Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Sure, Syed Rizwan Farook.
|
You misread my question. Read it again, in the proper context. Amazing that someone who is as contextually attuned to and driven by CONTEXT would miss the context in which I asked my question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
but I wouldn't want a terrorist to be denied their Second Amendments Rights either.
Detbuch reply: Do you have any evidence of this?
The context was your "want." Do you have any evidence that you wouldn't want a terrorist to be denied their Second Amendment rights?
I was yanking your chain regarding your usual "do you have any evidence of this" type of rebuttal of someone's opinion of a politician formed and based on obviously circumstantial occurrences of past speeches, position papers, legislation, and repetitive talking points.
Can you provide any "evidence," circumstantial or positive, that you wouldn't want a terrorist to be denied their Second Amendment right to bear arms?
Silly question? It was meant to be as silly as your non sequiturs or often straw man statements, and then insisting on "evidence" for someone else's opinions.
On the other hand, you were attempting what you think is clarity when you said: "I don't think that's really even that important part of the issue though...the question is the threshold for the feds to deny rights under current law without sufficient evidence there's a clear threat to public safety."
To begin with, what you think is clearly the question is muddled again by your situational ethics. When it suited you, you backed up Nebe's assertion that your chances of being killed by a terror attack were very rare. But it suits you in this thread to posit that there's a clear threat to public safety if the feds threshold to deny rights is not raised (made sufficient) in order, among other things, to " Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists."
But what is clear to me, not only in this assertion by you, but in consistently similar statements by you in many other posts, is that the federal government simply doesn't have enough authority over the individuals in this country. Any occurrence which you conveniently deemed rare in another instance, now conveniently becomes a threat to public safety and should be cause to give the federal government the power to deny rights. So any contrived crisis must not be wasted if it can be used to expand the federal government's scope of power.
The federal government actually does have within its original constitutional scope of power the ability to severely limit the immigration of any category of groups into this country. But applying that power in order to mitigate the "threat to public safety" is not acceptable to you, or other Progressives who ply such bromides as "that is not us." It clearly has been us over most of our history, but Progressives, among the arsenal of anti-American and Constitution busting tactics, have in the importation of massive numbers of immigrants who provide no special qualities or abilities to strengthen what were actually once considered American values, found another way of actually watering down those values while at the same time creating a large populace of allies who will add to and strengthen the Progressive trajectory of central government's intrusion into every aspect of our lives.
I do not have actual "evidence" that you really do wish to limit our once unalienable rights and making those rights government rights rather than individual rights. But it just seems, clearly, that you do.