What would you suggest the FBI have done?
It appears to me, the "shall not be infringed" crowd got what they argue for.
POLL Watch Lists and Guns
- Thread starter Turtle
- Start date
It appears to me, the "shall not be infringed" crowd got what they argue for.
I think corruption plays a part, but there are 19 different federal agencies that are coming up with criteria and nominating names for the various watch lists (some of which have their own separate lists) that fall under the blanket Terrorist Watch List. The No Fly List is a part of the bigger list.
The No Fly List has ballooned from about 10,000 names in 2010 to well over 50,000 names currently. The larger Watch List began bloating under Bush at about 300,000 names in 2006 but has exploded under Obama to an estimated 1.8 to 2.1 million names, with about 7% of those being US citizens with no ties whatsoever to terrorism, including 6 year old girls, Cubs Scouts, 93 year old great-grandmothers, members of Congress, and investigative journalists who write unflattering articles about the TSA.
There isn't been a single national list of anything that the federal government has been able to competently manage (including the list of National Parks where they once published a complete list of Parks with 7 of them missing, and had one National Recreation Area listed as a National Park).
Democratic Congressman John Lewis, the Civil Rights icon, was himself wrongly placed on the list in 2004, was stopped in airports more than 40 times by security, and couldn't get himself off the list until a second face-to-face meeting about it with Tom Ridge. It was that same John Lewis who led the Democrats in their sit-in to get legislation passed to prevent people on the No Fly List from being able to purchase a gun. I find that both hilarious, and face-palm befuddling.
Everything the federal government touches they somehow manage to screw it up, to make it worse, and to spend obscene amounts of money doing so. A terror watch list is no different. I'm going with straight up incompetence.
They should have kept him on the list, so they would have at least been alerted that someone on the list has purchased a gun. According to the GAO, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists (including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists) attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times. The ones who were denied were because of felonies, domestic abuse convictions, and other disqualifying reasons. But the FBI knows immediately when someone on the list buys a gun, and will do surveillance accordingly.
To not have your rights arbitrarily taken away from you without due process? You betcha. The shooter was an actual US citizen, born and raised here. Both his parents became Naturalized US citizens themselves. What rights did he deserve to have stripped from him, and why?
If the government can create a Watch List that can be used to take away one right, what's stopping them from using the same list to take away any other right? It's not like the government is above that sort of thing. Everyone at Gitmo has had their liberty stripped without due process, many of whom have been locked up there for years without even being charged with anything. Obama has used drones to assassinate at least one US citizen without a trial, simply because he was on a list of the government's creation and Obama wanted him dead. I don't think I need to even bring up the internment of US citizens who lost their right of liberty solely because they were on a list of people of Japanese ancestry.
No, the right to buy a gun or not be able to buy one played no part in Orlando. If he couldn't have bought a gun, he would have found some other way to act out his self-loathing of being a Gay Muslim.
Sounds like way too much of complicating the simple. The only time someone should be on a "no fly list" and be banned of firearms is if that person has been convicted a crime. That's it. Who decides something otherwise and under what criteria? Same thing with the AR-15. Too much misinformation primarily from the media. That gun is no where close to being a automatic or a assault rifle. A whole lot of other guns available if that was to be the motive of a purchase. Extremists will find a way to do harm whether that gun is here or not. Everything from fertilizer, pressure cooker to box cutters. Wow....Walmart is a haven for terrorists. lol
All of this is a knee jerk reaction from media madness. While not "politically correct", here is the reality. If you statistically remove black on black crime and shootings, you really don't have a problem short of a few nut cases. Gun control does nothing. The "horse is already out of the barn" Guns are already out there. Some even distributed by the Obama administration. Remember "Fast and Furious"? Things go in a circle when the government is involved. Just look at Chicago and you will have your answer. Of course, we can't face that reality yet because we are too worried about "feelings".
All of this is a knee jerk reaction from media madness. While not "politically correct", here is the reality. If you statistically remove black on black crime and shootings, you really don't have a problem short of a few nut cases. Gun control does nothing. The "horse is already out of the barn" Guns are already out there. Some even distributed by the Obama administration. Remember "Fast and Furious"? Things go in a circle when the government is involved. Just look at Chicago and you will have your answer. Of course, we can't face that reality yet because we are too worried about "feelings".
