Another poll, this time it's the Asbury Park Press

[JimB1 555]

Voted: 75.11% the senate voted the right way.

 

-Jim

[10X 3,301]

...The people on the "no fly" or "terrorist watch" lists have presumably done nothing illegal yet and haven't been charged with anything. No one knows what the criteria for getting on those or other secret lists is and there's no clear path to getting removed from the list... 

 

Very well stated, Jim.   Your post is a nice summary of the problems with the 'lists'.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Dickbag bill O'Reily has been blasting his pie hole about a CBS poll that has 95% OF respondents calling for more gun control, no idea why he's running with it, and hard.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-nightclub-massacre-cbs-news-poll-assault-weapons-ban/

[T Bill 649]

Because he cannot stand to be irrelevant.  He doesn't make any money that way.  He is a blowhard like all the other news media "journalists";  A NY Long Island bullshit maven (one of the worst kind) whose only concern is selling books that to people who cannot think for themselves.  This news media cancer is spreading because they know the only way to make you believe is to keep screaming it loud and long enough, People then will begin to believe them,  

 

When the SHTF as I most certainly believe will happen, yes  WW3, who will be there to defend this country?  Not his kind.  If this country required two  years of military service after high school to show the little snots what the real world is like, the makeup of this country would be completely different.  

[mustang69 505]

The constitution is not a "one from column A and one from column B" document.  It's all or nothing.  As far as people on the Watch List, if we're willing to restrict ALL their rights then the 2A goes with it.  If we're not willing to restrict all rights then IMO we shouldn't restrict any.  Ted Kennedy was on that list - taken to an extreme, how could we possibly allow someone on the list to be in the highest levels of our government?

 

Do I want terrorists to have guns, or any weapons for that matter?  Of course not.  But how we do it matters.  If they're a known threat, then stopping them at an LGS doesn't limit that threat, it just changes the threat profile.  

 

I don't trust for an instant that the government will use the power inherent in that list solely for it's intended purpose.

 

Just my $.02.

[Newtonian 453]

These are two very different scenarios. If you don't see the difference between a tried and convicted criminal or a person adjudicated to be incompetent and a person just put on a list due to some secret criteria then I'm sorry but you are part of the problem.

 

The people on the "no fly" or "terrorist watch" lists have presumably done nothing illegal yet and haven't been charged with anything. No one knows what the criteria for getting on those or other secret lists is and there's no clear path to getting removed from the list. For all we know, everyone that signs onto a gun related forum like this one is on a list somewhere. This is not even a slippery slope argument, this is full free fall into a police state when they can just say " sorry, you can't vote because you are on this list" and "you can't travel because you are on that list" and you have no recourse to do anything about it. At last count there were over 1 million people on secret government lists.

 

Does that mean I want terrorists to have access to guns? Of course not. It means if the FBI has suspicions about these people, get the evidence to convict or deport and take care of the problem. Or do like Cornyn's bill said and flag the sale and make the FBI or Homeland security make a case before a judge to stop the sale. If they can't convince a judge they have enough suspicion about a person, then they should question if the person should be on the list. Even the Patriot act requires a judge to sign off on wire taps and searches, why would we ever want actual revocation of rights to have less protection then that?

 

The people on the list are just suspected of terrorism anyone can be suspected but that doesn't make them guilty. I refuse to allow terrorists to win by having any American lose a single right because of a terrorist action. They have a list, give the FBI the resources to track them down and get proof, that is what the American justice system was built on.

 

JMHO

-Jim

I fully understand the difference between accusations or suspicion and criminal conviction. Thanks for the legal lesson and the realization that I'm part of the problem. I promise to repent and become part of the solution.

 

We are in a pickle because (1) we grant citizenship way too freely (2) we don't owe immigrants anything yet they seem to have more privileges than me (3) there are too fucking many of them (particularly muslims) here already. In addition (4) there is already a question (at least in NJ) about not being a citizen on permit forms (see point 1) (5) by virtue of associating with various groups and ideologies the question of whether these individuals have already committed treason or sedition is more than valid (6) far too few of these individuals are actually "processed" or their cases acted on (see muslim scumbag Mateen and family) and (7) I believe that limiting the rights of someone accused of a serious crime to acquire a firearm is a reasonable regulation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

I admit these arguments smell of the slippery slope we've been on for at least 15 years in our ongoing make-believe quest for safety at the expense of liberty. "Sedition" and thought crimes, I know, share a fuzzy border. I don't like that. But I didn't create the problem, Congress did. We're stuck with a very bad situation, as the numerous muslim outbursts in this country have shown. The genie is already out of the bottle.

