Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Political Forum
test
The Political Forum Discuss anything related to politics in this forum. World politics, US Politics, State and Local.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 650
MoneyManMatt 490
Jon Bon 408
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
George Spelvin 313
Starscream66 301
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
sharkman29 263
Top Posters
DallasRain71337
biomed167736
Yssup Rider62874
gman4455021
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling49490
WTF48272
pyramider46427
bambino45243
The_Waco_Kid39944
CryptKicker37391
Mokoa36499
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Dr-epg34301

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-05-2018, 07:47 AM   #16
bamscram
Valued Poster
 
bamscram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 23, 2016
Location: north KCMO
Posts: 5,711
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn View Post
98% of all mass shootings have occurred in "gun free" zones. Those belong to the democrat party. At one time mentally ill people could be taken off the street for their and societies protection until a democrat supported lawsuit in New York state freed them in 1983. That belongs to the democrats. Other mass shootings have occurred from both illegal and legal immigrants from questionable countries. Guess who supports allowing anyone and everyone into this country? Yep, the democrats.
The NRA has repeatedly supported the idea of the mentally ill and criminals be denied the right to own a gun but instead of siding with the NRA the democrats have always thrown in a poison pill to stop the legislation. I guess the idea of solving a problem and saving lives is less important to democrats than having an issue.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...gun-rights-too

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...mental-illness

Now Trump wants to seize guns then have due process.
bamscram is offline   Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 11:24 AM   #17
grean
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2012
Location: Plano
Posts: 3,914
Encounters: 19
Default

First off WTF fellow Texans, we are losing our clout. We are a mere 18 in guns per capita in the US.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/mos...es-in-america/

Second off, anti-gunners you've got me confused.

California has really strict gun laws yet the gun murder rate per capita is only slightly lower than Texas, but more gun murders overall. And Texas by the way, has far more guns than California.

There are pockets in California that are freaking out of control with gun murders. How is that possible? Gun laws should have stopped that.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...s/state-totals

Now let's stop trying to blame guns. Lets stop demonizing people for wanting to protect a constitutional right. There is no evidence that strict gun control causes lower gun violence.

There are examples that show a correlation but that doesn't mean it is the cause. There are far too many examples to disprove that correlation = causation.
grean is offline   Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 12:01 PM   #18
LexusLover
Valued Poster
 
LexusLover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 16, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 51,038
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bamscram View Post

Now Trump wants to seize guns then have due process.
That's why parrots should stay out of political discussions.

They keep repeating the same stupid shit over and over again.

When the "Government seizes" shit, they usually engage in "due process" after the property is seized. But parrots don't know that! If the "Government" doesn't do that .. the "shit" disappears!

You anti-Trumper parrots need to get some education before you start criticizing the POTUS ... You are exposing yourselves for the dumbasses you really are.
LexusLover is offline   Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 12:10 PM   #19
grean
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2012
Location: Plano
Posts: 3,914
Encounters: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover View Post
That's why parrots should stay out of political discussions.

You anti-Trumper parrots need to get some education before you start criticizing the POTUS ... You are exposing yourselves for the dumbasses you really are.
Actually, I would say Trump is exposing just how ignorant he is. He is a parrot as well changing his argument to satisfy who ever is in front of him.
grean is offline   Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 12:17 PM   #20
Why_Yes_I_Do
BANNED
 
Why_Yes_I_Do's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 26, 2013
Location: Railroad Tracks, other side thereof
Posts: 7,891
Encounters: 14
Default Slackers!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by grean View Post
First off WTF fellow Texans, we are losing our clout. We are a mere 18 in guns per capita in the US.
Who the heck-fire only owns 18 guns anyway?!? Slackers!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by grean View Post
Now let's stop trying to blame guns. Lets stop demonizing people for wanting to protect a constitutional right. There is no evidence that strict gun control causes lower gun violence.
Sh*tcago, DC, Baltimore, NYC, Newark come to mind as stupid-strict gun laws with outrageous murder rates. Plus I never did understand the misguided notion of blaming an inanimate object for the actions of an idiot user.
Why_Yes_I_Do is offline   Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 12:25 PM   #21
grean
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2012
Location: Plano
Posts: 3,914
Encounters: 19
Default

I found an insane claim about Plano Texas having the highest per capita gun ownership.

It was from a biased website, however, and therefore unreliable. Both sides pull numbers out of the air.

I cannot find a government site that backs it up or mainstream article that is supposed to at least fact check. I can only find by state on fbi and cdc websites.

Can anyone help?
grean is offline   Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 12:30 PM   #22
LexusLover
Valued Poster
 
LexusLover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 16, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 51,038
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grean View Post
Actually, I would say Trump is exposing just how ignorant he is.
When he said seize the guns and then have "due process" he was "spot on" regarding the law of seizing movables (other than real estate and fixed improvements). The Feds and the States do it essentially the same ... grab the shit then file for forfeiture.

So he's not "ignorant" about it all .. those who make fun of him are!

Since you're in Texas you can look at Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 59.

It even puts the burden on the "owner" to get it back!

As for "gun ownership" ... do you really believe there is an accurate figure of how many guns are owned in one particular place? The Government doesn't even know how many people are in this country illegally! How many of them have "guns"?
LexusLover is offline   Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 01:03 PM   #23
IIFFOFRDB
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grean View Post
I found an insane claim about Plano Texas having the highest per capita gun ownership.

It was from a biased website, however, and therefore unreliable. Both sides pull numbers out of the air.

I cannot find a government site that backs it up or mainstream article that is supposed to at least fact check. I can only find by state on fbi and cdc websites.

