I admire her for doing so. How long, how long until we quit arming the world?

wars, we have a war right here.

Communities in Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, DC....rhetorical question!

Truth is, neither party wants too much scrutiny over the secret no-fly list.

And this is a shame. Heated debate over banning people on this list from owning firearms might get people to start asking who exactly is on this list and why?

to use this list (and its ilk), we should be questioning the list itself...

So let me get this right

You support secret lists of Americans

Do you know how people are put on the list and could it be abused?

How do you know you have been added to the secret list?

What legal recourse or remedy do you have to challenge the list?

What oversight is over the list?


Sorry, I am with the ACLU and do not support these large secret lists on American citizens. And remember, this is not the no fly list, it is the much, much bigger list.

Funny, DU likes to say that such lists are stupid-- except when someone like DiFi wants to apply them to gun purchases.

Me? I prefer due process. People on the "watchlist" can also vote, drive, invoke the right to not self-incriminate..

Don't give a dang about lives, only profit.

Obama'a trying to take away your right to fly so he can steal your guns!

to proven terrorists by any means. I'll link to my post in a related thread, but overall I don't agree that a secret, quasi-judicial, perhaps-less-than-rigorous list of this nature is an appropriate tool to deny civil liberties, civil rights, or privileges. (A NICS access should be one datapoint for the terrorism investigators, but it shouldn't work in the other direction)...

Since right wing terrorists have killed way more people in the US than Muslim ones, it's no wonder Feinstein wants the home grown ones disarmed and the NRA wants their members to keep their weapons.

The Islamic Republic of Iran which is opposed by - you guessed it - Saudi Arabia.

Disappointing.

And then restricting gun purchases is perfectly constitutional.

Can you violate a person's 2nd amendment rights based on suspicion?

The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms so long as one is a member of a well regulated militia. How a "militia" is defined is a different story and moot to my point. But is a conversation we US Citizens should have.

The Constitution does not protect private citizens from privately owning a firearm.

So your question doesn't apply at all since there is no 2nd Amendment rights being violated.

According to the Supreme Court, the Democratic Party platform, and president Obama.

But then that's the NRA talking isn't it?

When was the last time the 2nd Amendment was looked at by the SCOTUS?

I can answer that question with a quick look at wikipedia, the 1880s. There are cases after that where the 2A was invoked or mentioned, (such as Lewis v. US in 1980), but none did examine the amendment. There has been extensive writing and theorizing about the 2A, but that was in the 1800s and not much has been looked at since.

As for political party platforms and personal opinions of politicians, those things are their views, which don't, necessarily, reflect the law.

When was the last time the NRA brought suit all the way through the court systems instead of threatening it? I can't think of a time where they've done such a thing.

I agree that we have a de-facto individual protection under the 2nd Amendment because of political inaction. Its the current interpretation of the land and the vast majority of Americans believe the 2nd Amendment means citizens are constitutionally protected such that they can own and use military grade firearms at will. But that doesn't mean its what the Constitution actually says.

The above is what the NRA spends a lot of time and money on. Maintaining this perception and, I suspect, waging legal battle to keep this perspective in tact, regardless of what the Constitution actually says.

As far as I can tell the Constitution is pretty clear. There's a right to keep and bear arms, for defense of the community, state and country (in a well regulated militia), and the Constitution says nothing about personal arms for personal defense or any other activity for that matter (say hunting). Which leads me to believe that possession of a firearm, outside of an official military capacity (including law enforcement) is a privilege and one that can be revoked by local, state and Federal law at any time.

This holds up when you look at Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 having been held up as constitutional in Lewis v. US in 1980. Basically felons, while still citizens of the United States lose their right to bear arms along with voting, holding public office, and other things. So Congress can enact laws that can strip firearms from citizens at any time and not violate the 2A.

So TL;DR is this: Its the NRA bringing pressure upon our government and political parties in the hopes that we, the people, do not spend time examining the 2A. They've got it exactly where they want it in the culture's mind.

when they ruled that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. It is in black and white and presently the law of the land.

DeNiro on SNL:

Supports secret lists, not subject to public or judicial scrutiny, as a basis for denying civil liberties?

Plus a large portion of these lists are likely Muslim, it would be rather bigoted to just restrict their Constitutional rights.

It is the much larger list that nobody has any idea who is on it how they are on it and no way to be removed. Secret lists are not American and those that support Bushes lists are wrong. ACLU is right on this one.

from somewhere on high. The woman hasn't had an original thought in 40 years and will be gone in 2 years so she's playing the Turd Way's useful idiot role (she does it so well).

The sad things is, the CDP is looking to replace both Boxer and Feinstein with DLC Third-Way darlings (Harris and Sanchez) who will, just like Feinstein, dutifully follow whatever orders they're given and never ask questions.