Sign in to follow this  
Contumacious Tom

Preventing Terrorists

Recommended Posts

 

 

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!

 

 

 

 

Mmmmm 72 DHS employees, 72 virgins.

 

Conspiracy theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Disarming terrorists is a trait of a patriot. You sir are a terrorist enabler.

The best way to disarm the bastards is to shoot them. That means citizens should be armed. When some goat fucker decides to go nuts there will be plenty people to introduce the bastard to alha who will surely introduce him to his 72 virgins. I wonder how that works for women who do the same?

 

One of the dead in the Planned Parenthood terrorist attack was armed. So that didn't work so well.

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.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with that and have been saying so from the beginning of as long as I can remember. The difference is I advocate that those rights can only be taken away through due process of the law. If someone is able to be accused and defend themselves of being a security concern and a court of law upholds that, then fucking take all his/her guns away. But a secret list that no one has any idea if they are on it or how to challenge it is not justification to take their constitutional rights away.

 

And yes, Cliffy - I do see the irony in that.

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.

So ... an American should be able to receive due process to buy a gun or fly, but not receive due process to avoid being incinerated by a friggen missile?

You young kids today and all your sophisticated logic!

We've already covered this Wofsey - and you're being intentionally obtuse, and conflating dissimilar situations.

Wow, that's unusual.

Yes, w covered this, both of you were reasonably clear in your lack of objection about killing American suspects without due process.

 

I felt it necessary to reiterate that, due to the obvious conflict with what Chesapeake wrote above. So we already covered Chesapeake's lack of consistency? Or did he change his mind? I didn't notice either of those.

 

And Pointy, your smugness should at some point include the observation that yes, like the rest of us, you're wildly, insanely, blindingly fortunate to have had the good luck to come out of an American vagina over American soil. Your life is safe and comfortable in large part because you live here, regardless of your political views. If you lived in Syria, Afghanistan or any other country that seems to attract American armaments like a magnet, you would most likely have a very different outlook on life.

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with that and have been saying so from the beginning of as long as I can remember. The difference is I advocate that those rights can only be taken away through due process of the law. If someone is able to be accused and defend themselves of being a security concern and a court of law upholds that, then fucking take all his/her guns away. But a secret list that no one has any idea if they are on it or how to challenge it is not justification to take their constitutional rights away.

 

And yes, Cliffy - I do see the irony in that.

 

By "irony" do you actually mean "lack of interest in forming ideological consistency?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<SNIP>

Yes, w covered this, both of you were reasonably clear in your lack of objection about killing American suspects without due process.

I felt it necessary to reiterate that, due to the obvious conflict with what Chesapeake wrote above. So we already covered Chesapeake's lack of consistency? Or did he change his mind? I didn't notice either of those.

 

And Pointy, your smugness should at some point include the observation that yes, like the rest of us, you're wildly, insanely, blindingly fortunate to have had the good luck to come out of an American vagina over American soil. Your life is safe and comfortable in large part because you live here, regardless of your political views. If you lived in Syria, Afghanistan or any other country that seems to attract American armaments like a magnet, you would most likely have a very different outlook on life.

 

 

You're correct - I didn't change my mind, and you're incorrect in asserting that my position is inconsistent. You are intentionally disregarding the established fact that certain individual behaviors justifiably curtail that individual's access to the protections afforded by "due process".

 

I don't know how you ever figured out sex -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who needs a No Rights List when you have the suspicion of an Attorney General?

I've read through the actual Feinstein amendment (SA 2910), and there's only one reference to terrorist watchlist records at the very end, demanding that the attorney general make sure privacy and civil liberties are protected. But I see nothing in the actual legislation that even requires the attorney general to confine his or her refusal to allow citizens to own a firearm based on inclusion in a watchlist. Here's what it says:


"The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm under section 922(t)(1)( B)(ii) of this title if the Attorney General—

"(1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism; and

"(2) has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.

 

The law further explains that its definition of terrorism applies to both international and domestic situations. The attorney general is further permitted to withhold information from the parties whose gun purchases are denied on the basis of protecting national security. Those who are denied to have the power to challenge the attorney general's decision, but the legal burden of proof required of the government to deny somebody a gun would be "preponderance of the evidence," a looser threshold than required to convict somebody of a crime....

 

 

So "due process" would look like this:

 

AG: "I suspect this person may have done something related to terrorism."

 

Citizen: "Why?"

 

AG: "That's a secret. But I assure you that it's pretty likely he did something related to terrorism."

 

Citizen: "OK, good enough. Let's take away his right to vote."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Disarming terrorists is a trait of a patriot. You sir are a terrorist enabler.

The best way to disarm the bastards is to shoot them. That means citizens should be armed. When some goat fucker decides to go nuts there will be plenty people to introduce the bastard to alha who will surely introduce him to his 72 virgins. I wonder how that works for women who do the same?

One of the dead in the Planned Parenthood terrorist attack was armed. So that didn't work so well.

Worked well in this case.

http://m.wbaltv.com/news/police-robbery-suspect-fatally-shot-in-store/36846222

 

"One of the men pointed his gun at the clerk. That clerk pulled his own gun and shot the man several times. Both suspects then fled the store. The first suspect collapsed outside the store and was declared deceased at the scene. The second suspect fled on foot"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

<SNIP>

Yes, w covered this, both of you were reasonably clear in your lack of objection about killing American suspects without due process.

I felt it necessary to reiterate that, due to the obvious conflict with what Chesapeake wrote above. So we already covered Chesapeake's lack of consistency? Or did he change his mind? I didn't notice either of those.

 

And Pointy, your smugness should at some point include the observation that yes, like the rest of us, you're wildly, insanely, blindingly fortunate to have had the good luck to come out of an American vagina over American soil. Your life is safe and comfortable in large part because you live here, regardless of your political views. If you lived in Syria, Afghanistan or any other country that seems to attract American armaments like a magnet, you would most likely have a very different outlook on life.

 

You're correct - I didn't change my mind, and you're incorrect in asserting that my position is inconsistent. [bYou are intentionally disregarding the established fact that certain individual behaviors justifiably curtail that individual's access to the protections afforded by "due process". [/b]

 

I don't know how you ever figured out sex -

I've not ignored that, I've highlighted your haphazard approach in removing that due process.

