Should Ted Kennedy have been able to purchase a gun?

[TPaine7]

Remember, his name was on the terror watch list. It's a simple question; a simple yes or no would be appreciated, with any explanation following--I'd like to be able to easily tally responses.

For those who say yes, here are some follow up questions:

Do you believe in equality under the law?

Do you believe that other people--sane people with clean criminal records who have reached the age of majority--should also be able to purchase guns, even if their names appear on the terrorist watch list just like Kennedy's name did? If not, why not?

Thanks.

[pnwmom]

1. His name should have been removed from the terror watch list.

There should be a simple, efficient way to remove names from the list.

[ZombieHorde]

3. All the names should be removed from the list. nt

[TPaine7]

17. Can you explain how it is progressive or liberal

to make a woman go through even a simple process to prove her innocence instead of requiring the government to prove her guilt?

Thanks.

[pnwmom]

43. It isn't about proving innocence. It's about proving identity. n/t

[Hangingon]

46. What

It is about being on an arbitrary list. One you are placed on without you knowledge. One that has no clear way to have a name removed. You are wasting bandwidth.

[pnwmom]

49. You're wasting bandwidth.

You must be, since you're disagreeing with me.

:shrug:

[TPaine7]

50. No, if you are on the list because you are SUSPECTED of being a terrorist

the only logical way to get off the list is to remove the SUSPICION--to prove your innocence. It is true that you could conceivably remove suspicion by showing that you were not the suspected person--that you merely shared their name. But you would still be proving your innocence, you would just be doing it by proving your identity.

There will always be the cases where the government suspects innocent people. Traditionally, these people have been minorities, people with unpopular political views, people who expose government corruption, liberals and the like.

Do you favor people having to prove that a government list is wrong (or that the person on it with your name isn't really you) in order to not be discriminated against as a general principle? Do you favor secret government lists as a basis for forbidding otherwise legal behavior as a general rule? Are these liberal positions?

[Euromutt]

68. Correction: "if your name is on the list because a person using that name (not necessarily you)...

... is a 'terror suspect'" etc.

Note that unlike a general criminal suspect, a "terror suspect" is not necessarily someone who is suspected of having committed an act of terrorism, but anyone deemed likely to be contemplating an act of terrorism, or supporting (wittingly or otherwise) an act of terrorism, or... well, it's kind of hard to say what will not potentially cause someone to be deemed a "terror suspect."

Take Yusuf Islam (né Steven Georgiou), formerly known under the stage name "Cat Stevens": he was denied and entry to the United States and placed on the No Fly List on the grounds that he'd donated money to a Palestinian charity which was suspected by the Israeli government to be linked to Hamas. Admittedly, the Israeli claim is plausible (Hamas is known to perform charitable works, which is how it gained popularity in the Gaza Strip in the first place), but so is Islam's claim that he was not aware of any possible ties between the charity in question and Hamas. After all, the whole point of a front organization is to conceal the fact that it's linked to criminal activity.

[Euromutt]

37. Bit difficult, considering it wasn't on the list in the first place

The name on the No Fly List was is "T. Kennedy." It shouldn't have affected Edward Kennedy in the first place. But it did, and aside from him, it presumably also affected anyone and everyone named Tamara, Tara, Terrence, Theresa, Timothy, Tobias and Anthony ("Tony") Kennedy as well.

[pnwmom]

44. Which is obviously crazy. The list clearly needs to be culled,

and it should be done systematically and frequently.

[TPaine7]

47. It should be culled until it contains only CONVICTED terrorists,

at least if it is going to be used to limit the exercise of enumerated rights.

[Euromutt]

51. The lists (note plural) need to be scrapped

There's some justification for the concept, but in practice, the Selectee ("watch") and No Fly Lists have been so badly executed from the very beginning that there's nothing worth salvaging about them.

