Banning guns for those on the terror watchlist
 

I hear a lot of folks saying lately, that those on the watchlist shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. That sounded like common sense to me. Until I saw this video, of Trey Gowdy absolutely detsroying an administration official on this issue. Gowdy annihilated her by asking a couple of simple, basic questions. When your position cannot find a way to answer the most basic questions, it's time to re-think that position.

No one gets due process before they are on the no fly list. Therefore, you cannot remove their second amendment rights before they have due process. As Gowdy said, if this President wants to deny someone their second amendment rights without due process, why can't the next president deny someone's first amendment rights without due process? The woman looked like an idiot, she had no answer for that.

If someone is on the no-fly list, it seems like a bad idea to let them buy an AR-15. But it's a far worse idea, to let the president (especially this jerk) have the power to ignore the parts of the Constitution he doesn't happen to like. His oath is to preserve the constitution, he doesn't get to unilaterally decide when it applies to US citizens and when it doesn't. I would think that a law school professor might be aware of this. But he thinks he is king, not POTUS.

Sorry, here is the video. I mean, Gowdy asked this woman how this process could possibly pass the constitutionality test, and she just sat there like a deer in headlights. I felt sorry for her, she looked so completely out of her depth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNDcd1Fe5lg

So you put up an example of an area where the constitution is failing us and then find a way to make it Obamas fault. I agree he is an ass but what does this example prove other than the fact we live under the umbrella of a double edge sword? To what extent will you go to in order to demonstrate your contempt for Obama and making everything his fault?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Said it once before on another blog....most people do not know what they agree to.....people do not know that over 40% do not belong on the No Fly list.....they listen to the radical that sits in the white house and feel his words R god....Spence believes that...lol

I am not blaming Obama for the existence of the Bill Of Rights. I am blaming him, justifiably, because he thinks he can ignore the Bill Of Rights when it's politicaly expedient for him to do so.

Oh, that starts another constructive day for you I suppose.Bravo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hmmm, let's see. I made the perfectly valid claim that Obama is mightly comfortable ignoring the Bill Of Rights when it serves his agenda. You made the inane claim that, somehow, I was blaming Obama for the fact that the Bill Of Rights exists.

Whose morning was more productive so far? That's a real head-scratcher.

Gowdy seems angry in that video, I wonder if he's still upset from Clinton making him look like a fool a few weeks ago.

Now Obama is trying to make Americans safer out of political expediency. Has he no shame???

It was not an example of the Constitution failing us, it is another of the many examples of Obama failing the Constitution.

The due process clause of the Constitution protects you. It requires government to have the proper, solid, evidence required to deny you your constitutional rights. Being on a no-fly list is not solid evidence of criminality. It is a suspicion of potential criminality. If we allow the government to deny us our constitutional rights on the basis of its suspicions, then all of us have no guarantee against government destroying our lives whenever it concocts a suspicion.

And that would not be a matter of the Constitution failing us. It would be a matter of us failing to defend and protect the Constitution. Tyrants of all types are very capable of protecting its servants from various boogeymen. But the servants have no protection against their master.

If we prefer to be dependent servants rather than sovereign citizens, we deserve that one-way security.

Lmao . I swear Spence , you need to patent those Obama colored sunglasses . I don't think even The President thinks he's as great as you do .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, he obviously has no shame. Using political expedience (not letting a crisis go to waste) to set yet another precedent that gives the Central government despotic power over the people is shameless, in-your-face tyranny.

Spence, I agree that this proposal might save lives. However, when I took high school covics, I must've missed the day when the teacher explained that the President has the authority to negate the Bill Of Rights, when the goal is to keep us safe. Spence, please tell me, where in the Constitution, it says the Bill Of Rights doesn't apply, when the President wants to keep us safe?

Obviously, you are OK with ignoring the constitution to keep us safe. That's what you just said. Using that logic, if Trump gets elected...you would be similarly comfortable if he detained all the US citizens on the no-fly list, and then waterboarded them, to find out what they know. If he did all that without affording them any due process...if he did all that to keep us safe, you'd be OK with that too? Or are you a hyocrite.

Title for Obama's memoirs: Constitution, Shmonstitution.

