General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't think it's a good idea to restrict Constitutional rights based on a government watch list
That can lead to a nasty slippery slope.
What happens if you say you got Billy Bob here who hates America and flies the Confederate flag. But he doesn't make any violent threats to anyone? He keeps to himself. Should that person be on a watch list and be prohibited from buying guns? Why? Because he's exercising his first amendment right to free speech and to disagree with the government?
What happens in the future a Republican get elected president and starts throwing all Muslims on these "terror lists" so they won't buy any guns? Or heck....restrict other rights from them?
My issue is that the FBI runs these lists, with no oversight. They don't publish who is on it or why they are on it or how to get off it. This can very easily turn into a tool to punish political opponents and can go well beyond guns. If the 2nd amendment can be restricted by a government list, what other amendments can be restricted?
Ultimately, even if a miracle happens and Democrats get this idea passed...the courts will strike it dead. Because it would violate the 5th amendment. People have a right to due process. You cannot restrict the Bill of Rights to someone who has committed no crime.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
moriah
(8,311 posts)
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)How can you speak if you do not know that you are on the list.
It is secret.
moriah
(8,311 posts)Cheaper and faster than a FOIA!
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts)I know gun regulations will not stop all crime.
I disagree with disregarding "well-regulated", and the right being to "keep and bear" vs purchase, to justify making things easy for them, though.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)He didn't want people to find out they were on the list by being denied a purchase.
moriah
(8,311 posts)It would let an actual innocent person with a similar name appeal, keep them from getting the gun, and alert the FBI. But maybe I'm wrong.
Lonusca
(202 posts)the FBI didn't want to tip off a potential terrorist.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)No.
The text is "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; "
It doesn't say, "we'll give it back with due process."
moriah
(8,311 posts)... has been interpreted to mean a Terry weapons patdown, without any more suspicion than being in a car orvon the street, does not violate due process when balanced with the needs of the state.
There is no Constitutional right to purchase a firearm instantly without sensible regulations, nor is there any Constitutional right to sell them without regulation. The right is to keep and bear them,.and the Founding Fathers mentioned a well-regulated militia for a reason. Regulations are not evil. There is no reason to make things easy for these terrorists, domestic or foreign.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You don't get to take rights away then give them back maybe, with due process.
*sigh* well-regulated like your colon, not your HOA.
If I said, "I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store," would you assume that stores only sell soda? Or that's all I'm going to buy?
*Why* a right is protected tells you nothing of the scope or the limit of it. After all, the Bill of Rights is a 'the government cannot' document, not a 'the people can' one.
It's right there in the preamble.
moriah
(8,311 posts)... cases on that.).
Nothing in the Second Amendment speaks of a right to buy or sell them unfettered. If you don't already own the property, it's not yours for them to be taking property from you, and "liberty" in the reference to the Fourth Amendment means no jail without due process to get you out eventually if you're inocent (which obviously doesn't happen before jailng), not being able to buy a Sig Sauer MCX without any cool down period.
NOTHING in the Constitution creates a right to purchase, or to sell.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You sound like the idiots who want to ban ammunition as a means to gun control.
Andrews v. State, 1871
purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and
to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to
keep them in repair.
moriah
(8,311 posts)Way too many people feel like "shall not be infringed" means more than the rest of the amendment instead of using comon sense.
I'm from a gun owning state, have owned and am reasonably proficient with 1911 style pistols, as well as proficient with revolvers, shotguns, and non-semi rifles. But that doesn't mean I am supportive of unrestricted immediate access to firearms unless a person has a paper shield in hand, nor do I support the idiotic definition of private party seller" we currently use that allows FSM-knows-who to buy in-state on Gunslist, even if it won't stop.every gun death.
But we also need to recognize that mere cosmetics do not make a firearm in need of more regulation. There are fanatics on both sides. I feel strongly, butbI am not a fanatic either way.
Edit: Please forgive typos. It's a hazard of touchscreen use.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Using delaying tactics to deny a right is right up there with Jim Crow shit.
If that's the company you want to keep, don't expect me to accompany you.
Ick.
moriah
(8,311 posts)... in your quest to attempt to defend completely unregulated access to any firearm, you are part of the problem.
Edit: that model is deliberately marketed for it being quiet. Whether that helps with hunting deer I don't know, but it sure appealed to someone wanting to quietly hunt humans in a nightclub.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)'quiet'? Is still >160db. Any bullet traveling faster than 1100 fps creates a sonic crack in the 150db range.
moriah
(8,311 posts)As I said, whetfher that makes it more helpful with game or other or legitimate reasons people own firearms, I don't know.
