The New American Politics thread

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Makarov

But how is any of that unconstitutional? I don't know a lot about US constitutional law, but I don't understand what you are alleging? Does Obama not have the authority to make this type of executive order? Is it ultra vires? Does it infringe second amendment rights? If so, how?

I'm not a lawyer (I'm pretty sure you are?) but how does one get on a no fly list?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I'm not a lawyer (I'm pretty sure you are?) but how does one get on a no fly list?

Some government body or institution places you on it, I presume.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Some government body or institution places you on it, I presume.

Yes, that's my understanding as well. With no due process, or recourse should you be placed on that list. You get put onto that list based on suspicion. Nothing else.

The no fly list itself is unconstitutional (the Dems argued this vehemently after it was put in place post 9/11) expanding it to include the 2nd amd rights of Americans just makes it a double whammy.

To me anyways. What do you think? Remains to be seen if this provision is pushed through, however Obama has brought this up numerous times in the last couple months. If it is, I expect it to be challenged.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Yes, that's my understanding as well. With no due process, or recourse should you be placed on that list. You get put onto that list based on suspicion. Nothing else.

The no fly list itself is unconstitutional (the Dems argued this vehemently after it was put in place post 9/11) expanding it to include the 2nd amd rights of Americans just makes it a double whammy.

To me anyways. What do you think? Remains to be seen if this provision is pushed through, however Obama has brought this up numerous times in the last couple months. If it is, I expect it to be challenged.

I find it absolutely fascinating that Republicans/Conservatives will do absolutely anything to stop terrorism, including a proposal to block any and all Muslims from entering the country at all, or keeping a registry of Muslims in the US already. Including spying on United States citizens via the Patriot Act...But you want to prevent suspected terrorists from obtaining weapons and that's just a step too far.

So we can't let desperate refugees from Syria into the country, but someone with ties to Al Qaeda/ISIS sympathizers should have full access to firearms? We want to keep a record of anyone who believes the Islam faith, but a gun registry infringes on 2A rights?

I wish people could just accept that the Second Amendment was written by men who thought owning other human beings was totally okay, and that times have changed just slightly in the 200+ years since it was penned, so maybe we should look at changing it up. Maybe put a bigger emphasis on the "well-organized militia" part of things.

I don't see that happening in my lifetime, sadly.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^Not "well organized militia"; "well regulated militia". It baffles me that the jurisprudence could manage to screw this up. It would be so simple to rule on 2nd amendment matters by saying, "right, gun control laws are precisely the sort of regulations the drafters intended. They've just evolved to suit our current circumstances. What geniuses those drafters were to make a living document like our glorious constitution."

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

I find it absolutely fascinating that Republicans/Conservatives will do absolutely anything to stop terrorism, including a proposal to block any and all Muslims from entering the country at all, or keeping a registry of Muslims in the US already. Including spying on United States citizens via the Patriot Act...But you want to prevent suspected terrorists from obtaining weapons and that's just a step too far.

Both Democrats and Republicans have lit up Obama over his "no gun list" comments, since it's a violation of two rights you should have and are gaurenteed! This has jack squat to do with walls, religious registry, gun registry, and everything to do with YOUR rights being pissed on. But hey, it's our team so defend it to the end.

Right to due process. That's what this is about, not a dems vs GOP, left vs right debate, but every Americans rights. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, and yet you HAVE to frame it as such because you can't see it any other way.

So we can't let desperate refugees from Syria into the country, but someone with ties to Al Qaeda/ISIS sympathizers should have full access to firearms? We want to keep a record of anyone who believes the Islam faith, but a gun registry infringes on 2A rights?

Strawman, false equvilency, more deflection. You could address the issue yet instead choose to focus on the lunatic fringe elements of a political party that have nothing to do with this issue. At all.

I wish people could just accept that the Second Amendment was written by men who thought owning other human beings was totally okay, and that times have changed just slightly in the 200+ years since it was penned, so maybe we should look at changing it up. Maybe put a bigger emphasis on the "well-organized militia" part of things.

I don't see that happening in my lifetime, sadly.

Why stop there, the entire constitution was written by human beings who thought slavery was cool, lets toss it all into the trash! You seem to be willing to throw more than one protected right away, who needs that outdated relic anyways?

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Why stop there, the entire constitution was written by human beings who thought slavery was cool, lets toss it all into the trash! You seem to be willing to throw more than one protected right away, who needs that outdated relic anyways?

I don't think anyone is saying that. But if something is called the '2nd Amendment' you would think there is merit discussing actually amending something that was written hundreds of years ago. Times change.

