Should people on the terrorist watch list be allowed to buy guns?

[.50FAN]

Noise and read the rules for the forum.

GEM

[gb_in_ga]

So, the logic apparently goes like this:

You are a protester,
Therefore you are a (low-level) terrorist,
Therefore you will be placed on the no-fly list,
Therefore you are relieved of your 2nd amendment rights without due process.

That's the way I see it.
It becomes a bludgeon to use to strip away fundamental civil rights from anyone who annoys the "powers that be". Just declare them to be terrorists, even if not true, and without due process your civil rights are gone. Where is the burden of proof? Instead of having them prove you are a hazard to society, you have to prove you are not in order to get removed from the list.

This is completely upside down from the way things are supposed to be. This is not justice. This is tyranny.

[johnwilliamson062]

where the heck is the poll?

[maestro pistolero]

Response to noise

OK, BACK TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING: "Should people on the terrorist watch list be allowed to buy guns?"

[rampage841512]

The poll was on CNN's main page last night. It lead me to spot the article.

[.50FAN]

Irrelevent to the topic and trolling a touch.

[maestro pistolero]

Response to trolling

[zxcvbob]

OK, I found the poll. I find it very hard to believe they got over 332000 total votes.

[johnwilliamson062]

I think that what I, and many of the others on this forum have to come to terms with is that not only do most politicians in DC, but many if not most Americans, think the BOR is outdated, no longer necessary and pay it absolutely no heed. For some reason it is widely believed in our country that the government has evolved beyond abuses of power and that we now face a greater threat than ever in history. 'Constitutionally guaranteed rights' no longer means anything, to either party. Both parties are more than willing to cut away those rights if they believe it will not impede their chances in the next election.

It seems to me that governments evolve into abusive systems and the Islamic terrorists are probably one of our least threatening foes in history.

I still have not found the poll.

[maestro pistolero]

OK, I found the poll. I find it very hard to believe they got over 332000 total votes.

Link? Results?

[chemgirlie]

Although the poll is exceedingly unscientific and has a slanted participant base I wonder how many of these same people approve of racial profiling and a public opposition to Bush as reasons to ban people from flying or to hassle them more at airports.

Link? Results?

The poll changes from time to time and is no longer there. The poll of the day is on the right side of the main page about halfway down. When I looked at it it was 89% for using the list to ban firearm sales to "terrorists" and 11% against.

[maestro pistolero]

it was 89% for using the list to ban firearm sales to "terrorists" and 11% against.

Of course it was. In the absence of all the information. Now if they were ask whether it is OK to deprive a person of their civil rights due to unsubstantiated claims, there would have been a different result.

"Is it OK to give vodka to an alcoholic?" No, of course not.

"What if he was out in the wilderness and needed it to sterilize a wound?" Oh, that's different.

[Wallabing]

The only thing that concerns me is the potential of legit people unable to purchase guns because of false positives.

[raimius]

What about the "legit" people who are on the list anyway?

[ZeSpectre]

The only thing that concerns me is the potential of legit people unable to purchase guns because of false positives.

No offense Wallabing but I think you need to consider the a bit further. A nameless group who answers to nobody in particular makes up a secret list (that has no oversight and no review) and if you are on it your rights are suspended.

That should bother EVERYONE!

[Tom Servo]

A nameless group who answers to nobody in particular makes up a secret list (that has no oversight and no review) and if you are on it your rights are suspended.

I have a good friend who is on a/the list. He's an Armenian immigrant who came here as a refugee. He initiated citizenship procedures as soon as he got here, and he has shown nothing but love for this country.

He gets stopped at the airport every time he goes through. He was detained at a roadside seatbelt checkpoint for over an hour because "something odd" came up on his background check. He was almost denied a job teaching at a state university because, again, "something odd" came up in his records.

He has never had so much as a parking ticket. He was interviewed shortly after 9/11 because his father (who died when he was four) studied with a college professor in the 1970's, who then went on to teach someone suspicious. See the logic?

