|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 09 2015 04:30 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 04:09 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2015 03:51 oBlade wrote:
What perverse thing do you have to do with something called the No-Fly List to make it an overreach in your mind? Why not imprison people on the list? Extraordinary rendition? How about waterboarding anyone on the list? Do we only need to make the list "better" and then all of these things become okay? If only there were constitutional amendments that protected against this stuff... Is this even a serious answer? No, I don't think you should be able to do those things to the people on the list even if the list was better. I also don't think there's an equivalency between not allowing someone you have tagged as suspicious to buy a gun and allowing them to get tortured. Do you disagree? They're both constitutionally protected. If you believe someone is dangerous and they bought a gun, why not arrest them?
Expect for one part of the Constitution grants the right to bare arms as long as it is regulated. The word regulated is in the amendment. The other prohibits the state from holding american citizens without due process. There is some nuance in there that you missed.
|
On December 08 2015 22:43 Dizmaul wrote:
Yes 1-4 is my point exactly thank you. I guess you did not read what I was responding to. I just don't agree that the reason why someone died completely outweighs that death happened. I think its a problem that the tool created for necessary transportation kills more people by mistake then the tool made primarily for killing...
No it's not because not everyone practices their owned gun for a significant amount of time every day in an environment where alot of other people are practicing it.
While literally millions of people are on the road at any given time.
There's a completely different context at work here.
I'm pretty sure more people would get shot if the same amount of people driving their care at any given time would use their gun (for let's just say practice) instead, but this is a hypothetical so both scenario's will never be comparable.
So the car analogy, for gun control arguments (pro or con), is completely dismissable.
|
On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 04:30 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:09 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2015 03:51 oBlade wrote:
What perverse thing do you have to do with something called the No-Fly List to make it an overreach in your mind? Why not imprison people on the list? Extraordinary rendition? How about waterboarding anyone on the list? Do we only need to make the list "better" and then all of these things become okay? If only there were constitutional amendments that protected against this stuff... Is this even a serious answer? No, I don't think you should be able to do those things to the people on the list even if the list was better. I also don't think there's an equivalency between not allowing someone you have tagged as suspicious to buy a gun and allowing them to get tortured. Do you disagree? They're both constitutionally protected. If you believe someone is dangerous and they bought a gun, why not arrest them? Expect for one part of the Constitution grants the right to bare arms as long as it is regulated. The word regulated is in the amendment.
...A well-regulated militia?
On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:The other prohibits the state from holding american citizens without due process. There is some nuance in there that you missed.
Due process means, in a nutshell, that you don't get your rights stripped away merely for being on a list of "suspicious" people.
|
United States42715 Posts
On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 04:30 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:09 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2015 03:51 oBlade wrote:
What perverse thing do you have to do with something called the No-Fly List to make it an overreach in your mind? Why not imprison people on the list? Extraordinary rendition? How about waterboarding anyone on the list? Do we only need to make the list "better" and then all of these things become okay? If only there were constitutional amendments that protected against this stuff... Is this even a serious answer? No, I don't think you should be able to do those things to the people on the list even if the list was better. I also don't think there's an equivalency between not allowing someone you have tagged as suspicious to buy a gun and allowing them to get tortured. Do you disagree? They're both constitutionally protected. If you believe someone is dangerous and they bought a gun, why not arrest them? Expect for one part of the Constitution grants the right to bare arms as long as it is regulated. The word regulated is in the amendment. The other prohibits the state from holding american citizens without due process. There is some nuance in there that you missed.
The meaning of the word regulated has changed over the years.
|
On December 09 2015 04:49 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:On December 09 2015 04:30 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:09 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2015 03:51 oBlade wrote:
What perverse thing do you have to do with something called the No-Fly List to make it an overreach in your mind? Why not imprison people on the list? Extraordinary rendition? How about waterboarding anyone on the list? Do we only need to make the list "better" and then all of these things become okay? If only there were constitutional amendments that protected against this stuff... Is this even a serious answer? No, I don't think you should be able to do those things to the people on the list even if the list was better. I also don't think there's an equivalency between not allowing someone you have tagged as suspicious to buy a gun and allowing them to get tortured. Do you disagree? They're both constitutionally protected. If you believe someone is dangerous and they bought a gun, why not arrest them? Expect for one part of the Constitution grants the right to bare arms as long as it is regulated. The word regulated is in the amendment. ...A well-regulated militia? Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:The other prohibits the state from holding american citizens without due process. There is some nuance in there that you missed. Due process means, in a nutshell, that you don't get your rights stripped away merely for being on a list of "suspicious" people.
