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

[mak2]

me too. We completely agree then.

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

 

[Dittohead not!]

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

Actually, I agree with both of those statements.

I lean libertarian on most issues, including the war on drugs and the preservation of the Bill of Rights. And, yes, the Bill of Rights has suffered some trampling due to the war on terror and the war on drugs.

 

[Henrin]

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.

Ok, but how could the intent of the second amendment be to punish people for associating? Wouldn't that make the intent of the second amendment to violate the first amendment?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Ok, but how could the intent of the second amendment be to punish people for associating? Wouldn't that make the intent of the second amendment to violate the first amendment?

Good question.
The war on terror raises a lot of good questions.

Police in some places are telling gang members that they can't associate with other gang bangers. Clearly, we'd be better off if the gangsters weren't in communication with each other, but how do they justify the prohibition in light of the First Amendment? How can they arrest known gang members who haven't been convicted of a crime for having a weapon?

Interesting questions, interesting times.

 

[humbolt]

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.

It does, and it's disheartening - seriously disheartening. Of course, I blame my dogs for last years miserable tomato crop. They act like they had nothing to do with it, but I think it was a conspiracy and they were in on it.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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?

If the guy is a known ISIL supporter then he should be arrested. Only reason that he's not I would imagine is so that he can be watched in the hopes that he leads the authorities to other currently unknown ISIL supporters. But then if he's being watched, what would be the point in putting him on a list that restricts him from buying guns? If such happened then that would only tip him off to being watched. Which would kinda defeat the purpose of being watched in the first place.

As for the no fly list... I don't support anyone on the no fly list being barred from buying guns because too many innocent people are put on it. Including children for crying out loud. The ONLY way that a person's fundamental Rights should be taken away is via the court system. There's a reason that they're called "Rights" and not "privileges".

 

[Kal'Stang]

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?

Oh, and I forgot to add to my last post. His whole line about not wanting guns taken away? BS. He attempted to get our legislative branch to pass laws that would have banned commonly carried guns. The fact that it didn't pass was the ONLY reason that he never was able to do so and why so many like to claim that he's never tried to take away guns.

I quote Obama: "We shouldn't stop there. We should restore the ban on military style assault weapons and a 10 round limit for magazines"

It was HIS comments against guns that led to such an increase in gun buying and he sure as hell didn't intend for that to happen despite him claiming that as some sort of excuse in his favor to show that he's not against guns.

 

[Goshin]

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?

Has the man committed a crime?


No? Well, it's supposedly a free country... until you commit a crime, you retain your rights. Break that and we endanger what we are.



The FBI is watching him? Well, if he buys a bunch of guns and ammo, they'll know something is up right?

 

[Goshin]

Oh, and I forgot to add to my last post. His whole line about not wanting guns taken away? BS. He attempted to get our legislative branch to pass laws that would have banned commonly carried guns. The fact that it didn't pass was the ONLY reason that he never was able to do so and why so many like to claim that he's never tried to take away guns.

I quote Obama: "We shouldn't stop there. We should restore the ban on military style assault weapons and a 10 round limit for magazines"

It was HIS comments against guns that led to such an increase in gun buying and he sure as hell didn't intend for that to happen despite him claiming that as some sort of excuse in his favor to show that he's not against guns.

When many gun control advocates use words like "common sense", and "safety regulations", and "nobody is trying to ban guns," and "I'm pro-2a", you can't take it at face value... they don't mean what it sounds like they mean.
Translations follow:


"Common sense".... banning almost everything but muzzle loaders and double barrels.

"Safety regulations"... making you keep your guns and ammo locked up separately so they'd be useless against a home invader.


"Nobody is trying to ban guns".... not entirely, just most kinds.


"I'm pro-2A".... I think you should have the right to own a single shot weapon as along as you've passed a background check, psych test, have never had an anxiety attack or took a nerve pill for a while; registered the weapon, and paid $10,000 in legal fees, and spend five grand a year on mandatory gun owner's insurance, and keep your weapon locked up separately from the ammo, and don't use it in self-defense.




:roll:

 

[Kal'Stang]

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?

The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to help prevent government tyranny and invasion. That is its most important facet. So, lets change the question that you have here to something a bit different. It's essentially a smell test.

Should the colonialists in 1774 (I put 1774 on purpose) have been arrested and barred from owning guns because of their disapproval of the British's rule and approval of those speaking out against it?

If the answer is "no" then you have your answer to your question.

And yes, I realize that you may think that there is a difference between the two for the simple fact that in this case its ISIL...an EVIL terrorist group. Well, fact of the matter is that its only different because of our thought patterns. In 1774 and 1775 it was the colonialists that were considered the evil terrorists by the then currently reigning government.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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?

If they're "bat**** crazy, convicted violent felons" then they shouldn't even be out of jail period. Only time anyone should be let out of jail is when they are fully reformed via a rehabilitation process.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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?

Frankly yes, I do think that the no fly list is unconstitutional.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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.

Not quite correct. Being a member does not automatically mean you've committed a crime. It's only a crime if you've given any type of material support to that organization or have committed a violent crime.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Oh, and I forgot to add to my last post. His whole line about not wanting guns taken away? BS. He attempted to get our legislative branch to pass laws that would have banned commonly carried guns. The fact that it didn't pass was the ONLY reason that he never was able to do so and why so many like to claim that he's never tried to take away guns.

