For the last time, I'm gonna try to educate the left on GUNS; Can't take ignorance any longer.

[Wry Catcher]

"I have no doubt"? So, the evidence must be very powerful. Post it so all of us can be sure the first gun control law will lead to a slippery slope and soon local law enforcement personnel will be assigned to confiscate every gun in America.

Dude, it's up to the lying pricks who say "Trust us, we only want this" to prove to me they won't want more. My 60 years of experience is exactly as I stated; more and more encroachment on Constitutional rights.

Can't prove it? Fine. I'm happy support the status quo. The gun laws are perfectly adequate now. We don't need more laws or more restrictions. What we can do is enforce present law. Happy now?

No fly, no buy. It's a very simple concept. I won't argue that more gun laws are a panacea, but having a moment of silence and then going back to their office to raise money for their next campaign, or to figure out a way to repeal (never repair parts that may need repair) the PPACA for 51st time ain't what I won't my tax dollars to support.

What are the legal requirements to strip a citizen of his constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights?

If you want to deny anyone any right that procedure must be followed

Let's be clear. Do you support taking away a voting right, or a women's right to choose as legitimate, but find that someone who has been denied the right to travel in a civilian airliner should be legally able to buy a firearm? And, the sole reason to argue this point is the 2nd A.

Do you also believe that the most recent mass killer, an American citizen who was investigated by the FBI on several occasion, should have been arrested and detained even though the investigation found no probable cause to do so.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"I have no doubt"? So, the evidence must be very powerful. Post it so all of us can be sure the first gun control law will lead to a slippery slope and soon local law enforcement personnel will be assigned to confiscate every gun in America.

Dude, it's up to the lying pricks who say "Trust us, we only want this" to prove to me they won't want more. My 60 years of experience is exactly as I stated; more and more encroachment on Constitutional rights.

Can't prove it? Fine. I'm happy support the status quo. The gun laws are perfectly adequate now. We don't need more laws or more restrictions. What we can do is enforce present law. Happy now?

No fly, no buy. It's a very simple concept. I won't argue that more gun laws are a panacea, but having a moment of silence and then going back to their office to raise money for their next campaign, or to figure out a way to repeal (never repair parts that may need repair) the PPACA for 51st time ain't what I won't my tax dollars to support.

What are the legal requirements to strip a citizen of his constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights?

If you want to deny anyone any right that procedure must be followed

Let's be clear. Do you support taking away a voting right, or a women's right to choose as legitimate, but find that someone who has been denied the right to travel in a civilian airliner should be legally able to buy a firearm? And, the sole reason to argue this point is the 2nd A.

Do you also believe that the most recent mass killer, an American citizen who was investigated by the FBI on several occasion, should have been arrested and detained even though the investigation found no probable cause to do so.

I don't support taking any rights from anyone.

And yes he was investigated but was he charged with anything? Tell me do you think the authorities should be able to detain anyone they want for any reason whatsoever?

 

[jon_berzerk]

"I have no doubt"? So, the evidence must be very powerful. Post it so all of us can be sure the first gun control law will lead to a slippery slope and soon local law enforcement personnel will be assigned to confiscate every gun in America.

Dude, it's up to the lying pricks who say "Trust us, we only want this" to prove to me they won't want more. My 60 years of experience is exactly as I stated; more and more encroachment on Constitutional rights.

Can't prove it? Fine. I'm happy support the status quo. The gun laws are perfectly adequate now. We don't need more laws or more restrictions. What we can do is enforce present law. Happy now?

No fly, no buy. It's a very simple concept. I won't argue that more gun laws are a panacea, but having a moment of silence and then going back to their office to raise money for their next campaign, or to figure out a way to repeal (never repair parts that may need repair) the PPACA for 51st time ain't what I won't my tax dollars to support.

What are the legal requirements to strip a citizen of his constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights?

If you want to deny anyone any right that procedure must be followed

Let's be clear. Do you support taking away a voting right, or a women's right to choose as legitimate, but find that someone who has been denied the right to travel in a civilian airliner should be legally able to buy a firearm? And, the sole reason to argue this point is the 2nd A.

Do you also believe that the most recent mass killer, an American citizen who was investigated by the FBI on several occasion, should have been arrested and detained even though the investigation found no probable cause to do so.

but find that someone who has been denied the right to travel in a civilian airliner should be legally able to buy a firearm?

where is the due process for stopping someones rights

i find it repulsive that anyone would consider stripping the rights of another

without the measure of Due Process

btw have they been denied the "right of travel"

or to use of an airline

 

[Skull Pilot]

7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List

So are you people in favor of stripping all rights of everyone on the no fly list or just 2nd amendment rights?
What if one got on the no fly list for exercising his 1st amendment right of free speech?

