MORE THAN ONE MASS SHOOTING A DAY. THANKS, NRA

Thomas Jefferson wrote with respect to the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut):

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.[9]

Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government, and some states continued official state religions after ratification. Massachusetts, for example, was officially Congregationalist until the 1830s.[10] In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). In the majority decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote:


The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another . . . in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' . . . That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.[11]

U.S. officials tell CBS News that 28-year-old Farook started searching for a wife using an online dating website. He met Tashfeen Malik and they became engaged in 2013 after he traveled to Saudi Arabia during the annual pilgrimage know as the Hajj. Farook returned to Saudi Arabia in July 2014 to bring her to the U.S. She passed a Homeland Security counterterrorism screening as part of the vetting process, and officials tell CBS News Farook was not on any U.S. terror watch lists.

Didn't even try to dispute the facts, you chose to go right for the ad hominem. You always were a class act.

Didn't even try to dispute the facts, you chose to go right for the ad hominem. You always were a class act.

Have suspected terrorists been able to purchase firearms in the United States? The answer is yes, around 2,000 times. Does this fact warrant stripping the Second Amendment rights from citizens who aren’t terrorists because they’re on a government list? The answer is no. Regardless, considering terrorists get firearms in and from all parts of the world regardless of gun control restrictions or laws, it’s an irrelevant argument.

If I was a terrorist, I would love the NRA and it's supporters who make it so easy to get guns.

In August 2004, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) told a Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the No Fly List that he had appeared on the list and had been repeatedly delayed at airports. He said it had taken him three weeks of appeals directly to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to have him removed from the list. Kennedy said he was eventually told that the name "T Kennedy" was added to the list because it was once used as an alias of a suspected terrorist. There are an estimated 7,000 American men whose legal names correspond to "T Kennedy". (Senator Kennedy, whose first name was Edward and for whom "Ted" was only a nickname, would not have been one of them.) Recognizing that as a U.S. Senator he was in a privileged position of being able to contact Ridge, Kennedy said of "ordinary citizens": "How are they going to be able to get to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?"

This is a bit of an aside, but since it came up, I generally do not support the way the no-fly list is used today. A US citizen who is denied access to a common form of transportation should have the right to see the evidence against them and mount a defense. The prime example was Senator Ted Kennedy who was hassled at airports because of the list.

Quote:

In August 2004, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) told a Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the No Fly List that he had appeared on the list and had been repeatedly delayed at airports. He said it had taken him three weeks of appeals directly to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to have him removed from the list. Kennedy said he was eventually told that the name "T Kennedy" was added to the list because it was once used as an alias of a suspected terrorist. There are an estimated 7,000 American men whose legal names correspond to "T Kennedy". (Senator Kennedy, whose first name was Edward and for whom "Ted" was only a nickname, would not have been one of them.) Recognizing that as a U.S. Senator he was in a privileged position of being able to contact Ridge, Kennedy said of "ordinary citizens": "How are they going to be able to get to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?"

The FBI as been accused of using the no fly list to coerce people into spying for them. Unlike plane flight, gun buying is a right in this country. How can you deny someone a right without a trial?

A US citizen who is denied access to a common form of transportation should have the right to see the evidence against them and mount a defense.