So if you are wrongly put on a watch list, how do you get off it?

[davidn3600]

I still haven't seen a single politician explain this to me.

There are people who get placed on these watch lists for no reason at all. People have been put on no-fly lists because they have the same name as a terrorist. So who do you go to in order to get this fixed? Because anyone who has wrongly been placed on a no-fly list...they will all tell you the absolute nightmare it takes to get off it.

To me, this is political theater what we are watching here. It'll never survive a constitutional challenge in the courts. And it shouldnt survive. This is a stupid idea where the government can put anyone on a list and restrict their rights without any due process. The FBI will not disclose who is on these lists. They will not tell you how people are put on them. And they don't explain how you get off. Yet you think its good idea to use this to restrict rights? That's insane. Imagine what the Republicans would do if they can restrict rights just by putting a name on a list.

It's insane.

No. I will not call my Senators or Representatives and tell them to vote for this. It's a bad idea. In fact, I will tell them to vote it down.

We all want "sensible gun control." But it needs to be Constitutional! You can't just say fuck the 5th amendment.

[Just reading posts]

1. Haven't you heard? Due process doesn't matter any more, and secret government lists are good.

[Lunabell]

44. How can this be sarcasm,

when it is so real?

[LongtimeAZDem]

2. The ACLU agrees:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-markup/use-error-prone-and-unfair-watchlists-not-way-regulate-guns-america

[lapfog_1]

3. so lets say you all are right...

whats the solution? What do we do to prevent another Orlando.

And don't start with the "more guns are needed"... I want to walk into a grocery store or a night club and NOT see armed people that might confront me because of my Tshirt or my bumper sticker (which happens in Arizona with my Obama bumper sticker).

[LongtimeAZDem]

5. Implement a system that safeguards due process

Gun Violence Restraining Orders

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027941228

[JayhawkSD]

8. Same way you prevent the next tornado.

I am not engaging in snark. Life is dangerous. You cannot eliminate danger. You cannot eliminate evil.

Put things in proportion. 50 people in a population of 310 million is not a terrible risk. To change the way we live, to base the framework of society and debase our constitution on a 1 in 6 million chance of death is unreasoned and irrational fear.

[lapfog_1]

11. yea... more mass shootings because freedum.

No need to do anything to prevent this... its just part of life.

OKey dokey...

I really hope that you or your loved ones are not in the next mass shooting (next week because that's about the frequency now).

But when they are... just remember... freedum!!!

[Corporate666]

13. Are you....

in favor of banning alcohol? Tens of thousands of people (many of them innocent children) are killed every year due to alcohol. Millions more people are rendered non-functioning members of society and families are ripped apart by alcoholism. Do you support a ban on alcohol? Or are you willing to forfeit those lives so you can enjoy the right to get drunk?

What about the millions that have died on our roadways. Are you in favor of limiting the speed of all cars to 30mph? Or are you willing to spend the lives of millions of young children so that you can get where you are going a bit quicker?

Are you in favor of banning all non-nutritious/healthy food? What about the millions of people who die of heart disease and the children who suffer with obesity and deal with harassment, bullying, health problems and self esteem issues? Are you willing to condemn them all to their suffering so you have the freedom to order a double cheeseburger when you want to?

How many lives are you willing to spend in general so that you can enjoy your freedom? Or is one life too much to spend? Because every single person on this site is willing to let children die horrible deaths so that they can drink, eat pizza, talk on their cell phone while driving and more.


So how is bleating about the lives of those lost to a constitutionally guaranteed right not hypocritical and hollow chicken-little talk?

And how exactly would something like an assault weapon ban prevent Orlando? Or a no-fly/no-buy prevent Orlando?

Are otherwise intelligent adults really in favor of feel-good legislation that doesn't actually achieve anything just so they can go to bed each night and maintain their delusion that "we did something, we made things better", while another thousand kids die that week in drunk driving crashes?

[lapfog_1]

14. conflate away

the subject is guns and gun nuts...

If I choose to drink and die of alcoholism... well, that was a choice *I* made...

And don't bring up getting killed by a drunk driver... because we HAVE been implementing rather draconian laws on drinking and driving.

