More grief in El Paso and Dayton

[DrDominator9]

Hope and prayers are given in this horrific aftermath of such violence but it's not enough. We need to move on to reasonable solutions, including expanding into mental health reasons behind these attacks.

[GeekyPornCritic]

Me and one of my uncles were talking about these tragedies last night. We need to do more than just pray. We need to make major changes to gun laws. There is no justifiable reason for guns such as AK-47-style assault rifle to be legal and sold in gun stores. These types of weapons should be prohibited. Our country needs common sense gun laws.

These types of shootings will continue until to proper action is taken.

[lionbadger]

yes but let's be honest it's America so there will be 3 days of some people saying "it's the democrats" and some people saying "it's the republicans" (two parties that look identical to anyone outside th US) and then absolutely fuck all is going to get done and we'll have this same thread in a week when another shopping centre/kindergarden/hospital gets shot up by some terrorist loon

[chase251]

Me and one of my uncles were talking about these tragedies last night. We need to do more than just pray. We need to make major changes to gun laws. There is no justifiable reason for guns such as AK-47-style assault rifle to be legal and sold in gun stores. These types of weapons should be prohibited. Our country needs common sense gun laws.

These types of shootings will continue until to proper action is taken.

Re-institutionalize the violently mentally ill and start licensing the purchase of semi-automatic rifles. Drug offenses should disqualify anyone from purchasing any gun what so ever. Neither side of this debate should be comfortable with the solutions to this issue.

[Void]

One starts to wonder what, if literally anything, would need to happen for gun laws to meaningfully change in the states. I can only imagine the desperate heartache I would feel to lose a close loved one to something so senseless, much as I can only imagine the grim resignation and anxiety that must come with living in a place where the possibility for such occurrences are both accepted and actively championed. No parent should sincerely worry that their daughter will be shot to death by a stranger while they're shopping at the mall, or when they are in class, or at a concert, or at the cinema, or just walking down the street - and yet...

I don't know. I'm just not sure I can reconcile that recreational drugs can be illegal, the legal drinking age can be 21, smoking in public buildings can be illegal, but owning an instrument designed to end lives easily and efficiently is fine. The problem is the man pulling the trigger, yes, but given that such men exist, and we all know that they do, the problem then becomes proliferating the ownership of firearms, doing nothing about it, and just quietly hoping that no more problem men will come along and abuse a system that actively facilitates their insanity. How many lives are worth the naked principle that everyone is entitled to self defense? How much tragic irony is too much?

Also, how much less twitchy would American cops be if they didn't have to deal with every single person like they might pull a loaded gun on them at any given moment?

Bleh. Thoughts are with the devastated families, and the families still to come.

[Bert]

You start with a culture that fetishizes guns. Add a powerful lobby group (the NRA) that buys off politicians on behalf of firearm manufacturers to keep gun laws lax. Add to that volatile mix a president who continuously posts racist messages attacking non-white groups. Then finish off the (molotov) cocktail of hate with groups like Q-anon that propagate crazed conspiracy theories. End result: Mass shootings galore.

Here's a question for next year - what's going to happen when Trump starts polling badly in the presidential election? The man is powerfully motivated to win; not only would losing harm his gargantuan yet exquisitely fragile ego, he may also face indictment for obstruction of justice as soon as he is a regular citizen. He will undoubtedly cry "rigged" and appeal to his moronic base for action. If I was American I'd be looking to take an extended vacay out of country in the months leading up to the 2020 vote in November.

[GeekyPornCritic]

You start with a culture that fetishizes guns. Add a powerful lobby group (the NRA) that buys off politicians on behalf of firearm manufacturers to keep gun laws lax. Add to that volatile mix a president who continuously posts racist messages attacking non-white groups. Then finish off the (molotov) cocktail of hate with groups like Q-anon that propagate crazed conspiracy theories. End result: Mass shootings galore.

