Individuals on Terror Watch Lists Not Barred From Gun Ownership

[DonDadda59]

For the love of f*ck...


By the Numbers: Individuals on terror lists cleared to buy guns

Washington (CNN) In the hours following the San Bernardino, California, shooting, a frustrated President Barack Obama called for Congress to pass a law that would prevent individuals on the "No Fly List" who are barred from boarding commercial flights from legally purchasing firearms.

Under current federal law, there is no basis to automatically prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives because the individual appears on the terrorist watchlist. However, a felony conviction or illegal immigration status are disqualifying factors.

Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law. However, for homeland security and other purposes, the FBI is notified when a firearm or explosives background check involves an individual on the terrorist watchlist.

CNN has learned from January 2013 to December 2014, FBI data show that individuals on the terrorist watchlist were involved in firearm-related background checks 485 times, of which 455 (about 94%) of the transactions were allowed to proceed and 30 were denied.

Of the 30 transactions involving individuals on the terrorist watchlist that were denied during calendar years 2013 and 2014, FBI data show that the reasons for denials included felony conviction, under indictment, adjudicated mental health, misdemeanor crime of domestic violence conviction, fugitive from justice, and controlled substance abuse.

Overall, since the FBI started checking against terrorist watchlist records in February 2004, data show that individuals on the terrorist watchlist were involved in firearm or explosives background checks 2,233 times, of which 2,043 (about 91%) of the transactions were allowed to proceed and 190 were denied.

The FBI does not know how often a firearm was actually transferred or if a firearm or explosives license or permit was granted, because gun dealers and explosives dealers are required to maintain but not report this information to the FBI.

All of this data were outlined in a letter from the Government Accountability Office to Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein at the senator's request.

Senate Democrats forced a vote Thursday on language which would give the U.S. Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to suspected terrorists if it is reasonably believed those individuals may use firearms or explosives in connection with an act of terrorism. The amendments were offered as part of the Republican budget bill intended to repeal portions of Obamacare and defund Planned Parenthood. The amendments failed to advance because it did not get the 60 votes needed.

On the House side GOP Rep. Peter King of New York has sponsored a bill that would make it illegal for people on the no-fly list to buy guns. But, so far, the bill has gone nowhere in Congress.

The two individuals police say are responsible for the bloodshed in California were not on any terror watchlists and did not have criminal records but law enforcement is exploring whether they had been radicalized. The male shooter, Syed Rizwan Farook, had been in contact with more than one terrorism subject who the FBI were already investigating, according to law enforcement officials.


Come on, America. :facepalm

[DeuceWallaces]

You should read the transcript from Fiorina on Morning Joe today; pretty hilarious.

[DonDadda59]

:hammerhead: Jesus, DonDadda you're stupid.

They need the guns, because without access to guns they might get shot by other people with guns. Giving them access to guns helps save lives.

I guess you're right. After all, guns don't kill people.

Terrorists have every right to be able to defend themselves too. Praise Allah for the NRA. :bowdown:

[Patrick Chewing]

Finally a good post from you, OP. Really strange how this is still allowed after 9/11.

[DonDadda59]

Finally a good post from you, OP.

I feel like I should be offended, but a compliment is a compliment. :cheers:


Really strange how this is still allowed after 9/11.

The NRA wants at least one gun in every hand, with absolutely no regulation. Doesn't matter if it's a potential terrorist on a watch list. It's really disgusting and certain politicians do whatever they can to get an A rating from them... hence why any legislation to make sure people on terror watch lists can't get AR-15s and explosives at their local gun shop or Wal-Mart goes nowhere in Congress.

As mentioned in the article- Rep. Peter King (Republican, NY) has been trying to get legislation passed (http://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Peter_King_Gun_Control.htm) that would prevent people on terror watch lists from attaining firearms. Seems like perfectly sensible legislation... from a Republican, so people can't play the 'libtard' card... It's going nowhere.

King has a 'D' Rating from the NRA.

[DonDadda59]

All of the Republican Presidential candidates have gotten at least an A rating (Cruz, Bush, and Santorum all have an A+ score), except Rubio who has a B+ rating and Christie who has a C. Carson and Trump are N/A since they were not directly involved with politics before running for the top office in the country.

Sanders has a D- rating, Clinton and O'Malley both have Fs.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/03/san-bernardino-shooting-presidential-candidates-responses-nra-ratings

So when guys who have A+ ratings from the NRA offer up their prayers to victims of mass shootings and terror attacks on American soil... Know that they are the reason the shooters had access to those guns in the first place.

Disgusting.

