Tonik Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) They just passed a gun law to prevent mass shootings like what happened in San Bernardino that even if it was enforced...it would not have changed a thing. No one involved was on a no fly list. I guess I should qualify my statement that Dems are morons to say the Dem Politicians are not morons, they know in a liberal state like Conn this crap will get eaten up and they will get reelected. No different than the R's saying we need to go to war in the mid-east to stop terrorism. We know that doesn't work either since we have had two major wars over there with zero results. That is what they do to get re-elected. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-connecticut-guns-idUSKBN0TT2EM20151210 Ok OR koolaid drinkers, flame away. Defend the stupidity of you voting for the same asshats over and over again. They are playing you. Edit: Changed the subject to include everyone. Originally it was just the Dem's. Edited December 10, 2015 by Tonik 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomcat0403 Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Let's dumb this down a bit to adequately illustrate the legal precedent this sets. Hey the government put you on a list, in which they determined you are dangerous.No arrest, no trial, no charges.You are no longer entitled to your (enter number) Amendment Right. okthxbye 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Tpoppa Posted December 10, 2015 Popular Post Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 See signature. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zx3vfr Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 Signatures turned off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) Let's dumb this down a bit to adequately illustrate the legal precedent this sets. Hey the government put you on a list, in which they determined you are dangerous.No arrest, no trial, no charges.You are no longer entitled to your (enter number) Amendment Right.okthxbyeYou can already be denied for other reasons. So there is already precedent. Edited December 11, 2015 by MichaelS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted December 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 See signature.Thankfully your sig doesn't show on mobile. For once I mean it when I say 'Thanks Casper' 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomcat0403 Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 You can already be denied for other reasons. So there is already precedent. In what ways can a citizen be denied without legal charges, convictions, or diagnosis of certain conditions and being given their Due Process? Honest question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh1234 Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 In what ways can a citizen be denied without legal charges, convictions, or diagnosis of certain conditions and being given their Due Process? Honest question. Homeland Security act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 In what ways can a citizen be denied without legal charges, convictions, or diagnosis of certain conditions and being given their Due Process? Honest question. Allegedly there is a reason we have a no fly list. If you believe that list is populated with people that pose a greater threat to the public than your average Joe it makes sense to prevent them from purchasing firearms. If the no fly list is not legitimate then it would seem restricting them from purchasing firearms assuming they meet all other requirements is an over step. In my opinion this program is one of the overreaching reactions to the 9/11 attacks. It seems from what I have read that once you are on the list it is nigh impossible to remove oneself. That I feel is the more egregious offense. One should be able to file for a judicial review in a very timely manner. There are many programs such as this stemming from Bush policies following 9/11 that I would say violate any number of the rights of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 I just want it made known that the title to this rant thread is grammatically incorrect. Thank you for your correct observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomcat0403 Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 Allegedly there is a reason we have a no fly list. If you believe that list is populated with people that pose a greater threat to the public than your average Joe it makes sense to prevent them from purchasing firearms. If the no fly list is not legitimate then it would seem restricting them from purchasing firearms assuming they meet all other requirements is an over step. In my opinion this program is one of the overreaching reactions to the 9/11 attacks. It seems from what I have read that once you are on the list it is nigh impossible to remove oneself. That I feel is the more egregious offense. One should be able to file for a judicial review in a very timely manner. There are many programs such as this stemming from Bush policies following 9/11 that I would say violate any number of the rights of people. The No-fly is not the same as the Terror Watch List. The Terror Watch List are people that would be arrested on site and charged if ever caught. The No-Fly are people the government deemed an extra security risk (to include 75 DHS employees and Ted Kennedy). These people would not be arrested, charged, or detained if encountered by law enforcement. Also, these people have to go through a background check to purchase a firearm...and yet they are cleared. The only reason the No-fly list works is because no one has a right to travel via aircraft and is technically a private business who is willing to accept the enforcement of it. Again the Gov't put these people on a list deeming them a threat for some reason that is not disclosed, it is damn near impossible to be removed from it, you are not being charged with anything by being on it, and you are not a suspect in a crime on top of when a background check is ran during the purchase of a firearm there is no restrictions. So