Obama's response to a gun store owner's statement about the Second Amendment

[humbolt]

Perhaps someone can explain exactly how the NRA has the power to prevent the president from doing something he doesn't have the power to do in the first place.

 

[Paleocon]

source

Why is it, I wonder, if we know this guy is ISIL, we can't arrest him for supporting a known terrorist group.

But, if we can't, the least we could do is prohibit him from buying weapons, and without getting a response about the government coming to confiscate all our guns.

or, is that unreasonable? What do you think?

Sympathizing with ISIS isn't a criminal offense. Which is why they can't arrest these people.

 

[Grand Mal]

The government first decided to put someone on the no fly list all on their own without due process and then if his desire became law the government would take away your gun rights based on it. Where is the due process in that?

Oh and btw, his belief here violates the second and fifth amendment. He also just so happened to use this nonsense argument when trying to claim he didn't want to violate the second amendment.

Are we sure he went to Harvard and that he knows the Constitution because I'm not believing it.

I deleted that post because I remembered that I don't get into gun-issue arguments.
Why isn't the story about the guy being arbitrarily put onto a no-fly list?

 

[Henrin]

I deleted that post because I remembered that I don't get into gun-issue arguments.
Why isn't the story about the guy being arbitrarily put onto a no-fly list?

Why does it matter why he was put on the no-fly list? Where is the due process with the no-fly list?

 

[Fearandloathing]

Perhaps someone can explain exactly how the NRA has the power to prevent the president from doing something he doesn't have the power to do in the first place.

It's the new black in politics. "They won't let me" was and is Obama's main pleat. He's whined about Republicans, the constitution and people who 'cling to their guns and bibles"

Get used to it. Donald Trump makes Obama look emotionally stable. He can't even stage a rally without blaming something on someone else. It appears to work in the US.

 

[VanceMack]

I deleted that post because I remembered that I don't get into gun-issue arguments.
Why isn't the story about the guy being arbitrarily put onto a no-fly list?

Thats is certainly 'A' story, but in this thread and in response to the current president lying in his response to a gun owner, obviously not 'THE' story.

 

[Chomsky]

Associating with ISIS, absent of any other crime, is not a crime in and of itself.

As distasteful as many of us may find this type of association, yours is a valid and profound point!

 

[Chomsky]

Due Process. How many freedoms and liberty are we willing to relinquish because the government decided to put us on a list without Due Process of Law?

The Soviets had lists that could get you sent to a gulag to work until you died.

North Korea still has lists that can have you arrested and then you just disappear.

Is that the direction we want our country to follow?

We can't arrest him, more than likely, because he hasn't broken any laws... yet (a requirement of Due Process). Although I am very concerned about a terrorist sympathizer running around the country, it's obvious that the government is watching him (Obama just told us all that even he gets briefings about this guy and others), I am more concerned about the government using this guy as an excuse to remove all the freedoms and liberty of US citizens.

You see, the terrorist can injure or harm a dozen or maybe even a hundred people (or maybe even like 9/11 and kill 2,996 people). However, the government can oppress the freedoms and liberty of over 320 Million US citizens, and use a few terrorist sympathizers to do so.

We have a sitting President that is openly advocating the removal of a Constitutionally Protected Right, simply because the government has decided that they are concerned about your thoughts and speech, and they decided to put you on a list.

Let me repeat that in other words - the President of The United States of America is advocating the government be given the power to oppress people that they disagree with ideologically, prior to the person committing a crime or being convicted of a crime, much less even being officially charged with breaking a law!!!

Any reasonable thinking person that values their freedom and liberty should be enraged by what the President is advocating and doing, rather than asking why it's unreasonable.

If one person's freedoms and liberty are oppressed without Due Process, and we the people agree with the action and in fact support the action, then we are all oppressed but just haven't noticed the shackles we help the government put on our own ankles.

To that I bolded: Exactly!

This is more than guns, but about Constitutional rights! :doh

If the citizenry believe guns are such a problem as to not deserve Constitutional protection, they need to change the Constitution. Barring that, there should be no infringement except in the very narrowest of cases. This is what rights are, and are supposed to be!

