Are they fucking crazy ??

[kentuck]

<snip>

"This common-sense legislation is not anti-gun -- it's anti-terrorist," chimed in Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), the sponsor of a bill that would close what Bloomberg has called a "terror gap."

But GOP Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina wouldn't go along.

Admitting that "at first blush" the bill "seems to be an obvious step that we should take," Collins said that many people on the FBI's watchlist don't belong there. "None of us wants a terrorist to be able to purchase a gun, but neither should we want to infringe upon a Constitutional right of law-abiding Americans," she said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/05/bloomberg-terror-gap-argu_n_564733.html

=======================

It's OK to force you take off your shoes and to x-ray your entire body at the airports but its not OK to keep terrorists from getting guns??

Huh??

[Vincardog]

1. AM I a terrorist because I went to camp Casey? Who defines these 'terrorists'?

[dflprincess]

3. Bloomberg wants people who are on the no-fly list to be banned from buying guns

which would make sense if the no-fly list wasn't such a mess.

[HALO141]

6. The state of the list itself is if no concern to Bloomberg.

He wants to ban EVERYBODY from buying guns.

If we could be even reasonably sure of the list's accuracy then we might be able to find common ground but that list is a black box. Nobody knows who's on it (till the try to board an airplane, of course, and even then...) nobody will tell you how or why you're on it and nobody can really tell you how to get off the damned thing if you shouldn't be on it.

[slackmaster]

19. Mayor Bloomberg is a douche nozzle

:nuke:

[Tace]

25. : )

[WhiteTara]

4. well, tell me what kind of shoes you wear

and I'll let you know.
:rofl:

[HALO141]

7. Well... The heels ARE hollow, but it's OK.

That's where I keep my telephone.

[X_Digger]

44. As long as you don't have more than an ounce of water in each..

[Angry Dragon]

2. Let them buy guns but do not give them their rights??

I wonder how hard it is to talk out of your mouth and a** at the same time. Pick a position and live with it, do not change it every other day.

[NutmegYankee]

5. Terror watch lists do not have enough controls.

A citizen cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. One man adding names to a list is not "due process". See Amendments 5 and 14 of US Constitution.

[Turbineguy]

8. A "Terror Gap"?

Is that anything like a "Mineshaft Gap"?

[chollybocker]

15. It's where terrorists go to buy over-priced jeans.

;)

[slackmaster]

30. It's where the younger ones go

Older ones are more attracted to Car-Bomb Russe.

[chollybocker]

35. While homegrown terrorists shop at the KKK-Mart.

okay i'll stop. :)

[awoke_in_2003]

52. "MEIN FUHRER...

I can walk" :)

[lutherj]

9. It's ok to deny habeus corpus, to deny due process, to render suspects

to third party countries for torture, to subject them to waterboarding and other tortures, to invade a country on false pretenses and sell off their assets on the world market -- but dammit the second amendment is sacrosanct.

[kentuck]

10. Bingo!

You got it!

[kelly1mm]

11. So are you trying to make the point that since all those other

violations of civil/human rights are "ok" it is further "ok" to violate another constitutional right without due process? Or are you saying that this proposed violation of civil rights is just as bad as the others you cited? Or some other point?

[kentuck]

14. Actually...

They have no problem violating the rights of Americans. But they want to protect the "rights" of terrorists. Pretty simple, isn't it?

[kelly1mm]

24. Not really that simple. What level of due process has been

followed before one gets put on the no fly list? Are there mistakes on the no-fly list? Are all the people on the no fly list terrorists? If so, why are they not being arrested?
Would it be ok with you to seize the assets of all those on the no-fly list? If not, why not? What makes one constitutional right (RKBA) more or less worthy than another?

If your point was simply that republicans (or politicians generally) are hypocrites then I whole heartedly agree. However, it seemed to me that you would agree with no allowing people on the no-fly to purchase firearms. If so, I do not agree that it is simple at all.

[kentuck]

33. If we can keep them from flying...

then we can keep them from getting guns. Yes, it is that simple.

[kelly1mm]

34. While you do have a constitutional right to travel, you do not

have the constitutional right to travel by airplane. Like it of not, the Supreme Court has determined that the 2nd amendment gives an individual the civil right to keep and bare arms so the two are not the same.

I noticed you did not reply to my query so I will repeat it - Would it, in your opinion, be OK to seize the assets of those on the no fly list? If not, why not?

[kentuck]

36. What nonsense.

If you have the freedom to travel, you cannot be restricted from one mode of transportation if others have that freedom.

By the way, I think you mean "bear arms", not "bare arms"?

