Sign in to follow this  
Uncooperative Tom

Preventing Terrorists

Recommended Posts

So we have a super-secret list of terrorists, about 3/5 of whom are actually connected to, you know, terrorism.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) estimates that the FBI's so-called Terrorist Watchlist includes more than 1 million names. The ACLU describes the list as a "virtually standardless" dragnet that "ensnares innocent people and encourages racial and religious profiling." Although the list is supposedly limited to people "reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity," something like two-fifths have "no recognized terrorist group affiliation."

 

 

This is terrible. These people are HERE! Among us! Exercising OUR protected rights despite the government having a reasonable suspicion that they might be bad.

 

They must be stopped.

 

Stopped from picking our leaders. No more voter registration for anyone secretly placed on the secret list for secret reasons!

 

Stopped from looting our Treasury. No more government benefits of any kind for anyone secretly placed on the secret list for secret reasons!

 

Stopped from hiding behind rights that were never meant for them. No more fourth amendment rights for anyone secretly placed on the secret list for secret reasons!

 

Stopped from gathering together and from spreading their hateful messages. No more first amendment rights for anyone secretly placed on the secret list for secret reasons!

 

You Dems think real hard about how Republicans might use all of those powers before I get to the one you'll like...

 

Stopped from arming themselves, because gun control is so darn effective at preventing violent people from accessing tools. No more second amendment rights for anyone secretly placed on the secret list for secret reasons!

 

 

Any post that I see about the scary Terror Gap will be transplanted to this thread. Get used to seeing it. Or stop advocating this kind of nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the NRA want to keep selling assault rifles to known terrorists?

 

 

 

You folk are terrorist enablers. I just don't know how you condone such actions.

 

 

Keep it up, Ed. I doubt I'll get tired of this form of amusement very soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That raises an interesting question.

 

Should people on a watch list (for terror or some other kind of danger) be allowed to purchase firearms?

 

 

So interesting that I thought it deserves its own thread. But I don't know why we should limit it to stripping away only rights that the Democrats don't like. There are Republicans to consider too, and they have their own set of rights they don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Dabs - I know Republicans are always right - I guess you support this?

 

At about the time Wednesday that two shooters under investigation for potentially having terrorist ties were gunning down people at a community center in San Bernardino, House Republicans blocked legislation that would help prevent people on U.S. terrorist watch lists from buying firearms legally.

Republicans blocked the bill again Thursday, without debate, fending off efforts by Democrats to pass the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015, sponsored by Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who had introduced the bill in February.

 

I don't know about Dabs but I support blocking the legislation but not stopping debate. The debate would have certainly had some juicy sound bites that could be applied to other protected rights.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2011-Vintage Terror Gap advocacy...

 

 

 




Sarah Brady must have tipped him off.

It's a plot, I tell ya.

The Washington Post has invented a whole new anti-gun scare term around this guy:

(cue scary music)

The TERROR Gap!

In addition to further perpetuating the gun show loophole myth and the false notion that there is such a thing as a "private dealer" at a gun show, they took the opportunity in that article to point out that people on the secret "watch list" who cannot fly still have constitutional rights, among them second amendment rights! The horror! The government putting a person on a secret list should easily be reason enough to start violating constitutional rights! We just need a term to scare the people!

The TERROR Gap! PANIC!!!

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these suspected terrorists allowed to have abortions?

 

Of course not. I already covered that. Abortion rights are derived from the fourth.

 

No more fourth amendment rights for anyone secretly placed on the secret list for secret reasons!

 

But since you're here, I forgot to mention that anyone on a secret list for secret reasons should be deported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anyone support weaponizing terrorists? Strange value system you all have.

You are supporting terrorism by deflecting blame from the scumbag muslims and the disgusting religion of islam.

Go back out in the street to do your "I hate America" dance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should strongly consider summarily executing people who have been placed on secret lists for secret reasons, or at least give them a secret trial then arrest them with secret police and send them to a secret prison.

 

Let's call that one the "Rockdog Law", but you know, just secretly.

 

Why are we protecting these people? Obviously someone somewhere secretly decided that they're secretly terrorists, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want terrorists to be able to walk into Walmart and buy an AR15. You do. Who walks with the terrorists?

Any terrorist who paid attention in basic training knows how to stay off the secret lists. There is nothing we can do to stop those ones other than be a light of democracy.

 

But those people on the secret lists for secret reasons, I knew one of those guys, he was a bang-up physicist, devoted his whole life to it before he moved to the USA from Saudi Arabia, then came here and did better quantum field dynamics than even the professors. Because of the secret list he was never able to finish his Ph.D. at my school, had to go back to Saudi Arabia.

 

Obviously he was a danger, or at least a secret danger. I loved him like a brother, but sometimes we have to secretly imprison our brothers, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't want terrorists to be able to walk into Walmart and buy an AR15. You do. Who walks with the terrorists?

Walmart doesn't sell ARshttp://offgridsurvival.com/walmart-to-stop-selling-ar-15s-semi-auto-riflesshotguns/

Try doing some basic research

You are a terrorist sympathizer. And enabler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't want terrorists to be able to walk into Walmart and buy an AR15. You do. Who walks with the terrorists?

Walmart doesn't sell ARshttp://offgridsurvival.com/walmart-to-stop-selling-ar-15s-semi-auto-riflesshotguns/

Try doing some basic research

You are a terrorist sympathizer. And enabler.

And you,sir, are a liberal tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anyone support weaponizing terrorists? Strange value system you all have.