 

Readers are aware of my visceral disgust for Hillary but I like her slogan, "If you're too dangerous to fly you're too dangerous to have a gun." We can argue about no-fly lists if you like, but on face value I agree with Hillary on that count 100%. If we glibly accept that certain people are a risk for bringing down an airplane (I assume that's why they're on the list, not to limit their access to Disney World) then HTF can we allow them to own guns?

 

It's about time gun owners recognize that not every pronouncement from NRA is sacred scripture. They're a racket like everything else in this country. 

 

PS Please provide examples of true red-blooded Americans who get put on lists with the kinds of restrictions you mention by posting in forums. I'm against such lists but if they exist they have no consequences. 

[Shane45 807]

NJ would just declare the entire state to be suspicious and place the population on the watch list. Then you would have to contest being on the list to get yourself off of it. It only took a Kennedy 6 months to get off the list, we should do about as well right?

[mipafox 438]

Dickbag bill O'Reily has been blasting his pie hole about a CBS poll that has 95% OF respondents calling for more gun control, no idea why he's running with it, and hard.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-nightclub-massacre-cbs-news-poll-assault-weapons-ban/

It's simple. He's a leftist totalitarian. He happens to be pro-life, pro-war, and doesn't always agree with Obama. But he's still a leftist totalitarian. It's called a Neocon.

[Newtonian 453]

NJ would just declare the entire state to be suspicious and place the population on the watch list. Then you would have to contest being on the list to get yourself off of it. It only took a Kennedy 6 months to get off the list, we should do about as well right?

Not sure what you mean. Example? Citation?

[Newtonian 453]

Dickbag bill O'Reily has been blasting his pie hole about a CBS poll that has 95% OF respondents calling for more gun control, no idea why he's running with it, and hard.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-nightclub-massacre-cbs-news-poll-assault-weapons-ban/

O'Reilly is pathetic, as is his network. They're a total Conservo-scam. He's been running on auto-pilot for years.

 

You can view O'Reilly's meltdown and takedown by that other dickless neocon wonder George Will by googling their names. Only thing more satisfying than watching phony neocon conservatives battle is watching liberals eat their own.

[Schrödinger's cat 87]

I have been pulled off a plane for having a name similar to a name on the no fly list. I wouldn't have any way to get myself off the list if they would start giving me more trouble.

[brucin 923]

I fully understand the difference between accusations or suspicion and criminal conviction. Thanks for the legal lesson and the realization that I'm part of the problem. I promise to repent and become part of the solution.

 

We are in a pickle because (1) we grant citizenship way too freely (2) we don't owe immigrants anything yet they seem to have more privileges than me (3) there are too fucking many of them (particularly muslims) here already. In addition (4) there is already a question (at least in NJ) about not being a citizen on permit forms (see point 1) (5) by virtue of associating with various groups and ideologies the question of whether these individuals have already committed treason or sedition is more than valid (6) far too few of these individuals are actually "processed" or their cases acted on (see muslim scumbag Mateen and family) and (7) I believe that limiting the rights of someone accused of a serious crime to acquire a firearm is a reasonable regulation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

I admit these arguments smell of the slippery slope we've been on for at least 15 years in our ongoing make-believe quest for safety at the expense of liberty. "Sedition" and thought crimes, I know, share a fuzzy border. I don't like that. But I didn't create the problem, Congress did. We're stuck with a very bad situation, as the numerous muslim outbursts in this country have shown. The genie is already out of the bottle.

 

Readers are aware of my visceral disgust for Hillary but I like her slogan, "If you're too dangerous to fly you're too dangerous to have a gun." We can argue about no-fly lists if you like, but on face value I agree with Hillary on that count 100%. If we glibly accept that certain people are a risk for bringing down an airplane (I assume that's why they're on the list, not to limit their access to Disney World) then HTF can we allow them to own guns?

 

It's about time gun owners recognize that not every pronouncement from NRA is sacred scripture. They're a racket like everything else in this country. 