If they have proof that those on the no-fly lists have participated in terrorist acts, yes, they could seize their assets, just as they seize the assets of drug dealers. Also, they could and should stop them from buying guns. The 2nd Amendment is not that absolute that we would give guns to those intent on killing us.

[kelly1mm]

37. If you think that it is nonsense, are you saying that the no-fly list is unconstitutional?

You are right about "bear" vs. "bare" - dumb typo on my part.

If they have proof that those on the no-fly list have participated in terrorist acts then I, as well would be OK with seizing their assets. However, as the system is set up now, to get on the no-fly list the government does not have to prove anything. It certainly does not have to prove it to a Court. Call to Pakistan too much? On the list. Have the same or similar name as a terrorist? On the list. Active in anti-war protests? On the list. Vocal in Palestinian rights issues? On the list.

Do you really think this little of civil rights to put this much unchecked power in the executive branch of the government? How about when the repubs are in power?

[kentuck]

40. The Repubs have been in power.

We tortured people. We killed people while being tortured. Have you forgotten what they did?

The Supreme Court has not ruled on "no-fly" lists, as far as I know. Until then, whatever Congress passes is the law. It may be challenged in the courts.

What rights did we surrender under the Bush Administration under the guise of fighting the "war on terror"?

If you can prove you are not the person on the no-fly list, then you can go and buy a gun. Fair enough?

(edit for spelling)

[kelly1mm]

41. I remember the bush years all too well. Probably is the reason

for my ardent stand here. You wrote:

"What rights did we surrender under the Bush Administration under the guise of fighting the "war on terror"?"

I, for one, did not "surrender" any rights. The government has asserted that some of my rights were curtailed and I continue to fight the good fight for all civil rights. How about you?

and:

"If you can proof you are not the person on the no-fly list, then you can go and buy a gun. Fair enough?"

But what if I am on the list (correctly - not a mistaken ID) for my anti-war stance or Palestinian rights activities or calls to relatives in Pakistan - is it then OK to violate my civil rights?



FYI - I think it should be "prove" rather than "proof"

[kentuck]

42. Yes. Take their guns.

Then waterboard them. Don't read them their rights. They are presumed guilty. Send them to another country to be tortured. Eavesdrop on millions of Americans. I bet you really raised a stink about that, didn't you? Now you are worried about that 2nd Amendment? The rest of the Amendments can go to hell?

[kelly1mm]

46. So we have come full circle. You think I only care about one civil

right (RKBA) and I think you don't care about a civil right you don't agree with. I have stated repeatedly in our conversation that I care about all civil rights. You don't seem to think the 2nd Amendment is due any consideration. If you had made that clear at the begining we could have not wasted our time.
As to your accusation, currently, I am doing pro-bono work on a civil rights lawsuit being spearheaded by the U. MD Law School clinic concerning bush era warrantless wiretaps. And you are doing what again?

[kentuck]

48. Well, good for you.

I stay busy trying to correct people like you on the Internet. :-)

[kelly1mm]

50. Ha! Now that was funny! Thanks for the discussion anyway.

Have a good night!

[704wipes]

39. Apparently we CAN'T keep them from flying Dubai Airlines

the guy was on the no-fly, but bought a one way ticket with CASH from them and they were getting ready to haul his ass back to Peshawar.

And this is also the country where HALLIBURTON is now headquartered in order to avoid taxes and who knows what the hell else ?!

And Dickhead Cheney has practically been BEGGING for a terrorist success to blame on Obama....

I guess we can have Rahm & Pelosi look into it, huh?

[X_Digger]

45. Which amendment pertains to flying?

What section of the constitution protect's one's right to board a private aircraft?

[kelly1mm]

47. If you are replying to my assertion of the right to travel being constitutionally

protected it was what the Supreme Court stated the Article 4, Section 2 Privileges and Immunities Clause meant. I did not state that the right to travel = right to board a private plane however.

[X_Digger]

49. Oh I agree with you (which is why I replied to the other poster). n/t

[lutherj]

55. I'm just making the point that their sanctimonious regard for the second

amendment is pretty hypocritical in light of their attitude toward the rest of the constitution. The republicans are obviously catering to their base on this one.

[kelly1mm]

56. totally agree! Thanks! nt.

[NutmegYankee]

13. So all of that was OK?

It wasn't - and neither is this. Just because the previous administration used the constitution as toilet paper doesn't mean we should as well.

And it isn't the 2nd: It's the 5'th and 14'th. DUE PROCESS

[BrklynLiberal]

12. yes.

[Supersedeas]

16. Access to fire power trumps everything to the NRA appeasing RWingers

[baldguy]

17. To answer your question: Yes, they are fucking crazy.

2nd Amendment Über Alles. (At least the second half of it, anyway.)

[kelly1mm]

32. Yeah, and while we are at it we should seize all their bank accounts,

and censor their speech as well - no civil rights for those whom the government thinks is "dangerous"! Due process? Trials? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING TRIALS!
Don't worry, the repubs will NEVER be back in power so this won't effect anybody not worthy of such treatment because Democrats never violate anybody's rights! Shoot, I'll see your "2nd Amendment Uber Alles" and raise you "Bill of Rights Uber Alles"!

Do I really need a sarcasm tag?

[slackmaster]

18. Neither compulsory shoe removal nor denying civil rights to people who are merely suspects is OK

Both are morally wrong, but requiring airline passengers to remove their shoes is legally defensible.

Allowing the federal government to stop the lawful sale of a firearm to someone who is on a secret suspect list for which there is no recourse to get one's name cleared but who has not even been charged with any crime, is clearly unconstitutional.

And Senator Lautenberg is a douche nozzle.

:nuke:

[kentuck]

20. If they are "terrorists"..?

then why are they in our country at all?? Are we talking about "suspects" or terrorists? I think latest "suspect" admitted his guilt. He is a terrorist. He should not be able to purchase a gun.

[slackmaster]

23. A lot of the people on that Sooper Seekrit Terra Watch List are US citizens

I saw douche-nozzle Joe Lieberman blathering about it on the teevee this morning.

I think latest "suspect" admitted his guilt. He is a terrorist. He should not be able to purchase a gun.

He wasn't on the watch list when he bought the gun, so the proposed douche-baggery of a law would not have made any difference. He was put on it a few hours before he boarded a plane bound for Dubai. The gun didn't come into play at any time during the terrorist act or his arrest, so using his case as an example makes no logical sense for the proponents of the bill.

Yes, he is a terrorist and he belongs in prison.

[rurallib]

21. Makes you wish the founders would have put a word in about shoes, don't it?

[slackmaster]

28. They did

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[dumpdabaggers]

22. Yes, they are FUCKING crazy.

NT

[moondust]

26. Yes, they are fucking crazy.

[-..__...]

27. The Germans also had lists...

of those they wished to disarm (among other things)... which makes Bloomburgs and Lautenburgs affront to the Constitution even more of an outrage.

Had they been alive and residing in Europe back then, I could easily see both of them being willing collaborators.

[slackmaster]

29. They had pieces of flair too

[MadHound]

31. No, actually, for once, they're actually taking into account the Constitution

Disallowing people who are on the no-fly list to buy guns is utterly unConstitutional. The people on the list haven't been convicted of any crime, nor are they mentally ill which are the traditional determining factors in who does and doesn't get to buy a gun (and there is little disagreement that both criteria are sensible). Furthermore, the no-fly list is an utter piece of nonsense, as has been noted on this board, and elsewhere, many, many times. For instance there are many people who are on the no-fly list because they have a name that is identical to, or similar to known terrorist suspects. Thus, while, oh say, Hassaan Muhammed is a citizen of the US by birth, his name is identical to a terrorist suspect, and therefore he can't fly. Now, under this proposed legislation he wouldn't be able to buy a gun either. That's neither right nor Constitutional, he has been convicted with no trial, and his only crime is his name.

Let us also look at who else has gotten on the list. We have seen account after account of anti-war protesters put on the no-fly list. So simply for opposing the war, they now should have their Constitutional rights stripped away? I don't think so.

This is not the way to combat terrorism, and frankly for anybody determined to commit a terrorist act, such a law would do nothing to stop them. All it will succeed in doing is further shredding our Constitution and depriving citizens of their rights.

This isn't crazy, this is actually a sane breath of fresh air.

[underpants]

38. The second blush was the fear of having NRA money against you in a campaign

the fear, which is terrorism

[X_Digger]

43. Darth Leiberman can piss and moan all he likes.

You don't strip people of their constitutionally protected enumerated rights without due process.

[fishwax]

51. I don't know. I'm not sure how reliable the terror watch lists are

There've been some pretty silly incidents with the no-fly lists, I know ...

[slackmaster]

58. Their signal-to-noise ratio is probably very low

But there is no way for us to find out.

[applegrove]

53. Now the wingnuts will have to buy more guns to protect themselves from

terrorists. More money for the gun corporations and the NRA. I think I liked the idea of people buying duct tape better.

[saltpoint]

54. I can't imagine asking Susan Collins' advice on anything.

No matter the subject.

I just don't think she adds anything whatsoever to public discourse and her speaking voice often resembles wild animals being tortured.

[Lagomorph]

57. They don't want to punish the citizenry...

for the acts of the insane.