DOJ overrules FBI on gun sales debate, says no-fly list can be used for ban [W65]

[JackA]

LOL, you would have a better chance beating LeBron James one on one in basketball than "helping" me on this subject. The 2nd Amendment is not unlimited due to state action. It is only improperly limited at a federal level by a dishonest precedent created by FDR. why do you gun haters always try to read the second amendment's restriction on government as narrowly as possible and try to expand the dicta in heller as massively as possible?

Your high opinion of your opinion would come off better if you could tell the difference between a holding and dicta. Here is part two of the holding in Heller:

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

 

[TurtleDude]

Your high opinion of your opinion would come off better if you could tell the difference between a holding and dicta. Here is part two of the holding in Heller:

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

what limitation on the natural right of free citizens to be armed was upheld in Heller. and Guess what-I find Scalia's comments on that to be the sort of dishonest faint hearted originalism that I have always had no use for

since you want to play constitutional lawyer with me-tell me why "commerce among the states" is the basis for those limitations which all seem to be state powers other than felons being disarmed.

no one with a functioning brain can call semi auto rifles uncommon or unusually dangerous

 

[RabidAlpaca]

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.

LOL. Republicans sole goal in life for the past 14 years has been taking rights away from "suspected terrorists" without trial or evidence, but refusing to sell them guns is too far? Let me guess, your a Gitmo supporter, right?

 

[Renae]

LOL. Republicans sole goal in life for the past 14 years has been taking rights away from "suspected terrorists" without trial or evidence, but refusing to sell them guns is too far? Let me guess, your a Gitmo supporter, right?

Let me guess, you're an unserious debater less interested in facts than you are in scoring pointless "oh you're a hypocrite" burns. Even when you're so far off reality that your burn falls flat.

Let's address Gitmo. Gitmo is for Terrorist, caught on the field of battle. These aren't as a rule, American Citizens, they are enemy combatants. Enemies that are not abiding, I might add, by the standard rules of war.

The No FLy list you can be added onto without even knowing, you don't even have to have committed a crime. Just met some unknown in it's entirety, criteria. This "No Fly, No Guns" would rob an American Citizen of thier right to own a gun, without proper due process.

If you wish to continue being smacked around on this matter, please, post some more pointlessly easy absurdities for me to slap around. I don't mind, light work can be relaxing from time to time.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Let me guess, you're an unserious debater less interested in facts than you are in scoring pointless "oh you're a hypocrite" burns. Even when you're so far off reality that your burn falls flat.

Let's address Gitmo. Gitmo is for Terrorist, caught on the field of battle. These aren't as a rule, American Citizens, they are enemy combatants. Enemies that are not abiding, I might add, by the standard rules of war.

The No FLy list you can be added onto without even knowing, you don't even have to have committed a crime. Just met some unknown in it's entirety, criteria. This "No Fly, No Guns" would rob an American Citizen of thier right to own a gun, without proper due process.

If you wish to continue being smacked around on this matter, please, post some more pointlessly easy absurdities for me to slap around. I don't mind, light work can be relaxing from time to time.

That's incorrect. The inmates in gitmo were SUSPECTED of terrorism, largely NOT on the field of battle but rather in countries we're not even at war with, they get held a decade without trial or evidence, and 95% have been released without any charge of any kind. So it's completely ok to lock people in cages (without due process), but simply blocking a suspected terrorist from buying a gun suddenly becomes 1984 level tyranny.

What's the point in a terrorist watch list if we don't do anything to stop them from committing violent acts against our people? I just think it's hilarious the right is suddenly pretending to care about rights or due process for people arbitrarily labeled as terrorists.

 

[Kal'Stang]

"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.

Assault weapons need to be banned, of course. That will also help. It's insane to sell WMDs to the public at large. That puts the public in extreme jeopardy. Assault weapons are made to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time, and it out-guns the public's protection: law enforcement and individual citizens' ordinary guns. Shouldn't sell AR-15s to the public any more than we should sell them bombs.

And being mistakenly put on that list could also cost lives. Who's life is more important? The woman being stalked by a serial rapist....or the one that has a less than 1% chance of being in the middle of a terrorist shoot out? How do YOU choose who's life is more important?

 

[Kal'Stang]

That's incorrect. The inmates in gitmo were SUSPECTED of terrorism, largely NOT on the field of battle but rather in countries we're not even at war with, they get held a decade without trial or evidence, and 95% have been released without any charge of any kind. So it's completely ok to lock people in cages (without due process), but simply blocking a suspected terrorist from buying a gun suddenly becomes 1984 level tyranny.

What's the point in a terrorist watch list if we don't do anything to stop them from committing violent acts against our people? I just think it's hilarious the right is suddenly pretending to care about rights or due process for people arbitrarily labeled as terrorists.