 

PS Please provide examples of true red-blooded Americans who get put on lists with the kinds of restrictions you mention by posting in forums. I'm against such lists but if they exist they have no consequences. 

 

My nephew was on the "no fly" list for a few months. He never knew that he was on it till his job sent him on a trip and they stopped him at the airport. He works for a government contractor. It took the companies lawyers about 2 months to straighten it out.

 

He was born here and has a completely American name and a common one to boot. He was on it by mistake. Now imagine if he had to pay for his own attorneys and not be able to work for a few months in addition to not being able to purchase a firearm.

 

I will never support a ban list without due process and anyone who does hasn't really thought this whole thing through.

[Shane45 807]

Not sure what you mean. Example? Citation?

 

 

Meaning NJ has a disposition against guns and a disposition of guilty until proven innocent. So I would not trust this state to not abuse the list just like it abuses PPP and FID applications.

 

 

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1996/a339-95-opn.html

" When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril."

[Newtonian 453]

My nephew was on the "no fly" list for a few months. He never knew that he was on it till his job sent him on a trip and they stopped him at the airport. He works for a government contractor. It took the companies lawyers about 2 months to straighten it out.

 

He was born here and has a completely American name and a common one to boot. He was on it by mistake. Now imagine if he had to pay for his own attorneys and not be able to work for a few months in addition to not being able to purchase a firearm.

 

I will never support a ban list without due process and anyone who does hasn't really thought this whole thing through.

 

I'm aware of many problems with such lists, as well as with both the methods and underpinnings of law enforcement (here I mean bad laws). People get arrested, detained, even killed. That doesn't mean we should stop trying to nab criminals. We should instead plug the gaps and try to make the system more intelligent.

 

I think most reasonable people would agree that administrative mistakes notwithstanding a person who is deemed -- by whatever mechanism -- to be too dangerous to fly is also too dangerous to own a gun. That comment stands on its own.

 

You wouldn't hire someone accused of child molestation to watch your kids even if he was acquitted. You wouldn't hire someone who was under investigation for embezzlement to do the books for your company. Start from there. Common sense. Nobody is killing these people or imprisoning them without trial. The fact that the system sometimes fails is irrelevant.

 

All human enterprises have failure rates. If you're looking for perfection, if you believe that nobody's innocent nephew should ever ever be suspected of something, you're not living in reality.

[JimB1 555]

I fully understand the difference between accusations or suspicion and criminal conviction. Thanks for the legal lesson and the realization that I'm part of the problem. I promise to repent and become part of the solution.

 

We are in a pickle because (1) we grant citizenship way too freely (2) we don't owe immigrants anything yet they seem to have more privileges than me (3) there are too fucking many of them (particularly muslims) here already. In addition (4) there is already a question (at least in NJ) about not being a citizen on permit forms (see point 1) (5) by virtue of associating with various groups and ideologies the question of whether these individuals have already committed treason or sedition is more than valid (6) far too few of these individuals are actually "processed" or their cases acted on (see muslim scumbag Mateen and family) and (7) I believe that limiting the rights of someone accused of a serious crime to acquire a firearm is a reasonable regulation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

I admit these arguments smell of the slippery slope we've been on for at least 15 years in our ongoing make-believe quest for safety at the expense of liberty. "Sedition" and thought crimes, I know, share a fuzzy border. I don't like that. But I didn't create the problem, Congress did. We're stuck with a very bad situation, as the numerous muslim outbursts in this country have shown. The genie is already out of the bottle.

 

Readers are aware of my visceral disgust for Hillary but I like her slogan, "If you're too dangerous to fly you're too dangerous to have a gun." We can argue about no-fly lists if you like, but on face value I agree with Hillary on that count 100%. If we glibly accept that certain people are a risk for bringing down an airplane (I assume that's why they're on the list, not to limit their access to Disney World) then HTF can we allow them to own guns?

 

It's about time gun owners recognize that not every pronouncement from NRA is sacred scripture. They're a racket like everything else in this country. 

 

PS Please provide examples of true red-blooded Americans who get put on lists with the kinds of restrictions you mention by posting in forums. I'm against such lists but if they exist they have no consequences. 

