Support NeoGAF

[vern]

Considering it's a right and you want to use a secret government list with no oversight or accountability or due process.... yes it is.

I disagree on the premise that owning a gun is a right. I didn't comment on this list directly or in which method the government should use to take your gun. I merely stated that owning a gun is not a right.

Sports. As in recognized by the International Olympic Committee and plenty of other bodies. I can tell, I regularly partake in amateur and officially sanctioned competitions.

Also, hunting. Which is a way of life and puts food on the table in plenty of rural communities.

These examples do nothing to prove that guns have a function outside of causing destruction.

 

[timetokill]

I disagree on the premise that owning a gun is a right. I didn't comment on this list directly or in which method the government should use to take your gun. I merely stated that owning a gun is not a right.

Except it's right there in the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it's a right multiple times.

Whether you like it or not, it's a right. I mean, I don't know what else to say, other than maybe think about how easy it would be to toss out other rights based on your desire to just throw rights out because you don't "agree" that they exist.

 

[vern]

Except it's right there in the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it's a right multiple times.

Whether you like it or not, it's a right. I mean, I don't know what else to say, other than maybe think about how easy it would be to toss out other rights based on your desire to just throw rights out because you don't "agree" that they exist.

Why is agree in quotation marks?

So all the rights for all of humankind are clearly delineated in the U.S. Bill of Rights, and this document is infallible?

 

[Funky Papa]

I disagree on the premise that owning a gun is a right. I didn't comment on this list directly or in which method the government should use to take your gun. I merely stated that owning a gun is not a right.



These examples do nothing to prove that guns have a function outside of causing destruction.

How so?

 

[Dreams-Visions]

As others have already said such a law would be immediately struck down by the courts if passed.

agreed.

either they didn't think this through at all or they don't mind wasting tens of thousands of tax payer dollars letting this go to court knowing it has no chance in hell of being upheld.

They'll have to find a way to do this that doesn't get those without terrorist intentions caught in its net.

 

[timetokill]

Why is agree in quotation marks?

So all the rights for all of hummankind are clearly delineated in the U.S. Bill of Rights, and this document is infallible?

They aren't delineated and the 9th explicitly says they don't have to be. The rights belong to the people inherently. A lot of people to understand this, but the Bill of Rights is not about what the people can do, it's about what the government CANNOT do.

In this vein, the Supreme Court ruled on the 2nd amendment that the government does not convey the right to bear arms, but that it naturally exists and cannot be taken away.

If we don't like it, an amendment can be passed granting the government the ability to take that right from us.

And even then, such an ability would still be required to function under due process.

 

[Diablos]

Good.

 

[G.ZZZ]

I dunno. Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

Yes a slippery slope TOWARD MORE GUN CONTROL.

I'm outraged by this. Next thing i know is that i can't shoot black people and have the murder declared "appropriate use of force". I thought this WAS 'MURICA?!?!

 

[TDLink]

The watch list really isn't great.

Personal example: My mother is named Roberta and sometimes she gets stopped at airports because "everyone named Roberta is on a watch list." That's literally the reason she was given. How can you put everyone who shares a certain name on a watch list? It makes no sense to me and it's something they really need to fix.


That said, Guns/The second amendment are a cancer on America. So if this helps restrict sales in any way I'm all for it. There is so much evidence out there that banning guns would cause gun violence to effectively become nonexistent. Just look at what happened in Australia in the 90s. You had heaps of people taking the same stance Gun-loving Americans and Politicians are now. And in recent interviews many of those politicians admit they were wrong and that it works.

I'm not delusional though. I know that America's love affair with guns is never going to allow that to happen. So at the least proper restrictions need to be put into place. As posted earlier in this topic, there is a lot of evidence that states with higher restrictions have less gun violence. We should be able to at least get every state to the level of those towards the bottom. We can't keep letting the NRA's greed to persevere over logic. These weapons are too easy to purchase and by nature incredibly easy to kill with. Shootings are abundant and they need to be stopped. People shouldn't ever feel scared to go to the opening of a highly anticipated film, or to school, or to work.

 

[VRMN]

The second amendment if they are citizens makes it tricky.

