HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » X-Post: "Gun Rights ...

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 06:50 PM

X-Post: "Gun Rights for Terrorists"

Gun Rights for Terrorists

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/opinion/gun-rights-for-terrorists.html

"Protective measures include the tracking of travel patterns to and from certain countries, and tightened airport security, but our laws do nothing to stop domestic terrorist suspects from gaining access to the tools they need to inflict terrible damage. Those on the terror watch list are free to buy and own unlimited firearms in the United States.

And it is well documented that they do. The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, recently reported that between February 2004 and December 2014, individuals on the watch list attempted to purchase firearms or explosives on 2,233 occasions — and more than 90 percent of the time, they cleared a background check and received approval to buy.

In fact, only a very small percentage of the roughly one million people on the international terror watch list are American citizens. Among the objective criteria that cause someone to be listed are active membership in an organization devoted to jihad, a record of transfers of money to a terrorist organization, and the incitement of acts of terrorism.

Gun lobby opposition has also played a part in earlier failures to address the problem. A small, extremist sliver of the gun-owning population (including the leadership of the National Rifle Association) opposes any limitations — even a restriction of terror suspects’ right to arm themselves."

==============

Yep, law abiding citizens all.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628345


Apparently the child in the picture is a jihadist that has traveled to numerous foreign lands and poses a terrorist threat.

No discussion as to whether of not the one million people on the watch list deserve to be there; just an assumption that they are guilty and therefore should be stripped of their civil rights without due process. If it were a RWer making this argument people would be howling that this was nothing more than an effort to stir-up Islamophobia and they would be right.

Yet, here we are, being fed the guilty-Muslim-until-proven-innocent line and, moreover, we're being told that in order to combat this nefarious evil lurking in the shadows we must restrict the rights of all people -- even those who never travel to nations on the watch list.

Of course, one has to also wonder: What good would even a total prohibition do if someone is prepared to engage in an act of war on US soil? Have terrorists, of any stripe, been thwarted in their ability to gain the weapons of their choosing whether guns, bombs or carpet razors?

52 replies, 11205 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 52 replies Author Time Post
Reply X-Post: "Gun Rights for Terrorists" (Original post)
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2015 OP
petronius Feb 2015 #1
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2015 #2
Neon Gods Feb 2015 #14
gejohnston Feb 2015 #16
Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #32
stone space Mar 2015 #39
Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #40
stone space Mar 2015 #41
Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #42
petronius Feb 2015 #23
stone space Feb 2015 #3
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2015 #4
stone space Feb 2015 #5
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2015 #6
stone space Feb 2015 #7
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2015 #8
stone space Mar 2015 #33
Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #34
stone space Mar 2015 #35
Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #36
stone space Mar 2015 #37
Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #38
Neon Gods Feb 2015 #13
gejohnston Feb 2015 #18
Neon Gods Feb 2015 #22
gejohnston Mar 2015 #27
Neon Gods Mar 2015 #43
gejohnston Mar 2015 #47
benEzra Feb 2015 #9
Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #10
ManiacJoe Feb 2015 #24
Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #30
virginia mountainman Feb 2015 #11
DonP Feb 2015 #12
Neon Gods Feb 2015 #15
gejohnston Feb 2015 #17
Neon Gods Feb 2015 #20
sarisataka Mar 2015 #25
gejohnston Mar 2015 #26
petronius Feb 2015 #21
virginia mountainman Mar 2015 #28
Neon Gods Feb 2015 #19
gejohnston Mar 2015 #29
Neon Gods Mar 2015 #44
gejohnston Mar 2015 #45
Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #31
Neon Gods Mar 2015 #46
Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #48
benEzra Mar 2015 #49
friendly_iconoclast Mar 2015 #50
Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #51
oneshooter Mar 2015 #52

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 07:07 PM

1. The Constitution is obviously important, but it's OK to ignore it if we're dealing

with people that we think are very icky, or if we're very very scared.