Yes, and it applies to being incarcerated or held. You can be fined without due process. You can be prohibited from getting a drivers license if you fail a test or have a health problem that makes you unsafe to drive. Many of these do not require the a full trial before a judge. There are many, many things that can be prohibited without a trial. Like if you don't take a fire arms safety course, you can't buy a gun in some states. In my state you can't have a carry permit without the approval of the local police chief. No due process there. No trial, no judge.
So the no fly list could be used to prohibit gun sales and if challenged, the state could provide their reasoning.
On December 09 2015 04:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:On December 09 2015 04:30 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:09 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2015 03:51 oBlade wrote:
What perverse thing do you have to do with something called the No-Fly List to make it an overreach in your mind? Why not imprison people on the list? Extraordinary rendition? How about waterboarding anyone on the list? Do we only need to make the list "better" and then all of these things become okay? If only there were constitutional amendments that protected against this stuff... Is this even a serious answer? No, I don't think you should be able to do those things to the people on the list even if the list was better. I also don't think there's an equivalency between not allowing someone you have tagged as suspicious to buy a gun and allowing them to get tortured. Do you disagree? They're both constitutionally protected. If you believe someone is dangerous and they bought a gun, why not arrest them? Expect for one part of the Constitution grants the right to bare arms as long as it is regulated. The word regulated is in the amendment. The other prohibits the state from holding american citizens without due process. There is some nuance in there that you missed. The meaning of the word regulated has changed over the years.
Pretty sure states can control the sale of fire arms to specific people. MA has a bunch of laws about who can buy what using a specific license.
|
On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 04:49 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:On December 09 2015 04:30 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:09 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2015 03:51 oBlade wrote:
What perverse thing do you have to do with something called the No-Fly List to make it an overreach in your mind? Why not imprison people on the list? Extraordinary rendition? How about waterboarding anyone on the list? Do we only need to make the list "better" and then all of these things become okay? If only there were constitutional amendments that protected against this stuff... Is this even a serious answer? No, I don't think you should be able to do those things to the people on the list even if the list was better. I also don't think there's an equivalency between not allowing someone you have tagged as suspicious to buy a gun and allowing them to get tortured. Do you disagree? They're both constitutionally protected. If you believe someone is dangerous and they bought a gun, why not arrest them? Expect for one part of the Constitution grants the right to bare arms as long as it is regulated. The word regulated is in the amendment. ...A well-regulated militia? On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:The other prohibits the state from holding american citizens without due process. There is some nuance in there that you missed. Due process means, in a nutshell, that you don't get your rights stripped away merely for being on a list of "suspicious" people. Yes, and it applies to being incarcerated or held.
This is really basic.
On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:
You can be fined without due process. You can be prohibited from getting a drivers license if you fail a test or have a health problem that makes you unsafe to drive. Many of these do not require the a full trial before a judge. There are many, many things that can be prohibited without a trial. Like if you don't take a fire arms safety course, you can't buy a gun in some states. In my state you can't have a carry permit without the approval of the local police chief. No due process there. No trial, no judge.
The thing about laws is that they affect everybody. Although in one jurisdiction or another, you might need a license to have a handgun, a concealed carry permit, one size magazine or another might be illegal, that affects everyone. Gun control might be stricter or weaker depending on where you go (this is because states run things); nonetheless, you have, at the federal level, from the second amendment itself, a right to bear arms. Due process means you don't lose that rather fundamental right for having your name on a secret list of suspicious people that you aren't even told about.
On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:
So the no fly list could be used to prohibit gun sales and if challenged, the state could provide their reasoning.