Can anyone help?

Anyone ever notice this guy is on one side then the other?

IIFFOFRDB is offline   Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 01:20 PM   #24
grean
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2012
Location: Plano
Posts: 3,914
Encounters: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover View Post
When he said seize the guns and then have "due process" he was "spot on" regarding the law of seizing movables (other than real estate and fixed improvements). The Feds and the States do it essentially the same ... grab the shit then file for forfeiture.

So he's not "ignorant" about it all .. those who make fun of him are!

Since you're in Texas you can look at Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 59.

It even puts the burden on the "owner" to get it back!

As for "gun ownership" ... do you really believe there is an accurate figure of how many guns are owned in one particular place? The Government doesn't even know how many people are in this country illegally! How many of them have "guns"?
First, the police must suspect said property has a connection to some crime that has been committed in asset forfeiture cases.

In 39 or 20 or 45 whatever number of interactions the police had with Cruz, he was never even once arrested or charged.

Explain on what grounds then they had to SEIZE his assets? There was no suspected crime.
grean is offline   Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 01:43 PM   #25
LexusLover
Valued Poster
 
LexusLover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 16, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 51,038
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grean View Post
First, the police must suspect said property has a connection to some crime that has been committed in asset forfeiture cases.
If a "mentally disturbed" person is prohibited from having a weapon, that's a crime if the person is found to posses one AND THOUGHT TO BE "mentally disturbed"!

The police take the weapon and then "due process" begins!

Please don't try to tell me how "forfeitures" work or don't work!

Like I said ... Trump was spot on regarding "the law"!
LexusLover is offline   Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 01:50 PM   #26
LexusLover
Valued Poster
 
LexusLover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 16, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 51,038
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grean View Post
First, the police must suspect said property has a connection to some crime that has been committed in asset forfeiture cases.

In 39 or 20 or 45 whatever number of interactions the police had with Cruz, he was never even once arrested or charged.

Explain on what grounds then they had to SEIZE his assets? There was no suspected crime.
I can't explain why he wasn't charged or his weapons not removed, but I can offer an explanation if what I read was correct ....

.. and I won't get much deeper into the nuances and weeds ....

.. If what I saw and read is correct the man in whose house he was living was a former counter-intelligence officer and active in some "intelligence" capacity with respect to the Government. He was publicly referred to as an "intelligence analyst"!

Local LE know who is who in "the neighborhood" and where they live.

A problem with your analysis is sometimes LE doesn't confiscate and sometimes they do. Sometimes when they don't they have enough evidence to do it, and sometimes when they do they don't have the evidence. To say "what the law is" means nothing. It's reality that matters.

There is a local PD, relatively small, in a nice area around Houston that finances almost 100% of it's special operations with forfeitures, and what is not from forfeitures comes from Government donations on a loaner basis. It can be big business ..
LexusLover is offline   Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 01:56 PM   #27
grean
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2012
Location: Plano
Posts: 3,914
Encounters: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover View Post
If a "mentally disturbed" person is prohibited from having a weapon, that's a crime if the person is found to posses one AND THOUGHT TO BE "mentally disturbed"!

The police take the weapon and then "due process" begins!

Please don't try to tell me how "forfeitures" work or don't work!

Like I said ... Trump was spot on regarding "the law"!
Trump said the very opposite of that.

What you just said would have to go through the courts.
In order to be prohibited, even temporarily , would require a court order first.

Trump said "Take the guns. Then go to the courts"

He is fucking imbecile of epic magnitude.
grean is offline   Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 02:01 PM   #28
Mr MojoRisin
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Sep 3, 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 7,567
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grean View Post
Actually, I would say Trump is exposing just how ignorant he is. He is a parrot as well changing his argument to satisfy who ever is in front of him.
It's either Trump is ignorant as you say or he is playing a political version of Catch-as-catch-can with these greedy fucking liberals. Although a bit risky Trump is giving them a little bit of slack on this Gun Control agenda they have. When they get a bit cocky and try to add more on the top of the initial deal Trump veto's it leaving them with nothing. Just a possibility.

Jim
Mr MojoRisin is offline   Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 02:07 PM   #29
LexusLover
Valued Poster
 
LexusLover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 16, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 51,038
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grean View Post

Trump said "Take the guns. Then go to the courts"

He is fucking imbecile of epic magnitude.
Actually, you are!

The law IS: "Take the guns. Then go to the courts!"

If you read Chapter 59 you didn't understand it.

That's essentially (not in those specific words) what it says!

So does the Federal statute.

In fact if the "gun" is "evidence" in a case they can't get it back if at all until the case is OVER (including appeals!).

Like I suggested gently to you: Please don't try to lecture me on property forfeitures by LE, in Federal system or Texas.
LexusLover is offline   Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 02:12 PM   #30
LexusLover
Valued Poster
 
LexusLover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 16, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 51,038
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin View Post
It's either Trump is ignorant as you say or he is playing a political version of Catch-as-catch-can with these greedy fucking liberals.
Jim
I would say neither on this topic. He's right on the law.

The discussion is whether to implement a "mental health" element to the equation so that LE can remove a weapon from the possession of someone who has had a "mental illness" determination in the past. It's a matter of "probable cause" as to the condition. And that is a problem for me.

I've already "gone on record" I oppose a "mental health" condition as being a basis of prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm. And that is primarily because of the vague definition of "mental illness" and the fact that some conditions are controllable by medications or even other therapy. It's too easy for a revengeful person to paint someone with that kind of tattoo.
LexusLover is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved