Proposed Law Allows AG Holder to Block Gun Sales to Over a Million Americans

[justashooter 430]

Just so we are clear, I certainly understand what rights a foreign born person has and what they don't.

That doesn't make it any less relevant that if a person (foreign born or USC) does happen to be a terrorist, they shouldn't have a weapon. Point being, if you want to howl about something, don't howl about how awful it is that Big Brother might infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights. Howl about how Big Brother compiles that information; how accurate it is; and how well the information is managed.

so you won't mind giving up your right to vote while crusading against people's right bear arms?

That doesn't even make sense.

just so we're clear, there is this funny little thing called due process. it's one of the things that makes America such a great place. under due process, you are innocent until proven guilty, so being on a "list" is not cause for removal of civil rights, if you have them.

as for charles' comment, well, it's the same issue, really. it's a slippery slope, and the only thing holding the tide is the 2nd.

I happen to think that the Patriot Act and other little #######-ups of the "greatest nation on earth" are just as dangerous to due process as you worrying about your pistol.

i, for one, do not agree with all provisions of the patriot act. i think it is overreaching in terms of civil rights infringement.

i'm not worried about my pistols. i have dozens of them all over the place. i'm more worried about your right to buy one.

[rebeccajo 14]

There are, however, a number of other safety and homeland security related issues covered in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 449 and Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations in the 1540 series that could impede movement, such as a passenger's name appearing on a "no fly" or "selectee" list. The TSA website (www.tsa.gov) is a good source of information on these and other issues.[/b]

you really should read your wiki quotes before posting them.

no, you do not have a constitutionally protected civil right to fly.

you want freedom of movement? you got feet.

It's called case law, precedent and SCOTUS, genius boy. Separation of church and state in the Constitution was written in as something only Congress had power over, but precedent has allowed that the law also applies to the judicial and executive branches. The Constitution ain't perfect and that's why what has happened in the last 200 years is legally relevant also.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

I actually think this is quite funny.

These same 'watch lists' are the ones who incorrectly identify foreign born persons that cause mega delays with visa petitions. The same bullsh*t bureaucratic nonsense that cause foreign born persons who follow the legal path to residency in the US to wait YEARS for the government to clear them for a greencard.

I say give a few gun-toting USC's the same sh*tty treatment the government has been giving to aliens. Maybe then we would all see some changes to "labeling" people because of their surname or country of origin.

why do you hate the constitution?

U R so dim.

you're the one zeroing in on gun owners, not me.

Well yeah - since that's what the topic is about, right?

I'm just saying that it's hilarious that we violate the rights of aliens and USC's by putting their names on "lists"; by making them go through "background checks" to get jobs; etc. but if somebody talks about applying the same principals to people who might own a gun, there is outrage.

You all want preferential status or something from the same things the rest of the population have to go through?

Seems like a double standard to me.

so you won't mind giving up your right to vote while crusading against people's right bear arms?

That doesn't even make sense.

maybe not to you - but i'm sure it does to plenty of others. it's sure is fun to advocate taking away rights from another as long as you don't lose any of yours......

Oh FFS, Charles, that is EXACTLY what I am talking about.

The problem with your argument is that it's perfectly OK to take rights away from people unless they happen to be the precious right to own a gun.

Do you not get the point that ALL rights are precious?

so you caught on to what i was talking about when i asked if you'd be willing to give up your right to vote........

and nowhere in this thread have i said it's ok to take away anyone's rights - that was you that said that.

[rebeccajo 14]

i'm not worried about my pistols. i have dozens of them all over the place. i'm more worried about your right to buy one.

Do me a favor and worry more about the law being applied fairly to EVERYONE no matter what they have bought.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

i'm not worried about my pistols. i have dozens of them all over the place. i'm more worried about your right to buy one.

Do me a favor and worry more about the law being applied fairly to EVERYONE no matter what they have bought.

what about my constitution right to buy a blow up doll?

[justashooter 430]

There are, however, a number of other safety and homeland security related issues covered in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 449 and Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations in the 1540 series that could impede movement, such as a passenger's name appearing on a "no fly" or "selectee" list. The TSA website (www.tsa.gov) is a good source of information on these and other issues.[/b]

you really should read your wiki quotes before posting them.

no, you do not have a constitutionally protected civil right to fly.

you want freedom of movement? you got feet.

It's called case law, precedent and SCOTUS, genius boy. Separation of church and state in the Constitution was written in as something only Congress had power over, but precedent has allowed that the law also applies to the judicial and executive branches. The Constitution ain't perfect and that's why what has happened in the last 200 years is legally relevant also.

you have not refuted my point. you do not have a constitutionally protected right to fly.

i do have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear a firearm.

[rebeccajo 14]

so you caught on to what i was talking about when i asked if you'd be willing to give up your right to vote........

and nowhere in this thread have i said it's ok to take away anyone's rights - that was you that said that.

I certainly did not.

Everybody wants to be protected from the boogey-man 'terrorist'. It's been quite all right to sit by and watch the US government beef up its security by giving latitude for all manner of invasions of privacy. Why should those same invasions not apply to owning a gun? Just because of the 2nd Amendment?

My point is that this single amendment to the Constitution doesn't take precedent over all the others. You should have figured out a long time ago that if we were going to passively allow our government to invade other rights, there was going to back-blow on the Second Amendment also.

[rebeccajo 14]

There are, however, a number of other safety and homeland security related issues covered in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 449 and Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations in the 1540 series that could impede movement, such as a passenger's name appearing on a "no fly" or "selectee" list. The TSA website (www.tsa.gov) is a good source of information on these and other issues.[/b]

you really should read your wiki quotes before posting them.

no, you do not have a constitutionally protected civil right to fly.

you want freedom of movement? you got feet.

