|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67614
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | Dems are asking for closing gun show loophole and no-fly, no-buy to restrict gun purchases for those on the terror watch list. How is that disrespecting the rights of currently lawful gun owners? |
By creating a process to deny them ownership without due process. |
No, by creating a waiting period same as retail gun shops. |
That's not what is being proposed. |
Correction; more extensive background checks. LINK |
Republicans proposed a 3 day delay if on the list, at which point the govt would have to prove that they legitimately shouldn't own a gun. Demo rejected. They only want the ability to completely deny rights without due process, violating the 5th Amendment.
Do you believe we should be a nation that denies rights based on the presumption of guilt? |
No I believe we should have extensive background checks. I don't think 3 days is enough time. If no denial comes within the three day period I think it should be extended.
Another mass shooting today. LINK |
How long is okay to deny people their rights without proof or due process?
40% of people on the list are people of Arab descent that have no terror ties. This will disproportionately affect that racial group because of their names, religion, or people they may have been in contact with.
I have no problem with investigating people if they are deemed higher risk. I do have a problem with denying someone their Constitutionally protected rights without proof of anything. Instead, they are guilty until they can prove thems lives innocent. It's un-American. |
As long as it takes. If one life is saved inconvenience is secondary If it's important for the person applying I'm sure the system can be poked. You can put a name in the system and in a short period know all or most all about the person.
The type of weapon being purchased should be noted. It should be made easier for a person buying a 38 than for a person buying a AK-49.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52652
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | How long is okay to deny people their rights without proof or due process? |
Funny to hear this from the Right considering they advocate denying ALL women their own reproductive rights FOREVER without any discussion of anything even remotely like "due process". |
That debate is about the right to kill vs the right to privacy.
I don't believe the right to privacy should make it legal to murder. |
Except there's no "murder" going on. |
In your view.
But when the right is against abortion, it's because we recognize the unborn Life.
The left purposely misrepresents that position. |
The left doesn't misrepresent anything, They just point out the fallacy and contradiction in it.
Not to mention that the Right extends the denial of rights beyond just abortion. But nice try. |
Nope. It's the left's way of dishonestly vilifying those that disagree with them by ignoring their real reasons, and instead making up a fallacy of some desire to control women. |
You can say "nope" all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the Right wants to control reproductive rights beyond banning abortions.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lakerjoshua wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | How long is okay to deny people their rights without proof or due process? |
Funny to hear this from the Right considering they advocate denying ALL women their own reproductive rights FOREVER without any discussion of anything even remotely like "due process". |
That debate is about the right to kill vs the right to privacy.
I don't believe the right to privacy should make it legal to murder. |
Except there's no "murder" going on. |
In your view.
But when the right is against abortion, it's because we recognize the unborn Life.
The left purposely misrepresents that position. |
The left doesn't misrepresent anything, They just point out the fallacy and contradiction in it.
Not to mention that the Right extends the denial of rights beyond just abortion. But nice try. |
Nope. It's the left's way of dishonestly vilifying those that disagree with them by ignoring their real reasons, and instead making up a fallacy of some desire to control women. |
Trying to deny the woman's right to control her own body is not trying to control them? How so? |
There you go, misrepresenting the right's motivations.
I have come not to expect honest discussion from many people here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | Dems are asking for closing gun show loophole and no-fly, no-buy to restrict gun purchases for those on the terror watch list. How is that disrespecting the rights of currently lawful gun owners? |
By creating a process to deny them ownership without due process. |
No, by creating a waiting period same as retail gun shops. |
That's not what is being proposed. |
Correction; more extensive background checks. LINK |
Republicans proposed a 3 day delay if on the list, at which point the govt would have to prove that they legitimately shouldn't own a gun. Demo rejected. They only want the ability to completely deny rights without due process, violating the 5th Amendment.