 

If The Constitution were your child you would apparently give the little darling a pack of cigarettes and drop the him or her off somewhere well south of Chula Vista, then say "make your way home over the border and be home for dinner by six. Luv ya, later."

 

The Constitution is our treasure, it's our Crown Jewels, we enliven it by applying consistent ideals and logic to it. Even when we disagree with our neighbor about what The Constitution means, we do so with framework and consideration, rather than a blind fear of those who might, possibly, maybe, harm us, perhaps at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who needs a No Rights List when you have the suspicion of an Attorney General?

 

 

I've read through the actual Feinstein amendment (SA 2910), and there's only one reference to terrorist watchlist records at the very end, demanding that the attorney general make sure privacy and civil liberties are protected. But I see nothing in the actual legislation that even requires the attorney general to confine his or her refusal to allow citizens to own a firearm based on inclusion in a watchlist. Here's what it says:

 

 

"The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm under section 922(t)(1)( B)(ii) of this title if the Attorney General

"(1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism; and

"(2) has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.

 

The law further explains that its definition of terrorism applies to both international and domestic situations. The attorney general is further permitted to withhold information from the parties whose gun purchases are denied on the basis of protecting national security. Those who are denied to have the power to challenge the attorney general's decision, but the legal burden of proof required of the government to deny somebody a gun would be "preponderance of the evidence," a looser threshold than required to convict somebody of a crime....

 

So "due process" would look like this:

 

AG: "I suspect this person may have done something related to terrorism."

 

Citizen: "Why?"

 

AG: "That's a secret. But I assure you that it's pretty likely he did something related to terrorism."

 

Citizen: "OK, good enough. Let's take away his right to vote exist with his organs and skin not in flames."

Fixed. No charge Normy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

<SNIP>

Yes, w covered this, both of you were reasonably clear in your lack of objection about killing American suspects without due process.

I felt it necessary to reiterate that, due to the obvious conflict with what Chesapeake wrote above. So we already covered Chesapeake's lack of consistency? Or did he change his mind? I didn't notice either of those.

 

And Pointy, your smugness should at some point include the observation that yes, like the rest of us, you're wildly, insanely, blindingly fortunate to have had the good luck to come out of an American vagina over American soil. Your life is safe and comfortable in large part because you live here, regardless of your political views. If you lived in Syria, Afghanistan or any other country that seems to attract American armaments like a magnet, you would most likely have a very different outlook on life.

 

You're correct - I didn't change my mind, and you're incorrect in asserting that my position is inconsistent. [bYou are intentionally disregarding the established fact that certain individual behaviors justifiably curtail that individual's access to the protections afforded by "due process". [/b]

 

I don't know how you ever figured out sex -

I've not ignored that, I've highlighted your haphazard approach in removing that due process.

 

If The Constitution were your child you would apparently give the little darling a pack of cigarettes and drop the him or her off somewhere well south of Chula Vista, then say "make your way home over the border and be home for dinner by six. Luv ya, later."

 

The Constitution is our treasure, it's our Crown Jewels, we enliven it by applying consistent ideals and logic to it. Even when we disagree with our neighbor about what The Constitution means, we do so with framework and consideration, rather than a blind fear of those who might, possibly, maybe, harm us, perhaps at some point.

 

 

With your ability to make leaps like that, you really should run seniors track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Who needs a No Rights List when you have the suspicion of an Attorney General?

 

 

I've read through the actual Feinstein amendment (SA 2910), and there's only one reference to terrorist watchlist records at the very end, demanding that the attorney general make sure privacy and civil liberties are protected. But I see nothing in the actual legislation that even requires the attorney general to confine his or her refusal to allow citizens to own a firearm based on inclusion in a watchlist. Here's what it says:

 

 

"The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm under section 922(t)(1)( B)(ii) of this title if the Attorney General

"(1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism; and

"(2) has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.

 

The law further explains that its definition of terrorism applies to both international and domestic situations. The attorney general is further permitted to withhold information from the parties whose gun purchases are denied on the basis of protecting national security. Those who are denied to have the power to challenge the attorney general's decision, but the legal burden of proof required of the government to deny somebody a gun would be "preponderance of the evidence," a looser threshold than required to convict somebody of a crime....

 

So "due process" would look like this:

 

AG: "I suspect this person may have done something related to terrorism."

 

Citizen: "Why?"

 

AG: "That's a secret. But I assure you that it's pretty likely he did something related to terrorism."

 

Citizen: "OK, good enough. Let's take away his right to vote exist with his organs and skin not in flames."

Fixed. No charge Normy.

 

 

You're not supposed to scare people by skipping to the end game.

 

But any right could be swapped out for the right to vote there.

 

Only one of them would actually get all the Democrats and one Republican on board, of course: our right to keep and bear arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

 

I think people on the no fly list shouldn't be able to buy guns and any guns they have should be confiscated. Of course your NRA+SAF disagrees. (I also think folks on the no fly list should get appeal rights.) And buy guns they do.

 

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/pro-gun-groups-sue-fed-over-no-fly-list-gun-grab/

 

Because while they may be suspected terrorists they're also Second Amendment Warriors.

 

 

 

Our ACLU also disagrees, as the topic post notes.

 

Do you think people on the No Rights List should be allowed to vote? Should they have fourth amendment privacy protections? Which other protected rights should be eliminated by being placed on a secret list for secret reasons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

 

I think people on the no fly list shouldn't be able to buy guns and any guns they have should be confiscated. Of course your NRA+SAF disagrees. (I also think folks on the no fly list should get appeal rights.) And buy guns they do.

 

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/pro-gun-groups-sue-fed-over-no-fly-list-gun-grab/

 

Because while they may be suspected terrorists they're also Second Amendment Warriors.

 

 

Our ACLU also disagrees, as the topic post notes.

 

Do you think people on the No Rights List should be allowed to vote? Should they have fourth amendment privacy protections? Which other protected rights should be eliminated by being placed on a secret list for secret reasons?

 

 

Another ? for O - do you have any idea how one gets put on the No-Fly list? How 'bout how one goes about challenging one's inclusion on that list? Even better - how 'bout even KNOWING that you're on the list until you buy a plane ticket?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1,000 names secretly scrubbed from secret lists

 

...The latest documents, obtained by Judicial Watch and released on Tuesday, appear to confirm these initial reports. They further disclose that at least 1,000 names were scrubbed from the U.S. Terrorist Screening Database as part of an administration effort to protect the civil rights of suspected individuals....

 

 

We can be pretty sure that the civil rights they were concerned about had nothing to do with the second amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if trailer parks are the next natural targets for the terrahrists. We already know God hates them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Closing the Scary Terror Gap Polls Well in Nevada

 

A group founded by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., and her husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, is pushing for new laws that would bar people on the terrorist watch list and the no-fly list from purchasing firearms. However, gun rights and civil rights groups continue to raise concerns about due process over those lists.

 

The group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, said a majority of Nevadans would support a federal law prohibiting people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list or the no-fly list from buying firearms, according to poll results released Tuesday.

 

...

 

But the American Civil Liberties Union has due process concerns with both lists. Ordinary citizens can appear on either list and not know about it until they are turned down for a government service or forbidden from boarding an airplane.

 

“That’s the fundamental problem with the lists,” said Tod Story, executive director of the Nevada ACLU. “You can’t defend yourself if you’re not informed.”

He said he was once involved in a case in which it took a person more than a year to get off the no-fly list, even with legal assistance.

 

“So much of these programs are shrouded in secrecy,” Story said. “They don’t even have to tell you what they did or why they did it.”

 

Story said the ACLU is not typically associated with Second Amendment cases, but the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right, and it should take a court order to take it away.

 

“There’s a difference in being on a terrorist watch list or a no-fly list and depriving someone of a fundamental right,” he said. “You don’t have a right to fly. It’s not the same thing.”

 

 

Why are we still pussy-footing around with these terrorists anyway? We need to deny them the "right" to pick our leaders for us, all fourth amendment protections including abortion "rights" and then deport them! I'd say why but it's a secret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NY Times is happy to see a coming fight between The Donald and Hillary on guns

 

But they won't be fighting about the thread topic...

 

One area in which Mr. Trump does part ways with gun rights activists is on preventing people on the government’s terrorist watch list from buying weapons.

“If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it’s an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely,” he said in an interview with ABC News last year.

 

The Duopoly is not offering voters a choice on this issue. If you're on a secret list for secret reasons, that's enough to eliminate protected rights. Those who think this approach unwise will have to vote for Libertarians or someone else who disagrees with The Donald and Hillary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama Talks Tools

 

 

 

“The notion that I, or Hillary or Democrats or whoever you want to choose, are hell-bent on taking away folks’ guns is just not true..."

 

 

Apparently, he doesn't consider the Governor of NY to be a Dem.

 

On the thread topic, he said this:

 

"We're allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association, I cannot prohibit those people from buying a gun. This is somebody who is a known ISIL [sic] sympathizer and if he wants to walk in to a gun store or a gun show right now, he can buy as many weapons and ammo as he can. Nothing's prohibiting him from doing that, even though the FBI knows who that person is."

 

 

Astute readers of the topic post will note that his problem is because of the NRA and the ACLU.

 

I'm sure he is informed of lots of disturbing people. If the government has a case to make against those people, let them make it. An accusation is not enough to justify removal of a protected right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama Talks Tools

 

 

 

“The notion that I, or Hillary or Democrats or whoever you want to choose, are hell-bent on taking away folks’ guns is just not true..."

 

 

Apparently, he doesn't consider the Governor of NY to be a Dem.

 

On the thread topic, he said this:

 

"We're allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association, I cannot prohibit those people from buying a gun. This is somebody who is a known ISIL [sic] sympathizer and if he wants to walk in to a gun store or a gun show right now, he can buy as many weapons and ammo as he can. Nothing's prohibiting him from doing that, even though the FBI knows who that person is."

 

 

Astute readers of the topic post will note that his problem is because of the NRA and the ACLU.

 

I'm sure he is informed of lots of disturbing people. If the government has a case to make against those people, let them make it. An accusation is not enough to justify removal of a protected right.

 

 

I heard that on the radio this am. The gentleman in the audience has asked the exact same question I've posed to jocal and the rest of the gun-haters here.

 

And Tom, I would suggest that it is not the NRA or the ACLU that is stopping these people on the No-Fly list from being prevented from buying guns. It is the Constitution that is stopping the practice. I would have expected that a Constitutional scholar and community organizer to know that.

 

If we can deny someone their 2A rights, then surely we should be able to deny them their 4th Am and 5th Am rights as well. If they are "suspected terrorists" and that dangerous, why are they not locked up right now without a trial and without due process? I'm very sad that the questioner or someone else didn't ask that follow-up question. Why are gun rights less important that other rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Prohibiting" and "stopping" are different things. Without annoying activists from the NRA and ACLU, the Constitution might prohibit removing protected rights without due process, but it can't stop that kind of thing from happening.

And it's not just gun rights that suffer under the Security State. Fourth amendment rights are the most common victim but there are others. Here's what Obama said:

I just came from a meeting, today, in the situation room, in which I’ve got people who we know have been on ISIL websites living here in the United States — US citizens. And we’re allowed to put them on the no fly list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association I cannot prohibit those people from buying guns!

This is somebody who is a known ISIL sympathizer, and if he wants to walk into a gun store or a gun show right now, and buy as many weapons and ammo as he can, nothing’s prohibiting him from doing that, even though the FBI knows who that person is.

 

 

Web browsing history can be used to deny protected rights. For secret reasons, of course. There's a bit of a first amendment problem in the mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Valid point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... If they are "suspected terrorists" and that dangerous, why are they not locked up right now without a trial and without due process? I'm very sad that the questioner or someone else didn't ask that follow-up question. Why are gun rights less important that other rights?

 

I think there would be follow-up if this issue were controversial.

 

It's not.

 

Hillary and Donald agree that being on a secret list for secret reasons is sufficient to deny gun rights. Only a handful of libertarians disagree. And we can be safely ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually sort of agree with Katie Couric's lying, criminal editor on the thread topic:

 

You have Katie asking the group this question, “Do you think people on the terror watch list should be allowed to own guns?” Katie’s asking the question of the group, but as the filmmaker, I want to ask the question of the audience. So what I was thinking, my editor was thinking was we need to stop for a second, because the film moves along at a really fast clip. So you’ll see that throughout we’ll stop down after something happens or when we present something. The terror watch list is a real pivotal feature in the film, as is the whole notion of background checks. So this felt like a really crucial time to stop down and allow the audience a moment to let that question sink in.

 

 

I think the use of secret government watch lists to deny protected rights is indeed an important topic and would like to see the American people hear from someone who disapproves in the coming Presidential debates. That someone can't be Donald or Hillary, since both approve of using secret lists to deny protected rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to leave this here for those who think I never miss a post about guns.

Apparently, I missed one:

 

Or do something novel and actually take a stand on whether being on a secret list for secret reasons really is due process in your book.

I answered that long ago, it's not my fault you missed it. I'm not answering it again. You'll just ignore it again and respond to something I didn't say, again. Why bother?

 

 

I never saw that answer. If anyone did, please share a link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, must not be Favre'd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Missed it", "ignored it because it undermined my quibbling", po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you guys both missed it too, huh? I suspect everyone did because no such response exists but maybe someone will prove my suspicion false.

 

 

Sorry, must not be Favre'd

 

Interesting search result artifact that has emerged: if people search for Favre posted by me, they can see it is used whenever two protected rights are compared. If they search for Favre posted by you, they can see gun posts, showing your obsession with the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you guys both missed it too, huh? I suspect everyone did because no such response exists but maybe someone will prove my suspicion false.

 

Wasn't looking for it.

 

I suspect most posters here care as little about them as I do. Conversations where you ignore people's answers do tend to be a dime a dozen around these parts. I suspect most readers won't bother giving your request more than half a seconds thought before dismissing it as just more tedious bullshit from you. I doubt my suspicions will prove false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bipartisan Immunity To Facts

 

Both of the major-party candidates for president seem to agree with Obama that people on watch lists should not be allowed to buy guns. "If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it's an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely," Donald Trump told ABC News last November. "We have to up our game against terrorists abroad and at home, and we have to take account of the fact that our gun laws and the easy access to those guns by people who shouldn't get them," Hillary Clinton said on ABC's This Week in December, complaining that Congress "refuse to prohibit people on the no-fly list from getting guns." She dismissed concerns that innocent people could lose their Second Amendment rights based on mere suspicion, saying, "We have a list. If you are on that list and you believe you should not be on that list, we have a process to actually raise your objections about being on that list."

 

...

 

in Mateen's case, there was little evidence that he was planning to carry out an attack. The Times says the FBI investigated him in 2013 "after reports from Mr. Mateen's co-workers that he, the American-born son of Afghan immigrants, had suggested he may have had terrorist ties." Nothing came of it: "The F.B.I. interviewed him twice, but after surveillance, records checks and witness interviews, agents were unable to verify any terrorist links and closed their investigation." The following year, "the F.B.I. discovered a possible tie between Mr. Mateen and Moner Mohammad Abusalha, who had grown up in nearby Vero Beach and then became the first American suicide bomber in Syria, where he fought with the Nusra Front, a Qaeda-aligned militant group." But "the F.B.I. closed its inquiry after finding 'minimal' contact between the two men."

 

Assuming Mateen nevertheless remained on the FBI's watch list (as the Times suggests), that means someone who was twice cleared of involvement in terrorism—someone who may have attracted attention based on nothing more than misconstrued comments and a passing acquaintance with a future suicide bomber—would nevertheless be deemed suspicious enough to lose his Second Amendment rights if Obama, Clinton, and Trump had their way. In retrospect, it is easy to say Mateen should not have been allowed to buy guns. But almost none of the people who face similar suspicions based on similarly meager evidence end up doing anything like what Mateen did. To block gun purchases by someone like Mateen, the net must be cast wide enough to ensnare lots of innocent people, who will lose their constitutional rights without anything resembling due process.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you guys both missed it too, huh? I suspect everyone did because no such response exists but maybe someone will prove my suspicion false.

 

Wasn't looking for it.

 

.

You weren't here then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It turns out this was a distortion of what happened:

 

 

 

Or do something novel and actually take a stand on whether being on a secret list for secret reasons really is due process in your book.

I answered that long ago, it's not my fault you missed it. I'm not answering it again. You'll just ignore it again and respond to something I didn't say, again. Why bother?

 

In fact, the question was not answered so I could not have ignored it. Just something Sol made up about me. At least he admitted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So you guys both missed it too, huh? I suspect everyone did because no such response exists but maybe someone will prove my suspicion false.

Wasn't looking for it.

 

.

 

You weren't here then.

 

She wasn't? Are you sure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So you guys both missed it too, huh? I suspect everyone did because no such response exists but maybe someone will prove my suspicion false.

Wasn't looking for it.

 

.

 

You weren't here then.

 

 

She wasn't? Are you sure?

 

I seem to remember someone complaining about those who simply insult others they disagree with, choosing that instead of open discussion and learning from them. Hypocritical hogwash from them, of course, but you post brings it to mind for some strange reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So you guys both missed it too, huh? I suspect everyone did because no such response exists but maybe someone will prove my suspicion false.

Wasn't looking for it. .
You weren't here then.
She wasn't? Are you sure?

Yes, quite sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam Winkler: Not A Fan Of Due Process

 

Well, sorta. What he wants is at least better than the proposals so far since they involve a court.

 

Congress should authorize no-buy lists but mandate that appropriate protections be put in place. If the attorney general believes a suspected terrorist should be added to the list, she should have to go to court first and offer up evidence. Only after concluding that the attorney general has probable cause should the court approve the denial of the suspect’s right to buy a gun.

This court proceeding, of course, would be secret. Although that denies the person included on the no-buy list the opportunity to rebut the attorney general’s evidence, we do the same thing every day with search warrants and wiretaps for criminal suspects. Our right to bear arms is no more fundamental than our right to privacy, and treating them similarly can help keep us safer from terrorists.

 

But he seems to have developed quite a bit of trust in the FISA court since the days when he said W's administration abused it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, you've been consistent and convincing on the issue of secrecy, dubious evidence, and an uncertain process are used to maintain the No Fly List. I must commend you for instilling in me doubts on this issue, and as it extends to gun ownership.

 

I also note that the FBI cleared this f*ckwad and removed his name from their watch lists, so I guess in this case an abundance of caution to avoid unfairly labeling someone as a "possible terrorist" had enormous blowback. Not sure what impact this will have on the debate, but it does point out that NO system will be both perfectly fair or safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam Winkler: Not A Fan Of Due Process

 

Well, sorta. What he wants is at least better than the proposals so far since they involve a court.

 

 

Congress should authorize no-buy lists but mandate that appropriate protections be put in place. If the attorney general believes a suspected terrorist should be added to the list, she should have to go to court first and offer up evidence. Only after concluding that the attorney general has probable cause should the court approve the denial of the suspects right to buy a gun.

 

This court proceeding, of course, would be secret. Although that denies the person included on the no-buy list the opportunity to rebut the attorney generals evidence, we do the same thing every day with search warrants and wiretaps for criminal suspects. Our right to bear arms is no more fundamental than our right to privacy, and treating them similarly can help keep us safer from terrorists.

 

But he seems to have developed quite a bit of trust in the FISA court since the days when he said W's administration abused it.

 

You, and other libertarians, have no credibility. For some reason you think human generated problems do not have human solutions. Go back to the wilderness and howl your protests. There is real work to do, and you're just a distraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, you've been consistent and convincing on the issue of secrecy, dubious evidence, and an uncertain process are used to maintain the No Fly List. I must commend you for instilling in me doubts on this issue, and as it extends to gun ownership.

 

I also note that the FBI cleared this f*ckwad and removed his name from their watch lists, so I guess in this case an abundance of caution to avoid unfairly labeling someone as a "possible terrorist" had enormous blowback. Not sure what impact this will have on the debate, but it does point out that NO system will be both perfectly fair or safe.

 

That's the eternal conflict. Basically, our Bill of Rights was not designed for the Security State that Americans seem to want.

 

Over in the Snowden thread, they're explaining to me that it's just too darn complicated to limit the NSA to foreign surveillance, so they have to collect tens of thousands of wholly domestic communications and lie to the FISA court repeatedly about whether they are collecting entire messages or "just metadata." The fourth amendment is just incompatible with the modern world. After all, how are we to know what terrorists are up to if spooks are not given free rein? Not knowing what they're up to is scary.

 

The various terror watch lists raise the same issue: do we really want our freedoms, even when they can have scary consequences? Most seem to answer yes to the first part but no to the second part of that question.

 

Problem is, we only get to keep them if you answer yes to both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam Winkler: Not A Fan Of Due Process

 

Well, sorta. What he wants is at least better than the proposals so far since they involve a court.

 

 

Congress should authorize no-buy lists but mandate that appropriate protections be put in place. If the attorney general believes a suspected terrorist should be added to the list, she should have to go to court first and offer up evidence. Only after concluding that the attorney general has probable cause should the court approve the denial of the suspect’s right to buy a gun.

 

This court proceeding, of course, would be secret. Although that denies the person included on the no-buy list the opportunity to rebut the attorney general’s evidence, we do the same thing every day with search warrants and wiretaps for criminal suspects. Our right to bear arms is no more fundamental than our right to privacy, and treating them similarly can help keep us safer from terrorists.

 

 

But he seems to have developed quite a bit of trust in the FISA court since the days when he said W's administration abused it.

 

 

De-bunkng Tom every day is pretty easy. This post is typically dishonest. Over the years. dishonesty has been to be a convenient tool for Tom.

I am somewhat fascinated that such dishonesty is accepted on PA.

 

I followed Tom's link, which is labeled thus: Adam Winkler: Not A Fan Of Due Process. But I found this quote near the beginning of the article:

(...) "We should take the N.R.A.’s criticisms seriously. Due process of law is a vital constitutional principle and Americans have a right to own firearms for self-protection. Does this mean we should drop the idea of a no-buy list? No. It just means we need one that is fair." (Adam Winkler, NYT Op Ed)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one should be placed on a 'no-fly list' unless there is a warrant out for their arrest.

 

 

Is the "right to fly" in the constitution? No? Hmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No one should be placed on a 'no-fly list' unless there is a warrant out for their arrest.

 

 

Is the "right to fly" in the constitution? No? Hmmm.

 

 

And your point is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No one should be placed on a 'no-fly list' unless there is a warrant out for their arrest.

 

 

Is the "right to fly" in the constitution? No? Hmmm.

 

 

And your point is?

 

 

The point is he's a jackass.. Any more questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No one should be placed on a 'no-fly list' unless there is a warrant out for their arrest.

 

 

Is the "right to fly" in the constitution? No? Hmmm.

 

 

And your point is?

 

 

the point is, your point is moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No one should be placed on a 'no-fly list' unless there is a warrant out for their arrest.

 

 

Is the "right to fly" in the constitution? No? Hmmm.

 

 

Hmmm indeed...

 

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No one should be placed on a 'no-fly list' unless there is a warrant out for their arrest.

 

 

Is the "right to fly" in the constitution? No? Hmmm.

 

 

Hmmm indeed...

 

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.

 

 

 

 

i'll give a shot at Tom Ray pedantry

 

your example says nothing about a "right to fly"

 

it says a lot about a "right of due process"

 

Sorry for your (Tom's) confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Process for the sake of process, or for some other purpose?

 

This part might help answer:

 

 

“The court concludes international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society,” Brown wrote in her 65-page ruling.

 

“Accordingly, on this record the court concludes plaintiffs inclusion on the no-fly list constitutes a significant deprivation of their liberty interests in international travel,” Brown said.

 

 

 

I know, I know, "liberty interests" and "necessary aspects of liberty" have nothing whatsoever to do with rights because the word didn't appear in the sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Process for the sake of process, or for some other purpose?

