counter protestors fascists and Nazis.  These people really can't be THAT stupid can they?

[Heroic Halfwit]

I wonder if we can talk about Oregon Senate Bill 719? It just passed. It allows the state to seize guns if a judge can be persuaded there is a risk of immediate violence (including suicide), even when there is no crime.

 

My reflex is to support it, but I am compelled to oppose it for due process reasons, the same ones that lead me to oppose the no fly list and civil asset forfeiture. I suspect it will be overturned with the first case that comes against it.

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."  This seems to violate both.  As to Due Process, the seizing of the private property of a person occurs prior to that person even having notice that such a seizure was threatened, then that person has to go down to the court house to obtain an singular form to "request" a court hearing?

 

The only seeming justification for this kind of heavy handed freedom stomp is the protection of innocent life, but we have that in all 50 states.  If a person can be reasonably demonstrated to be suicidal that person may be committed to a mental health treatment facility against their will for a period of time, and then are AUTOMATICALLY given a hearing to contest their commitment.  If the argument is for the defense of others, then a reasonable basis should exist for the potential user of the gun (who, may not be the actual owner of the gun, so on top of everything else you are, in some cases, depriving a lawful owner of his or her property based upon the alleged potentially criminal actions of a third party) to be arrested for assault, making terroristic threats, child neglect, abuse, dependency (depending on the State).  If there is no such basis for an arrest warrant or civil commitment then I respectfully submit to you that there is not a reasonable basis to believe the danger is so grave an imminent as to dispose with any semblance of Due Process.  Oregon isn't a freaking warzone and private gun owning citizens are not some kind of invading army!

 

This is simply an attempt by liberal, anti-gun, anti-freedom persons to disarm the populace.

[Heroic Halfwit]

So in their eagerness to denounce the left, Trump supporters actually called the counter protestors fascists and Nazis.  These people really can't be THAT stupid can they?

The Nazi Party was socialist.  So are many of the people on the left.  The Nazi Party believed in the use of violence to perpetuate their political agenda despite being in the minority, so do the "counter protestors."  Both the Nazi Party and some of the counter protestors have called for confiscating the property of law abiding citizens on the basis of subject characteristics included in the Civil Rights Act such as some of the groups self identified as "Black Lives Matter."

 

Of course, you seem to imply that anyone supporting Trump is somehow a Nazi, which is odd since Nazis are socialists and most socialists are on the political left.  

 

I denounce any and all non-state actors who use violence or the threat of violence to advance a political agenda.  We could quibble, but that is the essence of the definition of a terrorist group.  How many on the left have advocated for "direct action" including the destruction of property even violence?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/?utm_term=.ef81bfbdf2e8

 

Have we gone so crazy that we can't all agree that basic civility is required for a functioning society and that running around in masks assaulting people and committing arson is just out of bounds?

[Heroic Halfwit]

And unfortunately it's the policy of America's fourth branch of government,the NRA.

Yeah, this factually inaccurate and knowingly so.  I'll go back to the Archive to check the Constitution, but I'm pretty sure the NRA isn't listed there.  Second, the NRA has long advocated for responsible gun ownership, invests a great deal of time and energy in providing firearms safety training all across the country.  

 

You may dislike the NRA or the very idea that people should be able to defend themselves or perhaps you are offended that other people should hold an opinion that doesn't mirror your own, but lying is not an honorable way to attempt to advance your political agenda.  Though I much prefer it to the tactics of terrorist groups like Antifa.  So carry on.  

[Heroic Halfwit]

There are no absolute, total, unequivocal rights. Complete freedom on the part of one person is bound to conflict with the complete freedom of someone else; so society attempts to set reasonable boundaries, qualifications, and exemptions to balance the rights of the individual with the necessities for society as a whole.

 

Refusal to accept any sort of restriction on private gun possession or use (as one example) is just blindly dogmatic.

False.  And I shall prove it.

