Democrats push to prevent gun sales to those on terror list

[EV_Ares]

Last edited Sat Nov 21, 2015, 11:25 AM - Edit history (1)

You can not get on a plane while on the list but you can purchase high-powered weapons while on the list.

"It is appalling that anti-gun politicians are exploiting the Paris terrorist attacks to push their gun-control agenda and distract from President Obama's failed foreign policy," Baker said.

..............................So use the National Rifle Association's & repubs own logic. They want to shut out all refugees from coming into the country until they are 100% verified they are not terrorists. So, until those on the terror list are verified, they cannot purchase a weapon of any kind........................

The National Rifle Association signaled this week it will oppose Feinstein's bill, as it did those before it.

NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker pointed to past instances where innocent people were added to the watch list either in error or as the result of tenuous ties to others involved in suspicious activities. She stressed that the NRA doesn't oppose denying terrorists firearms, but said the group wants to ensure that Americans who are wrongly on the list are afforded their constitutional right to due process.


Link to article: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-push-to-prevent-gun-sales-to-those-on-terror-list/ar-BBng7Nj?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=UE03DHP

[Duckhunter935]

1. So what's wrong with this?

the group wants to ensure that Americans who are wrongly on the list are afforded their constitutional right to due process.

[krispos42]

2. People on the list...

...can also vote, hold office, are entitled to a lawyer, and cannot be forced to testify against themselves.

Oh, the horror.

[benEzra]

3. For those who have forgotten why this Bush/Cheney proposal was a bad idea...

here are some reminders:

Unlikely Suspects (ACLU)

No-fly blacklist snares political activists

Marshals: Innocent People Placed On 'Watch List' To Meet Quota

Infants on the Terrorist Watch List

Nine years on the no-fly list because an agent checked the wrong box

How YOU could end up on the no-fly list

Various blacklist absurdities

Senator Kennedy Flagged by No-Fly List

Question: If you think being placed on a secret surveillance list without being charged with even the most minuscule crime makes you so dangerous that you need to be barred from something as mundane as owning a gun, do you think that "watchlisted" individuals should be able to drive a tanker carrying 30,000 pounds of gasoline other hazardous chemicals through populated areas? Work at a school, sports stadium, chemical factory, or hospital? Serve as a police officer or security guard? Work for the Federal government? If you are willing to consider someone that dangerous simply because their name is on a list of people to check out, how far do you want to take it?

"So use the National Rifle Association's & repubs own logic."

"No Fly, No Buy" is a Republican proposal dating to 2005, and a mixed bag of "Tough On Civil Liberties" legislators, both (R) and (D), have been pushing this crap since the Bush Admin proposed it. One of the most prominent advocates is Republican Peter King, whose views on Muslim-Americans are well known and widely criticized.

It's been well demonstrated that if you yell "GUNNNZ!!" instead of "TERRAH!!", then there are plenty of people who will lose their collective minds and endorse all kinds of authoritarian crap (remember stop-and-frisk? warrantless searches of public housing?), and it appears to me that this is the case here as well.

[Eleanors38]

4. The 5th Amendment: Always the first to go.

[petronius]

5. The list in question is not the 'no fly' list, it's a much broader list of people for

whom the FBI believes it has "reasonable suspicion that the person is a known or suspected terrorist." A recent source I saw said there are ~700,000 people on the list, other source say up to 1.5 million people. They may not all be US citizens/residents, but I strongly disagree with Senator Feinstein et al. that this is an appropriate tool to deny civil liberties, civil rights, or privileges.

From the article:

The FBI is notified when a background check for the purchase of firearms or explosives generates a match with the watch list, and agents often use that information to step up surveillance on terror suspects.

This is as far as I think use of the list should go. (And just practically, if the people on the list are serious suspects, why tip them off with a NICS denial? And if they aren't serious suspects, why are they on the list?)