Do you believe we should be a nation that denies rights based on the presumption of guilt? |
No I believe we should have extensive background checks. I don't think 3 days is enough time. If no denial comes within the three day period I think it should be extended.
Another mass shooting today. LINK |
How long is okay to deny people their rights without proof or due process?
40% of people on the list are people of Arab descent that have no terror ties. This will disproportionately affect that racial group because of their names, religion, or people they may have been in contact with.
I have no problem with investigating people if they are deemed higher risk. I do have a problem with denying someone their Constitutionally protected rights without proof of anything. Instead, they are guilty until they can prove thems lives innocent. It's un-American. |
As long as it takes. If one life is saved inconvenience is secondary If it's important for the person applying I'm sure the system can be poked. You can put a name in the system and in a short period know all or most all about the person.
The type of weapon being purchased should be noted. It should be made easier for a person buying a 38 than for a person buying a AK-49. |
Just be aware that your position is one that is against the presumption of innocence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | How long is okay to deny people their rights without proof or due process? |
Funny to hear this from the Right considering they advocate denying ALL women their own reproductive rights FOREVER without any discussion of anything even remotely like "due process". |
That debate is about the right to kill vs the right to privacy.
I don't believe the right to privacy should make it legal to murder. |
Except there's no "murder" going on. |
In your view.
But when the right is against abortion, it's because we recognize the unborn Life.
The left purposely misrepresents that position. |
The left doesn't misrepresent anything, They just point out the fallacy and contradiction in it.
Not to mention that the Right extends the denial of rights beyond just abortion. But nice try. |
Nope. It's the left's way of dishonestly vilifying those that disagree with them by ignoring their real reasons, and instead making up a fallacy of some desire to control women. |
You can say "nope" all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the Right wants to control reproductive rights beyond banning abortions. |
Ah.. more dishonesty.
It's a lot easier to attack a straw man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | Dems are asking for closing gun show loophole and no-fly, no-buy to restrict gun purchases for those on the terror watch list. How is that disrespecting the rights of currently lawful gun owners? |
By creating a process to deny them ownership without due process. |
No, by creating a waiting period same as retail gun shops. |
That's not what is being proposed. |
Correction; more extensive background checks. LINK |
Republicans proposed a 3 day delay if on the list, at which point the govt would have to prove that they legitimately shouldn't own a gun. Demo rejected. They only want the ability to completely deny rights without due process, violating the 5th Amendment.
Do you believe we should be a nation that denies rights based on the presumption of guilt? |
No I believe we should have extensive background checks. I don't think 3 days is enough time. If no denial comes within the three day period I think it should be extended.
Another mass shooting today. LINK |
How long is okay to deny people their rights without proof or due process?
40% of people on the list are people of Arab descent that have no terror ties. This will disproportionately affect that racial group because of their names, religion, or people they may have been in contact with.
I have no problem with investigating people if they are deemed higher risk. I do have a problem with denying someone their Constitutionally protected rights without proof of anything. Instead, they are guilty until they can prove thems lives innocent. It's un-American. |
Ahhh, so you'd be cool with it, if the legislation came in the form of a constitutional amendment?
Then, it would no longer be a violation of ones constitutional rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakerjoshua
Franchise Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 11277
Location: Bay Area
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I have come not to expect honest discussion from many people here. |
| Quote: | | Ah.. more dishonesty. |
Oh the ironing!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52652
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | How long is okay to deny people their rights without proof or due process? |
Funny to hear this from the Right considering they advocate denying ALL women their own reproductive rights FOREVER without any discussion of anything even remotely like "due process". |
That debate is about the right to kill vs the right to privacy.
I don't believe the right to privacy should make it legal to murder. |
Except there's no "murder" going on. |
In your view.
But when the right is against abortion, it's because we recognize the unborn Life.
The left purposely misrepresents that position. |
The left doesn't misrepresent anything, They just point out the fallacy and contradiction in it.