I'd advocate carrying out a complete overhaul of the TSA to accompany that, sacking or transferring everyone in the higher echelons and rewriting the procedures from the ground up. As one Maryland ex-police chief put it, the TSA and the procedures it (haphazardly) wields have evolved not to provide security, but to enforce compliance. For example, people opting out of the new all-body scanners are searched in a manner that won't detect any weapons, but in a manner that will deter them from opting out next time.

[cleanhippie]

66. Thats two "shoulds" in your post.

Should, could and would and belong in the same category.

[RSillsbee]

74. But there isn't and until there is

we need to not be taking people's rights based on their being on that list

[ZombieHorde]

2. Yes, TK should have been able to purchase a gun.

Do you believe in equality under the law?

No, I do not believe equality under the law exists.

Do you believe that other people--sane people with clean criminal records who have reached the age of majority--should also be able to purchase guns, even if their names appear on the terrorist watch list just like Kennedy's name did?

Yes.

[TPaine7]

5. I meant equality under the law as an ideal, not as a reality.

[ZombieHorde]

8. I definitely like the ideal. nt

[safeinOhio]

4. Just fix the list.

this ain't rocket science.

[TPaine7]

7. It's a list of SUSPECTS.

The only way to fix it is to make it a list of CONVICTS...

Hey wait, we already use that.

[ZombieHorde]

9. The only way to fix the list it to abandon it. nt

[X_Digger]

6. Yes, yes, yes.

Do away with lists of names (not people, just names) used to hinder people's rights.

[TPaine7]

10. I notice that some people refuse to answer a yes or no question.

It seems to be correlated to their positions on the gun issue. Interesting, isn't it?

[safeinOhio]

16. Here is why.

Loaded question
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial assumption such as a presumption of guilt.<1>
Such questions are used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.<2> The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.<2> The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.<2> Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.<2>

[TPaine7]

25. What is the "controversial assumption" in the OP?

That Kennedy's name was on the list?

There are uncomfortable questions in the OP (for those who support using the terrorist watch list to forbid gun purchases) but an uncomfortable question is not the same thing as a "controversial assumption."

Feel free to point out any legitimate controversial assumptions.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Only in that it forces you to deal with the question of whether the list violates due process.

Which, of course, it does.

[X_Digger]

35. You need to learn to apply those better..

There is no controversial assumption.

Was T.Kennedy on the list? Yes. I can drag out the news stories if you insist.

Did Sen. Lautenberg introduce a bill that, should it have passed, would have prevented those on the list from passing an NICS check? Yes. Look at other threads today.

7/10 for effort, 1/10 for application.

[TPaine7]

40. Safe, you have often been accused of being anti-gun in this forum

You have defended yourself, claiming to be a moderate, open minded person.

Here's your chance to show it. You made a claim--a false one in my estimation--that you avoided the OP's simple question because it was loaded with a controversial assumption.

There are only two ways to make false claims--intentionally or unintentionally. There are also only two ways to respond to being shown that your claim was false--acknowledge it or fail to acknowledge it.

One of the identifying marks of an extremist is that he will avoid unfomfortable questions, often ignoring them. Another is that he will use false claims. Yet another is that he will stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that his claim was false, despite overwhelming evidence against it.

What about you? Are you an honest seeker for truth who will quickly acknowledge a mistake, or someone who will neither acknowledge a mistake or an intentional falsehood in order to preserve his ideology? Or, and I would welcome this--an honest person who will take the time to show the error in his opponent's reasoning (in this case the legitimate controversial assumption that makes the OP's question(s) loaded)?

We shall see.

[rrneck]

11. Yes. Yes. Yes.

*headsmack*

An obvious point. We should be embarrassed you have to point it out.

The watchlists were the groundwork for anti sedition laws. But to paraphrase a line from The Lion in Winter:

Eleanor: I can see eyes in the dark all around us.

Henry: And they can see ours.