Last edited:
I am not for gun control persay....but see no reason for weapons that discharge large amounts of bullets in a short time....home weapons and protection are one thing...ASSAULT weapons means just that....they should be classified as such and not for civilian purchase.....thats pretty simple process as well....
the argument they'll find another way does not wash.....we don't have to help by making it as easy as possible either ti kill people as quick as possible....yes he could have strapped on a bomb and achieved the same result....
the argument they'll find another way does not wash.....we don't have to help by making it as easy as possible either ti kill people as quick as possible....yes he could have strapped on a bomb and achieved the same result....
Are you saying a person have to blow up a plane first to be on a no fly list?
Well said my brother from another mother, well said.
Those two statements directly contradict each other.
Assault rifles are indeed classified as such and are not available for civilian purchase. An assault rifle is an automatic weapon that keeps firing as long as the trigger is depressed, or can be set to Burst.Mode to fire 3 shots with each trigger depress. Those are not available for civilian purchase.
A couple of old fashioned Colt 45 six shooters can fire 12 rounds exactly as fast as an AR-15 type "assault" rifle can, and using larger bullets that cause more damage. In fact, if you have one in each hand you can fire those 12 rounds twice as fast as you can with a semi-automatic rifle. And with the same accuracy.
Not exactly but if under suspicion or waiting for trial it might. From the left for convenience. 7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List
Several items here and several that are not will get you on the that list.
Iam trying hard to see you guys line of thinking with this gun stuff but after 65 years of life and never been in a situation where a gun would be an asset...
You've also probably never been in a situation where you wanted to kick soldiers out of your home, but that doesn't mean that you, or more importantly that others, should have the right to do so taken away.
The majority of Americans do not own a gun (although 59.9% of North Dakotan households do... so, no pressure). American citizens can freely choose to exercise, or not, any right they have. They can speak freely, or not. They can worship in a religion, or not. They can own a gun, or not. They can have their vehicle searched without warrant, or not. They can testify against themselves, or not. They can vote, or not.
I haven't owned a gun in almost 35 years. But it's nice to know that if I want one I can go buy one. (full disclosure: we have a rifle, a shotgun and a handgun in the house, though. They just aren't mine.)
oh...I understand the rights thing....guns are up there with the right to buy a snowmobile whether I live in Florida or not or a surf board in South Dakota....
Can you imagine having to go through a background check to buy a surfboard, in order to make sure you aren't likely to whack someone over the head with it? Or being prevented from buying one simply because you've been placed on the government's Suspected Rude Surfer Doods Watch List?oh...I understand the rights thing....guns are up there with the right to buy a snowmobile whether I live in Florida or not or a surf board in South Dakota....
and yet this country denies the right to vote convicted felons when time justice has been served, to lose your right to vote for writing a rubber check....now that is just as silly as the no fly list issue....
And actions have consequences, we all the know the rules. If you chose not to play by them, well that's your bad.
IMO....its denial of rights of a citizen..who has paid his debt to society.....and stupid law of a supposedly FREE and JUST society....
But I also understand what you said Southwest....
But I also understand what you said Southwest....
That's not entirely true. It's state law, not federal law, that prevents felons from voting. In Vermont and Maine, for example, convicted felons can vote while they're still in prison (same as their big Maple Leaf neighbor to the north).
In 14 states felons may vote as soon as they are released from prison.
4 states restore voting rights after the end of the parole term.
Most other states (20, including SD) allow a felon to restore their voting rights after they have been released and after they compete the parole period, and after they completed a probationary period by showning themselves to be a productive member of society (usually after 5 or 7 years, having a job, and committing no subsequent crimes).
10 states (including KY) permanently revoke the voting privileges of violent felons. In most of those states non-violent felons have their voting rights automatically restored after completion of parole and probation (I.e., after they've paid their debt to society). In KY, violent felons, and those convicted of election bribery, will have to get an Executive Pardon in order to vote again.
But there are no states, including the 10 where violent felons permanently lose their right to vote, no one gets their rights denied without due process.
I'm confused (easy to do nowadays)... Why are states involved in voting rights in the first place? ...... Isn't voting something that should be determined by federal legislation?