Here's a question for next year - what's going to happen when Trump starts polling badly in the presidential election? The man is powerfully motivated to win; not only would losing harm his gargantuan yet exquisitely fragile ego, he may also face indictment for obstruction of justice as soon as he is a regular citizen. He will undoubtedly cry "rigged" and appeal to his moronic base for action. If I was American I'd be looking to take an extended vacay out of country in the months leading up to the 2020 vote in November.

Trump is a regular citizen by law. Being the president doesn't change his status as a US citizen.

Our justice system has serious problems. Trump can be indicted on charges at any moment. The president is not above the law or shielded from the law. Bill Clinton was impeached by the House for lying under oath and obstruction of justice. Those charges sound very familiar. Trump can be charged and impeached for obstruction of justice. America's current justice system does not punish the wealthy in many cases.

Me and one of my uncles were talking about these tragedies last night. We need to do more than just pray. We need to make major changes to gun laws. There is no justifiable reason for guns such as AK-47-style assault rifle to be legal and sold in gun stores. These types of weapons should be prohibited. Our country needs common sense gun laws.

These types of shootings will continue until to proper action is taken.

Re-institutionalize the violently mentally ill and start licensing the purchase of semi-automatic rifles. Drug offenses should disqualify anyone from purchasing any gun what so ever. Neither side of this debate should be comfortable with the solutions to this issue.

The problem expands further than the mentally ill. There are horrible people in this country. Some of these shooters are not mentally ill. Some are racist such as Dylann Roof.

Semi-automatic rifles are a huge problem and should be illegal for civilians.

[Dazzle1]

Hope and prayers are given in this horrific aftermath of such violence but it's not enough. We need to move on to reasonable solutions, including expanding into mental health reasons behind these attacks.

Agreed and let find out the facts, before throwing out blame

[Bert]

Trump is a regular citizen by law. Being the president doesn't change his status as a US citizen.

Our justice system has serious problems. Trump can be indicted on charges at any moment. The president is not above the law or shielded from the law.

The Mueller Report outlines 10 instances of obstruction of justice and literally states that a sitting president cannot be indicted. So you are completely, you know, wrong.

[GeekyPornCritic]

Trump is a regular citizen by law. Being the president doesn't change his status as a US citizen.

Our justice system has serious problems. Trump can be indicted on charges at any moment. The president is not above the law or shielded from the law.

The Mueller Report outlines 10 instances of obstruction of justice and literally states that a sitting president cannot be indicted. So you are completely, you know, wrong.

You are very wrong in this case. The Muller Report does not define the law. Also, The Muller Report does not create laws. If a sitting president cannot be indicated, then you have thousands of problems. That would mean the president could steal, kill, rape, and commit other crimes without punishment as long as he is the sitting president.

Some legal experts argue the president is not immune to an indictment. Immunity would contradict the constitution and laws of no one is above the law.

[Bert]

"During his congressional testimony on Wednesday, former special counsel Robert Mueller noted that part of his decision to refrain from considering an indictment of President Donald Trump was attributed to a long-standing Justice Department policy: According to the agency’s Office of Legal Counsel, a sitting president cannot be charged with a federal crime.

“We, at the outset, determined that, when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a sitting president cannot be indicted,” he said.

The OLC policy itself is relatively straightforward: Most recently reevaluated in 2000, it argues that the executive branch would be incapacitated by a criminal prosecution:

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."

Quoted from a July 24th piece in Vox.

The source is unimportant because the facts are indisputable. According to the Justice Department a sitting president cannot be indicted. Trump knows this, and he knows that if he ceases to be president in January of 2021 he may very well be charged with obstruction of justice. Feel free to dispute these facts until you are blue in the face, but what is true does not change regardless of what you say.

[GeekyPornCritic]

"During his congressional testimony on Wednesday, former special counsel Robert Mueller noted that part of his decision to refrain from considering an indictment of President Donald Trump was attributed to a long-standing Justice Department policy: According to the agency’s Office of Legal Counsel, a sitting president cannot be charged with a federal crime.

“We, at the outset, determined that, when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a sitting president cannot be indicted,” he said.

The OLC policy itself is relatively straightforward: Most recently reevaluated in 2000, it argues that the executive branch would be incapacitated by a criminal prosecution:

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."