As for highway safety... yeah, people die. And we have been making the highways safer every year. We not only require every driver to have a license but to pass a driving test. we renew these licenses every few years and ask that people at least pass a rudimentary eye exam. And again, I might cause a horrific accident but the chances that I will intentionally use my car to kill 49 other people is, statistically, very small. Not to mention that the primary purpose of my car is to move me from point A to point B.

The primary purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile that is capable of killing me. And that is the only purpose. No useful purpose is accomplished other than the killing or harming of people and animals.

Holy false equivalency Batman.

Can we require universal background checks and periodic gun safety tests conducted by the local police? Very similar to cars you allude to.

Drivers License... meet gun license. I'm good with that over the no fly no buy thing.

[Corporate666]

17. So you're willing to let hundreds of thousands die

so you're free to knock back a six pack after hard day's work, and you justify this on the basis of "we have been making the roads safer"? So because it's not as bad as it COULD be, it's OK? Out of sight and out of mind, eh? Most of the people who die from drunk driving didn't make the choice to die - they were just minding their own business when a drunk killed them.

You didn't answer my question - what is the useful purpose of alcohol? A gun can kill an animal for food. It can defend your life against an attacker. It can be used to relax for recreation such as target shooting or clay shooting. What is the useful purpose of alcohol? In addition to the tens of thousands who die on our roadways, many tens of thousands more die from health problems due to alcohol.

Alcohol isn't a guaranteed right. So I want to know why you aren't posting about banning alcohol?

You say you want to restrict people's rights so that we will all be safer, so how are you not a hypocrite for not going after the things that actually make you and everyone else less safe?

It sounds like you're reacting emotionally and are perfectly OK spending the lives of innocent children on things that aren't even your right but merely your pleasure, but you are OK with infringing upon the rights of others for things you don't personally partake in.

[lapfog_1]

18. Again, for the equivalency challenged

you want to drink yourself to death with legal alcohol... go ahead.

You want to buy a gun and shoot yourself... that's fine by me... in fact, the sooner the better and don't procreate on your way to a early grave.

But I don't want you forcing ME to drink myself to death. And I don't want YOUR right to a gun to outweigh MY right to life. You can't shoot me.

I'm not posting about alcohol because you can't force me to drink... I'm posting about guns because you CAN run out and legally buy a weapon that can kill dozens in a night club or a movie theatre or a school... or mall... or (fuck it, I give up, you gun nutz will never ever understand logic).

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. "You gun nutz will never ever understand logic" I understand situational ethics palmed off as logic

I also understand overwrought appeals to emotion, self-righteous moral posturing, and
the attitude that "it's okay when it's not a right that *I* care about that gets infringed"

Fuck lack of due process. Fuck it with a barbed-wire dildo.

[lapfog_1]

41. Fuck your "right" to own a gun... just fuck it.

I am so tired of gun nutz.

The right was never an absolute... had it been, it would have been stated that way. The right was in REFERENCE to being part of a militia at a time when there was NO standing army and no plans to have a standing army. The militia was to be the "army at the ready" in case the British wanted to go for round 2 (which they did, but a few years later).

There never WAS a right to bear arms as an unrestricted right of every citizen.

And this argument isn't even over the "right" to own guns... just the rights of the rest of us to not be threatened by the 2700 americans on the no-fly list to buy an arsenal and walk into a night club (for whatever reason) and shoot it up. Not to mention that you CAN go to court and ask that the court decide if you have had your right unfairly taken away.

So the worst that happens is that your (good guy with a gun) right was delayed for a while. I'm not going to cry about that one little damn bit.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. Fuck all attempts to limit rights via demagoguery and misrepresentation

Sad to see this dude's methods being employed at Democratic Underground:

"There never WAS a right to bear arms as an unrestricted right of every citizen."

Never said that, and that's at least the second time in this thread alone that you have implied
(or flat out stated) that people have said things that they actually didn't.

And this argument isn't even over the "right" to own guns

Ditch the quotes, it is a right whether you like it or not. If you don't like it,
you are perfectly free to try and repeal the Second Amendment. Until then, you still
have to live with it, just as the right-wingers have to live the First and Fourteenth
amndments. They don't like those, too bad.

I'd also point out that the Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan massacre were carried out
with fully automatic firearms bought on the black market. No watch list would have stopped
them, and anyone that thinks mass shootings will cease is living in a fool's paradise.