Is the Second Amendment the only right that's infringed by the no fly list? If not why all the outrage now?

You're not helping your case .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What's my case?

I can see the Constitutional implications, but the discussion should be about how to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and not just the typical shut the debate down defense.

You could just not let them in the country ;) hell they are on the no-fly list after all
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interestingly enough in the case of the two most recent cases of domestic terrorism, the individuals involved were not on the list. This is a thinly veiled attempt to disarm the people.

Tyranobamarex will get his way, Healthcare, Education, gun Control, collapsing currency-- It's like Germany in the late 30's all over again.

It is quite interesting indeed. The "no fly" list had nothing at all to do with anything in CA. But now its being used as to further the agenda of the great o and his ball washers.The uneducated numbnuts who make decisions and are trying to push more control over the word "gun" don't even know what it is they are actually trying to change. Now that the top secret "multi automatic round weapons"are available everywhere except CA but they can be brought over state lines I think I'll start selling them by mail order, with no background check.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/03/de...weapons-video/

I love how now the liberals now suddenly have all kinds of faith in the no-fly list. The no fly list once mistakenly had Ted Kennedy on it!!! Their unabashed hero!

Although, maybe they would agree he shouldn't have had a gun either! LOL

Mistakenly?? You have seen his driving record correct? Something about a bridge??

I think it was so he had to fly separately from the common folk and have his cocktails while sexually harassing the flight attendents.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactly, they didn't want his drunk useless ass on the plane.

HA! Yeah he didn't need a gun to kill people... a car was enough..

apparently the real story is that "T. Kennedy" was on the watch list because terrorists would often use that as an alias! This is some very sound investigative work on this fly list, huh?

Do you think anything has changed?

Why do I answer yoru questions but you won't answer mine? Here is mine. Where does Obama get the authority to susoend the Bill Of Rights, when he thinks it's going to promote safety.

To your question, I don't know of any other constitutionally-guaranteed rights that are stripped from US citizens, when they are on the no-fly list. The constitution doesn't guarantee the right to fly.

Can you answer my question, please?

When a leader can change the rules on the fly, to fit his agenda, that's called fascism. Here, the Constitution is supposed to prevent that.

Let's have that discussion. But we cannot throw out the Constitution to make it happen. We can modify the Constitution to fit the times. We cannot ignore what's in there.

Absolutely not. This is what they want. Haven't you noticed the words "semi automatic" being used every where to describe any type of firearm. They want them gone.. Do not give them an inch. They are just trying to scare the sheep with this BS talk.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:kewl: Exactly
thank you for wording it so that even Spence can understand, and then he will realize he is in that last category of dependent servants.

I found out about this on Dec. 3rd, it is not an all of a sudden thing. It is a knee jerk reaction, take advantage of a crisis way of forcing gun control down our throats and it will not be stood for many anyone with half a brain.


MA Legislators Want To Eliminate Due Process, Restrict Rights.
December 3, 2015

GOAL has learned that Representative Lori A. Ehrlich has filed legislation which would create a list of Americans citizens who, should they appear on it, would be stripped of rights with no due process.

This legislation is modeled after federal legislation that has many flaws.

There is zero statutory criteria for inclusion on the list.
The list would be run by unelected officials with no oversight and no accountability.
Should your name wind up on the list you will be virtually powerless to find out why you are on it, or to have it removed.
The federal model does not require the government to tell you why you are on the list.
There is no due process, no right to a trial, nothing, you can wind up on this list and lose your rights.
Legislation of this nature goes directly against the Constitution and cannot be supported.

Please call your state representative and senator today, ask them not to support HD4331 "An Act relative to denying firearms and explosives to suspected terrorists"

No On HD4331!

What I meant was, there is a mechanism to amend (change) the Constitution. If enough people agree that people on the no-fly list can't get guns, then we can amend the second amendment to reflect that, and in that case what Obama is proposing wouldn't violate the Constitution. But we have to abide by what the Constitution says.

"They are just trying to scare the sheep with this BS talk."

I mostly agree.

