HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The most offensive positi...

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 10:55 AM

The most offensive position of the NRA

if you are on the FBI's terrorist watch list, you should be prevented from from legal gun ownership.

I was stunned to find that the NRA opposed this very sensible regulation

78 replies, 3488 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 78 replies Author Time Post
Reply The most offensive position of the NRA (Original post)
cleveramerican Jan 2013 OP
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #1
cleveramerican Jan 2013 #4
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #10
beevul Jan 2013 #2
cleveramerican Jan 2013 #5
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #12
cleveramerican Jan 2013 #14
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #18
cleveramerican Jan 2013 #26
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #48
Logical Jan 2013 #66
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #3
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #6
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #22
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #33
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #47
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #56
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #78
Hoyt Jan 2013 #7
hack89 Jan 2013 #11
Hoyt Jan 2013 #13
hack89 Jan 2013 #15
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #37
hack89 Jan 2013 #38
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #42
hack89 Jan 2013 #45
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #52
hack89 Jan 2013 #63
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #67
hack89 Jan 2013 #70
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #72
hack89 Jan 2013 #74
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #75
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #24
hack89 Jan 2013 #8
cleveramerican Jan 2013 #17
hack89 Jan 2013 #28
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #35
hack89 Jan 2013 #41
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #43
hack89 Jan 2013 #46
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #54
hack89 Jan 2013 #61
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #64
hack89 Jan 2013 #69
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #36
hack89 Jan 2013 #40
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #55
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #57
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #65
backwoodsbob Jan 2013 #9
petronius Jan 2013 #16
cleveramerican Jan 2013 #20
petronius Jan 2013 #23
cleveramerican Jan 2013 #29
petronius Jan 2013 #34
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #19
cleveramerican Jan 2013 #21
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #32
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #59
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #73
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #25
Wounded Bear Jan 2013 #27
cleveramerican Jan 2013 #30
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #31
backwoodsbob Jan 2013 #39
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #44
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #49
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #60
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #50
AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #51
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #53
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #62
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #68
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #71
Zoeisright Jan 2013 #58
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #76
Paladin Jan 2013 #77

Response to cleveramerican (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:02 AM

1. Most progressives oppose the way the watchlist is operated, do you support it?

If it was subject to challenge, external review, and correction, that would be different.

Do you support the Patriot Act as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:30 AM

4. If you can't buy plane ticket, you shouldn't have a gun

I am aware of the problems with the list, but still I think this is so obvious,
I am suspicious of anyone of any political bent who would oppose it.

does it make you even slightly uneasy?


l

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:50 AM

10. I have mixed feelings...if it was well vetted and had reasonable appeal options, I could support it

Right now it is pure executive branch fiat and not subject to review. No one should support that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:25 AM

2. IIRC Ted Kennedy was on that list.

Still think the list is a good thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:36 AM

5. I do

Was is the key word there
is it perfect? NO

perfection is an elusive and seldom seen state

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:54 AM

12. Its not perfection, its the process which is pure executive branch fiat

If there was some sort of external appeal process it would be much more acceptable to all Americans. It is totally non-transparent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:00 PM

14. if we can't agree that suspected TERRORISTS shouldn't have guns......

we are truly stuck and no evolution of gun owners responsibilities is possible , ever.
A truly depressing thought

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:06 PM

18. I agree with that. I think that their needs to be some fairness in the appeal of that designation

Most of the people on the list are foreign nationals residing outside the US. Its really a tempest in a teapot except for the lack of an independent appeal process

A different administration could place every crew member of Sea Shepherd ships on the list. Would you be good with that or would you think some independent review options are called for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:29 PM

26. I am suspicious of " independent"

too often "independent" is a shield to hide behind.
it allows elected officials to absolve themselves of responsibility

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:55 PM

48. I think it should be done by the Judicial branch at least

With representation of the person designated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:01 PM

66. You answering "I do" to Ted Kennedy on a terror watch list makes anything you say worthless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:27 AM

3. In general, NRA asks that there be due process involved with becoming prohibited



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:41 AM

6. which is odd, because they completely ignore due process when it comes to selling guns

or gun makers getting sued

or background checks

or basically the entire constitution and democratic process.

but, true, they take a strong stance against any gun law whatsoever, if that's what you mean...

but they cheat, so i wouldn't call their agenda 'due process'.

maybe 'intentional fear mongering'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:25 PM

22. What I mean is that before someone is prohibited they are told of the action that will make them...


... prohibited and have a chance to response.