Last I knew, according to SCOTUS, the Rights outlined in the Constitution do not apply to people living or residing in other countries. It only applies to those in the US. (which fyi: I do disagree with)

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Last I knew, according to SCOTUS, the Rights outlined in the Constitution do not apply to people living or residing in other countries. It only applies to those in the US. (which fyi: I do disagree with)

I never said it did. I simply find it hilarious that they've given exactly zero ****s about due process, evidence, trials, or rights for "suspected terrorists" for the past 15 years (citizens or not), but if we want to deny the same terrorists the ability to buy a gun, they're suddenly worried about government overreach.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I never said it did. I simply find it hilarious that they've given exactly zero ****s about due process, evidence, trials, or rights for "suspected terrorists" for the past 15 years (citizens or not), but if we want to deny the same terrorists the ability to buy a gun, they're suddenly worried about government overreach.

Actually if I recall correctly many Republicans and Democrats spoke out against Obama when he wanted to target a US Citizen for death without a trial that was over in the ME who had joined terrorists. Yes, there were those that favored it because that person was a traitor. Generally people driven by their emotions more than logic and I wouldn't put a party name to any of them due to that.

 

[Moot]

The list is flawed. Ted Kennedy was on it at one point.

Speaking of reading up on things

Yeah, but that was over 13 years ago and the No Fly List has been through a lot of changes since then and will probably go through a lot more. Anyway, it seems to be working because we haven't had any terrorists fly planes into buildings since 9/11. It's too bad we can't say the same about terrorists getting guns.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Yeah, but that was over 13 years ago and the No Fly List has been through a lot of changes since then and will probably go through a lot more. Anyway, it seems to be working because we haven't had any terrorists fly planes into buildings since 9/11. It's too bad we can't say the same about terrorists getting guns.

And we never had any terrorists fly a plane into buildings before 9/11 for a lot longer.

Tell me Moot, how many people on that no-fly list are actually innocent? Do you know? I don't. But I do know that there have been fully innocent people that have been put on that no-fly list. Babies, grandma's included. So tell me Moot, how many innocent peoples should we deny our Constitutional Rights to in order to stop one or two terrorists from buying guns at a gun store...and lets not forget the fact that even if they're stopped at the gun store, there is nothing stopping them from buying those same guns on the black market.

 

[Moot]

And we never had any terrorists fly a plane into buildings before 9/11 for a lot longer.

No, but there sure were a lot of hijackings and hostage taking.

Tell me Moot, how many people on that no-fly list are actually innocent? Do you know?

Most of the people on the No Fly List are foreigners. About 2% are in the US and the reason they're on the list is because they were investigated for suspicious activity and being ISIS or Al Qaeda sympathizers... but haven't yet committed a crime. As the current laws stands...the suspects on No Fly Lists can't get on an airplane because they're too dangerous....but not so dangerous that they can't buy as many guns, ammo and explosives as they want.

I don't. But I do know that there have been fully innocent people that have been put on that no-fly list. Babies, grandma's included. So tell me Moot, how many innocent peoples should we deny our Constitutional Rights to in order to stop one or two terrorists from buying guns at a gun store...and lets not forget the fact that even if they're stopped at the gun store, there is nothing stopping them from buying those same guns on the black market.

Don't know for sure but I think congress is working on that if they haven't already provided a way for people to contest and get off the list if they're wrongfully on it. If not, then I fully support there should be one. But the point is, it is something that can be fixed.

 

[Kobie]

And we never had any terrorists fly a plane into buildings before 9/11 for a lot longer.

Tell me Moot, how many people on that no-fly list are actually innocent? Do you know? I don't. But I do know that there have been fully innocent people that have been put on that no-fly list. Babies, grandma's included. So tell me Moot, how many innocent peoples should we deny our Constitutional Rights to in order to stop one or two terrorists from buying guns at a gun store...and lets not forget the fact that even if they're stopped at the gun store, there is nothing stopping them from buying those same guns on the black market.

Most of the innocent people on the No-Fly list have been cases of mistaken identity, due to similar names (do you have to name all of your kids Muhammad?).

 

[OpportunityCost]

Your high opinion of your opinion would come off better if you could tell the difference between a holding and dicta. Here is part two of the holding in Heller:

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

Its quite funny you are giving the context and completely ignoring it. The context is signaling to lower courts that the Heller decision was not overturning current restrictions upon the 2nd through due process. Like mental competency hearings, felony convictions and place restrictions on schools and courthouses. It does not open the door to new laws immune to judicial review.

Btw, the AR-15 is a weapon "in common use at the time". Yet many liberals are screaming for bans on a weapon the Supreme Court has declared as being protected under the 2nd. So, please decide if you want to abide by Heller or ignore it. I'm guessing both and ignore the inherent hypocrisy.

 

[j-mac]

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.

Define assault weapon please.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[j-mac]

Most of the innocent people on the No-Fly list have been cases of mistaken identity, due to similar names (do you have to name all of your kids Muhammad?).