Not to mention that the Right extends the denial of rights beyond just abortion. But nice try. |
Nope. It's the left's way of dishonestly vilifying those that disagree with them by ignoring their real reasons, and instead making up a fallacy of some desire to control women. |
You can say "nope" all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the Right wants to control reproductive rights beyond banning abortions. |
Ah.. more dishonesty.
It's a lot easier to attack a straw man. |
You're right. You are being dishonest when you say that the Right doesn't want to put restrictions on women's freedom to police their own bodies through things like access to birth control and services like Planned Parenthood (going so far as to make "documentaries" full of lies and misrepresenting the organization).
<sarcasm>Yeah, that's a real straw man</sarcasm>
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52652
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lakerjoshua wrote: | | Quote: | | I have come not to expect honest discussion from many people here. |
| Quote: | | Ah.. more dishonesty. |
Oh the ironing!! |
Staggering, isn't it.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67614
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | Dems are asking for closing gun show loophole and no-fly, no-buy to restrict gun purchases for those on the terror watch list. How is that disrespecting the rights of currently lawful gun owners? |
By creating a process to deny them ownership without due process. |
No, by creating a waiting period same as retail gun shops. |
That's not what is being proposed. |
Correction; more extensive background checks. LINK |
Republicans proposed a 3 day delay if on the list, at which point the govt would have to prove that they legitimately shouldn't own a gun. Demo rejected. They only want the ability to completely deny rights without due process, violating the 5th Amendment.
Do you believe we should be a nation that denies rights based on the presumption of guilt? |
No I believe we should have extensive background checks. I don't think 3 days is enough time. If no denial comes within the three day period I think it should be extended.
Another mass shooting today. LINK |
How long is okay to deny people their rights without proof or due process?
40% of people on the list are people of Arab descent that have no terror ties. This will disproportionately affect that racial group because of their names, religion, or people they may have been in contact with.
I have no problem with investigating people if they are deemed higher risk. I do have a problem with denying someone their Constitutionally protected rights without proof of anything. Instead, they are guilty until they can prove thems lives innocent. It's un-American. |
As long as it takes. If one life is saved inconvenience is secondary If it's important for the person applying I'm sure the system can be poked. You can put a name in the system and in a short period know all or most all about the person.
The type of weapon being purchased should be noted. It should be made easier for a person buying a 38 than for a person buying a AK-49. |
Just be aware that your position is one that is against the presumption of innocence. |
How's that? No one said being on the list meant you were guilty.
Dzhokhar & Tamerlan Tsarnaev were presumed innocent.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17245
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | FBI investigators say they have found no evidence that Orlando shooter had gay lovers
Since the shooting at an Orlando nightclub last week that left 49 people dead, reports have emerged that gunman Omar Mateen frequented the gay club, used gay dating apps and had gay lovers.
But the FBI has found no evidence so far to support claims by those who say Mateen had gay lovers or communicated on gay dating apps, several law enforcement officials said.
Mateen, 29, told police negotiators he had carried out the shooting that began at 2 a.m. June 12 and ended, after a three-hour standoff, when he was killed by police.
He claimed the shooting was carried out in allegiance to the militant group Islamic State, as a message to halt U.S. bombing in Iraq and Syria.
Several Pulse regulars have come forward in the days since the shooting, claiming to have seen Mateen at the club or to have been contacted by him on the gay dating apps Grindr, Jack’d and Adam4Adam.
On Tuesday, Univision aired a report in which “Miguel,” a man wearing a disguise to conceal his identity, alleged he had sex with Mateen after meeting him on the gay dating app, Grindr. He said Mateen had sex with other men too, including a threesome with a Puerto Rican who allegedly told Mateen, after having had unprotected sex with him, that he was HIV positive.
But investigators do not consider the man’s account credible, according to one senior law enforcement official with access to the investigation.
In seeking to verify the reports, federal agents have culled Mateen's electronic devices, including a laptop computer and cellphone, as well as electronic communications of those who made the claims, law enforcement officials said.