Yes, because it's not technically illegal until someone actually goes through with it and then it gets struck down, right?
|
On December 09 2015 05:18 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 09 2015 04:49 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:On December 09 2015 04:30 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:09 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2015 03:51 oBlade wrote:
What perverse thing do you have to do with something called the No-Fly List to make it an overreach in your mind? Why not imprison people on the list? Extraordinary rendition? How about waterboarding anyone on the list? Do we only need to make the list "better" and then all of these things become okay? If only there were constitutional amendments that protected against this stuff... Is this even a serious answer? No, I don't think you should be able to do those things to the people on the list even if the list was better. I also don't think there's an equivalency between not allowing someone you have tagged as suspicious to buy a gun and allowing them to get tortured. Do you disagree? They're both constitutionally protected. If you believe someone is dangerous and they bought a gun, why not arrest them? Expect for one part of the Constitution grants the right to bare arms as long as it is regulated. The word regulated is in the amendment. ...A well-regulated militia? On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:The other prohibits the state from holding american citizens without due process. There is some nuance in there that you missed. Due process means, in a nutshell, that you don't get your rights stripped away merely for being on a list of "suspicious" people. Yes, and it applies to being incarcerated or held. This is really basic. Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:
You can be fined without due process. You can be prohibited from getting a drivers license if you fail a test or have a health problem that makes you unsafe to drive. Many of these do not require the a full trial before a judge. There are many, many things that can be prohibited without a trial. Like if you don't take a fire arms safety course, you can't buy a gun in some states. In my state you can't have a carry permit without the approval of the local police chief. No due process there. No trial, no judge. The thing about laws is that they affect everybody. Although in one jurisdiction or another, you might need a license to have a handgun, a concealed carry permit, one size magazine or another might be illegal, that affects everyone. Gun control might be stricter or weaker depending on where you go (this is because states run things); nonetheless, you have, at the federal level, from the second amendment itself, a right to bear arms. Due process means you don't lose that rather fundamental right for having your name on a secret list of suspicious people that you aren't even told about. Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:
So the no fly list could be used to prohibit gun sales and if challenged, the state could provide their reasoning.
Yes, because it's not technically illegal until someone actually goes through with it and then it gets struck down, right?
Yes, that is how law works. A law cannot be ruled unconstitutional without first being a law on the books. That is how the process is done. If the no fly list isn't sufficient evidence to deprive someone of a gun sale, then the courts will rule that. You can believe it is unconstitutional, but that isn't fact until the court strikes it down.
|
On December 09 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 05:18 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 09 2015 04:49 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:On December 09 2015 04:30 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:09 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2015 03:51 oBlade wrote:
What perverse thing do you have to do with something called the No-Fly List to make it an overreach in your mind? Why not imprison people on the list? Extraordinary rendition? How about waterboarding anyone on the list? Do we only need to make the list "better" and then all of these things become okay? If only there were constitutional amendments that protected against this stuff... Is this even a serious answer? No, I don't think you should be able to do those things to the people on the list even if the list was better. I also don't think there's an equivalency between not allowing someone you have tagged as suspicious to buy a gun and allowing them to get tortured. Do you disagree? They're both constitutionally protected. If you believe someone is dangerous and they bought a gun, why not arrest them? Expect for one part of the Constitution grants the right to bare arms as long as it is regulated. The word regulated is in the amendment. ...A well-regulated militia? On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:The other prohibits the state from holding american citizens without due process. There is some nuance in there that you missed. Due process means, in a nutshell, that you don't get your rights stripped away merely for being on a list of "suspicious" people. Yes, and it applies to being incarcerated or held. This is really basic. On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:
You can be fined without due process. You can be prohibited from getting a drivers license if you fail a test or have a health problem that makes you unsafe to drive. Many of these do not require the a full trial before a judge. There are many, many things that can be prohibited without a trial. Like if you don't take a fire arms safety course, you can't buy a gun in some states. In my state you can't have a carry permit without the approval of the local police chief. No due process there. No trial, no judge. The thing about laws is that they affect everybody. Although in one jurisdiction or another, you might need a license to have a handgun, a concealed carry permit, one size magazine or another might be illegal, that affects everyone. Gun control might be stricter or weaker depending on where you go (this is because states run things); nonetheless, you have, at the federal level, from the second amendment itself, a right to bear arms. Due process means you don't lose that rather fundamental right for having your name on a secret list of suspicious people that you aren't even told about. On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:
So the no fly list could be used to prohibit gun sales and if challenged, the state could provide their reasoning.
Yes, because it's not technically illegal until someone actually goes through with it and then it gets struck down, right? Yes, that is how law works. A law cannot be ruled unconstitutional without first being a law on the books. That is how the process is done. If the no fly list isn't sufficient evidence to deprive someone of a gun sale, then the courts will rule that. You can believe it is unconstitutional, but that isn't fact until the court strikes it down.
I didn't say "ruled unconstitutional." If I proposed a bill calling for the summary execution of shoplifters, my guess is you wouldn't bring suit against the government before making the judgment that such a law would be illegal. You wouldn't throw your hands up and say "let's wait and see what SCOTUS might say" like you're doing when the issue at hand is something you want politically. So why don't we just focus on the idea itself? Maybe you could try and give us a preview of the state's reasoning for subverting due process like this?
|
On December 09 2015 05:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:On December 09 2015 05:18 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 09 2015 04:49 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:On December 09 2015 04:30 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:09 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2015 03:51 oBlade wrote:
What perverse thing do you have to do with something called the No-Fly List to make it an overreach in your mind? Why not imprison people on the list? Extraordinary rendition? How about waterboarding anyone on the list? Do we only need to make the list "better" and then all of these things become okay? If only there were constitutional amendments that protected against this stuff... Is this even a serious answer? No, I don't think you should be able to do those things to the people on the list even if the list was better. I also don't think there's an equivalency between not allowing someone you have tagged as suspicious to buy a gun and allowing them to get tortured. Do you disagree? They're both constitutionally protected. If you believe someone is dangerous and they bought a gun, why not arrest them? Expect for one part of the Constitution grants the right to bare arms as long as it is regulated. The word regulated is in the amendment. ...A well-regulated militia? On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:The other prohibits the state from holding american citizens without due process. There is some nuance in there that you missed. Due process means, in a nutshell, that you don't get your rights stripped away merely for being on a list of "suspicious" people. Yes, and it applies to being incarcerated or held. This is really basic. On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:
You can be fined without due process. You can be prohibited from getting a drivers license if you fail a test or have a health problem that makes you unsafe to drive. Many of these do not require the a full trial before a judge. There are many, many things that can be prohibited without a trial. Like if you don't take a fire arms safety course, you can't buy a gun in some states. In my state you can't have a carry permit without the approval of the local police chief. No due process there. No trial, no judge. The thing about laws is that they affect everybody. Although in one jurisdiction or another, you might need a license to have a handgun, a concealed carry permit, one size magazine or another might be illegal, that affects everyone. Gun control might be stricter or weaker depending on where you go (this is because states run things); nonetheless, you have, at the federal level, from the second amendment itself, a right to bear arms. Due process means you don't lose that rather fundamental right for having your name on a secret list of suspicious people that you aren't even told about. On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:
So the no fly list could be used to prohibit gun sales and if challenged, the state could provide their reasoning.
Yes, because it's not technically illegal until someone actually goes through with it and then it gets struck down, right? Yes, that is how law works. A law cannot be ruled unconstitutional without first being a law on the books. That is how the process is done. If the no fly list isn't sufficient evidence to deprive someone of a gun sale, then the courts will rule that. You can believe it is unconstitutional, but that isn't fact until the court strikes it down. I didn't say "ruled unconstitutional." If I proposed a bill calling for the summary execution of shoplifters, my guess is you wouldn't bring suit against the government before making the judgment that such a law would be illegal. You wouldn't throw your hands up and say "let's wait and see what SCOTUS might say" like you're doing when the issue at hand is something you want politically. So why don't we just focus on the idea itself? Maybe you could try and give us a preview of the state's reasoning for subverting due process like this?