[~primetime~]

I'm all for the right to carry, but yeah that's retarded.

[Draz]

That's bananas

[Patrick Chewing]

That's bananas


https://media.giphy.com/media/10rTQx2aRSbOlW/giphy.gif

[NumberSix]

Under current federal law, there is no basis to automatically prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives because the individual appears on the terrorist watchlist
You don't say?


Yeah, the United States has this thing called the constitution. It has these things called "amendments". The 5th and 14th ones have something called the "due process" clause that say "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law". For the slower folks among us, that means people who have not been convicted of anything can't just have their rights stripped away arbitrarily because the government put you on a "no rights for you" list.

So what exactly are the people here suggesting be done?

[SugarHill]

https://media.giphy.com/media/10rTQx2aRSbOlW/giphy.gif
gwen stefani was so bad

[KNOW1EDGE]

That is disturbing to learn.

Props to Obama for his proposal.

[Dresta]

You don't say?


Yeah, the United States has this thing called the constitution. It has these things called "amendments". The 5th and 14th ones have something called the "due process" clause that say "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law". For the slower folks among us, that means people who have not been convicted of anything can't just have their rights stripped away arbitrarily because the government put you on a "no rights for you" list.

So what exactly are the people here suggesting be done?
Quite obviously this. The chirping sectaries in this thread evidently are incapable of understanding the concept of arbitrary power, or that you could end up on a 'terrorist watch list' without having committed any crime whatsoever. Bunch of stooges for power with unshakeable faith in the most scurrilous of politicians, and a political system that is rusted through with corruption. At the same time as they complain about how they distrust politicians, they are willing to imbue them with limitless power :hammerhead:.

Anyway, this is pretty obviously DonDadda's typical anti-Christian bigotry masquerading behind a facade of compassion (omg evil ****ers, they "prayed" - how evil - every good person uses mass-murders to plug an irrelevant political crusade). This person had passed a background check, and so no method of 'control' you could propose would have made the slightest bit of difference. With the number of guns in the states, federal legislation would be frivolous, and do little to deter such people. They also ignore that such legislation could eventually be used to prevent muslims from owning guns - or, like in the UK, where one is declared an 'extremist' and probably put on some watch list for saying democracy is a sham :oldlol:. No understanding of any of these things from these geniuses, who always think they have such simple solutions to all the world's problems; how easy it must be to live in such a simple and straightforward world! I wish i could be so naive; then i could use my political opinions to make me feel better about myself and my character too!

European countries have plenty of gun-regulation, and any terrorist can pick up a Kalashnikov in Brussels (the capital of that anti-gun, anti-death penalty, leftist utopia known as the EU, which had to be locked down for a whole week only recently), without difficulty. If you think otherwise you are simply deluding yourself (not to mention that tight border controls are an absolute necessity if you are going to make your 'gun-control' even remotely effective - something this lot tend to oppose as well). The Charlie Hebdo attackers had a Rocket Launcher, and the recent Paris attackers has sophisticated explosive belts; and it was only a few Americans that prevented another guy from ak'ing the entire population of a train from Amsterdam to Paris. So, while Europeans have made themselves into defenceless chumps, we have people lecturing Americans to become more like Europe - hilarious!

These tools effectively want American leaders to be more like those in Europe, where they basically invite terrorists into their countries, and line-up their citizens to be degraded, shot and slaughtered like a bunch of defenceless sheep. It wouldn't be annoying if at the same time they weren't pretending it's because they care or want to save lives - let's be real here: you guys just want to wind up your political adversaries; nothing could be more clear from the way Clinton, Obama and co. respond to such events. I mean it's hilarious that Obama is pretending he gives the slightest **** about protecting the American people, when time and again, he has consolidated and enabled people who want to blow up Americans.

[nathanjizzle]

they are suspected, not convicted.

[dude77]

yes you can't just take away gun rights because you decided to put someone on a fking list .. if they're up to no good and you have the evidence, bring them the fk in and charge them

[TheMan]

Quite obviously this. The chirping sectaries in this thread evidently are incapable of understanding the concept of arbitrary power, or that you could end up on a 'terrorist watch list' without having committed any crime whatsoever. Bunch of stooges for power with unshakeable faith in the most scurrilous of politicians, and a political system that is rusted through with corruption. At the same time as they complain about how they distrust politicians, they are willing to imbue them with limitless power :hammerhead:.

