The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 24, 2009, 12:55 PM   #51
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,191
There's the initial DHS report, and then the lexicon DHS came out with that laid out definitions for "extremist," "domestic terrorist," etc. The lexicon was more damning than the initial report itself and, because it would define what those terms meant for DHS, would have an impact far greater than the initial DHS report.
buzz_knox is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 02:22 PM   #52
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Link to the lexicon that buzz knox was referring to.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14884903/D...-Reference-Aid
pnac is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 02:36 PM   #53
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
And, as I said, it does not say anything different than what was being said back in the 50's and 60's by the intel/law enforcement communities. Anytime there is an unpopular war such activity spikes in the ranks of disenfranchised ex-patriotic types. To try and spin it as a slam by the Obama administration against the troops is dishonest and weak.

Last edited by Playboypenguin; June 24, 2009 at 04:55 PM.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 02:36 PM   #54
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,784
"sovereign citizens"
LOL, I guess they mant people who can think.
Oh, never mind, they define it later.

They defined "underground," and not what I would consider correctly.
Some of those were pretty broad definitions. More crazy groups out there than I thought. I am going to start reporting my neighbors.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 04:41 PM   #55
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
People on a terrorist watch list?

No....but nobody should be on a list like that unless they are worth watching 24/7. Otherwise its a witch hunt list.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 08:09 PM   #56
kennybs plbg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Location: Hemet, Ca.
Posts: 524
Quote:
To try and make it some ridiculous "Obama/Dems hates the troops" scenario is so tired.
Playboypenguin, I never stated "Obama/Dems hates the troops" I clearly stated "military personal was flagged as a high risk" and they were as I include the link for you. You can spin it anyway you want, but I stated a fact as follows:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94803

kenny b
kennybs plbg is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 08:16 PM   #57
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
Playboypenguin, I never stated "Obama/Dems hates the troops" I clearly stated "military personal was flagged as a high risk" and they were as I include the link for you.
Here is what you said..
Quote:
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.
Sounds to me like you are doing exactly what I said...just as was another poster in a post that seems to have been deleted.

All of it is a gross exaggeration and partisan game playing. This has been a stated fact since well before our current administration and is nothing new to either parties. Also, returning military personnel are not "flagged" for anything. The report discusses how some returning military persons who fit a particular profile are at high risk of being inducted into anti-government movements. This risk increases during times of unpopular wars.

These watch lists are in no way exclusive to our military or even in any new way biased towards them. It is all old news and definitelt not the handiwork of "the current administration." The lists themselves are meaningless since they are so random and are nothing that should ever hold legal weight.

Last edited by Playboypenguin; June 24, 2009 at 11:19 PM.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 10:46 PM   #58
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,784
Quote:
so random and are nothing that should ever hold legal wait.
Therein lies the problem. This change would allow the list to trump COTUS. That is lots of legal weight.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 11:05 PM   #59
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,233
The DHS report......

Did, and still is upsetting a number of people. Primarily people who aren't looking beyond the initial sound bytes.

It is the job of people in organizations like DHS to be professionally paranoid. The report recently released covers about all the potential possibilities focusing on those on the "right" side of the political spectrum. The report was released by the current administration. Stating this is just a simple statement of fact. Reading an agenda into that statement is not.

A very similar report, focusing on those on the "left" side of the political spectrum was released by the previous administration. Also a simple fact.

I have issues with the idea of a "secret" list(s), and the way these things are being handled. While sometimes necessary during time of crisis, unchecked and unchallenged, these things become entrenched, and are fundamentally at odds with our professed system of government, and respect for the individual rights of our citizens.

It is not an inconceivable leap of faith to go from secret lists to star chambers and the epic observations of Martin Niemoeller.

"When they came for the trade unionists......"

Legal avenues exist to prevent that sort of thing from happening in this country. Whether we use them effectively or not....is another matter.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 25, 2009, 05:36 AM   #60
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
Did, and still is upsetting a number of people. Primarily people who aren't looking beyond the initial sound bytes.

