Lindsey Graham as I already noted is terribly worried about the constitutional rights of gun owners but when it comes to someone being arrested that's accused of an act of terrorism, not so much. The one area I'd say I probably agree with him on is that there are all kinds of people on that watch list that don't belong on there. I remember reading about Ted Kennedy finding his name on it when Bush was still running the show and have watched lots of segments where everyone that shares a common name is winding up there.
After getting to watch some of the reair of that Senate hearing, Graham's statements were worse than the media reported. If only he had as much concern for someone accused of terrorism as he is for those targeted by this watch list. Somehow Graham doesn't seem capable of making the same rationalizations when it comes to someone who has been charged and not yet convicted of terrorism and the need for the rule of law in case they happen to be innocent and the respect for our Constitution when it comes to terrorism cases as he makes for gun owners. Apparently the Constitution only matters for Graham when it's an issue he can score political points on.
Graham: There is no constitutional right to get on an airplane without being screened that I know of and you know when the founders sat down and wrote the Constitution they didn’t consider flying. And I don’t believe that the Constitution protects any of us from being able to get on an airplane without being screened and here’s the big elephant in the room.
What if all the secondary screening happens to be 99% Muslim males? And that’s where we’re headed with this thing.
Lieberman: Only if they’re on the terrorism watch list.
Graham: But here’s the issue about profiling. We’re at war. And we’ve got to realize the profile of the enemy and you don’t want to focus on law abiding American Muslims who are serving in the military unjustifiably. So as you said to Mayor Bloomberg this is not about a religion.
There are plenty of people in this country of the Muslim faith who are fighting and dying for this country. So we’ve got to watch what we’re doing and what we’re saying here. But Sen. Lieberman, Joe… we’re talking about a Second Amendment right. And some of the people pushing this idea are also pushing the idea of banning hand guns.
And I don’t think banning handguns makes me safer because every criminal who wants a gun seems to be able to get one. And I don’t believe taking this concept of gun ownership and denying it, not after you’ve been convicted in a lawful court of a felony, where you get your day in court with a lawyer and a jury, I think you’re going to far here because there’s a huge difference between losing your gun rights based on a felony charge that was proven by a court of law and appealed and the conviction on the books and being on some list that is as best suspect and if everybody’s that dangerous that’s on the list, those that tried to buy a gun, nobody can tell me how many are being prosecuted.
So I’ve got a lot of concerns that this is not going in the right direction because we’re dealing with a Constitutional right and I am very concerned about our gaps in our defenses, but maybe I’m not making a good argument here to you. But it makes perfect sense to me that losing the ability to own a gun which is a Constitutional right, using this list the way it’s constructed is unnerving at best.
While any number of people who frequent C&L may have an issue with the 2nd Amendment, it does serve as a bell-weather for every other right of citizens (or even guests) in this country, whether those rights are enumerated in the Constitution or deigned to originate with our Creator. Some of those rights, like voting, may be stripped from a citizen for a period of time for committing some criminal acts, after a judicial process of a trial by their peers in a court of law.
But the proposal proffered by Republicans (and Joe Leiberman) to strip citizens of their citizenship go far beyond the realm of Constitutionality in that they recommend an administrative extra-judicial process, without the benefit of a courtroom trial with a jury of peers, and without a transparent appeals / review process.
The level of hubris, hypocrisy, and blatant inequality under the law expressed by these narrow-minded Neanderthals defies logical rational thought -- a not-unexpected outcome from these NeoCon / NeoLiberal fascists. And fascism it is, or a very giant step toward that outcome.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
I think you'll find a lot of support for the second amendment here, David.
The fact is that the "watch list" shouldn't be a basis for a loss of any rights. Neither should "affiliations".
Terrorism is nothing new. It's just a new term for what people have been doing since the birth of nations. We have to be a nation that follows the Constitution all the time, not just when we agree with it.
Whether under the Second Amendment or the Ninth Amendment, I support gun rights.
I do not support the idiot Lindsey Graham.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
and I see blood in the water.
I think that explains his actions as well. He is capable of much better behavior, but even up here one state north all the Republicans are, eh pandering is too weak, grovelling at Tea Parties. That might backfire in some parts of NC, but not in most of SC.
The right wing blogs are blowing up about the kids in the bay area who were sent home from school for wearing American flag paraphernalia on Cinqo de Mayo. But none of them really cared that much about the "Bong tokes for Jesus" case.
Geeez Lindsay, it really would be easier on your public persona and the overall health of our country if you would just have one day a week where you allowed gun owners to come into your office so you could blow them.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Does anyone ever review that list and verify who should and should not be on it and why? To be on it seems to be like going into the black hole of flying.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Moron:
Yeah, well, the founders weren't so much concerned with automatic machine guns, hand grenades, or nuclear bombs either. I'm pretty sure their understandings were limited to knives, muskets, and cannons and such.
But that
doesn'tshouldn't matter. We're supposed to be a nation of laws, not men. To be so, we separate the legislative and judicial powers from each other. Meaning what was intended or on the mind of the legislators is not proper source material for interpreting law. In fact, it cedes the power to interpret the law to the very people who wrote the law, which is part and parcel of tyranny.Words used to write laws have objective meanings. Fuck the "intentions" of the founders.
Yeah, that's where we're headed. Go blow a rodeo clown, Lindsey!
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
paragon of manliness, still in the reserves.
who's not asking?
who's not telling?
Reslugs think all terrorists have the right to have and carry a gun.
Our once great nation is dying.
Anyone who can watch all of this happening, and still think America is not devolving into a totalitarian country or that "it can't happen here" is a fool.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
This Republican looks at the difficulties of doing the right thing and then decides against it. However, he has advanced from "No" to "Not now" to "It's going to be too hard". This is progress. We need him to enter the "yes we can" phase but he's going to need to leave the defunct Republican party to do so.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
how fucked up Our government, and the GOP specifically, is of late.
There should be a list compiled somewhere to do the jobs of the MSM that highlights the hypocrisy of these lip flappers. Such as
Politician x: "Constitution blah blah blah"
Reporter y: "You didn't seem to give a crap about the Constitution in this case or this case or this case..."
A list made ahead of time would be cool otherwise we gotta hope that when fact check Wednesday come 'round they are paying attention to that kind of sleight of hand. Same with "activist" judges.
Tell me what do you hope to accomplish with increasing levels of gun control?
I don't think Heather's post was so much pro-gun control as it was anti-Constitutional hypocrisy.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
I was just trying to grab some context on the posters in this forum.
There are a lot of differing opinions on gun rights and gun control among the regulars here.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
The hope is to have decreased gun violence. If this were a debate about effective ways to decrease gun violence within Constitutional constraints, that would be great. Unfortunately, that debate is forbidden from starting considering one side will simply not concede to any restraints on gun ownership.
to "increasing levels of gun control".
.
and ask a loaded question that presupposes an answer supporting your own view.
How exactly is that an independent question?
Again...
"I was just trying to grab some context on the posters in this forum"
I'm sorry that you've read well past the intent of my question. It was in fact rather harmless.
to a presupposed answer that gun control levels are rising, which they are not. You still provide none.
I'm sorry you cannot take responsibility for your own question.
You sound like Beck...."I'm just askin' questions."
And you know how credible Beck is, unless you yourself are a Beckerhead.
"I'm just askin' questions."
Question: Tell me what do you hope to accomplish with increasing levels of gun control?
I am not presupposing that gun control levels are rising. I am asking if they were to rise as many people on this forum are very likely to be in favor of, what is the preferred outcome and with what efficacy.
It's honestly not as tooth and nails as you make it sound. Although I appreciate the comparison to Beck, that took a lot of creativity. Now if you're done nitpicking a harmless question, I think it might be nice if took a stab at answering it.
presoposes that by it's wording. You did not type "hypothetically" or anything to that effect. Contrary to popular belief, I'm NOT a telepath. Being compared to Beck is NOT as you seem to take it, a compliment....which proves what side of the coin you're licking. I ASKED YOU TO PROVIDE LINKS...you will not do that because you know you're lying. Nor have you responded to anyone else, other that my request for links that you WILL NOT honor. You've lost any credibility.
I dub thee troll...conversation is over.
This is reaching comical proportions. I'm pretty sure the nature of the question is hypothetical maybe you missed that in the wording or the meaning? I would check again.
As for my comments on being compared to Beck that was sarcasm as evidenced by the the very subtle jab at your creativity.
As for your desperate need for links, I essentially asked for people who are in favor of gun control to express what they hope such measures would accomplish. I struggle to understand why you need a link to respond to what is a very common political issue and elementary question. As for lying, I haven't made any real claims yet other than I'm interested in opinions. If that makes me a liar so be it. Socrates probably just rolled over...again. Glad the conversation was over and you posted below. Way to stick to your GUNS.
I did not read into your question an implicit assumption that gun control levels were rising.
However, I did see an implicit assumption that Heather, or at least people on the comment boards, advocate increasing the levels of gun control, which is not necessarily the case.
I could ask you, "What do you hope to accomplish by rescinding every measure of gun regulation there is?" I think you might resent the implication.
Perhaps instead, you could tell us your views on gun control, and invite people to comment. You might receive a better reaction.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
I asked for links several times...and was totally rebuffed. That raises a red flag right there.
the assumption that increased gun control may not be correct, but I think we know otherwise. Yet I'm afraid we don't know as OldBilly seems to be the only one more interested in the issue than the wording of my question. Nonetheless I will rescind my assumption.
I do not agree with your reciprocal question. "Increases in gun control" encompass a broad spectrum of possibilities and are considered politically viable actions. You on the other hand have posed a question that is extremist in form and implies that extremist, politically inviable (I hope) action.
I appreciate the suggestion on ways to avoid such trouble in the future. Take care.
I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish. I was a member of the NRA in the past and a long time gun ownwer.
Personally, not have to worry my children may be shot at like I was by my alcoholic, mentally ill, also long time gun owning step-parent.
I also do not currently own a gun, as one of my now adult children has a tendency to major depression and I no longer farm. Of course, my child would be the only victim of the gun crime, but as a parent, ensuring he had no access was what I felt was best at the time. If I was still on my farm, I would still own a gun. I would have to keep it well secured. People liked to dump fighting dogs on the property once they were done with them as I bordered by a kennel and a dogfighter. A gun was needed if the dogs went straight for livestock or one of the children. I may buy another gun in the future.
However, gun ownership restriction laws alone do little to immediately solve the problem I want to avoid, since you specifically asked about efficacy. My son and step-father have no business owning a gun, but they live with people who do, and should, have full rights to gun ownership. Responsible gun ownership is, to me, far more important than just the laws. Rights come with responsibilities. I don't see any organization teaching this anymore. As they say, this is why we can't have nice things.
I would not mind if our laws looked more like say, Switzerland's.
Only if this guy was lying on his citizenship test can his citizenship be revoked, and that can happen to anyone immigrating from any where. If we were to demonstrate and prove that he was planning the attack when he took the test, then he was lying on the test, and he is gone. If he freaked out after the fact we just live with it, 2sides.
I don't think Lindsey is aware of this fact yet.
.
What really needs fixing is that bumbling no-fly list. Let's get it right.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
"The Constitution is just a piece of paper..." to these people, despite their rhetoric???
There actually IS a constitutional right to interstate travel. So, let's link the "no fly" list to a "no buy" list for gun ownership. After all, if they can't be trusted on a plane - they shouldn't be trusted with a gun, either. Why should only one constitutional right be subject to due process considerations? (The whole thing would be unconstitutional - but linking them would help make the point obvious to Fox News viewers.)
And isn't it interesting how Muslims with paintball guns are treated as terrorists and sent to prison, while Tea Party folks forming militias and carrying guns around are merely exercising their rights...
reach through the tv and slap the shit out of that man. Jeebus.
Lindsey, lindsey with a name like that I can see why you like the pee pee.
Comments are closed on this entry