For example, when one is prohibited because of being convicted as a felon there is a transparent due process that goes along with it.

Also when one is prohibited for being mentally incompetent there is a judicial or governmental board where you have the chance to defend yourself in a transparent due process before being adjudicated/declared mentally incompetent and, therefore, prohibited from gun possession.

I think if the terrorist watch list provided a person the chance to respond before being placed on it then it would be ok. There really have been quite a few errors.

See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601386.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:43 PM

33. there could be a seperate federal 'gun owner' blacklist, and you could get a chance to appeal when

you are switched from one to the other? maybe?

the bold part is kind of a problem...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iUJuCX9KgMa-iu2foNsWBx3Sfvpw
"At a time when the threat of terrorism is still very real, as we in New York City know all too well, I think it is imperative that Congress close this terror gap in our gun laws, and close it quickly," he said.

Bloomberg made the appeal before a Senate committee considering a bill introduced in June 2009 that would ban sales of weapons to people on the FBI watch list.

Wednesday's hearing at the Senate had been planned before Saturday's attempted car bombing in New York, which was also the scene of the September 11, 2001 attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center.

A Pakistani-American, Faisal Shahzad, 30, tracked down within hours of parking a bomb-laden car on Broadway has been charged in the plot.

Senator Joe Lieberman told the committee examining the bill: "Times Square should remind us of a reality that we tend to forget: Islamists attack."

"We are simply not doing all we can to stop terrorists from buying firearms," he warned.

Others like Republican Senator Lindsey Graham expressed reservations, warning that the bill infringed on the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms.

Bloomberg said he supported the bill, quoting figures from a US government report that said that from February 2004 to February 2010, 1,228 people listed on an FBI terror watchlist had tried to buy weapons. About 90 percent, some 1,119, had succeeded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:40 PM

47. Due process is for the government taking away rights, not for citizens using their inherent rights

There is no due process for wanting to go to church, buy a newspaper, have an abortion, performing a gay wedding, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #47)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:49 PM

56. you don't have the right to be a public menace

there are absolute rights and regulated rights, the latter being more of a privilege.

you don't have the right to go on an airplane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #56)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 01:41 PM

78. True, but you don't get to unilaterally decree an inherent right a "public menace"

Nor can you strip people of their rights without due process.

Self-defense is not a privilege, it is a right and you admit as much in your argument. The thing that makes a public meance a public menace is their threat to the lives of others. Since the authorities cannot be a preventative force -- even if the fantasy of an absolute ban and compulsory turn-in became reality -- then individuals are still their own first, best hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:45 AM

7. Does anyone really care what NRA "asks." They are a bunch of right wing bigots.

Grover Norquist
John Bolton
Ted Nugent
Ollie Norht
Reps of Gun Manufacturers

These are just a few representatives of their Board of Directors.

Heck, the NRA President's son -- brought up as supposedly "law-abiding, responsible" member of gun culture -- was convicted of shooting a man in a road rage incident. One could make a good case for preventing any member (or sympathizer) from owning a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:52 AM

11. So you oppose due process since the NRA supports it? Really? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:58 AM

13. And gun cultists hide behind due process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:01 PM

15. So due process is over rated? Overused? Not needed?

tell us what you really feel?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:51 PM

37. being totally against anything the NRA says is a perfectly sane thing to do

they are really just lunatics.

ted nugent? grover norquist? ollie north?

please! no!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:53 PM

38. So what do you replace due process with if it is completly insane?

arbitrary government discretion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #38)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:13 PM

42. due process is fine, it is the NRA which is insane. i would replace the NRA with sane people if i

could.

for instance- 500 people. they are making a big stink about NOTHING.

A spokesman for the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center said that the total number of people on the no-fly list has doubled since the Christmas Day plot, to 20,000. But, he said, the number of U.S. citizens remains "very small" and relatively stable, at 500.

The FBI spokesman said there are about 550,000 people on the agency's larger terrorism watch list, approximately 98 percent of whom are foreign nationals.

The GAO said "hundreds more" foreign citizens were kept off flights after U.S. Customs and Border Protection "determined they would likely be deemed inadmissible upon arrival at a U.S. airport." In addition, the State Department revoked hundreds of visas shortly after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's botched attempt to ignite explosives in his underwear "because it determined that the individuals could present an immediate threat to the United States."

The Nigerian would-be bomber was on a British watch list at the time of the attempted attack. But despite warnings to U.S. officials from his father, Abdulmutallab was only on a general watch list in the U.S. and information about him was not considered specific enough to revoke his visa or place his name on a no-fly list.