Of course, nobody will admit he's on a list. Those lists are kept secret for our protection, ya know? So, there's no way to find out which list he's on, or with which agency. As such, how does he go about getting removed?

The TSC claims that inappropriate entries are removed, but it's been nine years for him, and of course, there's no way to know what the actual process or criteria are.

To the best of my knowledge, this man has never said an unkind word about this country, nor has he ever been openly critical or any policy or politician.

So, if I speak at a 2nd Amendment rally and there are a few skinheads in the back, do I get on the list? What if something I've written just strikes the wrong chord with someone in charge? What if someone who just doesn't like me calls a hotline out of spite?

How will I even know? Essentially, I'll be prohibited from buying firearms, and I will have no recourse.

Be very wary of the rhetoric, and be even more critical of policies implemented in its wake.

[ADB]

It seems to me that governments evolve into abusive systems

Not inherently. The problem is that humans tend toward laziness. A great many people are easily taken in by the desire for quick fixes and a dislike for nuance or complexity. They want simple, quick fix answers to everything. It's easier to look like you're doing something than to actually fix the problem, thus that's where many politicians go.

So you get mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, even though forced rehabilitation has a vastly lower recidivism rate. You get ineffective gun laws that harass legal owners, instead of going after the roots of gang violence. You get "let's bomb somebody" as a solution to foreign policy instead of careful, grueling diplomacy.

It's easy to blame politicians, but whenever you're talking about the failings of democratic government, one must remember that you're by nature talking about our own failings. These are, after all, the people we elect.

and the Islamic terrorists are probably one of our least threatening foes in history.

I'm still shocked that anybody continued to take them seriously after their frontline volunteer for the second wave of attacks proved unable to light a fuse. Blind stupid luck combined with defenders asleep at the switch doesn't make an existential threat.

[kennybs plbg]

Wouldn't we be banning firearm ownership from our returning military personal? Seems they were flagged as a high risk a few months back by our new administration.

kenny b

[chemgirlie]

Wouldn't we be banning firearm ownership from our returning military personal? Seems they were flagged as a high risk a few months back by our new administration.

Google Robert J. Johnson (although his inclusion on the list is probably due to his political opinions) and Daniel Brown (Marine who served in Iraq and happens to have the "wrong" name).

[Playboypenguin]

Google Robert J. Johnson (although his inclusion on the list is probably due to his political opinions) and Daniel Brown (Marine who served in Iraq and happens to have the "wrong" name).

There is nothing nefarious about the fact it has happened to a few soldiers. Soldiers are just people with demanding jobs and fall victim to the same pitfalls of circumstance as all of us. To try and make it some ridiculous "Obama/Dems hates the troops" scenario is so tired.

My own sister was placed on a "no fly list" right after 9/11 because she shared a similar name with another person...who isn't even a woman. Her first name just happens to use the masculine spelling. She had to take a Greyhound all the way from WV back to Oregon before it could get cleared up. You know how hard it is to tell that 32 year old women are not actually 55 year old men.

[divemedic]

To try and make it some ridiculous "Obama/Dems hates the troops" scenario is so tired.

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

[buzz_knox]

Wouldn't we be banning firearm ownership from our returning military personal? Seems they were flagged as a high risk a few months back by our new administration.

Most everyone on this forum falls into that category, according to DHS. Wallabing, this means you too.

[Playboypenguin]

Divemedic,

You are making an absurd exaggeration and you know it. Shame on you for being so willfully misrepresentative of the facts.

[pnac]

I suggest you read the Dept. of Homeland Security pdf included in divemedics link, playboy. VA, KY and MO issued similar alerts. Look up VA's alert, they included just about everybody.

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/vi...mismreport.pdf

[Playboypenguin]

I did read them. To try and portray them as a bias of the administration against the troops is an absurb exaggeration. The reports say nothing that has not been being said since the 1950's. Dishonest people ar taking small tidbits and distorting them.