 

[Divine Wind]

No fly, no buy. It's a very simple concept. I won't argue that more gun laws are a panacea, but having a moment of silence and then going back to their office to raise money for their next campaign, or to figure out a way to repeal (never repair parts that may need repair) the PPACA for 51st time ain't what I won't my tax dollars to support.

Are you also fine with no vote? No Internet? No freedom of assembly? No freedom of the Press? Why not? You're already supporting two Constitutional violations, why not go for the whole enchilada?

Liberals lying about "we're here to help". LOL

Meanwhile, even the ACLU has a problem with your unConstitutional authoritarian dictums.

Watchlists
The U.S. government maintains a massive watchlist system that risks stigmatizing hundreds of thousands of people—including U.S. citizens—as terrorism suspects based on vague, overbroad, and often secret standards and evidence.

The consequences of being placed on a government watchlist can be far-reaching. They can include questioning, harassment, or detention by authorities, or even an indefinite ban on air travel. And while the government keeps the evidence it uses to blacklist people in this manner secret, government watchdogs have found that as many as 35 percent of the nominations to the network of watchlists are outdated and tens of thousands of names were placed on lists without an adequate factual basis. To make matters worse, the government denies watchlisted individuals any meaningful way to correct errors and clear their names.

'No-fly list' grounds some unusual young suspects - The Boston Globe
Infants have been stopped from boarding planes at airports throughout the United States because their names are the same as, or similar to, those of possible terrorists on the government's ''no-fly list."

Because of these screenings, parents have missed flights while scrambling to have babies' passports and other documents faxed to allow them to board.

Airline pulls 18 month old girl off plane in 'no-fly' alert
Officials say an 18-month-old girl was mistakenly pulled off a JetBlue flight before it left Fort Lauderdale because airline employees thought her name was on the U.S. no-fly list.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/30road.html
A RESPONSE to last week’s column about the chronic troubles of air travelers came from Christine Anderson, who says she was with her son Jack both times he was told that he was on the terrorist watch list.

The first time was in 2004, when Jack; his mother; his brothers Joey, then 8, and Joshua, then 5; and their grandmother, Susan, arrived at the airport in Minneapolis for a trip to Disney World.

“The woman at the ticket counter demanded, ‘Who is John Anderson?’ ” Ms. Anderson recalled. She pointed at the baby stroller and said, “He’s right here.” The suspect, then 2 years old, blinked his big blue eyes and happily gummed his pacifier.

“That baby’s on the no-fly watch list,” the agent said.

His brothers became agitated. “We’re not going to Disney World!” one of them wailed, according to Ms. Anderson.

After about an hour, the airline ascertained that the Jack in the stroller was not the Jack on the terrorist list, and the family made its flight.

 

[Divine Wind]

"I have no doubt"? So, the evidence must be very powerful. Post it so all of us can be sure the first gun control law will lead to a slippery slope and soon local law enforcement personnel will be assigned to confiscate every gun in America.

Dude, it's up to the lying pricks who say "Trust us, we only want this" to prove to me they won't want more. My 60 years of experience is exactly as I stated; more and more encroachment on Constitutional rights.

Can't prove it? Fine. I'm happy support the status quo. The gun laws are perfectly adequate now. We don't need more laws or more restrictions. What we can do is enforce present law. Happy now?

No fly, no buy. It's a very simple concept. I won't argue that more gun laws are a panacea, but having a moment of silence and then going back to their office to raise money for their next campaign, or to figure out a way to repeal (never repair parts that may need repair) the PPACA for 51st time ain't what I won't my tax dollars to support.

What are the legal requirements to strip a citizen of his constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights?

If you want to deny anyone any right that procedure must be followed

Let's be clear. Do you support taking away a voting right, or a women's right to choose as legitimate, but find that someone who has been denied the right to travel in a civilian airliner should be legally able to buy a firearm? And, the sole reason to argue this point is the 2nd A.

Do you also believe that the most recent mass killer, an American citizen who was investigated by the FBI on several occasion, should have been arrested and detained even though the investigation found no probable cause to do so.

but find that someone who has been denied the right to travel in a civilian airliner should be legally able to buy a firearm?

where is the due process for stopping someones rights

i find it repulsive that anyone would consider stripping the rights of another

without the measure of Due Process

btw have they been denied the "right of travel"

or to use of an airline

Agreed. Fix the Due Process issue first then we can go from there.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"I have no doubt"? So, the evidence must be very powerful. Post it so all of us can be sure the first gun control law will lead to a slippery slope and soon local law enforcement personnel will be assigned to confiscate every gun in America.