 

I have an absolute right to believe anything within my own mind.

 

Q.E.D.

 

Second, the NRA has never advocated for completely unregulated, unrestricted private gun possession or use.  If I'm wrong, please provide me with the quote and I'll cancel my membership.

[Doc Democracy]

The Nazi Party was socialist.  So are many of the people on the left.

 

 [snip]

 

Of course, you seem to imply that anyone supporting Trump is somehow a Nazi, which is odd since Nazis are socialists and most socialists are on the political left.  

Hmm. I am not sure where to start but I shall attemp to live by the rest of you post that is, like the rest of us, shaking our heads at how we have come to the point of active conflict on our streets.

 

As to the above, I initially thought you were riffing on the National Socialist name but I think there are misconceptions behind what you are saying.

 

My first question would be how you define socialist, there are many but I am not sure many of them would include Hitler and the nazis beyond the inclusion of the actual word. You will, I think, agree you judge people not by what they call themselves but how they act? I am amazed that you can say nazis are socialist and so are many on the left. In America I am not sure many on the political left would call themselves socialist, I am almost certain most nazis would not define themselves as such.

 

To me a socialist, and I class myself as one, looks for a society based on equality of opportunity, where no one is denied the basics of a decent life and everyone has access to the levers of power. A socialist state would also prioritise labour (those who work and create) over capital (those who inherit wealth). I don't think the nazis in Germany sought any of those principles, nor do many of the groups currently described as nazi.

 

To me a nazi looks for a society based on race, where some are superior and more deserving than others. Nazis appeal to the working class by blaming outsiders for the deficiencies in their lives and defining those outsiders as the enemy. Most nazi organisations are based on personality leaders with no real way of getting rid of them outside of political assassination. A nazi government is authoritarian and restrictive.

 

I think it is easier to locate Trump closer to the latter than the former, regardless of labels.

[Joe Walsh]

Yeah, just because North Korea's formal name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, it doesn't mean the country's a democratic republic. Labels are often chosen for reasons other than providing perfect clarity.

[Simon]

Yeah....Heroic Halfwit, you're going to want to tone things back.

 

1. The Nazi party was fascist.  Yes, "socialist" was part of their name, but that was about the only resemblance they have to what everyone thinks of as socialism.  National Socialism is more commonly referred to as Nazism and is best characterized as fascist.  It has no bearing or resemblance to Socialism.

 

2. One of the primary features of fascism is association with an extreme right-wing political stance.  It's part of their very definition. Left-wing politics are literally the opposite of what fascism (and therefore Nazi's, neo or otherwise) stand for.

 

3. No one stated that all right-wing politicians (or supporters) are Nazis/fascists.  They stated that all Nazis/fascists are right-wing.  There's a difference.  Learn it if you want to keep posting on these forums.

 

4. Your posts regarding gun control need to be toned WAY back.  This is not your political soapbox.  Treat it as such, and you're going to find it pulled out from under you.

[Sociotard]

Masked anarchists violently rout right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley

 

This is wholly unacceptable.  

[Joe Walsh]

Who do these people think they are? What do they think gives them the right to be vicious to their fellow citizens? 

 

What happened to our country that we can't let people say things we don't like to hear?

[Nolgroth]

On a less bad note, Hero of the day: https://twitter.com/shane_bauer/status/901910682030882816  I'm guessing that the brave person shielding the victim of that attack does NOT agree with his ideology but chose to place herself in danger to protect him. What an awesome person.

 

I have to bow out of the Antifa discussion though. In a moment of epiphany, I realize that I do indeed hate them as much as I do the fascist scumbags. I cannot look at that topic with anything close to objectivity. 

[Doc Democracy]

I think my problem with antifa is when they take the the offensive. There is a need to stand up for freedom and to fight for them in the streets if necessary. You should not go looking for those fights.

[Lord Liaden]

False.  And I shall prove it.

 

I have an absolute right to believe anything within my own mind.