As far as rights go, let me be clear. I do support the right of people to own firearms. I support the right to concealed carry with significant restrictions to avoid people like my drunken stepfather, George Zimmerman, and this latest Some Asshole being the ones carrying. If I didn't, it would be like saying that we can't root out every bad officer so there is no need to address police corruption.
I do NOT support the "right" for me to go on Gunslist, get a gun from an in-state seller not required to run a check because his gun business is only 40% of his income, with no way to know if I'm a felon, when an officer can pat me down for a weapon simply for walking down the street.
And I do NOT support the equivocation of people claiming that they don't "pick and choose rights" when the right to vote was won with blood but exercising it doesn't even have the potential to shed blood.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)There is no gun short of a 50 caliber that wouldn't blend in under those circumstances.
You've already admitted that you really don't give a shit about removing a right without due process; you have no problem delaying a right for who knows how long; and you equivocate about which rights you think deserve the same level of protection.
No, I think it's quite clear what you support.
moriah
(8,311 posts)In Terry patdowns, the violation of the 4th amendment is considered to be outweighed by the needs of the state.
Delaying your fancy "modern sporting rifle" a week is not anything compared to denying people the right to vote, and you should be ashamed of the equivalency.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Careful, that schtick "I support life" can be used in oh so many different ways.
moriah
(8,311 posts)That's what I meant, and you know it.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts)But if you disagree with the lives of the suicidal people, the innocent bystanders, the toddlers who have irresponsible parents, etc, being worth weighing against an amendment written by people who, despite having good intentions, could never have anticipated the types of arms we have today....
Then we must agree to disagree about the role of government in both protecting the people from itself and each other.
moriah
(8,311 posts)I've been in shock since Sunday morning when I woke up to learn there had been a mass shooting at a gay-friendly nightclub in Orlando.
For those who aren't aware, while I'm what some of my lovely friends call "differently queer" (aka straight), I am a very strong ally of the LGBTQ community. Back when I partied, my female friends and I usually went to traditionally "gay" bars and clubs because we felt safer there -- no guys trying to score with us, and the ladies usually could recognize the "hen party" at a certain table were likely there for the reason we were. Even if a mistake was made, an "I'm flattered, but sorry..." was all that was required.
Several of the victims of this tragedy were at the Pulse for similar reasons -- and gay or straight, they felt safe there.
And that safety was violated. That sanctuary where people could just be themselves is now a crime scene, blood and spilled drinks as people tried to flee covering the floor that moments earlier was filled with people dancing and celebrating life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- perhaps not in the way some approve of, but still exercising their Constitutional rights.
49 human beings died for no reason other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. What if it had been Little Rock rather than Orlando? Would I have had to choose between cowering in a bathroom, dragging wounded inside and ripping my clothes for bandages and attempting to keep people from bleeding out, or trying to escape through the hail of bullets and not fall while dragging others to safety? People did both. The poor first responders, having to investigate and triage the carnage while all the cell phones were constantly ringing, relatives trying frantically to reach their children, brothers, sisters, parents....
Now people are trying to dissect Some Asshole's motivations for the killings. Was he closeted and self-hating? Did he, a natural born US citizen, pay too much attention to radical religious leaders? Why does it have to be either terrorism or a hate crime, instead of both?
This crime is almost the "perfect storm", as it has the potential to pit at least three groups against each other right here in the US -- the LGBTQ community obviously, but also the Muslims who are willing to live by the compromise our Founding Fathers came up with (you can worship or not as you please, and you can attempt to persuade others of the rightness of your worship or lack, but not at the point of a sword or gun), and law-abiding gun owners who value their Second Amendment rights. It also indirectly puts Christians in the middle, too, because some not worthy of the title of "pastor" have praised the attacks as "50 pedophiles dead". Everyone involved except the LGBTQ community is feeling like they are forced to defend their views, and the LGBTQ community has been terrorized and marginalized long before even Stonewall, let alone the Pulse tragedy, that I honestly can't imagine the impact this newest act of terror AND hate has had on them.
We must acknowledge that religious extremism -- as in, religions that condone, teach, or practice violence against people who disagree -- is a threat to our freedom, safety, and liberties, while figuring out a way not to infringe on the religious liberty our country was founded upon. We must acknowledge that some gun restrictions are reasonable, and pro-2A people must sit together and talk constructively with those who are concerned with easy access to firearms that aren't even that great for hunting deer to make rational policy.
