Politics and the rights of terrorists

[theDoctorisIn]

I believe the point is that the government can put anyone they want on their "watch lists" and thus start removing particular rights. A President's (or any powerful individual for that matter) political enemies would be easy targets in this case. Simply put a name on that list and the person owning that name is pretty much eliminated.

Immie

Well that's kind of a reach. I don't think John Boehner is on Obama's no fly list.

Although the FBI won't divulge the names on the terrorist watch list, there are specific guidelines for how they get there. All I'm saying is the next guy who wants to blow up Times Square might be on the terrorist watch list and has to take a bus to get to Times Square, but he could be packing legally obtained weapons. It's absurd.

I don't think it as much of a stretch as you think it is.

Even as a conservative, I opposed the Patriot Act, because I believed that it could and will eventually be used for just such a travesty, meaning the removal of the rights of law abiding citizens because they may be a threat. Which party will break that ice? Not sure... right now, I would have to guess that it will be the Democrats, but that is only because I don't foresee Republicans having any power for the next twenty years or so.

Immie

I agree with you on this one completely.

 

[Planet Justice]

we cannot take that right from them because all accused are innocent until proven guilty!

 

[MaggieMae]

Well that's kind of a reach. I don't think John Boehner is on Obama's no fly list.

Although the FBI won't divulge the names on the terrorist watch list, there are specific guidelines for how they get there. All I'm saying is the next guy who wants to blow up Times Square might be on the terrorist watch list and has to take a bus to get to Times Square, but he could be packing legally obtained weapons. It's absurd.

I don't think it as much of a stretch as you think it is.

Even as a conservative, I opposed the Patriot Act, because I believed that it could and will eventually be used for just such a travesty, meaning the removal of the rights of law abiding citizens because they may be a threat. Which party will break that ice? Not sure... right now, I would have to guess that it will be the Democrats, but that is only because I don't foresee Republicans having any power for the next twenty years or so.

Immie

I agree with you on this one completely.

Well so do I, actually. I was referring to "political enemies" as being party enemies, not foreign states or their citizens.

 

[California Girl]

we cannot take that right from them because all accused are innocent until proven guilty!

Attention seeking is neither big, nor clever.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't think it as much of a stretch as you think it is.

Even as a conservative, I opposed the Patriot Act, because I believed that it could and will eventually be used for just such a travesty, meaning the removal of the rights of law abiding citizens because they may be a threat. Which party will break that ice? Not sure... right now, I would have to guess that it will be the Democrats, but that is only because I don't foresee Republicans having any power for the next twenty years or so.

Immie

I agree with you on this one completely.

Well so do I, actually. I was referring to "political enemies" as being party enemies, not foreign states or their citizens.

And I was thinking that regardless of "party", President Obama and John Boehner are really... well, two peas in a pod, so to speak.

I tend not to think of politicians being enemies with each other. I tend to believe most of that is a farce. They play each other as opponents, but that is more to keep the rest of us at each others throats and voting for them.

Behind doors, I imagine Hillary and Sarah Palin are like Kissing Cousins, Barack and John too.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

I agree with you on this one completely.

Well so do I, actually. I was referring to "political enemies" as being party enemies, not foreign states or their citizens.

And I was thinking that regardless of "party", President Obama and John Boehner are really... well, two peas in a pod, so to speak.

I tend not to think of politicians being enemies with each other. I tend to believe most of that is a farce. They play each other as opponents, but that is more to keep the rest of us at each others throats and voting for them.

Behind doors, I imagine Hillary and Sarah Palin are like Kissing Cousins, Barack and John too.

Immie

Uh, no.

 

[Immanuel]

Well so do I, actually. I was referring to "political enemies" as being party enemies, not foreign states or their citizens.

And I was thinking that regardless of "party", President Obama and John Boehner are really... well, two peas in a pod, so to speak.

I tend not to think of politicians being enemies with each other. I tend to believe most of that is a farce. They play each other as opponents, but that is more to keep the rest of us at each others throats and voting for them.

Behind doors, I imagine Hillary and Sarah Palin are like Kissing Cousins, Barack and John too.

Immie

Uh, no.

LoL!

No? You can't see Hillary and Sarah huggin' and kissin'?

I can... want a picture? (okay, here is where I send out the plea to my friends who can photo-shop really well, I need some help here)

I am, however, gonna pass on the picture of Barack and John huggin' and kissin' as two guys just plain grosses me out. For some reason it doesn't seem wrong when two girls hug, but when two guys do, something is just not right there.

Immie

 

[drsmith1072]

That's a contradiction. How can they support a limitation if they believe there are no limits??

That was my point. The right has preached endlessly about how "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" no matter what and then in the case of felons they support that right being removed completely. I have had this debate and asked questions about this contradiction many times and in the end I am usually attacked and accused of arguing that felons should have guns and be allowed to kill people, when all i am doing is shining a little light on the contadiction.

I would say that with those rights come responsibilities. I don't own any guns, but I think law abiding citizens should be able to do so.

I believe in and support the right to bear arms but like most common sense people I do believe that there are and should be limitations to any of our rights especially if or when the expression of those rights puts the rights of others at risk. However, I do find it somewhat hypocritical for those who argue that "the right to be arms shall not be infringed no matter what to also argue that felons should have their uninfringeable right infringed upon.

Either there should be limits or there shouldn't. You can't have it both ways. That is all i was trying to say.

 

[MaggieMae]

This particular issue is a tough one because of existing "rights" and also because of the ongoing threat of sparodic acts of terrorism.

My problem, however, is the fact that something this delicate needs to immediately be politicized to the point that there will be no resolution. It's high time the two parties in Washington start acting like adults, talk to each other like adults, and get important situations resolved to everyone's practical, moral, and legal satisfaction--like adults.

 

[AllieBaba]

The one right terrorists can count on
Under current law, people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list can walk into a gun store and buy an AK-47, said Gail Collins in The New York Times.

posted on May 13, 2010, at 1:45 PM
Gail Collins
The New York Times

Should an Islamic extremist be allowed to buy weapons? asked Gail Collins. It may sound like a ridiculous question, but under current law, people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list can indeed walk into a gun store and buy an AK-47. Last week, a Senate committee held a hearing on a proposal to stop gun sales to people on the watch list, the same way the government now bans the sale of guns to convicted felons. But Republicans in thrall to the National Rifle Association’s reflexive opposition to any limits on gun sales immediately rejected the proposal, arguing that even suspected terrorists should enjoy their God-given right to own firearms.

Over the past six years, 1,119 people on the watch list have bought weapons, and some of them were very bad characters. Yet the same Republicans who insist that it’s wrong to give a Miranda warning to a suspected terrorist, or let him talk to a lawyer, think it would be oppressive to stop him from stocking up on weapons. Indeed, “there seems to be a strong sentiment in Congress that the only constitutional right suspected terrorists have is the right to bear arms.”

The one right terrorists can count on - The Week

Unfuckingincredible...

You're an idiot.
We provide them the same rights as any other CITIZEN, that's something you moronic leftists shoved down our throats. So yeah, they have the RIGHT to purchase weapons.

You don't like it, admit they shouldn't have the same rights as other citizens.

Instead, as most good leftists are prone, you think we should eliminate the rights of law abiding citizens to accomodate the acceptance of criminals and enemies of the state into the mainstream.

Piece of shit.

 

[MaggieMae]

The one right terrorists can count on
Under current law, people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list can walk into a gun store and buy an AK-47, said Gail Collins in The New York Times.

posted on May 13, 2010, at 1:45 PM
Gail Collins
The New York Times

Should an Islamic extremist be allowed to buy weapons? asked Gail Collins. It may sound like a ridiculous question, but under current law, people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list can indeed walk into a gun store and buy an AK-47. Last week, a Senate committee held a hearing on a proposal to stop gun sales to people on the watch list, the same way the government now bans the sale of guns to convicted felons. But Republicans in thrall to the National Rifle Association’s reflexive opposition to any limits on gun sales immediately rejected the proposal, arguing that even suspected terrorists should enjoy their God-given right to own firearms.

Over the past six years, 1,119 people on the watch list have bought weapons, and some of them were very bad characters. Yet the same Republicans who insist that it’s wrong to give a Miranda warning to a suspected terrorist, or let him talk to a lawyer, think it would be oppressive to stop him from stocking up on weapons. Indeed, “there seems to be a strong sentiment in Congress that the only constitutional right suspected terrorists have is the right to bear arms.”

The one right terrorists can count on - The Week

Unfuckingincredible...

You're an idiot.
We provide them the same rights as any other CITIZEN, that's something you moronic leftists shoved down our throats. So yeah, they have the RIGHT to purchase weapons.

You don't like it, admit they shouldn't have the same rights as other citizens.

Instead, as most good leftists are prone, you think we should eliminate the rights of law abiding citizens to accomodate the acceptance of criminals and enemies of the state into the mainstream.

Piece of shit.

Who said anything about eliminating "the rights of law abiding citizens"? You have the nerve to call ME an idiot and yet you can't even comprehend what's written?

Go take your anger out on someone else, you fucking freak. It must suck to be as miserable as you.

 

[AllieBaba]

You want to pick and choose who gets what restrictions based on your own fears. Fuck off. You wanted them to have rights, rights they have.

Wallow in it, whore.