 

 

Well, per the FBI, there are about 107,000 people on the "no fly" list. Of those about 3000 are American citizens so there are 3000 innocent Americans denied the right to travel freely just by being on a list. And yes, in the eyes of the law they are innocent (as far as "true-red-blooded", not sure what that means to you but they are American citizens so that's good enough for me.)

 

Here are 7 Americans named in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU against the United States if you want some specific people:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/06/no.fly.lawsuit/

 

Far as voting or any other right, I mentioned them to show how poor an idea this is. Once the precident is set that rights can be removed (not limited, removed) without judicial review or due process, no right is safe. Are you on the terrorist watch list? Am I? Neither of us knows for sure and the FBI isn't saying. There are an estimated 800,000 names on that list. Don't ask me why there are 800,000 on the terrorist watch list and only 107,000 on the no fly" list. You'd think if you were a suspected terrorist you'd make both of them but apparently not. Those are just FBI lists, think Homeland security, Justice, the IRS, and the State department don't have additional lists they would love to use for stuff? I do not wear a tinfoil hat but I do know for a fact that once the government has the power to do something, they will and it will be extremely difficult to get them to release that authority. 

 

Far as the NRA goes, I am a member but I have a brain and can make my own decisions on things. sometimes I agree with them and sometimes not. In this case, I agree with the ACLUs original assessment of the no-fly list from a few years back and my stance hasn't changed with the new push to expand its use to gun control. It was bad then and its bad now. The NRA is being pulled by strong fringe elements, you have to recognize that and make your own decision if what they are suggesting is the right solution. Of course you can say that about any org ( or political party) at this point in time. Far right and far left groups are dominating all discussions and the middle is being too damned quiet and letting them run the show. 

 

With regards to immigration, in a lot of ways I am in agreement with you. We need to slow the influx in order for people to assimilate in to the culture and allow time to ensure they are not here under false pretenses. Instead we have large blocks of people from an area carving out enclaves and trying to bring their culture here. This is a big problem. France has been facing it for decades and Germany is facing it now with massive protests against immigration. I think it is a huge motivator in the EU referendum in the UK right now as well. The US has always had a buffer of an ocean to slow immigration to a manageable level but now we are actively going and getting them so we are losing that ability to assimilate immigrants and that's not even taking into account those that have no intention of assimilating and are coming for other reasons. 

 

So back to the gun control thing, I am fine if they want to use lists as long as there are checks and balances in place for their use. Judicial review, limits to how they are used, limits to who can add to the lists, criteria to get on and process to get off, and so on. I will still maintain if you are willing to give up your rights, (Or are you just willing to give up someone else's rights? since obviously a "Red-Blooded American" like yourself would never be added to a list like this... you hope) and allow the government to do this, then yes, you are the problem. Due process and Judicial review have been front and center in every civil rights argument ever, they are necessary to a free and just society. You don't just abandon them in a knee-jerk reaction to a horrifying event. 

 

With respect,

-Jim

[NJGF 375]

I am surprised. Common sense? Isn't it just common sense that people want to use to ban guns?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause

 

Fifth Amendment:

[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

 

Fourteenth Amendment:

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

[Newtonian 453]

Well, per the FBI, there are about 107,000 people on the "no fly" list. Of those about 3000 are American citizens so there are 3000 innocent Americans denied the right to travel freely just by being on a list. And yes, in the eyes of the law they are innocent (as far as "true-red-blooded", not sure what that means to you but they are American citizens so that's good enough for me.)

 

Here are 7 Americans named in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU against the United States if you want some specific people:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/06/no.fly.lawsuit/

 

Far as voting or any other right, I mentioned them to show how poor an idea this is. Once the precident is set that rights can be removed (not limited, removed) without judicial review or due process, no right is safe. Are you on the terrorist watch list? Am I? Neither of us knows for sure and the FBI isn't saying. There are an estimated 800,000 names on that list. Don't ask me why there are 800,000 on the terrorist watch list and only 107,000 on the no fly" list. You'd think if you were a suspected terrorist you'd make both of them but apparently not. Those are just FBI lists, think Homeland security, Justice, the IRS, and the State department don't have additional lists they would love to use for stuff? I do not wear a tinfoil hat but I do know for a fact that once the government has the power to do something, they will and it will be extremely difficult to get them to release that authority. 