So far, they have found no photographs, no text messages, no smartphone apps, no gay pornography and no cell-tower location data to suggest that Mateen — who was twice married to women and had a young son — conducted a secret gay life, the officials said.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | Dems are asking for closing gun show loophole and no-fly, no-buy to restrict gun purchases for those on the terror watch list. How is that disrespecting the rights of currently lawful gun owners? |
By creating a process to deny them ownership without due process. |
No, by creating a waiting period same as retail gun shops. |
That's not what is being proposed. |
Correction; more extensive background checks. LINK |
Republicans proposed a 3 day delay if on the list, at which point the govt would have to prove that they legitimately shouldn't own a gun. Demo rejected. They only want the ability to completely deny rights without due process, violating the 5th Amendment.
Do you believe we should be a nation that denies rights based on the presumption of guilt? |
No I believe we should have extensive background checks. I don't think 3 days is enough time. If no denial comes within the three day period I think it should be extended.
Another mass shooting today. LINK |
How long is okay to deny people their rights without proof or due process?
40% of people on the list are people of Arab descent that have no terror ties. This will disproportionately affect that racial group because of their names, religion, or people they may have been in contact with.
I have no problem with investigating people if they are deemed higher risk. I do have a problem with denying someone their Constitutionally protected rights without proof of anything. Instead, they are guilty until they can prove thems lives innocent. It's un-American. |
Ahhh, so you'd be cool with it, if the legislation came in the form of a constitutional amendment?
Then, it would no longer be a violation of ones constitutional rights. |
I'm not even a big gun person.
I just don't believe that the government taking away rights is something that should be taken so lightly. Everyone should be extremely wary of government taking rights away from individuals.
But if it's done through the proper process, it's more acceptable because it's damn hard to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | Dems are asking for closing gun show loophole and no-fly, no-buy to restrict gun purchases for those on the terror watch list. How is that disrespecting the rights of currently lawful gun owners? |
By creating a process to deny them ownership without due process. |
No, by creating a waiting period same as retail gun shops. |
That's not what is being proposed. |
Correction; more extensive background checks. LINK |
Republicans proposed a 3 day delay if on the list, at which point the govt would have to prove that they legitimately shouldn't own a gun. Demo rejected. They only want the ability to completely deny rights without due process, violating the 5th Amendment.
Do you believe we should be a nation that denies rights based on the presumption of guilt? |
No I believe we should have extensive background checks. I don't think 3 days is enough time. If no denial comes within the three day period I think it should be extended.
Another mass shooting today. LINK |
How long is okay to deny people their rights without proof or due process?
40% of people on the list are people of Arab descent that have no terror ties. This will disproportionately affect that racial group because of their names, religion, or people they may have been in contact with.
I have no problem with investigating people if they are deemed higher risk. I do have a problem with denying someone their Constitutionally protected rights without proof of anything. Instead, they are guilty until they can prove thems lives innocent. It's un-American. |
As long as it takes. If one life is saved inconvenience is secondary If it's important for the person applying I'm sure the system can be poked. You can put a name in the system and in a short period know all or most all about the person.
The type of weapon being purchased should be noted. It should be made easier for a person buying a 38 than for a person buying a AK-49. |
Just be aware that your position is one that is against the presumption of innocence. |
How's that? No one said being on the list meant you were guilty.
Dzhokhar & Tamerlan Tsarnaev were presumed innocent. |
If you punish someone by taking away a right, then yes, you are presuming them guilty of something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67614
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Reflexx wrote:
| Quote: | | If you punish someone by taking away a right, then yes, you are presuming them guilty of something. |
They're not being punished. They're being asked to wait until they've been cleared to fly and buy. No right has been taken away. I call it a inconvenience You have to scramble some eggs to make a omelet.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17245
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | Reflexx wrote:
| Quote: | | If you punish someone by taking away a right, then yes, you are presuming them guilty of something. |
They're not being punished. They're being asked to wait until they've been cleared to fly and buy. No right has been taken away. You have to scramble some eggs to make a omelet. |
"Please wait for 5 years good sir, even though it was our bad your name made it to this list." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67614
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | Reflexx wrote:
| Quote: | | If you punish someone by taking away a right, then yes, you are presuming them guilty of something. |
They're not being punished. They're being asked to wait until they've been cleared to fly and buy. No right has been taken away. You have to scramble some eggs to make a omelet. |
"Please wait for 5 years good sir, even though it was our bad your name made it to this list." |
That's an exaggeration but if one life is saved the inconvenience is palatable.
I'm sure something will be done to eliminate the long wait. It's a new program. It has kinks.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | Reflexx wrote:
| Quote: | | If you punish someone by taking away a right, then yes, you are presuming them guilty of something. |
They're not being punished. They're being asked to wait until they've been cleared to fly and buy. No right has been taken away. I call it a inconvenience You have to scramble some eggs to make a omelet. |
You're asking them to wait indefinitely. How long is "as long as it takes"? Days? Weeks? Months? Years?
The way it's written, the people would have to prove why they shouldn't be on the list. They have to prove their innocence.
You may see it as an inconvenience, but it is a Constitutional right that they are being denied. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | Reflexx wrote:
| Quote: | | If you punish someone by taking away a right, then yes, you are presuming them guilty of something. |
They're not being punished. They're being asked to wait until they've been cleared to fly and buy. No right has been taken away. You have to scramble some eggs to make a omelet. |
"Please wait for 5 years good sir, even though it was our bad your name made it to this list." |
That's an exaggeration but if one life is saved the inconvenience is palatable.
I'm sure something will be done to eliminate the long wait. It's a new program. It has kinks. |
You know, we could save a lot of lives by just taking away all peoples' rights and having the government be the decider of everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67614
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | Reflexx wrote:
| Quote: | | If you punish someone by taking away a right, then yes, you are presuming them guilty of something. |
They're not being punished. They're being asked to wait until they've been cleared to fly and buy. No right has been taken away. I call it a inconvenience You have to scramble some eggs to make a omelet. |
You're asking them to wait indefinitely. How long is "as long as it takes"? Days? Weeks? Months? Years?
The way it's written, the people would have to prove why they shouldn't be on the list. They have to prove their innocence.
You may see it as an inconvenience, but it is a Constitutional right that they are being denied. |
Again, they're rights aren't being denied. This isn't about rights, it's about guns.
As stated prior, it's a new undertaking, it's has kinks that have to be ironed out.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17245
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | Reflexx wrote:
| Quote: | | If you punish someone by taking away a right, then yes, you are presuming them guilty of something. |
They're not being punished. They're being asked to wait until they've been cleared to fly and buy. No right has been taken away. You have to scramble some eggs to make a omelet. |
"Please wait for 5 years good sir, even though it was our bad your name made it to this list." |
That's an exaggeration but if one life is saved the inconvenience is palatable.
I'm sure something will be done to eliminate the long wait. It's a new program. It has kinks. |
Nothing will be done to eliminate the 5 year thing because Feinstein specifically wrote that in to her amendment. They want it. The media isn't reporting it but I linked the senate.gov bill back in this thread and it's clear as day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | Reflexx wrote:
| Quote: | | If you punish someone by taking away a right, then yes, you are presuming them guilty of something. |
They're not being punished. They're being asked to wait until they've been cleared to fly and buy. No right has been taken away. I call it a inconvenience You have to scramble some eggs to make a omelet. |
You're asking them to wait indefinitely. How long is "as long as it takes"? Days? Weeks? Months? Years?
The way it's written, the people would have to prove why they shouldn't be on the list. They have to prove their innocence.
You may see it as an inconvenience, but it is a Constitutional right that they are being denied. |
Again, they're rights aren't being denied. This isn't about rights, it's about guns.
