Someone is going to have to explain how restriction lists are unconstitutional? The only way you end up on a restriction list is because of due cause. Not suspicion. Actual due cause with documented proof that the restriction is valid. So how is this unconstitutional? Please identify where in the US Constitution does it state than an individual cannot be placed on a list restricting their access to certain controlled substances or spaces.
I think our point is that the 'lists' and overall way the US government operates is done in such a way where due process is basically an after thought.
We are talking about the same government that sanctions hit lists that often include American citizens, operates Gitmo, and has basically shredded the constitution when it created the Patriot Act.
Oh, and lets not forget the NSA, and the blatant invasion of privacy that they carry out on a daily basis. With the 'blessing' of the FISA court that deals with the no fly lists as well.
Sorry, but I just have a hard time believing that everyone on that list has been thoroughly vetted.
Well obviously if I think one list is corrupt I would agree that using a corrupt list for other purposes is unconstitutional.
I do however agree with across the board comprehensive background checks.
I think most people do agree with background checks, and they currently are the norm, not the exception.
I don't have an issue with it, mainly because I believe if you have been convicted of violent crimes, domestic violence, ect then you have forfeited your right to own a firearm. I think the majority of people can get behind that.
With the issue of the no fly list, there are people that are on that list because of past criminal activity, new charges come forward that make them a flight risk. And that's fine. The issue is many, many people are on this list based on suspicions of the FBI, NSA, and DHS, and nothing more! Just taking that list, the whole list, and applying it to potential firearm buyers is offensive.
Hell they just had a story on ctv news of some 6 year old who was flagged after him and his father tried boarding a flight after the winter classic. His name is the same as someone else who belongs on that list. So the no fly list is not only unconstitutional, it's ineffective and sloppily implemented.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
Last edited by 2Stonedbirds; 01-04-2016 at 07:22 PM.
I think our point is that the 'lists' and overall way the US government operates is done in such a way where due process is basically an after thought.
We are talking about the same government that sanctions hit lists that often include American citizens, operates Gitmo, and has basically shredded the constitution when it created the Patriot Act.
Oh, and lets not forget the NSA, and the blatant invasion of privacy that they carry out on a daily basis. With the 'blessing' of the FISA court that deals with the no fly lists as well.
Sorry, but I just have a hard time believing that everyone on that list has been thoroughly vetted.
All great points about the weakness of, and bad things the government has done, but how is that relevant to the question asked? Where is the restricted list unconstitutional? The reason you end up on a restriction list is because of intelligence gathered from some of the programs listed. Right or wrong, that is how you end up on the list.
You can try and argue the constitutionality of these programs, but the constitution says nothing about the collection of information about citizens or restrictions to controlled substances and places. So far the Supreme Court has not said anything to support the unconstitutional claims. While I think this is complete bunk, and the NSA is infringing upon our freedoms, they do so in ways that is not controlled under the auspices of the constitution or federal law. Saying that, using that information for public good is a positive outcome from a bad situation. Unless someone can successfully argue in front of the Supreme Court that these restrictions are unconstitutional they are going to be considered kosher under the constitution. I think the reason this argument has not been made is because you have to prove the law under which these programs are rendered is wrong and does not comply with the intent of the constitution. Remember, the constitution does not provide or frame law but is the framework from which law is established. The laws define what and what not is legal, not the constitution.
So the no fly list is not only unconstitutional, it's ineffective and sloppily implemented.
Again, I will ask, how is a restriction list unconstitutional? Please stop dodging the question and answer that. Please identify where in the constitution it prevents the restriction from controlled substances or spaces.
Again, I will ask, how is a restriction list unconstitutional? Please stop dodging the question and answer that. Please identify where in the constitution it prevents the restriction from controlled substances or spaces.
OBAMA is a muslim, and everything he does is unconstitutional, even if he didn't create the no fly lists.
Again, I will ask, how is a restriction list unconstitutional? Please stop dodging the question and answer that. Please identify where in the constitution it prevents the restriction from controlled substances or spaces.
It doesn't.
If you have been charged, and convicted, then you don't have a leg to stand on.
Again, there is this little thing called due process. A constitutionally protected right. Many instances of people who belong on the secretive little list didn't get there on anything other then suspicion.
Thus violating your right to due process.
If you want to stand up in defense for a unaccountable process that excludes the courts, that's up to you.
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
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!
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 01-04-2016 at 09:56 PM.
Well if today's announced measures include expanding the no fly list to include potential gun owners I'm sure we will get to see the other branches of govt at work then.
I think the bulk of his orders will be around background checks.
What's with the fixation on my signature? If you must know I'm a big fan of Kubrick films and Full Metal Jacket is one of my favourites. The M14 itself has Canadian lineage and John Garands famous ping lives on with M14 pattern rifles. Rack grade rifles may not be exceptional, and their accuracy requirement wasn't anything to brag about but a properly tuned rifle can shoot lights out. Shortest official service life of any US military rifle and yet some were pulled out of the mothballs to enter the ME theatre as some found the 5.56x45 lacking. It's an ugly duckling but a charming one at that with its roots in Canadian history.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
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!