Instead of letting this tragedy divide us, it needs to unite us. That's the only way we will ever begin to stop the epidemic of mass shootings.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)And a very effective suppressor.
moriah
(8,311 posts)All I ever needed to get a bear to leave our livestock alone was a shotgun. Noise is generally enough, bear was fine.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)"Silence is Golden"
Throughout history, the standard belief was that people were unconditionally subject to the commands of their government. If the king ordered a person to leave his family to fight in a war thousands of miles away, that person would have to obey. The king could control and regulate both lives and property because he was sovereign and supreme, and the citizens, as subjects, were subordinate and inferior. When the king commanded, people obeyed.
Gradually, people began questioning the notion of the king’s having unrestricted control over their lives and fortunes. For example, in 1215, with Magna Carta, the king was forced to admit that his powers over the citizenry were limited.
It was in 1776, however, with the publication of the Declaration of Independence, that the historical concept of sovereignty got turned upside down. Government wasn’t sovereign and supreme, Jefferson declared to the world. Individuals are. And government officials are subordinate and inferior to the citizenry.
The Declaration emphasizes that men have been endowed with certain fundamental and inherent rights that preexist government. In other words, man’s rights don’t come from the king or from any other government official. Rights such as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness exist independently of government, not because of government.
< snip >
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/10/06/rights-do-not-come-from-the-constitution/
moriah
(8,311 posts).... we admit there are legitimate needs for motor vehicles, which we have far more of and are statistically less likely to kill someone rather than a gun, for the simple fact there are more drivers than guns.
We also admit that.sensible regulations about who should be behind the wheel, and the threat drunk drivers pose to the innocent, that we sensibly regulate them.
I admit getting people in the same room who know enough about guns and people who have serious concerns about gun violence and having a civil discussion is a challenge, but it must happen.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)like buying one of those damn guns. The courts have rules on this, and they have proven you wrong.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)MH1
(17,600 posts)who flies a confederate flag that I would like to be around if I know they are armed.
Just speaking about the people I know in real life who are wingers and fly that flag. Your mileage may vary.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)That's when I had guns down on me in an airport terminal because I have a common name that was put on the list, according to the FBI because a terrorist from South Yemen once used it as an alias. They no longer freak out, but it is a huge hassle to fly now 15 years later.
The list is huge now and you might be the next one on it. You might go to fly next time and the person behind the counter might say to their supervisor might say, "That's funny, I have never seen it do that before" and point to the computer screen. That's how it started for me with Southwest Airlines.
safeinOhio
(32,676 posts)It would have been a good idea to a large group of people in that bar.
Come up with an idea to replace it.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...terrorists did.
"No Fly, no buy" is security theater, pure and simple.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)He wasn't even on the watch list. He had been cleared, twice.
Other than this, point taken.
leanforward
(1,076 posts)In responding to this post, I noted you all are quite prolific. But, right to the chase, does a citizens right to life be diminished by your right to have an assault weapon or be cleared to be a sane owner of a weapon. I believe that the greater good is accomplished by some over restrictive regulations. Yes, you have been inconvenienced, as many have by identity theft. You are alive and have not been a target, that you know of. With regards to the 2nd amendment, those that chose to exercise that right should be restricted. Because, once that bullet leaves the barrel, you can not pull it back. I think in RVN they call it friendly fire. Here in the US a lot of people call it an accident. Since 2001, a lot of military have died from friendly fire. We are not at war, we don't need all that weaponry. People in the military operate on profiles. Personnel have been removed from infantry units because of profiles. Likewise, civilians DO NOT need that firepower.
I wonder about every person that feels the need for a weapon. Then there are the wives, children who have died as a direct result of weapons. To me, the right to keep and bear arms, should have a deer being dressed out in the back yard, at least once a year.
tblue37
(65,341 posts)And once you are on such a list it can be almost impossible to get off it. It took Gore a week--and he is "somebody."
OTOH, if someone is repeatedly brought to the FBI's attention for having bragged about being connected to terrorist groups or for saying that he wants to kill Americans in support of terror groups, then that person should not be able to acquire an arsenal as easily as Mateen apparently did.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Databases are expensive to construct and maintain so that their accuracy is up-to-date and they cannot be hacked.
There's a huge industry that wants background information on people. Imagine that in order to get operating funds the gov't decided to sell that information, or imagine that because maintenance is expensive they just decided not to continue protecting it well. It could very negatively effect people's lives.
For 2012 a study reported by National Association for Mental Illness* found unemployment for the mentally ill ran at a national average of EIGHTY percent. Americans are very deeply prejudiced against the mentally ill and don't want them in their workplaces and neighborhoods.