[lapfog_1]

64. Now who is putting words into someones mouth

"I'd also point out that the Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan massacre were carried out
with fully automatic firearms bought on the black market. No watch list would have stopped
them, and anyone that thinks mass shootings will cease is living in a fool's paradise. "

I never said that changing our interpretation of the second amendment would stop all gun violence.

and we don't need to repeal the second because a plain reading allows for all kinds of resulting restrictions... as the courts have determined over and over.

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. Well, Heller was upheld 8-0 in March. Here's the decision, it's not a long one:

I give you Caetano v. Massachusetts:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016)
Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016


The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

I pointed out in another thread:

Also, don't count on this being overturned anytime soon:

Even if President Clinton names two or three utterly anti-gun justices
to the SC, that would still leave it with six or seven justices that signed their names to the above...

[lapfog_1]

67. I guess I can now run right out and buy my fully automatic machine gun

oh... oops. I need a special license for that?

Courts and times change. Those are decisions that can be overturned by a future court.

Dred Scott comes to mind... or are you saying that slavery is really OK because a prior court decision ruled it OK.

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. *Again* with the strawman arguments...

Dred Scott comes to mind... or are you saying that slavery is really OK because a prior court decision ruled it OK.

Point out someone that said that, and *I'll* argue with them

Just FYI, Chief Justice Taney held in Dredd Scott, in part, that:


http://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html

Page 60, US 417

More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went...

[renate]

42. well said, plus

The ONLY purpose of a gun is to kill. (Sure, there's target shooting. There's also paintballs, archery, and BB guns for those whose sole goal is to hit a target.) Whether animals or humans... it's specifically designed to be lethal. A gun that didn't kill its target would not be a gun that successfully sold on the market.

Both kill innocents, sure. One (drunk driving that has the potential to kill) is already illegal, the other (owning a gun that has the potential to be discovered by a child or used in a massacre) is not. There is simply no comparison between the legal standing of guns and alcohol.

I'd be okay with keeping muskets legal. It's just preposterous for those who subscribe to the founding fathers' intent in all other regards to think that they'd be okay with semiautomatics.

[oneshooter]

87. So you have a "right" to get drunk, operate a motor vehicle, and kill people?

That is some squirrely thinking.

[JayhawkSD]

90. No, I can't force you to drink.

But I can get drunk, drive a car and run over you as you are walking across the street. Because I was drunk and driving drunk. There is nothing you can do about me driving drunk, other than look both ways before you cross the street, which is my point.

[lancer78]

25. and deaths by guns

Have been going down since the 80's.

[lapfog_1]

28. well alrighty then

I'm sure the relatives of the 49 people killed in Orlando will be glad to hear that factoid.

So... no mass shooting problems exist anymore! Yipee!

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. You attribute a sentiment to your interlocutor they did not, in fact, express.

But you knew that already...

[Lonusca]

83. "the subject is guns and gun nuts... "

No, it's about being wrongly put on a watch list.

[Captain Stern]

82. Well said. I've thought about the speed limit thing myself.

I have absolutely no doubt that tens of thousands of lives could be saved by banning all vehicles that can move at over 15mph. A lot of those lives will be children, and undoubtedly, some of those lives could be ones that I consider friends or loved ones, or even myself.

However, I'd be strongly opposed to banning vehicles that travel over 15mph......because it would be too damn inconvenient. My 15 min commute to work would turn into almost an hour commute (that would mean spending an extra 16 days in the car per year, no thanks). My two-hour drive to the beach would turn into a miserable all day trek. My one hour drive to visit my grandchildren would take an hour.

So, basically, I'm not willing to change that part of my lifestyle, even though I know for sure it would save thousands of lives. And most everyone else that drives feels the same way. I'd rather just take my chances, and hope that the people close to me stay safe, and that's ok.

[lancer78]

24. my sister and brother-in-law

Were killed by a drunk driver. I did not go out and start screaming for the laws to be changed. You are just as likely to be beaten to death than killed in a mass shooting.

[lapfog_1]

26. did they have a drivers license?

did the drunk driver have a drivers license?

Can we not require gun owners to have the same and pass a universal background check, thus lowering but not eliminating the chance that the person buying the gun will use it to kill others.

and, if someone starts a fight in a night club or elementary school... nearly everyone will come out alive.

