The Liberal Gun Club Forum

The author has unshakable faith in that list.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/opini ... .html?_r=0

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.

As long as the United States fails to widen the category of prohibited purchasers of firearms and explosives to include those on the terror watch list, we are neglecting to take the most basic protective measures. And worse, we are making it easy for would-be domestic jihadists to obtain the means to do us harm.

From the comments:

Matt NJ 34 minutes ago
At the end of CitizenFour, the viewers learn that the NSA is tracking and spying on 1.2M people in the United States who they deem are potential terrorist threats.

When you have lists so long, they become meaningless as a tool for denying rights.

As much as I'm in favor of gun control, when anyone can be a terrorist, eventually we all become potential terrorists as far as our government is concerned.

The related bill sponsored by Feinstein:
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/ ... 68f5be2b47

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/02/25/fe ... -loophole/

If someone thinks they were wrongly denied the ability to buy a weapon or explosives under the terrorism statute, he or she would be able to first complain to the Justice Department, then file a lawsuit against the DOJ.

In such a lawsuit, the Justice Department would be able to keep classified information deemed to compromise national security.

King said “common sense dictates that the federal government stop gun sales to suspects on the terrorist watch list.”

Should this pass, plan on the "terrorist" watch list getting even more monstrously large than it is now.

It's my understanding that one does not have to have been convicted or even charged with anything to get on the no fly list. There is no reason these people would fail a background check. Some of these people only find out when they are denied to buy a ticket or board. That list should be unconstitutional and removed.

sikacz wrote:It's my understanding that one does not have to have been convicted or even charged with anything to get on the no fly list. There is no reason these people would fail a background check.

Ms. Grow would feel more comfortable if other people could be denied on that basis, though.

sikacz wrote:Some of these people only find out when they are denied to buy a ticket or board. That list should be unconstitutional and removed.

Yep.

So the NYT is saying that Constitutional rights should be denied to citizens who have never been convicted of anything nor had a court hearing? A real shock coming from the paper of record of the city that imposed stop-and-frisk.

Seems the Times shares the view of many fellow New Yorkers...you are entitled to rights, unless you are one of "those people."

Fuck the NYT.

senorgrand wrote:So the NYT is saying that Constitutional rights should be denied to citizens who have never been convicted of anything nor had a court hearing? A real shock coming from the paper of record of the city that imposed stop-and-frisk.

senorgrand wrote:Seems the Times shares the view of many fellow New Yorkers...you are entitled to rights, unless you are one of "those people."

Fuck the NYT.

Not the NYT. It was an opinion piece by someone with People Against Guns.

Mary Lewis Grow is co-founder and a board member of Protect Minnesota, a nonprofit organization that works to prevent gun violence.

sikacz wrote:It's my understanding that one does not have to have been convicted or even charged with anything to get on the no fly list.

You are correct. Among the dangerous individuals on the terror watch list:
Mikey Hicks, cub scout
Alex Harris, age 7
Riyanna, 18 month old infant

Not all of them are kids though:
Rahinah Ibrahim, victim of a misfilled form

I used to think that Brazil was a comedy…

A dozen years ago, those of us that raised constitutional objections to all of the 9/11 responses were shouted down with cries of "They'd never be used against us".

We are now experiencing the fallout of the policies created by Bush W and the ineffective congress that lapdogged along with him.

PiratePenguin wrote:

sikacz wrote:It's my understanding that one does not have to have been convicted or even charged with anything to get on the no fly list.

You are correct. Among the dangerous individuals on the terror watch list:
Mikey Hicks, cub scout
Alex Harris, age 7
Riyanna, 18 month old infant

Not all of them are kids though:
Rahinah Ibrahim, victim of a misfilled form

I used to think that Brazil was a comedy…

Senorgrand has it correct. Fuck NYT! Fuck the people against gun OP too! They both deserve it!

When 1 in 200 are on the watchlist, it doesn't take much to make that 1 in 100 or 1 in 10.


Thanks for the correction ... thought it was an editorial not an op ed. If I had time, I would ask for a space to respond.

fknauss wrote:A dozen years ago, those of us that raised constitutional objections to all of the 9/11 responses were shouted down with cries of "They'd never be used against us".

From both the right and the left.