Anyway, this is pretty obviously DonDadda's typical anti-Christian bigotry masquerading behind a facade of compassion (omg evil ****ers, they "prayed" - how evil - every good person uses mass-murders to plug an irrelevant political crusade). This person had passed a background check, and so no method of 'controil' you could propose would have made the slightest bit of difference. With the number of guns in the states, federal legislation would be frivolous, and do little to deter such people. They also ignore that such legislation could eventually be used to prevent muslims from owning guns - or, like in the UK, where one is declared an 'extremist' and probably put on some watch list for saying democracy is a sham :oldlol:. No understanding of any of these things from these geniuses, who always think they have such simple solutions to all the world's problems; how easy it must be to live in such a simple and straightforward world! I wish i could be so naive; then i could use my political opinions to make me feel better about myself and my character too!

European countries have plenty of gun-regulation, and any terrorist can pick up a Kalashnikov in Brussels (the capital of that anti-gun, anti-death penalty, leftist utopia known as the EU, which had to be locked down for a whole week only recently), without difficulty. If you think otherwise you are simply deluding yourself (not to mention that tight border controls are an absolute necessity if you are going to make your 'gun-control' even remotely effective - something this lot tend to oppose as well). The Charlie Hebdo attackers had a Rocket Launcher, and the recent Paris attackers has sophisticated explosive belts; and it was only a few Americans that prevented another guy from ak'ing the entire population of a train from Amsterdam to Paris. So, while Europeans have made themselves into defenceless chumps, we have people lecturing Americans to become more like Europe - hilarious!

These tools effectively want American leaders to be more like those in Europe, where they basically invite terrorists into their countries, and line-up their citizens to be degraded, shot and slaughtered like a bunch of defenceless sheep. It wouldn't be annoying if at the same time they weren't pretending it's because they care or want to save lives - let's be real here: you guys just want to wind up your political adversaries; nothing could be more clear from the way Clinton, Obama and co. respond to such events. I mean it's hilarious that Obama is pretending he gives the slightest **** about protecting the American people, when time and again, he has consolidated and enabled people who want to blow up Americans.
tl;dr

I caught a little of the wall of text Dresta wrote and I agree...

It's a slippery slope, first they want to deny terrorists their constitutional right to arm themselves, then they'll come after OUR guns.

It's bad enough convicted felons have already gotten stripped of their right to legally purchase firearms, now the evil government wants to go after so called terrorists, SMH.

[NumberSix]

tl;dr

I caught a little of the wall of text Dresta wrote and I agree...

It's a slippery slope, first they want to deny terrorists their constitutional right to arm themselves, then they'll come after OUR guns.

It's bad enough convicted felons have already gotten stripped of their right to legally purchase firearms, now the evil government wants to go after so called terrorists, SMH.
It's legally impossible. It's in direct opposition to the constitution. Such a law can't be passed. Anybody who is suggesting it isn't a serious person and is saying it strictly for show.

What would be your reaction if Donald Trump said "there should be a list of Muslims who aren't allowed to have speech rights" and his entire reasoning for them being on this list was "they're suspicious"?

If you have evidence that somebody is involved with terrorism, charge them. Why is the plan to just leave them on the streets and add their name to a "no rights for you" list?

[Dresta]

Due process, habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence and jury trial - do these things not mean anything to Americans any more? You know not what you throw away - these are liberties that took centuries to win and secure, and now so many are willing to happily throw them away for the sake of an incredibly minor threat. That's called weakness and capitulation.

[Kblaze8855]

Due process, habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence and jury trial - do these things not mean anything to Americans any more? You know not what you throw away - these are liberties that took centuries to win and secure, and now so many are willing to happily throw them away for the sake of an incredibly minor threat. That's called weakness and capitulation.

Case by case. I have little doubt there are people reasonably tied to potential terrorism who have not technically broken the law yet. At what point does it go from you being a risk to being a straight up terrorist? When the suicide vest goes off?

How do we define a plot?

How many millions of people probably discuss how they want to do something terrible? When do you cross the line?

There really is a time for common sense to come before the law. Which is why im not entirely against torture. Im against it as like...an opening default tactic. But there are things we need to know that people wont tell us...in some situations. At those times..**** his rights.

And if I have a good idea that your old friend may have joined ISIS on a vacation...and I spot you hanging with him and some people I also suspect may have....but cant prove it?

I don't know if I want you buying an arsenal out of the blue. I don't care if its legal.

At some point you have to put common sense first. At least....ask a few more questions.

[BigNBAfan]

So you want the government to take away someones second amendment because they're on a watch list? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? I guess you want a police state.

[Dresta]

Case by case. I have little doubt there are people reasonably tied to potential terrorism who have not technically broken the law yet. At what point does it go from you being a risk to being a straight up terrorist? When the suicide vest goes off?

