Obama had some strong words for a gun-store owner who confronted him at a town-hall e

Right here is where I feel you support the terrorist watch list(same no due process involved):

 

Please explain how someone is placed on the "terrorist watch list" for us then, and explain how due process is involved.

I think that's the disconnect here, you don't know what the list is, you're simply buying into the emotional "omg you want terroristz to have gunz" argument.

What you're going to discover, is that there is no difference between the "no fly" list, and the "terrorist watch list".

 

Oh I know, I loved that show. Dwight Schrute and Ron Swanson are probably two of my all time favorite sitcom characters.

 

Where did I say I support no due process ?

I said they could come up with a way that allows due process.

The better question is, would you support a list that allows for due process that is used to deny the purchase of a firearm ?

- - - Updated - - -

They absolutely could come up with a way to do it.

And when they do, would you support it to deny firearm sales to possible terrorists ?

 

They already have a way to do it. Charge them with terrorism.

Not letting terrorists into the country in the first place is a far better choice, but doesn't seem to be on Obama's "to-do" list.

 

And how do you do that ? They don't show up at the border with a jacket with "Terrorist" over the left pocket

You cant charge somebody with a crime until the crime is committed. So how do you stop the crime from being committed ? Ill give you a hint....its called a watch list

So how do you do that with american citizens who are on a terrorist watch list ?

Nice dodge of the question......would you support it to deny firearm sales to possible terrorists ?

 

Not if your aim is true...

 

If you're not sure they're not a terrorist, you don't let them in would be my first guess. Of course we could always adopt the French and Belgium model but that's not working out very well is it?

That's right. You can't charge someone with a crime if they haven't committed a crime. Very good. We call that "due process".

Do you suggest we start putting people in jail for what they might do, or just strip them of all their rights because they look mean?

You can watch people all you want. Legally. What you can't do is start stripping people of their rights based on suspicion.

I'm not dodging anything, you're going in circles.

 

if they are in fact ISIL sympathizers drag them into court prove to a judge or jury they are and if they agree they are then you have the legal right to deny them possession of a gun
does due process mean a dam thing to you?

 

Then how do they "deport" them ? Your answer for one equates it to the other.

Talk about circles.......but then again I knew you wouldn't answer the question, it would expose your hypocrisy

 

The only thing that's being exposed is your inability to grasp a simple concept.

 

Yeah....sure......the simple concept that YOU are trying to determine which rights can be denied

Another non answer....surprise surprise

 

Just remember, the left is more likely to call the NRA a terrorist organization than calling ISIS one.

 

Let's take this example to the level you want. Let's say the law is how you want it to be and being a sympathizer will prevent you from owning a firearm. Sympathizer A gets dragged into a court where they are asked "Are you a sympathizer", they respond with "no". What then?

They can still buy a firearm and at some time when they decide being a sympathizer isn't enough, they buy a weapon and go on a rampage. How is your law preventing that from happening?

 

Sure doesn't mean anything to the cops who execute our civilians, doesn't it? Since when do we need a court of law to prove someone supports terrorist organizations? Just gotta follow the money.

Or do you want the state to have even more power?

Hypocrites.

 

Your comment is nothing but a partisan garbage comment, but then you already knew that.

 

Of course, we all know any criticism of democrats is only "partisan garbage". No way anybody could thing democrats and republicans are two sides to the same corrupt coin.

 

Criticism is fine, what you wrote is just garbage. Sorry you don't like the Truth.

 

It depends on your point of view doesn't it. Democrats routinely are more critical of the NRA than they are Islamist because their base despises the NRA more than the do Islamist. Sorry you don't like the truth.

 

Critical yes. Critical to the point of calling the NRA a terrorist organization? No. Again, you aren't speaking truth, only partisan garbage. BTW, Obama and the administration HAS called ISIS a terrorist organization. So not only is your post garbage, it is a flat out lie.

 

You should try google, of course you already know what you'll find. A liberal calling someone a liar carries as much weight as a fat man telling someone how to lose weight. Or like Hillary telling us all abuse victims should be believed.

 

Maybe you need to google. I can provide ACTUAL proof.

U.S. Department of state Foreign Terrorist Organizations.
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

ISIL is on the list, NRA isn't. Your post is just a flat out lie.

Anymore untrue partisan garbage you want to post?

 

I don't want to go to war with Iran, I just don't think Iran will hold its end of the bargain and has no reason to, now that the sanctions are lifted.

 

It's not that way because of liberals, here's what they really think https://www.bing.com/search?q=nra+t...=-1&sk=&cvid=67B36FA8B7C4430E963F94C3311BC2AC

Again with calling me a partisan simply because I don't support the party of the globalist, women abusers and liars. Why?

 

What reason did it have to hold its end when the sanctions were imposed? The sanctions aren't actually stopping them. Didn't stop north Korea either.