Antifa [Mod Warning on post #1 - updated 08/08/19]

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Thanks. Ah, I had not known all that from the article I had read. Seems then he was provided with due process and taking his guns away might have been the proper action.

NBD, not every outlet reports all the facets of the same news.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Does your brain not hurt from trying to twist my words?

I said… ‘I agree that this individual should have IMMEDIATELY been investigated by the FBI. But I also think he should have been provided with due process.’

If, through due process, it was determined he was a viable threat to himself or others THEN his guns should have been taken away.

You can't delay with mass murders and killing sprees. They need make the situation safe then they can always apologise after. The guy sounds like he's a prime candidate for being a mass shooter, best take his guns and then see about it?

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You can't delay with mass murders and killing sprees. They need make the situation safe then they can always apologise after. The guy sounds like he's a prime candidate for being a mass shooter, best take his guns and then see about it?

Apologies don't always cut it. What if I knew a neighbor of mine had guns and I just wanted to destroy his life. I make an anonymous phone call to police stating I overheard him threading to shoot up a school, but didn't want to give my name out of fear of violence from the individual or his friends. Most ‘red flag’ laws would have authorities take away his guns and cause him tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to clear his name. That is why due process is so important.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Apologies don't always cut it. What if I knew a neighbor of mine had guns and I just wanted to destroy his life. I make an anonymous phone call to police stating I overheard him threading to shoot up a school, but didn't want to give my name out of fear of violence from the individual or his friends. Most ‘red flag’ laws would have authorities take away his guns and cause him tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to clear his name. That is why due process is so important.

Have you read a RFL that would let a neighbor instigate a baseless claim?

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Apologies don't always cut it. What if I knew a neighbor of mine had guns and I just wanted to destroy his life. I make an anonymous phone call to police stating I overheard him threading to shoot up a school, but didn't want to give my name out of fear of violence from the individual or his friends. Most ‘red flag’ laws would have authorities take away his guns and cause him tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to clear his name. That is why due process is so important.

As we've learned with the US, it's best to act in those situations because there is a problem with mass killings in that country.
Likely, in that scenario, as much if not more damage would be done for placing the false call. The US is fast becoming bandit country the FBI need act first sadly.

This is all fed by the ALT-Right.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

Apologies don't always cut it. What if I knew a neighbor of mine had guns and I just wanted to destroy his life. I make an anonymous phone call to police stating I overheard him threading to shoot up a school, but didn't want to give my name out of fear of violence from the individual or his friends. Most ‘red flag’ laws would have authorities take away his guns and cause him tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to clear his name. That is why due process is so important.

Ok, what does “due process” mean to you?

I don’t disagree that a process needs to exist, in fact a process currently exists and I am happy it does. What do you think should happen to have someone’s guns taken away? Do they need to be convicted of a crime or declared mentally unfit?

20Cent

Oslo Mosque attacker appears in court.



Claiming it was self defence.

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

As we've learned with the US, it's best to act in those situations because there is a problem with mass killings in that country.
Likely, in that scenario, as much if not more damage would be done for placing the false call. The US is fast becoming bandit country the FBI need act first sadly.

This is all fed by the ALT-Right.

Listen, I believe properly designed 'red flag' laws can have a positive impact. But states have largely failed to adopt procedural safeguards, and judges tend to err on the side of granting orders that bar people from possessing guns. 'Red flag' laws sound like a good idea on paper, but in practice you're often considered guilty until you prove yourself innocent. That is wrong.

Overheal

I think those kind of issues with RFLs will be sanded out.

20Cent

notobtuse wrote: »

Listen, I believe properly designed 'red flag' laws can have a positive impact. But states have largely failed to adopt procedural safeguards, and judges tend to err on the side of granting orders that bar people from possessing guns. 'Red flag' laws sound like a good idea on paper, but in practice you're often considered guilty until you prove yourself innocent. That is wrong.

Sounds unconstitutional, never heard of red flag laws before.
Is there any evidence they are being abused?

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

Ok, what does “due process” mean to you?

I don’t disagree that a process needs to exist, in fact a process currently exists and I am happy it does. What do you think should happen to have someone’s guns taken away? Do they need to be convicted of a crime or declared mentally unfit?

Fifth Amendment...

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Due process under the Fourteenth Amendment can be broken down into two categories: procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process, based on principles of “fundamental fairness,” addresses which legal procedures are required to be followed in state proceedings. Relevant issues, as discussed in detail below, include notice, opportunity for hearing, confrontation and cross-examination, discovery, basis of decision, and availability of counsel.

notobtuse

20Cent wrote: »

Sounds unconstitutional, never heard of red flag laws before.
Is there any evidence they are being abused?