It is the job of people in organizations like DHS to be professionally paranoid. The report recently released covers about all the potential possibilities focusing on those on the "right" side of the political spectrum. The report was released by the current administration. Stating this is just a simple statement of fact. Reading an agenda into that statement is not.
And thus declare war on the American people. ...and when a government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people...

Quote:
A very similar report, focusing on those on the "left" side of the political spectrum was released by the previous administration. Also a simple fact.
and it was wrong when they did it as well.

Quote:
I have issues with the idea of a "secret" list(s), and the way these things are being handled. While sometimes necessary during time of crisis, unchecked and unchallenged, these things become entrenched, and are fundamentally at odds with our professed system of government, and respect for the individual rights of our citizens.

It is not an inconceivable leap of faith to go from secret lists to star chambers and the epic observations of Martin Niemoeller.
I agree. When the people on the lists begin disappearing, it is too late.

Quote:
Legal avenues exist to prevent that sort of thing from happening in this country. Whether we use them effectively or not....is another matter.
One of those avenues is sites like this, and the 1A. Using it to shape public opinion helps. The 2A is an absolute last resort, not to be used lightly.
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old June 25, 2009, 05:56 PM   #61
TexasFats
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 130
Quote: "A very similar report, focusing on those on the "left" side of the political spectrum was released by the previous administration. Also a simple fact."

I did notice one major difference between the earlier report on the left, and the one on the right that the current administration issued. The earlier report was quite specific about which leftists groups were considered dangerous, often naming them. The current administration's report on the right uses such a broad brush to define potential right-wing extremists that as much as one-third of the adult population could be construed to be in that category. To me, it looks like an attempt to intimidate political opponents of current policies. "Don't be too vocal, or you will end up on a list." Even if that was not the intent, their definitions could easliy have a chilling effect on political opposition.
__________________
Gun laws are designed to extend and solidify the power of an elite over a peasantry.

Sauron lives, and his orc minions are on the march.
TexasFats is offline  
Old June 25, 2009, 06:13 PM   #62
ImprobableJoe
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
Quote:
I did notice one major difference between the earlier report on the left, and the one on the right that the current administration issued. The earlier report was quite specific about which leftists groups were considered dangerous, often naming them. The current administration's report on the right uses such a broad brush to define potential right-wing extremists that as much as one-third of the adult population could be construed to be in that category. To me, it looks like an attempt to intimidate political opponents of current policies. "Don't be too vocal, or you will end up on a list." Even if that was not the intent, their definitions could easliy have a chilling effect on political opposition.
Did you read the report? I don't read it the way you do. It doesn't single out tens of millions of people, which is a ridiculous claim on your part. Take a look:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Page 3 seems to specifically define the threat as "white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups" and NOT mainstream Republicans. Further, it identifies the thread of "lone wolf" terrorists outside of any specific group. The report says that the threat comes from small groups and "lone wolves" and not "as much as one-third of the adult population" as you claim. The report also distinguishes between right-wing extremists and law-abiding citizens in a very explicit way.

BTW, it is dishonest to describe either report as belonging to "this administration" since bother were commissioned by and rely on data gathered by the BUSH administration. Get a grip!
ImprobableJoe is offline  
Old June 25, 2009, 07:27 PM   #63
ImprobableJoe
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
Quote:
That's because you realize that as an anonymous poster on an internet site dealing with firearms and that occasionally disagrees with the mainstream media and government, you meet the official definition of an "extremist."

The battle for gun control has now transitioned to the battle for outright control. They have are pursuing the tactic of expanding the definition of those who are prohibited from owning guns until the existence of guns themselves is meaningless.
Interestingly, the people who you (falsely) claim want to take your guns away? Those are the people who are most active about eliminating the "terrorist watch list" and general government privacy intrusions in the name of "security."
ImprobableJoe is offline  
Old June 25, 2009, 08:17 PM   #64
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,487
Quote:
Quote:
I did notice one major difference between the earlier report on the left, and the one on the right that the current administration issued. The earlier report was quite specific about which leftists groups were considered dangerous, often naming them. The current administration's report on the right uses such a broad brush to define potential right-wing extremists that as much as one-third of the adult population could be construed to be in that category. To me, it looks like an attempt to intimidate political opponents of current policies. "Don't be too vocal, or you will end up on a list." Even if that was not the intent, their definitions could easliy have a chilling effect on political opposition.
Did you read the report? I don't read it the way you do. It doesn't single out tens of millions of people, which is a ridiculous claim on your part.
Rightwing extremism is defined in the footnote at the bottom of page 2:

Quote:
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
Hate-oriented groups are probably fairly limited (the Sounthern Poverty Law Center only identified 926 such groups in 2008).
There are probably many more people who favor state or local authority over federal authority.
And a huge number of people are dedicated to single issues that run counter to progressive orthodoxy.
gc70 is offline  
Old June 25, 2009, 08:19 PM   #65
kennybs plbg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Location: Hemet, Ca.
Posts: 524
Quote:
BTW, it is dishonest to describe either report as belonging to "this administration" since bother were commissioned by and rely on data gathered by the BUSH administration. Get a grip!
So Pres. Bush didn't lie?

kenny b
kennybs plbg is offline  
Old June 25, 2009, 08:38 PM   #66
ImprobableJoe
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
Quote:
So Pres. Bush didn't lie?
Sure, in the name of CYA... but to assume that he would commission a false report to make "conservatives" look bad crosses into "tin foil hat" territory.
ImprobableJoe is offline  
Old June 25, 2009, 09:05 PM   #67
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,233
So sorry, I disagree

Quote:
BTW, it is dishonest to describe either report as belonging to "this administration" since bother were commissioned by and rely on data gathered by the BUSH administration.
I don't believe it is dishonest at all. In fact, I believe that it is entirely honest to place the responsibility on this administration. EVERYTHING they have done since Jan 20 is their responsibility!

Sure, they may not have begun it, but this administration is in charge NOW. They are responsible. That IS the job they sought out and undertook!
Whether they allow programs and policies from the previous administration to continue, or shut them down in favor of new programs and policies, either way, they are now the ones responsible.
any other point of view is, to me, intelectually "dishonest"
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 25, 2009, 09:33 PM   #68
ImprobableJoe
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
Quote:
I don't believe it is dishonest at all. In fact, I believe that it is entirely honest to place the responsibility on this administration. EVERYTHING they have done since Jan 20 is their responsibility!

Sure, they may not have begun it, but this administration is in charge NOW. They are responsible. That IS the job they sought out and undertook!
Whether they allow programs and policies from the previous administration to continue, or shut them down in favor of new programs and policies, either way, they are now the ones responsible.
any other point of view is, to me, intelectually "dishonest"
They are responsible for the activities of permanent government nonpolitical agencies, tasked with doing work under the previous administration? Clearly, you don't understand the American government to any degree at all. That's like blaming the current administration for funding under Fiscal Year 2009, when that started in October 2008, when Bush was in office.

Feel free to blame Obama for things that are actually his fault, but when a non-partisan study commissioned by Bush, conducted when Bush was in office, comes out when Obama is in office, it is flat-out wrong to blame Obama when the results hurt your feelings, and correctly implicate right-wing domestic traitors who might share some of your views.

That doesn't at all, in any way, on any level mean that you are a traitor or a terrorist... that just means that some people who share your views ARE terrorists. That shouldn't seem like an implication of your own views, any more than if a terrorist eats at Burger King I should be worried because my dog is a huge fan of their onion rings.
ImprobableJoe is offline  
Old June 26, 2009, 12:47 AM   #69
kennybs plbg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Location: Hemet, Ca.
Posts: 524
Guess I'm too old for this stuff anymore, I miss the old days when black was black and white was white. I get enough of " that may be what I said but thats not what I ment" from the wife.

kenny b
kennybs plbg is offline  
Old June 26, 2009, 09:30 AM   #70
.50FAN
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2008
Posts: 20
Some things are easier to believe than others:

"All in needed to know about (him) I knew before the election." Re (his gun-control agenda.)
"We will change history." (Him.) In one of (his) post-election speeches.
DON"T bury your guns, yet. Buy a few more and bury THEM in cosmoline. You'll need them.
Watch (his) cronies and appointees, and VOTE RKBA in 2010, if we still can.
"If you don't watch, then you won't know. And what you don't know won't hurt you." Yah, right!
ANY combination of these 4 words is pretty dangerous, IMHO: " permanent government nonpolitical agencies."
"Permanent government" sounds quite monarchical to me. It is what King George thought, at one time.
"Government nonpolitical." Does this seem oxymorinical to only me? That's a LARGE uncontrollable entity!
"Nonpolitical agencies." Would these relate to skull-&-bones, et al?? No agency is ABSOLUTELY nonpolitical, IMHO.
Aren't "We The People" still in charge??

Last edited by .50FAN; June 26, 2009 at 01:01 PM. Reason: Couldn't find the orig., so deleted the source. Mea culpa, professor!
.50FAN is offline  
Old June 26, 2009, 10:21 AM   #71
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,636
What?

John Knott - hey, this isn't some English Comp. free write class. Can we make some sense here.

GEM
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old June 26, 2009, 11:07 AM   #72
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,660
What is with all the Obamapologists who feel they have to constantly justify voting for their chance at the feed trough over the Second Amendment? You can rationalize your vote until Hell freezes over and it won't change the proven anti-gun voting history of the current Congressional leadership, the President, or virtually every single person appointed to a position of power in this Administration.

Whether you like it or not, it is THIS administration proposing to remove even more rights based on the "terrorist watch list". I guess all that opposition to the idea has floundered now? The President supports the proposed bill and so does the party leadership.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old June 26, 2009, 05:15 PM   #73
JuanCarlos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
The entire idea of the "no-fly list" is absurd. It only makes sense if you assume you could ever get every "dangerous" person on it, which obviously you will never do. Otherwise you have to have stringent security anyway, since you're always going to have terrorists who aren't on the list and likely fail to fit your profile (like ZeSpectre's doppleganger there, which made my day).

At which point who cares if a "terrorist" makes it onto a plane? At worst, you simply have to pull them aside for additional screening. But at that point a plane is the safest place for them to be, no? Because theoretically there should be no way they're armed. Safer than a mall, or a school, or a park.

The idea that anybody can be too dangerous to board an airplane under restrictions so tight that I can't bring a darn bottle of water on board is ludicrous. Either our security is tight enough to prevent unnamed terrorists from doing harm, or it isn't..."known" terrorists should be no threat.

Heck, now you've got them locked down for the next hour or few, which just makes them easier to track.


As for whether they should be prevented from owning firearms? Well, I think the above should make my opinion obvious, but from a legal standpoint I ask one thing: would any reasonable person consider the requirements and process placing one on such a list "due process?"
JuanCarlos is offline  
Old June 26, 2009, 05:40 PM   #74
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,784
It isn't like they fingerprint you. Fake documents are not all that hard to come by. Realize in many countries you can get real documents for a fake identity for a few hundred bucks to the right "underpaid" bureaucrat.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old June 27, 2009, 06:16 PM   #75
rampage841512
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
Quote:
It isn't like they fingerprint you. Fake documents are not all that hard to come by. Realize in many countries you can get real documents for a fake identity for a few hundred bucks to the right "underpaid" bureaucrat.
What is your point, exactly? I'm not sure what your trying to say here.
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun."
Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08
rampage841512 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13851 seconds with 7 queries