How do we define a plot?

How many millions of people probably discuss how they want to do something terrible? When do you cross the line?

There really is a time for common sense to come before the law. Which is why im not entirely against torture. Im against it as like...an opening default tactic. But there are things we need to know that people wont tell us...in some situations. At those times..**** his rights.

And if I have a good idea that your old friend may have joined ISIS on a vacation...and I spot you hanging with him and some people I also suspect may have....but cant prove it?

I don't know if I want you buying an arsenal out of the blue. I don't care if its legal.

At some point you have to put common sense first. At least....ask a few more questions.
You make sensible points, and i'm all for common sense, but i think it is common sense to distrust the people in power and how they use things like 'terrorist watchlists' - lists that contain many, many people with no discenable links to terrorism, and who this would effectively make into second class citizens. I think it is profoundly dangerous to grant the state that kind of arbitrary power, because through history, they have always shown themselves to abuse such power. I would not be surprised if it is already being abused; a quick google search is enough to tell me that it is (and it can only get worse):

http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/59643/terrorism-watchlist-secret-us-rules-revealed


The 116 page document was written by the National Counterterrorism Center in March 2013 and includes input from the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, FBI and other national agencies. It authorises "a secret process that requires neither 'concrete facts' nor 'irrefutable evidence' to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist", says the website.

What is the Terrorism Watchlist and how many people are on it? The FBI describes the Terrorism Watchlist as one of its "most effective counterterrorism tools".

The list is shared with local US law enforcement, international governments and "private entities", helping them to identify confirmed and potential terrorists trying to secure travel documents, board planes or in engage in other potentially dangerous activities.

Over 1.5 million names have been added to the list in the last five years, according to the Associated Press. (1.5 million!!!!)

What did the document reveal?

The document includes a "wide definition of what constitutes terrorism and a low threshold for designating someone a terrorist", says The Intercept.

Individuals are never told why they have been placed on the watchlist and the rules make it "nearly impossible to get off it"

"Instead of a watchlist limited to actual, known terrorists, the government has built a vast system based on the unproven and flawed premise that it can predict if a person will commit a terrorist act in the future," says Hina Shamsi, the head of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project.

"On that dangerous theory, the government is secretly blacklisting people as suspected terrorists and giving them the impossible task of proving themselves innocent of a threat they haven't carried out."

and this:



Stephen Hayes, a senior writer at The Weekly Standard and a regular Fox News contributor, was informed Tuesday that he had been placed on the Department of Homeland Security's Terrorist Watchlist.

Hayes, who spoke to POLITICO by phone on Tuesday, suspects that the decision stems from U.S. concerns over Syria. Hayes and his wife recently booked a one-way trip to Istanbul for a cruise, and returned to the U.S., a few weeks later, via Athens. "I'd be concerned if it was anything more than that," Hayes said. Hayes first learned about his status on the watchlist during a trip to Minneapolis a few weeks ago when he was stopped for extra screening.
"When I went online to check in with Southwest, they wouldn't let me. I figured it was some glitch," he explained. "Then I got to the airport and went to check in. The woman had a concerned look on her face. She brought over her supervisor and a few other people. Then they shut down the lane I was in, took me to the side, told me I was a selectee and scrawled [something] on my ticket."

"On my way back. the same thing happened," he continued. "I got pulled out, they closed down the lane, and did a full pat-down and looked in all parts of my luggage."

Things got slightly awkward on that return flight, because one of the TSA employees was a frequent Fox News viewer. "He knew I wasn't an actual terrorist," Hayes explained, "but it didn't matter."

Hayes finally contacted Southwest on Tuesday, ahead of another flight, to ask why he couldn't check in. A customer service supervisor told him he wasn't going to be able to get a boarding pass before arriving at the airport.
"So I asked if I was on the government's terrorist watchlist, and she said 'Yes.'"


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/09/stephen-hayes-on-dhs-terrorist-watchlist-195996#ixzz3tTGjv7ZE

And another:

[QUOTE]The US government

[Patrick Chewing]

yes you can't just take away gun rights because you decided to put someone on a fking list .. if they're up to no good and you have the evidence, bring them the fk in and charge them


And then shoot them.

[LikeABosh]

So what is the plan? Ban anyone on the terror watch list, filled with middle eastern people, from buying firearms? Then libtards will just cry racism and discrimination. So are you for taking away the constitutional rights of minorities?