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/457058-red-flag-laws-violate-more-than-just-gun-rights
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/us/red-flag-laws.html

During World War II, over 100,000 Japanese Americans were imprisoned in internment camps. It’s statistically quite possible that at least one of those people might have committed murder during that time had they not been interned. Would that justify the atrocity of unjustly detaining thousands of people, just to potentially save one life? Of course not. That’s not how liberty works.

And if you think the government would come up with something that wouldn't be abused, remember we have loads of safeguards in place so that FISA applications wouldn't be abused. Did that stop Hillary Clinton, Democrats and Obama's political appointees from abusing it?

Overheal

This isn’t internment of broad strokes though these are handled case by case individual by individual in their fullest possible context.

When someone is arrested on suspicion of a crime they are deprived of liberty, first step of their involvement in that process. It isn’t until after you are booked that you appear before a judge, this judge primarily just explains your charges to you and schedules your court date. Those steps don’t happen in such an order that the suspect is not deprived of liberty, and yet it is considered due process. I can only imagine there are some SCOTUS that clarify this.

Danzy

The man who lost his guns had to lose them, no one to blame but his mouth, that he was military trained made it more so.

I know a person who shot off his mouth about it being right giving a burglar both barrels at a public meeting and following day at his gun seized.

I disagreed with that one

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Listen, I believe properly designed 'red flag' laws can have a positive impact. But states have largely failed to adopt procedural safeguards, and judges tend to err on the side of granting orders that bar people from possessing guns. 'Red flag' laws sound like a good idea on paper, but in practice you're often considered guilty until you prove yourself innocent. That is wrong.

Not if the law has a reasonable fear you might go on a killing spree, especially with the way the US is going. It's best to have someones gun taken for a period and have to maybe apologise than to have numerous people shot and say 'our hands were tied'. While I agree with you to a point those days are leaving the US and it's not AOC or Antifa driving it, it's hate speech from Trump and pals on the Alt-Right.

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

The man who lost his guns had to lose them, no one to blame but his mouth, that he was military trained made it more so.

I know a person who shot off his mouth about it being right giving a burglar both barrels at a public meeting and following day at his gun seized.

I disagreed with that one

Man threatened me at the gas station last week because he felt I cut him in line for the air pump. He told me he should blow my ****ing brains out after I told him to **** off with his nonsense.

Did report that to police. It’s up to them if anything comes of it. If it turns out the guy is some licensed owner with a string of aggravated battery and assaulted charges then I don’t see why he’s not at least in the running for it. Well, except that it’s South Carolina and we were both the right color.

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not if the law has a reasonable fear you might go on a killing spree, especially with the way the US is going. It's best to have someones gun taken for a period and have to maybe apologise than to have numerous people shot and say 'our hands were tied'. While I agree with you to a point those days are leaving the US and it's not AOC or Antifa driving it, it's hate speech from Trump and pals on the Alt-Right.

I hear more hate speech coming from the Left, and not even only from the extreme Left these days. They've even instituted a 'cancel culture' now.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

I hear more hate speech coming from the Left, and not even only from the extreme Left these days. They've even instituted a 'cancel culture' now.

Okay, what's 'cancel culture'?

Do you realise or actively participate in censoring everyone your side/team disagree with by using little kooky terms designed to demean and dismiss comments you don't like or can't argue against?

And what hate speech? Are human rights and civil liberties laws hate speech for racists? Maybe.

EDIT: just googled it. Talk about your fake news. What's it like to feel so threatened all the time even with Trump in the WH?

Bring back Kathy Griffin so?

20Cent

notobtuse wrote: »

I hear more hate speech coming from the Left, and not even only from the extreme Left these days. They've even instituted a 'cancel culture' now.

Examples?

20Cent

Right wing fanatics going on mass shootings.
Lone wolf.

Dave Chapelle gets a bad review.
The left are destroying free speech.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

Fifth Amendment...



Due process under the Fourteenth Amendment can be broken down into two categories: procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process, based on principles of “fundamental fairness,” addresses which legal procedures are required to be followed in state proceedings. Relevant issues, as discussed in detail below, include notice, opportunity for hearing, confrontation and cross-examination, discovery, basis of decision, and availability of counsel.

I understand all that. But you’re not really answering the question.

Are you looking for a criminal conviction?

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Okay, what's 'cancel culture'?

Do you realise or actively participate in censoring everyone your side/team disagree with by using little kooky terms designed to demean and dismiss comments you don't like or can't argue against?