(More seriously: civil rights and civil liberties should be denied only with transparent due process in advance of the denial. And our default position should be to maximize protection and preservation of those rights and liberties.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 07:13 PM

2. "our default position should be to maximize protection & preservation of those rights and liberties"

What are you? Some sort of liberal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 10:29 PM

14. So what do you propose?

Should we dump the Terrorist Watch List altogether? Should we keep it but allow them to continue buying firearms that could be used against us, assuming a majority of those on the list are terrorists? Set up an appeals court to let those on the list appeal their inclusion on the list (if there isn't one already in place)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon Gods (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 10:44 PM

16. Should we dump the Terrorist Watch List altogether?

yes, we should dump it. It belongs in the trash bin with Tom Ridge's stupid color code. While we are at it, we can end the travesty that is Camp X ray at Gitmo. You seriously think terrorists will go to a gun store or gun show to get their guns? Street criminals even don't in places like, well, Vermont. No, they will buy their machine guns and rocket launchers out of a car trunk in some parking lot, just like the ones who shot up Paris and Copenhagen.

Set up an appeals court to let those on the list appeal their inclusion on the list (if there isn't one already in place)?
The list is secret. You have no idea if you are on it or not. There is no appeal process I know of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon Gods (Reply #14)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 08:19 AM

32. Gun grabbers are running around, pointing their fingers and yelling, "TERRORISTS!" at anyone they

don't like. How about you have a little talk with them first and say, "Hey guys. That really bad habit of yours is making the gun control movement like petty and fascist-minded. The other side doesn't trust us and I can't say I blame them."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #32)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 11:07 AM

39. It's easy to whine and complain about...

 

...the folks who called the police on Veronica Dunnachie and her friends while they terrorized their fellow citizens.

Gun grabbers are running around, pointing their fingers and yelling, "TERRORISTS!" at anyone they don't like.


It's easy to make fun of their fears.

And it's easy to blame the people who she murdered after the fact for not having enough gunz to protect themselves from this known terrorist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #39)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 11:15 AM

40. You seem incapable of making an honest statement.

Menacing people is a crime. If nothing happened after reports were made it is because the police -- the ones you want to enforce gun laws -- chose to not act.

No one is victim blaming. That is you being blatantly dishonest because you cannot argue based on facts.

Yet, if one of the people being UNLAWFULLY menaced by Veronica Dunnachie had decided to protect themselves, because the police are obviously unwilling to do so, you would have had that person imprisoned.

If law enforcement is so freaking awesome why was Veronica Dunnachie allowed to kill those people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #40)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 11:19 AM

41. Because people like you supported her rite to "lawful menacing".

 

If law enforcement is so freaking awesome why was Veronica Dunnachie allowed to kill those people?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #41)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 11:39 AM

42. Explain how one person owning a gun constitutes supporting another person threatening others.

Go ahead, I dare you. I double dog dare you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 11:35 PM

23. Heh, I suspect the answer to your question would vary depending on whether the

respondent happened to notice my 'favorite' group, or what this thread was about (although I studiously omitted the 'g' word)...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 07:16 PM

3. Nobody stopped Craig Hicks. Nobody stopped Veronica Dunnachie.

 

Have terrorists, of any stripe, been thwarted in their ability to gain the weapons of their choosing


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 07:18 PM

4. "Nobody stopped Craig Hicks. Nobody stopped Veronica Dunnachie."

Perhaps the agents of your beloved police state were too busy spraying student demonstrators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 07:19 PM

5. Why were they allowed to terrorize people with their gunz? (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 07:25 PM

6. Despite your lurid fantasies, guns are not the only means by which people are killed.

The absence of guns does not correlate to lower gun violence rates, i.e. pre-Heller/McDonald DC and Chicago. Nor does gun law laxity correlate in higher gun violence rates, i.e. Vermont.

One would think a mathematician would understand statistics better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 07:33 PM

7. They were seen terrorizing people with their gunz in public

 

But who cares about that?

Let's just let them walk around with their gunz terrorizing people and then turn around and blame the victims when they start shooting.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 07:37 PM

8. You're not even being coherent; you're just lobbing emotional rants.

Millions of people carry every day, concealed and not concealed. Odds are you're 3 times more like to be murdered -- as in unlawfully -- by a sworn officer of the law than a citizen exercising their natural rights.

Again, the absence of guns does not bring an end to violence. You know this but you refuse to admit this simple fact because none of this nonsense is about saving lives, it is about exerting control over people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 09:49 AM

33. Craig Hicks terrorized 3 Muslims with his gun...

 

...on multiple occasions before he murdered them.

He came to their apartment with his gun more than once.

The murders didn't happen out of the blue. They were preceded by multiple instances of terrorism.

I'm not talking about what happened on the day of the murders here.