[LikeABosh]

Don is a racist bigoted islamaphobe

[Kblaze8855]

Im....thinking it might be for the greater good even if it ****s over some innocent people who just happen to have a cousins ex boyfriend who moved to Syria. What are we really saying is the worst case for those people? Not being able to buy a gun or get on a plane? Im not sure more of them would be harmed as a result than people have been and will continue to be if we just let suspected terrorists do whatever the hell they want....until they act. Maybe if you consider taking a bus or renting a car "harm"....but you know what I mean.

[DonDadda59]

What a time. Nice to see Dresta melting down as always. :applause:

[Kblaze8855]

I hate that this always breaks along political lines. There is no group of people in America who think suspected terrorists should be able to buy guns legally. But you still cant do anything about it? So many laws should just come down to common sense.

We had a common sense on the gun debate argument a while back. This is till pretty much my stance:


My argument has never been that we eliminate guns or that no one can have them. there are plenty of people I know who have guns that I'm perfectly comfortable with.

the problem is the total number and how easily accessible they are for the people we know we don't want to have them.

people take such a jump from the idea that we should implement new rules and enforce some old ones on common sense grounds to a suggestion that the government send stormtroopers into everyone's house to take grandads hunting rifle.....

I'm saying if the people employed to make such determinations think he might be a terrorist who has just yet to do anything they can arrest him for maybe don't sell the guy an assault rifle.

I'm saying if there are much tougher penalties for moving guns without background checks and tracking who has them people would be less willing to sell them to shady characters.

I'm saying if people known to be violent and people associated with gang violence had much stiffer penalties for possession coupled with the long-term reduction in total availability of guns it would drive the cost of doing illegal business with them up to the point that low-level criminals wouldn't have such easy access.

I'm not saying you and your dad can't go hunting. I find the idea that there is sport in shooting an animal from a long way away ridiculous but I'm not saying that should be a law of stop you from doing it.
and I'm not saying that if you live in a bad neighborhood and you work nights and you want to give your wife a pistol so she feel safe at home alone with your baby you can't do it.

I'm saying that it's ridiculous that the gun industry and NRA can simply buy Congress and threaten to fund their rivals to the extent that people who you know have common sense have to pretend they don't and refuse to even have discussions on common sense measures.

I'm saying that it's ridiculous that everytime 20 or 30 people get shot politicians get on TV and say something completely useless like let's pray and not have a conversation about how to prevent this in the future. they will flat out tell us that now is not the time to talk about why this happened and how we can prevent it... it's only time to kneel down beside bed and pray to their fairy godfather about it.

it's the institutional disregard of common sense that pisses me off more than anything. Cop I know who does after hour security at my job was telling me that him and his friends have a scheme where they falsify gun range records and hand in sheets to the station saying they use way more ammo than they did while practicing so they can sell the ammo on the side. their bosses know about it. If they don't use all the ammo they are given they receive less next year. So around December the police go falsifying bunch of records and take ammo by the case and just sell the shit to their gun store buddies or personall flip it for huge profit.

the ****ing police are stealing ammo and selling it. shells. tactical rifle ammo. He was telling me like he was doing me a favor in case I want some.

this shit is so ingrained in society that you could never fully remove it even if you wanted to. And I'm not about pursuing impossible solutions. So I'm not saying now and never have said that we need to go take everyone's guns. I'm saying let's have some common sense about the issue and stop trying to pray away a problem that is tangible.

[Kblaze8855]

Im not against people having guns. My friends have funs. My family. I dont care. But....that our lawmakers will just....refuse...to discuss it? People get mad when the president...who doesnt directly write law...doesnt say the words "Islamic terror" when it has no ground level impact on the problem. But its cool for congress to just pretend they cant make laws to make these things harder to pull off?

Cant we put aside the slippery slope argument for a few weeks?

Not letting some guy who may have joined ISIS buy an assault rifle is not gonna get your uncles shotgun taken away.

[9erempiree]

Im not against people having guns. My friends have funs. My family. I dont care. But....that our lawmakers will just....refuse...to discuss it? People get mad when the president...who doesnt directly write law...doesnt say the words "Islamic terror" when it has no ground level impact on the problem. But its cool for congress to just pretend they cant make laws to make these things harder to pull off?

Cant we put aside the slippery slope argument for a few weeks?

Not letting some guy who may have joined ISIS buy an assault rifle is not gonna get your uncles shotgun taken away.

Since you're here....why did you erase my Ramadan Rage thread?

[Kblaze8855]

I erased nothing. I dont remember the last thing moderation wise someone asked why I did...that I did. If I do something you would know I did it.

[Real Men Wear Green]

One of the least logical things in government. Apparently it's ok to bar a suspect from a plane but if he wants an assault rifle? Well, that's just too big a violation of his rights. It would be interesting to see a congressperson holding those two positions explain their logic.