 

Q.E.D.

 

 

Sir Thomas More would probably disagree with you, since he was executed for treason for not publicly supporting the primacy of Henry VIII over the Pope in religious matters, despite More never openly declaring his opposition, or even expressing any opinion on the matter. Legally he was in the right, but they railroaded him anyway.

 

I'm also guessing you don't have much experience with indoctrination or brainwashing.

[Hugh Neilson]

Sir Thomas More would probably disagree with you, since he was executed for treason for not publicly supporting the primacy of Henry VIII over the Pope in religious matters, despite More never openly declaring his opposition, or even expressing any opinion on the matter. Legally he was in the right, but they railroaded him anyway.

 

I'm also guessing you don't have much experience with indoctrination or brainwashing.

If America has the absolute freedom of belief, and has always maintained that high standard, please explain "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?"

 

For that matter, please reconcile the belief that Muslims should not be permitted entry into the United States with the holding of Muslim religious beliefs while residing in the United States.

 

A less controversial perspective, perhaps, but if I believe in my own mind that everyone in a position of authority is a three-armed alien from Alpha Centauri working to enslave the Earth, I suspect I will end up locked up for the protection of myself and others.

 

Now, one could split hairs - you can believe something as long as you never act on, or share, that belief in any way. But I question the sincerity of such a belief.

 

There are no absolutes.

[Old Man]

 

 

I have to bow out of the Antifa discussion though. In a moment of epiphany, I realize that I do indeed hate them as much as I do the fascist scumbags. I cannot look at that topic with anything close to objectivity. 

 

Yeah, a scumbag is a scumbag regardless of what flag they're flying.

[Tech priest support]

Yeah, this factually inaccurate and knowingly so.  I'll go back to the Archive to check the Constitution, but I'm pretty sure the NRA isn't listed there.  Second, the NRA has long advocated for responsible gun ownership, invests a great deal of time and energy in providing firearms safety training all across the country.  

 

You may dislike the NRA or the very idea that people should be able to defend themselves or perhaps you are offended that other people should hold an opinion that doesn't mirror your own, but lying is not an honorable way to attempt to advance your political agenda.  Though I much prefer it to the tactics of terrorist groups like Antifa.  So carry on.

 

Referring to the NRA as the fourth branch of government is clearly sarcasm and satire, based on the fact it has an inordinate amount of influence on government policy and law.

 

As to the NRA being for reasonable gun laws, WOW! And you had the noive to say my statement was "factually inaccurate and knowingly so". I mesan, seriously, I don't even know where to begin. The NRA has opposed every single act of gun control in 20 years. They're even on a jihad to make it easier for people diagnosed with mental illness to get guns. They want ex convicts to be able to get guns. Great machine god how can anyone say the NRA is in favor of responsible gun ownership?!

[Tech priest support]

False.  And I shall prove it.

 

I have an absolute right to believe anything within my own mind.

 

Q.E.D.

 

Second, the NRA has never advocated for completely unregulated, unrestricted private gun possession or use.  If I'm wrong, please provide me with the quote and I'll cancel my membership.

Like a great many people in America you may not be aware of the little known fact several states in America have laws about belief. In Texas state law forbids atheists from holding any elected office. It's not the only state to have such laws.

 

You will reasonably ask for proof, hence... https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/in-seven-states-atheists-push-to-end-largely-forgotten-ban-.html

[Old Man]

I find that it is best to leave the word "you" out of posts in this thread; it's a good shorthand way to prevent discussions here from getting too personal.

 

Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but there was some hyperbole about the NRA being a branch of government, which was then pedantically argued against.  Regardless of anyone's views on that particular controversy, it seems clear that the NRA is a highly influential organization in American politics, and I would expect them to come out in force against this seizure proposal.

 

I'll have to see if I can find a decent summary of the proposed legislation.  There is a high correlation between gun crime and people with a history of violence, so it would be interesting to see if the legislation would address that in any way.