[Gothmog]

6. This should have been done a long time ago

[benEzra]

8. Revoking civil liberties because you were put on a list to be checked out?

Senator Edward Kennedy's name was on that list for a while. There have been U.S. Attorneys with security clearances on that list. Also soldiers, anti-war activists, airline pilots, human rights activists, law enforcement officers, infants and toddlers, you name it.

The ACLU has opposed this ever since the Bush Administration first proposed it, and with good reason.

[Lizzie Poppet]

7. Until the list is massively cleaned up, this is hard to support.

Last edited Sat Nov 21, 2015, 04:42 PM - Edit history (1)

It's difficult to get a solid number (lack of transparency is one of the list's big issues), but there are somewhere between 700k and 1.5m people on the terror watch list. That's an unusable number for anything beyond scripted database searches - that is, there are so many names that a human being trying to analyze the data looking for patterns, etc., would be overwhelmed.

The huge number also almost certainly means that the majority of list members aren't actually terror threats (if they were, we'd have Paris-style incidents once a week). I have a big problem with denying an enumerated constitutional right on the basis of a list that is virtually certain to be comprised mainly of innocent people. Moreover, I'd be willing to bet the farm that a lot of those innocent people on the list got there solely on the basis of looking Middle Eastern. Fuck racial profiling.

Due process, people...it's not just a good idea, it's the law.

[EV_Ares]

9. So, why not use your same suggest6ions for immigrants coming into this country. The same people

that are fighting the Dems bill to not allow those on the terror list to be able to purchase weapons want to completely shut out any refugees. Yet, they want to allow those on the terror list to purchase weapons. Go figure.


There are probably more home-grown terrorists in this country now then the Syrian refugees trying to escape what is happening in their own country.

[oneshooter]

12. So lets apply the list to Drivers Licenses.

[EV_Ares]

13. Go ahead with that comment, LOL.

[951-Riverside]

10. I do not support this at all

First it'll be guns, then they'll say you can't drive a car, then they'll say you can't have certain jobs, then they'll say you can't be hired at all, then private companies like twitter, google, your insurance company, your bank, etc may say you can't use their services if you're on the list.

Let me remind you that people who are placed on that list can't appeal it and they can't find out why they're on that list. Lets say you get arrested in NYC for protesting police brutality, nothing stops Law Enforcement from placing you on a no-fly list because again there is no judicial process in place, there is no oversight and everything is secret.

I support a constitutional convention to repeal or alter the 2nd amendment but I do not support this. It goes against everything this country stands for and does not prevent anyone with bad intentions from getting a hold of a firearm.

All terrorists will do is use their buddy who is not on the list to go in and buy a weapon or buy one on the black market like most felons. Furthermore the terrorists in Paris also used explosives.

[EV_Ares]

14. You should be a free NRA member as that is their philosophy.

[951-Riverside]

15. NRA supports abolishing the 2nd amendment? That's news to me

[EV_Ares]

16. They say almost word for word what you say:

"First it'll be guns, then they'll say you can't drive a car, then they'll say you can't have certain jobs, then they'll say you can't be hired at all, then private companies like twitter, google, your insurance company, your bank, etc may say you can't use their services if you're on the list."

The right-wing & the NRA has that exact philosophy like you.

As Feinstein says: "appalling is the NRA’s dogmatic insistence that guns continue to be made readily available to almost anyone who wants to have one. The NRA and their Republican stooges in congress are so indoctrinated into the gun cult, that they won’t even approve of legislation designed to keep guns out of the the hands of suspected terrorists."

[benEzra]

19. You're defending the Bush/Cheney position. He's defending the ACLU position.

The watchlists are NOT a list of terrorists. They are a list of people who were assigned extra scrutiny to make sure they AREN'T terrorists.

Attending an anti-war rally can get you on the list. A tweet can get you on the list. Attending the same place of worship as another watchlisted person can get you on the list. Simply having the same name as a watchlisted person means you are on the list. There are plenty of people on the list who were put there simply to meet quotas.