[Facepalm]

yes you can't just take away gun rights because you decided to put someone on a fking list .. if they're up to no good and you have the evidence, bring them the fk in and charge them
You don't want to restrict guns from potential terrorists yet you want to ban all Muslims from coming to the US without any evidence that they are up to no good? My God you Trumptards are stupid.

[Bless Mathews]

Im....thinking it might be for the greater good even if it ****s over some innocent people who just happen to have a cousins ex boyfriend who moved to Syria. What are we really saying is the worst case for those people? Not being able to buy a gun or get on a plane? Im not sure more of them would be harmed as a result than people have been and will continue to be if we just let suspected terrorists do whatever the hell they want....until they act. Maybe if you consider taking a bus or renting a car "harm"....but you know what I mean.

That is some ignorant racist elitist shit right there.

:facepalm :facepalm

Damn.

[NumberSix]

One of the least logical things in government. Apparently it's ok to bar a suspect from a plane but if he wants an assault rifle? Well, that's just too big a violation of his rights. It would be interesting to see a congressperson holding those two positions explain their logic.
1. Assault rifles ARE ILLEGAL

2. You can't create a law that will strip a citizen of his 2nd amendment right without due process no more than they can sentence a citizen to prison without due process or revoke a citizens voting rights without due process.

Believe it or not, but lawmakers don't have the ability to pass laws that are in direct conflict with the bill of rights and Supreme Court precedent. The democrats know that they can't create such a law. It's all for show.

You're asking for congress to pass a law that they don't have the legal ability to pass.theres no amendment that guarantees people a right to fly. Like it or not, there is one that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. The constitution only allows the suspension of these rights in the case of criminal conviction.

You can't suspend 2nd amendment rights of a person without a criminal conviction. Even of 100% of the politicians wanted to do it! they can't. The constitution doesn't allow it.

[Dresta]

*same people who fear Trump being a tyrant want the Government he might soon be leading to be able deny any person the right to 2nd Amendment protection by placing them on a list that is not supported by any legal evidence or due process*

LOL

What morons.

[Dresta]

Im not against people having guns. My friends have funs. My family. I dont care. But....that our lawmakers will just....refuse...to discuss it? People get mad when the president...who doesnt directly write law...doesnt say the words "Islamic terror" when it has no ground level impact on the problem. But its cool for congress to just pretend they cant make laws to make these things harder to pull off?

Cant we put aside the slippery slope argument for a few weeks?

Not letting some guy who may have joined ISIS buy an assault rifle is not gonna get your uncles shotgun taken away.
Try reading this thread. I already quoted many things that show why this is dangerous, and not simply as a "slippery slope":

[QUOTE]The watchlist tracks

[Real Men Wear Green]

1. Assault rifles ARE ILLEGALPardon me. TO correct: The AR-15 can fire 45 bullets (or something) in a minute. I don't see how someone that is considered enough of a threat to keep off of airplanes isn't enough of a threat to keep away from a weapon that anyone could use to go on a killing spree.


2. You can't create a law that will strip a citizen of his 2nd amendment right without due process no more than they can sentence a citizen to prison without due process or revoke a citizens voting rights without due process.I want better than a second amendment argument that dodges my question. If a lawmaker thinks that a person is too much of a potential threat to public safety to get on an airplane how can they not think them enough of a threat to keep from fireams? It makes no sense.

But, FYI...
Believe it or not, but lawmakers don't have the ability to pass laws that are in direct conflict with the bill of rights and Supreme Court precedent. The democrats know that they can't create such a law. It's all for show.
You're asking for congress to pass a law that they don't have the legal ability to pass.theres no amendment that guarantees people a right to fly. Like it or not, there is one that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. The constitution only allows the suspension of these rights in the case of criminal conviction.

You can't suspend 2nd amendment rights of a person without a criminal conviction. Even of 100% of the politicians wanted to do it! they can't. The constitution doesn't allow itThe Bill of Rights can and has been amended. It's not the Bible. And even the Bible gets changed.

[Jameerthefear]

you can't be okay with a no fly list and then be like "oh you can't take away their guns"
that's just.. dumb. it's either you're okay with a no fly list or not.

[poido123]

You don't want to restrict guns from potential terrorists yet you want to ban all Muslims from coming to the US without any evidence that they are up to no good? My God you Trumptards are stupid.


Ban Islam. Problem solved.

[NumberSix]

Pardon me. TO correct: The AR-15 can fire 45 bullets (or something) in a minute. I don't see how someone that is considered enough of a threat to keep off of airplanes isn't enough of a threat to keep away from a weapon that anyone could use to go on a killing spree.

