Ammo For Sale

« « Keep your booger-hook off the bang-switch | Home | Guns in restaurants 2.0 » »

I’m rather fond of due process

Aunt B. on the terror gap:

Oh, god, liberals. Do not do this. I’m listening to Olbermann talk about legislators want to close the “terror gap” by making it hard for people on watch lists get guns.

And it’s making me agree with Lindsay Graham. How the fuck? He doesn’t believe in Miranda rights. He’s a nutjob.

But people on the mess that is the terror watch list should be able to buy guns.

I’m sorry, but those lists are a joke.

And there’s that whole denying someone rights without due process of law part. And, so far, a couple of babies, a blogger and a deceases US senator have shown up on the terrorist watchlist.

7 Responses to “I’m rather fond of due process”

  1. ericire12 Says:

    Olbermann(D) is increadibly anti-gun (although I would bet dollars to donuts that he ownes atleast one handgun) and this is just him once again being a water carrier for the extreme left. It doesnt have to make sense…. it just has to come out of the loony left playbook and he will be onboard.

    The problem with the law they are proposing is that it would give the attorney general the right to ban anyone that he wants from owning firearms….. it will make the AG the new Gun Czar. It puts no limitations or requirements on what the criteria is for making that decision would be….. it is totally up to the discretion of the AG and he can make the decision based on whatever he wants.

    Not only could he ban specific individuals, but he could make sweeping bans like say perhaps anyone know to be associated with the Tea Party (they are extremists after all) or everyone on the No-Fly list (there are countless law abiding citizens on that list… Hell, Ted Kennedy was on it for a while).

    The left is screaming profiling and racism over the AZ thing, but this new gun law would be blatent discrimination. This is also a very very bad precedent to set. If they can deny one constitutional right without due process, what other might they deny next?

  2. Stormy Dragon Says:

    The right isn’t helping with the “don’t mirandize terrorists” crap.

  3. Guav Says:

    Both sides are being totally inconsistent and hypocritical on this topic.

    Either we follow the law, and accused criminals and terrorists have constitutional rights, and suspects retain their 2nd Amendment rights (and all their other ones) unless we follow due process and find them guilty of whatever it is we allege that they have done.

    Or, we just say that anyone we think might be a terrorist can’t buy a gun, or fly, or be mirandized, or have citizenship or a fair trial and can be tortured or whatever.

    Graham/Lieberman and Bloomberg/Olbermann are on the same side—they all want to deny rights to the accused without due process, they differ only on the rights they want to deny. Buncha assholes.

  4. ericire12 Says:

    When someone commits a terrorist act, by law they are not required to read them their rights

  5. Mikee Says:

    Illegal combatant is a different category from accused criminal. The law is different for each, and the penalties are different for each.

    As for the deceased Senator on the watch list, he was a great friend of the IRA and he had killed a woman before his name appeared on the list. So he might not be all that good an example of problems with the list.

  6. Heather Says:

    Mikee – How about the babies and military personnel deploying to Afghanistan? Or the wife of former Senator Stevens? I can personally vouch for the military personnel one.

  7. Buck Says:

    When someone commits a terrorist act, by law they are not required to read them their rights

    Do you have to be read your rights in order to have them?