As stated prior, it's a new undertaking, it's has kinks that have to be ironed out. |
Umm... the way they want to do it is about rights.
You may not care about those rights, but they are rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67614
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | Reflexx wrote:
| Quote: | | If you punish someone by taking away a right, then yes, you are presuming them guilty of something. |
They're not being punished. They're being asked to wait until they've been cleared to fly and buy. No right has been taken away. You have to scramble some eggs to make a omelet. |
"Please wait for 5 years good sir, even though it was our bad your name made it to this list." |
That's an exaggeration but if one life is saved the inconvenience is palatable.
I'm sure something will be done to eliminate the long wait. It's a new program. It has kinks. |
Nothing will be done to eliminate the 5 year thing because Feinstein specifically wrote that in to her amendment. They want it. The media isn't reporting it but I linked the senate.gov bill back in this thread and it's clear as day. |
If you don't mind re-link the thread.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67614
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | Reflexx wrote:
| Quote: | | If you punish someone by taking away a right, then yes, you are presuming them guilty of something. |
They're not being punished. They're being asked to wait until they've been cleared to fly and buy. No right has been taken away. I call it a inconvenience You have to scramble some eggs to make a omelet. |
You're asking them to wait indefinitely. How long is "as long as it takes"? Days? Weeks? Months? Years?
The way it's written, the people would have to prove why they shouldn't be on the list. They have to prove their innocence.
You may see it as an inconvenience, but it is a Constitutional right that they are being denied. |
Again, they're rights aren't being denied. This isn't about rights, it's about guns.
As stated prior, it's a new undertaking, it's has kinks that have to be ironed out. |
Umm... the way they want to do it is about rights.
You may not care about those rights, but they are rights. |
No rights have been taken. Where is it written when you buy a gun you have the right to get it right away?
Mistakes have been and will be made. It' goes with the territory. I'd rather a person be inconvenienced by no fly, no buy if it save lives.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17245
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | Reflexx wrote:
| Quote: | | If you punish someone by taking away a right, then yes, you are presuming them guilty of something. |
They're not being punished. They're being asked to wait until they've been cleared to fly and buy. No right has been taken away. You have to scramble some eggs to make a omelet. |
"Please wait for 5 years good sir, even though it was our bad your name made it to this list." |
That's an exaggeration but if one life is saved the inconvenience is palatable.
I'm sure something will be done to eliminate the long wait. It's a new program. It has kinks. |
Nothing will be done to eliminate the 5 year thing because Feinstein specifically wrote that in to her amendment. They want it. The media isn't reporting it but I linked the senate.gov bill back in this thread and it's clear as day. |
If you don't mind re-link the thread. |
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=A4069E82-C605-4E13-BF2C-F1AEC32C3767&SK=EECCE128D066921838CE297714934231 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | Reflexx wrote:
| Quote: | | If you punish someone by taking away a right, then yes, you are presuming them guilty of something. |
They're not being punished. They're being asked to wait until they've been cleared to fly and buy. No right has been taken away. I call it a inconvenience You have to scramble some eggs to make a omelet. |
You're asking them to wait indefinitely. How long is "as long as it takes"? Days? Weeks? Months? Years?
The way it's written, the people would have to prove why they shouldn't be on the list. They have to prove their innocence.
You may see it as an inconvenience, but it is a Constitutional right that they are being denied. |
Again, they're rights aren't being denied. This isn't about rights, it's about guns.
As stated prior, it's a new undertaking, it's has kinks that have to be ironed out. |
Umm... the way they want to do it is about rights.
You may not care about those rights, but they are rights. |
No rights have been taken. Where is it written when you buy a gun you have the right to get it right away?
Mistakes have been and will be made. It' goes with the territory. I'd rather a person be inconvenienced by no fly, no buy if it save lives. |
I see you value natural rights far less than I do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
