bush_cheney2004 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Really, do you honestly believe the FAA is going to license a transport aircraft and allow someone to operate it who isn't allowed on a commercial flight? If so, you are even more screwed up than I thought. Personal attack noted, but no matter, as there are many types of aircraft for sale in the United States. You should already know that. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 He wasn't, but he was communicating with terror suspects the FBI is investigating.......his wife was here on a marriage Visa.Doesn't really matter does it, he could have got them even if he was on a list. BTW, the Supreme court decides whether someones right has been taken away, not the Republican Party. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) Personal attack noted, but no matter, as there are many types of aircraft for sale in the United States. You should already know that.By you, I meant your government. It wasn't personalBTW, when was the right to own an aircraft enshrined in the Constitution? Edited December 4, 2015 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 By you, I meant your government. It wasn't personal There is little difference in Canada....shall we go shopping ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 The US Supreme Court has already affirmed the right to own and bear arms, overturning state and local prohibitions. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 There is little difference in Canada....shall we go shopping ? BTW, when was the right to own an aircraft enshrined in the Constitution? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 The US Supreme Court has already affirmed the right to own and bear arms, overturning state and local prohibitions. Then why can some people be refused ownership? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) BTW, when was the right to own an aircraft enshrined in the Constitution? Property rights....just pay the taxes. Aircraft for sale in Canada: http://www.globalplanesearch.com/canada/ Edited December 4, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Then why can some people be refused ownership? Because the laws doing so pass constitutional tests. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Doesn't really matter does it, he could have got them even if he was on a list. BTW, the Supreme court decides whether someones right has been taken away, not the Republican Party. No, any Federal court will do......better not get caught smoking grass, tweeting the wrong thing or sharing a name with a terrorist.......could get put on a list. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Even children have gun rights in many states. Feds don't restrict possession of long guns or shotguns by junior: Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Why not let the kids shoot each other as well I always say. Quote
Argus Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Why not? The better question, if a terror suspect is banned from flying based on evidence the US Government has.......why are they on the streets? I have a question as to how the Republicans can justify voting against such people being banned from purchasing guns. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Right, and so is taking away the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans....... You can deny people who are a danger to the public, like those being treated for mental illnesses, permission to have guns. How is this different? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 That's not what he's saying. In Murika you can't bar someone from getting a firearm just because they're on a No Fly List. The right is absolute. I think that's pretty nutty, but hey Murika! It's not like we Canadians can change their freedoms. The right is not absolute. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Boges Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 The right is not absolute. It is when you can just go to a Gun show an pick up a piece. Quote
Argus Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 The reason why the Republicans voted down a proposed law that would allow the State to take away a citizens inalienable rights because they were put on a list...... It's not inalienable. Anyone previously convicted can be denied that right, for example, even after serving their sentence. So can those with mental health issues. The reason Republican voted against it is the same reason Republican candidates are currently trying to outflank each other on the far right in terms of abortion and illegal aliens, because it plays well to their ignorant, mouth-breathing base. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) It is when you can just go to a Gun show an pick up a piece. The point I'm making is that the right to have a weapon is not absolute and the state can impose rules and prohibitions if it so chooses. Equating this with other rights like freedom of speech and religion is simply wrong. Edited December 4, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Boges Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 The point I'm making is that the right to have a weapon is not absolute and the state can impose rules and prohibitions if it so chooses. Equating this with other rights like freedom of speech and religion is simply wrong. There are also limits to freedom of speech. Quote
Wilber Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Because the laws doing so pass constitutional tests. The Republicans won't allow any firearms laws to be tested. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Property rights....just pay the taxes. Aircraft for sale in Canada: http://www.globalplanesearch.com/canada/ That's just dumb. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 That's just dumb. Don't worry about it....stay in Canada if guns are an issue. Stay away from Riverside or San Bernardino too ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
-TSS- Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 I must admit that despite 9/11 still every time I spot a headline "massacre in the USA" my first thought is that it is either some school-shooting or anti-abortion lunatics. Every time I spot a headline "massacre in (insert a European country) my first thought is that it is islamists and I'm seldom mistaken. Every now and then there may be someone like Breivik confirming the rule by providing an exception. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 I have a question as to how the Republicans can justify voting against such people being banned from purchasing guns. United States Constitution. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 You can deny people who are a danger to the public, like those being treated for mental illnesses, permission to have guns. How is this different? Then the FBI should have no problem going before a judge with evidence to prove said suspects pose a threat to the public............ Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.