User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 8:50:12 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Question, when being put on this "list" do you get a trial? I mean is there any due process to this removal of constitutional rights? Nope, and no procedure to get off the list once you are on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 9:01:48 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I personally believe that felons SHOULD be able to. Once they serve their debt to society, ALL rights should be restored. If they cannot be trusted to purchase an item, then they cannot be trusted to be out of prison in the first place. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, felons and non citizens should not be able to. I personally believe that felons SHOULD be able to. Once they serve their debt to society, ALL rights should be restored. If they cannot be trusted to purchase an item, then they cannot be trusted to be out of prison in the first place. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 9:05:41 AM EDT
[#3]
American citizens are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Immigrants, I don't care if there not a citizen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 9:12:30 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No denial of rights without due process. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 9:17:34 AM EDT
[#5]
if someone is suspected of terrorism arrest them and put them before a jury. I'm pretty sure it s not going to work out well for them if there is any evidence at all.
Of course I don't want terrorists to have guns but the only way to allegedly accomplish it would be universal background checks and universal registration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 9:20:34 AM EDT
[#6]
If they are suspected of terrorism they should have their day in court and be proven to be a terrorist or not. Then go from there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 9:21:31 AM EDT
[#7]
First off the question is worded like some leftist slanted media poll designed to get a particular response.
It's not a "terrorist watch list" it's the "no fly list" they are talking about. The two terms evoke different levels of emotional response in the under-informed masses. So we aren't even talking about suspected terrorists at all. Weather or not someone should be "allowed" by the government is also framing the question incorrectly. Should they be prohibited is the better way to put it. Laws aren't written to allow us to do things, they prohibit you from doing certain things. By saying allow makes it seem like you are telling them "go ahead, it's ok". The correct question would be: "Should the Government prohibit people on the no fly list from purchasing or possessing firearms?" I added possessing too, because if you are prohibited from purchasing then you are prohibited from possessing them too. This means if you already have them, they will be coming to take them away. Now the idea that the government should be able to deny anyone a fundamental individual right by the mere fact that their name (or similar derivation of it in the case of Ted Kennedy) appears on a secret list that nobody can tell you how someone gets placed on it, who is actually on it, and no process to get your name off of it, should be completely abhorrent to any freedom loving person with more that two functioning brain cells to rub together. Of course they word the question in the media though like the OP to play on emotions and mislead the idiots out there to get their desired goal. And they will paint the NRA as supporting the arming of terrorists when they oppose this. It's how the left always frames the debate. Saddly all too many her are dumb enough to fall for it. 
Freedom will die at the sound of thunderous applause. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 9:21:46 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: +1 I think the government can put certain restrictions on gun purchases, as long as it's done through the formal channels of Congress and aren't out-right bans. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: While the 2nd is not absolute, prohibition based on a secret watch list constitutes a gross violation of due process. +1 I think the government can put certain restrictions on gun purchases, as long as it's done through the formal channels of Congress and aren't out-right bans. The federal government has ZERO constitutional authority to regulate firearms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 9:30:31 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
if someone is suspected of terrorism arrest them and put them before a jury. I'm pretty sure it s not going to work out well for them if there is any evidence at all. Of course I don't want terrorists to have guns but the only way to allegedly accomplish it would be universal background checks and universal registration. I can't even figure how UBC and UR would stop the terrorists in San Bernadino. Unless they had already arrested the two for say bomb making, going to terrorist websites (currently not illegal) It is a wonder NObama has not put everyone here on some terrorist list just for being on this site, being NRA members, owning guns or being Republicans. (Hitlery let the cat out of the bag on the last one) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 10:53:19 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't even figure how UBC and UR would stop the terrorists in San Bernadino. Unless they had already arrested the two for say bomb making, going to terrorist websites (currently not illegal) It is a wonder NObama has not put everyone here on some terrorist list just for being on this site, being NRA members, owning guns or being Republicans. (Hitlery let the cat out of the bag on the last one) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