 

Far as the NRA goes, I am a member but I have a brain and can make my own decisions on things. sometimes I agree with them and sometimes not. In this case, I agree with the ACLUs original assessment of the no-fly list from a few years back and my stance hasn't changed with the new push to expand its use to gun control. It was bad then and its bad now. The NRA is being pulled by strong fringe elements, you have to recognize that and make your own decision if what they are suggesting is the right solution. Of course you can say that about any org ( or political party) at this point in time. Far right and far left groups are dominating all discussions and the middle is being too damned quiet and letting them run the show. 

 

With regards to immigration, in a lot of ways I am in agreement with you. We need to slow the influx in order for people to assimilate in to the culture and allow time to ensure they are not here under false pretenses. Instead we have large blocks of people from an area carving out enclaves and trying to bring their culture here. This is a big problem. France has been facing it for decades and Germany is facing it now with massive protests against immigration. I think it is a huge motivator in the EU referendum in the UK right now as well. The US has always had a buffer of an ocean to slow immigration to a manageable level but now we are actively going and getting them so we are losing that ability to assimilate immigrants and that's not even taking into account those that have no intention of assimilating and are coming for other reasons. 

 

So back to the gun control thing, I am fine if they want to use lists as long as there are checks and balances in place for their use. Judicial review, limits to how they are used, limits to who can add to the lists, criteria to get on and process to get off, and so on. I will still maintain if you are willing to give up your rights, (Or are you just willing to give up someone else's rights? since obviously a "Red-Blooded American" like yourself would never be added to a list like this... you hope) and allow the government to do this, then yes, you are the problem. Due process and Judicial review have been front and center in every civil rights argument ever, they are necessary to a free and just society. You don't just abandon them in a knee-jerk reaction to a horrifying event. 

 

With respect,

-Jim

The central question is whether someone who is not trusted to board an airplane should be eligible to purchase a firearm. I have decried the current police state here (and elsewhere) enough times. But you'll have great difficulty convincing anyone that because the screening system is flawed the entire idea of prohibiting certain individuals from owning a gun is constitutionally unpalatable.

 

Foreigners do not enjoy the same rights as citizens. If they did then deportation would be illegal under any and all conditions. Criminals and armed forces personnel are also outside of constitutional law. The "due process" involved is whatever code or administrative decrees to which they are subject. I admit they can be capricious, and stupid, and in some cases unlawful. Not the point.

 

Shit happens. We can work on the mechanism without throwing away a valid idea. 

 

BTW 800k on the terrorist watch list = 0.2% of the population. On the no-fly list 107,000 = .003%. You don't think 800,000 or 120,000 or 0.003% of people living here should not own guns? Assume that fully 10% of people on these lists do not belong on them (a pipe dream but let's assume). Do you think a 10% margin of error for this sort of thing is outside the realm of statistical probability?

 

Shee-it there are more people in DC whose families have been here 400 years who cannot own guns regardless of their ability to pay a lawyer. And you mistakenly assume that those 3000 "citizens" are all "innocent" just because they're citizens. Mateen was a citizen, born in Brooklyn

 

Also remember that ACLU only takes up causes that help it fulfill its mission to divide and destroy our country. They may sometimes be right, but they're always wrong. 

[mipafox 438]

It's 1.5 million on the terror watch list.

[JimB1 555]

The central question is whether someone who is not trusted to board an airplane should be eligible to purchase a firearm. I have decried the current police state here (and elsewhere) enough times. But you'll have great difficulty convincing anyone that because the screening system is flawed the entire idea of prohibiting certain individuals from owning a gun is constitutionally unpalatable.

 

Foreigners do not enjoy the same rights as citizens. If they did then deportation would be illegal under any and all conditions. Criminals and armed forces personnel are also outside of constitutional law. The "due process" involved is whatever code or administrative decrees to which they are subject. I admit they can be capricious, and stupid, and in some cases unlawful. Not the point.

 

Shit happens. We can work on the mechanism without throwing away a valid idea. 

 

BTW 800k on the terrorist watch list = 0.2% of the population. On the no-fly list 107,000 = .003%. You don't think 800,000 or 120,000 or 0.003% of people living here should not own guns? Assume that fully 10% of people on these lists do not belong on them (a pipe dream but let's assume). Do you think a 10% margin of error for this sort of thing is outside the realm of statistical probability?

