*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

I just find it hard to imagine how on the one hand you say people shouldn't have an A-15 because there's just no civilian use for it that isn't better served by another gun (fair point), while on the other hand you've got no problem with someone posting on twitter an image of them posing with guns on the anniversary of Sandy Hook with the caption "next mass killer", or at least not enough of a problem to take his guns away and, dare I say it, his freedom for a day or two while he's looked into.

It's NOT a license to insult, defame, slander, harass, or intimidate other people.

But it is a license to say "ima shoot kids yo" while posing with guns.

You need to reasses your free speech ideals.

[BananaStand]

I just find it hard to imagine how on the one hand you say people shouldn't have an A-15 because there's just no civilian use for it that isn't better served by another gun (fair point),

Let me be abundantly clear. In a vacuum, I am wholeheartedly against this. However, in the real world, I understand that congress is going to do *something*. This is merely the least offensive of all proposed remedies. Don't confuse that opinion with support for the measure.

I actually thought I expressed that quite clearly

while on the other hand you've got no problem with someone posting on twitter an image of them posing with guns on the anniversary of Sandy Hook with the caption "next mass killer",

That's right, I have no problem with it. Free speech isn't always pleasant. I have no legal objection to the KKK celebrating the holocaust.

or at least not enough of a problem to take his guns away and, dare I say it, his freedom for a day or two while he's looked into

.
This sounds like the defeated submissive easily oppressed attitude of a country that's spent the last 250 years getting its imperial ass kicked. Here in winner-town, people have rights that are "INALIENABLE". Not for two days, not for two fucking minutes. And DEFINITELY not without due process.

But it is a license to say "ima shoot kids yo" while posing with guns

MadMojoPolly already posted the link to the SCOTUS decision that would explain when and how this would be a credible, and therefore illegal, form of intimidation.

[OngBonga]

All of those are protected speech.

Ok, but it's ok for gun controls to discriminate against mentally ill people, in the interest of public safety, even though it's obviously unfair to discriminate against people for something they can't help.

Here you're suggesting gun laws shouldn't discriminate against people who choose to post "ominous shit", which I admit is a phrase I really like, even though this is a conscious choice and can be a caveat of gun control laws... ie, warn people that if they post "ominous shit" (and perhaps they should define this legally), then they lose their guns. Why is that any different to "if you go crazy, you lose your guns" or "if you go blind, you lose your driving license", or "if you lose control of your bladder, you can't sleep in my bed"?

[Poopadoop]

"if you lose control of your bladder, you can't sleep in my bed"?

This is why people outside America know nothing about freedom. You have a RIGHT to wet someone else's bed! Goddamn it!

[BananaStand]

Trump ain't stupid. He keeps using a word that no one else seems to be, but it's really important.

Coward

He keeps emphasizing the obvious common thread that all mass murderers are cowards.

It's a compelling case for deterrence

[OngBonga]

I actually thought I expressed that quite clearly

You did, I'm a stoner with a terrible memory. Cut me some slack.

That's right, I have no problem with it. Free speech isn't always pleasant. I have no legal objection to the KKK celebrating the holocaust.

Nor do I, in fairness. I'm not actually arguing for a law that says they can't post "ominous shit" on twitter. I'm arguing these people shouldn't have guns.

This sounds like the defeated submissive easily oppressed attitude of a country that's spent the last 250 years getting its imperial ass kicked.

Um cmon, it's not even a century since we really lost it. Suez crisis, that's probably the point where the British Empire was finally over.

Here in winner-town, people have rights that are "INALIENABLE". Not for two days, not for two fucking minutes. And DEFINITELY not without due process.

Same here. Is that the actual real world though? Are you suggesting that not a single person in USA has had their "inalienable" rights violated? Behind the smoke and mirrors, unconstitutional shit is going on all the time. Our countries really aren't that different to one another. On the surface it's all hell yeah, winner winner chicken dinner. Deep down it's corrupt and oppressive. The difference is I know it, whereas you don't seem to. You see it in UK, but not your beloved USFA.

[MadMojoMonkey]

In America, certain rights are suspended pending due process, as well.
I.e. the police officer who arrests you is well within his rights to cuff you, search you, put you in a holding cell, etc. even though the trial hasn't happened yet.

In Missouri, the police have the right to arrest and detain anyone and they have up to 20 hours to file charges.

[BananaStand]

In America, certain rights are suspended pending due process, as well.
I.e. the police officer who arrests you is well within his rights to cuff you, search you, put you in a holding cell, etc. even though the trial hasn't happened yet.

"due process" means more than a trial. The cop can't do any of that shit to you without a warrant or probable cause. Both of those things are part of due process.

In the article I linked, the shrink ADMITS she did not have probable cause to involuntarily hospitalie this man, and she did anyway. She did so because SHE (not a judge, or a jury) decided that it would be cool if he wasn't allowed to buy a gun, and because it eased her own conscience in case she was wrong.

If you think that's a fair application of due process, please move to Canada.

In Missouri, the police have the right to arrest and detain anyone anyone named in a warrant, or who has given the police probable cause to arrest them, and they have up to 20 hours to file charges.

FYP

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's a good fix, but not the whole story. It's common in many places ('round here, anyways) for police to pick up known teenage hoodlums on a Fri or Sat and hold them for 20 hours, knowing they have no charge to file.

I suspect this is because teenagers are minors, and these particular teenagers have shit parents who don't give a crap that their kid's rights are being violated because it means they don't have to deal with the kid for a day. (pure conjecture, I admit)

E.g. they (police) recognize a vehicle, pull it over, despite no traffic violations, find nothing to write a ticket about and arrest and detain the person for 20 hours anyway.
This is legal, despite the obvious open door to police harassment, because a police officer's probable cause is 100% subjective.

I think it should be 100% subjective, because we need to trust our police to use their best judgement and to notice subtle things and take them seriously... that's going to lead to some false flags, and most of the time, that's fine.

[BananaStand]

It's a good fix, but not the whole story. It's common in many places ('round here, anyways) for police to pick up known teenage hoodlums on a Fri or Sat and hold them for 20 hours, knowing they have no charge to file.

I suspect this is because teenagers are minors, and these particular teenagers have shit parents who don't give a crap that their kid's rights are being violated because it means they don't have to deal with the kid for a day. (pure conjecture, I admit)

E.g. they (police) recognize a vehicle, pull it over, despite no traffic violations, find nothing to write a ticket about and arrest and detain the person for 20 hours anyway.
This is legal, despite the obvious open door to police harassment, because a police officer's probable cause is 100% subjective.

I think it should be 100% subjective, because we need to trust our police to use their best judgement and to notice subtle things and take them seriously... that's going to lead to some false flags, and most of the time, that's fine.

I find everything in this post extremely hard to believe.