trump

[jamil]

Trump is or is not for due process?



https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/743078235408195584


Donald Trump pledges to meet with NRA to push Democrat gun control measure


Shannon Watts is currently on CNN praising Trump for these comments.

I wouldn't support this unless they add due process to the list. But since they like keeping the list secret, that's just not going to happen.

This post sums up nicely why I respect. I tried to rep, but couldn't.

I repped him. But it was for me.

 

[T.Lex]

Mateen wasn't on the list when he bought the rifle, or any of the weapons apparently. So, Trump is considering limiting the 2A in ways that would not have made any difference.

Alas, as Hough points out, he'll "have a conversation" with the NRA and settle on a statement that inflicts the least damage to his campaign. Or deny he ever said anything. About anything.

 

[pudly]

Mateen wasn't on the list when he bought the rifle, or any of the weapons apparently. So, Trump and HoughMade is considering limiting the 2A in ways that would not have made any difference.

FTFY

 

[T.Lex]

FTFY

Ah, so in INGOish "fix" now means "completely distort beyond recognition"?

Gotcha.

Oh, and I'll vaguely apologize in advance of your rep for causing you butthurt.

 

[indiucky]

FTFY

Houghmade is running for office or is legislating????

Sweet...

 

[JettaKnight]

It's not...

I support Trump (now) and the only thing I can come up with is Trump supporters read these threads and see things like we're Nazis, Racists, Islamaphobes, not very bright, sheep, etc.....And then in what can only be described as a lapse of sanity we respond by saying "Oh yeah!!! Well if you don't vote for Trump you are throwing away your vote and might as well be voting for Hillary..."

It makes both sides look a little petty....Almost Obama like in our pettiness...

Many of my INGO friends will not support Trump and I can not nor will I hold that against them...If Trump loses their vote it's on Trump and not them...

IMHO...

This post sums up nicely why I respect. I tried to rep, but couldn't.

Nor can I, so the best I can do is QFT.

 

[pudly]

Houghmade is running for office or is legislating????

Sweet...

No, neither he nor Trump are legislating. However, Hough is looking for ways to compromise away civil rights as listed at the link.

 

[jamil]

No, neither he nor Trump are legislating. However, Hough is looking for ways to compromise away civil rights as listed at the link.

Here's why I agreed with Hough. I don't really have a problem with the terrorist watch list or no-flly list, as long as there is due process to get them on the list, and no one is denied their rights without having going through that.

If it worked like that I doubt those lists would exist very long. Doesn't seem much point if authorities have to notify the person and then have a hearing with both parties present, presenting their cases, and then have a judge making the decision.

And I don't think that's a compromise. I think its reasonable thing to do. But nevertheless, I'd negotiate it as a compromise and get what we could get out of it.

 

[indiucky]

However, Hough is looking for ways to compromise away civil rights as listed at the link.

[video=youtube;ctDhwraJRxs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctDhwraJRxs[/video]

I had no idea...Houghmade a Henry Clay...Oh the humanity....

 

[foszoe]

Houghmade did endorse a waiting period or did I misunderstand his proposal?

As I said earlier, I have no issue with a "terror watch" list which notifies FBI of a firearms purchase. I don't favor a prohibition of purchase or a waiting period.

 

[BugI02]

Here's why I agreed with Hough. I don't really have a problem with the terrorist watch list or no-flly list, as long as there is due process to get them on the list, and no one is denied their rights without having going through that.

If it worked like that I doubt those lists would exist very long. Doesn't seem much point if authorities have to notify the person and then have a hearing with both parties present, presenting their cases, and then have a judge making the decision.

And I don't think that's a compromise. I think its reasonable thing to do. But nevertheless, I'd negotiate it as a compromise and get what we could get out of it.

So if this is actually Trump's intent, would you still consider it to be reasonable?

 

[chipbennett]

There is currently no due process to get ON to the list. All that I see being discussed right now is due process to get OFF of the list.

So, the hypothetical, alternate reality in which due process is involved to get ON the list does not exist, and very likely will never exist. We might as well not even consider it as a matter of germane discussion.

 

[Dead Duck]

Ya I get your guyses points BUT-

Some of the jobs I've had was to "Watch" a suspected target without them knowing as to catch them in the act. To tip them off before that would be stupid. Knowing how everyone feels about these government "Secret Lists", how do you expect them to work?

What? Mail the suspect a postcard to warn them that we're watching?

Just clarifying, do we want to catch bad guys or help bad guys.

What are you guys really apposed to in all this?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ya I get your guyses points BUT-

Some of the jobs I've had was to "Watch" a suspected target without them knowing as to catch them in the act. To tip them off before that would be stupid. Knowing how everyone feels about these government "Secret Lists", how do you expect them to work?

What? Mail the suspect a postcard to warn them that we're watching?

Just clarifying, do we want to catch bad guys or help bad guys.

What are you guys really apposed to in all this?

I have no problem with people being investigated and watched in accordance with our Constitution. Warrants where warrants are required, etc. But like everything else the government does, they tend to want to make their jobs easier and couldn't care less if your life becomes more complicated in the mean time. They need to be kept on a short leash so that they don't get too lazy, too capricious, too vindictive, or whatever and abuse their power while infringing on our rights.

 

[foszoe]

i dunno. i think it could act as a deterrent.

Ya I get your guyses points BUT-

Some of the jobs I've had was to "Watch" a suspected target without them knowing as to catch them in the act. To tip them off before that would be stupid. Knowing how everyone feels about these government "Secret Lists", how do you expect them to work?

What? Mail the suspect a postcard to warn them that we're watching?

Just clarifying, do we want to catch bad guys or help bad guys.

What are you guys really apposed to in all this?

 

[jamil]

So if this is actually Trump's intent, would you still consider it to be reasonable?

Reasonable is reasonable regardless of who's doing the reasoning. Don't get your hopes up though.

 

[Tombs]

Trump is or is not for due process?



https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/743078235408195584


Donald Trump pledges to meet with NRA to push Democrat gun control measure


Shannon Watts is currently on CNN praising Trump for these comments.

Have a view that you're not sure is reasonable, or in line with the wishes of your supporters? Go ask the most knowledgeable group what you should do.

I don't really see a problem here. The NRA will explain the ins and outs and why it's a bad plan, and Trump will come back with some enlightenment on the topic.

For the record, I believe if the individuals on these watch lists are so dangerous that they shouldn't be allowed a gun, I don't want them on the streets, much less driving at 70mph on the interstate next to my family where they could swerve into me and murder my family.

Then again that's how I view all gun control. If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, they have no business walking among the rest of the public.

Ya I get your guyses points BUT-

Some of the jobs I've had was to "Watch" a suspected target without them knowing as to catch them in the act. To tip them off before that would be stupid. Knowing how everyone feels about these government "Secret Lists", how do you expect them to work?

What? Mail the suspect a postcard to warn them that we're watching?

Just clarifying, do we want to catch bad guys or help bad guys.

What are you guys really apposed to in all this?

When these watch lists have created a chilling effect on the public so strongly that a majority of people are scared of visiting a website with a questionable name, I believe something has gone horribly wrong and that the net positive benefit doesn't justify the fear it has instilled in the public.

 

[BugI02]

Ya I get your guyses points BUT-

Some of the jobs I've had was to "Watch" a suspected target without them knowing as to catch them in the act. To tip them off before that would be stupid. Knowing how everyone feels about these government "Secret Lists", how do you expect them to work?

What? Mail the suspect a postcard to warn them that we're watching?

Just clarifying, do we want to catch bad guys or help bad guys.

What are you guys really apposed to in all this?

Much like the Patriot Act, the animus toward the Watch List and No Fly List is not towards the idea behind the program - it is toward the lack of any safeguards and the ease with which it could be misused.

And these sorts of things always get misused. The No Fly especially would make the Stasi proud

 

[T.Lex]

Some of the jobs I've had was to "Watch" a suspected target without them knowing as to catch them in the act. To tip them off before that would be stupid. Knowing how everyone feels about these government "Secret Lists", how do you expect them to work?

If it is .gov doing the watching, I expect at least a reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS). If it is a private company investigating something, I only care that no laws are broken in the process.

By the way, there is a key difference between the no-fly lists and using that to limit the 2A: there is not constitutional right to air travel. Limiting someone's exercise of 2A should be subject to strict scrutiny, which, I believe, was not the standard applied to the no-fly list.

The logical extension is to suspend drivers' licenses of people on the no-fly list. I mean, if we trust the lists so much, these people should not be allowed to travel quickly enough to go to a place where they are not known so they could hide among crowds and do dastardly deeds. There is a no-fly loophole that must be closed.

In other Trump news, this article provides some insight into how at least 1 Trump supporter defines RAS.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...rump-poll-numbers-us-election-hillary-clinton

The suspicion of protesters reached a point at which Trump supporters were informing on each other for not being “real” supporters. One woman pointed security toward a couple sitting quietly in their seats. “Them,” she mouthed.
The couple seemed baffled and denied to a security agent that they were anything but genuine Trump admirers. He waved them toward the exit and said, “Let’s go.”
Afterward the informer, who declined to give her name, grinned as onlookers congratulated her. “I heard one of them say ‘Never Trump’,” she said. “And one held up three fingers, like this.”
She held up her hand in a Boy Scout salute.
What did the three fingers signify?
“I have no idea,” she said.

Not cheering loudly enough is suspicious.

 

[chipbennett]

Ya I get your guyses points BUT-

Some of the jobs I've had was to "Watch" a suspected target without them knowing as to catch them in the act. To tip them off before that would be stupid. Knowing how everyone feels about these government "Secret Lists", how do you expect them to work?

What? Mail the suspect a postcard to warn them that we're watching?

Just clarifying, do we want to catch bad guys or help bad guys.

What are you guys really apposed to in all this?

The conflation of a double-secret probation government blacklist, and denial of constitutionally protected rights.

Don't deny rights based on that list, and there's nothing to oppose.