I want better than a second amendment argument that dodges my question. If a lawmaker thinks that a person is too much of a potential threat to public safety to get on an airplane how can they not think them enough of a threat to keep from fireams? It makes no sense.

But, FYI...The Bill of Rights can and has been amended. It's not the Bible. And even the Bible gets changed.
If you're advocating for a constitutional amendment, that's at least an honest proposition. That's the only way such a policy could be implimented.

[Dictator]

You don't want to restrict guns from potential terrorists yet you want to ban all Muslims from coming to the US without any evidence that they are up to no good? My God you Trumptards are stupid.

I was waiting or someone to say this. :lol

[longtime lurker]

You don't want to restrict guns from potential terrorists yet you want to ban all Muslims from coming to the US without any evidence that they are up to no good? My God you Trumptards are stupid.

Trumptards are the masters of mental gymnastics. They don't apply critical thought to anything.

[NumberSix]

Trumptards are the masters of mental gymnastics. They don't apply critical thought to anything.
It's not about want vs don't want. Outside of making a new constitutional amendment it simply can't be done.

[G-train]

Ah, Americans and their fascination with guns.
The worlds sits back and laughs.


PS. If China attack Australia please use big guns on them for me.
We helped in Iraq and other things.

[Kblaze8855]

It's not about want vs don't want. Outside of making a new constitutional amendment it simply can't be done.


People argued you couldnt ban felons from having guns either. A plain reading of the second amendment surely made it seem like you cant. And yet....

Anything on this issue is gonna be challenged and make it to the supreme court. From there....who knows. They dont always do what a plain text reading suggests.

Comes down to it...you can do whatever you want law wise if you have the votes. Get 70% of congress behind it you can get it done. Problem is...you can probably get 70% of Americans to say "Yea...dont let a guy you think is down with ISIS buy guns"...but you will never get the people supposed to represent them to vote for it. Thats the problem with a representative republic. A few hundred can block the will of hundreds of millions so long as the millions dont care enough to remember it for a couple years and vote them out.

At times...its for the best. At times it isnt. Which this is...we will let history decide.

[NumberSix]

People argued you couldnt ban felons from having guns either. A plain reading of the second amendment surely made it seem like you cant. And yet....
No, they didn't. You just made that up. The constitution explicitly spells out that rights can be stripped away from people who have been found guilty of a crime.

[Dresta]

Isn't it Obama who wants to give felons the vote?

Thus he (with that wonderful Obamist logic of his) is happy to prohibit regular, law-abiding citizens from owning guns, because of the danger it poses, but has no problem allowing criminals to decide the future of the nation :lol

Shameless hypocrisy. Man is desperately set on disempowering law-abiding citizens and empowering proven criminals. Bit like in the Middle East, where he's been dead set on undermining legitimate sovereign governments, at the same time as he empowers large groups of Islamic fundamentalists by aiding and supplying them with weapons. This man is such a fraud.

[NumberSix]

Isn't it Obama who wants to give felons the vote?
Obama accurately recognizes that criminals vote Democrat.

[Dresta]

Breaking News: DonDaddio and Donny Trump in full agreement on this one:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36540388

f*cking trumptard :facepalm

[DonDadda59]

Breaking News: DonDaddio and Donny Trump in full agreement on this one:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36540388

f*cking trumptard :facepalm

You realize he's just going to contradict this position in a few hours right? :lol

You really think the NRA is going to let any GOPer, especially the Republican nominee for President, propose anything like that?

Gullible gonna gullible.

[Dresta]

You realize he's just going to contradict this position in a few hours right? :lol

You really think the NRA is going to let any GOPer, especially the Republican nominee for President, propose anything like that?

Gullible gonna gullible.
Nice deflection brah. Keep ignoring that you and Trump are twin spirits on this one.

Can't argue with a Trumptard :facepalm

[NumberSix]

You realize he's just going to contradict this position in a few hours right? :lol

You really think the NRA is going to let any GOPer, especially the Republican nominee for President, propose anything like that?

Gullible gonna gullible.
To be fair, he said he's meeting with the NRA to discuss this topic. Doesn't appear to have actually taken a position yet.

[DonDadda59]

Nice deflection brah. Keep ignoring that you and Trump are twin spirits on this one.

Can't argue with a Trumptard :facepalm

The Donald in a few hours on twitter

"The media is so dishonest. I never said I wanted a assault ban. I just said I wanted to talk to the NRA about it. Media Sleaze. BAD."



To be fair, he said he's meeting with the NRA to discuss this topic. Doesn't appear to have actually taken a position yet.

See what I mean, Dres? The Drumpftard spin is already in the works. :applause:

[NumberSix]

See what I mean, Dres? The Drumpftard spin is already in the works. :applause:
Look, you can quote me right now before he comes out of this meeting with a position. As I've been arguing this entire thread, you can't restrict people's 2A rights without due process. Adding somebody's name to a list isn't due process. If Trump did come out in support of that (which he won't) then all republicans should reconsider supporting him.

[Dresta]

The Donald in a few hours on twitter

"The media is so dishonest. I never said I wanted a assault ban. I just said I wanted to talk to the NRA about it. Media Sleaze. BAD."



See what I mean, Dres? The Drumpftard spin is already in the works. :applause:
Changed subject already? This was about terrorist watchlists, not "assault bans"

Keep up the deflections Trumptard :facepalm

[DonDadda59]

Changed subject already? This was about terrorist watchlists, not "assault bans"

Keep up the deflections Trumptard :facepalm

Fine. I can see that it's that time of the month for you. There's no reasoning with you right now. So I'll leave it at this-

You are on the record that Donald J. Trump has openly, and publicly called for people on the terror watch list/no fly list to be banned from purchasing any firearm.

I just want everyone reading this to remember this fact in a few hours. It's on the record now. OFFICIAL. :cheers:

[Dresta]

Fine. I can see that it's that time of the month for you. There's no reasoning with you right now. So I'll leave it at this-

You are on the record that Donald J. Trump has openly, and publicly called for people on the terror watch list/no fly list to be banned from purchasing any firearm.

I just want everyone reading this to remember this fact in a few hours. It's on the record now. OFFICIAL. :cheers:
Am I? Try quoting me saying that. I simply said you and the Donald are on the same page on this one. He wants to restrict access, end of story. He may find out he doesn't have the legal right to do so, but that's not relevant to the fact you and him see it as a problem that the government can't draw up arbitrary lists that disenfranchise people of their basic rights without due process. You and the Donald are wedded at the hip on this one; stop trying to deny it.

You just cannot have a rational discussion with these bloody Trumptards :rolleyes:

[DonDadda59]

https://s3media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/783/439/3439783.gif

You're not getting off the hook on this one. No backtracking here. No takesy backsies.

You are on the record that Donald J. Trump has openly, and publicly called for people on the terror watch list/no fly list to be banned from purchasing any firearm.

^Official statement from the office of Donald J. Dresta

[Dresta]

See what I mean? Tis impossible to reason with Trumptards

[NumberSix]

You're not getting off the hook on this one. No backtracking here. No takesy backsies.

You are on the record that Donald J. Trump has openly, and publicly called for people on the terror watch list/no fly list to be banned from purchasing any firearm.

^Official statement from the office of Donald J. Dresta
Doesn't matter if he did or didn't. He doesn't speak for Donald Trump.

[DonDadda59]

See what I mean? Tis impossible to reason with Trumptards

CHECK

You are on the record that Donald J. Trump has openly, and publicly called for people on the terror watch list/no fly list to be banned from purchasing any firearm.

MATE.

http://i64.tinypic.com/eb7h4x.jpg

You played yourself :yaohappy:

[Dresta]

Doesn't matter if he did or didn't. He doesn't speak for Donald Trump.
I also didn't say it or use any of those words. Don is trying to cover for the fact that he responded to this attack with the same sentiments as his namesake, the Donald.

Trumptards :lol

[Kblaze8855]

No, they didn't. You just made that up. The constitution explicitly spells out that rights can be stripped away from people who have been found guilty of a crime.

You actually think that people never questioned the constitutinality of removing gun rights of criminals?

There is someone who thinks the constitution means pretty much whatever they want it to.

It doesnt always get to the supreme court but someone gets a lawyer to challenge everything. This is America. You tell ____ that they cant buy a gun someone is gonna sue.

Plenty of people have tried to challenge the constitutionality of denying them a firearm over criminal acts, domestic violence, and so on. I wanna say two justices went against the majority opinion that congress could keep felons from possessing firearms one of the times it made it that high.

We are a litigious society. you tell someone they cant do anything.....they will sue you.

[Kblaze8855]

Glance through this if you are particulary bored one day:


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/55/case.html


The right to keep a felon unarmed has absolutely been challenged and the supreme court accepted it because lower courts were in conflict. And for one reason or another 3 justices sided with the felon....in a way. ITs never so cut as dry as a brief summary makes it seem. The case is a bit interesting though time consuming the way they word everything.