Fact check this: If a new law says police can temporarily seize a citizen's weapon when a clear and immediate danger is identified, that BECOMES due process. It is not ignoring due process. @POTUS
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @POTUS
It's an authoritarian process, not 'due process'... No assumed innocence. No judge. No trial. No appeal. No oversight. Not constitutional.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @LarryCostigan @POTUS
How do police ever arrest anyone in your system where the trial happens first?
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @POTUS
You imagine a world where authority is exercised judiciously and a citizen's rights are taken away only when a "clear and immediate danger is identified." In the real world, anyone challenging authority could be considered a threat/danger and their rights stripped using this law.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @POTUS
Interpretation of 'clear and immediate danger' is key. Brandishing a weapon means you're a danger. But what if someone has a hate symbol on their home? Do their guns get taken because they 'might' be danger? Who decides? What if that person resists giving up their rights? Not USA
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @LarryCostigan @POTUS
Our existing justice system is a series of judgement calls already, from cops to prosecutors to judges to juries. Works okay, with some rough edges.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @POTUS
The existing system 'works OK' because of 'Due Process' (guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments). Existing laws already take guns from 'dangerous' people. Sounds like you're saying 'Take the guns from the dangerous people - before they break the law'... How does that work?
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @LarryCostigan @POTUS
You're asking me to describe how the current system, that works, could possibly work.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @POTUS
I'm asking you to describe this 'new law'.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I can't describe what doesn't exist and has not been defined. But I can say with confidence that laws often require some judgement calls and sometimes there are abuses. (Restraining orders, for example.) This would be no different.
-
-
It might be amazing if we enforced all of the laws we have in our books. Let's see what the country becomes before creating new laws.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.