Second Amendment Hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein Pack Heat

I thought the second amendment was the right to bare arms. You know, wear tank tops and stuff.

 

lol, good change of tone there.

 

Good, but how are you going to know that government is not respecting their right according the 2nd amendment if you permit the government not to respect their 4th, 5th and 6th amendment?

As far as we know, they can be sitting in a prison for rest of their life without any court or conviction, simply because they decided to exercise their 2nd amendment right.

 

I feel every US citizen should have full protections under all the provisions of the constitution. This is the main reason I am against the Patriot act, for non US citizens I have no problem with but for US citizens I do have problems with the provisions laid out

 

Thank god it's censored )

 

Might have sprung a woodie from those metallic boobs

 

I'm not even going to touch that

 

At least we agree that Americans should be protected by U.S. Constitution.

I have got red rep before for quoting the U.S. constitution, it seems some people here think that quoting constitution is defending the terrorists.

 

You will never get that from me, what's the point of living in safety or perceived safety if what our country was founded on is systematically stripped away from us.

I would rather live with a little more threat to protect the constitution than to take rights away, afterall wasn't it GWB who stated the terrorists hate us for our freedom, then why with the patriot act did he just give them a present?

I'm 100% for rights under the original intent of the constitution, not how it appears to have been watered down and it's meaning twisted from both sides of the aisle left and right

 

Since we both agree that Constitution is a good thing and all Americans should enjoy the rights granted to them by constitution, lets look at the other situation and discuss why the rule of law should always apply in any civilized country.

Suppose that there is a group of American businessman (for example 20) in Iraq, they go for a bus ride and their bus by mistake enters Iran territory.
Iranian Army arrests them and Iran announces that these Americans are enemy combatant that have entered Iran illegally to collect information.
Therefore, Iran has the right to imprison these Americans without any trial or conviction for indefinite time and to justify their actions Iranians will quote U.S handling of enemy combatants by present government.

Do you think Iran or any other country should have the justification to imprison Americans without trial or conviction for indefinite time?

 

I may not agree on what another countries laws are, however that does not stop the country having laws that completely go against my beliefs or our constitution. That being said, the businessman must have known the risk before travelling near Iran. Iran being a sovern nation has the right to implement and enforce laws against our own citizens who enter their country as they see fit. I however would hope in such a case that the US government would do everything in their power short of war to get the businessman released, especially if it was easily proven that the businessman didn't break any serious law and it was a mistake.

Iran would still be in their right in my opinion, however that's one perk to being a US citizen as the US can force other countries to comply, when on the other hand an Iranian entering the US by mistake from Canada being arrested there isn't much Iran can realy do other than beg plead and steal short of getting other countries on their side to try and force us to comply.

 

If Iran decided to put them on trial and give sentences according to Iranian law then I would agree with you but how about when a country says that there is no law and we just do what ever we like and there will be no court, conviction or defined prison term?

Should we go back to the time in human development that there was no rule of law and king and tyrants could do what ever they like? How about international laws like Geneva convention, should we break those laws also simple because we don't want to have any laws?

If you look at countries during the last century, not even countries like soviet, china will imprison people without at least show trials. Isn't that ridiculous that while USA is protesting against the impartiality of show trials in China, North Korea and other dictatorships, it is denying even the luxury of a show trial to people imprisoned by USA?

 

I would not like it at all, but sorry my opinion be it my opinion is that it is a sovereign state and as such makes it's own rules and laws.

Personally I do not believe in a person who does not have citizenship in a given country given the same rights or even having the rules of law enforced the same way 'at least automatically assumed'. If a country wishes to do so this is their right, but if the country does not wish to do so I also feel this is their right. When it comes to people from outside of a country it would be very easy to name them enermy combatants, even within the United States without the protection of the constitution, however limited it gets it still protects it's citizens.

Of course not, any laws, treaties or conventions we have signed we should obide by as long as they do not bump heads with our constitution. If we do not how can we expect others to? This would be the only guaranteed right in my opinion that a foreigner should expect in any country they are visiting.

Yes I agree, even if people don't like to admit it we do break international laws, treaties, etc in the name of Freedom or whatever else the fad of the time is. This may not be a problem on the outer surface to most, however it makes it that much harder to take the moral ground and keep credibility around the world.

Might I add these korbels are tasting mighty fine