There is a reason why the ACLU and other liberals shot down this Bush/Cheney proposal, but some "progressives" didn't get the memo.

https://www.aclu.org/unlikely-suspects?redirect=technology-and-liberty/unlikely-suspects

[EV_Ares]

26. I am defending the Feinstein & Dem position.

Try to keep up.

From: NY Times

" some critics have warned that issuing a denial to someone on the watch list would alert him to the authorities’ suspicion. But which is worse: a terrorist who fears he may be under surveillance, or a terrorist with an assault rifle? Under new proposed legislation, introduced this week by Mr. King and Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, the attorney general would be given the authority to approve or deny firearm or explosive purchases by a terror suspect, so the option not to tip off the suspect would remain intact.

The risks posed by a more diffuse and autonomous terrorist diaspora, including self-radicalized domestic jihadists, underscore the need to deny access to arms to those on the terror watch list. In the wake of the Paris attacks in January, the attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., said that “worrying about the lone wolf or a very small group of people who decide to get arms on their own and do what we saw in France” was what kept him up at night.

As long as the United States fails to widen the category of prohibited purchasers of firearms and explosives to include those on the terror watch list, we are neglecting to take the most basic protective measures. And worse, we are making it easy for would-be domestic jihadists to obtain the means to do us harm."

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/opinion/gun-rights-for-terrorists.html?_r=0

[NutmegYankee]

31. This isn't a gun control issue, it's a civil liberties issue

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Being denied liberties based on your name appearing on a list (which was abused heavily back in the Bush era) violates the 5th Amendment. This is actually a very scary Fascist proposal. And yes, I'm aware Feinstein is for it. Just like she supports warrantless NSA searches.

[benEzra]

66. Feinstein's proposal is a Bush/Cheney proposal from 2005 that was roundly rejected.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL33011.pdf

She is a huge fan of the Bush excesses during the War On Terrah (from the Patriot Act to limitless warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens), which often puts her at odds with the ACLU and other more liberal civil rights organizations.

And the watchlist is not a list of "terror suspects". Unless you consider the late Senator Edward Kennedy to be a "terror suspect".

[virginia mountainman]

25. Their are no "Free" Nra members...

Unlike many gun control org's which whom will count you as a member, if you "like" their facebook page, or sign up for a free email list (Which they will sell your info to make money*) The NRA is a bit more selective in it's membership requirements...

To be a member of the NRA, you must PAY... Everyone of the NRA's 4.5 or so MILLION members have to pay, yearly dues to be part of the organization, or pay a much larger "lifetime member" fee..

Odd that even with the very low bar, membership requirements the gun control organizations have, they still only have a tiny portion of members, compare that PAY to be a part of at the NRA. It becomes obvious just how far outside the mainstream many gun control orgs are by their weak membership numbers, they can't even give them away.

*Brady Campaign member list, for sale, you can even get it sorted by "jewish or catholic"....

http://lists.nextmark.com/market;jsessionid=01C3B430E53C38C143CDCDE052DDA200?page=order/online/datacard&id=163065

So, the NRA does NOT give out memberships, why would it when people gladly pay to be part of it. Now you want to talk about philosophies? How about the Brady Campaign selling their members information to anyone with ready cash in hand??

[X_Digger]

11. Fuck this unconstitutional piece of shit (the no-fly / terror list) and anybody who supports it. n/t

Last edited Sun Nov 22, 2015, 12:21 PM - Edit history (1)

[EV_Ares]

17. Yeah, that is telling them.

[X_Digger]

18. Feel free to give up your liberties for the illusion of safety. Not mine, thanks.

How many terrorists have the crotch-grabbing TSA crew found?

Oh, they saved us from those dangerous bottles of breast milk? Whew, good job!

[benEzra]

20. Would you listen to the ACLU?

http://www.aclu.org/unlikely-suspects?redirect=technology-and-liberty/unlikely-suspects

Senator Edward Kennedy's name was on the watchlist. Nelson Mandela. The President of Bolivia. Rep. John Lewis (D, GA). U.S. Attorneys. U.S. soldiers. Airline pilots. Peace activists. Muslims. Toddlers. Infants. Over a million people, and climbing.

