Obama's response to a gun store owner's statement about the Second Amendment

washunut said:

Depends on how you want to define "provides material support". If Obama is suggesting the person is buying guns for ISIS then surely he could/should be arrested.

Click to expand...

Well yeah; that's a crime.

mak2 said:

Is there any group of Americans who should not be allowed to own guns? Known wannabe terrorist? Bat**** crazy people? violent felons?

Click to expand...

No. 1111111111111111111

Actually we do, on guns. I find it interesting this is the only aspect of discrimination against ISIL sympathizers or even Muslims in general the right is concerned with, is their ability to buy firearms. Just seems kinda weird to me.

VanceMack said:

So...the president was full of **** and making a ridiculous statement knowing the media wouldnt call him out on it and his supporters would just parrot it. I think we agree then.

Click to expand...

washunut said:

No. Again Americans have rights. The government can allege any of us are on some list. Not interested in giving up rights in the name of fighting terrorism. BTW- I am not a gun.

Click to expand...

Amen.

Crovax said:

Maybe someone should explain to the "constitutional scholar" that it's not the NRA stopping him from withholding constitutional rights without due process but the constitution itself.

Pretty retarded statement from someone everyone thinks is so smart.

Click to expand...

Being known to sympathize (or associate with others that do) with a "bad idea" is not a crime, thus Obama wants to dispense with that pesky "due process". Naturally, Obama realizes that anyone (especially a city, state or federal executive) can place a citizen on a "bad guy" list without any involvement of the judicial process thus taking away not only 2A rights but any other right or privilege by simply declaring that person to be "bad" (for wrong thinking?) - absent violating any statute at all. Who needs a law (much less a trial or conviction) when a mere executive list will serve the same purpose.

So you have no problem selling bat**** crazy, convicted violent felons who openly sympathize with terrorist firearms after they get out of jail? Is that correct?

PirateMk1 said:

No. 1111111111111111111

Click to expand...

Dittohead not! said:

source

Why is it, I wonder, if we know this guy is ISIL, we can't arrest him for supporting a known terrorist group.

But, if we can't, the least we could do is prohibit him from buying weapons, and without getting a response about the government coming to confiscate all our guns.

or, is that unreasonable? What do you think?

Click to expand...

Due Process. How many freedoms and liberty are we willing to relinquish because the government decided to put us on a list without Due Process of Law?

The Soviets had lists that could get you sent to a gulag to work until you died.

North Korea still has lists that can have you arrested and then you just disappear.

Is that the direction we want our country to follow?

We can't arrest him, more than likely, because he hasn't broken any laws... yet (a requirement of Due Process). Although I am very concerned about a terrorist sympathizer running around the country, it's obvious that the government is watching him (Obama just told us all that even he gets briefings about this guy and others), I am more concerned about the government using this guy as an excuse to remove all the freedoms and liberty of US citizens.

You see, the terrorist can injure or harm a dozen or maybe even a hundred people (or maybe even like 9/11 and kill 2,996 people). However, the government can oppress the freedoms and liberty of over 320 Million US citizens, and use a few terrorist sympathizers to do so.

We have a sitting President that is openly advocating the removal of a Constitutionally Protected Right, simply because the government has decided that they are concerned about your thoughts and speech, and they decided to put you on a list.

Let me repeat that in other words - the President of The United States of America is advocating the government be given the power to oppress people that they disagree with ideologically, prior to the person committing a crime or being convicted of a crime, much less even being officially charged with breaking a law!!!

Any reasonable thinking person that values their freedom and liberty should be enraged by what the President is advocating and doing, rather than asking why it's unreasonable.

If one person's freedoms and liberty are oppressed without Due Process, and we the people agree with the action and in fact support the action, then we are all oppressed but just haven't noticed the shackles we help the government put on our own ankles.

Dittohead not! said:

The point isn't that it's the NRA keeping him from confiscating guns. The point is that it is the NRA that is claiming he wants to confiscate guns.

Should the guy from ISIL be allowed to purchase as many guns, as much ammo, as he wants legally and without restriction? Really? Is that the intent of the Second Amendment?

Click to expand...

Obama tends to talk out of both sides of his mouth on this issue. As an Illinois rep his position was FOR banning firearm ownership. Then when called on it he claims it was a staff member that filled out his position paper...but never corrected it. In 2008 as a candidate he claimed he was pro 2nd Amendment but also pro DC gun bans and he has stated he believes semiautomatic weapons should be banned (theres that little easter eggs. Whaaaaaaaat? Ban guns? Of COURSE not...you can still have revolvers and double barreled weapons or single shot rifles.)
Joint interviews of Democratic candidates by Politico.com, Feb. 11, 2008, prior to Potomac Primary

mak2 said:

So you have no problem selling bat**** crazy, convicted violent felons who openly sympathize with terrorist firearms after they get out of jail? Is that correct?