tell me with all these things considered why a person deserves to lose ANY of their CONSTITUTIONAL rights without charges, trials, arrests, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 The No-fly is not the same as the Terror Watch List. The Terror Watch List are people that would be arrested on site and charged if ever caught. The No-Fly are people the government deemed an extra security risk (to include 75 DHS employees and Ted Kennedy). These people would not be arrested, charged, or detained if encountered by law enforcement. Also, these people have to go through a background check to purchase a firearm...and yet they are cleared. The only reason the No-fly list works is because no one has a right to travel via aircraft and is technically a private business who is willing to accept the enforcement of it. Again the Gov't put these people on a list deeming them a threat for some reason that is not disclosed, it is damn near impossible to be removed from it, you are not being charged with anything by being on it, and you are not a suspect in a crime on top of when a background check is ran during the purchase of a firearm there is no restrictions. So tell me with all these things considered why a person deserves to lose ANY of their CONSTITUTIONAL rights without charges, trials, arrests, etc.A right can still have restrictions on it for public safety. The courts have deemed this so. I'm not saying I agree with this law. Ultimately this will end up in court and we will see if it stands. I think really it stems from frustration on overall gun control reform that is needed. So, much like the ACA doesn't really fix the actual problem it makes it look like the politicians are doing something. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictly Street Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 Offering "proof" implies that the concept was in question in the first place. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted December 13, 2015 Report Share Posted December 13, 2015 Also it's important to note that these watch lists regularly frag people based on name and address matching. If you have a name that's the same as someone else on that list, or lived somewhere another person of interest resided, you can be hit by the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r6Brent71 Posted December 13, 2015 Report Share Posted December 13, 2015 It's funny how Obama tells us not to judge Muslim's by the actions of a few Lunatics but we should judge Gun owners by the actions of a few Lunatics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 It's funny how Obama tells us not to judge Muslim's by the actions of a few Lunatics but we should judge Gun owners by the actions of a few Lunatics.He isn't saying we should judge gun owners. At least I have never seen anything that says that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapphy Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 He isn't saying we should judge gun owners. At least I have never seen anything that says that.He's not foolish enough to come out and say it himself but his Bloomberg friends do. As the anti-gun crowd machinates through dicey logic, the smarter among them know where their logical progression must end - confiscation. Anything short of full-on confiscation will result in lawful owners' rights marginalized and thugs' abilities strengthened. Which to them isn't that big of a problem because they either are willfully disarmed already or have security details to protect them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted December 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 I have to agree with Scott here. While you may not find a direct quote for his O'ness there is no debate that the left portrays gun owners and the problem, as hicks, rednecks, ignorant people...mocking with 'Merica. Absolutely no difference than the way many on the right are portraying all Muslims as terrorists. In fact the Dems often use far more aggressive hate speech towards gun owners than even Trump uses against the Muslims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 Well I have never seen it. As for the stereotype...there is always some truth to one. And by that I mean what do you a lot of time see when they show someone that was/is serious serious about guns. I grew up with them, using appropriate tools for hunting foul and fauna. I personally would say if you need a 15 round clip to hunt deer...you are doing it wrong. Very wrong. So, I am not against people owning them but owning the appropriate ones for the job. If you are into hunting humans and need that many rounds, join the military. You can't get a permit for that here. But this is way off the original topic of this particular law. To which I already commented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted December 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 As for the stereotype...there is always some truth to one. That applies to the stereotype about Islam being a religion of terrorism right? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo72 Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 That's funny. I must have missed the sporting pupose clause in the second ammendment. I'll have to read that one again.Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 I personally would say if you need a 15 round clip to hunt deer...you are doing it wrong. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting. There are plenty of historical documents that show exactly why the 2nd Amendment was part of the BoR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 That's funny. I must have missed the sporting pupose clause in the second ammendment. I'll have to read that one again.It's right beside the word "musket". [emoji57] 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 That's funny. I must have missed the sporting pupose clause in the second ammendment. I'll have to read that one again.Sent from my SPH-L720T using TapatalkWhile it isn't there, being part of a militia is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.