PATRIOT Act provisions lawmakers claimed would never be misused because prosecutors are nice people were employed in drug cases within a year of the law passing.

senorgrand wrote:When 1 in 200 are on the watchlist, it doesn't take much to make that 1 in 100 or 1 in 10.

Adding gun owners would be a good start.

You mean easy, right?

senorgrand wrote:When 1 in 200 are on the watchlist, it doesn't take much to make that 1 in 100 or 1 in 10.


Thanks for the correction ... thought it was an editorial not an op ed. If I had time, I would ask for a space to respond.

This is another way to setup the have and have nots. The one percent will never be on that list the ninety nine will. Keeping this up and this country will comprise of a minority with rights and a majority without rights. I don't see the supreme court stepping in to protect the majority either. Keep voting United States! ( for the last sentence.)

sikacz wrote:This is another way to setup the have and have nots. The one percent will never be on that list the ninety nine will.

Can even affect the 1%'ers on occasion. Wasn't Teddy Kennedy on that list at one point?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Aug19.html

And how long did it take for him, a Big And Powerful Senator, to finally get that straightened out? Something like five weeks, and that was with Kennedy's privileged ability (as a US Senator) to contact then-Atty. Gen. Tom Ridge's office directly.

There's nothing "patriotic" about the PAT RIOT act.

sikacz wrote:Keeping this up and this country will comprise of a minority with rights and a majority without rights. I don't see the supreme court stepping in to protect the majority either. Keep voting United States! ( for the last sentence.)

Such nations have names. Among them are, "South Africa" (pre-Mandela days), North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia. We're supposed to be better than that.

Voting works...if We, The People will stop voting straight Party-line and start voting for the individual candidates who will uphold our Constitution.

senorgrand wrote:Seems the Times shares the view of many fellow New Yorkers...you are entitled to rights, unless you are one of "those people."

Fuck the NYT.

As a former resident of NY I am inclined to say fuck the whole state and the assholes running it into the ground.

So if someone is so dangerous as to be placed on this watch list (note - no need for even a charge, much less an arraignment/indictment) perhaps we should be curtailing their freedom of speech as well - make it a crime for them to publish articles, Facebook updates / tweets, etc as any kind of speech could potentially be soliciting new terrorists or otherwise organizing seditious behavior. While were at it, being placed on this list clearly means that any expectations they (or their colleagues, friends and family) had of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure are also invalid. If they have nothing to hide then there's no issue, right?

if it wasn't obvious..

DispositionMatrix wrote:The related bill sponsored by Feinstein:
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/ ... 68f5be2b47

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/02/25/fe ... -loophole/

If someone thinks they were wrongly denied the ability to buy a weapon or explosives under the terrorism statute, he or she would be able to first complain to the Justice Department, then file a lawsuit against the DOJ.

In such a lawsuit, the Justice Department would be able to keep classified information deemed to compromise national security.

King said “common sense dictates that the federal government stop gun sales to suspects on the terrorist watch list.”

Should this pass, plan on the "terrorist" watch list getting even more monstrously large than it is now.

This is definately a case of people making policy that are out of touch with reality. First complain to the DOJ, then file a lawsuit.

The DOJ may respond in a timely manner to a senator who has an attorney on retainer. However, the guy who scraped up enough money to buy a $300 handgun isn't going to be able to file a lawsuit. He may even have a hard time taking off from work during normal office hours and getting it registered locally. Ammo fees, permit fees, CCW fees, Do not fly list fees, registration fees, etc. all act as barriers in both time and unnecessary beuacracy. You need "permission" from more and more people. Could you imagine the stink that would happen if you were required to get permits to post on the internet, and additional permits to talk on the radio or TV.

I have a really good friend who works for the government. In the building next to the Whitehouse. He has security clearance sufficient to allow him to sit in congressional committe meetings when they discuss budgeting for the national security programs that "don't exist" but are needed. He's on the do not fly list and travels with an executive branch, let him on the plane, card.

Feinstein's bill was co-sponsored by a cast of characters supportive of reasons to prohibit other people from owning firearms--Sheldon Whitehouse, Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, Bob Menendez, Kirsten Gillibrand, Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, and Ed Markey.

So the above either are stupid enough to actually believe the criteria for getting one added to the no-fly list are sufficient for establishing one is suspected of terrorist activity, which is unlikely, or they are simply seizing an opportunity to inhibit something of which they or those who own them disapprove.

Good read if you want to see how the list works.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/o ... -16161.pdf