The GAO report, a public version of a classified report issued late last year, credited TSA's Secure Flight program with reducing the likelihood of misidentifying passengers who are not on the list for those who are, as the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and other unlikely suspects were.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/no-fly-list_n_1563261.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:34 PM

45. So those 500 don't deserve due process?

what is wrong with making the government take their evidence to court if they want to deprive a US citizen of a civil liberty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #45)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:39 PM

52. of course not. it isn't logical. "you are on the list. we are watching you" makes the list pointless

"oh, i'll get my buddy to do that horrible thing then"

it makes as much sense as telling mafia bosses they are bugged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #52)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:00 PM

63. So then don't use that list to restrict civil liberties

it never hurts to err on the side of civil liberties - it is certainly the progressive perspective. The RW feels that government power trumps individual freedom - that's why they love the Patriot Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #63)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:04 PM

67. people who are dangerous don't get liberties. safety of hundreds comes before 1 person's privilege

no, the RW believes in smaller government and their own personal freedom, gained by owning said government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #67)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:19 PM

70. And secret government lists are the best way to determine if someone is dangerous?

so we can't protect America without open, transparent legal procedures? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #70)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:23 PM

72. what don't you understand about "the list doesn't work if it isn't a secret"?

"we have you bugged, please say something illegal"???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #72)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:34 PM

74. So as soon as someone is denied the right to buy a gun

or to fly they know they are on the list. So it is not a secret anymore.

Why do you trust the government so much? If GWB was still president would you have any faith in any secret government process that would restrict civil rights? Do you think he respected civil rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #74)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:16 PM

75. i really don't care about the list, except that it doesn't work for stopping illegal guns

guys like that steroid-addled fool yeager are on the list.

good. nobody so far has suggested using the no fly list for guns, except maybe the NRA to cause a big hullaballoo about nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:27 PM

24. I don't know -- ask the OP who brought up the issue of NRA positions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:45 AM

8. Gun control always brings out the closet authoritarians.

So you are ok with secret government lists with no due process being used to deprive Americans of constitutional rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:04 PM

17. gun control is a poisoned term

I think we need to have an honest national debate about GUN RESPONSIBILITIES

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:32 PM

28. You reward responsible users and punish irresponsible users.

right now the conversation is about punishing both groups. How you plan to reward responsible gun use?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:46 PM

35. getting to keep a gun that is frivolous to the majority of people is your reward

what more do you want?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iUJuCX9KgMa-iu2foNsWBx3Sfvpw

Bloomberg said he supported the bill, quoting figures from a US government report that said that from February 2004 to February 2010, 1,228 people listed on an FBI terror watchlist had tried to buy weapons. About 90 percent, some 1,119, had succeeded.

i'm sure not ok with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #35)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:59 PM

41. Do you know how people get on that list?

the answer should be "no" - it is a completely secretive process that appears to be riddled with errors and lends itself to abuse. Lets not forget that Ted Kennedy was placed on that list.

The answer is simple - if the government does not want someone on that list to own a gun, they need to bring their evidence to court and convince a judge and jury. Are you ok with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #41)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:28 PM

43. i don't see it as an issue with 500 US citizens in total on said list

http://epic.org/foia/fbi_watchlist.html

even if it is 5000, that's a lot less than millions of illegal guns.

if you went to occupy wall street's forum, you could find a dozen people in 10 minutes who should prob. be on that list!

think about it logically-
if the 'list' is public knowledge, that kind of defeats the purpose of said list, which is preventing terrorists. meaning, they aren't going to use someone on the list to try something. right?

"oh, joe, you idiot, that 4th DUI with the uzi under your seat got you on the no-fly list, no tactical weapons convention for you."

of course the evidence should be seen in court.

According to the FBI memos, a person cannot be watchlisted based on a "hunch" of being a national security threat. There must be at least "one source of corroboration" and particularly "derogatory information" connecting that person to terrorist activities. Page 62 gives the following definition:

Terrorism and Terrorist Activities -are acts which a) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure which may be a violation of U.S. law; and b) appear intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking."
http://blogs.computerworld.com/19055/fbi_watchlist_database_to_catch_the_devil_you_have_to_go_to_hell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:36 PM

46. So have the governement bring their evidence to court

just obey the Constitution - is it really that hard?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #46)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:40 PM

54. i don't believe the constitution says anything about criminal cases being public info

you are allowed to appeal and be removed from the list. as simple as that. read the links

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #54)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:56 PM

61. You have the right to face your accusers

and examine the evidence against you. Read the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #61)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:01 PM

64. you also have the right to life, liberty, and happiness. not a gun. or a plane ride.

DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program

The DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) is a procedure for travelers who are delayed or denied boarding of an aircraft, consistently receive excess scrutiny at security checkpoints, or are denied entry to the U.S. because they are believed to be or are told that they are on a government watch list. The traveler must complete an online application at the Department of Homeland Security website, print and sign the application, and then submit it with copies of several identifying documents. After reviewing their records, DHS notifies the traveler that if any corrections of data about them were warranted, they will be made.

Travelers who apply for redress through TRIP are assigned a record identifier called a "Redress Control Number". Airline reservations systems allow passengers who have a Redress Control Number to enter it when making their reservation.

DHS TRIP may make it easier for an airline to confirm a traveler's identity. False-positive travelers, whose names match or are similar to the names of persons on the No Fly List, will continue to match that name even after using DHS TRIP, so it will not restore a traveler's ability to use Internet or curbside check-in or to use an automated kiosk. It does usually help the airline identify the traveler as not being the actual person on the No Fly List, after an airline agent has reviewed their identity documents at check-in.

DHS TRIP is often accused of being defunct and existing only to appease civil rights organizations without having any actual effect.
ACLU lawsuit

On August 5, 2010, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of 14 plaintiffs challenging their placement on the No Fly List.

On April 6, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union "filed a nationwide class-action challenge to the government's No Fly List", in which they charge that "many innocent travelers who pose no security risk whatsoever are discovering that their government considers them terrorists – and find that they have no way to find out why they are on the list, and no way to clear their names." The case was settled in 2006, when "the federal government agreed to pay $200,000 in attorneys' fees to the ACLU of Northern California" and to " public, for the first time, hundreds of records about the government's secret 'no fly' list used to screen airline passengers after September 11, 2001."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List#False_positives_and_other_controversial_cases

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #64)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:17 PM

69. So don't use the list to restrict civil liberties.

find a better way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:48 PM

36. rights are intangibles, not physical objects

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

scalia, 2008

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #36)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:55 PM

40. That has nothing to do with this sub-thread

I am responding to a post that bought up the concept of responsibility.

I have never said that gun rights cannot be regulated - I agree with Scalia in the Heller decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:44 PM

55. +1... All sorts of rights-restricting advocacy groups are festooned with closet authoritarians. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #55)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:50 PM

57. what exactly are you doing besides imposing your 'authority' to own any gun you want?

and not staying on topic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #57)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:01 PM

65. Spending taxpayer money, too.

 

The reply was on topic to the post made my hack89. This is a subthread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:47 AM

9. I oppose the watchlist

there is no way of knowing if you are on it and if you are there is no method to appeal it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:03 PM

16. Pretty sure the FBI would oppose that "sensible regulation" as well - they don't

want people to know that they're on the super-secret watchlist (which would become very obvious as soon as a purchase was refused).

And more generally, I think any sort of mission-creep with the TSDB is hugely problematic. It does serve a purpose - intelligence and investigation are the most effective way to prevent terrorism, certainly more useful than airport security theatre. So, a database of those persons currently and actively under investigation is reasonable.

However, using that secret list for any other purpose - especially to interfere with civil liberties - undermines due process, goes against the basic foundations of our justice system, and is a very real step in the 'police state' direction...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:17 PM

20. so your in favor of....

would be terrorists legally buying an unlimited amount of guns and ammo?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:25 PM

23. I'm in favor of scupulous protection of civil rights and liberties, for all citizens and for

all people subject to the laws of the United States. And I'm not willing to abandon fundamental principles out of fear or for convenience...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:32 PM

29. so thats a yes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:45 PM

34. I would not deny any civil right/liberty, nor any freedom, opportunity, choice,

or privilege, to any person, without due process, a compelling reason, judicial oversight, and an opportunity for redress. That applies to your hypothetical would-be terrorist as much as it does to you or to me or to anyone else.

Whether I actually want that person to buy guns, or to do anything else, is of course completely irrelevant...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:08 PM

19. It's not a sensible regulation at all. Look at the ACLU.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/terror-watch-list-counter-million-plus

The ACLU and other groups on the left have repeatedly opposed the watch lists because they have no accountability and have been routinely used against peaceful liberal groups. From a liberal stand point, I oppose depriving anyone of their rights to property or liberty without due process. If they are convicted of a crime, that's different. But just getting added to a list with little recourse to get off and no accountability should not bypass our constitutional protections.