 

[Beaudreaux]

To that I bolded: Exactly!

This is more than guns, but about Constitutional rights! :doh

If the citizenry believe guns are such a problem as to not deserve Constitutional protection, they need to change the Constitution. Barring that, there should be no infringement except in the very narrowest of cases. This is what rights are, and are supposed to be!

Hear, hear.

 

[TurtleDude]

source

Why is it, I wonder, if we know this guy is ISIL, we can't arrest him for supporting a known terrorist group.

But, if we can't, the least we could do is prohibit him from buying weapons, and without getting a response about the government coming to confiscate all our guns.

or, is that unreasonable? What do you think?

so if you have a clean record, and no disqualifying convictions or adjudications, but your son is dating a Muslim and that puts you on a list, you should lose your constitutional rights? Because that is what you are saying

Obama is a POS liar and that is all there is to it. This crap sounds like the McCarthy "communist" witch hunts

 

[TurtleDude]

The point isn't that it's the NRA keeping him from confiscating guns. The point is that it is the NRA that is claiming he wants to confiscate guns.

Should the guy from ISIL be allowed to purchase as many guns, as much ammo, as he wants legally and without restriction? Really? Is that the intent of the Second Amendment?

1) For a libertarian its interesting that you give a guy-who has praised the british and australian gun confiscation schemes and who said the federal assault weapon ban ought to be reinstated-so much leeway.

2) Yes, the purpose of the second amendment was to COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY prevent the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM HAVING ANY POWER in this area

 

[TurtleDude]

Is there any group of Americans who should not be allowed to own guns? Known wannabe terrorist? Bat**** crazy people? violent felons?

you mean to tell me you are clueless about the federal and state laws that already ban

Felons
fugitives
adjudicated incompetent
dishonorably discharged
Under Indictment
Domestic Violence Miscreants
Illegal aliens and
citizens who have renounced their citizenship

from buying or possessing a gun?

 

[TurtleDude]

/sigh

NRA bought-and-paid-for Congresscritters won't close a pretty obvious hole in our laws. So, to a degree, the NRA is somewhat respinsible.

so to you merely being suspected of something is sufficient to have your rights taken away

Are you or have you ever been a member of the communist party?

remember that period of our history?

 

[TurtleDude]

So you have no problem selling bat**** crazy, convicted violent felons who openly sympathize with terrorist firearms after they get out of jail? Is that correct?

stop the strawmen-he never said that. convicted felons have lost their rights through due process of law.

 

[TurtleDude]

The problem is, when you really nail down the most avid gun people, who I agree with 99% they fall back to what MK is saying, everyone gets to buy firearms all the time, Any rational person realizes there are people out there who shouldn't have a toaster. We should have more mental health in America too, but that is another thread.

what part of adjudicated mentally incompetent, guilty or even being indicted do you not understand?


I used to work for the DOJ. I could call up the DHS and have you put on that list merely by saying a group the grand jury is investigating has close ties to mak2. that is all I had to do and you'd be on that list, and if the DHS operative wanted more I'd merely say, sorry, this is subject to a continuing GJ investigation and I cannot tell you more

 

[mak2]

I know you are amazingly powerful, but I don't think there should be a no fly list for anyone. It seems to me you are agreeing with me about others who should not have firearms, so you think MK is wrong? Not everyone should be able to buy firearms. IIRC you position was it was a constitutional right and everyone should be armed.

what part of adjudicated mentally incompetent, guilty or even being indicted do you not understand?


I used to work for the DOJ. I could call up the DHS and have you put on that list merely by saying a group the grand jury is investigating has close ties to mak2. that is all I had to do and you'd be on that list, and if the DHS operative wanted more I'd merely say, sorry, this is subject to a continuing GJ investigation and I cannot tell you more

 

[Dittohead not!]

Hmm... I really stirred up a hornet's nest with this one, didn't I? Reading through the responses, I had the same thought that Turtle Dude gave voice to:

This crap sounds like the McCarthy "communist" witch hunts

Which brings up the "Terrorist watch list": Is it Constitutional, or is it a violation of the fourth, fifth, and/or sixth amendments?