Pretty sure it could be challenged via court under those pretenses too.

This. There's no due process that gets you on this list. If the second amendment guarantees the right of a citizen to own a firearm, this would be removing that right without due process. Unconstitutional.

 

[lednerg]

Can't get on a plane, but can buy a gun. That's called fucked up priorities. Also, the Second Amendment has long since outlived its usefulness. Sorry, but it's true. We don't rely on militias anymore like the authors of the Bill of Rights did.

 

[Agent Gibbs]

How the hell this was not even a thing?

First post nails this, certainly from my Brit perspective!

I don't essentially have a problem with gun ownership as long as stringent checks are made (criminal and psychological), but the revelation here for me is that this wasn't a thing....can you own a gun if you have a criminal record?* please say you can't


*obviously minor misdemeanour's could be considered
If you can't own a gun and have a violent criminal record do people have to surrender any already legally registered guns?

If they don't and its all a 'muh freedoms' allowing any and all to buy unchecked (as it seems sometimes) then well fuck how can people be against basic shit like that

 

[DonasaurusRex]

How the hell this was not even a thing?

because you can arbitrarily be put on the lists without due process. Some of the people on these no fly lists are disturbing, even the ACLU sued the list has grown over 10 times what it was and no one is checking out how they get on there or who these people are.

 

[BigDug13]

First post nails this, certainly from my Brit perspective!

I don't essentially have a problem with gun ownership as long as stringent checks are made (criminal and psychological), but the revelation here for me is that this wasn't a thing....can you own a gun if you have a criminal record?* please say you can't


*obviously minor misdemeanour's could be considered
If you can't own a gun and have a violent criminal record do people have to surrender any already legally registered guns?

If they don't and its all a 'muh freedoms' allowing any and all to buy unchecked (as it seems sometimes) then well fuck how can people be against basic shit like that

It's a slippery slope. Why stop there? Why should we allow people on the terrorism list to get driver's licenses, vote, and hold jobs? I mean they must be terrorists if they're on the list, right? If they're terrorists, why do we even permit them to be in the country? I'm sure they're not putting completely innocent people on this list, right?

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Like I said, it's not

Well...it is.

or shouldn't be a "right."

That's a bit different. If you think it shouldn't be a right, campaign for the 2nd amendment to be repealed. If most people agree with you then it'll be repealed.

It's not like that never happened before. Didn't you guys (I'm not american) have an amendment that meant you couldn't buy booze? That got repealed, right? Just do the same thing.

 

[timetokill]

First post nails this, certainly from my Brit perspective!

I don't essentially have a problem with gun ownership as long as stringent checks are made (criminal and psychological), but the revelation here for me is that this wasn't a thing....can you own a gun if you have a criminal record?* please say you can't


*obviously minor misdemeanour's could be considered
If you can't own a gun and have a violent criminal record do people have to surrender any already legally registered guns?

If they don't and its all a 'muh freedoms' allowing any and all to buy unchecked (as it seems sometimes) then well fuck how can people be against basic shit like that

Read the thread.
There's literally no justification needed for you to be on this list. They can just decide that people named Salaah Mahmoud can't fly anymore, boom, done. They don't have to give you a reason, and they generally won't take you off of it even after you've been interrogated.

It's a secret list and you don't even know if you're on it until you try to fly.

It's arguably unconstitutional as it is, but going further and using it to restrict a specifically protected right is going beyond the pale.

 

[Agent Gibbs]

It's a slippery slope. Why stop there? Why should we allow people on the terrorism list to get driver's licenses, vote, and hold jobs? I mean they must be terrorists if they're on the list, right? If they're terrorists, why do we even permit them to be in the country? I'm sure they're not putting completely innocent people on this list, right?

Read the thread.
There's literally no justification needed for you to be on this list. They can just decide that people named Salaah Mahmoud can't fly anymore, boom, done. They don't have to give you a reason, and they generally won't take you off of it even after you've been interrogated.

It's a secret list and you don't even know if you're on it until you try to fly.

It's arguably unconstitutional as it is, but going further and using it to restrict a specifically protected right is going beyond the pale.

