Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

San Bernardino


Legacy Fan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Even by your own logic, the part of the process that is (apparently) at fault is not the "suspected terrorists shouldn't be allowed to buy guns" but the "this person is a suspected terrorist" part. By all means fix that if it's broken, but I'd rather a few people get inadvertently caught in the "is this persona terrorist? maybe, let's keep them under serveillance for a bit" net than a few actual terrorists slip through.

 

I'm honestly staggered that we're even having this debate.

 

Just saying whatever is done to fight terrorism must follow our constitution and we should not suspend our constitution to fight terrorism. Fix the no fly system and make it better first before passing a law stating if you are on the no fly zone you cannot own a weapon is all that I am asking. Of course I do not want to see terrorists legally buy weapons here (but seriously they aren't getting them legally anyway). In principal I am for this law but I want it to pass our constitutional muster where law abiding citizens don't find themselves in this net meant for terrorists. It is easy to say if it is just a few it is alright as long as you are not the person who is one of the few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't expecting any level of comprehension from you. Thanks for not letting me down.

 

there's nothing of value to comprehend with your logic. I technically see what you're always trying to do but it's stupid. Wholesale stupid. It's just a pre rendered boiler plated narrative that's been put on you, and you can't for the life of you see through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A. Edw is an asshole for talking about how I and anybody else want no fly people suspected of

terrorist ties/leanings...to buy guns.

 

Stop being an asshole, edw. The problem is, we've had a pres/AG who would happily put entire classes of

groups of people on the no fly list. He's that corrupt in his leftism. Social security folks

who have friends/family handle their finances... returning veterans... tea party folks...pro-Constitution folks....

anti-abortion folks....anti-mmgw folks.....anti-perverse redefinition of marriage folks....any American with

more than one or two guns....

 

so please STFU about your knee jerking politics. Opposing a very bad law that the left wants and falsely claims

"it will solve the problem"....doesn't mean that those who rightly oppose the very bad law want the problem to stay.

 

That is just so intellectually dishonest it's amazing that so many libs go for that nonsense.

 

 

B. Obamao has brought this on us - unlimited, unvetted mass immigration, extreme weakness and cowardice,

biased way over the top towards MUSLIMS and MUSLIM COUNTRIES, refusing to say the words "Islamic

extremists/terrorists".....

 

C. It is the usual corruption of leftism - encourage a crisis so you can use it for political gain against your political opponents.

Look at how he has acted on mmgw, 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment, Christian moral stances, siding with all blacks

in any shooting or violence or legal controversy....

 

California already has nearly the strongest gun control in the country..., how many times has this been shown

to be exactly what NOT to do to regular Americans? These Bern. terrorists had bombs. Those are illegal.

They planned this for a good while.

 

D. The brother-in-law of Syed gave a short pres conference statement - he emotionally said he never, ever saw this coming,

and he was so sorry, for the victims of the violence....... he is very much devastated.

 

E. I reckon I will never understand liberals turning on their fellow Americans when terrorism hits, like the Bern. terrorists

did. What kind of sick idea do they have, to go after hundreds of millions of decent American folks, every time

a mentally sick individual/and/or/ISLAMIC TERRORIST acts out in hideous violence?

 

What the hell is up with blaming the "NRA" or "Tea Party" ?

 

F. I understand they are not declaring this an act of terrorism until the facts are in. But, more and more the facts

are saying just that. Don't be surprised if ObaMao never does admit it. He just wants to go after

political opponents, including the American people who aren't like him....

 

G. Gee, another gun free zone...dammit. It seems that the Saudi wife of Syed? got a job there...to scout the place,

or maybe I didn't hear it right - I was in the other room answering the phone....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am one of the few I'm going to have other issues, like not being able to fly, but honestly if it all comes out fine and I get an apology, I'm ok with it.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? Chris


****************************************************


Wrong on all counts. They aren't allowed to guy guns because they went through due process, and violated


their responsibilities as American citizens, and lost their rights and went to a ward/prison.



A suspected terrorist is only as possibly guilty as the evidence that he really is a terrorist, or not -


In America, we are innocent until PROVEN guilty. Obamao doesn't get to declare all those who


object to mmgw, oppose abortion and perverse marriage and who own guns as "suspected terrorists".


The "no-fly" list must not be allowed to be used as a political weapon. And ObaMao has used the IRS


as a weapon already. And the BATF. Remember 'fast and furious" ? That was a political weapon gambit


that backfired.