 

Shee-it there are more people in DC whose families have been here 400 years who cannot own guns regardless of their ability to pay a lawyer. And you mistakenly assume that those 3000 "citizens" are all "innocent" just because they're citizens. Mateen was a citizen, born in Brooklyn

 

Also remember that ACLU only takes up causes that help it fulfill its mission to divide and destroy our country. They may sometimes be right, but they're always wrong. 

 

 

Really, it's a matter of percentages? At what percentage will you say it's wrong? 10%? 20%? 30%? Here's a percentage for you, more people are on those lists then are transgendered in this country and we are having a national discussion on what bathrooms people should use. The constitutionality of this isn't even given a few minutes on the national news networks they just spin it to "The evil right wants to keep guns". 

 

I do not care how many people aren't allowed to have guns as long as the process to do so is constitutionally acceptable. Do you assume that 3000 citizens on the list are all guilty? So you are good with guilty until proven innocent? I make no mistake to assume that they are all innocent, the law says they are until proof says otherwise.

 

The argument that military and criminals are outside constitutional law is not valid. Military personal are sworn to the military code of conduct and military law as part of their service. They choose to relinquish certain rights and as soon as they are released from service, those rights become valid again. Criminals are restricted from certain rights because of their criminal misdeeds however they do retain most of their rights as citizens they are just restricted from guns and voting. I don't think any other rights are effected for criminals that have served their time (with the possible exception of freedom of travel depending on what their parole says) Even with that, neither one of these is in effect for people on these lists. 

 

I agree with you that using the lists is valid, I disagree that we need to tear up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to do it. 

 

-Jim

[T Bill 649]

Well, as usual this is all a political ploy for the democrats.  Seems the Republican version of the bill on no fly no gun did everything the democrats wanted, but required the AG to file. only file. a writ within three days to hold up the sale while it goes through the court system. Dems voted it down. So they are playing with your rights to get Hitlary elected.

 

A simple solution with due process that could at least stop the sale while the DOJ prepares their case and the Dems said no.  Shameful 

Read about it here:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/06/foghorn/reason-no-gun-control-passed-senate-democrats-voted/

[JackDaWack 2,895]

 

Foreigners do not enjoy the same rights as citizens. If they did then deportation would be illegal under any and all conditions. Criminals and armed forces personnel are also outside of constitutional law. The "due process" involved is whatever code or administrative decrees to which they are subject. I admit they can be capricious, and stupid, and in some cases unlawful. Not the point.

 

 

 

Foreigners cant vote or be President.. what other rights are they missing?

 

Criminals and military voluntarily give up certain rights.

 

However, why do you mention it? It's all irrelevant as every single one of them still has the right to due process.

[Newtonian 453]

Foreigners cant vote or be President.. what other rights are they missing?

 

Criminals and military voluntarily give up certain rights.

 

However, why do you mention it? It's all irrelevant as every single one of them still has the right to due process.

Foreigners can be deported. That's huge. In an ideal world they get a hearing and they're back to Shitbagastan, or they're just put on a boat. Their appeals are limited.

 

Voluntarily give up their rights? Are you kidding? 

 

The military are under the military code. They do not enjoy 1st, 2nd, 4th amendment rights for example. That's why Major Hassan is not kissing virgin ass in paradise right now. That's what MSgt. Carney told us in Jr. ROTC in 1968. Criminals also lose most rights while incarcerated and some rights beyond.

 

VOTING is not a right. Repeat 10 times. And btw, some loony jurisdictions are toying with the idea of giving the vote to non-citizens.

 

Due process is not a uniform concept. It means appropriate legal procedures for a particular circumstance. We don't hold a six-month hearing every time a convicted murderer is paroled to prevent him from buying a gun. If he wants to challenge that law he may do so by paying lawyers to advocate for him. But to say he was denied due process because he can't buy a gun is ludicrous.

[Newtonian 453]

Really, it's a matter of percentages? At what percentage will you say it's wrong? 10%? 20%? 30%? Here's a percentage for you, more people are on those lists then are transgendered in this country and we are having a national discussion on what bathrooms people should use. The constitutionality of this isn't even given a few minutes on the national news networks they just spin it to "The evil right wants to keep guns". 

 

I do not care how many people aren't allowed to have guns as long as the process to do so is constitutionally acceptable. Do you assume that 3000 citizens on the list are all guilty? So you are good with guilty until proven innocent? I make no mistake to assume that they are all innocent, the law says they are until proof says otherwise.

 

The argument that military and criminals are outside constitutional law is not valid. Military personal are sworn to the military code of conduct and military law as part of their service. They choose to relinquish certain rights and as soon as they are released from service, those rights become valid again. Criminals are restricted from certain rights because of their criminal misdeeds however they do retain most of their rights as citizens they are just restricted from guns and voting. I don't think any other rights are effected for criminals that have served their time (with the possible exception of freedom of travel depending on what their parole says) Even with that, neither one of these is in effect for people on these lists. 

 

I agree with you that using the lists is valid, I disagree that we need to tear up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to do it. 

 

-Jim

You don't need to convince me that the federal gov't has given itself far-reaching, unconstitutional powers. I get it. I rant on and on about it all the time. I'm only pointing out that the percentages are very small, and that if we had zero tolerance for mistakes we'd have anarchy. Mistakes are part of living.

 

 

If we feel the need to keep certain individuals off of airplanes -- whether that's misguided or illegal or whatever -- then it's not far-fetched to prevent them from doing other things.

 

It's kind of amazing to me that a tiny fraction of one percent of Americans are on these lists, yet two readers of this forum know one. Reminds me of the guy a few months back who claimed he got arrested 7-8 times but it was never his fault. I must lead a very boring life. 

[Newtonian 453]

It's 1.5 million on the terror watch list.

That's too many people. No argument on that. Question is WTF are they here in the first place? They weren't all born in Brooklyn.

[Newtonian 453]

OK I swallowed the safety vs. security bait, hook, line, and sinker.

 

Recent article explains how easily you can find yourself on such a list: http://bit.ly/28T8GWL. Plus thanks to Mipa for pointing out the real numbers. 

 

So the question is not whether someone too dangerous to fly should own a gun, but (1) how we allowed the Federal Government to amass this kind of power and (2) whether "terrorism" is a problem they created and continue to perpetuate in order to make us (me?) comfortable with them wielding that power. 

 

I'll admit I've been had. 

[brucin 923]

I'm aware of many problems with such lists, as well as with both the methods and underpinnings of law enforcement (here I mean bad laws). People get arrested, detained, even killed. That doesn't mean we should stop trying to nab criminals. We should instead plug the gaps and try to make the system more intelligent.

 

I think most reasonable people would agree that administrative mistakes notwithstanding a person who is deemed -- by whatever mechanism -- to be too dangerous to fly is also too dangerous to own a gun. That comment stands on its own.

 

You wouldn't hire someone accused of child molestation to watch your kids even if he was acquitted. You wouldn't hire someone who was under investigation for embezzlement to do the books for your company. Start from there. Common sense. Nobody is killing these people or imprisoning them without trial. The fact that the system sometimes fails is irrelevant.

 

All human enterprises have failure rates. If you're looking for perfection, if you believe that nobody's innocent nephew should ever ever be suspected of something, you're not living in reality.

I'm not looking for perfection I'm just looking for due process as guaranteed by the US constitution.

 

If you want your rights to depend on some bureaucrat in a windowless room in Washington DC who may at some point decide that people with Italian sounding names should be on the list more power to you.

[Newtonian 453]

I'm not looking for perfection I'm just looking for due process as guaranteed by the US constitution.

 

If you want your rights to depend on some bureaucrat in a windowless room in Washington DC who may at some point decide that people with Italian sounding names should be on the list more power to you.

If you're talking about a big program -- I've heard numbers like 100,000, 850,000, and 1.5 million -- and you have just a 1% error rate you're talking 1000, 8500, and 15,000 people whose uncles will complain in a gun forum that their poor nephew, the former altar boy, can't buy a bb gun. That's already too many. But there's no area of human endeavor that approaches 99% accuracy, so the real numbers of affected people is much greater, as several posters note.

 

There really is no solution to this issue. Somebody thinks there are 1.5 million very dangerous people in this country. Whether they're deluded or power-hungry or correct, that is the problem.

