|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Abusing Government Watch Lists: How Freedom Dies
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
By now, you’ve heard and read about the schemes proposed by everyone from President Barack Obama to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would ban firearms sales to anyone on the so-called “Terror Watch List.”
And as you probably already know, Republican leaders—and some, but not enough, Democrats—oppose this reckless and dangerous policy, because it violates:
--the principle of due process under the law, a foundation of American jurisprudence;
--the notion of “innocent until proven guilty;”
--the right to hear any charges and confront any witnesses against you;
--the right to an open trial by a jury of your peers; and
--the very rule of law upon which this nation was founded. |
| Comment by:
jac
(12/31/2015)
|
What could possibly be a problem with a secret government list that infringes on one's rights? The government won't tell you if you are on the list, why you are on the list, who put you on the list and there is no avenue open to get off the list.
You can bet that if this proposal ever became law, your NRA membership, and a lot of other conservative memberships will get you added to the list.
All one needs to look at is the IRS' treatment of conservatives.
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