Quoted from a July 24th piece in Vox.

The source is unimportant because the facts are indisputable. According to the Justice Department a sitting president cannot be indicted. Trump knows this, and he knows that if he ceases to be president in January of 2021 he may very well be charged with obstruction of justice. Feel free to dispute these facts until you are blue in the face, but what is true does not change regardless of what you say.

Do you realize the Department of Justice's policy is not the law? It is not a fact that the president is immune to indictment. It is just a legal opinion. A legal opinion is not a fact. It is an opinion. Legal counsel can give all the advice in the world, but cannot graduate the advice is the correct method.

Not all legal experts agree with this opinion for many reasons as I started in a previous post. Trump can commit a mass shooting and avoid punishment for months or years. That's a violation of the constitution.

Only the Supreme Court can interpret the law as fact. This matter has not been settle by the Supreme Court.

[DrDominator9]

You're right in your facts, Bert, but I sure wish I knew why that memo is treated like the Holy Grail. I get the legal concept but there are certain crimes which you'd think would, excuse the pun, trump that policy of non-indictment. Murder comes to mind. Would the president have to be impeached and voted out of office before he could be tried for murder?

[Renegade]

You're right in your facts, Bert, but I sure wish I knew why that memo is treated like the Holy Grail. I get the legal concept but there are certain crimes which you'd think would, excuse the pun, trump that policy of non-indictment. Murder comes to mind. Would the president have to be impeached and voted out of office before he could be tried for murder?

Would this hypothetical murderous president be allowed to remain in office by Senators from his own party refusing to vote him guilty in an impeachment trial?

[theScribbler]

Do you realize the Department of Justice's policy is not the law?

May as well be, cause it's DOJ policy: that they can't indict sitting president.
BTW what is the law on this?! Right, there isn't one.

It is not a fact that the president is immune to impeachment.

Huh? No one said president is immune to or from impeachment. Oh look, it's in the Constitution that Legislature can impeach president.

It is just a legal opinion.

...that happens to be DOJ policy. How'd that happen? Oh right. The memo.

A legal opinion is not a fact. It is an opinion.

...that is DOJ policy and that's the fact. Unfortunate.

Legal counsel can give all the advice in the world, but cannot graduate the advice is the correct method.

And yet it's DOJ Policy anyway.

Not all legal experts agree with this opinion for many reasons as I started in a previous post.

Not all legal experts like jazz. Doesn't affect the policy.

Trump can commit a mass shooting and avoid punishment for months or years.

Highly doubtful. Even the current Senate would vote him out for this. And then he'd be indicted the same day he's booted out.

That's a violation of the constitution.

Yes, mass shooting is a criminal act. Indictable. And re: government officials: impeachable.

Only the Supreme Court can interpret the law as fact.

Weird statement of the day. The Supreme Court doesn't interpret the law as fact, they interpret the law. What it means if it isn't clear and needs...wait for it.....interpreting.

This matter has not been settle by the Supreme Court.

And if there's never a case about the issue, it won't be. So we're back to: it's DOJ policy. Ta dah!

[Dazzle1]

yes but let's be honest it's America so there will be 3 days of some people saying "it's the democrats" and some people saying "it's the republicans" (two parties that look identical to anyone outside th US) and then absolutely fuck all is going to get done and we'll have this same thread in a week when another shopping centre/kindergarden/hospital gets shot up by some terrorist loon

You are right, in my local paper which is the Boston Glob, there have been several editorials blaming Trump for the shootings and claim white supremaicsts are a national problem. We don't even know the OH shooter's motivation yet.

And this thread has diverted into another impeach Trump diatrabe.

[Bert]

Do you realize the Department of Justice's policy is not the law? It is not a fact that the president is immune to impeachment. It is just a legal opinion. A legal opinion is not a fact. It is an opinion. Legal counsel can give all the advice in the world, but cannot graduate the advice is the correct method.

It is clear from your post that you don't even understand the difference between being indicted and being impeached. Impeachment is a political act, not a legal one. As for your opinion of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Council memo, there are something like 800 former federal prosecutors who signed a public letter on the matter. Here's a quote from the letter:

"Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice."

So, on the one side, 800 lawyers who have worked as United States federal prosecutors - one the other side, GeekyPornCritic.

So yes, a sitting president is above the law. There is a political process to remove him from office - impeachment - after which he could be indicted, but he cannot be indicted while president. That is the present reality. You can protest all you like, but it won't change the facts.

This whole argument stems from one statement in my initial post - "he may also face indictment for obstruction of justice as soon as he is a regular citizen." That is what sent you off on this legalistic tantrum, and yet that statement is clearly true.

[GeekyPornCritic]

Huh? No one said president is immune to or from impeachment. Oh look, it's in the Constitution that Legislature can impeach president.

It is clear from your post that you don't even understand the difference between being indicted and being impeached.

I understand the difference of an indictment and impeachment. I typed the wrong word by mistake. Please forgive my typo. The language from the post was clearly referring to an indictment.

So, on the one side, 800 lawyers who have worked as United States federal prosecutors - one the other side, GeekyPornCritic.

So yes, a sitting president is above the law. There is a political process to remove him from office - impeachment - after which he could be indicted, but he cannot be indicted while president. That is the present reality. You can protest all you like, but it won't change the facts.

This whole argument stems from one statement in my initial post - "he may also face indictment for obstruction of justice as soon as he is a regular citizen." That is what sent you off on this legalistic tantrum, and yet that statement is clearly true.

Legal opinion is not a fact. The DOJ's policy is based on a legal opinion from a legal counsel. Legal counsel does not define and rule the law. You are ignoring these facts.

America has thousands of attorneys with different opinions on the law. You can 800 lawyers who would disagree with the 800 lawyers who have worked as federal prosecutors. The document that they signed is not the law. It has no legal standing in court. It is their excuse for not attempting to indict any president.

So, no a sitting president is not above the law. the DOJ has no intend on attempting to do their job in any case against any president.

Not all legal experts like jazz. Doesn't affect the policy.

Wow! That's one of the most illogical statements in this discussion.

Weird statement of the day. The Supreme Court doesn't interpret the law as fact, they interpret the law. What it means if it isn't clear and needs...wait for it.....interpreting.

Weird quote of the day. You just repeated what I said. Are you okay?

And if there's never a case about the issue, it won't be. So we're back to: it's DOJ policy. Ta dah!

I advise you to actually research this topic. How do you know the future? What if a future president rapes and murders a staff member? Surely something must be done to indict him or her.

Anyone can file a case to the Supreme Court, and it is up to the judges to hear the case.

[Imagineer]

Solving the mental healthcare problem means solving the basic healthcare problem.
"Common-sense gun laws" is easy to say but hard to nail down when most people focus on quick fixes designed to take away certain types of guns from everyone, or take away all guns from certain types of people -- "certain types" is not easy to come by.
Instead, put pressure on fixing the foundation which is deliberately broken -- let the CDC compile statistics and do research, build an effective registration system, and establish standards for responsible gun ownership and penalties for failing to meet them.

[Damselbinder]

My solution is this. The Second Amendment says you can bear arms. So that's that, you can bear arms. But I say that doesn't cover weapons invented after the amendment's ratification in 1791. So own all the muskets and flintlock rifles you want.

[Bert]

In case anyone is wondering, I kept this argument going as long as I did to make the point that GeekyPornCritic is immune to reason and just likes arguing for the sake of it. In other words, a troll. I took a bit of heat for pointing this out in a different thread last week, but here we are again. I won't be responding to him further here, despite the inevitable "I am entitled to my opinion..." reply. As for the mass shootings and the government's helplessness in addressing them, sadly it's become as American as baseball and apple pie.

[DrDominator9]

Thanks for all the feedback and to the sympathy expressed. It's truly a hard topic to discuss without getting into the right and wrong of things as they stand in this country. Let's work hard for change wherever and whenever we can and give love and sympathy to those who continue to be struck down by madmen in our midst.

I'm locking this thread now.