Day after San Bernadino Shootings, Senate Votes to let Suspected Terrorists, Mentally Ill Buy Guns

The right to free speech that is interpreted in a way so that screaming "fire" in a movie theatre is illegal. Yes interpretations that are in the best interest of public safety are common.

The 2nd amendment is not immune from nuanced interpretation. It's already been limited to prevent citizens from carrying RPGs.

 

What's your take on the SC ruling that yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected by the first amendment of the constitution? That was a limitation placed on a fundamental right.

 

It doesn't matter how many people are in a militia, what matters is that they be allowed to keep and bear arms so that if a need for a local militia arises, they'd be able to join. Of course, being able to join a militia is just one of the reasons for people to be allowed to keep and bear arms, but it's not the only reason. Personal security and hunting are also reasons why the individual right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. Listing one of the justifications for a right to not be infringed does not imply that it is the ONLY reason.

 

There is a difference between limiting a right and outright doing away with it. Unfortunately the anti-civil liberties crowd is always trying to do way with rights in order to strip power away from the people. It's sad.

 

So you support limits on the 2nd amendment to make the country safer. Because it's proven that limiting the 2nd amendment will make the country safer.

 

I support regulation of rights when appropriate, the outright ban of weapons, or the attempt to remove the individual right altogether isn't something I'd ever support.

Let's face it though, there will always be anti-civil liberties people trying to strip power from the people any time they can and I'll always stand against them.

 

How, precisely, does one get on the no-fly list? What criteria are used to determine whether someone lands on the list? What due process is available for an individual to challenge placement on the list?

The problem that we have with prohibiting those on this list from purchasing or possessing firearms is that the answers to these questions are murky at best. The government refuses to give the criteria, claiming "state secrets". Essentially, an unaccountable bureaucrat places an individual that they deem suspicious for whatever reason on this list, and there does not appear to be a set process for getting one's self removed from it.

So, what those such as POTUS and other libtards are really asking for is the ability to create a secret list on which unaccountable bureaucrats can place any individual that they deem "suspicious", and without any due process whatsoever remove their Second Amendment rights. This is, of course, the libtard's dream come true - being able to place their enemies (the domestic political variety like me, not the actual ones who want to blow people up and chop off heads in Allah's name) on a list and disarm them without any recourse available to rectify it. There are very good reasons they haven't been able to do this already, namely that it would be unconstitutional in a variety of ways. But of course pesky little things like laws haven't stopped this President in the past, so I see no reason they should this time either.

It sounds like a great idea on the surface. Of course no one wants terrorists to have firearms or other weapons. But you've got to remember who libtards really have in mind when they contemplate disarming terrorists: their fellow Americans who disagree with them politically. Not the head-choppers.

 

Second Amendment never said any crazy person has the right to buy a tool that can easily kill 21 people.

 

So a bus?

 

Vote for Hillary:

 

you supported george w. bush. here are several pictures of him making out with and taking a romantic stroll through flower covered meadows with a prince from a country where 15 or the 19 hijackers from 9/11 originated.





for the record, i think hillary clinton is a piece of crap, but if trump, rubio, cruz or any of those other freaks get the nomination i will be running to the polls to vote for her...i have only voted for a democrat for president once in my life.

 

2/10.