Your example is so stupid that that its not even worth considering. Please try to use examples that are less hyperbolic and dumb.
|
On December 09 2015 04:30 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 04:09 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2015 03:51 oBlade wrote:
What perverse thing do you have to do with something called the No-Fly List to make it an overreach in your mind? Why not imprison people on the list? Extraordinary rendition? How about waterboarding anyone on the list? Do we only need to make the list "better" and then all of these things become okay? If only there were constitutional amendments that protected against this stuff... Is this even a serious answer? No, I don't think you should be able to do those things to the people on the list even if the list was better. I also don't think there's an equivalency between not allowing someone you have tagged as suspicious to buy a gun and allowing them to get tortured. Do you disagree? They're both constitutionally protected. If you believe someone is dangerous and they bought a gun, why not arrest them?
Because you have no basis for arresting them.
|
On December 09 2015 05:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 05:45 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:On December 09 2015 05:18 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 09 2015 04:49 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:On December 09 2015 04:30 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:09 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2015 03:51 oBlade wrote:
What perverse thing do you have to do with something called the No-Fly List to make it an overreach in your mind? Why not imprison people on the list? Extraordinary rendition? How about waterboarding anyone on the list? Do we only need to make the list "better" and then all of these things become okay? If only there were constitutional amendments that protected against this stuff... Is this even a serious answer? No, I don't think you should be able to do those things to the people on the list even if the list was better. I also don't think there's an equivalency between not allowing someone you have tagged as suspicious to buy a gun and allowing them to get tortured. Do you disagree? They're both constitutionally protected. If you believe someone is dangerous and they bought a gun, why not arrest them? Expect for one part of the Constitution grants the right to bare arms as long as it is regulated. The word regulated is in the amendment. ...A well-regulated militia? On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:The other prohibits the state from holding american citizens without due process. There is some nuance in there that you missed. Due process means, in a nutshell, that you don't get your rights stripped away merely for being on a list of "suspicious" people. Yes, and it applies to being incarcerated or held. This is really basic. On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:
You can be fined without due process. You can be prohibited from getting a drivers license if you fail a test or have a health problem that makes you unsafe to drive. Many of these do not require the a full trial before a judge. There are many, many things that can be prohibited without a trial. Like if you don't take a fire arms safety course, you can't buy a gun in some states. In my state you can't have a carry permit without the approval of the local police chief. No due process there. No trial, no judge. The thing about laws is that they affect everybody. Although in one jurisdiction or another, you might need a license to have a handgun, a concealed carry permit, one size magazine or another might be illegal, that affects everyone. Gun control might be stricter or weaker depending on where you go (this is because states run things); nonetheless, you have, at the federal level, from the second amendment itself, a right to bear arms. Due process means you don't lose that rather fundamental right for having your name on a secret list of suspicious people that you aren't even told about. On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:
So the no fly list could be used to prohibit gun sales and if challenged, the state could provide their reasoning.
Yes, because it's not technically illegal until someone actually goes through with it and then it gets struck down, right? Yes, that is how law works. A law cannot be ruled unconstitutional without first being a law on the books. That is how the process is done. If the no fly list isn't sufficient evidence to deprive someone of a gun sale, then the courts will rule that. You can believe it is unconstitutional, but that isn't fact until the court strikes it down. I didn't say "ruled unconstitutional." If I proposed a bill calling for the summary execution of shoplifters, my guess is you wouldn't bring suit against the government before making the judgment that such a law would be illegal. You wouldn't throw your hands up and say "let's wait and see what SCOTUS might say" like you're doing when the issue at hand is something you want politically. So why don't we just focus on the idea itself? Maybe you could try and give us a preview of the state's reasoning for subverting due process like this? Your example is so stupid that that its not even worth considering. Please try to use examples that are less hyperbolic and dumb.
So it looks like you agree that there are things where we can at least consider, and in some cases correctly discover, whether they're illegal, before waiting for an infallible judicial authority to do the thinking for us? And as I was hinting, maybe part of legislating is actually trying to stay within the law rather than just do whatever and expect the judiciary to fix it.