So because some innocent people might be on the list, rather than reforming it making sure its accurately representing risks, those who probably are guilty should be allowed to buy guns in the meantime?

Surely the list needs reforming, but if it was 100% accurate would it still be wrong to ban those on the list?

what is wrong with controlling who owns firearms?

 

[Calamari41]

So because some innocent people might be on the list, rather than reforming it making sure its accurately representing risks, those who probably are guilty should be allowed to buy guns in the meantime?

Surely the list needs reforming, but if it was 100% accurate would it still be wrong to ban those on the list?

what is wrong with controlling who owns firearms?

If there's enough evidence on someone to take away their civil rights, there's enough evidence to arrest them.

Hearing someone talk about punishing "those who are probably guilty" is chilling.

 

[DrForester]

Seems like such a meaningless, pointless gesture by lawmakers to give the impression they're doing something. I mean, it's Connecticut. Barely an hour to get into another state.

This needs to be a national thing.

 

[Funky Papa]

If there's enough evidence on someone to take away their civil rights, there's enough evidence to arrest them.

Hearing someone talk about punishing "those who are probably guilty" is chilling.

A good number of the people who don't understand the issue (just like I did at first) seem to post from countries where gun ownership is not a constitutional right (again, my own case), but something you are just allowed to after jumping a number of legal hoops, so it's not something easy to "get" without further explanation.

 

[lednerg]

Getting a gun isn't necessary for anything in this day and age. Unless they're participating in an action movie, they're not actually being deprived of anything significant. We're not living in the days of President Washington anymore, back when the Second was written, and he was leading militias. They are shit as a form of self protection. For every "justifiable homicide" by gun there are 34 homicides, 78 suicides and 2 accidental deaths. That's a track record you'd have to be criminally insane to be happy about, and stupid to ignore. They are a public health nightmare.

If the question is about how did they get on the list and so on, then that's an entirely different discussion. It's worth revising how that whole process is carried out. It should be way more transparent. I'm with the ACLU on this. But in terms of what they're being denied in this case, it just doesn't matter. They're statistically safer without the fucking guns.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

The Obama administration has been violating constitutional rights for quite some time, so this shouldn't surprise anyone really.

Oh, this should be good.

Well, he's kinda right.

 

[Agent Gibbs]

If there's enough evidence on someone to take away their civil rights, there's enough evidence to arrest them.

Hearing someone talk about punishing "those who are probably guilty" is chilling.

If they are arrested, tried, convicted, imprisoned, release are they then on a ban from ownership? What about those with criminal convictions (Violent crimes, robberies etc., not misdemeanour's) still allowed to buy guns? would that be considered unconstitutional to ban them?

Its not chilling to me since i come from a country with strict gun laws, and terrorist watch lists compiled from actual evidence and reasonable suspicions of suspicious activity and those previously convicted of terrorism offences. If its truly just an 'excel' spreadsheet of names that you can get added to then it sounds like doing away with due process as several have put this, and truely chilling that that how lazy things are in the US.

But how inaccurate is the result of said lists? is there a 5% error? 10%? 50%?
should i take the words of random internet people who may have agenda's that are pro-gun over federal officials who 'should' be accurately doing their jobs? everything has the potential for mistakes and false positives, is there frame works in place to be removed from such lists? someone highlighted the case of an 8 year old on such lists, surely they were removed on discovery of the mistake?

 

[vern]

How so?

Are you going to argue that killing an animal isn't destructive? Are you going to argue that putting holes in targets isn't destructive? They both destroy things, I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise.

I never once said that people should not be allowed to own firearms, there are certainly reasons why you should be allowed. Your two stated examples are both examples that are reasonable. I stated, once again, that it shouldn't be considered a right.

Well...it is.

It's not... you can't buy any gun you want at any time. It's not water. Good luck repealing the 2nd amendment. Gun lobby is too strong and there are too many gun fanatics.

 

[diffusionx]

The no-fly list is a joke. Whoever in the government, nobody knows who, puts anyone they want, with criteria nobody knows about, on the list, and they can't fly. If you complain about being on the list, it goes through an unknown appeals process that takes as long as the government feels like. Maybe it's better than it was when Dubya started it, but then again nobody knows. It's still a joke.

