Texas US Senator John Cornyn supports gun control!

[tvc184]

You are obviously grasping so I will only say that I cannot believe you actually believe that dribble. If you cannot understand how putting someone on a list for any reason without due process is unconstitutional, then I'm afraid I can't explain it. Furthermore, if you are willing to give up freedoms for the promise of safety....keep drinking the koolaid.

I am grasping?

Please point out the section of the Constitution that tells me that I have to sell you a product. I understand once you own it but tell me where sales cannot be regulated. Oh, I know, we have been misreading the Second Amendment. It is the right to keep and buy arms.

And what kind of due process do I need to put someone on a list? Let's say the local police are looking for a suspect after a rash of armed robberies and the officers compile a list of people to look out for. They give out this list to the officers out on patrol and the detectives handling cases. What constitutional right have I violated with this list? I am assuming that the police have some kind of obligation to tell someone that they are being watched.

[Artos]

That's profiling...you have to check everyone that blinks or my rights have been violated. Just because a white bald guy in his 20's was seen doing the armed robberies, you must check all the black females or I'll get my lawyer!!

Geesh...where has all the common sense gone. I hate you and wish to report you as a terrorist!!

[hot_rod_eddie]

Of course the Constitution doesn't say YOU have to sell ME anything. Again, you are grasping. The original premise is that you cannot stop a citizen from legally pursuing life or liberty without following the law. This is called due process. It is in the Constitution twice. (5&14)
Therefore, you can put a citizen on any list you want, but that cannot interfere with his liberty until you follow the law. I know I can't win a disagreement with someone on the internet. Therefore I will just say that I disagree that a citizen on the no fly list, or terrorist watch list should be denied the same privileges as any other citizen without them being guilty of a crime.

[Ham Slammer]

I am grasping?

Please point out the section of the Constitution that tells me that I have to sell you a product. I understand once you own it but tell me where sales cannot be regulated. Oh, I know, we have been misreading the Second Amendment. It is the right to keep and buy arms.

And what kind of due process do I need to put someone on a list? Let's say the local police are looking for a suspect after a rash of armed robberies and the officers compile a list of people to look out for. They give out this list to the officers out on patrol and the detectives handling cases. What constitutional right have I violated with this list? I am assuming that the police have some kind of obligation to tell someone that they are being watched.

The way you are wording this makes it sound like the seller is refusing/delaying the sale, which is not the case in this scenario.

[txfireguy2003]

TVC, I see where you are going and agree, we can put anybody on any list we want, follow them around, watch their every move, pull phone records etc etc etc. But we can't derive that person of his right to free speech or religion, can't search him without probable cause (with limited exceptions) can't seize his property or lock him up without following the due process of law. I say, maybe we need a tiered list: tier 1 is the large list of people we are watching and investigating, anyone can easily be dropped on here. The Fed will them, interview then etc, but no essential liberties will be denied or delayed based solely upon being on said list. Tier 2 would have the very small number of folks in which the investigation agency had discovered enough evidence for PROBABLE CAUSE. They then use that PROBABLE CAUSE TO BUMP YOU UP TO TIER 2, AND TIER 2 TERRORIST DON'T GET TO BUY GUNS WHILE THEY REMAIN ON THE LIST.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

[treestand]

You've got to understand how politics are played to understand this. Cornyn' s amendment was designed to fail but give cover to the handful of republicans running for reelection in blue and purple states. Those at risk Senators can now tell their constituents that they voted for gun control and the evil democrats voted it down. Cornyn is not for gun control anymore than the NRA but both are for the Senate remaining in Republican control.