You're saying that those people should be denied civil rights for the rest of their lives because someone put their name on a secret list of people to keep an eye on, for any reason.

The ACLU says you are wrong.

"We can't have terrorist watch lists that affect people's rights without due process -- the right of innocent people to challenge their inclusion through an adversarial proceeding and get off the lists. But no such system has been created. A September 2009 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security found that the process for clearing innocent travelers from the list is a complete mess. The consequences of being mistakenly added to a terror watch list can be more severe than simply missing a plane. Law enforcement routinely run names against the watchlists for matters as mundane as traffic stops, and innocent individuals may be harassed even if they don’t attempt to fly.

--American Civil Liberties Union, at http://www.aclu.org/watch-lists

[EV_Ares]

29. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/opinion/gun-rights-for-terrorists.html?_r=0

[EV_Ares]

30. You don't think things change over time or years including documents, laws or needs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/opinion/gun-rights-for-terrorists.html?_r=0

[benEzra]

67. Yes, things change over time. They have gotten *SAFER*.

And the watchlists have been filled with more and more completely innocent victims of the bloated and unaccountable process (1.5 million people, now?), and have been publicly exposed as same.

And what you're saying is that Alberto Gonzales, Dianne Feinstein, Peter King, Dick Cheney, and their cheerleaders at the New York Times are "Good Dems" on the issue of revoking civil liberties based on secret watchlists, whereas critics of the watchlists such as Mother Jones, the American Civil Liberties Union (which opposes using the Bush watchlists to revoke civil liberties, and has filed numerous lawsuits to help innocent victims of the watchlisting process), etc. aren't.

Answer me this: What aspects of the Bush Administration's war on civil liberties post-9/11 did the New York Times *not* support? Weren't they one of the biggest boosters of the Patriot Act?

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. With a commercial-grade chainsaw

[Logical]

21. This is wrong! The list is suspect! Nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. Not 'suspect', McCarthyite bullshit

[EV_Ares]

32. Use some logic, you don't think things change, documents, laws refined over time, over years.

There were laws years ago that needed to be changed & how they were enforced. Also, times change as well.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/opinion/gun-rights-for-terrorists.html?_r=0

[Logical]

49. "Times change" sounds like "be afraid". Go ahead and let them scare you. I won't nt

[virginia mountainman]

24. Suddenly lots of love for..

Bush-co's super secret list here on a democratic messageboard.

Very strange, and scary, how suddenly it becomes "acceptable".

[Duckhunter935]

27. Not getting the responses

You were expecting, lol

[NutmegYankee]

28. Who controls the list and how can this be Constitutional given the 5th Amendment?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[EV_Ares]

33. Bloomberg: Deny Second Amendment to People on Terror Watch List

Bloomberg told the Senate Homeland Security Committee today he strongly supports congressional efforts to close a “terror gap” in the nation’s gun laws. Bloomberg pointed to a new Government Accountability Office report showing that individuals on the terrorist watch list were able to legally buy firearms and explosives from licensed U.S. dealers.

“That is a serious and dangerous breach of national security,” Bloomberg testified. The FBI should have the authority to block such sales, “but right now, they don’t,” he said. “It is time to close this ‘terror gap’ in our gun laws,” reports the Washington Post.

[NutmegYankee]

34. I don't care what some blowhard says. I care about Civil Liberties of US Citizens.

[EV_Ares]

35. Well, fortunately, his voice along with more important people's voices get heard over what you care

about.

[NutmegYankee]

36. Congratulations on your embrace of Fascism!

[EV_Ares]

37. Again, your opinion of which that is all it is. Fortunately more intelligent

& logical opinions will be the ones that matter & thank you for your intelligent reply calling me a fascist there junior. Evidently, you are clueless of what fascism is as well. Have any more labels?

[NutmegYankee]

40. No, that label fits quite nicely.

You clearly don't care about any protection provided by the Constitution. I have no doubt that such a law would eventually fall to the courts, but that apparently isn't enough to stop you. Your only argument in support in this entire thread has been that some high and mighty people support it. Do you not have the ability to think for yourself? No wonder corporate America wants to weaken the public school system and eliminate lessons that teach critical thinking.