Dude, it's up to the lying pricks who say "Trust us, we only want this" to prove to me they won't want more. My 60 years of experience is exactly as I stated; more and more encroachment on Constitutional rights.

Can't prove it? Fine. I'm happy support the status quo. The gun laws are perfectly adequate now. We don't need more laws or more restrictions. What we can do is enforce present law. Happy now?

No fly, no buy. It's a very simple concept. I won't argue that more gun laws are a panacea, but having a moment of silence and then going back to their office to raise money for their next campaign, or to figure out a way to repeal (never repair parts that may need repair) the PPACA for 51st time ain't what I won't my tax dollars to support.

What are the legal requirements to strip a citizen of his constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights?

If you want to deny anyone any right that procedure must be followed

Let's be clear. Do you support taking away a voting right, or a women's right to choose as legitimate, but find that someone who has been denied the right to travel in a civilian airliner should be legally able to buy a firearm? And, the sole reason to argue this point is the 2nd A.

Do you also believe that the most recent mass killer, an American citizen who was investigated by the FBI on several occasion, should have been arrested and detained even though the investigation found no probable cause to do so.

I don't support taking any rights from anyone.

And yes he was investigated but was he charged with anything? Tell me do you think the authorities should be able to detain anyone they want for any reason whatsoever?

Hell no, nor do I believe authorities need to single out people in line arbitrarily for a greater search of their person and effects than done to everyone else in line without a warrant. But, being pragmatic and not an ideologue, I understand and support such intrusions because not to do so will very likely have consequences no sane persons wants to see happen.

Rights are not absolute.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Dude, it's up to the lying pricks who say "Trust us, we only want this" to prove to me they won't want more. My 60 years of experience is exactly as I stated; more and more encroachment on Constitutional rights.

Can't prove it? Fine. I'm happy support the status quo. The gun laws are perfectly adequate now. We don't need more laws or more restrictions. What we can do is enforce present law. Happy now?

No fly, no buy. It's a very simple concept. I won't argue that more gun laws are a panacea, but having a moment of silence and then going back to their office to raise money for their next campaign, or to figure out a way to repeal (never repair parts that may need repair) the PPACA for 51st time ain't what I won't my tax dollars to support.

What are the legal requirements to strip a citizen of his constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights?

If you want to deny anyone any right that procedure must be followed

Let's be clear. Do you support taking away a voting right, or a women's right to choose as legitimate, but find that someone who has been denied the right to travel in a civilian airliner should be legally able to buy a firearm? And, the sole reason to argue this point is the 2nd A.

Do you also believe that the most recent mass killer, an American citizen who was investigated by the FBI on several occasion, should have been arrested and detained even though the investigation found no probable cause to do so.

but find that someone who has been denied the right to travel in a civilian airliner should be legally able to buy a firearm?

where is the due process for stopping someones rights

i find it repulsive that anyone would consider stripping the rights of another

without the measure of Due Process

btw have they been denied the "right of travel"

or to use of an airline

Agreed. Fix the Due Process issue first then we can go from there.

yes often these people who end up on the list have

no idea that they are even the list

 

[Wilbur Right]

Tell me do you think the authorities should be able to detain anyone they want for any reason whatsoever?

Only if they are a registered republican. Those people are so crazy they are dangerous. Arrest them for being stupid and willfully ignorant.


But you are safe. You aren't a republican. You are just crazy.

 

[Divine Wind]

Let's be clear. Do you support taking away a voting right, or a women's right to choose as legitimate, but find that someone who has been denied the right to travel in a civilian airliner should be legally able to buy a firearm? And, the sole reason to argue this point is the 2nd A.

Do you also believe that the most recent mass killer, an American citizen who was investigated by the FBI on several occasion, should have been arrested and detained even though the investigation found no probable cause to do so.

I do not. I support the Libertarian platform on those issues.

Again, this is a matter of the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause. The FBI investigated Mateen and found him to be all nutjob, much like several on this forum who claim to be veterans, rich, etc. While the report isn't out, I'm sure it will be released and we'll see that Mateen was simply a fucked up closet homosexual who needed mental health care, not being "Disappeared" by a Federal hit squad.

The FBI had nothing to charge him with. Do you want Congress to legislate new law where abusive, possible bipolar Muslim closet homosexual Americans can detained and stripped of their Constitutional rights? Did you support the Patriot Act?

 

[Divine Wind]

Only if they are a registered republican. Those people are so crazy they are dangerous. Arrest them for being stupid and willfully ignorant.