[sasha031]

12. Ted Kennedy use to put a bullet proof vest on ever morning before he went to work

maybe if he instead brought an AK47 a a few grenades he wouldn't have found the need for the vest:sarcasm:

[TPaine7]

13. Do you also have an answer to the OP's straightforward question(s)? n/t

[sasha031]

23. I remember when my Senator was put on the watch list

should someone on a watch list have the right to be able to purchase a firearm?

I stick with Ted on this one. I doubt he owned a firearm, probably found they did not solve anything.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. He had armed bodyguards. He didn't need a gun. N/T

[TPaine7]

33. In other words, no, you don't have a straightforward answer.

As for your belief, I seriously doubt Kennedy didn't own many firearms. Anti-gun laws are for the little people--they always have been.

A trusting nature can be a good thing, but I hope you're young.

[PavePusher]

58. Dodge. n/t

[eqfan592]

75. If only they could solve the strawmen anti's keep rolling out...

...to defend their indefensible position, I'd buy a dozen more right now.

[one-eyed fat man]

82. Rich people hire their killing done

Kennedy Bodyguard Arrested

January 15, 1986|Associated Press

A bodyguard hired to protect Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) on his current trip to Latin America was arrested on weapons charges hours before Kennedy's plane took off last week.

Charles J. Stein Jr., 47, was arrested Jan. 7 when he asked U.S. Capitol police where he could store his automatic weapons and ammunition while he went to Kennedy's office, a police spokesman said Tuesday.

[gejohnston]

84. His brother Jack was an NRA life member

I am sure he owned several.

[Euromutt]

53. Why on Earth would he need to do that?

After all, Washington D.C.'s gun laws made it almost impossible to legally possess a firearm within the District, and still don't permit the carrying of a firearm within the District. It's not exactly easy in Massachusetts either.

Are you suggesting that those stringent gun laws might actually be ineffective?

Anyway, your post is merely a red herring, because it doesn't answer the OP's question, which I shall reformulate: should the late Edward Kennedy have been denied any freedom, including the freedom to purchase a firearm, solely on the basis of the name "T. Kennedy" appearing on an arbitrarily compiled and unvetted list of "terror suspects"?

[safeinOhio]

14. Seems easy enough

if denied purchase one should have the option of a court hearing to hear the evidence and let a judge&jury look at it. If one IS a really bad player, I doubt they would challenge it in a court of law.

Just like if an ex is stocking an ex and making threats. Deny a purchase until case is heard in court.

There are many, many insane and criminals that have not been caught yet. Most murder, suicides are by people that have no record. Yet there are plenty of signs of pathology way before the murder. As long as we have courts to correct any false accusations, most would have no problem with putting a hold on gun purchases until a court case. Same with terrorist.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. This logic was used to implement poll taxes and literacy tests.

After all, if they couldn't pass the reading test, they were unlikely to go about learning to pass it.

It's called disenfranchisement. Particularly since it applies to a civil right, whether you happen to like that one or not.



The list violates due process. Period.

[GreenStormCloud]

29. Most murders are by people who DO have records.

You lump suicides and murders together to suit your anti-gun agenda.

Nobody should be denied a civil right without due process of law. The government should have to prove people guilty, not people have to prove their innocence. Most working-class people who happen to have a name that is the same as one on the watch list can't afford huge legal fees for your solution.

[safeinOhio]

34. "Show Cause" hearings are

cheap and easy to file.


My only anti-gun agenda is an anti crooks and insane getting easy access to firearms. I am all for non-criminals and sane people having access. As a member of the latter, I would have no problem with registering my handguns and needing a background check to purchase or sell a hand gun.
To assume that I am anti-gun would also be to assume that you are pro criminals, terrorist and insane people having unrestricted handgun access.

There is no middle ground for extremist and ideologues on either side of this issue and you prove that point.

[TPaine7]

42. Extremists and ideologues

on the anti-gun side avoid uncomfortable questions, make up false reasons for their actions, rufuse to admit it when they are shown to be wrong and delight in any roadblocks to the exercise of gun rights. They will even sacrifice sacrosanct principles like innocent until proven guilty and due process of law.