I'm talking about the terrorism that preceded the murders.

I'm talking about the fear that these 3 Muslims felt prior to the day that they were murdered.

The fear that these 3 Muslims lived with from day to day.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #33)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 10:19 AM

34. Yes. You're talking. We know.

He came to their apartment with his gun more than once.

The murders didn't happen out of the blue. They were preceded by multiple instances of terrorism.

I'm not talking about what happened on the day of the murders here.

I'm talking about the terrorism that preceded the murders.

I'm talking about the fear that these 3 Muslims felt prior to the day that they were murdered.

The fear that these 3 Muslims lived with from day to day.


You can't blame it on gun ownership because menacing people is not a civil right nor is it protected by law. So, in context of the OP why aren't you making the argument for gun control that the police are there to protect people and able to do so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #34)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 10:22 AM

35. Because some folks here support...

 

...Hicks "right" to terrorize his neighbors with his gun.

They don't care about the fear that others have to live with every day.

They don't care until the day the terrorist actually pulls the trigger.

Then they switch gears and blame the victims for not having gunz.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #35)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 10:31 AM

36. "Because some folks here support Hicks 'right' to terrorize his neighbors with his gun."

In other words you can't argue the truth you have to fabricate nonsense.


They don't care about the fear that others have to live with every day.

Now you're just being hysterical -- and not the funny kind.

If you honestly think people who advocate for the right of self-defense then the corollary to that statement is those who argue against the right of self defense are demanding people like Amanda Collins submit to their rapists.

Are you demanding Amanda Collins submit to her rapist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #36)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 10:40 AM

37. There's nothing funny about...

 

...the fear that these 3 Muslims had to live with day and day out, because of Hicks.

Now you're just being hysterical -- and not the funny kind.


But hey, terrorism is considered a God-given rite here in this country, right up until the moment that the terrorist actually shoots somebody.

Then we turn around and blame the victims for not having gunz.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #37)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 10:45 AM

38. "terrorism is considered a God-given rite {sic} here in this country"

College professor, huh?

Do you support the rite {sic} of rapists to attack defenseless women?

Do you support the rite {sic} of drunk drivers, wife beaters and child abusers?

Do you support the rite {sic} to bash people's skulls in with baseball bats?

Apparently you do because you support disarming women who choose to defend themselves and you do not support the prohibition of alcohol and baseball bats (the latter kills more people annually than rifles). This is what you, by YOUR standards, are claiming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 10:22 PM

13. Really?

"The absence of guns does not correlate to lower gun violence rates, i.e. pre-Heller/McDonald DC and Chicago. Nor does gun law laxity correlate in higher gun violence rates, i.e. Vermont."

You almost certainly know that most of the guns that were used in pre-Heller DC came from outside the District, right? What do you propose the people of the District of Columbia do about this influx of guns? What are you willing to do about it? You guys love to smirk about how gun laws don't do any good and then point to the poor schmucks who have to put up with gun violence that originates from outside their city. Do you blame the people of DC for not wanting even MORE guns in the city, forced by the Supreme Court to allow strangers to carry among them?

And what about the rates of lower gun violence in other developed countries that restrict gun ownership? Don't trot out Vermont, the 49th least populous state in the U.S. to prove your unprovable point.

One would think a bright person like you would understand that you're just blowing smoke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon Gods (Reply #13)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 10:57 PM

18. No, it doesn't originate from outside the city

it originates with policies like the war on drugs, education, lack of walk-able neighborhoods. It also comes from the corrupt city halls where gangs have more input than citizens who are told "see its those hicks in Montana, its their fault."
Chicago is the perfect example:
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 11:29 PM

22. That's called mis-direction

If guns all magically disappeared from Chicago the number of murders would drop substantially despite the dysfunction of the city and the war on drugs and all. The residents of a city have every right to upset about the guns that are purchased by the dozens in Mississippi and other southern states (I doubt if many come from Montana) and sold illegally on the streets of Chicago. You can try to blame the murders on on yada, yada, yada, but somehow guns are being supplied to angry, aimless (no pun intended) kids and they use them to settle scores and arguments. Chicago and DC can't build a fence around their cities to keep guns out so they do whatever else they can to keep guns off their streets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon Gods (Reply #22)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 01:17 AM

27. no it isn't

it is facing reality. Unlike you, I don't base my arguments on projection or personal prejudice. Nor do I trot out the usual logical fallacies.
Hate to break it to you, but the latest in criminology says you are wrong. The National Academy of Science says no evidence to back up your claim.
If guns all magically disappeared from Chicago the number of murders would drop substantially despite the dysfunction of the city and the war on drugs and all.
They won't magically disappear. No matter where you are in the world, if you can get a bag of weed, you can just as easily get a gun. Even if they do, the murder rate will not drop. There is no evidence to back it up. Sure you can trot out the cherry picked "developed" countries (which is really meaningless term, because it ignores other industrialized countries like Mexico.) and claim that is proof. That is a logical fallacy. The dysfunction are incompetent and corrupt city governments, not target shooter or hunter anywhere.

The residents of a city have every right to upset about the guns that are purchased by the dozens in Mississippi and other southern states (I doubt if many come from Montana) and sold illegally on the streets of Chicago.
You just said that the 1968 Gun Control Act is ineffective. That is what James Wright and Peter Rossi told the Carter administration. Not based on any evidence. According to the ATF, the average "time to crime" of a crime gun is about 11 years. For IL, it is about 14 years. There is no evidence of an "iron pipeline" from Mississippi either. Probably stolen from FOID holders or police in IL.
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/statistics/tracedata-2012/2012-trace-data-illinois.pdf

You can try to blame the murders on on yada, yada, yada, but somehow guns are being supplied to angry, aimless (no pun intended) kids and they use them to settle scores and arguments.
Gang scores and business disputes. Face it, if you buy dope, you help put the gun in their hands.
Chicago and DC can't build a fence around their cities to keep guns out so they do whatever else they can to keep guns off their streets.
USVI, Puerto Rico, British Virgin Islands, all have a lot salt water instead of a fence. How is that working out for them? Here is a hint: USVI, part of the United States, has stricter laws than Maryland. It also has the third highest murder rate in the world. Puerto Rico has gun laws similar to Maryland, 16th highest in the world.

Also, I found the GAO report and read it. Ms. Grow inflated the numbers. The actual number is half of what she claims. The report also cautions “It is important to remember, however, that watchlisting is not an exact science. There are inherent limitations in any primarily name-based system an analytic judgements may differ regarding subjective criteria have been met.”
So, even those numbers might be too high.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #27)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 04:07 PM

43. Facing reality?

" Unlike you, I don't base my arguments on projection or personal prejudice. Nor do I trot out the usual logical fallacies."

Of course you do. Your reply was full of it.

What about this example. "No matter where you are in the world, if you can get a bag of weed, you can just as easily get a gun." One doesn't follow the other. That's just your personal prejudice making an equivalence that makes no sense. You also seem to subscribe to the "laws can't prevent bad guys from getting what they want so we should stop making those laws and face reality." Using that logic we would have no laws because someone somewhere is going to break it.

Moving onto "developed countries," surely you knew that when I referred to them I was referring to France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, etc., not lesser developed countries like Mexico, but the only way you could respond was to broaden the list.

In response to your link to the ATF report on gun recoveries in Illinois, here is a link to the source of guns recovered in Chicago:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html?_r=0

It shows Mississippi is an unusually large source of guns recovered in Chicago.

You said you read the GAO report and found that the author inflated the numbers. Would you, or someone else, provide a link or the name of the report? I couldn't find it on the GAO website.

Gun laws, like other laws defining legal/illegal activities, are not passed with the belief that the law will end illegal activity, but will reduce or control it. Pro-gunners appear to believe that crime must be controlled or prevented, not by laws, but by armed citizens, thus it is important to make it as easy as possible for anyone, everyone, to get a gun. Citizens who choose not to arm themselves are sh*t out of luck if a portion of the growing American arsenal fall into the hands of criminals, or angry drunks, or sadists, or men who feel they must control their women or shoot them, or kids too young to understand consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon Gods (Reply #43)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 06:18 PM

47. Really?

" Unlike you, I don't base my arguments on projection or personal prejudice. Nor do I trot out the usual logical fallacies."
Of course you do. Your reply was full of it.
Please name the logical fallacies I used? I listed the ones you did. If you are going to make a claim, be specific. If you need help, here are some lists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

What about this example. "No matter where you are in the world, if you can get a bag of weed, you can just as easily get a gun." One doesn't follow the other. That's just your personal prejudice making an equivalence that makes no sense. You also seem to subscribe to the "laws can't prevent bad guys from getting what they want so we should stop making those laws and face reality." Using that logic we would have no laws because someone somewhere is going to break it.
No, simply pointing out that the illegal gun dealer and the illegal drug dealer is the same guy, especially in Europe.

