quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

And I asked about a case that would demonstrate this happening.
Got anything on that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

And (once again), you're refusing to discuss a situation where what you're bitching about hypothetically has possibly happened to somebody already.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

And (once again), you're refusing to discuss a situation where what you're bitching about hypothetically has possibly happened to somebody already.

If you're advocating that one lose their 2nd Amendment rights because their name appears on a no-fly list, why shouldn't that person lose other (or all) rights? They're clearly a danger to society, yes? So why not ransack their home, monitor them wherever they go, toss them in jail, etc. Hell, let's make anyone on the no-fly list find Jesus and convert to Christianity. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights no longer applies because their name appears on a list.

You keep avoiding answering because you know the answer: of course one should not lose the rights this country was founded on just because their name appears on an unvetted list that has numerous issues, not the least of which is the lack of due process to get one's name off of said list. We'd then get into a conversation where you'd learn Ted Kennedy's name was on the no-fly list, an 8 year old boy's name is on the no-fly list, and even Nelson Mandela appeared on the no-fly list. You'd then sheepishly admit, if you're being remotely reasonable and logical, that the no-fly list should undergo some vetting and maybe have more data than just "Mikey Hicks". Much like the ACLU, known for their protection of the 2nd Amendment, have called for.

But I guess it's OK to use this ACLU-opposed list when it involves stripping away 2nd Amendment rights from people, just not other rights, because those other rights are somehow more important.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

I'm not the one avoiding answering: were any American citizens sent to Guantanamo bay without receiving the due process of the law first?
(Arguably a bigger issue for those who are kinky for civil liberties than the suspension of somebody's right to bear arms, I'd have thought.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

And (once again), you're refusing to discuss a situation where what you're bitching about hypothetically has possibly happened to somebody already.

If you're advocating that one lose their 2nd Amendment rights because their name appears on a no-fly list, why shouldn't that person lose other (or all) rights? They're clearly a danger to society, yes? So why not ransack their home, monitor them wherever they go, toss them in jail, etc. Hell, let's make anyone on the no-fly list find Jesus and convert to Christianity. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights no longer applies because their name appears on a list.

You keep avoiding answering because you know the answer: of course one should not lose the rights this country was founded on just because their name appears on an unvetted list that has numerous issues, not the least of which is the lack of due process to get one's name off of said list. We'd then get into a conversation where you'd learn Ted Kennedy's name was on the no-fly list, an 8 year old boy's name is on the no-fly list, and even Nelson Mandela appeared on the no-fly list. You'd then sheepishly admit, if you're being remotely reasonable and logical, that the no-fly list should undergo some vetting and maybe have more data than just "Mikey Hicks". Much like the ACLU, known for their protection of the 2nd Amendment, have called for.

But I guess it's OK to use this ACLU-opposed list when it involves stripping away 2nd Amendment rights from people, just not other rights, because those other rights are somehow more important.

Well, if the list has been fucked up since its inception, seems like nutsuckers are ineffectual and wasting taxpayer money. We invented saran wrap and duct tape in this country, seems we should be able to pass a few measures and other incidentals that should fix the list. I do not believe the 2nd amendment is more sacrosanct than any other. SCOTUS has ruled that these rights are for American Citizens in good standing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

its almost if you haven't.

The septic aspect can be wiped out by refusing nutsuckers in government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

its almost if you haven't.

The septic aspect can be wiped out by refusing nutsuckers in government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

There are many areas where deregulation would be a fine thing, and there are many areas where draconian regulation would be a fine thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
I'd still like to hear your rationalization for the outright removal of people's rights because their names appear on a list, like some sort of reverse Schindler.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

There are many areas where deregulation would be a fine thing, and there are many areas where draconian regulation would be a fine thing.

and there is onlyone way NOT to violate the RESERVED rights, those which are NOT 'UNDER' the constitution and that is to stay the fuck away.

There is a concerted effort to undermine the supreme law of the land.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
I'd still like to hear your rationalization for the outright removal of people's rights because their names appear on a list, like some sort of reverse Schindler.

When did I say anything along those lines?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

No, I'm wondering how this differs from interring people without trial under another piece of legislation to deal with the threat of terrorism.
Did you object to that one at the time?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

So why did such a simple statement require you spending seven posts refusing to make it?