[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

It doesn't.

Exactly. There is nothing in the constitution about restricted lists. There are numerous laws that are used to enforce restricted lists. Those are formed through the processes defined in the constitution. That makes them constitutional. If you don't agree with that you can challenge the validity of those laws in a court of law and attempt to have the laws repealed. That is the process and what defines what is constitutional and what is not. Learn the ####ing process already. The constitution is the framework. What is being applied here is law!

If you have been charged, and convicted, then you don't have a leg to stand on.

Wow, I'm glad you've finally come around on this.

Again, there is this little thing called due process. A constitutionally protected right.

The due process clause, offered through the 5th and 14th amendments, acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law. There is the rub. All of the acts in question comply with law. Again, you don't like it, hire a lawyer and challenge the law in the courts. No one has tried to take it on because every lawyer worth his salt knows the constitutionality of these laws is next impossible to challenge. Many of these laws are in place because of this thing called national security.

Many instances of people who belong on the secretive little list didn't get there on anything other then suspicion.

Bull####. They are there because of intelligence or investigations that has identified the individual a threat. There is documented proof of a potential threat and many times this goes in front of a judge to enforce the restriction. They don't do anything arbitrarily. They don't flip open the phonebook and start picking names. I know your paranoia leads you to believe that, but that ain't the way the system works.

Thus violating your right to due process.

You are aware that due process is only afforded in criminal and civil proceedings? A restriction list is neither. And I hate to break it to you, but there is no limitation on life, liberty and or property by being on a restricted list or being prevented from access to restricted or prohibited products as defined by law.

If you want to stand up in defense for a unaccountable process that excludes the courts, that's up to you.

You're damn right I will. We have this thing called national security. #### the individual. The collective is much more important than any one individual or rights of one individual. If you are a law abiding citizen you have nothing to worry about. Be a ######bag or associate with ######bags and you deal with the consequences. There is this thing in law called probable cause that allows law enforcement to investigate individuals. When you give them probable cause to be suspicious, by associating or communicating with known terrorist or interests that fund terror organizations, you likely get what you deserve. I'd much rather the people with the axe to grind don't get on my plane and don't have access to weapons.

At this point though I'm wondering if it would not be easier to just draw a picture for you in crayons so you can follow along.

Yeah, you better. Because your understanding of the American governance system is about at a 1st grade level. You're like those idiots who do nothing but natter on about being constitutionalists, yet don't understand how the mechanisms of government work. Learn the responsibilities of the three branches and how they balance each other. It will be a real eye opener and give you a lot of insight on the constitution and show you the brilliance of the document itself. The Bill of Rights is NOT the constitution!!!

Not to derail this thread, but I have to know what is your fixation with the M14? I mean, not a good weapon platform.