[sarisataka]

39. The drunk driver who killed my cousin

did not have a driver's license. It had been revoked two DUIs previously.

Yet he did not have to pass any background check to buy a truck or the bottle of vodka that he drank before going out driving. He was sentenced to not more than ten years- was out in about three. My cousin never graduated high school but guess who was able to get another DUI...

Draconian drinking and driving laws my ass.

[renate]

43. I'm so sorry about your cousin

Drunk driving INFURIATES me.

I think it would be a wonderful thing if purchasing alcohol required a background check for DUIs.

[lapfog_1]

45. most likely we will solve the problem of drunk drivers

and car accidents in general... with technology.

Self driving cars... that we get in and tell them where to go and they drive us there.

Not to mention that in certain states, the ignition of cars owned by drivers convicted of drunk driving have a built in breathalyzer to the ignition.

But when it comes to guns, OTOH... the NRA has made it a mission to prevent technology such as biometric trigger locks. Things that would prevent the gun from being used by someone other than the owner. Not only that, but they have also blocked RESEARCH into biometric trigger locks and even research into the gun deaths by the CDC.

It's almost as if the NRA and their supporters WANT people to die, especially children who often get their hands on a weapon and think its a toy.,

[lancer78]

47. except for newtown

None of the guns have been used by someone other than the owner.

[lapfog_1]

50. your are only thinking of mass shootings...

the vast majority of gun violence is outside of mass shootings. A goodly proportion of THAT is wrong hands gun violence. Kids getting their hands on their parents guns... plus many other situations. And yet the NRA wants gun shops to not even carry this as an option for gun buyers.

[Duckhunter935]

79. Most are suicides

By the owner of the weapon.

[sarisataka]

57. Thank you

I hope to see the day when causing a death while intoxicated is an aggravating factor instead of mitigating.

Even so, I oppose sobriety checkpoints as violations of the Fourth Amendment. I will not sacrifice my principles because of anger or some misplaced sense of vengeance. I would rather see European style punishment of convicted DUI offenders.

[lancer78]

46. no, he did not

His had been taken away because of 3 prior dui.

[lapfog_1]

48. and where was this?

many states now require a breathalyzer ignition for repeat DUI offenders.

Similar to biometric trigger locks for guns, which the NRA and the repukes want to make ILLEGAL!!!

[lancer78]

49. this was 15 years ago in south dakota.

[lapfog_1]

52. don't know the situation there

but time has been moving... and technology is available today to prevent repeat DUI offenders from driving while intoxicated.

So it's not like we aren't doing anything about this.

Can't say the same thing about gun violence.

[lancer78]

51. the big problem

With the biometrics is that gun owners worry that it can have a gps installed to make confiscation easier.

Sensible gun control died the day Diane Feinstein opened her mouth and said if she had her choice, all Americans would be required to turn all their guns in.

[lapfog_1]

53. paranoid kooks.

Actually that says a lot about gun nutz... that they are afraid that a biometric trigger lock intended to keep their weapon from being used by someone else, possibly against THEM, would incorporate a GPS mechanism that would allow their gun to be taken away,

I always laugh at the gun nutz I know that act like Charlatan Heston... "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands"... as if those door to door searches for guns would be conducted by people who would give a damn about your AR-15 with your 10 banana clips... they are going to send Armored personnel carriers and tanks for your guns. Big ones. And they will search every house... multiple times... in the dead of night.

But that isn't even correct... it's not that they are worried about GPS locators or even remotely operated radio locks... because its not that they don't want ALL guns to come with biometric trigger locks... they don't want ANY gun to come with this feature. They don't want it to be a choice.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. "paranoid"...for taking her at her word? Or you at *your* word, for that matter?:

. as if those door to door searches for guns would be conducted by people who would give a damn about your AR-15 with your 10 banana clips... they are going to send Armored personnel carriers and tanks for your guns. Big ones. And they will search every house... multiple times... in the dead of night.

Only a fool relishes the thought of war, and bigger fools thinks counterinsurgency is easy.

Remind us again how long our military has been fighting a bunch of fundamentalist
hillbillies with no air force, helicopters, or heavy armor in Afghanistan.

Besides, what makes you automatically assume the armed forces would go along with this?

It's a cliche to say, but lefties don't generally join the military

[lapfog_1]

65. the taliban are much better armed than your average gun nut

but as for the rest of your argument that seizing the guns would be futile.. you are right!

So why o why are the gun nutz afraid of it happening?

So again, what is the logic in being afraid of biometric trigger locks?

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. Start going after civilians with the military, and that will change in a hurry

So again, what is the logic in being afraid of biometric trigger locks?

They are security theater, and impress the easily impressable.

I wouldn't be afraid of them, as I do not have a childlike faith in technological perfection
and thus realize that they would be an expensive, yet easily bypassed inconvenience.

Home mechanics hack car electronic engine controls all the time, and auto
engine control units are far more complicated than anything that could be put on a gun.

[lapfog_1]

70. ok, you can hack them

hell with a 3D printer you can manufacture your own gun.

But why oppose them from being offered as an option to the gun buying public?

[Straw Man]

69. Y'see ...

but as for the rest of your argument that seizing the guns would be futile.. you are right!

So why o why are the gun nutz afraid of it happening?

Because "gun nutz" (forgiving the classist slur) don't want to be lawbreakers. They would prefer to trust a government that trusts them.

So again, what is the logic in being afraid of biometric trigger locks?

Because some states (New Jersey and ?) have passed laws saying that as soon as a "smart gun" (i.e. with a biometric lock) comes on the market --even one -- then all non-biometric guns will become illegal. Gun enthusiasts are understandably disturbed about this because it narrows their choice of gun from a field of thousands to a field of one. And what if that one gun is a piece of crap? Also, how many times has your smart phone let you down? Smart guns will be no better.

[lapfog_1]

71. The New Jersey legislation was a mistake

but the NRA has been on a mission to prevent this technology from being for sale anywhere.

They have even prevented the CDC from collecting statistics and doing research on gun violence.

What are they afraid of? besides everything apparently

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. "What are they afraid of?" Ask the NRA, I'm not a member and thoroughly dislike them.

[Straw Man]

78. True.

The New Jersey legislation was a mistake

but the NRA has been on a mission to prevent this technology from being for sale anywhere.

Not true. They only oppose it because of the mandates. They would have no problem with the gun being just another option in the firearms market.

They have even prevented the CDC from collecting statistics and doing research on gun violence.

No, they didn't. They pressured Congress into passing legislation that prevents the CDC from advocating for gun control. CDC can collect all the stats that they want, and they still do. It seems, though, that the fun has gone out of it for them if they can't do the advocacy part.

[Straw Man]

56. And yet ...

many states now require a breathalyzer ignition for repeat DUI offenders.

Similar to biometric trigger locks for guns, which the NRA and the repukes want to make ILLEGAL!!!

... I read in the newspaper repeatedly of people being charged with DUI with the added charge defeating a court-mandated breathalyzer interlock system.

Yeah, technology will solve all our problems ...

[lapfog_1]

59. Ok... you do realize that nothing is going to stop every act of

disobeying a court order... or no legislation, even one that completely banned every gun in America, would stop ALL shootings.

All we can do is reduce the level of drunk drivers driving... and gun owners shooting people... to a point where it is a rare event.

Note that since Orlando, there have been 500 more acts of gun violence in the US. It would be a huge victory for us to reduce mass shootings by half and all gun violence by 10 percent.

Can we not simply try? Or do you want to just give up because no technology is perfect.

[Straw Man]

61. Here's the thing ...

Ok... you do realize that nothing is going to stop every act of

disobeying a court order... or no legislation, even one that completely banned every gun in America, would stop ALL shootings.

It's not even going to stop most of it. Not even a measurable portion of it.

All we can do is reduce the level of drunk drivers driving... and gun owners shooting people... to a point where it is a rare event.

I've got a better idea -- instead of putting them back on the road with a device that they can cheat, lock them up. Long mandatory sentences for the second DUI offense.

It's the same with gun violence -- the real problem isn't the one-time mass shooter who obtained a gun legally. It's repeat felony violence by people who had earned a lifetime ban from gun ownership by the time they reached the age of majority, yet continue to get them and use them for evil purposes, and will continue to do so despite bans and technological fixes. Mandatory life sentence for violent felony committed with a firearm: that would be a huge step forward toward solving the problem.

