GOP on Suspected terrorists: They have no rights, EXCEPT to bear arms

unbelievable....

 

Innocent till proven guilty?

 

Being barred from buying a gun is not even the same as being denied your liberty. If somebody is suspected of committing murder (aside from terrorism), they will not pass the background check to buy a gun.

What you have raised is not a concern.

 

It is in a country where you have a constitutional right to buy a gun.

False. You have to be currently under indictment.

 

You're missing the point. We deny 5th and 14th amendment rights to suspected terrorists but guarantee their right to own firearms.

How is that ok?

 

I don't see how passing this bill to take away another freedom will help anything. The no-fly list is the most useless list ever. I remember a story where some kid was on it. Also I amp pretty sure they don't check this list before you get a trial but they would do this before you purchase a gun.

 

Not a lawyer, but as I remember what I've read, there's a case from the 1970's where a drug dealer in Mexico who was a US Citizen who was taken down by the DEA argued to the supreme court that he was denied his Miranda rights. IIRC, he lost.

As I understand it, the upshot is that the expectation of rights when you are on American soil is greater than if you are not. That is the whole reason that the Bush people chose Gitmo. So comparing rights for non-citizens inside the US and outside the US isn't exactly apples-to-apples according to the SCOTUS. If he's on the no-fly list, one would think that would be a red flag to getting permanent resident status. If you aren't at least a permanent resident, you aren't getting a gun and permanent residents have to jump through all sorts of extra hoops to prove stable residency, and their background checks are more intensive.

And while we're at it, when exactly was the last time that a terrorist on the no-fly list used a gun in an attack? Maybe we should consider preventing them from buying gasoline, box cutters, and propane tanks if we really want to address something that happened in the real world.

How, exactly, would keeping Faisal Shahzad from purchasing a gun have prevented or mitigated the attempted attack on Times Square?

 

And ammonium nitrate. Let their yards be brown. Screw em.

 

How? What have they been charged with? Should we let the government arbitrarily put people on a list that restricts their rights and liberties under our constitution?

I can't tell if people are upset because the suspected terrorist aren't being banned from purchasing guns or if people are just upset Republicans supported one measure and not the other. If it's the latter, damned if you do, damned if you don't...

 

Republicans! Supporting the rights of terrorists everywhere; except when they don't.

 

I would agree with SamFisher that this seems absurd.

 

Why? One of these actions is severely limiting the constitutional rights of American citizens, and the other is merely preserving these rights. The two separate decisions seem to be incompatible with each other.

I just don't understand if the outrage is because of the separate stances or because people think the rights and liberties afforded to "suspects" should be infringed upon in the way the Republicans refused to vote for.

 

It seems obvious to me that you cannot deny second amendment rights to suspected terrorists. And, that should probably serve as an indicator to how we treat the 5th and 14th, then the other way around. Forgetting Faisal for a second, if this law passes review and then the Feds can name an organization (say, the Tea Party) as a terrorist organization, put all its members on a watch list, and take rights away from the lot of them. The watch list isn't vetted by any court. In a worst case scenario, supposing a future administration veers toward dictatorship (a scenario the Bill of Rights is supposed to comabt), such a law would be an excellent tool to disarm resistance with a veneer of legality.

 

When CNN did their story on this yesterday, they pointed out that among others, an 8 year old child is on the terror watch list as is a pilot for a commercial airline.

The people who are pushing this, like Bloomberg, are people who are coming at it from the 'ban guns' view, as opposed to the 'prevent terror' view. But irrational "terror fear" worked for Cheney/Bush, so I guess the people looking to ban guns are just learning at the feet of the masters. If you want to fix the terror watch list, maybe it is worth talking about. But personally, nobody has yet demonstrated a real threat. There have been tons of terrorist attacks on the USA, and none have involved people on the terror watch list using guns.

Banning things based on some hypothetical that the real world shows doesn't happen? Of course, if you already dislike guns, that seems like a good idea. I think the people with the agenda here aren't the "NRA crazies" but the people who want to do anything to expand the banning of guns. This group seems to have no problem manipulating people with fabricated fears.

The big brouhaha about Mexican drug lords supposedly buying machine guns, rocket launchers, and hand grenades from American gun shops last year is a prime example. The minimal fraction of guns being smuggled in from America was hyped up as the sole cause of strife in Mexico. If you ban guns in America, the drug lords are currently getting military arms from somewhere else. Banning all guns in America would have, at most, inconvenienced them slightly.

 

Sam, I am pleased to realize that liberals now support barring suspected terrorists from speaking or attending a Mosque. As we have now established that you believe we should preemptively abridge the 2nd Amendment rights of people before they actually commit a crime, it is only logical that you do not believe Constitutional rights are guaranteed to anyone.

Now that liberals are asserting the idea that the Constitution can be limited preemptively, I think we should let Aroundtheworld have his way and ban the preaching of the Islamic faith!