Moving onto "developed countries," surely you knew that when I referred to them I was referring to France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, etc., not lesser developed countries like Mexico, but the only way you could respond was to broaden the list.
Mexico is a developed country. If you compare wealth inequality, we are closer to Mexico than those places. Also, the European countries had the same murder rates as now when they had no gun control laws at all. Ever been to Japan? I lived there for over three years. I spent a lot of time studying the culture and history of the place. Can't compare Japan for several reasons: 1) they count murder/suicides differently. We count murder/suicides as one suicide and x number of murders. In Japan, they are all counted as suicides. Murder suicides are not that uncommon there. 2) Also, Japan is a soft police state. 3) There is no right to a fair trial with an impartial jury, no 4th or 5th amendment rights either. 4) Conformity to the community is valued more. You also can't use the "developed" canard because Germany, Japan, and (to a lesser degree) France have been bombed back to the stone age. Their murder rates were still just as low. Also, what does "developed" mean? How is that relevant to the country's murder rate? BTW, our territories like USVI are as "developed" as we are.

In response to your link to the ATF report on gun recoveries in Illinois, here is a link to the source of guns recovered in Chicago:
I'll stick to the ATF report. It is after all, the primary source document. They were the ones doing the tracing. The NYT only showed that people moved from Mississippi to Illinois and took their guns with them.

You said you read the GAO report and found that the author inflated the numbers. Would you, or someone else, provide a link or the name of the report? I couldn't find it on the GAO website
Yet you took her word for it at face value. Confirmation bias much? Oh, it was the top link in Google and Ixquick. I mostly skimmed it, got my information from Table 1
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10703t.pdf

Gun laws, like other laws defining legal/illegal activities, are not passed with the belief that the law will end illegal activity, but will reduce or control it. Pro-gunners appear to believe that crime must be controlled or prevented, not by laws, but by armed citizens, thus it is important to make it as easy as possible for anyone, everyone, to get a gun. Citizens who choose not to arm themselves are sh*t out of luck if a portion of the growing American arsenal fall into the hands of criminals, or angry drunks, or sadists, or men who feel they must control their women or shoot them, or kids too young to understand consequences.
So, you are OK with signing away other people's rights if it you a sense of safety. Of course, those are infringements that won't affect you. Which ones If there were no laws, there would be no illegal activity. Actually, there is evidence of a free rider effect. Where would you rather do a home invasion? Maryland or Wyoming? In Wyoming, you have a greater chance of getting shot by the victim. Which is the 60 percent with a gun or the 40 percent without? Why risk it?
Cesare Beccaria said it best in On Crimes and Punishments
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/beccaria_arms.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 08:42 PM

9. Like these terrorists?

ACLU: U.S. Government "No Fly List" Is Unconstitutional and Ineffective

ACLU: Watchlists are bloated and overinclusive

San Francisco Chronicle: No-Fly Blacklist Snares Political Activists

Marshals: Innocent People Placed On 'Watch List' To Meet Quota

Schneier: Infants on the Terrorist Watch List

Funny how the Bush/Cheney Administration's war on civil liberties, as conceived and aggressively advocated by the Bush/Cheney Justice Department, suddenly becomes wonderful and "progressive" when somebody waves the "ZOMG gunz" flag.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL33011.pdf

CRS Report for Congress
Order Code RL33011

Terrorist Screening and Brady Background Checks for Firearms
July 25, 2005

William J. Krouse
Specialist in Domestic Security
Domestic Social Policy Division

Summary
Historically, terrorist watch list checks were not part of the firearms background check process implemented pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Such watch lists were not checked, because being a known or suspected terrorist is not a disqualifying factor for firearm transfer/possession eligibility under current federal or state law. Nevertheless, if a person is a known or suspected terrorist, it suggests that there may be an underlying factor (e.g., illegal immigration or fugitive status) that could bar him from legal firearms possession. For a time, moreover, all Brady background check records for approved firearm transfers were destroyed almost immediately, precluding the opportunity to used the background check system to screen for known and suspected terrorists.