As for intelligence and reasoning abilities, that would be demonstrated by not advocating for clearly unconstitutional laws. But you do so because you are afraid. And in your fear, you damage the rights of every citizen.



BTW, I am a card carrying member of the ACLU.

*On a side note - I see this as part of a sickening trend to treat Arab peoples as non-persons under US law. Given the history of laws that Germany passed in the 1930's, this trend is frightening.

[EV_Ares]

41. ROFL - again your opinion which certainly doesn't account for much as far as many are concerned.

Also, those high & mighty people as you call them have far greater knowledge then you. Your opinion of this falling to the courts is as laughable as the rest of your opinion.

Oh so you being a card carrying member of the ACLU is supposed to impress me, LOL.

Now run along Junior & don't forget your card.

[NutmegYankee]

42. Why are you here?

[EV_Ares]

44. Why are you here? Do you make the determination now of who can come here? LOL, you are hilarious.

[NutmegYankee]

45. I'm here because I support the Democratic Party.

And it's principles, like rule of law and equality of all peoples under the law. You?

[EV_Ares]

46. Actually, I don't have to explain to you why I am here. That said however,

if you support the Democratic Party,why don't you support Senator Feinstein & the Democratic Party?

Now, again, why don't you run along, if someone doesn't agree with you, you start the name-calling & it is getting old.

You question their right to be here because they don't agree with you. I will check to see if you have that authority.

[NutmegYankee]

47. I support Feinstein on some issues, but not all.

The same goes for just about any Democrat towards the representatives we elect. Hell, large portions of DU are in disagreement with the President on some of his positions, like the TPP trade deal.

As for the Party, may I introduce to you a Plank from the 2012 Platform -

Staying True to Our Values at Home. We must always seek to uphold these values at home, not just when it is easy, but, more importantly, when it is hard. Advancing our interests may involve new actions and policies to confront threats like terrorism, but the President and the Democratic Party believe these practices must always be in line with our Constitution, preserve our people's privacy and civil liberties, and withstand the checks and balances that have served us so well. That is why the President banned torture without exception in his first week in office. That is why we are reforming military commissions to bring them in line with the rule of law. That is why we are substantially reducing the population at Guantánamo Bay without adding to it. And we remain committed to working with all branches of government to close the prison altogether because it is inconsistent with our national security interests and our values.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#universal-values

[EV_Ares]

48. So, nothing wrong with that. Again, I have as much right to be here as you & your name-callling

does not intimidate me in the least. I personally appreciate those who disagree with me who are civil. Also, a registered Dem & vote that way mostly but still reserve my right to be Independent.

Now, any more questions about my right to be here? Oh, I forgot I am a Fascist according to you.

[NutmegYankee]

50. You stated clearly that you were not concerned about civil liberties.

And in fact in this entire discussion, you've never managed to counter the fact that this law would violate the right to due process before a civil liberty is removed. Many DUers remember the rampant abuse of watch lists during the previous presidency. I can link to dozens of articles of people incorrectly denied access to flights, some of them veterans, because their name had made it onto a watch list.

A judge is not holding a hearing to put these individuals on a list. Some unaccountable person is making this decision, and those on the list can't even challenge it because the government often refuses to identify if the person is even on the list. One of the reasons I voted for President Obama was to eliminate this atrocity against civil liberties.

As I stated way up above - this has nothing to do with guns. It's about protecting the limitation that prevents the government from deciding to disenfranchise people on a whim. At the end of the day the bill of rights protects the rights of citizens by preventing the government from passing various laws that would compromise those rights.

[EV_Ares]

51. Look, now you have to lie to try to support your own personal opinion. I have never stated I am

not concerned about civil liberties, those are your words along with calling me a fascist of which you have no basis.