[lapfog_1]

75. but the only way to know that someone is a felon

is to do a universal mandatory background check.

Which cannot pass the republican held house or senate.

so we try to pass what they might allow... the no fly no buy bill. Or at least shame them with it.

ANd I am not in favor of long prison sentences for people who have a disease. self driving cars and treatment are much better options.

[Straw Man]

76. No.

but the only way to know that someone is a felon

is to do a universal mandatory background check.

The way you know someone is a felon is when you arrest him for committing a felony. Then you can background-check him until the cows come home. If he has a firearm on him and he has a record, then he wasn't allowed to have that firearm in the first place, and you add the "felon in possession" charge to whatever else you're charging him with. If he doesn't have a record, you charge him with the main felony and "possession of a firearm while committing a felony," and not the "felon in possession," so you only get two things to charge him with instead of three. But each of the gun counts should be hefty and non-negotiable.

And actually, any licensed firearms dealer would have background-checked him anyway if he had attempted to buy a gun. So that's another way you know.

so we try to pass what they might allow... the no fly no buy bill. Or at least shame them with it.

Without due process, it's a severe infringement on civil rights. Always has been, always will be.

ANd I am not in favor of long prison sentences for people who have a disease. self driving cars and treatment are much better options.

We cannot allow people with such diseases to continue to be a menace to our safety on the roads. Let them get treatment behind bars. I subscribe to the disease model of alcoholism, but we have to protect ourselves from people who are impervious to treatment.

[Straw Man]

10. There's no doubt about it.

so lets say you all are right...

whats the solution? What do we do to prevent another Orlando.

I think Western Civilization needs a restart. And I'm not kidding. Late-stage imperialistic capitalism in an age of globalization and dwindling resources is not a pretty thing. Things here are actually pretty tame compared to the Third World, but we will be seeing more and more of this as surely as the sun comes up in the morning. The whole contemporary ethos bring Yeats' "Second Coming" to mind:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Talking about "no fly, no buy" laws and assault weapons bans in this context is ... pick your cliché. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? Fixing your doorbell when your house is on fire? Thinking it's OK to keep a tiger as a pet as long as you keep its claws trimmed?

Pardon my cynicism, but I find that it highly ironic that I'm watching my representatives -- and yes, I'm a Democrat -- singing "We Shall Overcome" in support of a bill that will strip individuals of their rights without due process.

[lapfog_1]

21. due process...

where was the due process in Sandy Hook, Columbine, Tucson, Orlando, San Bernadine, and the literally hundreds of other locations over the last 40 years,

Due process is what Speaker Ryan is mouthing off about.

[Straw Man]

54. So ...

due process...

where was the due process in Sandy Hook, Columbine, Tucson, Orlando, San Bernadine, and the literally hundreds of other locations over the last 40 years,

Due process is what Speaker Ryan is mouthing off about.

... shall we put you down as "opposed to due process," then? Another vote for governance by secret watch list?

[lapfog_1]

55. for people buying something that I don't think they should be allowed to have anyway

YUP.

and it shouldn't be a secret watch list.

It should be all guns by everyone. Like most of the sane rational world.

[Straw Man]

58. Please clarify.

for people buying something that I don't think they should be allowed to have anyway

YUP.

and it shouldn't be a secret watch list.

It should be all guns by everyone. Like most of the sane rational world.

You think that most of the "sane rational world" has banned "all guns by everyone"? Not even the UK has done that. Not even Japan.

And you think this ban should be enforced without due process? No reading of Miranda rights? No right to representation by an attorney? No trial by a jury of one's peers? Just lock 'em up and let 'em rot?

North Korea is calling -- they want their police state back.

[TipTok]

12. A poorly thought out and unethical and illegal solution...

... is not better than waiting.

Some folks just want to do "something" to make themselves feel like something got accomplished and then they'll move on with their life until the next crisis and wonder why the old "something" didn't work.

[lancer78]

27. and the panderers

In Congress want to "do something" just to shut up their constituents. The pandering ways apply to democrats the same it does to republicans. Except our issue is gun control and their issue is abortion.