Huh? A law is not constitutional simply by virtue of being formed by processes defined in the constitution. It's constitutional by virtue of of its not offending constitutional principles. A law that says "any person who criticizes the President will be hung by the neck until dead" could very well be passed in accordance with constitutional processes, but it would be unconstitutional for violation of constitutional principles; in particular the first amendment. No one challenges the constitutionality of laws on the basis that the process that enacted them wasn't appropriate.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.
Quote:
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.
This is a contentious point. For example, if you were placed on a "restriction list" that prevented you from buying food, or restricted your access to only a specific set of hospitals that required you to drive to another state, or restricted your access to only certain lawyers upon being arrested, etc... In short, I disagree. I think some restriction lists could be unconstitutional. After that's conceded, all that's left is to discuss whether THESE sorts of lists happen to be.
Quote:
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.
This kind of thinking is understandable, because real risks exist... but it's really walking a tightrope above a lake of horrifying authoritarianism. I mean, the bolded portions actually make me recoil when I read them. There's always some tension between liberty and collective security and maintaining that balance is arguably the source of the most difficult public policy decisions. Traditionally, for the most part the philosophy in the USA has been to prefer liberty to collective security. Of course, you're free to disagree with that philosophical leaning generally or in specific instances but to suggest that this is a no-brainer is crazy talk.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
^^^FMJ is classic! The M14 had its time, but man, what a beast to maintain. The evolution of the AR-15/M16 has had so many benefits. Great intermediate range weapon. I'll stick with my .338 lapua for distance shooting though.
Huh? A law is not constitutional simply by virtue of being formed by processes defined in the constitution. It's constitutional by virtue of of its not offending constitutional principles. A law that says "any person who criticizes the President will be hung by the neck until dead" could very well be passed in accordance with constitutional processes, but it would be unconstitutional for violation of constitutional principles; in particular the first amendment. No one challenges the constitutionality of laws on the basis that the process that enacted them wasn't appropriate.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.
I think you are missing the point. A law is constitutional until it is tested through the courts. The interpretation of the constitution is afforded to the court and they provide the balance to the power of congress to create law. If you believe a law to be unconstitutional you have every right to challenge the law in court and use the process in the constitution to have said law tested.
Quote:
This is a contentious point. For example, if you were placed on a "restriction list" that prevented you from buying food, or restricted your access to only a specific set of hospitals that required you to drive to another state, or restricted your access to only certain lawyers upon being arrested, etc... In short, I disagree. I think some restriction lists could be unconstitutional. After that's conceded, all that's left is to discuss whether THESE sorts of lists happen to be.
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. Food, on the other hand, does get put on restricted lists to protect the people. Different type of restriction list, I know, just making a point.
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?
To me these restrictions are constitutional because they do not inhibit my access to the services needed. This is a cost of working within the system. I don't have the big bad government between me and my doctor, but I do have an insurance company in the way, who do not have to abide by the framing of the constitution.
Quote:
This kind of thinking is understandable, because real risks exist... but it's really walking a tightrope above a lake of horrifying authoritarianism. I mean, the bolded portions actually make me recoil when I read them. There's always some tension between liberty and collective security and maintaining that balance is arguably the source of the most difficult public policy decisions. Traditionally, for the most part the philosophy in the USA has been to prefer liberty to collective security. Of course, you're free to disagree with that philosophical leaning generally or in specific instances but to suggest that this is a no-brainer is crazy talk.
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.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 01-05-2016 at 09:52 AM.
Reason: Fix a horrible autocorrect
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Your hypothetical thought experiment is ridiculous, unless you buy into the paranoia that the government is a totalitarian regime bent on destroying the fabric of society and turning us all into drones. There are limits to which you try and propose hypotheticals. Your extrapolation is to extreme. Mind you, there are people in this election cycle that support making Muslims wear a mark that identifies them as such, so maybe you aren't as nuts as you sound?
Again, what you're missing is the law allows certain things to happen. The test of law is what ultimately defines if something is constitutional. Because something goes through the process as defined by the constitution makes it a constitutionally sound action. The law is created by congress in accordance with the constitution, making it constitutional. If someone disagrees they may use the courts to challenge the law and put it to a test and see if the court agrees that the law is constitutionally sound. That is the way the balance in the system works. If you don't like it, take it up with the courts. Maybe you can challenge the creation of law process as being unconstitutional.
Your hypothetical thought experiment is ridiculous, unless you buy into the paranoia that the government is a totalitarian regime bent on destroying the fabric of society and turning us all into drones. There are limits to which you try and propose hypotheticals. Your extrapolation is to extreme. Mind you, there are people in this election cycle that support making Muslims wear a mark that identifies them as such, so maybe you aren't as nuts as you sound?