The rest of what you say is also only your own opinion. You throw around the word fascist really loosely & in actuality you fit that term better than myself. You want the right to your opinion but the opinion of others not so much. However, I have never resorted to throwing out such names in a blanket manner nor do I resort to name-calling for those who disagree with me especially calling someon a fascist which is pretty low.

We are fortunate in this country that your own personal opinion will more than likely stay on a message board where those opinions who really do matter will prevail.

Now done with you here as this is a discussion that is going on elsewhere I am enjoying but on a more civil level & without the name-calling you like to do. I think it is a discussion important to have with all that is going on & interested in other viewpoints. All opinions matter, not just yours or mine & that is how you are able to come to good conclusions most of the time in the end when you allow others to have their opinion, not just your own.


Oh, don't forget your ACLU card, I am still impressed on that.

[NutmegYankee]

58. *yawn*

Anymore Faux outrage to express today?

[Vinca]

38. It seems like a no brainer, but the other part of Feinstein's bill is more important.

Travelers from the EU can pretty much go in and out of this country with little notice, barely checked. All of the terrorists in recent attacks were citizens of EU countries. They could have just as easily gone to Chicago rather than Paris. The EU also needs to rethink their agreement. It doesn't seem wise to allow people to roam from country to country with no one knowing who they are.

[EV_Ares]

39. Exactly.

[benEzra]

68. Yep.

Which is a good reason why the blacklist bullcrap should be stripped out of the bill so it doesn't poison-pill it.

You raise one of the biggest points against the "fear Syrian refugees" argument, and that is that the French attackers could have legally traveled here without raising any eyebrows, so they wouldn't have needed to pose as Syrians.

[ileus]

43. Who is on the list and how did they get there???

[Agnosticsherbet]

52. We are not willing to pass regualtions when a man puts bullets in the heads of 6 year olds,

So this won't pass.

Americans love murder,
Like a baby loves its binky.

[Lee-Lee]

53. Denial of a right without due process or even the ability to fight or appeal it is wrong. Period.

That doesn't matter what right you are talking about. The right to bear arms, the right to vote, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Think about the ramifications of this before mindlessly supporting it because it sounds like a good idea. If the government can put you on a list for whatever reason it wants, with no due process, right to appeal, or even ability to defend yourself and then deny you a right that is explicitly enumerated in the bill of rights and has been held by SCOTUS to be an individual right- then the precident is there that they can do the same for any other right.

You may not agree that the Second Amendment enumerates and protects an individual right. But the law of the land is that it in fact does, so the effects of this are based on reality and the law as it is, not as you say it should be.

So, that means that the Second Amendment gets as much scrutiny and protection as any others, like the First and Fourth Amendments. Would you support granting the government the ability to deny those right just because they put you on a list that you can't appeal, defend yourself, or even know about?

Because that's the legal precident this would set if it was done and the courts upheld it.

Would you still say that back when Shrubby Boy was in the White House? Or if Trump or his ilk controlled who was on the list?

[EV_Ares]

55. It has been revised

"Under the previous redress procedures, individuals who had submitted inquiries to DHS TRIP [the Department of Homeland Security Traveler Redress Inquiry Program] generally received a letter responding to their inquiry that neither confirmed nor denied their No Fly status.”

“Under the newly revised procedures, a U.S. person who purchases a ticket, is denied boarding at the airport, subsequently applies for redress through DHS TRIP about the denial of boarding, and is on the No Fly List after a redress review, will now receive a letter providing his or her status on the No Fly List and the option to receive and/or submit additional information.”

If the individual traveler chooses to pursue the matter, DHS “will provide a second, more detailed response. This second letter will identify the specific criterion under which the individual has been placed on the No Fly List and will include an unclassified summary of information supporting the individual’s No Fly List status, to the extent feasible, consistent with the national security and law enforcement interests at stake.”

http://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2015/04/no-fly-redress/

[Lizzie Poppet]

56. That's the No-Fly list. That's not the list in question.

The list that would be used for this purpose is the FBI's consolidated Terrorist Watchlist. It's a completely different list (although I'm sure some names appear on both).