For depriving life without due process, you seem to have come to the conclusion by yourself that it's illegal. But for depriving liberty without due process, banning gun sales for people on watch lists, you're unwilling to even have the discussion? Can you at least give us a hint as to why it'd be a good idea? Have there been many mass shootings committed by people on the no-fly list? Or attempted? Would this measure have saved lives?
|
On December 09 2015 06:15 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 05:54 Plansix wrote:On December 09 2015 05:45 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:On December 09 2015 05:18 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 09 2015 04:49 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:On December 09 2015 04:30 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:09 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Is this even a serious answer? No, I don't think you should be able to do those things to the people on the list even if the list was better. I also don't think there's an equivalency between not allowing someone you have tagged as suspicious to buy a gun and allowing them to get tortured. Do you disagree? They're both constitutionally protected. If you believe someone is dangerous and they bought a gun, why not arrest them? Expect for one part of the Constitution grants the right to bare arms as long as it is regulated. The word regulated is in the amendment. ...A well-regulated militia? On December 09 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:The other prohibits the state from holding american citizens without due process. There is some nuance in there that you missed. Due process means, in a nutshell, that you don't get your rights stripped away merely for being on a list of "suspicious" people. Yes, and it applies to being incarcerated or held. This is really basic. On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:
You can be fined without due process. You can be prohibited from getting a drivers license if you fail a test or have a health problem that makes you unsafe to drive. Many of these do not require the a full trial before a judge. There are many, many things that can be prohibited without a trial. Like if you don't take a fire arms safety course, you can't buy a gun in some states. In my state you can't have a carry permit without the approval of the local police chief. No due process there. No trial, no judge. The thing about laws is that they affect everybody. Although in one jurisdiction or another, you might need a license to have a handgun, a concealed carry permit, one size magazine or another might be illegal, that affects everyone. Gun control might be stricter or weaker depending on where you go (this is because states run things); nonetheless, you have, at the federal level, from the second amendment itself, a right to bear arms. Due process means you don't lose that rather fundamental right for having your name on a secret list of suspicious people that you aren't even told about. On December 09 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:
So the no fly list could be used to prohibit gun sales and if challenged, the state could provide their reasoning.
Yes, because it's not technically illegal until someone actually goes through with it and then it gets struck down, right? Yes, that is how law works. A law cannot be ruled unconstitutional without first being a law on the books. That is how the process is done. If the no fly list isn't sufficient evidence to deprive someone of a gun sale, then the courts will rule that. You can believe it is unconstitutional, but that isn't fact until the court strikes it down. I didn't say "ruled unconstitutional." If I proposed a bill calling for the summary execution of shoplifters, my guess is you wouldn't bring suit against the government before making the judgment that such a law would be illegal. You wouldn't throw your hands up and say "let's wait and see what SCOTUS might say" like you're doing when the issue at hand is something you want politically. So why don't we just focus on the idea itself? Maybe you could try and give us a preview of the state's reasoning for subverting due process like this? Your example is so stupid that that its not even worth considering. Please try to use examples that are less hyperbolic and dumb. So it looks like you agree that there are things where we can at least consider, and in some cases correctly discover, whether they're illegal, before waiting for an infallible judicial authority to do the thinking for us? And as I was hinting, maybe part of legislating is actually trying to stay within the law rather than just do whatever and expect the judiciary to fix it. For depriving life without due process, you seem to have come to the conclusion by yourself that it's illegal. But for depriving liberty without due process, banning gun sales for people on watch lists, you're unwilling to even have the discussion? Can you at least give us a hint as to why it'd be a good idea? Have there been many mass shootings committed by people on the no-fly list? Or attempted? Would this measure have saved lives?
The legislature is capable of doing both things. They can avoid passing laws that will be struck down and passing laws they believe need to be tested to expand our understanding of rights. The constitution is an evolving documents by design, along with our understanding of it. Your world of binary options for law makers is not one that was envisioned by people who wrote the 2nd amendment.
|
That's exactly what "trying to stay within the law" means.
It's now been about half a page of me wanting to coax some kind of justification out of you for no-fly-no-gun beyond "let's do it and see what happens" (which is where you were earlier)
So the no fly list could be used to prohibit gun sales and if challenged, the state could provide their reasoning.
am I correct to think that none is coming?
|
On December 09 2015 06:50 oBlade wrote:That's exactly what " trying to stay within the law" means. It's now been about half a page of me wanting to coax some kind of justification out of you for no-fly-no-gun beyond "let's do it and see what happens" (which is where you were earlier) Show nested quote +So the no fly list could be used to prohibit gun sales and if challenged, the state could provide their reasoning. am I correct to think that none is coming?
