>Cornyn amendment was supported by the NRA
>said to defend due process
>allowed judicial hearing with no Trial by Jury, thus breaching due process
Explain this bullshit, /k/fags
The NRA does not fight for your rights, they fight for corporations. Also, they lobby for the second amendment, not the fifth or fourteenth.
>>30356595
Then why fight the Feinstein bill? It's accomplishes the same thing and breaches due process too.
>>30356563
It was due process by comparison to no due process, not due process in reality.
I've seen it compared to the FISA courts, which were also blatantly not due process.
>>30356628
>It was due process by comparison to no due process, not due process in reality.
u wot m8
>>30356628
>it only kinda breaches our rights
>>30356595
I always thought Big brother had a moustache.
>>30356672
I mean, that's the explanation. Not that I agree with it, but that's what happened.
>>30356563
Baldwin v. New York, OP.
>>30356681
Youre thinking Stalin
>>30357296
in the novel he is described to look like stalin, and a moustache is mentioned
>due process
>not complaining about Trial by Jury missing which breaches the 6th amendment
due proc·ess
noun
noun: due process; noun: due process of law
fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.
I don't see "jury trial" there
>>30357619
This. Due process only means a fairness, which in our judicial system can mean any number of things, not always a jury trial. It can mean a grand jury, or trial by judge, or panel of judges, or a declaratory judgement, or even arbitration. Basically all due process means is you can't be yoked up and indefinitely detained without some other process than an accusation.
>>30357619
S I X T H
A M E N D M E N T
>>30356563
HEARING. You know everyone has the right at a hearing to refuse and require a continuance through a civil court, right? Judicial hearings happen all the time, prior to this amendment when it comes to individual rights. At any point, even after a hearing is adjourned and a verdict given on whatever the issue, you can refute it in a court of law.
Please tell me you are aware of this. Otherwise I would point you out the fucking door. You stupid armchair lawyers knew that, right? You know it acts as a mediator and not a trial, right? One is different than the other.
>the Republicans come up with a bill that unconstitutionally restricts gun rights
>the Democrats vote against it, not because they don't want to unconstitutionally restrict gun rights, but because they don't want to give bipartisan cover that would make it look like the Republicans are actually "doing something"
I'm never going to worry about a gun control bill again.
I just realized that Democrats want to actually ban guns about as much as Republicans want to actually ban abortion or gay marriage. It's just something they're going to use to jerk off their retard base for the next 40 years and never actually make a move on.
>>30358410
Feinstein is a genuine gun grabber. Remove her from DC and the rest will follow.
>>30358410
They wouldn't pass something bipartisan but that doesn't mean that if they have the votes they won't go through with universal background checks or an AWB. Yeah, they're pandering, but people get pissed post-shooting and there might be enough willpower if the stars align. They're not going to pass up an opportunity for an AWB if they can get the votes.