Consequently, three issues emerged regarding Brady background checks following the 9/11 attacks. First, should approved firearm transfer records be maintained on a temporary basis to determine whether persons of interest in counterterrorism investigations had previously obtained firearms improperly? Second, should terrorist watch list checks be incorporated statutorily into the Brady background check process? Third, should persons watch-listed as known or suspected terrorists be prohibited statutorily from possessing firearms?

In February 2004, the FBI reportedly modified its National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) operating procedures to retain NICS records temporarily for approved transfers that result in terrorist watch list hits, and to pass that information on to FBI investigators on the Joint Terrorism Task Forces. In addition, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has directed the DOJ Office of Legal Policy to form a working group to review federal gun laws---particularly in regard to Brady background checks---to determine whether additional authority should be sought to prevent firearms transfers to known and suspected terrorists.

In the 109th Congress, several related pieces of legislation have been introduced that are related to NICS procedures and terrorist watch lists. The Terrorist Apprehension and Record Retention Act of 2005 (S. 578/H.R. 1225), introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg and Representative John Conyers, would authorize the retention of all related records for at least 10 years, among other things. In addition, Representative Peter King introduced H.R. 1168, a bill that would require the Attorney General to promulgate regulations to preserve records of terrorist- and gangrelated record hits during such background checks until they were provided to the FBI. Representative Carolyn McCarthy introduced H.R. 1195, a bill that would make it unlawful for anyone to transfer a firearm to a person who was on the “No Fly” lists maintained by the Transportation Security Administration.

...

Prior to HSPD-6, DOJ initiated, in February 2002, a NICS transaction audit to determine whether prohibited aliens (noncitizens) were being improperly transferred firearms.21 As part of this audit, NICS procedures were changed, so that NICS examiners were informed of VGTOF hits. Effective February 2004, the FBI reportedly changed its NICS operating procedures to inform NICS examiners of VGTOF hits for known and suspected terrorists.22 In non-Point of Contact (non- POC) states, NICS staff validate terrorism-related VGTOF hits by contacting TSC staff. The latter have greater access to identifiers in terrorist files, with which known and suspected terrorists can be more positively identified. In full and partial POC states, the law enforcement officials who conduct firearms-related background checks under the Brady Act contact TSC staff directly. In the case of valid hits, NICS staff delay the transactions for up to three business days and contact the FBI Counterterrorism Division to allow field agents to check for prohibiting factors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 09:43 PM

10. Ted kennedy was on the list

 

Was he a terrorist?

Might be fine if the list was actually accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 11:44 PM

24. Senator Kennedy was not on the list.

Someone with the same name/alias was on the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #24)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 06:17 AM

30. even worse

 

how many are caught up like he was. Is Joe or Jane public able to get the feds to move as quick as a US senator to fix that error?

Mr. Kennedy said his situation highlighted the odyssey encountered by people whose names had mistakenly appeared on terrorist watch lists or resembled the names of suspected terrorists on such lists. In April, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the government on behalf of seven airline passengers who said they had wrongly been placed on no-fly lists or associated with names on the lists and could not find a way to clarify their identities.

In Mr. Kennedy's case, airline supervisors ultimately overruled the ticket agents in each instance and allowed him to board the plane. But it took several weeks for the Department of Homeland Security to clear the matter up altogether, the senator's aides said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/national/20flight.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 09:45 PM

11. Suddenly lots of love for BushCo's secret lists...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 09:56 PM

12. Yeah, suddenly Bush/Cheney's list is popular with progressives, funny that?

 

The Terror watch list was and is a product of the Bush Cheney era.

To see so called progressives embracing a secret list with no oversight, no due process and no recourse for those on the list, just to make some cheap points about gun owners, makes me want to puke on their door step.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #12)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 10:42 PM

15. So, you are saying we should abolish the list?

Just curious. If we knew the positive identities of 750 ISIS activists who vowed to harm us, would you support setting up a list for authorities to use to keep those particular activists out of the U.S.?

