@dsgrue If you were declared as a terrorist, but you were in fact innocent, how would you maintain your innocence without due process? The issue isn't that it happened, but what it means to give congress and the president such power over citizens with only a manipulation of arbitrary terminology to determine those entitled to due process and those who are not entitled.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine

Until the government abuses the legislation in this manner, I have no issue with it. But I do see your point. 

Given NDAA, warentless wiretapping, and other measures... They're doing a pretty swell job.

I meant in regard to the NDAA, not the Patriot Act or any other legislation. 

Look at how they're using all of the other legislation. Its only a matter of time until they start using what's contained in the bills they pass.

Yeah, I understand. I'm not blind to corruption, but killing innocents isn't exactly on the agenda.

The Awlaki incident is special because of certain situations concerning it.

1) He posed an imminent threat.

2) He was fighting alongside an enemy of the United States - Al Queda

3) In the chaos of Yemen, there was no way to arrest him.

LMFAO, Anwar al-awlaki? He was Al Queda, US citizen or not. That is a known terrorist. Justice was served. If you don't want to be killed, don't be or associate with terrorists. Pretty simple.

He was a "terrorist" who as far as anybody could prove only worked for their PR branch.

In otherwords.  He was killed... without trial.  For using his first ammendment right.

There is a reason the ACLU took up his case.

And failed to prove their case as per my previous post.

Look, again, the NDAA does not allow the President to start murdering civilians without trial. This was a special circumstance wherein trial was not possible. go take some medication, you're all paranoid.

so Bill clinton, and pretty much every democratic politician is nuts too? because suggesting police officers be at schools isnt a new or controversial idea, until now that is. but thats only because the NRA proposed an idea, that pretty much everybody supported in the first place. Bill Clinton suggested this a decade ago.

an even more reasonable and cost effective idea, would be to actually allow teachers not have to shed their rights at the school doors, and allow them to protect themselves, and their students.

remind me again, how having a police officer at a school is nuts?

anyway, how is me having 4 guns any more deadly than me having 1. can i somehow kill 4 timez as manyz people with 4 gunz! as oppossed to 1 gun. What if a guy had 50 gunzz, he could kill like a gazzilion peoplez!!! if i wanted to kill a bunch of people, i wouldnt use a dozens of guns because i cant use them all, I can only use 1 at a time. i would use a max 2 guns, a pistol and a carbine.

and what kind of limit would you put on ammo? because 99% of homocides involving guns, only have one victim, so that means 1 bullet is needed. would you limit it to 10, 100, 1000. how is that going to work. a bad guy only needs 1. but with this, not thought out proposal of yours, you would only harm people like me, who use hundreds of bullets at a time when I go to the range. So unless you want to make my range time suck by limiting me to a bullet or 2, and make purchases an awful and frequent experience, by not allowing me to buy in bulk like i do know, i have like 5000 rounds of ammuntion stored up. im not planning on using that to kill 5000 people.