So Obama made a short speech about the terror attacks in San Bernardino. As expected, he suggested those on the no-fly list should not be able to buy a gun.

What's more interesting is his stance on "assault weapons". He did not call for an outright ban, just that we should make it harder for bad guys to buy MSRs. Of course there's no indication what "harder" Means - - it could be so hard no one w/o having made a 10,000$ donation to a dem candidate can buy one. But overall I have noticed a trend in his language over the last year. He's deliberately shying away from an outright AWB, even when I thought this last terror attack would make him renew his call for one.

Also there were no calls for UBCs. Probably would seem foolish to advocate for that.

A good sign at least?

To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do — and must do — is make it harder for them to kill.

pdoggeth wrote:So Obama made a short speech about the terror attacks in San Bernardino. As expected, he suggested those on the no-fly list should not be able to buy a gun.

What's more interesting is his stance on "assault weapons". He did not call for an outright ban, just that we should make it harder for bad guys to buy MSRs. Of course there's no indication what "harder" Means - - it could be so hard no one w/o having made a 10,000$ donation to a dem candidate can buy one. But overall I have noticed a trend in his language over the last year. He's deliberately shying away from an outright AWB, even when I thought this last terror attack would make him renew his call for one.

Also there were no calls for UBCs. Probably would seem foolish to advocate for that.

A good sign at least?

To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do — and must do — is make it harder for them to kill.

The no-fly list thing is far worse than anything else ever put before congress to restrict gun rights.

The no-fly list itself is a horrid violation of the 4th amendment. There is no due process involved in putting someone on it and no means of appeal. You don't even know you're on it until you try to fly and they say "no". It is EXACTLY the type of shit Kafka wrote about. Hell, at least the guy in "The Trial" had an actual trial. People on the no-fly list no only don't get to find out what put them there, they get no trial or any form of due process.

Wurble wrote:

pdoggeth wrote:So Obama made a short speech about the terror attacks in San Bernardino. As expected, he suggested those on the no-fly list should not be able to buy a gun.

What's more interesting is his stance on "assault weapons". He did not call for an outright ban, just that we should make it harder for bad guys to buy MSRs. Of course there's no indication what "harder" Means - - it could be so hard no one w/o having made a 10,000$ donation to a dem candidate can buy one. But overall I have noticed a trend in his language over the last year. He's deliberately shying away from an outright AWB, even when I thought this last terror attack would make him renew his call for one.

Also there were no calls for UBCs. Probably would seem foolish to advocate for that.

A good sign at least?

To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do — and must do — is make it harder for them to kill.

The no-fly list thing is far worse than anything else ever put before congress to restrict gun rights.

The no-fly list itself is a horrid violation of the 4th amendment. There is no due process involved in putting someone on it and no means of appeal. You don't even know you're on it until you try to fly and they say "no". It is EXACTLY the type of shit Kafka wrote about. Hell, at least the guy in "The Trial" had an actual trial. People on the no-fly list no only don't get to find out what put them there, they get no trial or any form of due process.

This^.

As I mentioned elsewhere, as of 12/2/2015 people who were supposedly against the keeping of secret lists by the government are now for it. All government needed was a catalyst for rebranding the list with the addition of "terror watch list loophole." Those who fell for it have been played.

What I've called for is a transparent system for a) finding out whether you're on the list; b) a way to get off the list legally; and now, c) a way for the public to influence the criteria for the actual list. I think with those in place we would not be circumventing Due Process, which is at the base of opposition to the list.

CDFingers

pdoggeth wrote:What's more interesting is his stance on "assault weapons". He did not call for an outright ban, just that we should make it harder for bad guys to buy MSRs. Of course there's no indication what "harder" Means - - it could be so hard no one w/o having made a 10,000$ donation to a dem candidate can buy one. But overall I have noticed a trend in his language over the last year. He's deliberately shying away from an outright AWB, even when I thought this last terror attack would make him renew his call for one.

Also there were no calls for UBCs. Probably would seem foolish to advocate for that.

A good sign at least?

I would not get my hopes up. Obama called for an AWB in the past, and he is doing it with more subtle language now.

Guys I wasn't arguing that the no fly list was tolerable or anything to that degree, I too think it's a pretty blatant disregard for due process. I was merely noting Obama has somewhat evolved in what types of gun control he is proposing. Hopefully Congress will continue to stymie him on the no-fly list.


It is deliciously hypocritical that many fellow liberals (dkos looking at you) jumped on this when only a few years ago they too were crying about the no-fly list growing large and with no way to get off it or even know you were on it.

given his past stance on aw I wo uld guess he means that the only way to get one is from Bubba at 4am at the back of a biker bar. Bubba is an FBI inforent and you be arrested withi5n 15 minutes. I would have preferred honesty. At least you have a basis for discussion.If those no fly list were based on fact and people could challenge it in other a kangaroo court, I would accept it. Background checks have similar problems but seem more accurate. Any law denying rights or privileges should be subject to an impartial appeal system.

pdoggeth wrote:

It is deliciously hypocritical that many fellow liberals (dkos looking at you) jumped on this when only a few years ago they too were crying about the no-fly list growing large and with no way to get off it or even know you were on it.

I think that in any group of politically minded activists will be found a substantial contingent of people who believe that "The end justifies the means", "Yeah, it's kinda bad but it's ok because it's for a good cause", "That won't ever be applied to *us*, only to "those people", "It's perfectly fine to give these outrageous powers to the Gov., because we're going to be in power forever now..."

Makes me think about various justifications given for various atrocities throughout history. Along with the standard apologies of "But we meant well! We had good intentions! We never meant for THIS to happen..!!

rascally wrote:

pdoggeth wrote:

It is deliciously hypocritical that many fellow liberals (dkos looking at you) jumped on this when only a few years ago they too were crying about the no-fly list growing large and with no way to get off it or even know you were on it.

I think that in any group of politically minded activists will be found a substantial contingent of people who believe that "The end justifies the means", "Yeah, it's kinda bad but it's ok because it's for a good cause", "That won't ever be applied to *us*, only to "those people", "It's perfectly fine to give these outrageous powers to the Gov., because we're going to be in power forever now..."

Makes me think about various justifications given for various atrocities throughout history. Along with the standard apologies of "But we meant well! We had good intentions! We never meant for THIS to happen..!!

Also part of it is who is proposing the bad legislation. In the case of the no-fly list, since it originated with Bush, and since Bush was bad, the list itself was bad from that association (never mind that it was bad on its own merits). But since Obama is now harping on the list, and since Obama is "one of us" (well, for the Daily Kos types anyways), many liberals are rushing to defend his use of the list and his expansion of it as well.