[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by New Era

I think you are missing the point. A law is constitutional until it is tested through the courts.

This is wrong. A law is constitutional or unconstitutional on its face. The courts merely confirm whether it is or not. You're right obviously that the way to get a law struck down as unconstitutional is through the Courts, so practically this may not be a terribly important point in this context, but let's get it clear.

Well, now you're reaching. People don't get placed on restrictions lists to prevent them from getting food. Now we are getting a little ridiculous.

No, I'm not. I'm extrapolating your conclusion to hypothetical scenarios by use of a thought experiment. If you're not capable of participating in a discussion involving thought experiments you can't engage in this debate at all. Your initial contention was that the constitution doesn't specifically mention restriction lists, and that as a result they can't be unconstitutional. I provided hypothetical examples that, I think, demonstrate that they can be. This shifts the argument to whether the no-fly list, or a weapons restriction list, is unconstitutional - as opposed to whether restrictions lists in general can be. This moves the discussion forward.

Balancing liberty and collective security also requires that we think hypothetically because it's easy to get carried away with current concerns and pass laws that have potentially disastrous consequences.

The other restriction lists do exist, although not controlled by the government. My insurance company provides restrictions lists that force me to go to specific doctors and hospitals. Is that constitutional, or is that okay?

This is a false dilemma in so far as a thing can be constitutional but not "okay", but let's leave that aside; of course it's constitutional, the constitution only constrains state power, as you note. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

There is a fine balance that needs to be maintained. There is a process to follow if you feel that the system is working against you. Use it. Don't take up arms and occupy government facilities, don't break other people's ####, and don't kill those who disagree with your perspective. I'm not of can of the data aggregation the intelligence apparatus in the US does against its citizens, but the way it is done makes it difficult to challenge.

I agree with following the process as it stands. I can see a situation where the process itself rigs the game, as it's captive to the "system" that one feels is working against them. In this case, I suspect these yokels think it is, and in this case they're delusional.

That certainly doesn't make your earlier statements any less frightening though, as your response here is a bit of a non sequitur.