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

As a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and gun rights, I get it. I think President Obama means well, I truly believe that. But in my opinion you can't sacrifice our freedoms and take away rights on a hunch. If these are "known" ISIL sympathizers, then try them as such. Forget that you're likely already violating their 4th amendment rights by however the hell you figured out that they're sympathizers, but you also want to restrict their 2nd amendment rights without due process? If it saves a thousand lives, is it worth it? I know it sounds harsh but, no, it isn't worth it. We live in a free country, and living in a free country comes at a price. Some people die because of this. Yes, the government should be doing everything it can to protect its citizens, and that's why I say I do feel like the President has good intentions. But they're misguided and infringe upon our liberties. I don't think people put on a "no fly list" which, correct me if I'm wrong, can be done by virtue of "reasonable suspicion" and is likely determined by means which violate our fourth amendment rights, should automatically also be restricted from their right to keep and bear arms.

 

Yeah, that's the problem with a nuclear monopoly. Other nations will seek nuclear power and may even use nefarious ends to that goal. As the well-noted instance of Pakistan is an example. But does that mean we accept it and allow for nuclear arsenals to explode? No, that isn't good for humanity. Do we ourselves disarm? Can we disarm in the light of threats to the US? If we gave a guarantee of disarming, would other Nations follow suit?

The problems with disarming after WWI, are still the same problems today. I can't trust the other Nations, and they can't trust me. Trust has to be built first.

 

No, anyone critical of the NRA is somehow a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer.

The NRA is a joke. They don't fight for your right to own a gun, they fight for your right to BUY a gun. Gun rights are one thing, the NRA is an animal of a completely different coat and the 2 should not be mentioned in the same sentence together

 

Better check again...
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/declare-the-nra-a-terrorist
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/terrorists-nra-article-1.2384289
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../AR2010050505211.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
https://www.laprogressive.com/the-nra-has-the-blood-of-innocents-on-its-hands/
I can continue...

 

So you're calling yourself a terrorist?

 

Piff.
The Obama sees an armed populace as an impediment to the state having a monopoly on force.

 

I disagree, I think the President just doesn't understand how undermining freedom and liberty in the sake of safety is not what this country was founded on nor how it should be in the future. I don't think he wants to disarm us to put us in chains or anything, I just think he's trying to do too much

 

Of course there is nothing specifically in the 2nd amendment that calls for regulation of weapons either. This being so, you have made a sum zero argument.

 

What makes you think any of that is the case?

 

But Obama never said that the No-Fly list was the "list" they would use. He used it as a comparator in the statement.

Obama was mainly addressing those who blame him for a terrorist act when committed in the US, but then fight everything he does to be able to protect them from these types of attacks as "tyrannical government"

Your post is well written, and well thought out. Kudo's.

My big concern here is that based on ideological bent, most here are picking and choosing which right should be suspended in order to stop attacks like we had in San Bernadino. They are mostly stuck on the 2nd amendment, which most on the right feel is an infinite right, which it isn't. Most on the right don't really have a problem with the 4th amendment, but they draw the line at the 2nd. Now, could there be a way that we could create a list of those denied the right to own/purchase a firearm, absolutely, but thats a non-starter for the NRA crowd. That would be infringing on the 2nd amendment right, which we cannot do, well unless your a convicted felon

 

What part?

 

Any of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Should the state have to get a warrant to tap the phones of those on the no-fly list?

 

Not to sound like a "CITATION NEEDED!!" guy, but could you expand on this a little bit? Because all I've heard is the "common sense" approach that people on no-fly lists should also not be able to purchase weapons. I could stand to be corrected.

- - - Updated - - -

What don't you agree with?

 

The people who support the "No fly" list as blocking people from buying guns are prohibiting the sale of a gun without due process. No due process is required to be put on the "No Fly" list or the Terrorist Watch list.

 

We are against the right to bear arms being taken away by petty bureaucrats (federal law enforcement) without due process. The Terrorist Watch List (TWL), etc., are assembled without any constitutional protections. You don't even get informed you are on the federal watch lists until you try to get on a plane. There is no set standard for being put on the watch list.

In terms of what is happening in the real world--the regulations, as currently enforced, have it set up so that people on the Terrorist Watch list are automatically delayed in their NICS check. The FBI is informed that somebody on the TWL is trying to buy a gun. That gives a reasonable time for them to investigate.

Oh, I am totally fine with the Christian baker making a cake for a gay couple. The Christian baker is free to do that.

 

I asked you why you think as you do; specification of my disagreement is not necessary for your to answer the question.

You think the President just doesn't understand how undermining freedom and liberty in the sake of safety is not what this country was founded on nor how it should be in the future. You don't think he wants to disarm us to put us in chains or anything, I just think he's trying to do too much

What makes you think any of that is the case?

 

He definitely implied that he thought it would be "common sense" to be able to do that, and wants the law changed to allow it.

- - - Updated - - -

Due process involves the ability to defend yourself (and have legal representation). There is no practical way that can be done for the Terrorist Watch List (or the No fly list).

Current regulations delay the approval of someone on the TWL from buying a gun. At the same time, the FBI is informed. That gives them time to investigate, and if anything have the TWL person lead the FBI into getting more information.

The below is on page 7 in the attached link.

www.gao.gov/new.items/d10703t.pdf

 

I think our country was built on freedom and liberty and not restricting freedom and liberty in the name of safety. I don't think he wants to disarm the population, I think he just wants to try to end something that will always exist (gun violence) by doing too much, like stripping citizens of their right to keep and bear arms by placing them on arbitrary lists based on suspicions. Is that enough or do you want to keep saying "Why?" until we're talking about the Big Bang Theory vs Creationism?

 

Current regs have the FBI informed whenever somebody on the Terrorist Watch list buys a gun through the NICS system. The background check is also automatically delayed. This gives the FBI a chance to investigate.

Due process is not a "law." It's in the Constitution. Per the 14th amendment, life, liberty (rights) and property can only be taken away by due process. The right to own a gun can only be taken away by due process. It can't be taken away by the whims of a petty bureaucrat (federal law enforcement). What you are asking for is the beginning of a police state--when bureaucrats determine our rights.

 

You just repeated what you think; you have not given your reasoning for those thoughts.
If you cannot explain why you think something, you should re-examine your thoughts.

 

Why don't I think Obama will put us in chains? He doesn't strike me as a guy that would put us in chains.

Why do I think he's trying to do too much? Because doing too much means violating freedom and liberties in the name of safety.

Why do I think our country was founded on freedom and liberty? This requires a college report and I'm not in the mood to express this to you because I get the sense you're just looking for something to argue about.

 

Ok, bub. Believe whatever you want for whatever reason you want.

 

Thanks for your permission. If you would tell me just what it is you don't agree with I'd be happy to explain further than just a sentence but you got me shooting in the dark here.

 

No, but the NRA is......

 

My common sense approach does not include the No-Fly list. That "list" is arbitrary and omits due process, therefore is a non-starter

We could create a way to deny firearms to people, without denying the the right to due process. We currently do it for felons and certain mental conditions. My thought is that we need to come up with a new process that does all of these things, denies purchase, possession etc, without denying the right to due process. United States v. Synnes provides that the second amendment is not in infinit right, but it does allow for due process. Without due process no law that limits the 2nd amendment would be constitutional.