General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHoly shit. Obama pretty much called Congress INSANE today in his address!
http://www.occupydemocrats.com/pres-obama-republicans-are-insane-for-letting-terrorists-buy-guns/" This weekend, our hearts are with the people of San Bernardino—another American community shattered by unspeakable violence. We salute the first responders—the police, the SWAT teams, the EMTs—who responded so quickly, with such courage, and saved lives. We pray for the injured as they fight to recover from their wounds.
Most of all, we stand with 14 families whose hearts are broken. We’re learning more about their loved ones—the men and women, the beautiful lives, that were lost. They were doing what so many of us do this time of year—enjoying the holidays. Celebrating with each other. Rejoicing in the bonds of friendship and community that bind us together, as Americans. Their deaths are an absolute tragedy, not just for San Bernardino, but for our country.
More broadly, this tragedy reminds us of our obligation to do everything in our power, together, to keep our communities safe. We know that the killers in San Bernardino used military-style assault weapons—weapons of war—to kill as many people as they could. It’s another tragic reminder that here in America it’s way too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun.
For example, right now, people on the No-Fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane. If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun. And so I’m calling on Congress to close this loophole, now. We may not be able to prevent every tragedy, but—at a bare minimum—we shouldn’t be making it so easy for potential terrorists or criminals to get their hands on a gun that they could use against Americans.
Today in San Bernardino, investigators are searching for answers. Across our country, our law enforcement professionals are tireless. They’re working around the clock—as always—to protect our communities. As President, my highest priority is the security and safety of the American people. This is work that should unite us all—as Americans—so that we’re doing everything in our power to defend our country. That’s how we can honor the lives we lost in San Bernardino. That’s how we can send a message to all those who would try to hurt us. We are Americans. We will uphold our values—a free and open society. We are strong. And we are resilient. And we will not be terrorized."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kath1
(4,309 posts)And he is right about that.
Photographer
(1,142 posts)Still grinning.
I love it. He tells it as it is. 
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Well, I'll never have his composure.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)He funneled equipment to Syrian Islamist radicals. He supports Saudi Arabia even as they openly fund Isis and radicalize terrorists like Farook and Tashfeen. He supports Turkey even though its president's own brother has been pictured dining with Isis leaders, where they are funded by Turkey buying their oil.
We can talk about gun control when he stops supporting terrorists. Until then, save your lectures for the murderers you materially supported.
Photographer
(1,142 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Everything I've claimed are true.
I'm tired of him lecturing anyone about sanity when he pursues the most insane foreign policies that get us killed. Sorry, not sorry
Photographer
(1,142 posts)Whose side are you on?
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)The problem with the world is people who choose sides over truth.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Isis doesn't give a fuck how we vote. They want us dead even if you don't vote!
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Because once Americans and Parisians start getting killed by a foreign terrorist state, I get nonpartisan. Watching a savage ideology fuel slavery and murder makes me feel a certain way. Sorry if I'm not participating in this loyalty oath dog-and-pony show.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)This country has failed to confront the fact that our "ally" Saudi Arabia isn't and excused the gross negligence of the CIA and other national security officials who have been working with the Saudis in operations against Russia since the 1970s. The result was the creation of Jihadist armies and terrorism, blowback, and cover-ups
There has been no accountability for policy failures such as regime change operations in the former Soviet republics, Iraq, Libya and Syria that have further empowered a spreading army of Sunni terrorists.
Time for that to stop and time for accountability. We need to start at home by preventing the assumption of power by the leading neocon, Hillary Clinton, who is a tool of KSA.. This is our last chance.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)
Yupster
(14,308 posts)1. When someone is put on the "no fly list", are they notified of the fact? My assumption was always that they weren't, because the FBI wouldn't want to tell people that they were investigating them or watching them.