But you are safe. You aren't a republican. You are just crazy.

Ahhh, finally. Truth from the far Left. Thanks for your honesty even though I strongly disagree.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Dude, it's up to the lying pricks who say "Trust us, we only want this" to prove to me they won't want more. My 60 years of experience is exactly as I stated; more and more encroachment on Constitutional rights.

Can't prove it? Fine. I'm happy support the status quo. The gun laws are perfectly adequate now. We don't need more laws or more restrictions. What we can do is enforce present law. Happy now?

No fly, no buy. It's a very simple concept. I won't argue that more gun laws are a panacea, but having a moment of silence and then going back to their office to raise money for their next campaign, or to figure out a way to repeal (never repair parts that may need repair) the PPACA for 51st time ain't what I won't my tax dollars to support.

What are the legal requirements to strip a citizen of his constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights?

If you want to deny anyone any right that procedure must be followed

Let's be clear. Do you support taking away a voting right, or a women's right to choose as legitimate, but find that someone who has been denied the right to travel in a civilian airliner should be legally able to buy a firearm? And, the sole reason to argue this point is the 2nd A.

Do you also believe that the most recent mass killer, an American citizen who was investigated by the FBI on several occasion, should have been arrested and detained even though the investigation found no probable cause to do so.

I don't support taking any rights from anyone.

And yes he was investigated but was he charged with anything? Tell me do you think the authorities should be able to detain anyone they want for any reason whatsoever?

Hell no, nor do I believe authorities need to single out people in line arbitrarily for a greater search of their person and effects than done to everyone else in line without a warrant. But, being pragmatic and not an ideologue, I understand and support such intrusions because not to do so will very likely have consequences no sane persons wants to see happen.

Rights are not absolute.

And there is due process. Follow that due process and I have no issues with denying any citizen his rights

The second you make it arbitrary we might as well wipe our asses with the Constitution

 

[Divine Wind]

Rights are not absolute.

An excellent summation of what the 21st Century Democratic party represents: All your right are belong to us.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No fly, no buy. It's a very simple concept. I won't argue that more gun laws are a panacea, but having a moment of silence and then going back to their office to raise money for their next campaign, or to figure out a way to repeal (never repair parts that may need repair) the PPACA for 51st time ain't what I won't my tax dollars to support.

Are you also fine with no vote? No Internet? No freedom of assembly? No freedom of the Press? Why not? You're already supporting two Constitutional violations, why not go for the whole enchilada?

Liberals lying about "we're here to help". LOL

Meanwhile, even the ACLU has a problem with your unConstitutional authoritarian dictums.

Watchlists
The U.S. government maintains a massive watchlist system that risks stigmatizing hundreds of thousands of people—including U.S. citizens—as terrorism suspects based on vague, overbroad, and often secret standards and evidence.

The consequences of being placed on a government watchlist can be far-reaching. They can include questioning, harassment, or detention by authorities, or even an indefinite ban on air travel. And while the government keeps the evidence it uses to blacklist people in this manner secret, government watchdogs have found that as many as 35 percent of the nominations to the network of watchlists are outdated and tens of thousands of names were placed on lists without an adequate factual basis. To make matters worse, the government denies watchlisted individuals any meaningful way to correct errors and clear their names.

'No-fly list' grounds some unusual young suspects - The Boston Globe
Infants have been stopped from boarding planes at airports throughout the United States because their names are the same as, or similar to, those of possible terrorists on the government's ''no-fly list."

Because of these screenings, parents have missed flights while scrambling to have babies' passports and other documents faxed to allow them to board.

Airline pulls 18 month old girl off plane in 'no-fly' alert
Officials say an 18-month-old girl was mistakenly pulled off a JetBlue flight before it left Fort Lauderdale because airline employees thought her name was on the U.S. no-fly list.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/30road.html
A RESPONSE to last week’s column about the chronic troubles of air travelers came from Christine Anderson, who says she was with her son Jack both times he was told that he was on the terrorist watch list.

The first time was in 2004, when Jack; his mother; his brothers Joey, then 8, and Joshua, then 5; and their grandmother, Susan, arrived at the airport in Minneapolis for a trip to Disney World.

“The woman at the ticket counter demanded, ‘Who is John Anderson?’ ” Ms. Anderson recalled. She pointed at the baby stroller and said, “He’s right here.” The suspect, then 2 years old, blinked his big blue eyes and happily gummed his pacifier.

“That baby’s on the no-fly watch list,” the agent said.

His brothers became agitated. “We’re not going to Disney World!” one of them wailed, according to Ms. Anderson.