if someone is suspected of terrorism arrest them and put them before a jury. I'm pretty sure it s not going to work out well for them if there is any evidence at all. Of course I don't want terrorists to have guns but the only way to allegedly accomplish it would be universal background checks and universal registration. I can't even figure how UBC and UR would stop the terrorists in San Bernadino. Unless they had already arrested the two for say bomb making, going to terrorist websites (currently not illegal) It is a wonder NObama has not put everyone here on some terrorist list just for being on this site, being NRA members, owning guns or being Republicans. (Hitlery let the cat out of the bag on the last one) Plus now it sounds like at least some of the guns were straw purchases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 1:18:04 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Question, when being put on this "list" do you get a trial? I mean is there any due process to this removal of constitutional rights? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Question, when being put on this "list" do you get a trial? I mean is there any due process to this removal of constitutional rights? You get something like a trial. You ask why/to be removed. A judge listens to what you have to say. FBI says they cannot say why you're on the list because "national security"/"state secrets". And the judge either says that's not good enough or tells you to bend over and just take it. The current proposal (scroll down to or search for SA 2910) was sponsored by Diane Feinstein, who actually does have a history of being a National Security hawk but of course has a history of hating YOUR guns while she carries. ``If the person is subject to a
disability under section 922(g)(10) of this title, any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security. In responding to the petition, the United States may submit, and the court may rely upon, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.''. The bill really makes no damn sense at all. It actually requires the AG to notify the person, also known as tipping the terrorist off, before they can be denied a firearm purchase. Then you'd have a max of 60 days to petition a court to reverse the determination. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 1:19:08 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First off the question is worded like some leftist slanted media poll designed to get a particular response. It's not a "terrorist watch list" it's the "no fly list" they are talking about. The two terms evoke different levels of emotional response in the under-informed masses. So we aren't even talking about suspected terrorists at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
First off the question is worded like some leftist slanted media poll designed to get a particular response. It's not a "terrorist watch list" it's the "no fly list" they are talking about. The two terms evoke different levels of emotional response in the under-informed masses. So we aren't even talking about suspected terrorists at all. Incorrect. While O has been saying it's the "no fly list" (which people see as scarier), the actual scope of the legislation proposed is anyone the AG thinks should be blocked from buying a gun. You know, under "reasonable" and "appropriate" conditions. The "no fly" list is a subset of the larger Known and Suspected Terrorists database. (1) by inserting after section 922 the following: ``Sec. 922A. Attorney General's discretion to deny transfer of a firearm ``The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm under section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) of this title if the Attorney General-- ``(1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism; and ``(2) has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism. But know what else her bill would do? Allow the government to revoke existing FFLs for being or employing anyone with "ties" to terrorists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 1:23:35 PM EDT
[#13]
Everybody that voted no is going on my fucking ignore list.
you people are willing to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights without due process of law based on some arbitrary list. There should not even be a no-fly list of American citizens. you disgust me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 1:24:13 PM EDT
[#14]
This poll should be unanimous since everyone on this site a suspected right wing terrorist.
In all seriousness, since there is no due process associated with putting someone on it, no rights should be infringed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 1:28:15 PM EDT
[#15]
Suspected is not the same as guilty. ANYONE could be suspected and that is the problem.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 1:28:55 PM EDT
[#16]
Seriously?! This many in a gun forum are voting 'no'?!
We are doomed as a nation... If you are a terrorist, you should be arrested. If you are a suspected terrorist, you should get your day in court, and either rot in jail for the rest of your life or be free to live with the rights of a US citizen, depending on what that pesky jury of your peers votes on. Whatever happened to my Nation....
Edit: To those voting 'no': Should they be prevented from speaking/authoring any rhetoric deemed dangerous? Should they be prevented from practicing their religion of choice? Should police be able to search their person or home without a warrant? WTF?! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 1:38:39 PM EDT
[#17]
If a person is on the No Fly List or some terrorist watch list, and it is enough of a concern to deny them a Constitutional right, why not just remove them from the country instead?
But no, liberals want to go after all of us, remove our ability to defend ourselves and fail to protect us by keeping the 'dangerous' people living in our communities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 4:32:49 PM EDT
[#18]
What is the process for adding people to it? Do they get due process? I don't want terrorists getting guns, but I'm pretty skeptical that the government won't go adding people they dislike all willy nilly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 5:14:53 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is the process for adding people to it? Do they get due process? I don't want terrorists getting guns, but I'm pretty skeptical that the government won't go adding people they dislike all willy nilly. They're going to get guns anyways... laws are irrelevant to what evil men do. Take responsibility for your own protection. You know terrorists are out there with guns, bombs, knives, etc... arm yourself. Stay out of the way of everyone else arming themselves. I don't support forcing you to check with me (no matter what 'list' is checked) before you buy a gun, and I expect the same in return when I buy a gun. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2015 9:47:09 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope, and no procedure to get off the list once you are on it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Question, when being put on this "list" do you get a trial? I mean is there any due process to this removal of constitutional rights? Nope, and no procedure to get off the list once you are on it. Then my answer to the OP is yes, they should be allowed to own guns. According to Hillary, we are all terrorists here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 1:45:02 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is the process for adding people to it? Do they get due process? I don't want terrorists getting guns, but I'm pretty skeptical that the government won't go adding people they dislike all willy nilly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is the process for adding people to it? Do they get due process? I don't want terrorists getting guns, but I'm pretty skeptical that the government won't go adding people they dislike all willy nilly. (1) by inserting after section 922 the following: ``Sec. 922A. Attorney General's discretion to deny transfer of a firearm ``The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm under section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) of this title if the Attorney General-- ``(1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism; and ``(2) has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism. The current Attorney General just this weekend was threatening to arrest people for anything they said that would hurt muslims' feelings. Does that help? The only other requirement would be NOTIFYING the suspected terrorist that they are going to be denied their next firearm purchase because the government thinks they're a terrorist. They literally want to tell terrorists "You better act fast, because we've got our eye on you. Wake up, Mr. Sleeper." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 1:52:00 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No deprivation of civil rights without due process. Some arbitrarily constructed watchlist could hardly be construed as due process |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 1:54:07 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, if only for the fact that placement on the list is arbitrary, and non-appealable.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 1:55:49 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Incorrect. While O has been saying it's the "no fly list" (which people see as scarier), the actual scope of the legislation proposed is anyone the AG thinks should be blocked from buying a gun. You know, under "reasonable" and "appropriate" conditions. The "no fly" list is a subset of the larger Known and Suspected Terrorists database. But know what else her bill would do? Allow the government to revoke existing FFLs for being or employing anyone with "ties" to terrorists. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
First off the question is worded like some leftist slanted media poll designed to get a particular response. It's not a "terrorist watch list" it's the "no fly list" they are talking about. The two terms evoke different levels of emotional response in the under-informed masses. So we aren't even talking about suspected terrorists at all. Incorrect. While O has been saying it's the "no fly list" (which people see as scarier), the actual scope of the legislation proposed is anyone the AG thinks should be blocked from buying a gun. You know, under "reasonable" and "appropriate" conditions. The "no fly" list is a subset of the larger Known and Suspected Terrorists database. (1) by inserting after section 922 the following: ``Sec. 922A. Attorney General's discretion to deny transfer of a firearm ``The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm under section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) of this title if the Attorney General-- ``(1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism; and ``(2) has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism. But know what else her bill would do? Allow the government to revoke existing FFLs for being or employing anyone with "ties" to terrorists. You, with the ammo fort and the pmags! And you with all those stripped lowers! And all you three-gun motherfuckers... 40.5% of respondents don't know what they're agreeing to. Kinda like making a deal with the Devil. Nobody is clever enough to win that game. I'm a little embarrassed to see that it has to be explained. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 1:58:27 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: According to the liberal’s military, veterans, and NRA members are terrorist so I’m going to go with no. Correct. So how does a person qualify as a potential domestic terrorist? Based on the training every Federal police officer and many state and local police officer in America has attended, here are characteristics that qualify you to be suspected of being a terrorist. I have seen this list in official training documents from the U.S. Army, FBI, and DHS:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 2:03:04 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, if only for the fact that placement on the list is arbitrary, and non-appealable. This right here. Due Process turns out to be pretty f*cking important. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 2:09:56 AM EDT
[#27]
Were the San Bernardino terrorists even on the list?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 2:18:13 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Were the San Bernardino terrorists even on the list? No they were not, they both flew into the country last year. But don't let the facts destroy a good bait and switch gun grabbing argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 2:19:58 AM EDT
[#29]
I may get a good flaming for this but here goes:
I think that any American citizen who wants a gun, even a felon, ought to be able to get one. Felons pay their debt to society and if the prison and justice system feel they are ready to be released then they should get back ALL of their freedoms. Now, I'm not saying that a pedophile should live next to an elementary school or a certifiable nut should buy a glock ... I'm saying that people who have gone to prison and done their time should be given their freedom back all the way. Unless you're a USA citizen ... fuck off. You don't buy a gun in America unless you're American. And anyone can be added to that list. My wife, because of being born Irish and having a weird name, caught shit all the time while flying and would miss flights left and right due to red tape. She flies a lot due to her job and it was a nightmare. It took us YEARS to rectify it so she could fly without the hassle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 2:26:41 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It always amazes me how many people on AR15.COM either don't understand what the Constitution actually says, or simply don't give a shit.  The American Right loves to come up with this kind of BS to "fight dem turrurists". But then acts shocked when someone like BHO gets elected and uses it against them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 8:59:38 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everybody that voted no is going on my fucking ignore list. you people are willing to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights without due process of law based on some arbitrary list. There should not even be a no-fly list of American citizens. you disgust me. I wish there was a way to see who voted what. I really hope the "nos" are trolling, if not, everyone who wants to own a firearm is fucked. If literally 40% of non-DU plants voted this way in the face of the discussion here, the numbers (in the wild) of the uninformed masses will be staggering. Too many people are ok with stuff that their politicians sell that seems to make sense, on face value. Critical Thinking is becoming an obsolete skillset. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 9:02:10 PM EDT
[#32]
US Citizens - yes, becaues there are lots of people on the list by mistake and the fed gov will abuse it.
Non US citizens - no |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 9:02:51 PM EDT
[#33]
40% of ARF would trade the 2ndA for security. WOW
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 9:03:48 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is the process for adding people to it? Do they get due process? I don't want terrorists getting guns, but I'm pretty skeptical that the government won't go adding people they dislike all willy nilly. If anyone actually thinks a law will prevent a criminal from performing a criminal act, they haven't been paying attention. Not a single "mass shooter" has been "on the list", and even if they had been, it wouldn't have stopped them from getting what they needed, somehow. How logical, intelligent people buy this "if only there had been ANOTHER law" crap is beyond my understanding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 9:13:32 PM EDT
[#35]
Problem is, it does not take dual process to be put on the no-fly list, and the no-fly list is choke full of error.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 9:17:20 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While the 2nd is not absolute, prohibition based on a secret watch list constitutes a gross violation of due process. Correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 9:19:36 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they think they are terrorists, why the fuck are they in this country? Some no doubt are citizens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 9:21:55 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If anyone actually thinks a law will prevent a criminal from performing a criminal act, they haven't been paying attention. Not a single "mass shooter" has been "on the list", and even if they had been, it wouldn't have stopped them from getting what they needed, somehow. How logical, intelligent people buy this "if only there had been ANOTHER law" crap is beyond my understanding. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What is the process for adding people to it? Do they get due process? I don't want terrorists getting guns, but I'm pretty skeptical that the government won't go adding people they dislike all willy nilly. If anyone actually thinks a law will prevent a criminal from performing a criminal act, they haven't been paying attention. Not a single "mass shooter" has been "on the list", and even if they had been, it wouldn't have stopped them from getting what they needed, somehow. How logical, intelligent people buy this "if only there had been ANOTHER law" crap is beyond my understanding. Not to mention that EVERY single person that EVER did ANYTHING to get on the list, or any list, wasn't on the list before. There is literally no way to prevent 'first-time offenders' and EVERYONE was a non-offender prior to being a 'first-time offender'. If people are on the list, but they haven't done anything, then one should be outraged at the government for oppressing it's people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2015 2:37:36 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wish there was a way to see who voted what. I really hope the "nos" are trolling, if not, everyone who wants to own a firearm is fucked. If literally 40% of non-DU plants voted this way in the face of the discussion here, the numbers (in the wild) of the uninformed masses will be staggering. Too many people are ok with stuff that their politicians sell that seems to make sense, on face value. Critical Thinking is becoming an obsolete skillset. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Everybody that voted no is going on my fucking ignore list. you people are willing to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights without due process of law based on some arbitrary list. There should not even be a no-fly list of American citizens. you disgust me. I wish there was a way to see who voted what. I really hope the "nos" are trolling, if not, everyone who wants to own a firearm is fucked. If literally 40% of non-DU plants voted this way in the face of the discussion here, the numbers (in the wild) of the uninformed masses will be staggering. Too many people are ok with stuff that their politicians sell that seems to make sense, on face value. Critical Thinking is becoming an obsolete skillset. Nah. The polls are too consistent. 40% of arfcom is progressive to the core. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2015 2:43:52 AM EDT
[#40]
No, the "no fly list" should not result in not being able to buy a gun. While at first glance it might sound like a good idea to those that aren't too informed I have issues with the list being used to further take away rights, and the no fly list in general too
What crime have they actually been convicted of? (probably none) If you discover you're on it is there a way to be removed? How to people get added? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2015 3:33:37 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. What's to stop them from putting everyone who subscribes to Soldier Of Fortune or Guns and Ammo or ARFCOM on the terror watch list? And you'll never get off the list. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yes, if only for the fact that placement on the list is arbitrary, and non-appealable. This. What's to stop them from putting everyone who subscribes to Soldier Of Fortune or Guns and Ammo or ARFCOM on the terror watch list? And you'll never get off the list. If they are suspects, then figure it out, and deal with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2015 1:44:44 PM EDT
[#42]
40% of this poll's participants have less sack than the LA Times Editorial Board. If you aren't shamed by that, you should be.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2015 1:57:06 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
40% of this poll's participants have less sack than the LA Times Editorial Board. If you aren't shamed by that, you should be. Even better, that author admits he doesn't believe the 2nd amendment means what it says. He readily admits he thinks the Supreme Court was wrong in Heller. And he still thinks you can't bar "suspected terrorists" from exercising 2nd amendment rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2015 2:11:54 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, the "no fly list" should not result in not being able to buy a gun. While at first glance it might sound like a good idea to those that aren't too informed I have issues with the list being used to further take away rights, and the no fly list in general too What crime have they actually been convicted of? (probably none) If you discover you're on it is there a way to be removed? How to people get added? Many, many people in this country never get beyond "first glance". 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2015 3:07:16 PM EDT
[#45]
Whats the process for being added to it? I don't want people who are credible threats to be able to buy guns, but I don't trust the .gov not to abuse it and not just put people they don't like on it. How long until they decide conservative gun owners are all domestic terrorists? No thanks
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2015 3:11:07 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whats the process for being added to it? I don't want people who are credible threats to be able to buy guns, but I don't trust the .gov not to abuse it and not just put people they don't like on it. How long until they decide conservative gun owners are all domestic terrorists? No thanks So you support an expanded FFL system, expanded NICS, and even further... universal background checks? Or do you just support the current FFL system? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2015 3:14:26 PM EDT
[#47]
No due process, no removal of rights.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2015 4:33:22 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even better, that author admits he doesn't believe the 2nd amendment means what it says. He readily admits he thinks the Supreme Court was wrong in Heller. And he still thinks you can't bar "suspected terrorists" from exercising 2nd amendment rights. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
40% of this poll's participants have less sack than the LA Times Editorial Board. If you aren't shamed by that, you should be. Even better, that author admits he doesn't believe the 2nd amendment means what it says. He readily admits he thinks the Supreme Court was wrong in Heller. And he still thinks you can't bar "suspected terrorists" from exercising 2nd amendment rights. Even Slate thinks this is a bad idea... And in other news - the ACLU, who has for five years argued that just the existence of a no-fly list by itself was unconstitutional. declined to take a position on denying gun sales to people on the no-fly list. I'll let you assess the ACLU's commitment to civil liberties on your own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2015 7:49:03 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everybody that voted no is going on my fucking ignore list. you people are willing to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights without due process of law based on some arbitrary list. There should not even be a no-fly list of American citizens. you disgust me. This. I was just getting ready to post this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2015 10:37:00 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No denial of rights without due process. No further explanation or reason is necessary. Denial of rights require due process. As Trey Gowdy asked, are we suspending other rights for folks on this list. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