And what hate speech? Are human rights and civil liberties laws hate speech for racists? Maybe.

EDIT: just googled it. Talk about your fake news. What's it like to feel so threatened all the time even with Trump in the WH?

Bring back Kathy Griffin so?

It isn't fake news. Many have been subject to the cancel culture... Al Franken for one (I despised Franken but thought he got a raw deal). Actors Debra Messing and Eric McCormack are now taking a lot of heat for pushing for the cancel culture. Sarah Silverman just got cancelled and Dave Chappelle is feeling heat from it. In politics it was started by Media Matters and has been successful. Now a right leaning group is using the same tactics and was just successful in getting a liberal professor fired. I don’t like it, but as I’ve stated many times in political discussions if someone does something that is slimy but works, and is not stopped from doing it, don’t be surprised if the other side starts using the same tactics.

And Kathy Griffin is back with even more hatred loaded to bear.

Overheal

What is cancel culture that’s news to me.

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

I understand all that. But you’re not really answering the question.

Are you looking for a criminal conviction?

A chance to defend their case before the court before being treated as a criminal when no actual crime was committed.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

A chance to defend their case before the court if they are being treated as a criminal with no actual crime committed.

They’re not being treated like criminals though. They are allowed to defend their case before the court, regardless.

20Cent

notobtuse wrote: »

It isn't fake news. Many have been subject to the cancel culture... Al Franken for one (I despised Franken but thought he got a raw deal). Actors Debra Messing and Eric McCormack are now taking a lot of heat for pushing for the cancel culture. Sarah Silverman just got cancelled and Dave Chappelle is feeling heat from it. In politics it was started by Media Matters and has been successful. Now a right leaning group is using the same tactics and was just successful in getting a liberal professor fired. I don’t like it, but as I’ve stated many times in political discussions if someone does something that is slimy but works, and is not stopped from doing it, don’t be surprised if the other side starts using the same tactics.

And Kathy Griffin is back with even more hatred loaded to bear.

Sarah Silverman was cancelled ?
What happened?


I like her.

notobtuse

20Cent wrote: »

Sarah Silverman was cancelled ?
What happened?


I like her.

She once wore blackface in a skit. The cancel culture is so bad the Left is even eating their own.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2019/08/13/sarah-silverman-and-the-complexity-of-cancel-culture/#409f9e963ee7

20Cent

notobtuse wrote: »

She once wore blackface in a skit. The cancel culture is so bad the Left is even eating their own.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2019/08/13/sarah-silverman-and-the-complexity-of-cancel-culture/#409f9e963ee7

Poor thing, she probably won't ever work again.
Hopefully her millions of dollars can be used to dry some of the tears.

Oh wait she's fine and no one gives a sh1t.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

It isn't fake news. Many have been subject to the cancel culture... Al Franken for one (I despised Franken but thought he got a raw deal). Actors Debra Messing and Eric McCormack are now taking a lot of heat for pushing for the cancel culture. Sarah Silverman just got cancelled and Dave Chappelle is feeling heat from it. In politics it was started by Media Matters and has been successful. Now a right leaning group is using the same tactics and was just successful in getting a liberal professor fired. I don’t like it, but as I’ve stated many times in political discussions if someone does something that is slimy but works, and is not stopped from doing it, don’t be surprised if the other side starts using the same tactics.

And Kathy Griffin is back with even more hatred loaded to bear.

You do know Sarah Silverman is heavily liberal and anti-Trump? Her being cancelled would be part of the worst leftist conspiracy ever. Al Franken a liberal. I mean how is this 'cancel culture'? Do you mean things get cancelled? Because that's true. Some nefarious leftist conspiracy? Not so much.

If you're truthful with yourself you don't like censorship or things being cancelled.
Trying to make it some leftist agenda is spin and well, 'fake news'.

Where are your examples of hate speech from the left?
If Silverman hadn't been passed over for a role would you be crying one rule for the illuminate lizard leftists?
I remember that sketch. It was okay. Which member of Antifa owns that movie company I wonder?
She's probably hurting because she defended Louis C.K..

notobtuse

20Cent wrote: »

Poor thing, she probably won't ever work again.
Hopefully her millions of dollars can be used to dry some of the tears.

Oh wait she's fine and no one gives a sh1t.

Sure, she'll be fine but others who are subject to the cancel culture, and don't have millions of dollars, won't be.

The Left is now targeting small businesses with their cancel culture. Targets like the oil industry and Chick Fil A will also be fine, but it will destroy small businesses.