I don't know the exact process for people ending up on the no fly list, but there is a process requires evidence. It has been challenged in the courts and the ability to fly is considered a constitutional right. If someone is on the list, there is evidence to support why that can be challenged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List
On August 5, 2010, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of 14 plaintiffs challenging their placement on the No Fly List.[63] and on June 24, 2014, U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown ruled in favor of the plaintiffs saying that air travel is a “sacred” liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution[64] and ordered the government to change its system for challenging inclusion.[63]
Your concept of the list as being some unchallenged, unobtainable secret thing isn't correct. If you are no it, you can bring a case challenging why. The government will provide evidence and the court will rule if you can fly or not. The same can be applied to guns, which are also a constitutional right. If this was 2001.
|
Thank you for the wiki link, I haven't seen that article since posting it on the previous page.
Just to clarify: your reason for banning gun sales for people on a watch list is that after they find out, they can sue the government and go to court to potentially get removed from the list? Am I understanding right?
|
On December 09 2015 07:42 oBlade wrote:
Thank you for the wiki link, I haven't seen that article since posting it on the previous page.
Just to clarify: your reason for banning gun sales for people on a watch list is that after they find out, they can sue the government and go to court to potentially get removed from the list? Am I understanding right?
That is what you currently have to do to be able to fly on US airlines if you are on the watch list, so yes. Do you think there shouldn't be a watch list at all? Everyone can fly and the government can't do anything unless they are willing to arrest people and bring charges?
|
I think you're losing focus... we're not talking about the no-fly list per se, we're talking about prohibiting people on the no-fly list from buying guns. It seems like it's a foregone conclusion to you that if you're on a government watch list, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun, and all I'm trying to do is see if you can offer some kind of reason why, so even if it didn't convince me, that I might be able to see where you're coming from.
Let me appeal to someone else please, is he evading giving some kind of justification, or am I being unreasonable, or...?
On December 09 2015 06:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 04:30 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2015 04:09 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2015 03:51 oBlade wrote:
What perverse thing do you have to do with something called the No-Fly List to make it an overreach in your mind? Why not imprison people on the list? Extraordinary rendition? How about waterboarding anyone on the list? Do we only need to make the list "better" and then all of these things become okay? If only there were constitutional amendments that protected against this stuff... Is this even a serious answer? No, I don't think you should be able to do those things to the people on the list even if the list was better. I also don't think there's an equivalency between not allowing someone you have tagged as suspicious to buy a gun and allowing them to get tortured. Do you disagree? They're both constitutionally protected. If you believe someone is dangerous and they bought a gun, why not arrest them? Because you have no basis for arresting them.
The people in the link there were arrested (conspiring to murder is a crime so I guess it's enough to make an arrest). Most felons can't legally have guns: in being convicted of a crime, you forfeit certain rights. Should you also forfeit that right because you got stuck on a secret list of names of people who might be suspicious, having been convicted or charged with nothing? Right now, if you're on a watch list and you buy a gun through legal channels, the FBI (or maybe someone else) gets notice. That seems fine to me.
|
The irony being even if they did pass the prohibition of selling people on the lists a gun, they could could still easily acquire the weapons in a way where the seller would still be legally selling them the gun.
80%+ of the American people want increased background checks yet our government is so corrupted that even something with such widespread support can't get passed.
The argument over the list seems designed to distract from the one thing that would at least help a little, which is just getting more and better background checks, which is overwhelmingly supported by the people.
|
"Warning: The last post in this thread is over three months old.
If you bump this, you'd better have a good reason! "
50 people dead, good enough reason?
This seems to be the designated thread (and the only thread where I'm allowed to say it I guess):
Guns are dumb.
|
United States24686 Posts
I agree that this is a situation where the thread is likely to get bumped, and that is okay. Also, thank you for bringing the discussion here. However, your post is also pretty dumb, let's be honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
