(US) No Federal Laws Against Terrorist Groups Purchasing Firearms

[TZucchini]

Yes, the list should be eliminated. If you want to keep the list then they should either be charged with something or removed within 3-6 months, they should not be left on the list indefinitely.

Should people denied any right because of some loose connection to terror, what they have said on forums or facebook or where they travled? Should they be denied jobs because they are on a list? Should they be denied travel?

I think your position is reasonable. And I don't disagree with it entirely. I think if we are to have a list, each entry should be well documented, supported, and reviewed periodically.

[Stormdash]

Oh, are you a big fan of the ACLU now?

Never claimed to be, but you presumably are a fan of both the NYT and ACLU. If you are, it is the soul of hypocrisy -- or just outright pure moral consequentialism -- that you dislike your least favorite civil liberty so much you'd have no problem subjugating it to the list that both of them consider aggregious affronts to civil liberties.

Not being well versed in Constitutional Law, I'll ask you. Should the list be eliminated? Should we be allowed to deny citizens on airplanes if they're on the list? Should people on that list be subject to greater scrutiny than those that are not? We're talking about 8,000 Americans that have been known or reasonably suspected of terrorist affiliations. What should we do with that knowledge?

I've never been a fan of it, but when its primary function has been to ping various intelligence databases for subsequent law enforcement action -- action that would be subject to the protections of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments, like a search or arrest or prosecution -- it's mere existence is not something I'd consider unconstitutional. But once you're talking about making it a determinative, dispositive bar between an individual and the exercise of a civil right, without any due process safeguards of any kind? That's Kafka-esque, it's banana republic thinking. See the distinction? Having a list that on its own does not operate against your civil liberties vs. having a list that, in and of itself, disqualifies you from the exercise of one or more of them.

If Feinstein, et al, prevailed on this, than a government agency -- without ever having sought a warrant or even had to allege wrongdoing or the basis of their suspicion -- put Bob on the watch list, and then Bob is just barred from legally buying a firearm. Due process would require notice and a hearing before Bob could be deprived of life, liberty (his 2A right) or property (his actual firearm/s), but there is neither notice or hearing before you get put on the watchlist nor is there an administrative or judicial process by which Bob can reliably expect he could challenge his status there.

Why not say those on the terrorist watch list are not subject to the warrant requirements of the 4th Amendment? Why not say that those on the terrorist watch list have no immunity from double jeopardy? Because it would be implicitly understood that the list is nothing more than a magic wand that can be waved over someone's name to deny their civil rights without any due process of law. Same goes for the 2nd Amendment.

[TZucchini]

Same goes for the 2nd Amendment.

Right, and I think I agreed with you on that in the very post that you replied to. My sentiment was that "under current conditions, where firearm ownership is treated as a protected right, it would be wrong to exclude these individuals from purchase." So I think we agree on that at least.

[Kellhound]

Right. Which is why it was idiotic of Rhine101 to attempt a comparison between the two. But thank you for pointing out further flaws in his argument.



Whether or not you're psychotic enough to believe that the value of $50 is greater than the value of ones life, that's not the point. Vyxn is attempting to compare lives saved vs. lives taken. That's a direct comparison, and the way he's doing it is objectively false.

The idiocy he is pointing out is the desire to give non-citizens not in the US Constitutional rights while arguing for taking them from citizens in the US.

1 penny is worth more to me than a violent criminal's life, because it is their choice to be a violent criminal. After all, they think causing emotional and or physical harm to their victims is ok. Lives saved is ambiguous because it is impossible to know what would have happened if the victim was just the meek little patsy you want them to be.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really. Lots of people in gitmo were never given due process and aren't even concretely linked with terrorist plots. Releasing them for due process does not mean liberals want to put guns in their hands. Can't say the same about conservatives.

But still, one side wants to deny non convicted people their rights, while the other doesn't want to deny non convicted people their rights. Seems like one side makes more sense constitutionally AND morally.

Again, the people held in Gitmo do not have any Constitutional rights, they are not US citizens and they are not on US soil.

[petej0]

I think your position is reasonable. And I don't disagree with it entirely. I think if we are to have a list, each entry should be well documented, supported, and reviewed periodically.

The person should also be notified and have a chance to address the claims against him/her PRIOR to being included on the list. I will stress again, there must also be a expiration mechanism, where if no prosecution action is taken by the Government then they are removed automatically.

[satimy]

Not really. Lots of people in gitmo were never given due process and aren't even concretely linked with terrorist plots. Releasing them for due process does not mean liberals want to put guns in their hands. Can't say the same about conservatives.

But still, one side wants to deny non convicted people their rights, while the other doesn't want to deny non convicted people their rights. Seems like one side makes more sense constitutionally AND morally.

People in gitmo are war detainees in a never ending war. The concept of endless war has fucked many civil liberties up.

The fact that they don't get due process is then they risk having to prove something, where as now they can just blackbag whatever they want to

[TZucchini]

The idiocy he is pointing out is the desire to give non-citizens not in the US Constitutional rights while arguing for taking them from citizens in the US.

I don't think "liberals" want to close Guantanamo because they believe Constitutional rights in the United States apply to all non-citizens, on all non-US territory. So that's a bit of a misnomer. Personally, I'd like to see it closed because it's expensive, I find secret prisons to be deplorable, and I believe we'd be just as safe without it.

1 penny is worth more to me than a violent criminal's life, because it is their choice to be a violent criminal. After all, they think causing emotional and or physical harm to their victims is ok. Lives saved is ambiguous because it is impossible to know what would have happened if the victim was just the meek little patsy you want them to be.

And your lack of empathy for human life is truly psychopathic. And I don't say that to put you down. It's just an observation. I'd wager a trained psychologist would agree. Even the lives of violent criminals are worth more than 1 penny. Almost anyone can be rehabilitated. Almost anyone can make mistakes. Hopefully none of your loved ones do.

[Kellhound]

I don't think "liberals" want to close Guantanamo because they believe Constitutional rights in the United States apply to all non-citizens, on all non-US territory. So that's a bit of a misnomer. Personally, I'd like to see it closed because it's expensive, I find secret prisons to be deplorable, and I believe we'd be just as safe without it.



And your lack of empathy for human life is truly psychopathic. And I don't say that to put you down. It's just an observation. I'd wager a trained psychologist would agree. Even the lives of violent criminals are worth more than 1 penny. Almost anyone can be rehabilitated. Almost anyone can make mistakes. Hopefully none of your loved ones do.

They are enemy combatants or POWs (depending on your view), so holding them until the end of hostilities is acceptable. It just gets messy because the Geneva Convention is a bit sketchy concerning combat against NGOs.

I do value human life, violent criminals however have willingly voided their value, thus are not worth the air they breath. And things like armed robbery and murder hardly qualify as a "mistake".

[petej0]

I do value human life, violent criminals however have willingly voided their value, thus are not worth the air they breath. And things like armed robbery and murder hardly qualify as a "mistake".

They dont classify as "mistakes" in the aspect of "Oops I didnt mean to do that." I would classify them as "misjudgments", well not murder.

For that, I think people can change and see the "missteps" they made in life as wrong and wanting to be better.