[ResAlien]

Just so I'm clear you first accuse witty of using logical fallacies and then you follow that immediately by trying to put the cherry on your sundae of a post with a slippery slope argument? That's brilliant, I didn't think you agreed with her but now I know you do.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Just so I'm clear you first accuse witty of using logical fallacies and then you follow that immediately by trying to put the cherry on your sundae of a post with a slippery slope argument? That's brilliant, I didn't think you agreed with her but now I know you do.

Guess I should have used green text for the last paragraph that was dripping with sarcasm.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I don't think anyone is saying that. But if something is called the '2nd Amendment' you would think there is merit discussing actually amending something that was written hundreds of years ago. Times change.

That's true, and this is where the debate ends. Every. Time.

There is a process to change or amend the 2nd (or the 5th for that matter) and executive fiat is not the process.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I don't think anyone is saying that. But if something is called the '2nd Amendment' you would think there is merit discussing actually amending something that was written hundreds of years ago. Times change.

I have yet to have anyone coherently explain why this one amendment is wholly infallible yet there are a bevy of others (slavery, women voting, prohibition, etc) that were changed or added and yet the country didn't devolve into anarchy and ruin. What is it about private firearm ownership that is such an inalienable right whilst others can clearly be seen as antiquated?

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

That's true, and this is where the debate ends. Every. Time.

There is a process to change or amend the 2nd (or the 5th for that matter) and executive fiat is not the process.

I understand that. But it seems like every Republican I've heard speak on the subject has stated that amending the amendment is an absolute non-starter.

Why? You would think that a country that is awash in shootings and deaths would at least debate it or discuss it. But it's the one amendment that for some reason a lot of people don't want to touch in that country.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Strawman, false equvilency, more deflection. You could address the issue yet instead choose to focus on the lunatic fringe elements of a political party that have nothing to do with this issue. At all.

So current GOP presidential candidates are "lunatic fringe elements" of the Republican party? Alright then.

Why stop there, the entire constitution was written by human beings who thought slavery was cool, lets toss it all into the trash! You seem to be willing to throw more than one protected right away, who needs that outdated relic anyways?

Point out where I said "throw it away" and not "maybe take a look at changing it."

It should be harder to obtain firearms in this country. They should be kept out of the hands of those who are a danger to themselves and others.

I also have the right to life, as does everyone else in the US, and this masturbatory obsession that gun nuts have infringes on that right to life every single day, to the tune of 10K+ deaths a year.

God forbid I want automatic/semi-automatic killing machines out of the hands of people who aren't mentally or physically capable of handling them, nor have the proper training to handle them, nor the proper grasp of their power and danger.

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

That's true, and this is where the debate ends. Every. Time.

There is a process to change or amend the 2nd (or the 5th for that matter) and executive fiat is not the process.

This is not a first option. This is after years and years of attempts to go about it via the proper channels. The NRA lobby has its hand in so many politicians' pockets that the "process" can't possibly work, because any changes attempted are stopped before even being voted on. Rather than tightening gun laws in recent years, the US has made strides in the opposite direction, with more and more states instituting more lax gun control measures.

The men who wrote the Second Amendment had absolutely zero concept of the kind of weaponry that would come to exist 200+ years in the future. And if everyone wanted to own a couple hundred muskets, by all means, be my guest. Otherwise, let's join the rest of the industrialized world and try to stop being the only Western nation where this kind of ritual killing happens.

[Street Pharmacist]

Cars are far more necessary than guns, yet there's lots of regulation in being allowed to control one. Why didn't the founding father's write something about that into the constitution?

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

The men who wrote the Second Amendment had absolutely zero concept of the kind of weaponry that would come to exist 200+ years in the future. And if everyone wanted to own a couple hundred muskets, by all means, be my guest. Otherwise, let's join the rest of the industrialized world and try to stop being the only Western nation where this kind of ritual killing happens.

Could you please point out where the 2nd amd covers muskets?

The forefathers also had no idea that the future would bring us the Internet. Free speech is still covered there however. The constitution is ambiguous for many reasons.

Nowhere in your post did you even touch the issue of an extrajudicial process that exists in contravention of YOUR rights, and now that said process is to be implemented to remove even more rights. Which is where my concern lays. So we could debate the rest of your post (which seems redundant since you won't touch the whole point of due process in removal of rights) or you could read the one I made in response to KFF. Because that's there this debate is going to end. I'd rather save my breath.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Cars are far more necessary than guns, yet there's lots of regulation in being allowed to control one. Why didn't the founding father's write something about that into the constitution?

You make it sound like there are no current controls around firearms.

I don't know, why didn't the founding fathers cover automobiles in 1787?

...do I need to use green text again?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Could you please point out where the 2nd amd covers muskets?