 

This part might help answer:

 

 

 

The court concludes international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society, Brown wrote in her 65-page ruling.

 

 

Accordingly, on this record the court concludes plaintiffs inclusion on the no-fly list constitutes a significant deprivation of their liberty interests in international travel, Brown said.

 

 

I know, I know, "liberty interests" and "necessary aspects of liberty" have nothing whatsoever to do with rights because the word didn't appear in the sentence.

 

Due process Mr Ray. Look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I figured you would not answer, so I will.

 

Due process to protect liberty interests in international travel. Which is kind of a long way of saying due process to protect the right to fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13510810_1063342800408384_32128763211181

 

Sorry, didn't feel like digging up one of the "Making Jocal's Head Explode" series of threads...

 

Stick to your own side of the fence, Pooplius. Be true to your own colors.

Are you a moral cripple who needs MLK as a crutch, as a tool?

You don't need to hide behind a fine pacifist like that.

Be true to your own violent beliefs.

Go stand on the moral authority of the Koch Brothers, ALEC, and Larry Pratt.

 

Dear oh dear where is your glowing essay on Larry, the spiritual leader of your elk?

Because here comes another source of mine, heh heh...

LARRY PRATT

Source: the Southern Poverty Law Center

Larry Pratt is a gun rights extremist who also advocates a theocratic society based on Old Testament civil and religious laws, and a pivotal figure in the militia movement.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/larry-pratt>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those whose linky finger is hurting today, aka alleged ignorance thingee,

here is an ignorance test: Care to igore this?

 

Excerpts on Larry Pratt GOA Article,

Source: the Southern Poverty Law Center:

 

Also in 1995, Pratt edited a book of essays entitled Safeguarding Liberty: The Constitution & Militias, with the theme of constitutional guarantees for the formation of non-governmental militia groups. The next year, it emerged that Pratt was a contributing editor to a periodical of the anti-Semitic United Sovereigns of America, and that GOA had donated money to a white supremacist attorneys’ group.

 

(…)

Pratt's attendance as a supposed "moderate" on the radical right was based partly on his authorship of a 1990 book entitled Armed People Victorious. That book is thought to have introduced the concept of citizen militias to the radical right. It included a detailed study of the "citizen defense patrols" used in Guatemala and the Philippines against Communist rebels murderously brutal patrols that came to be commonly described as death squads. Pratt's speech in Estes Park offered a scenario for how similar militias could be organized in the United States.

 

(…)

Pratt has extended the issues far beyond hunting and self-defense, injecting radical religion and racist politics demagoguery into the debate.

 

In 1996, Pratt was forced to resign as co-chairman of Patrick J. Buchanan's presidential campaign when it was publicized that he had been a speaker at the 1992 Gathering of Christian Men in Estes Park, Colo., where he rubbed shoulders with neo-Nazis, Klansmen, adherents of the anti-Semitic Christian Identity theology, and other radicals. The gathering was held to formulate a response to the Ruby Ridge standoff in northern Idaho earlier that year between federal agents and white supremacist Randy Weaver…

 

(…) posted on YouTube by Right Wing Watch, Pratt envisioned "some sort of social implosion" during President Obama's second term. "These folks in power are seeking that kind of confrontation, and it would be a wonderful surprise if it did not happen," Pratt said.

 

“Today, the same goals of the Philistines would be carried out by an oppressor who would ban gunsmiths from the land. The sword of today is the handgun, rifle or shotgun,” Pratt wrote in a 1999 GOA column. “The sword control of the Philistines is today’s gun control of those governments that do not trust their people with guns.”

 

(…) He suggested to CNN's Wolf Blitzer that instead of background checks for mentally ill people seeking to buy guns, those people should simply be institutionalized. CNN host Piers Morgan confronted Pratt with retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal's call for restrictions on assault-style weapons. Pratt was unmoved, replying that "the general and his troops are not going to be there to protect the average American, the military nor the police after social order implodes, after a hurricane, after an earthquake, during riots."

 

Appearing on MSNBC's "Hardball" with host Chris Matthews, Pratt said teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Mass., where a mass murder took place in late 2012, should have been armed.

 

Pratt was also personal friends with George W. Bush's attorney general, John Ashcroft, and they were both members of the Council for National Policy, a secretive invitation-only strategic planning organization for conservative Christians. According to The Guardian, while he was a U.S. senator from Missouri in 1998, Ashcroft withdrew his support for a juvenile justice bill when Pratt alerted him to provisions that would have increased penalties for gun law infractions.

 

 

 

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/larry-pratt>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like this Pratt fellow should be on a secret list someplace. I don't know much about him.

 

Pooplius was funny though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just strip all rights from those on a secret list for secret reasons?

 

That guy makes more or less the same points I did in the topic post but he got one or two rights I missed.

 

Should people on a terror watch list be allowed to attend a suspected radicalized house of worship? Why allow them to congregate at all?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most interesting set of poll results. A tidbit:

 

83% think no fly list should also be a no gun list

 

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

 

I have a far more comprehensive plan to make us safe from terrorists. We shouldn't let them vote, assemble in public, communicate covertly, publish their propaganda in media, get any government benefits, hide their criminal intent behind a fourth amendment veil, OR buy guns legally!

 

SUPERSAFE!

 

 

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

 

Rather be a liberal tool than a terrorist sympathizer.

 

You are more than a sympathizer. When you call for disarming Americans, you are a co-conspiritor, or at the very least, a useful idiot.

 

 

"Patriotism is as fierce as a fever, pitiless as the grave, blind as a stone, and irrational as a headless hen." Ambrose Bierce.

 

Nanny, you and the NRA are turning the word `Patriot' into trash with the love of your `PRECIOUS'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Failure to further erode due process is frustrating

 

...several bills in Congress now and over the years represent an improvement on current laws.

 

One would expand universal background checks to include firearms sold at gun shows. Another would block gun sales to anyone on a terrorist watchlist. Yet another would restore a ban on assault weapons.

 

All have sat frustratingly stagnant.

 

 

I have bought a few guns at shows. Never bought one without a background check because dealers are required to perform those checks wherever they might be selling.

 

I hope their frustration at the failure to expand use of our flawed watch lists continues.

 

Restoration of the mean looking weapons ban would definitely cause me to buy at least one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Disarming terrorists is a trait of a patriot. You sir are a terrorist enabler.

The best way to disarm the bastards is to shoot them. That means citizens should be armed. When some goat fucker decides to go nuts there will be plenty people to introduce the bastard to alha who will surely introduce him to his 72 virgins. I wonder how that works for women who do the same?

 

 

I keep telling you. The 72 virgins are the 72 previous suicide bombers who died without getting any.

 

BOHICA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screw it, I'm writing in Vermin Supreme.


William Weld:
“The five shot rifle, that’s a standard military rifle; the problem is if you attach a clip to it so it can fire more shells and if you remove the pin so that it becomes an automatic weapon, and those are independent criminal offenses. That is when they become, essentially a weapon of mass destruction. The problem with handguns probably is even worse than the problem of the AR15.”


Amrit Singh:
“What can you do to help control this flow of guns, if anything?”


William Weld:
“You shouldn’t have anybody who is on the terrorist watch list buy any gun at all.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice link. Where's your comment, Tom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm writing in Vermin Supreme because Hillary, Donald, and Gary Johnson's VP pick all believe due process doesn't matter.

 

FREE PONIES FOR ALL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm writing in Vermin Supreme because Hillary, Donald, and Gary Johnson's VP pick all believe due process doesn't matter.

 

FREE PONIES FOR ALL!

 

Are the ponies flatulent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you break that list of one million into groups like the KKK, Anarchists, religious zealots, unhappy old white men, and patriots like Bundy?

 

 

 

The only one of those categories that noted Watch Listee Ted Kennedy fits into is the old white men, but he never struck me as particularly unhappy.

 

Why do you think he was unhappy? Or is his Catholic faith zealotry to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does Ted Kennedy's unhappiness or religion mean people should be armed?

 

And is it his unhappiness or religion we are talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A terrorist is anyone who attempts to further their aim by creating fear. That is to instill terror in an individual or group through violence.

 

Two dead kids in Fort Myers will never know justice because 'nobody saw anything'. The witnesses fear for their lives because of thugs who intimidate witnesses after committing their crime. The thugs have terrorized the community who will not support those who would help them.

 

Nuts who shoot up someplace and then surrender or shoot themselves don't particularly frighten me. They seem to want little more than personal fame as opposed to societal change. In spite of the publicity by the anti-gun terrorists they are really unlikely.

 

There are plenty of groups willing to kill to further their aims. ISIS or ISIL is just a label that is used currently to instill fear from which we must be saved by a great leader. But those too are unlikely events for the worlds population and I don't particularly fear them.

 

The politicians use that fear to further their own ends at the price of real security and liberty. I'd put them in the terrorist group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you are asleep one night, it's dark, you grab your gun, go down the stairs and sees a shadow, you shoot.

 

Then, you turn on a light and

 

Your wife, your, son, or your wife is lying there DEAD!.

 

Yup, go ahead carry a gun, only bad people come in the front door.

 

Rule 4: be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

 

For disregarding one of the four main rules of gun safety, I'd judge that hypothetical to be a negligent homicide.

 

None of which has anything to do with the thread topic of expanding the use of our terror watch lists, which have been known to include various politicians as well as non-criminal types. I'm still in the ACLU camp on that issue and very sad to see that candidates from the Demopublican, Republicrat, and Libertarian parties all want to use those lists for more population control.

 

The War on Terror has replaced the War on Drugs as the primary domestic threat to liberty. Our rights matter until they cross paths with either war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh huh. So do you agree with the ACLU or with Hillary, Donald, and William Weld on expanding the use of our terror watch lists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh huh. So do you agree with the ACLU or with Hillary, Donald, and William Weld on expanding the use of our terror watch lists?

Uh huh. So Pooplius, do you agree with the ACLU and Hillary that Heller is an over-reach, or do you agree with Larry Pratt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Uh huh. So do you agree with the ACLU or with Hillary, Donald, and William Weld on expanding the use of our terror watch lists?

Uh huh. So Pooplius, do you agree with the ACLU and Hillary that Heller is an over-reach, or do you agree with Larry Pratt?

 

 

I think Heller was correctly decided and the ACLU was wrong to support the ban on guns in the home for personal defense.

 

I also agree with SV Arlie that Donald is likely to change his mind on a moment's notice if he thinks it benefits Donald, which is why I do not trust his recent conversion on the issue of mean looking weapons bans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NRA Appalled That Bill Weld Agrees With Trump And Hillary

 

Well, they didn't put it quite like that. They're outraged at his support for the expansion of use of our terror watch lists to restrict gun sales. They didn't happen to mention that Hillary and Trump agree with Weld on that issue.

 

In July 2016, while NRA and other groups concerned with civil liberties were hard at work fighting legislation that would have stripped Americans of their Second Amendment rights without due process based merely on their placement on a secret government watch list, Weld expressed support for such measures.

 

 

The Donald expressed similar support last May, as noted above. That was the same month that the NRA endorsed him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry Reid Emits Unicorn Fart

 

“Currently, there is a loophole in our law that allows potential FBI terror suspects to legally purchase guns and explosives. Stop and think about that for just a little bit: A person with suspected ties to terrorism can walk into a store now and buy all the explosives, all the guns and all the ammunition they want,” Reid argued.

 

Under the Democrats’ bill, someone who is on the no fly list would be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. They have deemed the legislation, “No fly, no buy.”

 

“We can argue from now on about whether this bill would have prevented this weekend’s attacks,” Reid said. “But one thing is for sure, it would prevent the next attack.”

 

 

I guess that's as "for sure" as the effectiveness of gun control in Chicago.

 

I stopped and thought about it for a little bit and am still of the opinion that the nasty "due process loophole" is worth the trouble it causes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Trump continues to agree with Hillary on the unimportance of due process. It's a bit hard to tell.

 

CLINTON: ...we finally need to pass a prohibition on anyone who's on the terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun in our country. If you're too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. So there are things we can do, and we ought to do it in a bipartisan way.

 

...

 

TRUMP: First of all, I agree, and a lot of people even within my own party want to give certain rights to people on watch lists and no- fly lists. I agree with you. When a person is on a watch list or a no-fly list, and I have the endorsement of the NRA, which I'm very proud of. These are very, very good people, and they're protecting the Second Amendment.

 

But I think we have to look very strongly at no-fly lists and watch lists. And when people are on there, even if they shouldn't be on there, we'll help them, we'll help them legally, we'll help them get off. But I tend to agree with that quite strongly.

 

 

It's a bit hard to tell what he's agreeing with quite strongly.

 

I suspect his idea of "helping them get off" is to show them pics of his daughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Trump continues to agree with Hillary on the unimportance of due process. It's a bit hard to tell.

 

CLINTON: ...we finally need to pass a prohibition on anyone who's on the terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun in our country. If you're too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. So there are things we can do, and we ought to do it in a bipartisan way.

 

...

 

TRUMP: First of all, I agree, and a lot of people even within my own party want to give certain rights to people on watch lists and no- fly lists. I agree with you. When a person is on a watch list or a no-fly list, and I have the endorsement of the NRA, which I'm very proud of. These are very, very good people, and they're protecting the Second Amendment.

 

But I think we have to look very strongly at no-fly lists and watch lists. And when people are on there, even if they shouldn't be on there, we'll help them, we'll help them legally, we'll help them get off. But I tend to agree with that quite strongly.

 

 

It's a bit hard to tell what he's agreeing with quite strongly.

 

I suspect his idea of "helping them get off" is to show them pics of his daughter.

 

 

I thought I was following him when he said he supported the no fly/no buy proposal, with the caveat that he would help people wrongly on the list.

 

But maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Looks like Trump continues to agree with Hillary on the unimportance of due process. It's a bit hard to tell.

 

CLINTON: ...we finally need to pass a prohibition on anyone who's on the terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun in our country. If you're too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. So there are things we can do, and we ought to do it in a bipartisan way.

 

...

 

TRUMP: First of all, I agree, and a lot of people even within my own party want to give certain rights to people on watch lists and no- fly lists. I agree with you. When a person is on a watch list or a no-fly list, and I have the endorsement of the NRA, which I'm very proud of. These are very, very good people, and they're protecting the Second Amendment.

 

But I think we have to look very strongly at no-fly lists and watch lists. And when people are on there, even if they shouldn't be on there, we'll help them, we'll help them legally, we'll help them get off. But I tend to agree with that quite strongly.

 

It's a bit hard to tell what he's agreeing with quite strongly.

 

I suspect his idea of "helping them get off" is to show them pics of his daughter.

 

I thought I was following him when he said he supported the no fly/no buy proposal, with the caveat that he would help people wrongly on the list.

 

But maybe not.

It's a sticky question - publicize the no fly list, and we let peoplease know they are under suapicion, with the potential to undermine enforcement. Those rightly under suspiciom should trigger additional scrutiny ahould they attempt to acquire the means to cause harm.

 

That said - there are people who are on the list that shouldn't be - mistaken identity, etc, and they deserve to be afforded a way off it without prejuduce.

 

How to appropriately balance thise concerns ought to be a central part of the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A list of suspects has to remain secret or sources and methods will be revealed.

 

That's why any terror watch list should only be used for law enforcement/investigative purposes. Using it to prevent people from flying or from buying guns or for any other general population control purpose is irredeemably flawed from the outset because due process for such controls is incompatible with the necessary secrecy. The only two processes we need to get people off the list, whether they're innocent or guilty, are then easy:

 

1. Close the investigation.

 

2. Take a case to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, your premise seems to imply that inclusion = conclusion, ignoring the time that it takes to complete the work between those two steps. I'd suggest that a but more granularity may be in order.

 

I don't see any problem with inclusion of anyone on a suspect list. It's the conclusion part.

 

Taking action against a person, whether it's denying permission to board an airplane, denying a gun purchase, or really anything except pressing charges is a conclusion. Reaching it should require due process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom, your premise seems to imply that inclusion = conclusion, ignoring the time that it takes to complete the work between those two steps. I'd suggest that a but more granularity may be in order.

I don't see any problem with inclusion of anyone on a suspect list. It's the conclusion part.

 

Taking action against a person, whether it's denying permission to board an airplane, denying a gun purchase, or really anything except pressing charges is a conclusion. Reaching it should require due process.

But deciding when to act on the " conclusion" part is often a tactical decision, would you not agree? If the enforcement agency is trying to establish a pattern of behavior, it's not prudent for them to take acton that would disrupt that pattern, is it?

 

It's not a simple or binary decision tree, and trying to distill the elements and observations until the binary arrest/remove deciaion can be made takes time, during which tipping off serious bad guys that they are being watched might not be the best thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom, your premise seems to imply that inclusion = conclusion, ignoring the time that it takes to complete the work between those two steps. I'd suggest that a but more granularity may be in order.

I don't see any problem with inclusion of anyone on a suspect list. It's the conclusion part.

 

Taking action against a person, whether it's denying permission to board an airplane, denying a gun purchase, or really anything except pressing charges is a conclusion. Reaching it should require due process.

But deciding when to act on the " conclusion" part is often a tactical decision, would you not agree? If the enforcement agency is trying to establish a pattern of behavior, it's not prudent for them to take acton that would disrupt that pattern, is it?

 

It's not a simple or binary decision tree, and trying to distill the elements and observations until the binary arrest/remove deciaion can be made takes time, during which tipping off serious bad guys that they are being watched might not be the best thing to do.

 

 

The fact that telling someone he can't fly or buy a gun would tip him off that he's on a watch list is a secondary reason to oppose those uses of these lists to me.

 

Of course it will reveal the government's suspicion. That's bad if we're talking about an actual terrorist, good if we're talking about an innocent citizen.

 

But in either case, depriving the suspect of protected rights based on suspicion, and without any real process for challenging the deprivation, is wrong. It's wrong if they're terrorists and wrong if they're innocents. The deprivation of protected rights should start AFTER a conviction.