2. How does a person get on the "no fly list" ? I always thought it was just a list the FBI made. There isn't any due process involved. While troubling, the explanation I've always heard was that flying is a privilege, not a right and therefore you can be denied flying without due process. You certainly can't be denied a gun without due process, such as being convicted of a crime. I don't know how you can be denied a gun because the government put you on a list. Maybe we can put in some due process before a person gets put on the no fly list. Probably not a bad idea anyway as a person could be denied flying because their neighbor said something bad about them.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 10:25 PM - Edit history (1)
It is a different list; the consolidated Terrorist Watch List, maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center, a division of the National Security Branch of the FBI and created in 2003.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/nsb/tsc
"Leading the U.S. government’s consolidated approach to terrorism watchlisting/screening.
That’s what the Terrorist Screening Center, or TSC, is all about. Born out of the events of 9/11 and created in 2003, the TSC maintains the U.S. government’s consolidated Terrorist Watchlist—a single database of identifying information about those known or reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity.
By supporting the ability of front-line screening agencies to positively identify known or suspected terrorists trying to obtain visas, enter the country, board aircraft, or engage in other activity, the consolidated Terrorist Watchlist is one of the most effective counterterrorism tools for the U.S. government."
In theory, anyone who fills out a 4473 and submits to a NICS background check could immediately be considered a "suspected terrorist" and denied.
7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Requiring a check that could put you on the list to not be allowed to buy gun in order to legally buy a gun.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)That's why nobody's falling for it.
If a college dropout like myself can see this, I'm sure people much smarter than me have considered it as well.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I forget, are we for the BushCo Supah-Sekrit Terruh list this week, or is it just when it's about teh gunz?
Photographer
(1,142 posts)Yupster
(14,308 posts)where an American citizen's Constitutional right should be taken away. Maybe a court system to put people on the no fly list.
Let's not just do it because the FBI made a list of people they don't like and the president says he's good with that.
beevul
(12,194 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Free clue: Go read the 14th amendment. It applies here.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)a couple paragraphs to express.
treestar
(82,383 posts)regulation is allowable.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. turn it into something that a constitutional scholar would recognize as not denying a civil right without due process.
This should be good...
treestar
(82,383 posts)and there are many cases and a lot of case law on just what constitutes due process.
Your problem is that it's not that simple. A lot of regulation has been found to be OK under the constitution. People think they can just take the words of the amendment and interpret them as they think and be correct about what is constitutional, oblivious to all the case law.
So it's usually not a good idea to take one's simplistic view as the view that a "constitutional scholar" should have. Anti-intellectualism at its purest. One might at least wonder why Obama as constitutional scholar explain thinks the constitution supports something, rather than assume we know more about it than someone who taught the subject.
It's like how I don't lecture say, engineering professors on what could be done. I'd tend to at least listen to their version first and realize I don't know enough about it to criticize their positions on a thing correctly.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)For example, right now, people on the No-Fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane. If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun.
The 'no-fly list' has what due process? Are people notified that they are about to be placed on the list? Do they go before a judge and are they provided counsel for the hearing? Are they allowed to see what evidence the government claims makes them so dangerous?
The answer is no, none of those things happen. You don't know you've been put on the list until you try to flay and are denied boarding. You may or may not be told that you can't board because your name (or one like it) appears on the no-fly list.
The paper-thin cover that the idiots in congress hide behind is that flying on a commercial airline is not a right. They're not denying a right by not allowing you to board a commercial plane. The passage quoted above? Is denying a right. (The president himself has said that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, so I'll take him at his word.)
Fucking hell, I never thought I'd actually hear a DUer support this piece of Bush Terra excrement.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Has it been litigated? Are there any cases on the subject? Is there any reason to believe one could not challenge in court any no-gun list? So they'd find out when they try to buy a gun they are on the list?
And yes, due process procedures could be put in place. People would complain Obama was boring them if he went into that. If you argue it's a right then regulations would be put in place for claims to be made or contested. How much process is due and whether it is adequate has been litigated.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)And there is no way to get yourself off the list if you should not be on it, unless you are someone with political influence or enough money to give you access to people with political influence.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Unless you are on the list and there is no way of knowing.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Let's let people buy guns if they aren't on the no-fly list, prove themselves at the range not to be a danger to themselves or others, and get a thumbs-up from a mental health care professional.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)to allow the government to arbitrarily take away constitutional rights without any sort of due process of the law.
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)
sanatanadharma
(3,707 posts)One reply above prompt these comments
Cool! Let us stop the foreign inspired terrorism. It is clouding the issue and taking the air out of home grown terrorism and just might, if not stopped, lead to a sea change in America and a future without a 200 year old anachronism from the days of slave-holders.
Repeal and replace
BTW, who is the authorized person to call out the 2nd amendment milita?
If the power of that decision lies in the hands of the gun owners, then every gun owning American terrorist has the right to proclaim that the war starts here and now.
Perhaps the 2nd amendment can be used as a defense against charges of terrorism.
Vinca
(50,276 posts)They're also lazy, self-serving moochers (with a few exceptions) who don't really care if we're picked off by deranged maniacs as we go about our lives. If they didn't care about access to guns after Sandy Hook, they will never do anything about wannabe terrorists on the no-fly list getting to buy as many guns as they want. Gun manufacturers don't fill up the campaign coffers if you cut into their sales.
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)Infants, for example....or investigative journalists like Glenn Greenwald's husband, and Laura Poitras.
Duppers
(28,125 posts)You've conflated lists.
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)and I've not conflated anything. Obama said no-fly.
Duppers
(28,125 posts)I do apologize!
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)we're good!
A1an
(12 posts)Perhaps the president can be more specific, because from where I'm sitting what's the correlation between his remarks and what happened?
Was the woman in question actually on "no-fly list" status?,
who subsequently went out and actually purchased guns illegally?
Is Obama responding to the actual specifics of this particular case or advancing his own agenda?
He's starting to sound more and more like the hot-air MUCH ado about nothing politician he's proven to be...Where's all that "hope & change" he promised seven years ago?
Photographer
(1,142 posts)That's a really odd sig line ya got there, Alan. Conspiracy much?
treestar
(82,383 posts)spree shooting and terrorism.
But I agree - the no fly list is about our fear of terrorist attacks in the air.
Now they are making much simpler attacks than 911. They are not distinguishable for other spree shooters as far as method.
Photographer
(1,142 posts)I thought it was great that he put down the Republican Congress. Somehow that means that both he and me now support terrorism and want to see an end to both the constitution and the country.
I think he must have offended the gungeon crowd and gave them the sadz.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)Except of course more people being killed by gunz.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)right.
He could have spoken in even more robust terms.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)supporting the FBI putting people on their "No Fly List" without due process, with minimal if any oversight and without appeal and then demanding that those people be stripped of their constitution protections.
I don't own a gun. I have never owned a gun. I will never own a gun.
But this is insane.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)How is anyone added to this list, are they notified and able to petition to be removed? Have any of the spree murderers been actually on this list?
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)WOW. A list that the "average" person has no way of getting off of, or even knowing is they are on it, with zero judicial oversight? Some want to use these "secret" lists as a basis to deny a civil liberty?????
Progressives support this? remember, Senator Ted Kennedy was on the list at one time, because he was a high profile senator, he was able to get off of it, after several weeks, and making three PERSONAL phone calls to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge but what about the average person who wont have the Homeland Security Secretary's phone number?
Do we, really want to set the precedent that it is OK, to deny someone civil liberties because they "happen" to be on a super secret watch list, with no judicial oversight, and no way for the average person to get off of it?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/19/senator_on_terror_watch/
People please think, before you leap on these matters..
RobietheCat.9021x
(2 posts)They simply have a knee jerk reaction to the leftist talking points.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)"It depends on whose ox is gored," meaning if my ox gets gored, it's not funny, if your ox gets gored, it's funny as hell.
As you said, the other side proposes something and it's outrageous. Our side proposes the same thing and it's perfectly correct.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)San bernardino would have still happened, They have recently flown and were not on the list.
Secondly- too many people are on the list without cause, you cannot know if you are on it and there is no procedure to get yourself off of it.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)lindysalsagal
(20,692 posts)It's not like congress' approval raitings can go any lower than they already are.