[Recursion]

15. Well, this wouldn't have prevented Orlando (he wasn't on the no-fly list)

And mass shootings are the "wrong" thing to be worried about anyways when it comes to gun violence.

That said, this bill would probably be at least a marginal net positive, and if it weakens Ryan's speakership so much the better.

[lapfog_1]

16. The purpose has little to do with preventing one mass shooting

it has two purposes:

If acted on, it might put break the stranglehold that the NRA exerts over the repukes. If they vote against the NRA once and they don't get voted out next election... they MIGHT be bold enough to vote for universal background checks and mandatory passing background checks..

If not acted on, the Democrats get to go to the American people and say "The Republicans will not even vote to prevent terrorists from buying guns" and that might be enough to flip the House and Senate. Might be.

[lancer78]

29. but democrats f'ed up

And should have waited until the primary races were over for the republicans. If the republicans vote for gun control, they will get "touched by a teabagger". And that is not like getting touched by an angel.

[lapfog_1]

32. gun nut t-baggers don't do so well

ask Senator Angle how her "second amendment remedies" worked out for her

[lancer78]

34. poor example

And wrong type of office holder as I was referring to house members. Hell, even in 2012, the 1st district in michigan sent a reindeer herder to congress

[lapfog_1]

36. if I was a democrat running against a moderate repuke or a trump wannabe

crazy t-bagger... I'd pick to run against the insane t-bagger every time.

[lancer78]

38. depends on

The make-up of the district. Trump is still getting at least 45% when all is said and done.

[One_Life_To_Give]

80. Different Problems

Orlando was more of a Spree Killing than an everyday gun violence. Which is not the same as a Terrorist Attack such as the Bataclan or the Munich Olympic attacks. Their solutions will likewise be specialized into preventing each type. The Arizona Territory was the murder capital of the US back in the day it was run by outlaws and most people carried openly. The solution has likely been shown a hundred years ago.

[Bluenorthwest]

88. That's incorrect in just about every way. A 'spree killer' is defined by multiple locations

in a short time. Mateen was a single location and all at the same time. He was not on a spree of killing he targeted a single entertainment venue selected for being such a venue. Bataclan was exactly that. A targeted entertainment venue.
Orlando was also not 'everyday gun violence'. 49 victims targeted for their identity with the objective of causing fear in the wider community. Terrorism. Plain and simple.

[One_Life_To_Give]

94. Excuse me Rampage Killer

But True Terrorists with the support organizations that entails have access to real military weapons. AK47 Assault Rifles and RPG7's which are smuggled into the locations to be used by the terrorist network. Where as the Rampage Killer such as the UT Clock Tower sniper, Columbine, Newtown have no support network and are reduced to the weapons available. ALthough most Rampage Killers have no history so they easily pass whatever background check requirement there may be. Meanwhile most people in the US Murdered with guns are sho by the 21st century version of "Mr Saturday Night Special" a cheap, easily concealed weapon.

Stoppping somebody who has the resources to smuggle Chinese made AK47s and RPG's into the EU or North America is very different from stopping a Rampage Killer hitting a BurgerKing which is again different from stopping street hoods from engaging in turf wars.

[sarisataka]

4. The lists were Bush Co's idea

Bush/Cheney wouldn't allow the creation of a terrorist list that had errors.


Due process is a quaint idea- if you believe there is a mistake, just appeal and counter the evidence against you. Of course since it is classified info you won't get to see the evidence against you...

[bigwillq]

6. You call Obama. He's got this.

[lancer78]

30. it is sad

Our "constitutional scholar" president would be pushing for this.

[uppityperson]

7. I agree. I want gun control, but ignoring due process is not the way to go about it.

Education and anger&hate management needs to be part of it also.

[JayhawkSD]

9. You don't even have to be on the list.

You just have to have the same name, or one spelled close to the same, as someone on the list and this monstrous bill would deny your constitutional rights with no recourse.

I have no argument with controlling the sale of assault rifles. I have a big arguement with this denial of rights based on suspicion alone.

[SeattleVet]

20. This ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ !!!

The only recourse at this time is to pay an attorney a huge retainer (there is a LOT of paperwork that will need to be filed) and hope for the best.

Other than that, just sit back, relax, and prepare to spend an extra hour or so at the airport each time you try to board a flight. (And that's just for the 'Selectee' list - if you're on the full-blown 'No Fly' list there is a Byzantine procedure, most likely created using the teachings of Fanz Kafka.)