[JimB1 555]

OK I swallowed the safety vs. security bait, hook, line, and sinker.

 

Recent article explains how easily you can find yourself on such a list: http://bit.ly/28T8GWL. Plus thanks to Mipa for pointing out the real numbers. 

 

So the question is not whether someone too dangerous to fly should own a gun, but (1) how we allowed the Federal Government to amass this kind of power and (2) whether "terrorism" is a problem they created and continue to perpetuate in order to make us (me?) comfortable with them wielding that power. 

 

I'll admit I've been had.

 

Well, don't feel too bad about it, a lot of people are falling for it. At least you are seeing the issues now. If we can only open a few million more eyes we'll be in good shape.

 

BTW, voting is a right as defined in the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments... Each of them use the same language “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . .”

 

-Jim

[brucin 923]

If you're talking about a big program -- I've heard numbers like 100,000, 850,000, and 1.5 million -- and you have just a 1% error rate you're talking 1000, 8500, and 15,000 people whose uncles will complain in a gun forum that their poor nephew, the former altar boy, can't buy a bb gun. That's already too many. But there's no area of human endeavor that approaches 99% accuracy, so the real numbers of affected people is much greater, as several posters note.

 

There really is no solution to this issue. Somebody thinks there are 1.5 million very dangerous people in this country. Whether they're deluded or power-hungry or correct, that is the problem.

 

There is an obvious solution. A due process clause that requires the government to prove to a judge in a reasonable amount of time (72-96 hours) that this person belongs on the list. Failure to provide proof sale goes through.

 

 Your statement "by whatever mechanism" is ignorant.  A group of people (the government) do not have the right to unilaterally decide that they have more rights than some other people. That you believe that there should be no due process clause makes you more a part of the problem than the solution.

 

Check out these people who were placed on the watch list.

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6879/these-13-people-placed-terror-watch-list-will-blow-amanda-prestigiacomo

[Newtonian 453]

There is an obvious solution. A due process clause that requires the government to prove to a judge in a reasonable amount of time (72-96 hours) that this person belongs on the list. Failure to provide proof sale goes through.

 

 Your statement "by whatever mechanism" is ignorant.  A group of people (the government) do not have the right to unilaterally decide that they have more rights than some other people. That you believe that there should be no due process clause makes you more a part of the problem than the solution.

 

Check out these people who were placed on the watch list.

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6879/these-13-people-placed-terror-watch-list-will-blow-amanda-prestigiacomo

Again you miss my point. You can expect a few howlers out of 1.5 million people. Even on a list of 10,000. But you don't agree because you believe in absolute perfection. 100% accuracy, no false positives, and 100% sensitivity to evil.

 

If individuals successfully removed themselves from the list you'd be howling about how they had to go through all that B.S. to get off the list. Again, perfection, because the list shouldn't contain a single good guy.

 

If some agency showed up at their door and confirmed they were "safe" and they never got on the list you'd be moaning about how these unimpeachable individuals, every one an Eagle scout, had to give up 30 minutes of their time to show they were who they really were. In your perfect world nobody ever gets suspected or investigated without "due process." Because in your perfect world due process is a walk through the park, a painless cost-free procedure that takes up nobody's time. (Ask someone who has faced a frivolous lawsuit). As the great Mark Steyn has written, "the process is the punishment." Whether it's of the "due" or doo-doo kind, if some government agency decides to "process" you, win or lose, you lose.

 

On the other hand, if god forbid your neighbor's child met some horrible misfortune at the hands of someone who did not get on the list but should have, you'd be rending your garments and pissing magma. Because in your perfect world everyone knows the identity of each and every bad apple, to the person, and never confuses them with a good person even if they share the same name and looks like them. 

 

No, the real problem, in our imperfect world, is that someone or some group believes that there are 1.5 million horribly dangerous people walking around, and acts on that "reality." 

 

Is it true? Who knows. There may be just 10,000 or 1,000 or there may be 10 million.

 

And for that problem, the suspicion (to some degree correct, but mostly manufactured), there is no solution: a bureaucrat/totalitarian wet dream. We've already let people in who shouldn't be here. We have no idea who they are or where they are. We are reluctant to cut the snake's head off, so we create lists and lists and more lists and import more and more snakes lest the snakes already among us get ornery.