Latest Breaking News

askeptic

(478 posts)

36. Can't take Constitutional rights away without a court order

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:46 PM

Jun 2016

and you certainly can't do it with a no-fly list that has no trial, no court review, and no method for correction. Honestly, did everyone miss civics class?

The only way they get away with the list is that you don't have a Constitutional right to fly on an airplane.

What other rights should we take away for those on the list - Right to privacy? How about free speech or free exercise? Maybe take the 5th away too? And we want the right-wingers to accept that there are rights to abortion, same-sex marriage, LGBT equal rights, all under the Constitution, but then act exactly like them when it comes to a different right in the Bill of Rights. Honestly!

Oh yeah, you can't make people get a license to exercise a Constitutional right, either.

What you can do is attempt to change the Constitution.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

147 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary Clinton calls for renewed assault weapons ban: they're a 'weapon of war' [View all] kpete Jun 2016 OP

I agree. romanic Jun 2016 #1

Arming ones self... SusanLarson Jun 2016 #18

A lot of people would disagree with your restrictive, narrow framing of the issue. Igel Jun 2016 #28

More gun nut insanity SusanLarson Jun 2016 #33

I live in Oregon, in the forest, and police found a pot grow less than a mile from my house passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #63

A paranoid person is one of the last people that should carry a gun. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #126

Not too far off point, but 1/3 of those are suicides. AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #35

What's your point SusanLarson Jun 2016 #37

Firearms are more effective. AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #42

It's actually 2/3rds of gun deaths are suicide NobodyHere Jun 2016 #85

2/3, actually. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #101

Do you believe sarisataka Jun 2016 #53

Do you believe every defensive gun use is legitimately justified? MillennialDem Jun 2016 #134

An unknown number of instances in which a handgunis used for self-defense are simply not reported. Francis Booth Jun 2016 #64

Because that's such a common event... also many who brandish guns don't know they ARE MillennialDem Jun 2016 #135

No one carries an AR-15 in a war zone. AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #32

Brave statement - Good for her packman Jun 2016 #2

She is on top of her game bucolic_frolic Jun 2016 #13

Go Hillary lewebley3 Jun 2016 #22

Thatheresque- EXACTLY what I fear! dirtydickcheney Jun 2016 #34

Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #52

Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #69

I had the same reaction. She was a disaster and the comparison does Clinton no favors. nt Mojorabbit Jun 2016 #91

Rick Scott?? NastyRiffraff Jun 2016 #19

K&R! stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #3

K/R Maven Jun 2016 #4

Good. DCBob Jun 2016 #5

Yes! Night Watchman Jun 2016 #6

It is brave mainstreetonce Jun 2016 #7

What happened to incremental steps like health care? gordianot Jun 2016 #8

Ya but I don't recall reading that she actually proposed a ban rather she called for reform. nt cstanleytech Jun 2016 #11

That is smart start as reform high powered semi auto need Federal clearance. gordianot Jun 2016 #14

Then doesn't actually intend on trying to solve the problem (ntxt) scscholar Jun 2016 #30

The only way to solve it would be an outright ban on guns but that isnt likely to happen regardless cstanleytech Jun 2016 #47

Yes. A far better call to action would be Drahthaardogs Jun 2016 #31

This is workable under the 2nd amendment, and I highly support it. AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #39

Include high capacity magazine eliminate gun show provision and stop straw man purchases. gordianot Jun 2016 #44

That's the point of the NFA registry. AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #49

I support UBCs and aggressive prosecution of straw purchasers. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #102

Given the wide range of guns that will still be allowed, this is a small but significant action. n/t pnwmom Jun 2016 #146

IMO what we need when it comes to licensing, permits and background checks is cstanleytech Jun 2016 #9

Agreed. nt SunSeeker Jun 2016 #55

How about banning the State Dept from selling them Geronimoe Jun 2016 #10

Get ready for the "two more days" posts to follow. Truth be damned! Ned_Devine Jun 2016 #24

The State Dept. doesn't sell them to civilians, it sells them to governments. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #57

So glad you were able to post this. nt Duval Jun 2016 #73

I like that phrase. I call them Weapons of Mass Destruction, but that's good too. nt onehandle Jun 2016 #12

The sane action Equinox Moon Jun 2016 #15

Yeah, but it'll take action from a repub controlled Congress to get anything done groundloop Jun 2016 #16

k&r.. disillusioned73 Jun 2016 #17

As I mentioned upthread, no one uses AR-15's in war. AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #41

Irelevant and a strawman.. disillusioned73 Jun 2016 #43

Almost all rifles are 'military styled'. A bolt-action US Model 1917 was, at one point AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #45

Can a "bolt-action" rifle.. disillusioned73 Jun 2016 #60

You would be surprised. AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #65

I believe you mean "Charles Whitman" Herman4747 Jun 2016 #124

Sorry! Brain fart. AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #127

It's the magazines. Go after the magazines. Francis Booth Jun 2016 #66

That's actually the standard sized mag that comes with, and in common use. AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #123

Huh. I bought a Colt Sporter H-bar back in the day and I could have sworn it came with Francis Booth Jun 2016 #129

I have an older ruger that came with a five-rounder. True. AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #139

You seem like a reasonable enough person. How do Francis Booth Jun 2016 #140

It's not my preference but I'm willing to compromise. AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #144

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I, too feel that some compromise is necessary. Francis Booth Jun 2016 #145

She is absolutely right about this. potone Jun 2016 #20

K & R davidthegnome Jun 2016 #21

Ms. Clinton is correct on this . . FairWinds Jun 2016 #23

Shall we help her out from under DU's bus yet IronLionZion Jun 2016 #25

She's right. deathrind Jun 2016 #26

Why limit this to assault weapons? LonePirate Jun 2016 #27

Do you know what involved to do that? apnu Jun 2016 #38

The choice is simple: repeal & replace or deal with more massacres. Which do you want? LonePirate Jun 2016 #51

You are a distinct minority, and would likely get a 2nd that clearly affirms an individual right. Marengo Jun 2016 #119

No, all we have to do is appoint a progressive Supreme Court Justice. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #54

This is what republicans want to do to Roe vs Wade. AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #56

That is how our Supreme Court works. Heller is just an opinion, not the Constitution. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #59

think we need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing reproductive freedom for individuals AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #62

What other parts of the Bill of Rights do you want to abolish "to keep us safe"? Odin2005 Jun 2016 #71

What other parts of the Bill of Rights enable people to murder dozens of others in a few minutes? LonePirate Jun 2016 #75

You are much more likely to see a TeddyR Jun 2016 #78

If so, then people value death over life in this country. LonePirate Jun 2016 #79

Amazing what some call Constitutional rights these days... SunSeeker Jun 2016 #92

The 4th comes to mind. Imagine all of the crime law enforcement could prevent... Marengo Jun 2016 #120

Maybe the 3rd as well. Imagine how much safer we could be if the well-meaning... Marengo Jun 2016 #121

It would start a civil war at coast to coast small points of conflict AntiBank Jun 2016 #100

So? The government has armor. An AR-15 isn't going to penetrate a tank. MillennialDem Jun 2016 #128

are you insane? you would start a conflict where probably over 100,000 people would die AntiBank Jun 2016 #130

Not what I was saying. If there was a civil war I'm saying private guns won't do shit MillennialDem Jun 2016 #131

well, of course, but the inference was that a civil war was "ok" because the military would win AntiBank Jun 2016 #132

I am calling for an absolute ban. The gun nuts try to claim they will engage in civil war, but MillennialDem Jun 2016 #133

I truly think you are profoundly wrong.You are literally talking about opening up a multiple century AntiBank Jun 2016 #137

I will not surrender this fight. And lack of guns is not tyranny. MillennialDem Jun 2016 #138

Republicans on hot seat over gun control RogerM Jun 2016 #29

Can't take Constitutional rights away without a court order askeptic Jun 2016 #36

No, what we can do is overturn the ridiculous 5-4 Heller decision. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #50

I think you're looking through rose colored glasses Calista241 Jun 2016 #70

Heller denies Americans the funtamental right to live. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #74

Heller states that citizens have the right to keep guns for lawful purposes Calista241 Jun 2016 #76

Heller overrules the rights of a majority of citizens in a democracy. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #81

Heller is rather specific about possession in the home. Calista241 Jun 2016 #82

Heller rewrote the 2nd Am and ignored precedent and history behind the 2nd Am. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #84

Just because the dissent made some arguments TeddyR Jun 2016 #112

No, Justice TeddyR, the Heller Dissent argument was correct. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #113

Even the Heller dissent says its an individual right. beevul Jun 2016 #125

The Dissent does NOT say the 2nd Am contains an individual right to guns. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #136

If it hurt to be wrong, you'd be in pain right now. beevul Jun 2016 #141

You intentially mischaracterized the Dissent. It is you who is wrong. NT SunSeeker Jun 2016 #142

Yes, I get it. beevul Jun 2016 #143

And yet most state constitutions phrase it like this: AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #147

Heller TeddyR Jun 2016 #105

Heller legitimized that view with the imprimatur of the US Supreme Court. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #109

I disagree TeddyR Jun 2016 #110

Of course you do. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #115

I'm in favor of background checks TeddyR Jun 2016 #118

I don't think we want to start subjecting constitutional rights to the whims of a majority TeddyR Jun 2016 #111

Majority? Hell, it is already subjected to the whims of a handful of Supreme Court Justices. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #114

Oh, no doubt TeddyR Jun 2016 #117

there has to be a balance LiberalLovinLug Jun 2016 #67

Sometimes a cartoon says it best: L. Coyote Jun 2016 #40

+1 sarae Jun 2016 #61

K & R SunSeeker Jun 2016 #46

Its a losing issue duplex Jun 2016 #48

Thank you, Sec Clinton! mcar Jun 2016 #58

She made a good speech. ananda Jun 2016 #68

"cut it out" Ned Flanders Jun 2016 #106

Because it worked so well last time... ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #72

Because you can't ban people. No more NRA talking points! Feeling the Bern Jun 2016 #86

If only I had used an NRA talking point. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #87

Dealing with the gun is easier Feeling the Bern Jun 2016 #88

It usually stands that doing the right thing is not the easier thing. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #89

You go hug your gun, I'm putting you on ignore. Feeling the Bern Jun 2016 #90

How is it easier? Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #103

The Assault Weapons Ban did work. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #93

That link does not support your claim. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #94

Look at the mass shootings graph at the link. nt SunSeeker Jun 2016 #95

I saw it the first time. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #96

Sadly, mass shootings are no longer rare. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #97

Boo Sgent Jun 2016 #77

Cannot be said enough. nt eastwestdem Jun 2016 #80

Thank you Sec Clinton! riversedge Jun 2016 #83

While we are at it, let's stop making them. nt JEB Jun 2016 #98

I wonder how this will be received in FL and OH Lonusca Jun 2016 #99

I'm voting for her despite her views on gun control. NaturalHigh Jun 2016 #104

So why even try? Ned Flanders Jun 2016 #107

I'm all for universal health care. NaturalHigh Jun 2016 #108

I understand the frustrations of current laws Ned Flanders Jun 2016 #116

Keep in mind the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle... Hawkmoon369 Jun 2016 #122