I guess I'm asking what offends you. Keeping a list of identified terrorists, or keeping a list that seems to include perfectly innocent people on it? What if every name on it had to rise to a high level of probability that the person was a genuine threat to our security? Can progressives support having a list of people who want to harm us and still be progressives?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon Gods (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 10:54 PM

17. How many terrorists are on the list?

How many are US citizens or resident aliens? If not, they can't go into a gun store or gun show to buy a gun anyway. I was in line behind some Canadian (tourist) that didn't understand that his PAL was meaningless in the US and could not buy because he was a non-immigrant alien.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 11:15 PM

20. What if 90% on the list are terrorists, and half of those pose a danger to us?

Then how do you explain this from the NY Times article above? "...individuals on the watch list attempted to purchase firearms or explosives on 2,233 occasions — and more than 90 percent of the time, they cleared a background check and received approval to buy."

Also, you insulted progressives in your original post. I was trying to determine what real progressives should feel about terrorist watch lists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon Gods (Reply #20)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 12:23 AM

25. Real progressives

should oppose any list that uses no due process, is non-reviewable, unappealable and is a basis to deprive people of their rights.

As for all of the what-ifs... if the choice is terrorists or Sicherheitspolizei , I will take my chances with the terrorists thank you very much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon Gods (Reply #20)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 12:44 AM

26. It is an opinion of a

of a gun control activist who has no idea what she is talking about. She is either lying, or or reading the talking points written by someone who is. They are not. There is no what if. If an average of 200 per year (and chances are, it is an innocent person who shares the same name as the real terrorist) out of the million plus background checks each year.
Our country’s watchlist system is grossly bloated and unfair with over a million names — including many unlikely suspects– and not effective as a security measure . . .

https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/watch-lists

Taking away anyone's individual liberty or civil right of any kind without due process, especially when the AG can call anyone a terrorist is not a liberal value. It is a right wing value and an authoritarian value. Not all progressives are liberal. Yes, some progressives are authoritarians like Feinstein. Some progressives can be racist like Woodrow Wilson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon Gods (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 11:24 PM

21. 'Lists' are fine. Law enforcement is supposed to investigate crimes and potential dangers,

and presumably they keep track of who and what they're investigating - that's a 'list.'

Denying entry to the US to people who are likely not legitimate visitors or immigrants is also fine; access to the US (or any other country) isn't a civil or human right as far as I know.

What's not fine, IMO, is denying the civil rights or civil liberties of American citizens (or, to a lesser/different degree perhaps, those legally and legitimately in the US) on the basis of a secret, non-judicial, investigatory list...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon Gods (Reply #15)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 01:22 AM

28. Yes...

Until they can come up with one that has a set procedure for the innocent to get off of it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 11:07 PM

19. Have terrorists been thwarted?

You wrote "What good would even a total prohibition do if someone is prepared to engage in an act of war on US soil? Have terrorists, of any stripe, been thwarted in their ability to gain the weapons of their choosing whether guns, bombs or carpet razors?"

Are you really asking, or are these rhetorical questions?

The White House has a high metal fence around the grounds. After 9/11 they closed the street in front of the White House and installed large barriers to prevent vehicles from crashing through the fence. But the Secret Service knows that if someone wants to badly enough, they can probably still breach all that security. So, because the WH grounds can still be breached if someone is determined was all that security a silly mistake? Should we tear everything down, fire the Secret Service, and save us taxpayers a bunch of money?

Have terrorists been thwarted from gaining weapons and/or harming us? The frustrating thing about prevention, as you know, is that those whose death has been prevented don't generally know their death was prevented. If terrorists have been thwarted we probably don't even know about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon Gods (Reply #19)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 01:34 AM

29. If French and Belgian gun laws

didn't stop these assholes from buying machine guns and a rocket launcher at a train station parking lot, what makes you seriously anything we pass here would prevent such an attack? Besides, restricting individual freedoms out of fear is so, well I remember all of us bitching about Bush and his goons doing it. Just because someone from our party decides to support it, doesn't turn it into a good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #29)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 04:13 PM

44. Yeah, lets' just give up!

Why pass laws? Someone will just break them. Let's just give up and do nothing. Maybe if the Bush Administration had taken the terrorist threat more seriously, 9/11 could have been prevented (but then Bush might not have won a second term w/out 9/11 to run on).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon Gods (Reply #44)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 04:33 PM

45. Laws do not prevent criminal acts

Last edited Sun Mar 1, 2015, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)

laws define what criminal acts are. Since you are all for infringing on the rights of others in fear of the slim chance of an attack, and even slimmer chance the infringement will do anything. What are you willing to give up? I mean restrictions on rights that matter to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon Gods (Reply #19)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 07:39 AM

31. The WH is a specific, defined, limited area. The grabbers are trying to exploit the GWoT

to impose blanket prohibitions without due process or right to appeal. Grabbers want to use a law designed for war to control their own citizens who are committing no offense except exercising their constitutional rights (but don't worry, nobody would ever try to impose a police state in America. That's just paranoid silly-talk).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #31)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 04:37 PM

46. "Grabbers want to use a law designed for war to control their own citizens..."