But flying isn't a constitutional right. I don't think this is constitutional at all.

 

[Funky Papa]

Are you going to argue that killing an animal isn't destructive? Are you going to argue that putting holes in targets isn't destructive? They both destroy things, I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise.

One puts food on the table and feeds families for days.

The other puts holes on CARDBOARD.

Calling germane, well regulated hunting and sports shooting destructive activities is just a woefully dishonest exercise of semantics.

And for the record, I'm not a fan of hunting for sport nor I think that firearm ownership should be a constitutional right in this day and age.

 

[Calamari41]

If they are arrested, tried, convicted, imprisoned, release are they then on a ban from ownership? What about those with criminal convictions (Violent crimes, robberies etc., not misdemeanour's) still allowed to buy guns? would that be considered unconstitutional to ban them?

Its not chilling to me since i come from a country with strict gun laws, and terrorist watch lists compiled from actual evidence and reasonable suspicions of suspicious activity and those previously convicted of terrorism offences. If its truly just an 'excel' spreadsheet of names that you can get added to then it sounds like doing away with due process as several have put this, and truely chilling that that how lazy things are in the US.

But how inaccurate is the result of said lists? is there a 5% error? 10%? 50%?
should i take the words of random internet people who may have agenda's that are pro-gun over federal officials who 'should' be accurately doing their jobs? everything has the potential for mistakes and false positives, is there frame works in place to be removed from such lists? someone highlighted the case of an 8 year old on such lists, surely they were removed on discovery of the mistake?

In the US, you can have your rights stripped if you're convicted of a crime in a court of law. That's the problem here. The people on the list haven't been convicted, arrested, or even accused. The contents of the terror watch list are classified, the criteria for which you can be put on the list are classified, and there is no government body to which you can appeal your placement on the list. You have to literally sue the federal government to even attempt to get off of it.

You can trust unnamed and unknowable federal officials to maintain something like this (I certainly wouldn't), and a list like this can hypothetically have its uses for investigation purposes. But to use the list in order to strip people of their constitutional rights by blatantly violating the fifth amendment? Well, love it all you want, but it's not going to hold up in court.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

If they are arrested, tried, convicted, imprisoned, release are they then on a ban from ownership? What about those with criminal convictions (Violent crimes, robberies etc., not misdemeanour's) still allowed to buy guns? would that be considered unconstitutional to ban them?

Its not chilling to me since i come from a country with strict gun laws, and terrorist watch lists compiled from actual evidence and reasonable suspicions of suspicious activity and those previously convicted of terrorism offences. If its truly just an 'excel' spreadsheet of names that you can get added to then it sounds like doing away with due process as several have put this, and truely chilling that that how lazy things are in the US.

But how inaccurate is the result of said lists? is there a 5% error? 10%? 50%?
should i take the words of random internet people who may have agenda's that are pro-gun over federal officials who 'should' be accurately doing their jobs? everything has the potential for mistakes and false positives, is there frame works in place to be removed from such lists? someone highlighted the case of an 8 year old on such lists, surely they were removed on discovery of the mistake?

Those lists are a complete joke, feeling lazy so I'm going to just copy a couple of bits from wikipedia (I know):

In August 2004, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) told a Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the No Fly List that he had appeared on the list and had been repeatedly delayed at airports. He said it had taken him three weeks of appeals directly to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to have him removed from the list. Kennedy said he was eventually told that the name "T Kennedy" was added to the list because it was once used as an alias of a suspected terrorist. There are an estimated 7,000 American men whose legal names correspond to "T Kennedy". (Senator Kennedy, whose first name was Edward and for whom "Ted" was only a nickname, would not have been one of them.) Recognizing that as a U.S. Senator he was in a privileged position of being able to contact Ridge, Kennedy said of "ordinary citizens": "How are they going to be able to get to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?"[37] Former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani pointed to this incident as an example for the necessity to "rethink aviation security" in an essay on homeland security published while he was seeking the Republican nomination for the 2008 presidential election.[38]
U.S. Representative, former Freedom Rider, and Chairman of SNCC John Lewis (politician) (D-GA) has been stopped many times.[39]

It took a senator three weeks to get his name off the list and he can go straight to the head of Homeland Security. What chance do you think a regular Joe has?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

Professor Walter F Murphy is emeritus of Princeton University; he is one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the nation and author of the classic Constitutional Democracy. Murphy is also a decorated former marine, and he is not even especially politically liberal. But on March 1 this year, he was denied a boarding pass at Newark, "because I was on the Terrorist Watch list".

"Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that," asked the airline employee.

"I explained," said Murphy, "that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution."

"That'll do it," the man said.

Ever said anything bad about the government? You're probably a terrorist!


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/30/air-marshals-grounded-in-list-mix-ups/

False identifications based on a terrorist no-fly list have for years prevented some federal air marshals from boarding flights they are assigned to protect, according to officials with the agency, which is finally taking steps to address the problem.

Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) familiar with the situation say the mix-ups, in which marshals are mistaken for terrorism suspects who share the same names, have gone on for years — just as they have for thousands of members of the traveling public.

One air marshal said it has been “a major problem, where guys are denied boarding by the airline.”

“In some cases, planes have departed without any coverage because the airline employees were adamant they would not fly,” said the air marshal, who asked not to be named because the job requires anonymity. “I’ve seen guys actually being denied boarding.”

A second air marshal said one agent “has been getting harassed for six years because his exact name is on the no-fly list.”

Planes taking off without air marshals on board because they have a name that sounds like a guy who may or may not be a terrorist. Sounds fine to me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2008100703245.html?sid=ST2008100703347&s_pos=

The Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases that track terrorism suspects, the state police chief acknowledged yesterday.

Police Superintendent Terrence B. Sheridan revealed at a legislative hearing that the surveillance operation, which targeted opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war, was far more extensive than was known when its existence was disclosed in July.

Sure they might say you have the right to free speech but be careful about exercising that right lest you end up tagged as a terrorist.

Gulet Mohamed, a U.S. citizen from Virginia, was placed on the no-fly list as a teenager in 2011 while he was visiting family in Kuwait. Because he was on the no-fly list, he was unable to return to the U.S. before his visa expired.[70] He was taken into custody in Kuwait for overstaying his visa, where he alleges that he “was repeatedly beaten and tortured by his interrogators,” one of whom spoke “perfect American English.”[71] Kuwaiti authorities tried to deport him to the U.S., but the airline denied him boarding, presumably because he was on the U.S. no-fly list, and he was returned to prison.

Awesome.

 

[MilkyJoe]

Connecticut to Ban Gun Sales to Those on Federal Terrorism Lists

Is that enough disbelief there??

I can't even begin to comprehend what is wrong with your country...

I need to sit down.

 

[Stormwatch]

While I believe there should be limitations to who has access to a gun (mentally ill, criminals, terrorists, etc...), I believe the no-fly list is a bad source of info. I used to have access to the list in a previous job and it is full of crazy catch-alls and inaccuracies. They even put names of people on there that they are looking for due to tax evasion or child support. What really needs to happen is for there to be a real effort put in to do actual checks on people who want guns.

 

[Gnome Scat]

Some of us think we actually have a right to due process.

But hey, naw, let's just give in to fear and fascism. A secret government list with no accountability or oversight should definitely determine whether we have rights or not!

Great idea, guys.

I get what you mean by "it's a right," but I'd rather not have someone on a terrorist watch list be able to buy a firearm.

 

[Hari Seldon]

This will get laughed out of court.

 

[Calamari41]

I get what you mean by "it's a right," but I'd rather not have someone on a terrorist watch list be able to buy a firearm.

And someone else would rather not have someone on the list be able to vote, or go to their mosque, or require a warrant for a search of their house, etc etc.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

And someone else would rather not have someone on the list be able to vote, or go to their mosque, or require a warrant for a search of their house, etc etc.

Yeah but if you've publicly voiced an opposition to the death penalty, do you REALLY deserve basic human rights?