And this is different than a pistol permit like the right wing nut making threats lost. A concealed carry permit is a Privilege, and it is made very clear that threatening can get it revoked.

Be careful when arguing a position is just an NRA position. This thinking has led the repugs down some really illogical paths in their quest for purity. Just because the NRA holds a position doesn't mean that the left doesn't hold it either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:20 PM

21. all sides rigid positions have not served us well

and all sides must re-evaluate and evolve

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:37 PM

32. I'm not going to re-evaluate a basic civil liberty.

I'm so rigid in that position that I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU.

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

These rights include:

Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
Your right to equal protection under the law - protection against unlawful discrimination.
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.


The ACLU also works to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and people with disabilities.

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled. Support the ACLU today.



Seriously. Don't let emotion blind you on something this important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:53 PM

59. funny that the ACLU itself doesn't think guns are a liberty...

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #59)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:27 PM

73. Yep. They have chosen to stay neutral.

And I can't blame them for that. If they took an opinion on the topic they could lose a large chunk of their supporters, either side.

Do notice that due process is a civil right. That is the topic here. I can't just declare that someone can be deprived of property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:27 PM

25. They actually got that one right.

The watch list is a nasty joke, with thousands of people on it whose "terrorist" inclinations consist solely of having the audacity to pipe up about various bullshit actions of the powers-that-be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:31 PM

27. So, looking at the consensus of the above posts...

Enacting this bit of "regulation" would most likely get the "no-fly list" opened up or ended, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wounded Bear (Reply #27)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:35 PM

30. I think thats true

for better or for worse

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:37 PM

31. don't forget- silencers....as wholesome, children-friendly accessories...is pretty bad, too!

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/silencers_the_nras_latest_big_lie/

This Silencer Awareness Campaign is today’s gun lobby in a bottle. The coordinated effort brings together the whole family: manufacturers, dealers, the gun press, rightwing lawmakers at every level of government, and the NRA. Each are doing their part to chip away at federal gun regulation in the name of profits and ideology. Together, they plan to strip the longstanding regulatory regime around silencers, and reintroduce them to the gun-buying public as wholesome, children-friendly accessories, as harmless as car mufflers.

***

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022095706

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:55 PM

39. if you are in any way on a watch list

you have your rights taken away.

There is no way of knowing if you are on it and there is no appeal process .

Is this what we want?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #39)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:33 PM

44. there's been some info released it isn't that bad

Timothy J. Healy, the terrorism center's director, said the documents show procedures for adding and removing names are not "haphazard."

"There has been a lot of criticism about the watch list," he said. "But what this illustrates is that there is a very detailed process that the F.B.I. follows in terms of nominations of watch-listed people."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/09/28/FBI-memo-gives-info-on-terror-watch-list/UPI-24011317186694/

***

A December 2010 FBI memo distributed to the bureau's field offices leaves the door open for a person to remain on the list following acquittal or dismissal of charges, although it says such a person "must still meet the reasonable suspicion standard in order to remain on, or be subsequently nominated to, the terrorist watch list."

The document says in most cases a person's name would be removed from the roster.

The memo says a person cannot be watch-listed based solely on "hunches" and that there must be "particularized derogatory information" that a person could be a national security threat. In addition, the memo says there must be at least "one source of corroboration" connecting someone to terrorist activities.

The memo was among 91 pages of documents the FBI released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Many details about how the watch list works have not been known to the public. Inclusion on the roster could mean someone would not be able to fly on an airplane or cross a border to enter the United States. At a minimum, a person could face additional screening or questioning.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/28/us/terror-watch-list/index.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #44)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:59 PM

49. Isn't that bad is no replacement for civil liberties and due process.

They should arrest them and take it to court or give it up until and unless they can, there is no magic in between state. Supporting one makes you a traitor to a free society, flat the fuck out, the risk is the cost of a free society. Sometimes the cost is very high but ever the best bargain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:55 PM

60. going on a plane or owning a gun = NOT a liberty

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

not a liberty

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:04 PM

50. What position should be taken other than that?

Have these folks been charged with a crime that they should be detained? Have they been convicted of a crime that would dictate a sentence curtailing their rights?

Any other position is beyond contempt, where the hell is this carve out of on someone's list?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:20 PM

51. I suspect there are a lot of James Yeager types on that list

Right wing gun nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:40 PM

53. Are you f-ing serious? The Bush Terra watchlist is now a credible gov't list?!?

 

That terror watchlist is utter bullshit. There is absolutely zero due process involved in putting people's names on it.
How long until they start using that list to restrict other things... like adoptions, voting, government aid, social security, travelling (oh wait... you already cant fly if you're on that bullshit list).