And, like other extra Constitutional powers that came out of the so called "war on terror", such as indefinite detention without trial or the right to kill suspected terrorists, are we giving away our liberty in the name of security?

It's interesting that Obama, whether or not he "likes" the Second Amendment has not been able to do anything to erode it away. His election, in fact, resulted in more arms in the hands of the public. As for the other amendments, we don't have an NRA watching out for them, do we?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

If the guy is actually in ISIL or supporting them financially or recruiting for them or something like that then arrest him, prosecute him, and strip him of his rights through due process of law. Simply " sympathizing" is not enough. We don't do thought crimes in this country.

 

[Henrin]

The point isn't that it's the NRA keeping him from confiscating guns. The point is that it is the NRA that is claiming he wants to confiscate guns.

Should the guy from ISIL be allowed to purchase as many guns, as much ammo, as he wants legally and without restriction? Really? Is that the intent of the Second Amendment?

What crime has he been found guilty of? How is being a member of a group by itself a crime? How is sympathizing with this group or that group a crime? Making the later a crime seems to be a form of thought police and punishing people for practicing their first amendment rights, and the later is guilt by association.

 

[Fishking]

source

Why is it, I wonder, if we know this guy is ISIL, we can't arrest him for supporting a known terrorist group.

But, if we can't, the least we could do is prohibit him from buying weapons, and without getting a response about the government coming to confiscate all our guns.

or, is that unreasonable? What do you think?

The ability to put someone on a no-fly list and not prohibit them from buying a gun has nothing to do with the NRA. As someone who is a supposed constitutional scholar, he should know that the right to bear arms is a constitutionally guaranteed right and to remove that right from someone you have a much higher bar to reach.

 

[Dittohead not!]

What crime has he been found guilty of? How is being a member of a group by itself a crime? How is sympathizing with this group or that group a crime? Making the later a crime seems to be a form of thought police and punishing people for practicing their first amendment rights, and the later is guilt by association.

Supporting a known terrorist organization is a crime. Being a member of a terrorist organization is a crime also. You may think it shouldn't be, but the law is what it is.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The ability to put someone on a no-fly list and not prohibit them from buying a gun has nothing to do with the NRA. As someone who is a supposed constitutional scholar, he should know that the right to bear arms is a constitutionally guaranteed right and to remove that right from someone you have a much higher bar to reach.

and that taking away rights involves due process of law.

But, the war on terror, like the war on drugs, has shredded the Bill of Rights, and not just the Second Amendment.

 

[TurtleDude]

I know you are amazingly powerful, but I don't think there should be a no fly list for anyone. It seems to me you are agreeing with me about others who should not have firearms, so you think MK is wrong? Not everyone should be able to buy firearms. IIRC you position was it was a constitutional right and everyone should be armed.

uh wrong-if you have been adjudicated a felon etc, I don't have issues with you being banned

I have issues with someone being denied a constitutional right merely due to a suspicion -not even probable cause

 

[TurtleDude]

Hmm... I really stirred up a hornet's nest with this one, didn't I? Reading through the responses, I had the same thought that Turtle Dude gave voice to:



Which brings up the "Terrorist watch list": Is it Constitutional, or is it a violation of the fourth, fifth, and/or sixth amendments?

And, like other extra Constitutional powers that came out of the so called "war on terror", such as indefinite detention without trial or the right to kill suspected terrorists, are we giving away our liberty in the name of security?

It's interesting that Obama, whether or not he "likes" the Second Amendment has not been able to do anything to erode it away. His election, in fact, resulted in more arms in the hands of the public. As for the other amendments, we don't have an NRA watching out for them, do we?

I find it interesting that you appear to be a libertarian only on some issues The war on terror has become a war on our constitutional rights

 

[TurtleDude]

Supporting a known terrorist organization is a crime. Being a member of a terrorist organization is a crime also. You may think it shouldn't be, but the law is what it is.

well then prosecute those who are rather than saying someone is "suspected" of being a terrorist Once INDICTED you cannot possess a firearm. that standard is far less than guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, Rather its probable cause