In terms of non-terrorism gun violence, the conversation needs to be had, and we need to discuss (1) common sense gun laws that don't violate the 2nd amendment, (2) talking about the violence we bombard our kids with in movies and video games, and (3) looking at government policies which seem to incentivize the kinds of behavior that lead some to violence. What I mean by this is, everyone in South Dakota has a gun, yet there is almost zero gun violence. We need government programs that encourage people in Chicago, to behave more like people in South Dakota. THAT'S how you improve our gun violence problem. We have a problem. I don't think it's the existence of guns, I think it's an erosion of our moral compass. If Sea Dangles had a machine gun in his house, I would still let my kids trick-or-treat there, because I know he wouldn't hurt them. It's not the gun. It's our moral decay.

"(1) common sense gun laws that don't violate the 2nd amendment" - No such thing.
"(2) talking about the violence we bombard our kids with in movies and video games" - Common excuse for poor parenting, placing blame on other people/places/things
But hey, I let my son play video games at times and I let him run around shooting real "semi automatic"guns too. He has a profound respect for firearms and is a damn good shot. Common sense is to teach kids all about firearms, remove the "mystique" at an early age. Get more firearms in the hands of people who want to own them. If they dont want one fine,but shut the #^&#^&#^&#^& up that they're scared of them, grow a set. Too many PC pansy ass people in this country and the up and coming generations are being raised the same way.

I'm not arguing with you as I agree with your general ideas at times. But there is no such thing as "common sense gun laws" thats a liberal catch phrase. Its bull s h i t.

The original intent of the framers of The Constitution

The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

–Tenche Cox, Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress

At the time of it's passing, "well regulated" meant that the equipment was kept in good order and up to present standards, not mired in a bunch of red tape as it means today..

"common sense gun laws that don't violate the 2nd amendment" - No such thing"

Of course there is such a thing. I don't think that laws that, for example, prevent 12 year olds from buying an Uzi, are unconstitutional.

"
"(2) talking about the violence we bombard our kids with in movies and video games" - Common excuse for poor parenting, placing blame on other people/places/things "

I agree, there are crappy parents out there who doen't know what their kids are watching/playing/listening to. If everyone was a good parent, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But given that there are so many unsupervised kids watching TV and playing video games all day long, society would be better off if they were watching more "Leave it To Beaver" and less "Reservoir Dogs".

I agree that it is up to the parents, but don't you guys find it funny that the same liberal elite (you know the hollywood types that always hang out with Obama) that want all this gun legislation are the very ones glorifying gun violence in the movies?

I'd love to see where a 12 year old can buy an uzi.

In the US? No, because of gun laws.

The flip side is now that 12 year old will be defenseless in mass shooting that they would likely be able to stop.

As would the 12 year old be defenseless against just about everything else. Really, Spence, pick a more sensible comparison.

But its for the children !! That's the BS they want you to believe. Next he'll tell you how gun free zones have no effect if shootings..same #^&#^&#^&#^& different thread.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does the Second Amendment have an age restriction?

No it doesn't. And twelve year olds at the time the second amendment was written may or may not have had their own gun. Chances are they didn't have their own gun, but would have been trained on the use of the family's gun or guns. And so would have probably been as proficient with them as most adults are today. And today, whatever gun is owned in the family, it would be sensible to teach the younger family members the proper handling of said gun (even if the child does not actually own the gun) and the extreme importance of not playing with the gun or removing it from the safe place without permission. And be taught what to do with it in the extreme case of some armed intruder (mass killer or not) breaking in and threatening the family.

And 12 year olds in most cases are not allowed to go unattended to places where mass shootings typically occur. In school settings, the mass shooter is far more likely to succeed if the adults (teachers, guards, etc.) are not allowed to have a gun there.

The reality is that twelve year olds in our current culture are far less responsible for their own life than their counterparts in the 18th Century. They are raised and taught now to be totally dependent on adults. As such they are pretty much defenseless against adults of all types (criminals, perverts, mass shooters) if they are not accompanied or watched over by other adults.

Actually, even adults are less responsible today for their own lives than their counterparts in the 18th century. We are taught and told by our progressive "experts" that we need government to order and assure our lives. That we don't need guns. That we should depend on the proper "authorities" to protect us from mass shooters.

Of course, that requires that the bad guys must not be allowed to have guns. And, ultimately, the only way to accomplish that is to ban all the rest of us (except the "authorities," of course) from having guns.