Some of them, the worst of them by far, believe that they are entitled to the very rights they sacrifice principle to deny to others. Even if It's inexpensive and simple it's still an impediment and it still assumes guilt.

No person should be required to prove innocence to any government to justify the core of any enumerated right; the government should be required to prove guilt.

I wish all closeted fascists would form their own party and come out boldly. They would be easier to deal with.

[safeinOhio]

60. So, no one sits in jail after killing someone

until they are convicted." They will even sacrifice sacrosanct principles like innocent until proven guilty and due process of law." The Law, rights and the rest of our rules are not all that black and white.

[TPaine7]

63. The authorities can't jail that person indefinitely and arbitrarily.

They must meet a legal standard to hold him past a legal limit. The must convict him in a court of law to hold him past another legal limit.

The terrorist suspect list has no such limits. It is arbitrary, capricious, unchecked and puts the burden of proof on the accused.

Edited to say: Actually that last part is wrong. The suspect has no opportunity to legally challenge the list so "burden of proof" is not applicable. Suspects have no rights with respect to the list, and the government need provide no justification for anything they do with respect to the list. Unless a suspect is well connected, he has no recourse.

Not everyone on the list has the political clout of a senator.

[safeinOhio]

65. Like I suggested.

Amend it so if denied you have recourse. "Show Cause" in court.

[TPaine7]

79. Still unconstitutional

That's not how our justice system is supposed to work. The government does not get to put you on a secret list and put a burden of proof on you to exercise a core, enumerated right.

Your willingness to embrace fascist principles is telling.

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. I love the ones that claim to own (or used to guns, or claim to know 'good' (or 'bad') gun owners...

...and thus are qualified to proclaim what gun laws should control all 80 million or so American gun owners, on the basis

of their own experience (or purported experience with others who own guns).


In a way, it's rather a clever way to avoid addressing pesky things like statistics- you hear stuff like "I own (insert type

of firearm here), and I think...", or "My father/uncle/brother/grandfather was (a cop/in the Army/a Marine) for 73 years and he

said/feels/thinks..., or "My guns are fine, but for some strange reason the only other gun owners I know

are meth heads/raging alcoholics/spouse abusers who like to get tanked and wave their guns around like they were in a third-rate

production of "Lil' Abner"...

[GreenStormCloud]

52. So why did you lump murders and suicides together?

Your posts always take the side of the antis so it is logical to conclude that you have a hidden anti-gun agenda.

[safeinOhio]

59. No more than concluding that you

want to make it as easy as possible for criminals to have easy access to handgun.

[GreenStormCloud]

76. So why did you lump murders and suicides together?

You are ducking that question.

[X_Digger]

38. "Most murder, suicides are by people that have no record."

Did you mean murder-suicides? Or was that an implied 'or'?

The majority of those who commit murder have previous convictions.

I'm not aware of any research on suicides.

if denied purchase one should have the option of a court hearing to hear the evidence and let a judge&jury look at it.

I'm glad that at least you recognize the inherent lack of due process in the proposed law that was shot down.

There are many, many insane and criminals that have not been caught yet. Most murder, suicides are by people that have no record. Yet there are plenty of signs of pathology way before the murder. As long as we have courts to correct any false accusations, most would have no problem with putting a hold on gun purchases until a court case. Same with terrorist.

Guilty until proven innocent? (At their own expense.)

*checks the address bar.. Yup, still at DU. Fancy that.

[safeinOhio]

62. Innocent until proven guilty is

always at one's own expense.

I checked the address bar just to make sure it wasn't the NRA underground.

[X_Digger]

72. Have you heard of 'public defenders'?

If you are accused of a crime, or accused of being unable to manage your affairs, you are entitled to competent legal representation. Whether you can pay for it or not.

That is when the state levies an accusation against you.

If you sue the government, or file for an administrative hearing, you have to pay for your own counsel.


Your little fascist 'guilty until proven innocent' scheme places the burden (and therefore the cost) on you, not the government.