If you support using Terror Watchlists to restrict ANY activities, let alone enumerated rights, you are supporting McCarthyism in it's purest sense.

Wiki: McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #53)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:59 PM

62. the list is no big deal. i really couldn't care less

so what if there are 1000 US citizens on it, there are millions of illegal guns being sold every year.


DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program

The DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) is a procedure for travelers who are delayed or denied boarding of an aircraft, consistently receive excess scrutiny at security checkpoints, or are denied entry to the U.S. because they are believed to be or are told that they are on a government watch list. The traveler must complete an online application at the Department of Homeland Security website, print and sign the application, and then submit it with copies of several identifying documents. After reviewing their records, DHS notifies the traveler that if any corrections of data about them were warranted, they will be made.

Travelers who apply for redress through TRIP are assigned a record identifier called a "Redress Control Number". Airline reservations systems allow passengers who have a Redress Control Number to enter it when making their reservation.

DHS TRIP may make it easier for an airline to confirm a traveler's identity. False-positive travelers, whose names match or are similar to the names of persons on the No Fly List, will continue to match that name even after using DHS TRIP, so it will not restore a traveler's ability to use Internet or curbside check-in or to use an automated kiosk. It does usually help the airline identify the traveler as not being the actual person on the No Fly List, after an airline agent has reviewed their identity documents at check-in.

DHS TRIP is often accused of being defunct and existing only to appease civil rights organizations without having any actual effect.
ACLU lawsuit

On August 5, 2010, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of 14 plaintiffs challenging their placement on the No Fly List.

On April 6, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union "filed a nationwide class-action challenge to the government's No Fly List", in which they charge that "many innocent travelers who pose no security risk whatsoever are discovering that their government considers them terrorists – and find that they have no way to find out why they are on the list, and no way to clear their names." The case was settled in 2006, when "the federal government agreed to pay $200,000 in attorneys' fees to the ACLU of Northern California" and to " public, for the first time, hundreds of records about the government's secret 'no fly' list used to screen airline passengers after September 11, 2001."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List#False_positives_and_other_controversial_cases

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #62)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:09 PM

68. ACLU claims there are more than a million names on those lists.

 

I disagree with the ability of a government to be able to simply deny a citizen anything without due process. If they are terrorists, the government should have no problem proving it before taking any legally actionable measures. But as stated upthread, gun control can really bring out those closet authoritarians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #68)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:22 PM

71. sounds like the list is a little small to me. plus i count 25 false positives. and too many guns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List#False_positives_and_other_controversial_cases

the truth is-
As of 2011, the list contained about 10,000 names. The list – along with the Secondary Security Screening Selection, which tags would-be passengers for extra inspection – was created after the September 11 attacks in 2001.

The No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism. The Terrorist Watch List contained around 400,000 names as of summer 2011, according to the TSC.

***

http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/hate-and-extremism


Currently, there are 1,018 known hate groups operating across the country, including neo-Nazis, Klansmen, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatists, border vigilantes and others.

And their numbers are growing.

Since 2000, the number of hate groups has increased by 69 percent. This surge has been fueled by anger and fear over the nation’s ailing economy, an influx of non-white immigrants, and the diminishing white majority, as symbolized by the election of the nation’s first African-American president.

These factors also are feeding a powerful resurgence of the antigovernment “Patriot” movement, which in the 1990s led to a string of domestic terrorist plots, including the Oklahoma City bombing. The number of Patriot groups, including armed militias, grew by 755 percent in the first three years of the Obama administration – from 149 at the end of 2008 to 1,274 in 2011.

***

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iUJuCX9KgMa-iu2foNsWBx3Sfvpw

Bloomberg said he supported the bill, quoting figures from a US government report that said that from February 2004 to February 2010, 1,228 people listed on an FBI terror watchlist had tried to buy weapons. About 90 percent, some 1,119, had succeeded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:53 PM

58. The NRA is offensive by definition.

Fucking impotent losers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleveramerican (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:42 PM

76. I find their blocking of public health research into gun violence more vile.

A "suspected terrorist" is a person put on a list with little or no judicial oversight and no formal appeal process. It is rather bullshitty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #76)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:09 PM

77. And The ATF Has Been Without A Director For Six Years, Thanks To The NRA.


Enough is enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread