DHS Official: Using Terror Watch Lists To Infringe On Second Amendment Rights*Snipped

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I am pretty sure there also videos of the other side doing and saying disgusting things. So what was the point of you post.

Fact remains there is hate from both sides and to say one is worse than another is ignorant.

Stay blind and focus on the hate coming the radicals, it solves nothing.

Speaking of "apples and oranges"... not agreeing with profiling Muslims one way or another... if you were really a U.S. Citizen, you would know this...

...but the FACT is, foreign nationals, i.e. "non-citizens" don't have the "rights" of The Constitution that American citizens do. When it comes to legal issues, non-Americans have due process rights, generally... but they don't automatically get the protection of the Rule of Law that citizens do.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

So profiling Muslims as terrorists is ok, but as soon as gun owners are profiled that is when the line is crossed? Gotcha.

originally posted by: forkedtongue

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Joneselius
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Where would you draw the line then? I'm just saying comments like that don't help. So as you're clearly better informed and willing to be sarcastic to prove it, I'm sure you're about to tell us? Noi?

If not, why say anything at all?

I don't like profiling of any form. I hate being profiled for wearing a damn tie dyed t-shirt when I drive to a music festival and I'd hate being profiled as a gun owner. And if I was a Muslim, I wouldn't want to be profiled for that either. Profiling is lazy detective work.

No it isn't, that is a cop out and you know it.

The cops are more likely to find drugs on a hippie on the way to a phish concert than they are people in suits on the way to church.

It is a fact.

It doesn't matter if you like it, it is still true.

So what? My point was that doesn't make it right.

originally posted by: forkedtongue

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

It should be noted that the ability to fly on airplanes isn't a right guaranteed by the Constitution so the existence of a no-fly list isn't taking your rights away without due process. I can't speak to denying gun ownership because you are on it though.

The right to travel freely is a right, and there are absolutely zero qualifiers to that statement.

Meaning , it doesnt say " as long as you walk, or ride a horse...etc"

Is riding in a plane traveling?

Then it is most definitely a right.

Last I checked there aren't any airlines owned by the government. So when did it become a "right" to be able to utilize a mode of transportation owned by a private entity?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So all of that makes it ok to beat and denigrate random Muslims just for being Muslim? Way to make your case as a xenophobe.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

So don't complain about being profiled as a gun owner then.

a reply to: dasman888

It's always humorous how people can justify taking rights away from someone JUST because they aren't an American citizen. Like that somehow makes them less a human or something.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dasman888

It's always humorous how people can justify taking rights away from someone JUST because they aren't an American citizen. Like that somehow makes them less a human or something.

Perhaps you misunderstand here. The way I interpret their statement is that people that are not American citizens are not covered by the protections our United States Constitution provides here for citizens of the United States. According to that constitution, they do have these rights, as they are endowed by their creator, not the United States government. However, not being citizens of United States, they are not covered by the protections, and therefore, can have their rights impeded and infringed....legally.

Does that explain it a bit more?

a reply to: Krakatoa

No I get it perfectly. I just find it to be dumb and petty reasoning meant to appeal to xenophobia and sensationalism. I choose not to interpret the Constitution so that it only applies to American citizens as I know that we are all human and ALL have the same rights regardless of citizenry.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Krakatoa

No I get it perfectly. I just find it to be dumb and petty reasoning meant to appeal to xenophobia and sensationalism. I choose not to interpret the Constitution so that it only applies to American citizens as I know that we are all human and ALL have the same rights regardless of citizenry.

As I said, and I agree, we all have the same rights. However, what we all do not have are the protections afforded by the United States Constitution. It was meant to cover citizens. It is the law of the United States....not of any other country. Whether you agree with that or not is, frankly, irrelevant.

The law is the law, in this country or others. We should not hold non-citizens to our laws, nor should we provide protections when they are not in this country yet.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Sorry, I just think that is inhumane and cruel.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Krakatoa

Sorry, I just think that is inhumane and cruel.

And I accept that is your opinion. However, your opinion is not more or less valid than the OP or others here. And, opinions do not change the meaning of laws. ESPECIALLY the United states Constitution. That is the countries supreme laws. IF you feel strongly enough in your convictions, and it is not just lip service, then there is a legal way to get it changed. Someone needs to lead that charge. Will it be you?