Click to expand...

Yep. 11

mak2 said:

Is there any group of Americans who should not be allowed to own guns? Known wannabe terrorist? Bat**** crazy people? violent felons?

Click to expand...

Yes. People who have, through their actions and after proper adjudication, proved themselves to be a danger to public safety should have their rights suspended. They should also be in prison or a secure mental health facility.

Kobie said:

/sigh

NRA bought-and-paid-for Congresscritters won't close a pretty obvious hole in our laws. So, to a degree, the NRA is somewhat respinsible.

Click to expand...

What hole, in what law? Seriously, not baiting or trolling.

mak2 said:

Actually we do, on guns. I find it interesting this is the only aspect of discrimination against ISIL sympathizers or even Muslims in general the right is concerned with, is their ability to buy firearms. Just seems kinda weird to me.

Click to expand...

The concern isnt about "ISIL sympathizers" or "Muslims in general". Thats your presidential "okie doke" in play. HE used the comparison in response to concerns raised by a gun store owner. The response in THIS thread has been to show how ridiculous his comments were and that his comments about "ISIL sympathizers" and "suspected terrorists" are all bull****. Hell...you even acknowledge the TWL is a bull**** standard to deny someone their constitutional rights.

The problem is, when you really nail down the most avid gun people, who I agree with 99% they fall back to what MK is saying, everyone gets to buy firearms all the time, Any rational person realizes there are people out there who shouldn't have a toaster. We should have more mental health in America too, but that is another thread.

Lutherf said:

Yes. People who have, through their actions and after proper adjudication, proved themselves to be a danger to public safety should have their rights suspended. They should also be in prison or a secure mental health facility.

Click to expand...

I think for myself, I am not a mindless partisan so I really don't care what he thinks, I am commenting on the issue. There are some people who should not have firearms, people suspected of being ISIL sympathizers are not in that group. I was just pointing out the RW inconsistences on this topic.

VanceMack said:

The concern isnt about "ISIL sympathizers" or "Muslims in general". Thats your presidential "okie doke" in play. HE used the comparison in response to concerns raised by a gun store owner. The response in THIS thread has been to show how ridiculous his comments were and that his comments about "ISIL sympathizers" and "suspected terrorists" are all bull****. Hell...you even acknowledge the TWL is a bull**** standard to deny someone their constitutional rights.

Click to expand...

Translation: I'm not hell bent on taking away your guns, but it's not fair that I can't take your guns away because the government decided to put you on the no-fly list. :lamo

How is that Harvard education treating you, Obama? You ****ing transparent dumbass.

mak2 said:

Is there any group of Americans who should not be allowed to own guns? Known wannabe terrorist? Bat**** crazy people? violent felons?

Click to expand...

Those that have been given Due Process and been found a threat to society due to mental illness or have been convicted of crime involving a gun or are convicted of any felony should have their right to keep and bear arms suspended as well as placed in a mental institution or a prison until such time that they are no longer a threat to society. At such time that they are deemed no longer a threat to society, they should have their rights restored, including the right to vote, and the right to keep and bear arms.

Repeat felony offenders and/or criminals that are repeat offenders with the criminal use of firearms, should have their right to vote and their right to keep and bear arms removed permanently.

If a person with mental illness is judged a danger or potential danger to society regardless of treatment, and medical professionals state so under oath while providing the person Due Process is the courts, then they, too, should have their right to vote and their right to keep and bear arms removed permanently.

Those are the only two, however. In my humble opinion, that is. And, to repeat, only after they are given Due Process in the courts.

Dittohead not! said:

source

Why is it, I wonder, if we know this guy is ISIL, we can't arrest him for supporting a known terrorist group.

But, if we can't, the least we could do is prohibit him from buying weapons, and without getting a response about the government coming to confiscate all our guns.

or, is that unreasonable? What do you think?

Click to expand...

Yes - that is not only unreasonable it is flat out unconstitutional. Today the POTUS is using "people who we know have been on ISIL Web sites" as complete (total and final) justification for removing (some of) their constitutional rights. If you "Google" something and then click a supplied (suggested?) link - is that now a "crime" that needs no trial? Do you really want your internet search history to serve as proof of your guilt?

Kobie said:

/sigh

NRA bought-and-paid-for Congresscritters won't close a pretty obvious hole in our laws. So, to a degree, the NRA is somewhat respinsible.

Click to expand...

What obvious hole? the no fly list has no legal recourse to get off of it, I dont see how anyone can advocate taking away any of the constitutional rights without due process

mak2 said:

I think for myself, I am not a mindless partisan so I really don't care what he thinks, I am commenting on the issue. There are some people who should not have firearms, people suspected of being ISIL sympathizers are not in that group. I was just pointing out the RW inconsistences on this topic.

