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

Being arrested compared to the stupid No-Fly list? Really? That's a weak comparison. You are usually good at the stinging replies that whip out destructive comparisons, but this is weak sauce. Being arrested is not preemptively limiting anything. Any rights infringed upon after being arrested are by definition NOT preemptive.

You do not have a Constitutional right to fly on an airplane.

As to the rest of this post, I don't care if they stop anyone from buying a stick of dynamite personally.

 

Sitting in jail is a far cry from being on a list that is a joke. I think the last two terror guys were on it. No standards to be put on it and no one audits it. No thanks.

 

Sorry Sam, I'm in and out, but do members of the GOP believe that due process should be denied to citizens of the United States that commit acts of terrorism?

 

No, I didn't, that's why I asked.

 

I gotta agree with Sam. If you haven't heard the beyatchin by many over the rights granted to terrorists you haven't been paying attention.

 

I heard the the complaints about KSM, the underwear bomber and mirandizing terrorists apprehended here, but those are all non-nationals. The guy in question here is actually a US citizen whereas I was under the impression that the others weren't. I have not been paying attention to the politicians on this one as it has been a very busy week, so that's why I asked.

I do not see this guy and KSM/Abdul Muttalib(sp?) as one and the same as neither of those two are American citizens that I am aware of.

 

The Bill of Rights doesn't just apply to US citizens but applies to people in general. It is a stricture on what the government can do not what rights US citizens have. Also US citizens such as Hamdi and Padilla were also put through the extra-legal processes that the previous Admin established. In the case of both there was complaints when those extra-legal processes were shot down by the courts.

 

Great. That isn't my point though. I was under the impression that the issue the GOP had was extending miranda rights and stuff to non-citizens committing acts of terror.

 

I think (hope) most people understand that there is a difference between being charged with a terrorist act and "suspected" of it.

With kids and ordinary citizens on this "no fly list", yes I think it is pretty ridiculous to ban them from their right to bear arms. If they were charged/convicted of a terrorist act? Different story.

Do you think we should let the government ban some American citizens, who have not been charged with any wrongdoing, from their right to bear arms? I just don't see any reasoning or logic behind that.

 

So I guess the theme here is that the GOP is treating the Bill of Rights like a buffet, picking and choosing those bits and pieces they want.

But unless you agree with the GOP that people labeled "terrorist" shouldn't have 5th and 14th amendment rights, aren't you doing exactly the same thing, Sam? Or is your rationalization why some rights are better than others more valid than their rationalizations by virtue of the fact that they are yours?

 

Spot on Sam. There are some in this country that believe that the right to bear arms should be totally inalienable. Of all of the rights in the Bill of Rights, this is the one that should be given the most leeway due to the gravity of what can happen thereafter.

I would rather have an unhappy person leave a gun shop unable to buy his .45 than to have guns in the hands of those that mean harm when it is completely avoidable.

 

I would have to agree 100 % with that.

 

Keeping someone from flying does not restrict them from traveling.

And keeping someone on a no-fly list does not keep them from flying.

 

I would say that all the time, all sorts of laws that are passed just to placate what are effectively irrational fears. Could you maybe show me one instance where this proposed change would have had any effect at all on the prevention of terrorism?

If something seems in your gut like it is a grave threat, but real world experience shows no danger, is it appropriate for your gut feeling to supersede the real world? I mean, I know it happens a lot, but as a general rule I believe in opposing placative measures that have no real effect.

The Arizona law is one example that comes to mind, where a bunch of xenophobes have an irrational fear of being attacked by Mexican cartels. From my perspective, it is incumbent for the xenophobes to get in line with reality, not the other way around. But I guess what happens more often than not is that the xenophobes treat their gut instincts as more real than reality. This would be just one more example of that.

Again, if anybody can point out a single instance where instituting this ban would have had a real effect in the real world, then I will strongly reconsider. Instead, I see people like Bloomberg who has tried to ban all guns from his city, trying to manipulate people through fear, playing the ultimate demagogue's card - terrorism.

 

I can tell you that if the gun laws had kept one person with a history of mental illness from buying a gun, there might be several Virginia Tech students still alive today.

 

He was on the no fly list? Cause I hope I don't have to remind you that that is what we are talking about. Do they put everybody admitted to mental hospitals on the no fly list? Is there some other connection between mental health and the no fly list that I don't know about?