After about an hour, the airline ascertained that the Jack in the stroller was not the Jack on the terrorist list, and the family made its flight.

Shit happens. Better stupid mistakes inconvenience than stupid mistakes cause an airliner to crash.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Rights are not absolute.

An excellent summation of what the 21st Century Democratic party represents: All your right are belong to us.

Are you as stupid as your comments suggest? Or a mendacious partisan hack who simply echoes foolishness that you've been told to repeat.

 

[Divine Wind]

Shit happens. Better stupid mistakes inconvenience than stupid mistakes cause an airliner to crash.

1) There is a difference between "stupid mistakes" and sheer incompetence. The Obama administation has had almost 8 years to get their ducks in a row and they are still fucking it up. Even HuffPo agrees: 7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List

2) Even if a mistake is made, where is the due process to correct it? There isn't any and the Democrats, including many on this forum, don't give a shit.

 

[Divine Wind]

Are you as stupid as your comments suggest? Or a mendacious partisan hack who simply echoes foolishness that you've been told to repeat.

Annnnd we're back to a classic Democrat answer: Emotional rhetoric, personal insults and, in general, a condescending demeanor. No wonder nobody trusts them.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It is not illegal to own a .45 Thompson, but if you want to shoot it outside your property, you have to have a special license. We should simply include any semiautomatic rifle that has a magazine that can be rapidly removed and replaced. And if you are found with such a weapon without the license, you have committed a felony, all your firearms will be confiscated and destroyed, and, after you have served your time, you cannot own or have in your possession a firearm for the rest of your life. And, from the time the law is passed, you have to pass the same license requirements to purchase one of these weapons.

Actually, it is perfectly legal to own a Thompson. Looks just like the real deal. Only difference? Only fires semi-auto.

The rest of your post I completely disagree with.

Here's an idea. Let's take away the First Amendment. Why not? Let's make it a crime to express yourself without a proper license. Why not?

Let's make it a crime - punishable by imprisonment - if you gather in groups in public to express your disappointment with whatever.

See how quickly it can devolve into biting us on the ass?

I did not say take away the Second Amendment. All I said was to extend the rules that govern the fully automatic guns that to the semi's that have rapid change magazines. The rules that the Supreme Court has already ruled as Constitutional.

That would include every pistol. Right?

Are you that ignorant? Revolvers are not semi-automatics. Six to nine shots, and then considerable time to reload.

There's a difference between a revolver and a pistol....just sayin.
And yeah...it takes forever to reload a revolver.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

"I have no doubt"? So, the evidence must be very powerful. Post it so all of us can be sure the first gun control law will lead to a slippery slope and soon local law enforcement personnel will be assigned to confiscate every gun in America.

Dude, it's up to the lying pricks who say "Trust us, we only want this" to prove to me they won't want more. My 60 years of experience is exactly as I stated; more and more encroachment on Constitutional rights.

Can't prove it? Fine. I'm happy support the status quo. The gun laws are perfectly adequate now. We don't need more laws or more restrictions. What we can do is enforce present law. Happy now?

No fly, no buy. It's a very simple concept. I won't argue that more gun laws are a panacea, but having a moment of silence and then going back to their office to raise money for their next campaign, or to figure out a way to repeal (never repair parts that may need repair) the PPACA for 51st time ain't what I won't my tax dollars to support.

What are the legal requirements to strip a citizen of his constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights?

If you want to deny anyone any right that procedure must be followed

Let's be clear. Do you support taking away a voting right, or a women's right to choose as legitimate, but find that someone who has been denied the right to travel in a civilian airliner should be legally able to buy a firearm? And, the sole reason to argue this point is the 2nd A.

Do you also believe that the most recent mass killer, an American citizen who was investigated by the FBI on several occasion, should have been arrested and detained even though the investigation found no probable cause to do so.

So you're saying Barry's DOJ dropped the ball yet again...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Are you as stupid as your comments suggest? Or a mendacious partisan hack who simply echoes foolishness that you've been told to repeat.

Annnnd we're back to a classic Democrat answer: Emotional rhetoric, personal insults and, in general, a condescending demeanor. No wonder nobody trusts them.

I simply asked a couple of questions. I should add, "Emotional rhetoric, personal insults and, in general, a condescending demeanor." is a statement of opinion sans real evidence, and claiming millions of Democrats all thinks and act in concert is untrue. Not only dishonest but also far from a rational statement.

I'm sorry I don't kiss your ass, but you get what you deserve; BTW I have never patronized you, I accurately characterized you as I did based on your foolish posts.