- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
DOJ overrules FBI on gun sales debate, says no-fly list can be used for ban - Washington Times[FONT="]Attorney General Loretta Lynch overruled FBI Director James B. Comey on Thursday, saying the Obama administration does support a ban on firearms sales to those on terrorist watch lists.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Mr. Comey last year had told Congress that the ban could end up alerting suspected terrorists that they are being investigated, and that could “blow” the cases his agents are trying to build.[/FONT]
[FONT="]But his superiors at the Justice Department rejected that, issuing a statement Thursday saying they want to see Congress approve the “no-fly, no-buy” plan Democrats are pursuing.[/FONT]
So much for the 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.
Who needs Civil Rights???
We are working our way toward an actual civil war, if this insanity doesn't stop soon.
DOJ overrules FBI on gun sales debate, says no-fly list can be used for ban - Washington Times
Department of Injustice demands right to take away citizens Constitutional Rights without a trial or due process.
Good job Obama voters, oh and good job GOP and DNC voters, both your candidates support this insanity.
That sounds like a good start.
As for letting them know they're on the list, if they try to fly somewhere, they'll find out. You're just on a list. It doesn't mean you're necessarily being investigated at that time. Besides, they know they're being watched.
So much for the 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.
Who needs Civil Rights???
We are working our way toward an actual civil war, if this insanity doesn't stop soon.
So what other rights do you want to suspect based on this list?
how about, if you're on the list you can be executed without trial and no appeals allowed until you're off the list?
Silly.
Obama's DOJ Gestapo.
DOJ overrules FBI on gun sales debate, says no-fly list can be used for ban - Washington Times
Department of Injustice demands right to take away citizens Constitutional Rights without a trial or due process.
Good job Obama voters, oh and good job GOP and DNC voters, both your candidates support this insanity.
So much for the 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.
Who needs Civil Rights???
We are working our way toward an actual civil war, if this insanity doesn't stop soon.
Straight up tyranny. We knew Obama would go nuts at some point.
If Trump wins, Obama is going to declare martial law.
Q: What will a civil war do? A. It will be used as a reason to declare martial law! Yes, our Constitution will be used against us, for "the common good of all." When did America become a 3rd world country with a dictator? The only good thing is that every Dem anti-gun nut will suffer too. The rest of us will use slingshots when hunting animals for food.
So what other rights do you want to suspect based on this list?
how about, if you're on the list you can be executed without trial and no appeals allowed until you're off the list?
The insanity is to let a possible terrorist suspect legally buy an AR-15. Others' right to live trumps a possible terrorist's right to buy a new gun. They have guns already, you know. Most of them also know they're being watched. Just knowing that they might not be able to buy an assault weapon might stop the attempt. It's worth trying, in order to have an extra level of safety.
So what other rights do you want to suspect based on this list?
how about, if you're on the list you can be executed without trial and no appeals allowed until you're off the list?
No it's not. each of these rights are co-equals. therefore it is logical to say, if you support suspending the second amendment based on being placed in this list, to be consistent you must either a)acknowledge you do not support the second amendment as a right, in which case you are wrong. or you must support eliminate the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments based upon the terror watchlist.
"No trial" doesn't result in another person dying. Neither does having no appeals.
A possible terrorist buying weapons might result in one or more innocent people dying. It's a common sense thing to do.
Rifles are not weapons of mass destruction under any legal framework currently existingAssault weapons need to be banned, of course. That will also help. It's insane to sell WMDs to the public at large.
no it does not, what you call "assault weapons" are the least likely firearms to be used in crime and are broadly legal in the western world.That puts the public in extreme jeopardy.
emotional non-sequiturAssault weapons are made to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time,
the police and public are not outgunned becuase they may possess the same level of weaponryand it out-guns the public's protection: law enforcement and individual citizens' ordinary guns.
AR-15s are ordinary rifles and the most popular rifle in America.Shouldn't sell AR-15s to the public any more than we should sell them bombs.
Stopping the sale of guns to those on FBI Terrorist Watch Lists... is bad?
There was this incident in Florida last week at a night club that you might want to read up on...
This is the epitome of Slippery Slope...
the NRA has said they will agree to a version of this law if the system is reformed to where you know you're on the list and there's a fair mechanism for challenging it.
