Poster Aquilla was right.....

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

That's not what I asked. I asked what if you had to ask the government to give you back your right to free speech.

Hmmm... I'm not going to say that you don't have good points.

As a liberal, I assure you that I have no desire to take your guns. Nor do I desire to deny you your right to purchase a gun. I do not want to see a "gun free" society. I like hunting and shooting as much as anyone else might. I was in the military for 8 years and I have no real "fear" of guns. So, I'm not wanting to take anything from anyone. Nor am I afraid of guns. In fact, to some degree the right to bear arms in self defense creates a more safe society (as long as gun owners use common sense). However, I do wish there was a way to prevent weapons from ending up in the wrong hands without compromising 2nd Amendment liberties. I'd like to see authorities have an upper hand on those who would cause us harm. And I'm sure you can relate to these desires because we're both Americans and we both love our country and our people. Neither of us want to see anyone killed by a terrorist.

I'm brainstorming to see if there is a middle ground....

What if the lists were only used to "alert" authorities that a weapon had been purchased by someone on the list or that someone on the list was considering the purchase of a weapon? Being on the list wouldn't necessarily prevent the sale, but it would be a "red flag" to authorities so that they could better prioritize their suspects and have grounds to investigate potentially dangerous individuals further.

Thoughts?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The commies can have my guns, bullets first.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What if the lists were only used to "alert" authorities that a weapon had been purchased by someone on the list or that someone on the list was considering the purchase of a weapon? Being on the list wouldn't necessarily prevent the sale, but it would be a "red flag" to authorities so that they could better prioritize their suspects and have grounds to investigate potentially dangerous individuals further.

Thoughts?

On the surface, I wouldn't have any immediate objections to that (so long as it was used for the intended purpose only), as that doesn't violate our Constitutional rights. My concern is when the government can arbitrarily take away our rights, and we have to petition them to have those rights restored. Down that road lies fascism and totalitarianism.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jito463

On the surface, I wouldn't have any immediate objections to that (so long as it was used for the intended purpose only), as that doesn't violate our Constitutional rights. My concern is when the government can arbitrarily take away our rights, and we have to petition them to have those rights restored. Down that road lies fascism and totalitarianism.

So you support secret government lists of "unreliable people", too, eh?

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So you support secret government lists of "unreliable people", too, eh?

The government keeps list of almost everything as it is. Even if we didn't agree to this list, do you really think it wouldn't happen? I'm just saying that a list - in and of itself - is not a Constitutional violation. How it's used determines that.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jito463

The government keeps list of almost everything as it is. Even if we didn't agree to this list, do you really think it wouldn't happen? I'm just saying that a list - in and of itself - is not a Constitutional violation. How it's used determines that.

So then, since the Constitution doesn't prohibit government from making secret lists of citizens it considers unreliable, what does that tell you?

By the way, where in that document are secret lists authorized? Those pesky ninth and tenth amendments, you know.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So then, since the Constitution doesn't prohibit government from making secret lists of citizens it considers unreliable, what does that tell you?

By the way, where in that document are secret lists authorized? Those pesky ninth and tenth amendments, you know.

I never said I was in favor of it, just that I don't see it being un-Constitutional; but you and I both know the government will do it anyway, regardless of whether We The People approve or not. I don't bother getting worked up about that, as there's nothing I can do to stop it.

What I do get worked about, is Aquila's proposal that such lists should be used to deny our rights without any due process, and his insistence that we can "petition" the government to get those rights back.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

On the surface, I wouldn't have any immediate objections to that (so long as it was used for the intended purpose only), as that doesn't violate our Constitutional rights. My concern is when the government can arbitrarily take away our rights, and we have to petition them to have those rights restored. Down that road lies fascism and totalitarianism.

You've voiced that well. While I'm a liberal, I'm not against civil rights. I'm considering possibilities many conservatives might not consider with regards to how we can make our nation more safe.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

I never said I was in favor of it, just that I don't see it being un-Constitutional; but you and I both know the government will do it anyway, regardless of whether We The People approve or not. I don't bother getting worked up about that, as there's nothing I can do to stop it.

What I do get worked about, is Aquila's proposal that such lists should be used to deny our rights without any due process, and his insistence that we can "petition" the government to get those rights back.

And, I will say you gave an excellent explanation and defense of your position. It was rather thought provoking for me. I do see your point, and I'd not want to deny any rights. That's why I'm reconsidering the thought and how perhaps the lists should only serve to alert authorities that someone on the list has purchased a weapon. They authorities can then investigate as deemed necessary on a case by case basis.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

And, I will say you gave an excellent explanation and defense of your position. It was rather thought provoking for me. I do see your point, and I'd not want to deny any rights. That's why I'm reconsidering the thought and how perhaps the lists should only serve to alert authorities that someone on the list has purchased a weapon. They authorities can then investigate as deemed necessary on a case by case basis.