I'm going to bookmark that post though- that one's a keeper

Posted by safeinOhio

Innocent until proven guilty is always at one's own expense.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

18. I. alone, am a well regulated militia.

[armueller2001]

19. I'm a part of a well regulated militia.

In the founders' time, "well regulated" meant well functioning. I keep my skills and weapons in order, so therefore they (and myself) are well regulated.

The national guard is the "organized militia" and all able bodied males between 17 and 45 are part of the "unorganized militia". It's actually very specifically defined in federal code.

I am part of the well regulated militia :)

[safeinOhio]

22. "well regulated" as in

well functioning clock. A clock that must have the correct number of parts in the proper positions to function at all.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

77. In the 18th century...

...when the term "regulated" was used along with the term "arms" the implication was that the arms and therefore their owners would be effective in the use of those arms. This does not mean that they were "approved", "controlled", "monitored" or "limited" by the government.

Militia commanders were, generally, appointed.
Militias were sometimes funded by towns or states.

In that era the term "regulated" could best be defined as efficacious or, simply, they were good at it, their munitions found their targets.

[safeinOhio]

20. Ted

"suck on this Obama and Pelosi" Nugent would be proud.

[TPaine7]

21. I have no affiliation with the NRA, and have never given them a penny.

It figures, however, that you would be yet another person who avoided answering a straightforward question.

Adding intentional falsehoods and speaking boldly on subjects where your ignorance could not be more complete simply raises the bar of failure.

Congratulations. Yours is the most pathetic answer yet.

[safeinOhio]

24. See post #16.

My answer was to points made in this sub-thread and not directed at you personally. A little overly defensive aren't you?

[TPaine7]

27. ????

Are you mixed up on who I was responding to? I responded to post 15, which wasn't yours. Follow the dashed lines.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Men between the ages of 17 and 45 are, by US law.

Bummer, eh?

Sexist and ageist though. We should expand that list.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

39. +10000, I am incensed that it still reads that way.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. That horse you are beating is dead and has rotted away. N/T

[rrneck]

41. Guns are for killing- who? nt

[Euromutt]

55. How about a Marine reservist?

Case in point: Staff Sgt. Daniel Brown, USMC Reserve, of Coon Rapids, MN. Brown was placed on the "No Fly" list after TSA screeners detected gunpowder residue on his boots. His uniform boots. Brown was subsequently obstructed at LAX upon his return from an 8-month tour in Iraq (where he presumably acquired even more gunpowder residue on his boots).

If Sen. Lautenberg and Reps. King and Quigley had their way, Brown would be prohibited from purchasing firearms solely because he'd been declared a "terror suspect" by some clueless Too-Stupid-for-Arby's fuckwad who couldn't work out why a marine might legitimately have gunpowder residue on his uniform boots.

ETA links: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12284855/ http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/unlikely-suspects

[cleanhippie]

67. Another one who spouts off without knowing what s/he is talking about.

Before displaying your ignorance, you really should know about the subject matter.

[Katya Mullethov]

36. Guns ? Absolutely .

A driver' license ?

Not so much .

[blue neen]

45. That's quite an interesting question...and you should have had a third option.

I'm undecided.

[TPaine7]

48. That's an interesting answer. May I ask why? n/t

[blue neen]

54. Well, the question did not point to an easy "Yes" or "No" answer for me.

It prompted me to think of other issues whereby some might have a difficult time responding in a black and white fashion.

For instance: Do you believe unequivocally in a woman's right to make her own reproductive health decisions?

I don't mean to be off-topic here in the gun forum, but it's the first question that occurred to me.

Both issues are concerning rights guaranteed to us by the United States Constitution.

[TPaine7]

56. I see significant differences.

Mine has no absolute emphatic terms like "unequivocally." It also uses no euphemisms like "make her own reproductive health decisions."

My question is more like "do you think that when Cher was 1 month pregnant she should have been able to chose an abortion?"