[EV_Ares]

61. Thanks Lizzie, you are correct & also correct in that some names do appear on both.

That said, the changes or revisions that have been made on the "No Fly List" should be made on the Terrorist Watch List as well. I agree that an individual should have the right to be told how & why he is on the list so the revisions for the No Fly list should work on the other as well.

[Lizzie Poppet]

62. Agreed. These lists are useful, but need significant reform (nm).

[EV_Ares]

63. Exactly.

[petronius]

64. The no-fly list is a subset of the consolidated watchlist, so everyone on the

former is also on the latter. I've seen a range of numbers listed, but it seems like the no-fly list is <10% of the watchlist...

[Lee-Lee]

57. No. That is the No Fly List, the Terrorist Watch List is larger and has no due process at all

They are not the same thing.

[Hoyt]

54. Gunners are always afraid of losing access to their next lethal weapon.

The list should include overly armed up people as Domestic Terrorists. For the gunners who will ask -- Overly armed up means more than a gun or two for hunting and HOME protection.

[beevul]

71. And you are always worried about taking access away.

For the gunners who will ask -- Overly armed up means more than a gun or two for hunting and HOME protection.

Exhibit A right there.

That would put ME on your domestic terror list, even though I haven't bought a gun in over ten years, but because I inherited a couple guns over the years.

[Hoyt]

74. What do you need a bunch of gunz for anyway? One us enough for home defense, unless

you are under delusions that we are in a war zone.

[beevul]

75. What I need or don't need, is none of your damn business...

What I need or don't need, is none of your damn business, and you are neither qualified, nor in a position, to make that determination. Nor will you ever be.

I'd get used to that if I were you.

On edit: What business is it of yours how many guns I own, eh?

[Hoyt]

76. Sure it is when your questionable needs are polluting society.

[beevul]

78. You are neither qualified nor in a position to make that determination.

You are neither qualified nor in a position to make that determination.

I'd dare say that robbers, former and otherwise, who piously presume to lecture others about their needs, have polluted society far more than I have.

Isn't there a handgun somewhere that needs your delicate touch in field stripping under water, or someone rude toter somewhere that you should be identifying at 100 yards?

Don't you have someone somewhere to defend with a can of beans a bicycle tire or a magical staff?

[B Calm]

59. National Rifle Association has signaled it is a terrorist organization!

[benEzra]

69. Is the ACLU a terrorist organization too?

http://www.aclu.org/watch-lists
http://www.aclu.org/unlikely-suspects?redirect=technology-and-liberty/unlikely-suspects

Is Mother Jones a terrorist magazine?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/02/nine-years-no-fly-list-because-fbi-agent-checked-wrong-box

And those pesky terrorists at the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html

This guy would approve:

[sarisataka]

60. It is scary

How weak some are committed to Democratic principles.

All it takes to get support of Bush II's police state is simply replacing the word terrorism.

[Eleanors38]

65. There is contingent aming the controller-banners which is authoritarian...

and anti-constitutiinal. You have made it obvious to all on DU.

[benEzra]

70. Question: Should "terrorists" be allowed to vote?

Should "terrorists" be allowed to work in medical facilities?

Should "terrorists" be allowed to run a union?

Should "terrorists" be allowed to work at educational facilities?

[linuxman]

72. When put to the test,

it always amazes me how incredibly weak some peoples' commitments to civil rights and individual liberties are.

Actually, I'm not really all that amazed anymore.

The same folks that would have adored GWB if he changed his "R' to a "D".

[sarisataka]

73. It seems more than a few

Democrats are still made in the same mold as McCarthy.

[Orrex]

77. The wailing and gnashing of teeth notwithstanding...

I don't see how this is anything but grandstanding. There's no way that it would pass if brought to a vote, and there's certainly no way that the Roberts court would allow it to stand if it even got that far. The first court to take a look at it would call bullshit and yank the whole thing.

I'm no fan of unchecked gun ownership, but this proposal is obviously going to fail the very first test it faces.