Virginia quashed bill allowing handguns on campuses

username wrote:

The Justice Department is considering a ban on the selling of guns to known or suspected terrorists.

The NRA has sued them to keep them from enforcing such a ban.

The NRA are loons.

You keep great company, David.

U prove an absolute lack of comprehension
of the most elementary considerations of due process of law.
In America, the Supreme Law of the Land
prohibits government from screwing any man out of his rights
to life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

Merely ACCUSING someone of something bad
does NOT have the effect of screwing him out of his constitutional rights,
nor does it grant to government
those powers which were explicitly denied to it
by the individuals who created government.

Let 's try it this way, in the service of simplicity of understanding:
suppose that a citizen is accused of being a terrorist;
shud that have the effect of disenfranchising him
( i.e., screwing him out of his vote in November ) ??

His right to defend his life and other property
is MORE important than is his right to vote.

I ratify and support the NRA 's position in this matter.
David

0 Replies

OSD wrote:

Merely ACCUSING someone of something bad
does NOT have the effect of screwing him out of his constitutional rights

Tell that to the people who set up Guantanamo.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

OSD wrote:

Merely ACCUSING someone of something bad
does NOT have the effect of screwing him out of his constitutional rights

Tell that to the people who set up Guantanamo.

No problem with THAT, Mr. McTag.

Since Johnson v. Eisentrager 339 US 763 ( 1950 )
and again in US v. Verdugo 110 S. Ct. 1056 ( 1990 )
the USSC has made it clear that aliens
( who r not in America )
NEVER HAD any constitutional rights out of which thay cud have been screwn.
David

0 Replies

The camp was set up there to be out of the influence of US law, no matter who is sent there, and the people who thought that one up also thought up the Patriot Act which has the effect of just that, screwing citizens out of their constitutional rights.

Do not send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Quote:

The camp was set up there to be out of the influence of US law,

Yes; it is essentially a prisoner of war camp,
tho not formally.

Quote:

no matter who is sent there,

R u asserting that American citizens r sent there ?

0 Replies

No, but I'm suggesting justice should be evenly and fairly applied to all.
Especially if you want the justice system to retain credibility.
To say nothing of trying to cling on to whatever remains of the moral high ground.

0 Replies

So, if Guantanamo is shut down and all the people there transferred to US soil then the NRA supports their right to have a gun and the government should not be able to prevent them.

OK, I think I understand the NRA position now.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

So, if Guantanamo is shut down and all the people there transferred to US soil then the NRA supports their right to have a gun and the government should not be able to prevent them.

OK, I think I understand the NRA position now.

Wow! You should think about the Olympic trials with a leap like that one.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

So, if Guantanamo is shut down and all the people there transferred to US soil then the NRA supports their right to have a gun and the government should not be able to prevent them.

OK, I think I understand the NRA position now.

I don 't believe that the NRA has ever had a position regarding criminals bearing arms;
( I can see where Leona Helmsley might need effective personal protection ).

My OWN position, for quite a few years now
is that violently recidivistic felons shud be BANISHED
and removed from the North American Continent
( with sneaking back prohibited on pain of death ).

After thay are GONE, behind 1000s of miles of water,
thay can have all the guns can get.

David

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Quote:
No, but I'm suggesting justice should be evenly and fairly applied to all.

What is " just " or " fair " is open to any number of
subjective personal interpretations.

Considerations of effective self defense from 9/11 type phenomena
do not permit us to be so magnanimous with our military foes
( who, as aforesaid, have no rights under the US Constitution,
as long as thay r not in America ).

Quote:

Especially if you want the justice system to retain credibility.

Again, u abandon yourself to hopelessly undefined subjectivity;
( might as well litigate what is the most beautiful color ).

Quote:

To say nothing of trying to cling on to whatever remains of the moral high ground.

and yet AGAIN, with the subjectivity, as if it did us any good

As a better man than I, once said:
" In war there is no substitute for victory. "
How many battle tanks will " the moral high ground " take out ??

0 Replies

You are saying that words have no meaning, and that is where I leave the conversation.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

You are saying that words have no meaning,
and that is where I leave the conversation.

Thay can be contrived to that effect.

Good bye.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

parados wrote:
So, if Guantanamo is shut down and all the people there transferred to US soil then the NRA supports their right to have a gun and the government should not be able to prevent them.

OK, I think I understand the NRA position now.

I don 't believe that the NRA has ever had a position regarding criminals bearing arms;

Who said anything about criminals? We are talking terrorist suspects. They aren't a criminal until they are tried and convicted. The persons being held at Guantanamo are only terrorist suspects. They have not been charged let alone tried and convicted. The NRA has said terrorist suspects should not be prevented from buying a gun.

It seems you don't understand the position of the NRA or the position of those held in Guantanamo.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
parados wrote:
So, if Guantanamo is shut down and all the people there transferred to US soil then the NRA supports their right to have a gun and the government should not be able to prevent them.

OK, I think I understand the NRA position now.

I don 't believe that the NRA has ever had a position regarding criminals bearing arms;

Who said anything about criminals? We are talking terrorist suspects. They aren't a criminal until they are tried and convicted. The persons being held at Guantanamo are only terrorist suspects. They have not been charged let alone tried and convicted. The NRA has said terrorist suspects should not be prevented from buying a gun.

It seems you don't understand the position of the NRA
or the position of those held in Guantanamo.

I will admit that I don 't spend a lot of time
scrutinizing all the positions of the NRA.
I dissent from some of them; the NRA is a sell out organization,
to which many of its members object.

In any case,
I AM aware that what NRA has rightfully objected to
is that there has been a movement from W 's government
to oust American citizens, in America, from their constitutional rights,
merely because the gov 't has arbitrarily chosen to put them on a list.
Thay can put ANYONE on a list.

The Founders did NOT create a government endowed with authority
to screw American citizens out of their constitutional rights
merely by putting them on a list of suspects.

For the sake of clarity,
let us imagine that instead of violating the citizens' right to arm
themselves in self defense, because of their being put on a suspect list,
the government sought to screw the same citizens out of their right to vote
if thay were put on that list of suspicion, and all Democrats were placed on it.
How 'd that be ?

David

0 Replies

Virginia quashed bill allowing handguns on campuses

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know