Democrats push to prevent gun sales to those on terror list

[Rhine101]

They already have that power. And while the Constitution was a good idea, it needs some updating. Being seen as infallible and revered like a religious text makes me uncomfortable, because then you stop questioning it, and view things as "inalienable". A theocracy we are not, nor ever should be. No matter what religion, whether Christian, Islam, Hindu, FSM, or Ancestor Worship of the Founding Fathers.

But your points: Go ahead, tap my phone lines. Pretty sure they do that already, or can if they want since I only have a cell phone. Search my residence? I rent a room. While I'd love to see a federal officer's face upon finding my "toy box", my lube assortment and other paraphenelia are nothing worthwhile. No opium filled diamond encrusted butt plugs. I'd be surprised if Emails weren't already monitored. Not wandering into conspiracy theory territory, but my old hotmail accounts for stupid shit probably were fair game years ago when the Patriot Act was passed, "or else the terrorists win".

I'm not on the terrorist watch list to my knowledge. I get searched almost every time I've flown, except for sure when I flew back from Brazil to the US. In the early/mid 2000s probably due to long black hair and a light beard. Don't look middle eastern, just Italian, but I get searched. Hair cut short, goatee. "Please step out of line sir".

The idea behind a constitution is to provide a framework of rights that cannot be "updated " on a whim. It's supposed to be basic rights that transcend time.

I do agree that review and updating based on the current times and wants of the population governed by it should happen. I do not agree that it should be easy or frequent. To see it as something that should be able to be changed easily would make having it moot. What protection would it offer of it can be changed to revoke that protection at any time?

- - - Updated - - -

Doesnt apply to terrorism cases. And a law forbidding folks on the no fly list to get guns should be a gimme. really it is pathetic that it hasnt been past into law years ago

- - - Updated - - -




Yes since even being a former criminal that have served the time you lose in many states the right to vote forever even when you have served the time for the crime. So i have no problem with forbidding these people to buy guns no problems at all with it infact it should have been done many years ago and i think it is a sign of weakness on national security when folks talk against it

Convicted of a crime is not the same as accused.

I agree that those convicted of domestic violence should not own weapons. I do not agree that those suspected of domestic violence have that right revoked.

When you commit a crime you do not lose rights. What happens is you forefit those rights. Same effect but the execution is important.

[sarahtasher]

As a non American, few things strike me out as odder than the genuine and sincere conviction of several people, very present on the Internet, that owing 15 assault riffles ''is going to help them resist the evil gubinement''

In addition that it's quite opposite to the whole concept of the welll ordained miltia, do you really, really, think that the US army, if they come to put you in FEMA death camps, is going to be stopped by AR-15 with an impressive amount of ammo for a school shooting but not enougn to last a week in a war ? (In most recent conflicts, it take a few [I]thousand [I] bullets to kill an ennemy soldier, if now a few ten of thousands)

- - - Updated - - -

[QUOTE=Rhine101;37401721]The idea behind a constitution is to provide a framework of rights that cannot be "updated " on a whim. It's supposed to be basic rights that transcend time.

I do agree that review and updating based on the current times and wants of the population governed by it should happen. I do not agree that it should be easy or frequent. To see it as something that should be able to be changed easily would make having it moot. What protection would it offer of it can be changed to revoke that protection at any time?

- - - Updated - - -

No, no no, the Constitution is unchangeable. Stuff like the second amendment. is almost a sacred text : you can't change the constitution, especially a part called the second amendment

[Venant]

As a non American, few things strike me out as odder than the genuine and sincere conviction of several people, very present on the Internet, that owing 15 assault riffles ''is going to help them resist the evil gubinement''

In addition that it's quite opposite to the whole concept of the welll ordained miltia, do you really, really, think that the US army, if they come to put you in FEMA death camps, is going to be stopped by AR-15 with an impressive amount of ammo for a school shooting but not enougn to last a week in a war ? (In most recent conflicts, it take a few [I]thousand [I] bullets to kill an ennemy soldier, if now a few ten of thousands)

I used to feel the same way, but eventually I realized that it is an issue of the rights of the individual vs the power of the state. I do not have faith in the good nature of people who seek power through the government. Placing all of the power in the hands of the government allows for a small number of people to commit atrocities on a national or global scale.

Tell me which scenario you consider more plausible:
1. A thousand people wake up and decide they are all going to become mass shooters today
2. A government decides it is going to bomb a city and kill thousands of civilians

[Ghostpanther]

[B]No, no no, the Constitution is unchangeable. Stuff like the second amendment. is almost a sacred text : you can't change the constitution, especially a part called the second amendment[/B][/QUOTE]

Any part of the Constitution can be amended, but thankfully the Forefathers had the intelligence not to allow it to be changed based on a emotional response of some groups without strong support from the whole nation. There is a set process on purpose. :P

On this subject, I do not like how the government can simply put you on a "watch" list based on suspicion and then deny a person a Constitutional right. Being able to fly is not a Constitutional right, so cannot use that as a support. I have no problem however with denying someone to buy a firearm if they are not a American citizen.

[TITAN308]

Didn't read, my humble guess ITT:

Amendments are great, unless I don't like them, then fuck that amendment, but don't touch the other ones plz.

[sarahtasher]

I used to feel the same way, but eventually I realized that it is an issue of the rights of the individual vs the power of the state. I do not have faith in the good nature of people who seek power through the government. Placing all of the power in the hands of the government allows for a small number of people to commit atrocities on a national or global scale.

Tell me which scenario you consider more plausible:
1. A thousand people wake up and decide they are all going to become mass shooters today
2. A government decides it is going to bomb a city and kill thousands of civilians

One happens now a few time per years, the other never happened with the US governement toward it's own citizens. You might also notice that usually speaking, the US army is quite willing to use drones and fighter jets for the whole purpose of bombing, against which secondg-grade AR-15 are of very dubious value.

Besides, as other people tried to bring up, the issue is that with current gun laws in the USA, even selling weapons only to citizens is rather difficult, with gun shows and private sales between individuals being quite tigerishly defended by the NRA.