The forefathers also had no idea that the future would bring us the Internet. Free speech is still covered there however. The constitution is ambiguous for many reasons.

Nowhere in your post did you even touch the issue of an extrajudicial process that exists in contravention of YOUR rights, and now that said process is to be implemented to remove even more rights. Which is where my concern lays. So we could debate the rest of your post (which seems redundant since you won't touch the whole point of due process in removal of rights) or you could read the one I made in response to KFF. Because that's there this debate is going to end. I'd rather save my breath.

It says right to bear arms,rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in defense of the state.

Since Muskets, Powder rifles and Swords were the most powerful personal weapons back then, the forefathers probably couldn't have dreamed of todays modern weapons and to be honest probably had more on their minds at the time.

Let me ask?, why aren't the public up in arms wanting the right to have 50-cal rotary cannons,shoulder held rocket launchers..etc, If should be they're right as after all they would need stuff like that to fight tyranny.

The Second Amendment is stupid, it has helped to kill more Americans than the genocides in Africa.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I'm not a lawyer (I'm pretty sure you are?) but how does one get on a no fly list?

Same way you are determined to be mentally ill, some random government appointed expert, a doctor or a cop, decides you are a whack job of some sort, it's all arbitrary.

What it is is brilliant politics, the vast majority of Americans are in agreement that there needs to be some form of increased checks, of course there's no agreement as to a what that looks like but almost everyone outside of the gun nuts think trying to keep guns out of radical islamisists is a good thing, the repugs will tie themselves in knots trying to explain why young alienated Muslims should be allowed to buy AR15's, they will look like idiots to the vast majority of non aligned voters.

I doubt that it will get past the courts but it isn't really meant to, Obama is doing Hillary a favour, he's firming up the democrat base while dividing the GOP.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Nowhere in your post did you even touch the issue of an extrajudicial process that exists in contravention of YOUR rights, and now that said process is to be implemented to remove even more rights. Which is where my concern lays.

Because your due process argument is bull####. There is nothing unconstitutional about a restriction list. In fact, you must have gone through some type of investigation or criminal proceeding to be on that list. You aren't arbitrarily added to a restriction list with going through some form of process. If you are on a restriction list, you are normally there for a reason.

Here's the text of the amendments that reference due process.

5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Where is a restriction list identified as being unconstitutional? Also, this is a enforcement of restriction that applies to all regular gun sales. A gun sale is a gun sale. Just like any controlled substance you must meet the requirements of law to make a transfer of property. I can't just transfer ownership of my house or car to another party without proper transfer of title. Same should apply to gun ownership. And according to my bank, I can't sell my home or car to just anyone. They must prove the means to pay for said property by first proving they have the assets to pay for, or secure financing to pay for said property. There are plenty of restrictions or qualifications people have to meet to transfer property. When you are talking about getting a gun, those same restriction limitation mechanisms should be met regardless of your status of ownership, just like the examples I've outlined.

What problem do you have making sure that guns are in the hands of only sane responsible people? I also find it incredibly stupid to be making a due process argument when the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II make due process a thing of the past. I mean, understand what laws are in place before going postal over something that is really inconsequential in the big picture. The restriction list is constitutional and is already entrenched in many laws pertaining to gun ownership. This is application of law to all instances of gun transfer, which was the intent of the law to begin with.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by New Era

Because your due process argument is bull####. There is nothing unconstitutional about a restriction list. In fact, you must have gone through some type of investigation or criminal proceeding to be on that list. You aren't arbitrarily added to a restriction list with going through some form of process. If you are on a restriction list, you are normally there for a reason.

Here's the text of the amendments that reference due process.

5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Where is a restriction list identified as being unconstitutional? Also, this is a enforcement of restriction that applies to all regular gun sales. A gun sale is a gun sale. Just like any controlled substance you must meet the requirements of law to make a transfer of property. I can't just transfer ownership of my house or car to another party without proper transfer of title. Same should apply to gun ownership. And according to my bank, I can't sell my home or car to just anyone. They must prove the means to pay for said property by first proving they have the assets to pay for, or secure financing to pay for said property. There are plenty of restrictions or qualifications people have to meet to transfer property. When you are talking about getting a gun, those same restriction limitation mechanisms should be met regardless of your status of ownership, just like the examples I've outlined.

What problem do you have making sure that guns are in the hands of only sane responsible people? I also find it incredibly stupid to be making a due process argument when the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II make due process a thing of the past. I mean, understand what laws are in place before going postal over something that is really inconsequential in the big picture. The restriction list is constitutional and is already entrenched in many laws pertaining to gun ownership. This is application of law to all instances of gun transfer, which was the intent of the law to begin with.

Hello Mcfly, anybody home?