Evidently Democrats don't like due process anymore . . .

[Bolas 5]

kallend

******
Easy work around - model it on the FISA court, which can deprive a person of a right and is apparently quite legal and passes Constitutional muster.

What right(s) are the FISA court depriving of someone?

Been sleeping for the past few years?

What rights are they depriving a person of? What are FISA court rulings preventing a person from doing?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Stumpy 284]

[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Bolas 5]

Stumpy

[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

So they're not actually stopping anyone from doing something (freedom of speech, freedom of the press), just monitoring and recording their activities. Don't really agree with what they do, but unreasonable does give them some wiggle room unfortunately.

Were the FISA court to be given the right to suspend a "suspicious" persons right to bear arms either through seizure or prevention of purchase, not only would it be giving them active powers to impact citizens, it'd be giving them the power to basically remove rights at will without due process.

If they could bypass "shall not be infringed" the other constitutional rights wouldn't have a chance.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Stumpy 284]

Bolas

***[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

So they're not actually stopping anyone from doing something (freedom of speech, freedom of the press), just monitoring and recording their activities. Don't really agree with what they do, but unreasonable does give them some wiggle room unfortunately.

Were the FISA court to be given the right to suspend a "suspicious" persons right to bear arms either through seizure or prevention of purchase, not only would it be giving them active powers to impact citizens, it'd be giving them the power to basically remove rights at will without due process.

If they could bypass "shall not be infringed" the other constitutional rights wouldn't have a chance.

Not sure I'm clear. Do you not believe the 4th to be a right?

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Bolas 5]

Stumpy

******[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

So they're not actually stopping anyone from doing something (freedom of speech, freedom of the press), just monitoring and recording their activities. Don't really agree with what they do, but unreasonable does give them some wiggle room unfortunately.

Were the FISA court to be given the right to suspend a "suspicious" persons right to bear arms either through seizure or prevention of purchase, not only would it be giving them active powers to impact citizens, it'd be giving them the power to basically remove rights at will without due process.

If they could bypass "shall not be infringed" the other constitutional rights wouldn't have a chance.

Not sure I'm clear. Do you not believe the 4th to be a right?

I do and am against the special FISA court but as they're operating in grey areas their constitutionality is up to the courts.

Also not the one proposing giving them additional power.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Stumpy 284]

Bolas

I do and am against the special FISA court but as they're operating in grey areas their constitutionality is up to the courts.

Also not the one proposing giving them additional power.

This is where I really struggle to understand - mention one tiny measure that might be related to the second amendment and the whole of the US goes nuts. Wholesale rape of the fourth and no-one seems to care. The FISA court is basically a guy with a big rubber stamp who just approves whatever comes across the desk.

I suspect the continual furore over the second is part of the governments way to manage the people so that they can make the changes that really affect you without too much trouble, while all the rednecks are distracted worshipping at the shrine of Charlton Heston.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Coreeece 2]

Stumpy

all the rednecks

I see - so since white people make up a majority of the US, you think that it's OK to refer to their lower class as rednecks.

Do you also think that it's OK to refer to the lower classes of predominantly Mexican and black countries as spics and niggers?

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jakee 1,500]

Coreeece

***all the rednecks

I see - so since white people make up a majority of the US, you think that it's OK to refer to their lower class as rednecks.

Do you also think that it's OK to refer to the lower classes of predominantly Mexican and black countries as spics and niggers?

Redneck is not a derogatory term for any white person, so it's not analogous. If he'd said cracker or honkey you'd have a point.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreeece 2]

jakee

******all the rednecks

I see - so since white people make up a majority of the US, you think that it's OK to refer to their lower class as rednecks.

Do you also think that it's OK to refer to the lower classes of predominantly Mexican and black countries as spics and niggers?

Redneck is not a derogatory term for any white person, so it's not analogous. If he'd said cracker or honkey you'd have a point.

This is true, this is true - however, I would like the record to reflect that Chris Rock set an official precedent back in 1996 in the case of "Bring the Pain" where he made a distinction between black people and quote, "niggaz" as outlined below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[normiss 803]

As of the last consensus, you are incorrect sir.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

turtlespeed

[url http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/16/joe-manchin-laments-fifth-amendment-due-process-is/] You just have to sit back and wonder what would happen if they got their way. [url]

Right, cause banning people from the country based on religion is the moral high ground.

I think there is medication for multiple personality disorders.