Banning guns for those on the terror watchlist

[Jim in CT]

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.

[Jim in CT]

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.

[Sea Dangles]

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

[Fly Rod]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

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.

[Sea Dangles]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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.

[spence]

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???

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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???

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

[spence]

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Fishpart]

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.

[tysdad115]

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/

[Rockport24]

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

[tysdad115]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

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??

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by tysdad115

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

[tysdad115]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

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.

[Rockport24]

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?

[tysdad115]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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.

[tysdad115]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We can modify the Constitution to fit the times.

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

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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.

[Slipknot]

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!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by tysdad115

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

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.