I think the problem here is a fundamental lack of understanding on your part as to how philosophy works. The entire point of a thought experiment is to be extreme and implausible, yet contain all the premises of the argument under discussion. If your position can't survive its application in "corner cases", or extreme thought experiments, it isn't internally consistent (in other words, it's flawed). Let me break it down again:
Premise: The constitution does not explicitly mention restriction lists.
Premise 2: If restriction lists are not mentioned in the constitution, no restriction list can be unconstitutional.
Conclusion: A weapons restruction list cannot be unconstitutional.
That is your argument as I understood it. I can go back and quote the portions of your post that suggest the above. I've challenged that argument by denying premise 2. To do that, I told a way that I thought you could have a restriction list that is unconstitutional. Whether that restriction list exists or will ever exist is completely beside the point. If I'm right that said hypothetical restriction list would be unconstitutional, then premise 2 should be rejected, and you need a new argument if you want to maintain your conclusion.
Quote:
Again, what you're missing is the law allows certain things to happen. The test of law is what ultimately defines if something is constitutional. Because something goes through the process as defined by the constitution makes it a constitutionally sound action. The law is created by congress in accordance with the constitution, making it constitutional. If someone disagrees they may use the courts to challenge the law and put it to a test and see if the court agrees that the law is constitutionally sound. That is the way the balance in the system works.
I'm telling you you're wrong about this. That's not how constitutional law works. Unconstitutional laws can be passed, and remain on the books for years, without anyone happening to challenge them.
For example, the Alberta legislature could very well enact a statute entitled, "The Alberta Criminal Code", which makes a bunch of new actions criminal in Alberta, complete with jail time resulting. That law is unconstitutional, regardless of whether anyone bothers to take it to court, because it flagrantly offends the division of powers sections in the 1867 act and specifically s.91(27). The moment it's passed, it's unconstitutional. Upon taking it to Court, the Court will undoubtedly agree that yes, it's unconstitutional, and strike it down. But it was already unconstitutional, the Court is just confirming that fact and giving it effect.
I mean, logically, the notion that it's not unconstitutional until a Court rules on it produces the absurd result that you actually couldn't go in front of a court to argue about constitutionality in the first place. If a law isn't unconstitutional until the Court says so, then you can't argue that the Court should say so on the grounds that it's unconstitutional.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
^^^FMJ is classic! The M14 had its time, but man, what a beast to maintain. The evolution of the AR-15/M16 has had so many benefits. Great intermediate range weapon. I'll stick with my .338 lapua for distance shooting though.
Yes, it for sure requires a watchful eye and a certain degree of knowledge to, IMO, properly maintain and keep safe. Headspace, hammer follow and slam fire are issues owners should be aware of. The m14, even though has been brought back recently, is being phased out by AR10s. Which I can't argue with, it is a superior platform. Still, that big ugly clunking hunk of metal that is the m14 is one of my favourites. A unitized rifle with proper hand loads can raise hell with quality bolt actions, however it's a longer (and more expensive) path to even touch that level of accuracy an out of the box bolt can provide.
Heavy boo-lits out of a 338 lapua can do amazing things and is surprisingly soft to shoot. My long range rig is a 300wm with a long cut throat to utilize heavy 30cal pills. It loves 215gr berger hybrids over 7828ssc. May rebarrel a 308 to 260rem, check out the ballistics; the 6.5mm projectiles in a 260 stomp the guts out of a 308, and even though it can never hit as hard as a 300wm, ballistic wise it's right there. All out of a short action.
New Era I apologize if I lowered the level of debate to a shouting match. I enjoy the banter however. Guess we will wait and see what happens, again I believe the new measures will mostly be around background checks.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
The Following User Says Thank You to 2Stonedbirds For This Useful Post:
If you must know I'm a big fan of Kubrick films and Full Metal Jacket is one of my favourites.
Same here. If someone were to make the argument that Kubrick is the G.O.A.T. you'd get no argument from me. I'd probably put FMJ as my favorite (although 2001 and Cloakwork give it a run for it's money).
I remember when eye's wide shut came out and one of my friends complained that it wasn't titilating enough my response was an eye roll and that if they wanted to watch pornography then they should just watch pornography... Stanley Kubrick makes art. One of the relatively few directors whose work transcends entertainment.
I agree Parallex. I wouldn't be able to choose between A Clockwork Orange and FMJ, love them both. The Shining is great of course and I get something different from 2001 each time I watch it.
Must confess I have yet to see Eyes Wide Shut. Mostly because I despise Tom Cruise acting, but I suppose I'll have to grit my teeth and bear it. Favourite film is still Apocalypse Now however, best dialogue in a film ever IMO, although clockwork is close. "I don't like what you've done what you did!"
Anyways I digress.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
