Ammo For Sale

« « Indeed: The right to bear arms isnt up for debate | Home | Bring it » »

Even the ACLU & NYT get it

Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldnt Be Used to Restrict Peoples Freedoms. Though I do think this is wrong:

There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform.

Denying someone their rights without due process is not a reasonable regulation.

And even the New York Times goes in. Except that was last year and it involved rights they actually respect.

13 Responses to “Even the ACLU & NYT get it”

  1. Chas Says:

    I like the idea of taking away people’s rights by merely putting their names on a government list, but I think that it should apply to the First Amendment, not the Second. Let’s start with the names of the New York Times Editorial Board and go from there. Those terrorists have terrorized our Second Amendment rights long enough. They can shut up, or be locked up.

  2. Mr Evilwrench Says:

    Regulation is infringement, so in fact there is a constitutional bar. We need to reform the hell out of the no fly list just on its own merits.

  3. Fred Says:

    What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

  4. Fz Says:

    “reform the hell out of the no-fly list”

    Time to shoot the Donks’ hostage and take it out of the equation.

    Ditch the no-fly list.

  5. Chas Says:

    Markie Marxist sez: “Yeah! Yeah! It just needs to fixed. A tweet here and there, and then we can rape people’s constitutional rights with reckless abandon as we please! Ha! Ha!”

  6. Chas Says:

    Lists? Let me tell you about lists. In Vietnam, they put you on a list. Attached to your name, was your picture, because they took your picture. The man who was sent to kill you had your name, but more importantly, he had your picture. When he matched your picture to your face, he shot you and killed you.

    Today, in the US, your government has your DMV picture in its database. Drive much? They only have to give it to your killer, and he can be certain that you’re dead.
    To this day, certain Vietnam vets refuse to have their picture taken, and will become violent if you try to take their picture. That’s because they know the significance of it.
    Who am I talking about, in today’s political atmosphere?

  7. Chas Says:

    Fix the no fly list? How about you liberals fix a rusty crowbar jammed up your asses? Fix that, you commie rapist thugs, who would take our rights with your Marxist bullshit. Feck you, though as to how, I leave to your own imaginations, and you surely are imaginative, you Marxist scum.

  8. Manish Says:

    There is no Constitutional bar to reasonable regulations on any of our rights. The debate is what constitutes “reasonable”. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre, felons can’t vote in many states (which for the record I disagree with), etc.

  9. Ron W Says:

    @Manish, ” yelling fire in a crowded theatre” is a criminal abuse of the right of free speech”. But most ” common sense” ” reasonable regulations” that are typically proposed for 2nd Amendment rights are pre-emptive, which if applied to usual the free speech example, would be to muzzle people before ( pre emptively) they entered the theatre. The most recent “common sense” regulation being proposed is the secret and arbitrary deprivation of “due process of law” in the 5th Amendment to prevent citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. This is flagrantly unconstitutional and tyrannical by a supposed liberal president.

  10. Ron W Says:

    BTW, here is what the classical liberals once supported:

    “Our Bill of Rights curbs all three branches of government. It subjects all departments of government to a rule of law and sets boundaries beyond which no official may go. It emphasizes that in this country man walks with dignity and without fear, that he need not grovel before an all powerful government.” –Justice William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court.

    Unfortunately, many so called liberals today are authoritarian leftists. And most conservatives do not CONSERVE the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

  11. Ron W Says:

    And has the landmark SCOTUS Miranda decision been set aside by Obama and Clinton?

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO RULE MAKING or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

  12. Manish Says:

    @Ron – don’t get me wrong, I think the terrorist watch list is unconstitutional and should be scrapped and not expanded. That said, I’m sure there are things like bans on felons owning guns that you support. I’m not saying that anything being proposed or already enacted is reasonable or unreasonable, but merely pointing out that, the statement is correct…”reasonable” has become a loaded term if you’ll forgive the pun.

  13. Ron W Says:

    @Manish, Laws may be passed by “due process of law” by which one convicted in a court of law may be “deprived of life, liberty or property”. As for felons not owning guns, I think if the law deprives them of that right, they should probably still be in jail. However, I suppose it’s still pursuant to the 5th Amendment to deprive one of certain rights that are in effect after being released from incarceration.

    Too go off on a tangent, whatever laws are enacted, particularly gun laws, should be applied according “to the equal protection of the laws” (14th Amendment) so that they would be also be imposed on government officials and agents. After all they are our EMPLOYEES working UNDER our delegated powers, for which there are NONE enumerated in the Constitution for citizen disarmament.