Why would anyone support terrorist attacks on Infrastructure ?

 

Single Engine Terror in KY

 

,,, As a result, it made a crash landing, striking some power lines, flying across a creek and coming to rest near Valley View Drive and Highland Avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't want terrorists to be able to walk into Walmart and buy an AR15. You do. Who walks with the terrorists?

Any terrorist who paid attention in basic training knows how to stay off the secret lists. There is nothing we can do to stop those ones other than be a light of democracy.

But those people on the secret lists for secret reasons, I knew one of those guys, he was a bang-up physicist, devoted his whole life to it before he moved to the USA from Saudi Arabia, then came here and did better quantum field dynamics than even the professors. Because of the secret list he was never able to finish his Ph.D. at my school, had to go back to Saudi Arabia.

Obviously he was a danger, or at least a secret danger. I loved him like a brother, but sometimes we have to secretly imprison our brothers, right?

This guy you know wasn't imprisoned. He was sent home, there is no right to a visa. We should yank the visas and greencards of everyone who hails from a muslim country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't want terrorists to be able to walk into Walmart and buy an AR15. You do. Who walks with the terrorists?

Any terrorist who paid attention in basic training knows how to stay off the secret lists. There is nothing we can do to stop those ones other than be a light of democracy.

But those people on the secret lists for secret reasons, I knew one of those guys, he was a bang-up physicist, devoted his whole life to it before he moved to the USA from Saudi Arabia, then came here and did better quantum field dynamics than even the professors. Because of the secret list he was never able to finish his Ph.D. at my school, had to go back to Saudi Arabia.

Obviously he was a danger, or at least a secret danger. I loved him like a brother, but sometimes we have to secretly imprison our brothers, right?

This guy you know wasn't imprisoned. He was sent home, there is no right to a visa. We should yank the visas and greencards of everyone who hails from a muslim country

 

What would you do with Muslims born in the USA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I don't want terrorists to be able to walk into Walmart and buy an AR15. You do. Who walks with the terrorists?

 

Any terrorist who paid attention in basic training knows how to stay off the secret lists. There is nothing we can do to stop those ones other than be a light of democracy.

But those people on the secret lists for secret reasons, I knew one of those guys, he was a bang-up physicist, devoted his whole life to it before he moved to the USA from Saudi Arabia, then came here and did better quantum field dynamics than even the professors. Because of the secret list he was never able to finish his Ph.D. at my school, had to go back to Saudi Arabia.

Obviously he was a danger, or at least a secret danger. I loved him like a brother, but sometimes we have to secretly imprison our brothers, right?

This guy you know wasn't imprisoned. He was sent home, there is no right to a visa. We should yank the visas and greencards of everyone who hails from a muslim country

What would you do with Muslims born in the USA?

After disposing of the foreign element, we can focus our resources on the remaining people who rate suspicion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What would you do with Muslims born in the USA?

After disposing of the foreign element, we can focus our resources on the remaining people who rate suspicion.

 

Like putting them on some list that limits their ability to buy assault rifles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That would be unconstitutional ed

Why do you want to weaponize those who might hurt us?

 

 

No one does. Why do you wish to disarm Americans and remove their means of self defense? Are you an Islamist sympathizer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That would be unconstitutional ed

 

Why do you want to weaponize those who might hurt us?
Why not take em out back and put a bullet in their heads like your chi-com masters do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should strongly consider summarily executing people who have been placed on secret lists for secret reasons, or at least give them a secret trial then arrest them with secret police and send them to a secret prison.

 

Let's call that one the "Rockdog Law", but you know, just secretly.

 

Why are we protecting these people? Obviously someone somewhere secretly decided that they're secretly terrorists, right?

 

 

It's the perfect approach for Prez Trump.

 

Give Obama powers to summarily remove rights and when the fascist leader is elected (either Trump or Hillary) they will use that power.

 

Now - if someone had a reasonable approach like a DMV for firearms, I'd listen. I'd also be ok with a terrorist list reviewed by a court, even a secret court, if there is full congressional oversight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That would be unconstitutional ed

Why do you want to weaponize those who might hurt us?

 

 

No one does. Why do you wish to disarm Americans and remove their means of self defense? Are you an Islamist sympathizer?

 

You do. You support allowing unfettered access to assault rifles, even to known terrorists. That makes you a terrorist sympathizer.

Why do you want to weaponize terrorists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anyone support weaponizing terrorists? Strange value system you all have.

 

By "terrorists" do you mean people on a secret list for secret reasons who may (or may not, for all we know) be reasonably suspected of being a terrorist, but 40% of whom have no known connection to any actual terrorists?

 

Why would anyone support weaponizing politicians with that kind of power? And why would anyone be fool enough to think that other rights won't soon be denied to anyone who is inconvenient to those making secret lists for secret reasons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would anyone support weaponizing terrorists? Strange value system you all have.

 

By "terrorists" do you mean people on a secret list for secret reasons who may (or may not, for all we know) be reasonably suspected of being a terrorist, but 40% of whom have no known connection to any actual terrorists?

 

Why would anyone support weaponizing politicians with that kind of power? And why would anyone be fool enough to think that other rights won't soon be denied to anyone who is inconvenient to those making secret lists for secret reasons?

 

So you think its fine that terrorists can just walk into a store and buy an assault rifle. I guess you are with the terrorists on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why would anyone support weaponizing terrorists? Strange value system you all have.

