I'm as pro-gun control as almost anyone on this board,

[Nye Bevan]

but I hate the idea of the authorities having the ability to restrict somebody's rights simply by placing that person on some ill-defined "list" without any kind of due process. Once such a concept is in place it is only too easy to imagine how it is likely to be expanded and abused in the future. (BTW I also oppose the no-fly list in its current form).

[Silver_Witch]

1. Always a but! A big but!

Ban them completely and you have no but to stop gun control!

[liberal N proud]

2. Who needs an Assault Rifle?

[KamaAina]

3. Shhhhhhh! Don't call it an assault rifle!

Our resident ammosexuals get their widdle fee-fees hurt.

[liberal N proud]

21. Aint that the truth

[TipTok]

24. Wouldn't you feel concerned if the...

... U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had someone trying to pass policy that referred to cars as wheelie death machines?

Law and policy should be accurate, informed and emotionally dispassionate.

None of those qualities seem to apply to controller groups who can't even spend the time to educate themselves on the basic principles of something they are trying to regulate.

[KamaAina]

26. Not particularly.

I don't drive.

[TipTok]

27. You likely care about someone who does...

... And you would want them to have the benefit of educated, precise and emotionally dispassionate law.

Yes?

[Squinch]

32. Really buches up their panties, doesn't it?

I work with kids. Sometimes I play a game with the five-year-olds in which I call a little ride-on scooter their "space explorer module." If I make a mistake and call it their scooter, the get really pissed.

The postings about gun terminology here remind me exactly of the five-year-olds.

[Hoyt]

4. I hear you, but I think guns and explosives are quite different. Until we come to our senses like

Australia, Canada and darn near ever other civilized country, I'm fine with throwing just about every impediment at gun fanciers, especially those who have more than a gun or two at home for hunting, who want to carry in public, who promote or profit from gunz, etc.

[merrily]

5. Separate issue. The reality is, he WAS on the list and still got to buy weapons.

I think that has to be looked at a bit more, instead of being waved away, as Comey is doing. Same with the Tsarnaev brothers who were the subject of two warnings from the Russian government. Not some anonymous tipster, but the Russian government.


If you want to oppose the existence of the list or how people get on it without due process, fine, but that is a separate issue from how people who ARE on the list (however they got there) "slip through the cracks" despite being on the list or otherwise flagged credibly.

[Duckhunter935]

7. Last I heard, he was not on a list

[merrily]

10. He was at least investigated for being a security risk. So were the Tsarnaevs.

The point is, law enforcement had reason to investigate, clear him and the Tsarnaevs and were wrong to clear them. And our government has said both times that it was no big deal. I think that is an issue that is worth more attention than government seems to be giving it.. For that matter, our government had had all kinds of warnings about the 911 guys. We were supposed cure that kind of thing after 911. Obviously, we haven't.

[Aerows]

31. The underwear bomber's own father

warned the US at least 2 times along with other agencies.

[PoliticAverse]

8. The FBI apparently removed him from the list after their investigation and interview with him. n/t

[merrily]

11. And?

[PoliticAverse]

15. And so he wasn't on the list when he purchased the weapons. n/t

[merrily]

16. And? Please see Reply 10.

[BootinUp]

6. I agree if it is ill-defined. That would allow errors, abuse, etc.

So can it not be defined in a suitable way?

[Brickbat]

9. I think this is an important point. It's definitely an example of emotional thinking getting in the

way of the carefully considered legal thinking that is paramount in any discussion of gun control. I know people like to get annoyed about "more clip vs magazine" talk (ETA: and there's some in this thread already!), but if we're a nation of laws and people want laws that will hold up under court scrutiny, they absolutely must be well-versed in the details of how these things are put together.

[CBGLuthier]

12. No you very much are not as pro gun control as anyone on this board

I have no qualms whatsoever about an absolute ban on guns. Period. I don't think you are anywhere near as pro gun control, as I am.

I don't want a list. I want guns removed from this sick society. Americans are far too diseased to be trusted with dangerous weapons.

[IL Lib]

22. +1 n/t

[Nye Bevan]

28. OK, let's say "almost anyone".

I think hunters should be allowed to hunt with guns. But even then I would require licensing, registration, required safety courses, and mandatory insurance.

[gwheezie]

13. I have another idea

Would it be reasonable that when someone is removed from the list that it alerts the FBI that this person bought firearms? It might warrant another look at the person.

[TipTok]

25. That's creepy...

Lifetime surveillance and monitoring for someone never charged with a crime?

[ManiacJoe]

14. What list? Why is it ill-defined?

[hack89]

18. The various terror watch lists are secret

With no transparency and with no means to appeal being placed on it.

[ManiacJoe]

20. True.

And it now appears that they are the lists the author was trying to reference.

[jmg257]

17. And then there is this: Indiana Man Arrested in LA Area Wasn't Allowed to Have Guns

By AMANDA LEE MYERS AND DYLAN LOVAN, ASSOCIATED PRESS CHARLESTOWN, Ind. — Jun 14, 2016, 3:23 AM ET

A man arrested in Southern California with three assault rifles{sic} who told police he was headed to a gay pride event had earlier been ordered by a judge in his home state of Indiana to give up all his guns.

But authorities there said Monday that they didn't make any surprise checks on James Wesley Howell to confirm he was following the probation requirement.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/indiana-man-arrested-la-area-allowed-guns-39837281

[tritsofme]

19. Those bills are so flawed that I don't think anyone seriously wants to enact them.

The bills are a messaging vehicle, their purpose is for writing campaign ads, not for making law.

[PoliticAverse]

29. Which may be why they're proposed when the proponents know they won't pass. n/t

[TipTok]

23. Controller types always assume that...

... Restrictions on rights will stop exactly where they want them and that the people in charge will think just like them.

[treestar]

30. I agree with that

The terms on which people go on the list could be softer than what has to be proven in court.

And so they knew about him and still couldn't stop him.