Click to expand...

No you arent. You are fabricating a correlation for convenience. The 'right wing' position is NOT in defense of or deference to ISIL sympathizers or even Muslims in general. It is a response to a known abuse in Constitutional law, one which you ACKNOWLEDGE and one in which you AGREE shouldnt be used as a basis for denial of Constitutional rights.

Dittohead not! said:

The point isn't that it's the NRA keeping him from confiscating guns. The point is that it is the NRA that is claiming he wants to confiscate guns.

Should the guy from ISIL be allowed to purchase as many guns, as much ammo, as he wants legally and without restriction? Really? Is that the intent of the Second Amendment?

Click to expand...

No the point is that he wants to govt to be able to arbitrarily stop people from buying guns and he claiming the NRA is holding him back from that

"we’re allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association, I cannot prohibit those people from buying a gun."

Its not the NRA stopping Obama, its the constitution. Either Obama is the worst constitutional scholar or he is intentionally lying with decisive partisan rhetoric while talking down to one of us "ordinary folk"

mak2 said:

Is there any group of Americans who should not be allowed to own guns? Known wannabe terrorist? Bat**** crazy people? violent felons?

Click to expand...

They must be given due process in a court of law, under no circumstances should that process ever be circumvented. The reason we have such a stringent defense of that right written into the constitution is due to historical abuses of the courts or people abused at the will and whim of the king/ruling body. We cannot allow the legislative or executive to decide who can exercise their rights or who is a criminal.

Kobie said:

/sigh

NRA bought-and-paid-for Congresscritters won't close a pretty obvious hole in our laws. So, to a degree, the NRA is somewhat respinsible.

Click to expand...

What does the NRA have to do with the terrorist watch list and its insane lack of accountability, responsibility, accuracy, ect?

VanceMack said:

“I don’t want to be on the list. I want to fly and see my grandma,” the 4-year-old boy said, according to his mother. Sijollie Allen and her son had trouble boarding planes last month because someone with the same name as Edward is on a government terrorist watch list. “Is this a joke?” Allen recalled telling Continental Airlines agents Dec. 21 at Houston’s Bush Intercontinental Airport. “You can tell he’s not a terrorist.”

Cuz...well...hes FOUR.


"A seven-month-old baby is among 15 American Muslims named in two lawsuits being brought against the US government by the Council of American-Islamic Relations for placing the plaintiffs on the so-called terror watch list without due process.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-state-fear-runs-rampant-7-month-old-baby-put-terrorist-watch-list/#4Xr0HXkBaGoGrVKA.99"

Watch out for that evil 7 month old ISIL supporter....

Click to expand...

I forget who, but at one point they had a member of the Canadian conservative cabinet on that list. They continue to run into cases of Canadian Sikh's, who wear turbans, are on the watch list, one of them was a Montreal cop.

And it was on that watch/no fly list that Mahar Arar was unlawfully seconded to Syria to be tortured for a year.

If there's that many false hits, how many real terrorists are unknown? And, you know, Obama may e worried about an American buying a gun and committing a terrorist act. But it won't happen that way. They will simply march a full blown army across the Mexican border.

Seriously, Mr. Obama, you're not worried about terrorist attacks, you just hate the NRA

Fearandloathing said:

I forget who, but at one point they had a member of the Canadian conservative cabinet on that list. They continue to run into cases of Canadian Sikh's, who wear turbans, are on the watch list, one of them was a Montreal cop.

And it was on that watch/no fly list that Mahar Arar was unlawfully seconded to Syria to be tortured for a year.

If there's that many false hits, how many real terrorists are unknown?

Click to expand...

Hell...Ted Kennedy was on the list.

The truly pathetic thing is that Obama used this rhetoric KNOWING people would hear his little trigger word (NRA) and would immediately start their conditioned dance. And on cure...they are doing in this thread. The NRA has precisely **** to do with Obamas proposed Gun bans (No...he hasnt proposed banning ALL guns..yes...he supports gun bans) or the abuses of the TWL...but all he has to do is say NRA and they start shuffling and tapping.

Grand Mal said:

That's not what the quote says.

Click to expand...

"I just came from a meeting today in the Situation Room in which I got people who we know have been on ISIL Web sites, living here in the United States, U.S. citizens, and we’re allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association, I cannot prohibit those people from buying a gun.

Click to expand...

The government first decided to put someone on the no fly list all on their own without due process and then if his desire became law the government would take away your gun rights based on it. Where is the due process in that?

Oh and btw, his belief here violates the second and fifth amendment. He also just so happened to use this nonsense argument when trying to claim he didn't want to violate the second amendment.

Are we sure he went to Harvard and that he knows the Constitution because I'm not believing it.