Please do...I support you doing that...change your name too...lol

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[tres borrachos]

Most of the innocent people on the No-Fly list have been cases of mistaken identity, due to similar names (do you have to name all of your kids Muhammad?).

Can you imagine if George Foreman ever ends up on that list? He has like 287 kids all named after him.

 

[JackA]

what limitation on the natural right of free citizens to be armed was upheld in Heller. and Guess what-I find Scalia's comments on that to be the sort of dishonest faint hearted originalism that I have always had no use for

since you want to play constitutional lawyer with me-tell me why "commerce among the states" is the basis for those limitations which all seem to be state powers other than felons being disarmed.

no one with a functioning brain can call semi auto rifles uncommon or unusually dangerous

I don't want to play Constitutional lawyer with you. As pointed out, you don't know the basics.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

What is next witch hunts? We do not need proof or due process to take away peoples rights. We need someone named Adolf for our next president. I guess Hussein will have to do for now.

 

[Kal'Stang]

No, but there sure were a lot of hijackings and hostage taking.

Sure don't look like it. Seems pretty steady to me.

List of aircraft hijackings

Most of the people on the No Fly List are foreigners. About 2% are in the US and the reason they're on the list is because they were investigated for suspicious activity and being ISIS or Al Qaeda sympathizers... but haven't yet committed a crime. As the current laws stands...the suspects on No Fly Lists can't get on an airplane because they're too dangerous....but not so dangerous that they can't buy as many guns, ammo and explosives as they want.

Really? And you have proof of this? That would be an amazing feat considering that just who is on the no fly list is kept secret. But frankly it doesn't matter whether its 100% or .0000000000000000001% of the population. We have this thing called "Due Process" that must be done before anyone's Rights are stripped away. There are known violent drug dealers in the US that are US Citizens and yet the whole time that they've been here I've never ONCE heard about people wanting to take their Rights away without Due Process. I've heard of people wishing that they didn't have Rights, but never heard of people demanding that their Rights be violated. But here comes Radical Muslim Terrorists and suddenly its "OMG!!! We Must Ignore Their Rights!!! Our Rights Supersede Theirs!!!" Never mind that Drug Lords have prolly killed more people in the US than Radical Muslim Terrorists have.

Don't know for sure but I think congress is working on that if they haven't already provided a way for people to contest and get off the list if they're wrongfully on it. If not, then I fully support there should be one. But the point is, it is something that can be fixed.

Yes, there is supposedly a way to contest your name being on the no-fly list. First though you have to actually find out that your name is on that list. Then you have to go through the process. Which knowing how the government LOVES red tape is no doubt an arduous task that can take weeks if not months. In the mean time Suzy can't buy a gun to defend herself against a serial stalker that intends harm.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Most of the innocent people on the No-Fly list have been cases of mistaken identity, due to similar names (do you have to name all of your kids Muhammad?).

Don't care what their names are. The very fact that they are on there and innocent means that innocent people will have their Rights stripped away without due process. And then when they find out that their name is on the list they have to prove that they are actually innocent. Does that sound like an America that you really want? To have people stripped of their Rights solely due to their name? Or solely because they accidentally clicked on a link that took them to a website for radical Muslim terrorists when all that they were trying to do was read up on them for some report or other for, say for example, school? Or any of the other myriad reasons that they might end up on that list, none of which means that they're actually terrorists.

Is that really the America that you want?

 

[ellesdee]

Well... I don't know for sure how I feel about this, but one question that does pop into my head is this:

Are those on a terrorist watch buying guns going to help our nation maintain a well regulated militia?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Nothing like a gun debate thread for otherwise reasonable people to say crazy ****.

 

[Renae]

that's incorrect. The inmates in gitmo were suspected of terrorism, largely not on the field of battle but rather in countries we're not even at war with, they get held a decade without trial or evidence, and 95% have been released without any charge of any kind. So it's completely ok to lock people in cages (without due process), but simply blocking a suspected terrorist from buying a gun suddenly becomes 1984 level tyranny.

What's the point in a terrorist watch list if we don't do anything to stop them from committing violent acts against our people? I just think it's hilarious the right is suddenly pretending to care about rights or due process for people arbitrarily labeled as terrorists.

they aren't american ****ing citizens, don't care.

 

[cpwill]

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?

Please. That's hyperbole. No one wants that.


We're just saying that if you are likely to be a danger to others, then we ought to restrict you.


For example, if you follow a Hate Religion, well, you ought to have to register with the government. Of course, of course, I'm not saying all Muslims are bad, no one is saying that. We're just saying that in the name of stopping the spread of Islamic Radicalism, we need to make sure that it doesn't spread.

Some "First Amendment Fetishers" claim that they have the "Constitutional Right" to their religion, but if that religion has people in it who place others in danger, well, sorry, but no, you don't. And no one is saying that you can't have a religion, we just want all you Muslims to register so that everyone knows who you are in case you try to buy a gun, or proselytize, or board a plane, or something.

Remember, Big Brother loves you.