[Electric Monk]

19. For example, if your name was something relatively common, like Paul Ryan? nt

[lapfog_1]

22. Your ability to buy a gun would be delayed for a while

possibly 30 days...

Is that a big deal?

[Electric Monk]

23. I wouldn't have a problem with that. I think, if you need to buy a gun in a hurry, you're probably

doing something shady in the first place.

[lancer78]

31. or are on

An expensive hunting trip to south dakota and you forgot your rifle at home in Florida.

[lapfog_1]

77. Fedex will overnight it to you

unless you are hunting in Puerto Rico.

but if you have to buy one, you will be cooling your heels until you pass a background check.

[HubertHeaver]

37. The short answer is, you don't.

Ted Kennedy, the Senator, was put on the "no fly list" when it was first started. Even a phone call to the big cheese didn't help.

Once your name is entered into the database, it is nearly impossible to remove all instances or occurrences of your name. It will pop back up at the damnedest times.

[geomon666]

40. Add due process to the bill

Done.

[lancer78]

60. 3 business days

Might have been a little short, but 5 should be fine.

[friendly_iconoclast]

74. Peace out, this has been a lively discussion but now I need some shut-eye...

[pnwmom]

81. Here is info from the ACLU on how to appeal.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-if-you-think-youre-no-fly-list

[HereSince1628]

84. It may be thinking that is flawed, it may be political theater

but it is not 'insane'. It's mostly a matter of shallow thinking and facile grasping of something whose logic seems so clear because it seems to make 'common sense'. Bad guys with guns is obviously not what anyone but bad guys wants.

The problem with "common sense" gun controls is that they are too long on 'common' thinking and too short on thorough and sophisticated thinking thru of the implications.

Surely the protection of people's 5th and 14th amendment rights, should be very serious considerations involving legal issues that fall well outside the shallow concerns of common sense. And surely law-makers ought to get input from experts on the protection of people's constitutional rights and civil protections.

Moreover, this common sense approach can forseeably run up against government operations against suspected terrorists involving attempts at gun purchases. A quick denial of a purchase could well tip-off the targeted suspect terrorists that the gov't is on to them. That could conceivably trigger attacks (undesireable), or send the terror cells deeper underground (also undesireable), and thereby interfere with investigations (undesireable).

Doesn't it seem reasonable to at least seek some input from the FBI and Homeland Security about the proposed law? Wouldn't we want HSD and security services to be able to have time to react to an attempted purchase by a terror suspect? How could legislators know what timeframes should be provided either for clearing a gun purchase or for delaying notification to a suspect, unless they ask representatives of the law-enforcement and security services?

Doesn't "serious" action on control of gun purchases deserve more than shallow discussion among legislators who've already decided this is a political brass ring to be grabbed asap?

[Lurks Often]

85. Civil rights don't matter to Democrats when guns are involved

The hypocrisy here is disgusting, if any other civil right was being infringed on, especially under a Republican president, DU would be screaming in outrage, but because the President has a D behind his name and because it involves guns, far too many are ok with it.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

92. Indeed - And this could easily be flipped on us.

If the GOP were smart, they would suggest using the voter registration lists and outlaw democrats from owning guns. What possible argument could stand up against the one being parroted here so often? "But will it make us safer and make mass shootings less frequent? - rights be damned".

[Lurks Often]

93. The legal precedent used to justify this could very well by applied elsewhere as well

Sometimes legal precedents can have unexpected and unwanted results.

[ileus]

86. As long a WE control the list and how they get there all is well.

[Odin2005]

89. Death. Once the Security State has given you the Scarlet Letter you're fucked.

It horrifies me how many people here are defending the watch lists when just 10 years ago we Dems were 100% against them.

Not to people screaming nasty things at us "gun nuts", THIS IS NOT ABOUT GUNS, this is about being able to live in a free, just, and open society despite the risks to safety because of that freedom.

[Jake Stern]

91. Why do I see this backfiring for the donkey party?

The right doesn't even need to lie about it: these bills contain no provisions for due process or oversight of these secret watch lists.
Makes me queasy to see members of the Democratic party rah rah for secret watch lists.