 

[QuicheFontaine]

It's not... you can't buy any gun you want at any time. It's not water. Good luck repealing the 2nd amendment. Gun lobby is too strong and there are too many gun fanatics.

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Sounds like a right to me...

If you can't repeal it because "there are too many gun fanatics" then I'm sorry but those are the breaks in a democracy.

 

[Agent Gibbs]

In the US, you can have your rights stripped if you're convicted of a crime in a court of law. That's the problem here. The people on the list haven't been convicted, arrested, or even accused. The contents of the terror watch list are classified, the criteria for which you can be put on the list are classified, and there is no government body to which you can appeal your placement on the list. You have to literally sue the federal government to even attempt to get off of it.

You can trust unnamed and unknowable federal officials to maintain something like this (I certainly wouldn't), and a list like this can hypothetically have its uses for investigation purposes. But to use the list in order to strip people of their constitutional rights by blatantly violating the fifth amendment? Well, love it all you want, but it's not going to hold up in court.

Those lists are a complete joke, feeling lazy so I'm going to just copy a couple of bits from wikipedia (I know):

It took a senator three weeks to get his name off the list and he can go straight to the head of Homeland Security. What chance do you think a regular Joe has?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

Ever said anything bad about the government? You're probably a terrorist!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/30/air-marshals-grounded-in-list-mix-ups/

Planes taking off without air marshals on board because they have a name that sounds like a guy who may or may not be a terrorist. Sounds fine to me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2008100703245.html?sid=ST2008100703347&s_pos=

Sure they might say you have the right to free speech but be careful about exercising that right lest you end up tagged as a terrorist.

Awesome.

Thanks for those, that clears up the confusion for me
Whilst the idea in theory sounds good, a list of potential terrorist perhaps should have difficulty purchasing tools that can be sued to kill, it seems like the list they are using is completely and utterly useless and not worth the paper its written on.

the cases posted above, Senators on lists and all sorts........it sounds like 5 year old school bullies manage the lists

 

[vern]

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Sounds like a right to me...

If you can't repeal it because "there are too many gun fanatics" then I'm sorry but those are the breaks in a democracy.

It is infringed already, technically speaking. You can't buy any gun at any time.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I get what you mean by "it's a right," but I'd rather not have someone on a terrorist watch list be able to buy a firearm.

I'd rather not have Christians be able to buy firearms, you know, because they might shoot up an abortion clinic or something. Let's see how far that goes.

 

[User 73706]

The Obama administration has been violating constitutional rights for quite some time, so this shouldn't surprise anyone really.

Trigger Warning
Member
(Yesterday, 10:41 PM)

 

[Calamari41]

Thanks for those, that clears up the confusion for me
Whilst the idea in theory sounds good, a list of potential terrorist perhaps should have difficulty purchasing tools that can be sued to kill, it seems like the list they are using is completely and utterly useless and not worth the paper its written on.

the cases posted above, Senators on lists and all sorts........it sounds like 5 year old school bullies manage the lists

Yeah, the confusion on the issue comes from the semantics of it. When a random person hears about it, they think that the list is a list of known and proven terrorists. I can understand a reaction like yours when that is the assumption of what's going on.

 

[RPGCrazied]

Yeah. I agree with if him that if someone can't fly, and are on a watch list, specially a terrorist one. You shouldn't be able to. Why even have a list if you don't even enforce it?

I wish this could happen in my state, but I live in probably the state with the most relaxed gun laws. Hell, next month my state is allowing open carry of handguns.

 

[Calamari41]

Yeah. I agree with if him that if someone can't fly, and are on a watch list, specially a terrorist one. You shouldn't be able to. Why even have a list if you don't even enforce it?

I wish this could happen in my state, but I live in probably the state with the most relaxed gun laws. Hell, next month my state is allowing open carry of handguns.

The list is supposed to be for investigation purposes, not punishment purposes.

