Would you support a bill that prevents people on the "no fly" list from being able to purchase firearms?

SrA (Join to see) - why should a free citizen have to PROVE s/he is legit? The burden of proof is the other way around. We are innocent until the government proves beyond a shaddow of a doubt that we are in fact a criminal.

SrA (Join to see) - yes there is a process to remove a citizen who has been placed on the list. However, this is not a country were ANYONE has to prove there innocence. It is the governments responsibly to prove guilt and the suspect is ALWAYS entitled to all of his/her constitutionally protected rights until guilt has been proven.

I agree. Obama is letting Gitmo prisoners loose claiming that they deserve due process, but wants us to strip the rights of Americans with out it? I don't get it.

SrA (Join to see) - Sure, but since when is it the citizen's responsibility to prove their innocence??? If the government can prove someone has committed a crime then rights can be taken away, but not until that citizen has been convicted by a jury.

MSG (Join to see) - that's called "due process". It may need some work, it may be not perfect. That is a different battle, albeit a very important one. The "No Fly" list is totally random. totally, with no appeals process.

MSG (Join to see) You have the wrong definition of regulated. Regulated-in the context of the 2nd Amendment and the contemporary use of the word means trained and equipped or drilled.

Cadet 3rd Class (Join to see) - To wit- Joe McCarthy was correct in most of the accusations he made.

MSG (Join to see) - You've fallen into the classic anti-gun trap. You've parsed the 2nd Amendment and taken it out of context, using only the first part. You need to look at the whole. In full, it states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." During the revolutionary war, militias were made up of every man - the farmer, the shop keeper, the young, the old - anyone who could pick up a weapon became a part of the militia to fight against an oppressive government and ruler. It is easy to interpret "well regulated" as being disciplined, drilled, etc because that's how we were taught in these modern times. Back then, it could've have meant that everyone had to have a clean functioning rifle, ammo, know how to shoot, and not be crazy or a crimminal. It continues w/ "being necessary to the security of a free State, the rights of the people shall not be infringed." How can we be a free state, when it is the Government who regulates us (the people) from owning firearms?

2A is the lynch pin to the Bill of Rights. The Founders felt that the 1st Amendment is THE most important. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Knowing that this is the MOST important, it needed protection, and BOOM, the 2nd Amendment was drafted. These are God-given rights. There is no other country in the world that has a governing document like our Constitution. W/o the 2A, we have no Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was not meant to restrict the people. It's purpose is to restrict the Government.

Sgt Michael Betts
Yeah but it all comes back to due process and the burden of proof being on law enforcement (and not on the person whose name is possibly on the list wrongly).

As I noted in my posting, should someone find himself on one of the lists, he should be afforded an expeditious means of making the government justify it. Would an undercover cop tell the subject of an investigation that he was a suspect in criminal activity? Of course not. I see no difference in that and in investigating a terrorist or someone with possible terrorist ties.

Sgt Michael Betts
But should their civil and Constitutional rights be violated if no charges have been filed?

I'm a firm believer in all the rights affirmed in our Constitution and keep a copy of that revered document in my desk drawer. I hope you'll agree that we are now facing a unique threat with the terrorism situation and it is not historically unusual that when the security of the nation is threatened the government has bent if not broken many of our our rights. Lincoln's suspension of the right of habeas corpus during the Civil War and F.D.R.'s sequestering Japanese-Americans in concentration camps at the onset of WWII are two egregious examples which come immediately to mind. In both of those and other instances the SCOTUS has approved given exigent circumstances.

As we both know, despite our heritage of adherence to the precepts of the Constitution, there is no right which is absolute under all circumstances. You need only look at the Second Amendment (the rights which the Founding Fathers said "shall not be infringed") to see that. I do not see keeping the lists secret as outrageous to individual rights under the prevailing circumstances as long as the government must expeditiously justify someone being on such a list.