If I'm walking down an icy road and the ice is clearly visible, I'm not going to say "you know I shouldn't exercise any caution because this is a fallacy" it's a fallacy on the whiteboard in logic class, in real life this is how things work.
DOJ overrules FBI on gun sales debate, says no-fly list can be used for ban - Washington Times
Department of Injustice demands right to take away citizens Constitutional Rights without a trial or due process.
Good job Obama voters, oh and good job GOP and DNC voters, both your candidates support this insanity.
Stopping the sale of guns to those on FBI Terrorist Watch Lists... is bad?
There was this incident in Florida last week at a night club that you might want to read up on...
Possible terrorist suspect, you mean like Ted Kennedy?The insanity is to let a possible terrorist suspect legally buy an AR-15. Others' right to live trumps a possible terrorist's right to buy a new gun. They have guns already, you know. Most of them also know they're being watched. Just knowing that they might not be able to buy an assault weapon might stop the attempt. It's worth trying, in order to have an extra level of safety.
Fine, then require the government to establish "Probable Cause" (as required by the 4th Amendment) before they gather any evidence but only while done under the limitations of a Search Warrant issued by a Competent Court (as protected by the 4th Amendment), then before any rights can be, violated, limited, or revoked by the government (including those of the 2nd Amendment), require the government to inform the accused of what the charges are that are being brought by the government and what evidence they are based upon (as required by the 6th Amendment), then allow the accused to retain legal council (as required by the 6th Amendment), and allow the accused to call witnesses to testify as to their innocence (as required by the 6th Amendment) then, and only then, must the government present their case before a Grand Jury (as required by the 5th Amendment) to seek an Indictment (as required by the 5th Amendment) to ensure that the accused is provided Due Process of Law (as required by both the 5th and 14th Amendments) just as any other person being accused of a crime by the government would be afforded Equal Protection Under the Law (as required and protected by the 14th Amendment).The insanity is to let a possible terrorist suspect legally buy an AR-15.
What happened to The Presumption of Innocence (Innocent Until Proven Guilty) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States]? Should we just allow some government employee in some office somewhere to decide who is allowed their rights as protected by the US Constitution, and who is not? If a "potential terrorist" as you called them, is not allowed to buy a firearm, then should they also be allowed to vote? The Orlando terrorist was a US Citizen, with the right to vote in all US elections. Should he had been stripped of that right as well as his right to keep and bear arms?Others' right to live trumps a possible terrorist's right to buy a new gun.
If that's true (although it's a huge leap in assumptions by you) then what you propose wouldn't work anyway - because "they already have guns" as you say.They have guns already, you know.
Really? Senator Edward Kennedy knew he was being watched before he showed up at Reagan National Airport and found out he was on the "No-Fly List?"Most of them also know they're being watched.
Stop the attempt with a semi-automatic rifle? Maybe, but you said they already had guns. What it won't do, is stop a bomb with C4, or Liquefied Oxygen from the welding store and basic Sugar, or Ammonium Nitrate [fertilizer] mixed with Fuel Oil, (ANFO), or any number of other items that can be bought at Walmart that can kill just as many (if not more) than were killed in Orlando by a rifle.Just knowing that they might not be able to buy an assault weapon might stop the attempt.
Really? Then how about let's also try restricting people on the list from being able to attend their Mosque, or Church, or to speak out, or to write their beliefs on an internet forum like this one since that's partly how radicalization occurs? It would be very simple... while we're removing rights, we can just add the 1st Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech and the Right to the Free Exercise of Religion. Isn't it worth it? In order to have an extra level of safety?It's worth trying, in order to have an extra level of safety.
The insanity is to let a possible terrorist suspect legally buy an AR-15. Others' right to live trumps a possible terrorist's right to buy a new gun. They have guns already, you know. Most of them also know they're being watched. Just knowing that they might not be able to buy an assault weapon might stop the attempt. It's worth trying, in order to have an extra level of safety.
Amazing. And yup, both that snake Hillary Clinton and that bag of wind Donald Trump support this. Whichever one of those simpletons gets elected he or she will shred the Constitution. Sad.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?