 

[TDLink]

Getting a gun isn't necessary for anything in this day and age. Unless they're participating in an action movie, they're not actually being deprived of anything significant. We're not living in the days of President Washington anymore, back when the Second was written, and he was leading militias. They are shit as a form of self protection. For every "justifiable homicide" by gun there are 34 homicides, 78 suicides and 2 accidental deaths. That's a track record you'd have to be criminally insane to be happy about, and stupid to ignore. They are a public health nightmare.

If the question is about how did they get on the list and so on, then that's an entirely different discussion. It's worth revising how that whole process is carried out. It should be way more transparent. I'm with the ACLU on this. But in terms of what they're being denied in this case, it just doesn't matter. They're statistically safer without the fucking guns.

Yup this exactly. If there's one thing I wish for in my lifetime it's to see the cancer of guns and the second amendment cut out from America. But I doubt it'll happen.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

Thanks for those, that clears up the confusion for me
Whilst the idea in theory sounds good, a list of potential terrorist perhaps should have difficulty purchasing tools that can be sued to kill, it seems like the list they are using is completely and utterly useless and not worth the paper its written on.

the cases posted above, Senators on lists and all sorts........it sounds like 5 year old school bullies manage the lists

No worries. It's a problem we have nowadays, even here in the UK, that when the authorities want to strip our rights away from us they just trot out "terrorism" and "national security" knowing that most people won't read any further into the matter.

Just say "suspected terrorist" and that person is guilty until proven innocent, in many cases guilty even after being proven innocent.

Yeah. I agree with if him that if someone can't fly, and are on a watch list, specially a terrorist one. You shouldn't be able to. Why even have a list if you don't even enforce it?

I wish this could happen in my state, but I live in probably the state with the most relaxed gun laws. Hell, next month my state is allowing open carry of handguns.

Because the lists are complete horse shit?

 

[Dude Abides]

The Obama administration has been violating constitutional rights for quite some time, so this shouldn't surprise anyone really.

God-Emperor Obama's reach does not extend to the legislative council of Connecticut prefecture.

 

[LizardKing]

No worries. It's a problem we have nowadays, even here in the UK, that when the authorities want to strip our rights away from us they just trot out "terrorism" and "national security" knowing that most people won't read any further into the matter.

Just say "suspected terrorist" and that person is guilty until proven innocent, in many cases guilty even after being proven innocent.



Because the lists are complete horse shit?

It's not even about the list being complete horseshit. There is no list that is good enough short of a list of those who have been tried and convicted of certain crimes in a court of law. Which we already have. Any other list violates this due process.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

I've been on a no fly list before, because I called my mom from Iraq during deployment. It was cleared when they gave me a security clearance. It's fucking stupid.

 

[Shao Kahn on the Lawn]

Anyone who questions that liberal authoritarianism is a thing should be redirected to this thread every time they post something. The mental gymnastics performed here are simply astounding.

Trigger Warning
Member
(Yesterday, 10:41 PM)

The fact that President Obama is routinely accused of ridiculous things does not absolve him from the use of mass-surveillance and the execution of American citizens via drone strikes, both of which fit comfortably within the claim that you responded to.

I disagree on the premise that owning a gun is a right. I didn't comment on this list directly or in which method the government should use to take your gun. I merely stated that owning a gun is not a right.



These examples do nothing to prove that guns have a function outside of causing destruction.

The branches of government that matter in this regard disagree with your sentiment. You can argue that gun ownership should not be an individual right but the fact of the matter is that it is a right based on the current legal and judicial framework of the United States is unquestionable.

 

[bengraven]

Wait this wasn't already a thing?

Let's ban guns for people on the terrorism watch list!

HELL YEAH DON'T LET MUSLUMS GET GUNS

That's great - the Democrats agree with you for once!

WAIT, BAN GUNS? THAT'S AGAINST THE 2ND AMENDMENT! EVERYONE GETS GUNS!

 

[LizardKing]

Anyone who questions that liberal authoritarianism is a thing should be redirected to this thread every time they post something. The mental gymnastics performed here are simply astounding.

Seriously. Or any thread on gun control really. It's very sad.

I do have to wonder if a large percentage of them either don't live in the US and don't fully understand what they are talking about or are middle school/high school kids who don't yet see the value in placing importance on certain aspects of government that they should. At least I hope so.