 

By "terrorists" do you mean people on a secret list for secret reasons who may (or may not, for all we know) be reasonably suspected of being a terrorist, but 40% of whom have no known connection to any actual terrorists?

 

Why would anyone support weaponizing politicians with that kind of power? And why would anyone be fool enough to think that other rights won't soon be denied to anyone who is inconvenient to those making secret lists for secret reasons?

 

So you think its fine that terrorists can just walk into a store and buy an assault rifle. I guess you are with the terrorists on this one.

 

 

I don't know who you are talking about.

 

By "terrorists" do you mean people on a secret list for secret reasons who may (or may not, for all we know) be reasonably suspected of being a terrorist, but 40% of whom have no known connection to any actual terrorists?

 

If those are the people you are talking about, the topic post of this thread has my plan: no voting, no first amendment rights, no fourth amendment rights, no government benefits, no second amendment rights. And, as I added later, mandatory deportation. Let's not screw around here! Are you with me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can get rid of that whole nasty "suspicion" business and get some real authority over these terrorists if we deny them another right. Let's force them to testify against themselves! Are you with me people, or are you with the terrorists as the hide behind our rights?


So immediately, our preznit comes out and targets guns as the primary means of combating these self-radicalized terrorist goatfuckers. And long with him, all the D preznit candidates and other Obama WH officials also jump on the "we need gun control to prevent terrorists from getting weapons" band wagon.

 

But lets take a step back and think about this seriously. How does ISIS recruit? How does ISIS organize cells around the world? How do muslim people in the US become "self-radicalized" and then pick up weapons and make bombs and go kill a bunch of people at a Christmas party?

 

I've said this many times before, but the common thread in all of these steps is social media, the internets, and open communications. Why is free speech and privacy not first and foremost at the top of the list of things to "control"? Why is there no "speech control" or "privacy control"? Without these ideas being freely available and accessible to anyone - these people wouldn't be able to self-radicalize. They wouldn't try to travel to Syria to join the the Cali-fake. A Pakistani cunt as a guest in this country wouldn't have the ability to "pledge her allegiance to ISIS" on facebook right before killing 14 people.

 

WHY ARE WE ALLOWING THIS??? The ability of the NSA to eavesdrop on American's phone and online activity was just recently taken away.

 

Could it be that the principle of rights to free speech and privacy is more important than the few lives we lose as a result of bad people abusing and taking advantage of those freedoms? Think about that for a moment..... and then answer this question: "How many American lives need to be taken from us before we control and severely restrict those freedoms"?

 

If we lost 33,000 Americans every year to terrorism on US soil because of almost unrestricted rights to speech and privacy - would all you guys that want to confiscate guns as a means of preventing deaths be equally enthusiastic about curtailing 1st and 4th Amendment rights? Serious fucking question: How many deaths would it take to get you there? 5000, 10K, 50K, a million+??? Where do you draw the line?

 

You're making the same point as this thread is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Why would anyone support weaponizing terrorists? Strange value system you all have.

 

By "terrorists" do you mean people on a secret list for secret reasons who may (or may not, for all we know) be reasonably suspected of being a terrorist, but 40% of whom have no known connection to any actual terrorists?

 

Why would anyone support weaponizing politicians with that kind of power? And why would anyone be fool enough to think that other rights won't soon be denied to anyone who is inconvenient to those making secret lists for secret reasons?

 

So you think its fine that terrorists can just walk into a store and buy an assault rifle. I guess you are with the terrorists on this one.

 

 

I don't know who you are talking about.

 

By "terrorists" do you mean people on a secret list for secret reasons who may (or may not, for all we know) be reasonably suspected of being a terrorist, but 40% of whom have no known connection to any actual terrorists?

 

If those are the people you are talking about, the topic post of this thread has my plan: no voting, no first amendment rights, no fourth amendment rights, no government benefits, no second amendment rights. And, as I added later, mandatory deportation. Let's not screw around here! Are you with me?

 

Do you support any restrictions on terrorists being able to walk into a store and purchase an assault rifle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't know who you are talking about.

 

By "terrorists" do you mean people on a secret list for secret reasons who may (or may not, for all we know) be reasonably suspected of being a terrorist, but 40% of whom have no known connection to any actual terrorists?

 

If those are the people you are talking about, the topic post of this thread has my plan: no voting, no first amendment rights, no fourth amendment rights, no government benefits, no second amendment rights. And, as I added later, mandatory deportation. Let's not screw around here! Are you with me?

 

Do you support any restrictions on terrorists being able to walk into a store and purchase an assault rifle?

 

I don't know who you are talking about.

 

By "terrorists" do you mean people on a secret list for secret reasons who may (or may not, for all we know) be reasonably suspected of being a terrorist, but 40% of whom have no known connection to any actual terrorists?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. government's no-fly list banning people accused of links to terrorism from commercial flights violates their constitutional rights because it gives them no meaningful way to contest that decision, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/judge-no-fly-list_n_5526587.html

 

I've always thought it was unconstitutional. I think the No Fly List is a good idea but the lack of a way to contest someone's listing is just wrong. I blame this on Congress. They've had more than a decade to fix this.

 

 

Why would anyone care whether it's constitutional? Do you think terrorists should have constitutional rights? Weird value system in play there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I don't know who you are talking about.

 

By "terrorists" do you mean people on a secret list for secret reasons who may (or may not, for all we know) be reasonably suspected of being a terrorist, but 40% of whom have no known connection to any actual terrorists?

 

If those are the people you are talking about, the topic post of this thread has my plan: no voting, no first amendment rights, no fourth amendment rights, no government benefits, no second amendment rights. And, as I added later, mandatory deportation. Let's not screw around here! Are you with me?

 

Do you support any restrictions on terrorists being able to walk into a store and purchase an assault rifle?

 

I don't know who you are talking about.

 

By "terrorists" do you mean people on a secret list for secret reasons who may (or may not, for all we know) be reasonably suspected of being a terrorist, but 40% of whom have no known connection to any actual terrorists?

 

 

Its a simple question, and one you must avoid.

yes or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

We should strongly consider summarily executing people who have been placed on secret lists for secret reasons, or at least give them a secret trial then arrest them with secret police and send them to a secret prison.

 

Let's call that one the "Rockdog Law", but you know, just secretly.

 

Why are we protecting these people? Obviously someone somewhere secretly decided that they're secretly terrorists, right?

 

 

It's the perfect approach for Prez Trump.

 

Give Obama powers to summarily remove rights and when the fascist leader is elected (either Trump or Hillary) they will use that power.

 

Now - if someone had a reasonable approach like a DMV for firearms, I'd listen. I'd also be ok with a terrorist list reviewed by a court, even a secret court, if there is full congressional oversight.

 

 

I think many criminals drive stolen cars & do not have a drivers license, in their real name, or have liability insurance.

 

I think many/most criminals will not submit to a background check, or register their guns.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

So, who is a "Terrorist"? To the best of my knowledge, in every day life, they don't wear uniforms, or open carry bombs. They look

just about like other Mid East people, rather dark, needing a shave & a haircut, some may bathe, some not.

 

A "Terrorist" is not likely to advertise his profession during an interview. One way of knowing if a person is a "Terrorist" is after he kills

people, & or blows things up.

 

So, as to not hurt their feelings, guns should not be sold to anyone.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, who is a "Terrorist"? ..

 

It's a secret.

 

I've been thinking about the deportation thing and I'm getting scared. They could come back, or launch attacks from outside.

 

I think once someone is suspected of being a terrorist and placed on a secret list for secret reasons, we're probably safest to just execute them immediately. I normally oppose the death penalty because you don't kill unless it's necessary, but I think inclusion on a secret list for secret reasons makes it necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Dabs, this is a terrorist. Should he have been able to buy a gun?

151127-robert-dear-colorado-shooting-sus

 

Perhaps if I was the gun shop owner, I might have asked a few extra questions? Of course Mr. Dear could have lied about anything.

 

It appears many gun killings are committed by black people. Following your concept, should all black people be denied the ability

to buy a gun?

 

Those people that may be denied the purchase of a gun because of a criminal record, mental instability, or other reasons may likely

obtain one illegaly.

 

Of course I don't want to have terrorists to be able to buy a gun, or ingredients to make bombs. However, they all look alike, & don't normally

wear identifying uniforms when off duty.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

 

It appears many gun killings are committed by black people. Following your concept, should all black people be denied the ability

to buy a gun?

...

 

Of course not, nor should they be denied voting, govt benefits, fourth amendment rights, and so on.

 

Unless, of course, they're on a secret list for secret reasons. Then we should just kill them to be safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't want terrorists to be able to walk into Walmart and buy an AR15. You do. Who walks with the terrorists?

Any terrorist who paid attention in basic training knows how to stay off the secret lists. There is nothing we can do to stop those ones other than be a light of democracy.

But those people on the secret lists for secret reasons, I knew one of those guys, he was a bang-up physicist, devoted his whole life to it before he moved to the USA from Saudi Arabia, then came here and did better quantum field dynamics than even the professors. Because of the secret list he was never able to finish his Ph.D. at my school, had to go back to Saudi Arabia.

Obviously he was a danger, or at least a secret danger. I loved him like a brother, but sometimes we have to secretly imprison our brothers, right?

What a great surprise, another friend of Mikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Why would anyone support weaponizing terrorists? Strange value system you all have.

By "terrorists" do you mean people on a secret list for secret reasons who may (or may not, for all we know) be reasonably suspected of being a terrorist, but 40% of whom have no known connection to any actual terrorists?

 

Why would anyone support weaponizing politicians with that kind of power? And why would anyone be fool enough to think that other rights won't soon be denied to anyone who is inconvenient to those making secret lists for secret reasons?

So you think its fine that terrorists can just walk into a store and buy an assault rifle. I guess you are with the terrorists on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would depend on the individual state's laws. Here in West Virginia only a state resident with proper ID can walk out with a gun. All others are free to purchase but the gun must be shipped to their state for proper tranfer IAW that state's laws.

That would depend on the individual state's laws. Here in West Virginia only a state resident with proper ID can walk out with a gun. All others are free to purchase but the gun must be shipped to their state for proper tranfer IAW that state's laws.

 

 

 

 

Why would anyone support weaponizing terrorists? Strange value system you all have.

By "terrorists" do you mean people on a secret list for secret reasons who may (or may not, for all we know) be reasonably suspected of being a terrorist, but 40% of whom have no known connection to any actual terrorists?

 

Why would anyone support weaponizing politicians with that kind of power? And why would anyone be fool enough to think that other rights won't soon be denied to anyone who is inconvenient to those making secret lists for secret reasons?

So you think its fine that terrorists can just walk into a store and buy an assault rifle. I guess you are with the terrorists on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument strikes me as contrived and disingenuous. To think that gun-toting Americans are arguing that folks who have triggered security concerns should have no extra hurdles to climb before being sold weapons appears to be a party line, the sort of "marching orders" which politicians hear from their well-funded lobbyists, and then proclaim as the truth.

 

I'd much more likely expect to find these folks decrying Obummer's idiocy in "arming the very people thought likely to bring down planes. Thats why they are on the no-fly list in the first place."

 

I suspect there are folks receiving monetary support for monitoring and steering conversation on politically oriented social media sites. It would be rational and cost effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument strikes me as contrived and disingenuous. To think that gun-toting Americans are arguing that folks who have triggered security concerns should have no extra hurdles to climb before being sold weapons appears to be a party line, the sort of "marching orders" which politicians hear from their well-funded lobbyists, and then proclaim as the truth.

 

I'd much more likely expect to find these folks decrying Obummer's idiocy in "arming the very people thought likely to bring down planes. Thats why they are on the no-fly list in the first place."

 

I suspect there are folks receiving monetary support for monitoring and steering conversation on politically oriented social media sites. It would be rational and cost effective.

 

Do you think people who are allegedly "thought likely to bring down airplanes" should be picking our leaders or do you agree with me that their voter registrations should be taken away before they are executed?

 

Some years, you could swing Florida's electoral votes just by declaring a few hundred people scary.

 

Since they are allegedly "thought likely to bring down airplanes" do you agree that they should enjoy no fourth amendment protections? Those rights are not for terrorists you know.

 

I actually agree with Olsonist about the no-fly list.

 

 

The U.S. government's no-fly list banning people accused of links to terrorism from commercial flights violates their constitutional rights because it gives them no meaningful way to contest that decision, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/judge-no-fly-list_n_5526587.html

 

I've always thought it was unconstitutional. I think the No Fly List is a good idea but the lack of a way to contest someone's listing is just wrong. I blame this on Congress. They've had more than a decade to fix this.

 

The people in Congress who are trying to make further use of secret lists in depriving people of protected rights are moving in the wrong direction. I blame the one Republican who sided with all of the Democrats in doing so. Democrats are, of course, blameless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't want terrorists to be able to walk into Walmart and buy an AR15. You do. Who walks with the terrorists?

Any terrorist who paid attention in basic training knows how to stay off the secret lists. There is nothing we can do to stop those ones other than be a light of democracy.

But those people on the secret lists for secret reasons, I knew one of those guys, he was a bang-up physicist, devoted his whole life to it before he moved to the USA from Saudi Arabia, then came here and did better quantum field dynamics than even the professors. Because of the secret list he was never able to finish his Ph.D. at my school, had to go back to Saudi Arabia.

Obviously he was a danger, or at least a secret danger. I loved him like a brother, but sometimes we have to secretly imprison our brothers, right?

This guy you know wasn't imprisoned. He was sent home, there is no right to a visa. We should yank the visas and greencards of everyone who hails from a muslim country

What an inspired idea, Trump has the same idea.

 

So lessee how this works ... we deport about 100,000 doctors, engineers, and scientists from the USA who come from Muslim countries, plus another 300,000 less-skilled workers, and another 200,00 or so children and old people.

 

So our economy takes a violent hit from that, and even though that is exactly what the terrorists want, we do it anyway, right? Because obviously, our safety is more important than those things.

 

But this most recent terrorism was committed by an American, as have been most of our mass shootings. Deporting immigrants obviously can't help with that. What about reopening the Japanese Internment camps, and just herd any Muslim American? Would that help? Would the Christian terrorists calm down if we put the abortion doctors in there too?

 

But what about all those Christians who get abortions? Can we maybe train the imprisoned children of the deported Muslims to do abortions for all those Christian gals?

 

I'm sure that you and The Donald are onto something here, but we need to work out the details. We definitely need to work Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals into this plan somehow, once you start rounding those guys up, things really pick up a lot of steam, historically speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kasich Oddly Incoherent

 

“Well, on the no-fly list, we probably could keep them from getting guns and ought to ban them,” Kasich said

 

...

 

"Of course it makes common sense to say that if you’re on a terror watchlist that you shouldn’t be able to go out and get a gun, although you will be able to get it illegally, but what we have to deal with is the fact that we don’t want to tip somebody off that they’re under review and that we could be gathering critical information to disrupt the plot,” he added....

 

 

So he understands that people can illegally obtain guns and that denying legal sales could tip off suspects, doing more harm than good, yet he seems to want to do it anyway. Just carefully.

 

I don't see how you can be careful. You either deny sales or you don't. If you do, people might start to wonder why they were denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue with the no-fly list and the secrecy thing is that if you're worried about tipping them off so you can continue to investigate them..... what happens when one of them wants to fly somewhere? Aren't they going to be suspicious if they are denied boarding the plane? Maybe once they are tipped off, we just take them in a room in the back of the security area and put a suppressed bullet in their head. Problem SOLved. Come to think of it..... I haven't heard from my friend Tamir for a while......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too dangerous to be allowed on a plane even after frisking but OK to pack as much heat as the like on the street? Doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. The no-fly list isn't kosher but then again neither is Gitmo.

 

War is hell...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too dangerous to be allowed on a plane even after frisking but OK to pack as much heat as the like on the street? Doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. The no-fly list isn't kosher but then again neither is Gitmo.

 

War is hell...

 

I'm not terribly bothered by the No fly list / no gun list. But as Tom correctly points out, shouldn't they also be on a No vote list and No warrant required to search list?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Too dangerous to be allowed on a plane even after frisking but OK to pack as much heat as the like on the street? Doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. The no-fly list isn't kosher but then again neither is Gitmo.

 

War is hell...

 

I'm not terribly bothered by the No fly list / no gun list. But as Tom correctly points out, shouldn't they also be on a No vote list and No warrant required to search list?

 

 

I'm not sure why so many people seem to want terrorists picking our leaders.

 

That should be the first thing we take away from anyone who is put on a secret list for secret reasons. The pen is mightier than the sword and the pen that touches a ballot is strongest of all. Why do people want terrorists to have our best weapon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nothing new really, but I agree. Pretty much on target.

 

Let me see if I have this right .... If you are on a terror watch list or no-fly list then no guns. Problem solved. No more terror.

 

As a consolation prize, they have a job waiting at DHS. I'm so glad Obama is in charge I feel all cozy and safe.

 

Capture.jpg

 

 

 

If 72 terrorists are actually responsible for protecting us from terrorists, I wonder how many are in other government jobs? And how many are receiving government benefits of some kind?

 

No more government jobs or taxpayer money for terrorists!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too dangerous to be allowed on a plane even after frisking but OK to pack as much heat as the like on the street? Doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. The no-fly list isn't kosher but then again neither is Gitmo.

 

War is hell the health of the state...

 

We're not really at war with 72 DHS employees are we?

 

As usual, whether it's the war on terror, the war on guns, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, or any other non-war type of war, it's just an excuse to grab extra power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama:

 

Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

 

Volokh:

 

What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to preach? To have meetings at his house?

 

 

Me:

 

What could possibly be the argument for believing that placement on a secret list for secret reasons actually means a person is a terrorist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Too dangerous to be allowed on a plane even after frisking but OK to pack as much heat as the like on the street? Doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. The no-fly list isn't kosher but then again neither is Gitmo.

 

War is hell...

 

I'm not terribly bothered by the No fly list / no gun list. But as Tom correctly points out, shouldn't they also be on a No vote list and No warrant required to search list?

 

 

I've been unfortunately cursed with the ability to see a difference between physical violence and other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

Too dangerous to be allowed on a plane even after frisking but OK to pack as much heat as the like on the street? Doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. The no-fly list isn't kosher but then again neither is Gitmo.

 

War is hell...

 

I'm not terribly bothered by the No fly list / no gun list. But as Tom correctly points out, shouldn't they also be on a No vote list and No warrant required to search list?

 

 

I'm not sure why so many people seem to want terrorists picking our leaders.

 

That should be the first thing we take away from anyone who is put on a secret list for secret reasons. The pen is mightier than the sword and the pen that touches a ballot is strongest of all. Why do people want terrorists to have our best weapon?

 

 

Perhaps because the terrorists will vote Democrat? The Democrats give away lots of good stuff, for free, to the receiver, that is.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Too dangerous to be allowed on a plane even after frisking but OK to pack as much heat as the like on the street? Doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. The no-fly list isn't kosher but then again neither is Gitmo.

 

War is hell...

 

I'm not terribly bothered by the No fly list / no gun list. But as Tom correctly points out, shouldn't they also be on a No vote list and No warrant required to search list?

 

 

I've been unfortunately cursed with the ability to see a difference between physical violence and other things.

 

 

So is preventing physical violence by terrorists a good enough reason to strip them of the fourth amendment rights they are hiding behind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normy, better just get used to a new age. Folks no longer need to find a reason to listen to the quiet knock of The Constitution, but rather they expect The Constitution to bang down their door to show why they shouldn't violate it.

 

Unless it's guns, that Amendment is still treated classically by the masses.

 

Reminds me of a house that has completely fallen to the ground except for the brick fireplace, and the family now without roof or walls, gathered around the fireplace toasting marshmallows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normy, better just get used to a new age. Folks no longer need to find a reason to listen to the quiet knock of The Constitution, but rather they expect The Constitution to bang down their door to show why they shouldn't violate it.

 

Unless it's guns, that Amendment is still treated classically by the masses.

 

Reminds me of a house that has completely fallen to the ground except for the brick fireplace, and the family now without roof or walls, gathered around the fireplace toasting marshmallows.

 

Which masses are treating guns "classically" in your view? The ones who want to deny our right to purchase them based on secret inclusion on a secret list with no prospect of appeal or the ones who want due process in protecting second amendment rights from Security State secret denials?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Normy, better just get used to a new age. Folks no longer need to find a reason to listen to the quiet knock of The Constitution, but rather they expect The Constitution to bang down their door to show why they shouldn't violate it.

 

Unless it's guns, that Amendment is still treated classically by the masses.

 

Reminds me of a house that has completely fallen to the ground except for the brick fireplace, and the family now without roof or walls, gathered around the fireplace toasting marshmallows.

Which masses are treating guns "classically" in your view? The ones who want to deny our right to purchase them based on secret inclusion on a secret list with no prospect of appeal or the ones who want due process in protecting second amendment rights from Security State secret denials?

More the ones who study and thump the text of the Second like a holy bible. Imagine if even 10% of those folks had that kind of devotion to the 4th, or 5th or 14th or 10th or even the 9th.

 

You get defensive about the 2nd, but all that political back and forth gives it a very high profile. That protects it in a way that the 9th or 5th could only dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Normy, better just get used to a new age. Folks no longer need to find a reason to listen to the quiet knock of The Constitution, but rather they expect The Constitution to bang down their door to show why they shouldn't violate it.

 

Unless it's guns, that Amendment is still treated classically by the masses.

 

Reminds me of a house that has completely fallen to the ground except for the brick fireplace, and the family now without roof or walls, gathered around the fireplace toasting marshmallows.

Which masses are treating guns "classically" in your view? The ones who want to deny our right to purchase them based on secret inclusion on a secret list with no prospect of appeal or the ones who want due process in protecting second amendment rights from Security State secret denials?

More the ones who study and thump the text of the Second like a holy bible. Imagine if even 10% of those folks had that kind of devotion to the 4th, or 5th or 14th or 10th or even the 9th.

 

You get defensive about the 2nd, but all that political back and forth gives it a very high profile. That protects it in a way that the 9th or 5th could only dream.

 

 

44 replies so far in a thread about the 5th. Many of them mine because I get defensive about all of our rights. Imagine if one of them was yours!

 

And yet, my defensiveness hasn't done anything to help give a high profile to fifth amendment rights, has it?

 

The second's high profile seems to me more based on the enthusiasm of its opponents than that of its defenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Too dangerous to be allowed on a plane even after frisking but OK to pack as much heat as the like on the street? Doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. The no-fly list isn't kosher but then again neither is Gitmo.

 

War is hell...

 

I'm not terribly bothered by the No fly list / no gun list. But as Tom correctly points out, shouldn't they also be on a No vote list and No warrant required to search list?

 

 

I've been unfortunately cursed with the ability to see a difference between physical violence and other things.

 

 

So is preventing physical violence by terrorists a good enough reason to strip them of the fourth amendment rights they are hiding behind?

 

 

Your assumptions aren't my opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

44 replies so far in a thread about the 5th. Many of them mine because I get defensive about all of our rights. Imagine if one of them was yours!

 

And yet, my defensiveness hasn't done anything to help give a high profile to fifth amendment rights, has it?

 

The second's high profile seems to me more based on the enthusiasm of its opponents than that of its defenders.

 

Maybe you haven't noticed Normy, but I've been a little busy dealing with the ridiculousness on the other thread, where a whole bunch of red-blooded, through-and-through Americans seem to have not the slightest difficulty with eliminating Due Process and summarily executing U.S. Citizens.

 

I'm sorry that your feelings are hurt that I'm not slinging it out with you, but I only have so much time in a day, perhaps I don't have the schedule of Tom Ray's Country Squire.

 

And also remember, when I was slugging it out mostly alone in suggesting that the Fourth Amendment didn't necessarily need to be shat upon in Watertown after the Marathon bombing. Yeah, I know you have a post somewhere where you agreed with me, well I have posts somewhere where I agree with you too. You're going to have to htfu about fighting these Constitutional fights. They take time, and I don't have an unlimited amount of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

44 replies so far in a thread about the 5th. Many of them mine because I get defensive about all of our rights. Imagine if one of them was yours!

 

And yet, my defensiveness hasn't done anything to help give a high profile to fifth amendment rights, has it?

 

The second's high profile seems to me more based on the enthusiasm of its opponents than that of its defenders.

 

Maybe you haven't noticed Normy, but I've been a little busy dealing with the ridiculousness on the other thread, where a whole bunch of red-blooded, through-and-through Americans seem to have not the slightest difficulty with eliminating Due Process and summarily executing U.S. Citizens.

 

I'm sorry that your feelings are hurt that I'm not slinging it out with you, but I only have so much time in a day, perhaps I don't have the schedule of Tom Ray's Country Squire.

 

And also remember, when I was slugging it out mostly alone in suggesting that the Fourth Amendment didn't necessarily need to be shat upon in Watertown after the Marathon bombing. Yeah, I know you have a post somewhere where you agreed with me, well I have posts somewhere where I agree with you too. You're going to have to htfu about fighting these Constitutional fights. They take time, and I don't have an unlimited amount of that.

 

 

OK, so you couldn't find a spare moment in the five years that thread has been up. I get it. The paucity of your posting volume tells me that you're speaking the truth.

 

Other people are busy too. Maybe that's why they don't fight the fights you want as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Too dangerous to be allowed on a plane even after frisking but OK to pack as much heat as the like on the street? Doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. The no-fly list isn't kosher but then again neither is Gitmo.

 

War is hell...

 

I'm not terribly bothered by the No fly list / no gun list. But as Tom correctly points out, shouldn't they also be on a No vote list and No warrant required to search list?

 

 

I've been unfortunately cursed with the ability to see a difference between physical violence and other things.

 

 

So is preventing physical violence by terrorists a good enough reason to strip them of the fourth amendment rights they are hiding behind?

 

 

Your assumptions aren't my opinions.

 

 

I am not sure which assumptions you are talking about. I asked your opinion of JBSF's idea of a No Warrant Required To Search List.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Gary Johnson's FB:

 

Sound bites can be dangerous. It's just too easy to declare that anyone who is on the federal no-fly list shouldn't be allowed to purchase a firearm. What that really means is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to you if the government puts you on a list...but won't tell you if you are on the list, or why, or how to be removed from that list.

 

 

Yep, I'd vote for that terrorist enabler again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument strikes me as contrived and disingenuous. To think that gun-toting Americans are arguing that folks who have triggered security concerns should have no extra hurdles to climb before being sold weapons appears to be a party line, the sort of "marching orders" which politicians hear from their well-funded lobbyists, and then proclaim as the truth.

 

I'd much more likely expect to find these folks decrying Obummer's idiocy in "arming the very people thought likely to bring down planes. Thats why they are on the no-fly list in the first place."

 

I suspect there are folks receiving monetary support for monitoring and steering conversation on politically oriented social media sites. It would be rational and cost effective.

 

Lots of ways to "trigger security concerns". Until the process by which the list is populated is regulated, with oversight, then the list isn't good enough to constrain a citizen's rights. it's got nothing to do with wanting to arm potential terrorists, but, I suspect you knew that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

44 replies so far in a thread about the 5th. Many of them mine because I get defensive about all of our rights. Imagine if one of them was yours!

 

And yet, my defensiveness hasn't done anything to help give a high profile to fifth amendment rights, has it?

 

The second's high profile seems to me more based on the enthusiasm of its opponents than that of its defenders.

Maybe you haven't noticed Normy, but I've been a little busy dealing with the ridiculousness on the other thread, where a whole bunch of red-blooded, through-and-through Americans seem to have not the slightest difficulty with eliminating Due Process and summarily executing U.S. Citizens.

 

I'm sorry that your feelings are hurt that I'm not slinging it out with you, but I only have so much time in a day, perhaps I don't have the schedule of Tom Ray's Country Squire.

 

And also remember, when I was slugging it out mostly alone in suggesting that the Fourth Amendment didn't necessarily need to be shat upon in Watertown after the Marathon bombing. Yeah, I know you have a post somewhere where you agreed with me, well I have posts somewhere where I agree with you too. You're going to have to htfu about fighting these Constitutional fights. They take time, and I don't have an unlimited amount of that.

OK, so you couldn't find a spare moment in the five years that thread has been up. I get it. The paucity of your posting volume tells me that you're speaking the truth.

 

Other people are busy too. Maybe that's why they don't fight the fights you want as well.

Why do I suddenly have guilty I that I don't call you enough or visit on Easter Sunday anymore?

 

Normy, I hereby promise to bring a plate of deviled eggs to all of your backyard barbeques from now on, and I won't get drunk anymore and pass out on your waterbed, and I promise to stop using your piece of test weathered plywood as a naughty paddle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff, when you get a moment, do as you say those naughty second amendment advocates should do and try to find time in the next few years to post your opinion in the Kelo vs New London thread. I'll try to take you seriously as a fifth amendment supporter the moment after I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should folks on the No Fly List be able to write, since the power of the pen is mightier than the sword? And should they be able to pick our next president?

 

Yes, and yes.

 

That's free speech and democracy. There are plenty of laws on the books regarding guns which have been deemed constitutional; just yesterday a restriction of "assault-type" weapons ban passed a Supreme Court test.

 

But opinions and votes are how we are supposed to change our country. Those deemed ineligible to responsibly bear arms, whether due to security, psychiatric or criminal concerns, can justifiably be prevented from legally purchasing guns.

 

Again, I've got to wonder about folks who rail every day about how we have to protect our nation lose sight of rational responses when it involves the right of gun manufacturers to make as much profit as possible.

 

UnPatriotic, foolish, disappointing... Lots of words come to mind, but it might simply be they are paid to fervently espouse talking points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should folks on the No Fly List be able to write, since the power of the pen is mightier than the sword? And should they be able to pick our next president?

 

Yes, and yes.

 

That's free speech and democracy. There are plenty of laws on the books regarding guns which have been deemed constitutional; just yesterday a restriction of "assault-type" weapons ban passed a Supreme Court test.

 

But opinions and votes are how we are supposed to change our country. Those deemed ineligible to responsibly bear arms, whether due to security, psychiatric or criminal concerns, can justifiably be prevented from legally purchasing guns. voting, driving, having custody of children, etc.

 

Again, I've got to wonder about folks who rail every day about how we have to protect our nation lose sight of rational responses when it involves the right of gun manufacturers to make as much profit as possible.

 

UnPatriotic, foolish, disappointing... Lots of words come to mind, but it might simply be they are paid to fervently espouse talking points.

 

The big delta that you seem to be ignoring is that WE AGREE! Anyone properly deemed ineligible ought NOT to be permitted to buy firearms, or vote, or have custody of kids, drive, pilot an aircraft, etc.

 

Being placed on the no-fly list isn't sufficient in and of itself to satisfy the criterion for making that determination. The behaviors that prompted inclusion in the no-fly list? Those very well might warrant denial of rights, after the process for making that determination has been conducted.

 

Right now? I don't know how/why you can be placed on the No-Fly list. Do you? Would you be willing to risk curtailment of any of your rights and freedoms because someone else made an arbitrary decision about you?

 

I know it's inconvenient for you to consider that people who are saying things that make you cringe just might have a point, but, nobody's talking about letting terrorists be armed, we are talking about properly defending and preserving all rights for all citizens, and not sitting quietly by while those are casually diminished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should folks on the No Fly List be able to write, since the power of the pen is mightier than the sword? And should they be able to pick our next president?

 

Yes, and yes.

 

That's free speech and democracy. There are plenty of laws on the books regarding guns which have been deemed constitutional; just yesterday a restriction of "assault-type" weapons ban passed a Supreme Court test.

 

But opinions and votes are how we are supposed to change our country. Those deemed ineligible to responsibly bear arms, whether due to security, psychiatric or criminal concerns, can justifiably be prevented from legally purchasing guns.

...

 

Why should terrorists be allowed to pick our leaders?

 

"That's democracy" doesn't seem like a good answer to me. I don't want terrorists to change things in this country. Why should we want that? I think terrorists can justifiably be prevented from picking our leaders and determining the course of our nation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites