Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People

ScienceChic wrote: No I wasn't.

I'll ask again though, should people who are on the FBI Terrorist Watch List be allowed to purchase guns?

Arlen said it correctly. If the watch lists were changed to make them public, and have due process, I see no reason that can't be considered during a background check.Arlen said it correctly. If the watch lists were changed to make them public, and have due process, I see no reason that can't be considered during a background check. America has due process.

It is impossible for me to put myself inside the head of a deranged lunatic and try to understand how he could slaughter so many innocents; nor can any other rational, normal human being. But I have to think that if someone is determined to commit mass murder, they're going to do it no matter what the laws are. Then we add the fact that jihadists believe dying while murdering for their twisted cause elevates them to some superstar afterlife status. Omar Mateen has recently discovered that he was profoundly misled. Welcome to hell, shitbag.

That's an enlightening video. Obama completely avoids the man's question about the killing fields known as Chicago, never mentioning it once. He does casually mention the secret no-fly list, and blames the NRA (again) for the government not being able to use the list to stop gun purchases. Obama's inference is that the NRA wants terrorists to have guns, and that's ridiculous. The NRA, like most people, wants that secret list published. I renewed my NRA membership the day that idiot Bob Costas said the NRA were all Nazis. Me, a proud Army veteran whose unit in the Berlin Brigade actually did a stint guarding Rudolf Hess at Spandau Prison. And when I hear Hillary or Obama vilify the NRA, I believe I'm on the right side. And you're right, Mr. Prez, more guns have been sold since you've been in office - do you ask yourself why? But I digress.

It's a good measure to keep people with terrorist affiliations off of airplanes. So why not publish the no-fly list? Why is it secret? Here's the terrorist list, America, and some of them live on your street. Put it in every gun store, along with photo IDs of the bad guys. The argument might be made that the government is protecting the identities of terrorists by not publicizing the list, and thereby endangering innocent lives. And those who are erroneously flagged (like my brother-in-law's dad, whose name was the same as some guy who kept writing nasty letters to the FBI) can fight to be removed. I believe most right-headed people agree that a terrorist who's not allowed on an airplane should not be allowed to buy firearms.

Is it just terrorists? What's the process for being flagged? I don't want to be on an airplane with a terrorist. (I gave up flying in 2007, so that's not a real concern for me personally.) Some groups will argue that having a Confederate flag on one's pickup qualifies the driver as a threat. Others will argue that throwing eggs at a political rally marks the offender as a threat and someone likely to cause harm as a political statement. Irate older mountain folks who post on public forums. Gay folks who picket a bakery. Veterans who share memes about the state of this union. People who protest for Black Lives Matter or the KKK. It's a big list of possibilities; almost anyone can be considered a threat by someone else. Who decides which Americans are powder kegs about to explode? I'd sure like to know who's been ID'd as a terrorist. But am I a radical Christian extremist because I feel threatened by radical islamic extremists?

The seat belt law comparison is invalid. Those measures didn't restrict who could own a car. There wasn't a secret "no drive list". But most importantly ... there is no constitutional right to car ownership. And I'll argue that passing a driving exam doesn't make anyone a good driver.

Returning to the topic title... People kill people, whether they use a gun or not. Most folks up here own guns and aren't committing mass murder, and they never will. So let's see that list. For all I know, I'm on it.

Jukerado and Arlen both make great points. Our POTUS cannot even say what is obvious to all, that this is an attack by an Islamic terrorist. Rather, he wants to twist it into yet another baseless argument for disarming American citizens.

Take that idea of making the no-fly list public one step further: Instead of the inefficient and incomplete current NICS background check, institute BIDS. But the government doesn't want to do that because then they couldn't have their under-the-table registration of law-abiding citizens.

The Second Amendment has been compromised nearly to death. There are plenty of laws on the books to deal with these perps; the government in general and this administration in particular choose to not enforce those laws and rather call for yet one more "common sense" law that invariably is yet another infringement on law-abiding citizens and does nothing to stop criminals/nut jobs/terrorists.

What we need is to close our borders (IMO to EVERYONE; I'm not singling out any one group here) until we can insure that who we're letting in is not a terrorist, we need to kick out the ones here who have overstayed their visas and we need to see Islamic terrorism for what it is; a war on our way of life, not a law-enforcement problem.

RenegadeCJ wrote:

ScienceChic wrote: No I wasn't.

I'll ask again though, should people who are on the FBI Terrorist Watch List be allowed to purchase guns?

Arlen said it correctly. If the watch lists were changed to make them public, and have due process, I see no reason that can't be considered during a background check.Arlen said it correctly. If the watch lists were changed to make them public, and have due process, I see no reason that can't be considered during a background check. America has due process.

The bill that was defeated by the Republicans last December provided an appeal process for those mistakenly put on the list.


The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015 would:

Allow the attorney general to deny the purchase or transfer of a firearm or explosive to a known or suspected terrorist if the prospective recipient may use the firearm or explosive in connection with terrorism.
Maintain protections in current law that allow a person who believes he has been mistakenly prevented from buying a firearm to learn of the reason for the denial, and then to challenge the denial, first administratively with the Department of Justice, and then through a lawsuit against the Justice Department.
Allow the Justice Department, in any administrative or court proceeding challenging the accuracy of a denied firearm or explosive transfer under the bill, to protect information that, if disclosed, would compromise national security.

www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cf...-firearms-explosives

intheaspens wrote: The Second Amendment has been compromised nearly to death. There are plenty of laws on the books to deal with these perps; the government in general and this administration in particular choose to not enforce those laws and rather call for yet one more "common sense" law that invariably is yet another infringement on law-abiding citizens and does nothing to stop criminals/nut jobs/terrorists.

What we need is to close our borders (IMO to EVERYONE; I'm not singling out any one group here) until we can insure that who we're letting in is not a terrorist, we need to kick out the ones here who have overstayed their visas and we need to see Islamic terrorism for what it is; a war on our way of life, not a law-enforcement problem.

The only "terrorist" that immigrated to the US since 9/11 was the wife of the San Bernadine killer. The rest have been homegrown to the best of my knowledge. Closing the borders would not have stopped any of the terrorist acts that have occurred since 9/11.

There's a very good reason that the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015" was defeated. We should all be thankful for it - simply because anyone's name can be put on that list.

Excerpts from the (excellent) attached article:

"According to several Democratic sponsors of the bill, the proposed law would allow the attorney general to deny a criminal background check clearance to any individual whose name appears on the national terror watch list. The huge problem with this expansive new power is that there are precisely zero statutory criteria for inclusion on this massive list. In fact, when statutory authority for the centralized government database was first codified into law via the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress gave all authority for determining criteria for inclusion in the watch list to unelected, unaccountable government bureaucrats. If some faceless Beltway bureaucrat decides you might be a terrorist, then you’re a terrorist. End of story.

"Under the Democrats’ proposal, the government doesn’t have to tell you why your name is on the list. The proposed law allows the government to keep that information secret. And if you decide to take the government to court over it, the Democrats’ bill creates a brand new legal standard that tilts the scales of justice against you.

"The blatant unconstitutional deprivation of due process is more than sufficient reason to oppose this piece of legislation, but it’s not the only reason. There may actually be an even bigger reason to reject it: it is completely unnecessary, because the U.S. attorney general already has the power to prevent “dangerous terrorists” from legally buying guns, and that power can be exercised without unconstitutional deprivation of due process.

"The silly gun control proposal from Democrats attempts to turn the principle of due process on its head. Instead of requiring a jury of your peers to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that you have committed a crime, Democrats have decided that power should belong to a handful of Washington, D.C.-based bureaucrats. Instead of allowing you to review and challenge all evidence presented against you, Democrats have decided that evidence should be kept secret. Instead of requiring a legal standard that all reasonable doubt must be eliminated prior to the government-sanctioned revocation of your rights, Democrats have decided that a mere preponderance of evidence should be plenty."

thefederalist.com/2015/11/23/sorry-democ...rorists-to-buy-guns/

The federalist article is full of demagoguery and misstatements. The text of the actual legislation can be found here:

www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1076

It is simply false that the government can put anyone's name on the list. The legislation required that the Attorney General before putting a suspected terrorist on the list::

(1) determines that such individual has been engaged in or has provided material support or resources for terrorist activities, and (2) has a reasonable belief that such individual may use a firearm or explosive in connection with terrorism.

It is also false that there would be a new legal standard that would turn due process on its head.

“(b) In any case in which the Attorney General has denied the transfer of a firearm to a prospective transferee pursuant to section 922A or has made a determination regarding a firearm permit applicant pursuant to section 922B, an action challenging the determination may be brought against the United States. The petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the petitioner has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 922A or 922B. The court shall sustain the Attorney General’s determination on a showing by the United States by a preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General’s determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 922B. To make this showing, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security. On request of the petitioner or the court’s own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General’s determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.”.

It is also false that this legislation was a "Democratic proposal. It was a bipartisan effort and cosponsored by Democrat Feinstein and Republican King. It was however defeated by the Republican majority.

The issue revolves around secret lists, and isn't false regarding turning the legal process on its head; for in this legislation, it does exactly that. Anyone can indeed be put on a watch list based on the views of the current AG, and should they protest, the DOJ can - as excerpted - present redacted documents which the court may or may not review. The victim/defendant does not get to see the evidence against them, in the interest of national security. I can't imagine anyone trusting that there's a fair and impartial AG under any administration wielding such power.

"You're on the list, and the court agrees." "Why am I on the list?" "We don't have to tell you."

So, the AG:
(1) determines that such individual has been engaged in or has provided material support or resources for terrorist activities, (that's a pretty broad range and I submit is subject to interpretation by the AG ... returning veterans? animal rights activists?)

and

(2) has a reasonable belief that such individual may use a firearm or explosive in connection with terrorism.
("Reasonable"? Hardly a word most of us would associate with the government.)

So how do names get put on a list?
michellemalkin.com/wp-content/uploads/20...tremism-09-04-07.pdf

Then-AG Napolitano defended it, despite outcries from all sides and all parties:
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16...rightwing-extremism/

“Rightwing extremism,” the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to “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,” said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks.

The assessment is not the first Homeland Security product to examine threats based on political extremism. In January, the department sent law enforcement officials an assessment of cyberterrorism threats from such left-leaning sources as environmental, animal rights and anarchist groups.

So all of that aside, the point remains that anyone on a government list - be it Hoover or Nixon's enemies list, or a terrorist watch list - should, under the laws of our free society, be able to see all of the evidence against them.