Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-18-2018, 02:58 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(02-18-2018, 04:14 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: But who is responsible for stripping constitutional rights?  To some extent we are talking nanny state.  A psychiatrist has to face a judge.  Some subset of the staff with contact with the students has to have enough training to call in the psychiatrist.  What signs of trouble will put things in motion?  Are there due process rights, like the right to face an accuser, to have representation, to prove beyond reasonable doubt, etc...

It is easier to impose the loss of a professional license or a driver's license with cause, or to impose  a new or raised tax, than to send someone to prison. The assumption about a driver's license is that driving is a privilege and not a right. So drive as if drunk (a diabetic coma will do that), get stopped by the cops, and fail the field sobriety tests -- you will be busted, you will be booked, and you will be separated from your car which will be towed away.

Gun  'rights' should be seen as privileges, and those who conduct themselves in a way that suggest that they will commit a crime with a gun should be separated from their guns. Nikolas Cruz made terrorist threats, and he could have been stopped from owning or buying guns. 

Quote:A right of the people is supposed to prevent the state from regulation.  Some blue folk want to end that.  Some red folk are stubborn on the subject of human rights.  What exactly are you looking for?  Be specific.

You do not have a right

to keep stolen property
to own products of endangered species unless those are ;old' enough to cause no troubles (thus practically  no elephant ivory or tiger-skin rugs)
to possess devices intended to facilitate fraud
to protect property from foreclosure except by paying the mortgage
to not pay property taxes
to possess illicit drugs
to possess certain weapons

Yes. None of the above rights, including driving, are mentioned in the Bill of Rights. You are comparing what many consider applies and oranges. Many blues advocate abandoning rule of law and the Constitution, as you would have many reds disregard traditional and deeply cherished beliefs. If you do these things, you should not be surprised if others think you wrong. Your opinions should not override what they consider holy writ.

The point is that values are sacrosanct. You could be deep set global warming - evolution - prejudiced and be wrong. That is the apparent human condition.