I quote Obama: "We shouldn't stop there. We should restore the ban on military style assault weapons and a 10 round limit for magazines"

It was HIS comments against guns that led to such an increase in gun buying and he sure as hell didn't intend for that to happen despite him claiming that as some sort of excuse in his favor to show that he's not against guns.

He's in good company. Politicians from both parties have been calling for assault weapon bans for years.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to help prevent government tyranny and invasion. That is its most important facet. So, lets change the question that you have here to something a bit different. It's essentially a smell test.

Should the colonialists in 1774 (I put 1774 on purpose) have been arrested and barred from owning guns because of their disapproval of the British's rule and approval of those speaking out against it?

If the answer is "no" then you have your answer to your question.

And yes, I realize that you may think that there is a difference between the two for the simple fact that in this case its ISIL...an EVIL terrorist group. Well, fact of the matter is that its only different because of our thought patterns. In 1774 and 1775 it was the colonialists that were considered the evil terrorists by the then currently reigning government.

Plus in 1774 the colonialists had the ability to mount a successful armed revolt against the government. Today, not so much, not even with assault rifles.

 

[TurtleDude]

He's in good company. Politicians from both parties have been calling for assault weapon bans for years.

yes there are people who piss on the oath they took to the constitution in both parties. However, its mainly a proclivity of the Democrats. anything civilian police are using are perfectly useful and suitable for other civilians to own

 

[Dittohead not!]

Frankly yes, I do think that the no fly list is unconstitutional.

Yes, it probably is.

Any law that takes away people's rights without due process is most likely unconstitutional. Think : Asset forfeiture.

 

[Dittohead not!]

yes there are people who piss on the oath they took to the constitution in both parties. However, its mainly a proclivity of the Democrats. anything civilian police are using are perfectly useful and suitable for other civilians to own

Yes, and not just on the second amendment. There are multiple examples of laws that violate the Bill of Rights.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, and not just on the second amendment. There are multiple examples of laws that violate the Bill of Rights.

The FDR administration used a panicked population to piss all over the bill of rights. 20+ years later, cowardly "conservative" justices refused to overturn that urination since it was "precedent"

 

[AlbqOwl]

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?

The intent of the Second Amendment was to recognize and protect the right of citizens to arm and defend themselves whether or not the government approved of them or their politics. The intent of the Second Amendment was to prevent the government from confiscating the weapons from the people somebody in government didn't want to have them, not because they had broken any laws..

Now if we know who are ISIS sympathizers, what is preferable? That they go to the gun store and buy their guns and ammo under full surveillance of the federal government who I assume is surveilling these dangerous people? Or that they acquire them on the black market so we don't know what guns and ammo they have? And if they do not have these known ISIS sympathizers under surveillance, why the hell don't they?

Methinks our fearless leader hasn't thought this through too clearly or else he has an entirely different agenda than what he claims to have.

 

[Goshin]

Plus in 1774 the colonialists had the ability to mount a successful armed revolt against the government. Today, not so much, not even with assault rifles.

Debatable, there are subtleties and complexities involved. It's not as if the Gov can necessarily respond by unleashing Stealth Bombers or Predator Drones on the rebels, and where the military would stand on being used against civilians is a question mark.

Remember when the Soviets tried to use the military against civilian rebels, and the military refused? And the USSR fell?


All is not so cut and dried as it might seem.


And, of course, there's this:


“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”


― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

 

[LaMidRighter]

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

He is right, the difference is if the association is with intent to aid. A person can associate loosely with ISIS as long as they are not contributing to them in any way and it would be perfectly legal. Now, if they are giving shelter, information, or monetary aid that falls under treason, or if it were a known criminal organization that would be criminal syndicalism. It's a fine line but an important one.

 

[LaMidRighter]

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.

There is a vast ocean of difference between being a sympathizer and an active member of a terrorist organization. If the line is not crossed at material support, active membership, etc. then there is no crime, as disgusting as the thought of sympathy for those sub-human filth is. This is why people are allowed to fly those disgusting ISIS flags in our country without issue.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Good question.
The war on terror raises a lot of good questions.

Police in some places are telling gang members that they can't associate with other gang bangers. Clearly, we'd be better off if the gangsters weren't in communication with each other, but how do they justify the prohibition in light of the First Amendment? How can they arrest known gang members who haven't been convicted of a crime for having a weapon?

Interesting questions, interesting times.

Actually, the bolded has been established precedent for decades, prior to the war on terror. It is a condition of release that known felons cannot associate with each other, I may not agree with it because I don't believe in permanent punishment but can see some reasoning behind it. Basically, it is the same logic as a sexual predator being prohibited from being in the company of persons who fit their predatory profile, supposed to be a preventative measure. Not equating the two by an stretch BTW.

 

[Chomsky]

He is right, the difference is if the association is with intent to aid. A person can associate loosely with ISIS as long as they are not contributing to them in any way and it would be perfectly legal. Now, if they are giving shelter, information, or monetary aid that falls under treason, or if it were a known criminal organization that would be criminal syndicalism. It's a fine line but an important one.

Yep - those rights I so love & respect, are there to specifically protect the ability for our fellow citizens to speak & associate in ways many of us may find distasteful or wrong, as long as they do not speak or associate criminally.

The older I get, and the more I get to know it, the more I appreciate the amazing document our forefathers produced back in 1787!