Not only that but we rarely bathe or change our underwear. Despicable Me!

I believe the vast majority of people on the terrorist watch list are not U.S. citizens, but I could be wrong, however, after a bit of digging I found that DHS does have a system available for citizens to complain about watchlist errors. [link:http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-trip|http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-trip
]

The Department of Homeland Security Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP) is a single point of contact for individuals who have inquiries or seek resolution regarding difficulties they experienced during their travel screening at transportation hubs—like airports and train stations—or crossing U.S. borders, including:

watch list issues
screening problems at ports of entry
situations where travelers believe they have been unfairly or incorrectly delayed, denied boarding or identified for additional screening at our nation’s transportation hubs

DHS TRIP is part of an effort by the departments of State and Homeland Security to welcome legitimate travelers while still securing our country from those who want to do us harm.


I have no idea how well it works, or if it works at all, but there it is. If the terrorist watchlist is flawed it should be fixed or ditched. I think 90+% Americans would agree, on the left and the right. The problem is our security agencies have far too much power and far too little oversight. If it were up to me, I would shut them all down and start over. But I also see nothing wrong with a watchlist of known terrorists who might want to enter this country, but it should be overseen my something like a review board with non-government civilians on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon Gods (Reply #46)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 06:32 PM

48. People don't have to petition to exercise their inherent rights.

Last edited Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:01 AM - Edit history (1)

It's the government's obligation to prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that a citizen ought to be deprived of a right.

"It might work!" is not an excuse for authoritarianism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon Gods (Reply #46)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 06:53 PM

49. The Bush/Cheney secret blacklists were and are a blight on civil liberties

if people on them are denied the free exercise of their rights. It is not a list of terrorists or terror suspects.

ACLU: U.S. Government "No Fly List" Is Unconstitutional and Ineffective

ACLU: Watchlists are bloated and overinclusive

San Francisco Chronicle: No-Fly Blacklist Snares Political Activists

Marshals: Innocent People Placed On 'Watch List' To Meet Quota

Schneier: Infants on the Terrorist Watch List

The Nation: Bush's Lingering Blacklist

I have mentioned this before, but should people on the terrah blacklist have keys and access badges at local schools? Should they be allowed to work at airports, sports stadiums, hospitals, and banks? Should they be allowed to fly airplanes, drive forty thousand pounds of gasoline through your hometown, buy fertilizer and diesel fuel, teach at mosques, work at chemical plants, or adopt children?

Here's the problem: These aren't lists of "known or suspected terrorists"; that description is an intentionally deceptive Bushism. They are lists of people who got put on a list for some reason---traveling out of the country, or innocently attending certain mosques, or protesting the Iraq war, or getting involved in the environmental movement, or looking perturbed at a TSA agent, or simply to meet someone's daily quota of new names. Senator Edward Kennedy got tangled up by the secret blacklist for a while, and it took a personal phone call to the head of DHS to get his name cleared. There are a few names on the list who are legitimate suspects, but they are known as such from other sources, not from the terrah blacklists.

If someone is an actual terrorist, they should be arrested and imprisoned/deported. If they are a terror suspect, they should be investigated and either arrested for any crimes uncovered, or cleared. Revoking civil liberties without trial or due process is downright Orwellian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #49)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 07:31 PM

50. I find it fucking disgusting to read on DU that 'they're not inherently a bad idea'...

 

...(or words to that effect)

Then again, the support these lists get from certain purported 'progressives' illustrates
why the term "controllers" gets used as shorthand for "gun control advocates"-
it's not really about guns, it's about control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #49)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:04 AM

51. This is where you drop the microphone and walk away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 01:47 PM

52. If I am not mistaken, the rifle shown in the picture is a muzzle loader.

Isn't that the weapon that the hoplophobes will allow for personal defense?


For the alerters out there: http://www.definitions.net/definition/hoplophobe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread