San Bernardino
-
So you're saying your problem is *still* with the people being put on the list? OK got it. You can stop dumping other people's words and try having a thought of your own some time maybe?
-
So you're saying your problem is *still* with the people being put on the list? OK got it. You can stop dumping other people's words and try having a thought of your own some time maybe?
-
That is your rebuttal lol
You keep trying to make the same point, and dumping text from various places to back it up. I keep making the same counter point and you haven't responded to it at all. If your problem is genuinely with the wrong people ending up on the list, then go after that process, with all the strength you can muster. You'll get no opposition to making sure people don't end up on the list when they absolutely shouldn't.
But the fact that you're not, and you're worried about the new piece of legislation designed to stop terrorists getting guns is telling.
-
I think it's pretty reasonable to block people on terrorist watch list from buying guns until they go through whatever steps necessary to make their case to be removed from said list.
I don't really understand how there's any argument against that.
-
When your thinking is the answer is to suspend our constitution something is not right as well. When we suspend our constitution to fight terrorism the terrorists have already won.
You already suspend your constitution plenty. Prisoners, drug addicts, mental patients, and a bunch of other groups of people aren't allowed to buy guns.
So, given that the 'suspending the constitution = terrorists winning' argument doesn't hold much water, why should suspected terrorists be allowed to buy guns exactly?
You already suspend your constitution plenty. Prisoners, drug addicts, mental patients, and a bunch of other groups of people aren't allowed to buy guns.
So, given that the 'suspending the constitution = terrorists winning' argument doesn't hold much water, why should suspected terrorists be allowed to buy guns exactly?
No fly list is not a conviction in the court of law. Suspected anything also is not a conviction.
-
Fix the 'selection process' by all means, but that shouldn't be the reason to allow suspected terrorists to buy guns at will. That's where your problem is. Chris
***********************************
That's a good bit the point, Chris. There must be Constitutional protections to make certain an Obamao authority type
can't arbitrarily try to put an entire class of Americans on a "no fly list". Who oversees that? We saw how the
FISA court ended up being useless. It seems so asinine - three EXPLOSIVE DEVICES were found at the scene
of the crime - the apt was an IED factory. Say, those are illegal, libs. Where did they get those???
Where did all the explosives come from? Keep in mind, that they also found radio controlled cars that were
being set up to explode devices. ....that is a legit signature of al-queda terrorist training. Where did they get
that training? And his ..."wife" ? They are now finding that they may have been "married" for two years before
he went over there and brought her back. It isn't gun owners that need to be harrassed. It's Islamic extremist/terrorists
who need to have to be kicked into prison before they murder people with poison/guns/bombs/knives/etc.
And I don't know how that's possible, for the most part. I don't know much of anything about the Quran, but it
certain seems to be very imperfect when so many Islamist terrorists are seeing themselves as "justified" by it.
But playing dirty politics with terrorist violence, all violence, will only end up enabling more violence to occur.
-
Okay, Chris - I made the same point, and didn't "dump text" from a link.
Now, you can demand I come up with a link, with a lot of "dumped text"...
or you can ignore my opinion.
Come on. It's obvious that you and a couple of others don't bother to open
the links, and you are objecting to "dumps"...
then you flip off opinions that you simply declare as unsubstantiated.
That pretty much sums up the problem.
-
http://www.usworldreport.com/huh-obama-goes-after-lawful-gun-owners-on-social-security/
A new report from Secretary Napolitano categorizes returning Military Veterans and those individuals that are proponents of “States Rights” or those that oppose the growth of the Federal Government as “Right Wing Extremists”
https://www.aclu.org/cases/latif-et-al-v-holder-et-al-aclu-challenge-government-no-fly-list
-
Okay, Chris - I made the same point, and didn't "dump text" from a link.
Now, you can demand I come up with a link, with a lot of "dumped text"...
or you can ignore my opinion.
Come on. It's obvious that you and a couple of others don't bother to open
the links, and you are objecting to "dumps"...
then you flip off opinions that you simply declare as unsubstantiated.
That pretty much sums up the problem.
Okay, Chris - I made the same point, and didn't "dump text" from a link.
Now, you can demand I come up with a link, with a lot of "dumped text"...
or you can ignore my opinion.
Come on.
You've made the same point that I've addressed many times? Well, do you want me to repeat myself?
You have no problem restricting access to guns for suspected terrorists, correct?
You also have a list of suspected terrorists.
You oppose a law that restricts access to guns for people on that list...because you don't like how people get added to that list?
OK, enact the law, but tighten up the way people get on the list. I agree that someone having unilateral power over that list is not a good thing and if that's the case it should be changed, so challenge that aspect of it, and get the correct criteria.
-
I can either post text from comments I agree with 100 percent or just put those comments needlessly in my own words and then have Chris demand I post a link to back it up. Silly. It is the argument that is being presented here. In this case the argument of giving up constitutional rights and whether it is even necessary to do so.
-
It's like talking to a wall.
-
Chris, you ARE the wall.
We'll keep our Constitution, thanks anyways.
-
-
I actually disagree with the no fly list. If there is evidence of a danger to people and property, and you won't let the person fly, show me the evidence? And if there is evidence, lock em up.
-
jesus Christ, can't we all just agree that while your fukcking name is on the no fly list that you be barred from purchasing a firearm until you clear that up? Pre-req t to that is actually knowing, ie getting notification, that your ass is on that list.
-
The Constitution isn't a perfect document written in stone...
-
Cleve - the no fly list DOES NOT LET YOU GET OFF IT, AND WHY YOU WERE PUT
ON IT IS CLASSIFIED.READ THE ARTICLE ABOUT THAT.
-
News update:
the "couple" had 13 pipe bombs in their apartment. That's illegal.
Imagine that.
Why, those things are illegal, and impossible to get...
uh-huh.
-
Fight like hell to keep em out. Build wall, NO refugees, no H1Bs, ship out all the illegals.
But if they manage to slip through the cracks, f*ck it give them all the guns they want.
---
Relevant update is the San Bernandino couple is confirmed "radicalized" as if there was any doubt before (hint: there wasn't)
Apparently they were in contact with known terrorists on the FBI watch list. Which if you didn't know, happens to qualify you for the terrorist watch list/no fly list yourself
Making Syed and his wife WhateverthenameIs candidates for said lists. -
sooo... Jeh is asleep at the helm?
oh thats right - intel says its not that big a threat ...sheesh
funny how the left is gettin all hawkish all of a sudden!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login