[blue neen]

61. Those aren't really significant differences; those are questions of semantics.

For example: "Sane people with clean criminal records who have reached the age of majority" = "make her own reproductive decisions"...and I don't really think that the word "unequivocally" is emphatic. It means "unambiguous", which is what you are asking people to be by answering only "Yes" or "No".

Some people really do see life in shades of gray, and I'll admit that I am usually one of them.

[TPaine7]

64. Interesting

If a person took the postion that a woman couldn't choose an abortion during labor (but before the baby's head crested), would that be equivocating? That's the kind of thing that "unequivocal" brought to my mind.

I think there should be clear legal limits to when government should be able to limit rights. In the case of buying a gun, the current limits are sane, non-felon adult. What other qualifiers would you add (or subtract)?

What shades of gray do you see? Do you think there is a way to implement a gray-scale legal standard, as opposed to a black and white one?

[blue neen]

71. At this point, I would not add or subtract any qualifiers.

I do not feel educated enough about gun laws or gun legislation to be able to do that. I won't even pretend to be an expert about something so important, so I'll be exiting this discussion to keep this forum from being off-topic.

I've been around this world for a long time, and my decision-making process has been formed mostly by three things: upbringing, life experiences (good and bad), and genetics. It doesn't mean a decision can't be made, it just means that all sides of the question will be considered before doing so.

If you really stop and think about it, there sometimes is a gray-scale legal standard that is implemented. There are such things as plea bargains, appeals processes, out-of-court settlements, etc. that kind of take the black and white out of some legal matters. Sometimes right and wrong seems very clear, sometimes not so much.

Good luck with your answer tally.

:)

[Riftaxe]

57. I am sure he would have qualified under

the filthy rich person exemption the antis espouse. apparently only LEO, the wealthy and politically well connected should be allowed to exercise 2nd Amendment rights (so he would be doubly qualified, RIP Teddy).

[Euromutt]

70. To his credit, though, Kennedy did complain on behalf of "ordinary citizens"...

...pointing out that they didn't have the clout to demand to see the Secretary of Homeland Security in person to complain.

Or have their names removed from the list by an Act of Congress, like Nelson Mandela.

[Straw Man]

73. Speaking of Nelson Mandela...

Or have their names removed from the list by an Act of Congress, like Nelson Mandela.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/990555--gun-buried-by-a-young-mandela-could-be-worth-millions-if-it-can-be-found

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

78. Yes, because...

...the list should not exist.

I am not saying that the FBI should not maintain surveillance of terror suspects.
Clearly, Ted was never a terror suspect. Someone with the same name may have been, but Ted was not. This is the exact reason that such a list should not be used as criteria for the denial of rights.

- Do you believe in equality under the law? - Yes, for sure.

- Do you believe...sane people...clean criminal records...age of majority... - Ummm, Yes. But I believe ANYONE not adjudicated as a prohibited felon or mental defective should have free access. No one should be required to prove sanity, a clean record, a compelling need, enough money or fame or connection, to exercise their inherent RKBA. Yes this would include the sane, non-criminal, of age citizens you mention. But making sanity, clean records and whatever a requirement is too much like asking for proof of innocence rather than conviction of guilt.

The NICS was developed by the FBI as a means of recording those who, through due process, have been shown to be criminally or mentally unqualified to own firearms. Governors, prosecutors, legislators, mayors, sheriffs and other officials that are grandstanding for attention and seeking to employ other standards are more a part of the problem than the solution.

Our justice system makes conviction difficult because it should be. From English common law the principle is that it is better for 10 guilty to go free rather than for 1 innocent be unjustly convicted. Due Process

[slackmaster]

80. Automatic Rec for topic that triggers cognitive dissonance

:toast:

[creeker]

81. YES--- because being on the list is not against the law---

until the govt. makes being on the list makes you unable to own a firearm -- thats the way it is

[Riftaxe]

83. Yes, arbitrary lists should not supercede constitutional

rights. What a strange question.