That is how corrupt Obamao, Holder, Lynch and the whole bunch are.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

there's nothing of value to comprehend with your logic. I technically see what you're always trying to do but it's stupid. Wholesale stupid. It's just a pre rendered boiler plated narrative that's been put on you, and you can't for the life of you see through it.

no you actually don't. Which is comical (read: sad).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The devil is in the details:

 

In their zeal to defeat Republican terrorists, Democrats have decided that the constitutional right to due process is a loophole that must be closed

 

 

Their new secret weapon? A bill that would ban anyone whose name appears on a terror watch list from buying or possessing a firearm. The idea sounds reasonable enough until you dig into the details and realize that the proposed Democratic legislation is a shocking assault on the constitutional right to due process. What makes the proposal even worse is that the Democrats’ assault on due process isn’t necessary to accomplish what they say is their only goal: preventing “dangerous terrorists” from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm.

The new bill, which Democrats have dubbed the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015, gives the U.S. attorney general the authority to “deny the sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit to dangerous terrorists.”

 

According to several Democratic sponsors of the bill, the proposed law would allow the attorney general to deny a criminal background check clearance to any individual whose name appears on the national terror watch list. The huge problem with this expansive new power is that there are precisely zero statutory criteria for inclusion on this massive list. In fact, when statutory authority for the centralized government database was first codified into law via the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress gave all authority for determining criteria for inclusion in the watch list to unelected, unaccountable government bureaucrats. If some faceless Beltway bureaucrat decides you might be a terrorist, then you’re a terrorist. End of story.

It gets even worse, though. If your name erroneously appears on that watch list, which as of 2013 included nearly 900,000 names (hardly a few), the Democrats’ proposed legislation renders you virtually powerless to find out why your name is on there, let alone to have it removed. And having your name erroneously or fraudulently added to that list isn’t as far-fetched as you might think.

In 2014, for example, Weekly Standard writer and Fox News contributor Stephen F. Hayes was informed that somebody added his name to the Department of Homeland Security’s terrorist watch list. There is zero credible evidence that he has any ties whatsoever to terrorism or to any terrorist organizations. Yet, under the Democrats’ new bill, he and everyone else who is erroneously listed would be banned from ever purchasing or possessing a firearm. Hayes’ apparent crime was traveling overseas for a cruise. Hayes is not alone. Each year, thousands of names end up on the terror watch list for no good reason whatsoever.

Under the Democrats’ proposal, the government doesn’t have to tell you why your name is on the list. The proposed law allows the government to keep that information secret. And if you decide to take the government to court over it, the Democrats’ bill creates a brand new legal standard that tilts the scales of justice against you.

 

Unlike a standard criminal trial, in which a jury must decide beyond a reasonable doubt whether you have violated a criminal law, under this proposed law the government must only show a preponderance of evidence–evidence which will almost certainly be redacted–in order to strip you of your Second Amendment right to defend yourself and your family from terrorists:

Remember, you don’t have to be convicted of any crime whatsoever to end up on the terrorist watch list. You don’t even have to be charged with a crime to lose your constitutional rights under the proposed law. If this proposed legislation were to become law, some DHS bureaucrat–perhaps the type of bureaucrat who wrote earlier this year that “right-wing terrorists” pose the biggest threat to American national security–only needs to snap his fingers and add your name to the blacklist in order to immediately deprive you of your Second Amendment rights and your constitutional right to due process. You don’t even get to review the entirety of the evidence against you.

The blatant unconstitutional deprivation of due process is more than sufficient reason to oppose this piece of legislation, but it’s not the only reason. There may actually be an even bigger reason to reject it: it is completely unnecessary, because the U.S. attorney general already has the power to prevent “dangerous terrorists” from legally buying guns, and that power can be exercised without unconstitutional deprivation of due process.

All the attorney general has to do to prevent “dangerous terrorists” from legally purchasing firearms is to indict them. That’s it. Charge these terrorists with terrorism, and their legal right to purchase firearms goes up in smoke. That’s because existing federal law states that anyone who’s been indicted for any crime that carries a prison sentence of more than one year–and felony indictment for conspiracy to commit terrorism certainly satisfies that standard–automatically becomes ineligible to purchase or possess a firearm:

 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/23/sorry-democrats-but-there-is-no-loophole-that-allows-terrorists-to-buy-guns/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.usworldreport.com/huh-obama-goes-after-lawful-gun-owners-on-social-security/

 

https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/homeland-securitys-napolitano-insults-veterans-unions-gun-owners-and-pro-life/

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...