It's called case law, precedent and SCOTUS, genius boy. Separation of church and state in the Constitution was written in as something only Congress had power over, but precedent has allowed that the law also applies to the judicial and executive branches. The Constitution ain't perfect and that's why what has happened in the last 200 years is legally relevant also.

you have not refuted my point. you do not have a constitutionally protected right to fly.

i do have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear a firearm.

First you have to pass some sort of "watch list test" with the government to be able to sit your ####### on a plane; then you'll have to start registering yourself with a national database of drivers to get a drivers license; then you'll have to start listing all the places you've ever lived to get a driver's license ---------

Sound far out? That's how your rights get taken away. Little by little. It is happening across the board. What makes you think your right to bear a firearm is immune to that?

Edited June 21, 2009 by rebeccajo

[rebeccajo 14]

i'm not worried about my pistols. i have dozens of them all over the place. i'm more worried about your right to buy one.

Do me a favor and worry more about the law being applied fairly to EVERYONE no matter what they have bought.

what about my constitution right to buy a blow up doll?

As long as it can't blow up a government building or international center of finance and commerce, I don't think anybody will care..........

[justashooter 430]

so you caught on to what i was talking about when i asked if you'd be willing to give up your right to vote........

and nowhere in this thread have i said it's ok to take away anyone's rights - that was you that said that.

I certainly did not.

Everybody wants to be protected from the boogey-man 'terrorist'. It's been quite all right to sit by and watch the US government beef up its security by giving latitude for all manner of invasions of privacy. Why should those same invasions not apply to owning a gun? Just because of the 2nd Amendment?

My point is that this single amendment to the Constitution doesn't take precedent over all the others. You should have figured out a long time ago that if we were going to passively allow our government to invade other rights, there was going to back-blow on the Second Amendment also.

i don't see chicago quartering troops in people's houses. i don't see new jersey telling people they can't go to church, speak freely, or complain about government. i don't see california arresting without warrant or probable cause. i do see all of these political subdivisions abrogating the 2nd amendment, and can name a hundred more. i don't see you being denied the right to vote (14th amendment for women?), but i do see millions of people in DC denied the right to carry a firearm for self defense.

[rebeccajo 14]

so you caught on to what i was talking about when i asked if you'd be willing to give up your right to vote........

and nowhere in this thread have i said it's ok to take away anyone's rights - that was you that said that.

I certainly did not.

Everybody wants to be protected from the boogey-man 'terrorist'. It's been quite all right to sit by and watch the US government beef up its security by giving latitude for all manner of invasions of privacy. Why should those same invasions not apply to owning a gun? Just because of the 2nd Amendment?

My point is that this single amendment to the Constitution doesn't take precedent over all the others. You should have figured out a long time ago that if we were going to passively allow our government to invade other rights, there was going to back-blow on the Second Amendment also.

i don't see chicago quartering troops in people's houses. i don't see new jersey telling people they can't go to church, speak freely, or complain about government. i don't see california arresting without warrant or probable cause. i do see all of these political subdivisions abrogating the 2nd amendment, and can name a hundred more. i don't see you being denied the right to vote (14th amendment for women?), but i do see millions of people in DC denied the right to carry a firearm for self defense.

It's a federal district. All sorts of wiggle room here.

[justashooter 430]

so you caught on to what i was talking about when i asked if you'd be willing to give up your right to vote........

and nowhere in this thread have i said it's ok to take away anyone's rights - that was you that said that.

I certainly did not.

Everybody wants to be protected from the boogey-man 'terrorist'. It's been quite all right to sit by and watch the US government beef up its security by giving latitude for all manner of invasions of privacy. Why should those same invasions not apply to owning a gun? Just because of the 2nd Amendment?

My point is that this single amendment to the Constitution doesn't take precedent over all the others. You should have figured out a long time ago that if we were going to passively allow our government to invade other rights, there was going to back-blow on the Second Amendment also.

i don't see chicago quartering troops in people's houses. i don't see new jersey telling people they can't go to church, speak freely, or complain about government. i don't see california arresting without warrant or probable cause. i do see all of these political subdivisions abrogating the 2nd amendment, and can name a hundred more. i don't see you being denied the right to vote (14th amendment for women?), but i do see millions of people in DC denied the right to carry a firearm for self defense.

It's a federal district. All sorts of wiggle room here.

DC selected for variety. same thing in NYC, shitcago, scam francisco, etc.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just so we are clear, I certainly understand what rights a foreign born person has and what they don't.

That doesn't make it any less relevant that if a person (foreign born or USC) does happen to be a terrorist, they shouldn't have a weapon. Point being, if you want to howl about something, don't howl about how awful it is that Big Brother might infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights. Howl about how Big Brother compiles that information; how accurate it is; and how well the information is managed.

Good point.

[mawilson 2,133]

you have not refuted my point. you do not have a constitutionally protected right to fly.

At the moment.

[mawilson 2,133]

From the same web site:

"Still, some Americans think that 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'. Were

the Founding Fathers criminals trying to protect themselves when they inserted the 4th and 5th

amendments into the Bill of Rights? After all, nobody who hasn't done anything wrong needs

to worry about being searched or being forced to testify against himself.

...

Honest people go to Pro-Life rallies. Honest people attend gun shows. Honest people protest

the President of the United States. Honest people fly to political conventions. What if those with

the power to put people on a 'no fly' list decided that they didn't like the reason for which you

wanted to travel? The honest people wouldn't be going anywhere. "