Limiting terrorists access to assault rifles wont work... but...

christiefan915 said:
Should we let these two in, arm them and give them the vote?

Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi may be the face of ISIS, but Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the terror group's director of external operations, is the man most likely to cause harm in the West. The U.S. wants al-Adnani dead because he's considered the author of the strategy of wanton murder that has left more than 500 dead in attacks around the world since October 10 — and apparently helped inspire last week's massacre in San Bernardino.

"He is at the top of the list," confirmed a senior intelligence official.
Click to expand...

Ironic indeed.....You're the one that wants to let 'em in knowing we can't vet them, knowing that they would vote Democrat by the tune of 70 %
You realized the terrorist watch list has nothing to do with the no fly list which has been proven to be ridiculous
on its face by the fact that Sen. Kennedy was stopped and questioned
more than once.....

Thousands already on the no fly list, many for bogus reasons with no due process.....

Don't you trust Obama's FBI and HLS to do a good job ?...keeping in mind they already admitted they can't do the job.
Obama already let one killer into the country with a wink and a nod that killed 14 in CA.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
Should we let these two in, arm them and give them the vote?

Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi may be the face of ISIS, but Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the terror group's director of external operations, is the man most likely to cause harm in the West. The U.S. wants al-Adnani dead because he's considered the author of the strategy of wanton murder that has left more than 500 dead in attacks around the world since October 10 — and apparently helped inspire last week's massacre in San Bernardino.

"He is at the top of the list," confirmed a senior intelligence official.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm off here but I thought the whole issue/debate over guns and the terrorist no fly list were people already in the country?
 
evince said:
so now you want political tests for people before they are allowed to vote?


you can not stop an American from voting because you don't like what they believe you fucking traitor
Click to expand...


People already do take a political test before they allowed to vote....its called the citizenship test...to become an American citizen.
 
cawacko said:
Maybe I'm off here but I thought the whole issue/debate over guns and the terrorist no fly list were people already in the country?
Click to expand...


When pinheads can't win a debate they are notorious for changing the goalposts...or even the entire subject of the debate....
 
NOVA said:
Ironic indeed.....You're the one that wants to let 'em in knowing we can't vet them, knowing that they would vote Democrat by the tune of 70 %
You realized the terrorist watch list has nothing to do with the no fly list which has been proven to be ridiculous
on its face by the fact that Sen. Kennedy was stopped and questioned
more than once.....

Thousands already on the no fly list, many for bogus reasons with no due process.....

Don't you trust Obama's FBI and HLS to do a good job ?...keeping in mind they already admitted they can't do the job.
Obama already let one killer into the country with a wink and a nod that killed 14 in CA.
Click to expand...

Pay attention bravs. This is about the terrorist watch list. Go back and read your compadre's comments.

"Question for everyone who supports this wonderful new policy of restricting gun rights to ANYONE on the Terror Watch List."
"You wouldn't want terrorists voting in our elections would you?"
"So we have you on record as wanting to keep people on the Terror Watch List from voting and having guns."
 
Jarod said:
True, but they could easily use the list then give Due Process. If you find you cant get a gun because you are on the list... then demand the government prove the burden in Court, if they cant, you get the Assault Rifle.
Click to expand...

should they do the same with voting? but seriously, how are people of limited means supposed to actually use a rigged court system that will eventually cost tens of thousands to substantiate a fundamental right that was denied unconstitutionally? what penalty should the government pay when it's decided that they did so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top