NICS currently includes names of persons adjudicated to be dangerous to self and others (a process that in most states includes opportunity for legal representation). In recent years there have been some frightening proposals, including some success, for mental health records to be linked to NICS (the new NY gun law as it was passed required psych therapists to report their hunches that persons might be dangerous in the future, not sure if that has been modified), there have even been proposals that pharmacy records should be linked to NICS so that persons taking some types of psychiatric medicines become prohibited.
Imagine the devastation that could result from such prejudicial stuff out in the hands of the background check industry where potential employers, competitors, ex-friends/lovers can get their hands on it.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
*Mental Illness: NAMI Report Deplores 80 Percent Unemployment Rate; State Rates and Ranks Listed—Model Legislation Proposed
Jan 01 2014
Arlington, Va.—One of the best steps in recovery from mental illness is a job, but the national unemployment rate for individuals receiving public mental health services is approximately 80 percent, according to a report issued by the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI).
The states with the five highest levels of unemployed persons in the public mental health care system are:
• Maine 92.6 percent
• West Virginia 91.9 percent
• Hawaii 91.4 percent
• Pennsylvania 90.6 percent
• California 90.0 percent
<snip>
- See more at: https://www.nami.org/Press-Media/Press-Releases/2014/Mental-Illness-NAMI-Report-Deplores-80-Percent-Un#sthash.pZt75u8g.dpuf
trumad
(41,692 posts)Maybe if you weren't such a pro-gunner I'd take you serious.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and find it no problem
trumad
(41,692 posts)Fuck those morans.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...knee-jerk bigotry from you in this thread.
sarisataka
(18,649 posts)Urban dictionary- top definition- Anyone with an opposing view.
Perfect irony
hack89
(39,171 posts)Wayne thanks you for your contribution.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)FWIW I'm strongly in favour of gun control (I think we've got it about right here in the UK), but I concur with the OP that restricting the rights of terrorist suspects without trial a) won't put a dent in the US's gun death figures, and b) is a terrifying precedent.
And I also think that your stance boils down to "I am only interested in talking to people who already agree with me", which is not a sensible position.
Auggie
(31,169 posts)REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Refers to other DUer's as "morans", a reference to a bush supporter who was calling anti-war protesters morons with a misspelled sign. It's am insult for stupid right-wingers, but is being used against people here.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jun 18, 2016, 10:56 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yeah, sorry... can't call people morons.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Response is aimed at gun humpers.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Gun thread in GD. Leave it.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yes, it's a personal attack and not even a witty or imaginative one.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see an insult here. No one is called out, individually, and I don't think that generic 'morans', in the context of the thread, is an insult, per se.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
--------------------
FYI, trumad. A bullshit alert.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Response to trumad (Reply #11)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)And then used that list to stop people at the polls.
And they didn't explain how you got on the list, didn't tell you how to get off it, provided no right to appeal.
That's what is being proposed here, just for a different right. And if the precedent is set there is no stopping the power from being used against other rights. Don't think it's ok because it's a right you don't care about.
I do like some of the compromises that have been floated- a NICS check can and often is delayed up to 3 business days for everything from a need for more review to the system being down. Set up a system that delays people on the list, flags authorities and they have the 3 business days to take proof before a Federal judge that the person is too dangerous to buy a gun and if the judge feels they meet the burden of proof then they are denied and given information how they can appeal it.
The 3 day delay is a minimal infringement, and the process ensures the block is reviewed by an impartial judicial source and not just due to an arbitrary decision to add someone to a list. Then the right to appeal preserves due process rights further.
That's a way that stops those truely dangerous from passing a NICS check but preserves due process rights and prevents abuse of these secret "lists".
Igel
(35,300 posts)Should anybody who's a terrorist be allowed to vote?
So just say, "Hey, on that no-fly list? Can't vote. And if you were on that list and taken off and try to vote, you're subject to greater scrutiny."
Or even better: "If you're on the suspect list, you're not covered by the right of due process whereby law enforcement needs a warrant. So by the simple act of suspicion, the need for a warrant is waived. Due process shouldn't be for criminals." (Nicely assuming the premise.)
sarisataka
(18,649 posts)wait until Repubs think of linking terrah watch lists with public assistance...
*We surely don't want to use government benefits to feed or house terrorists right in our neighborhoods now do we?*
The lists will expand exponentially overnight.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)And they will scream to bar anyone on the terror watch list from getting any form of welfare.
Then just keep adding names to the list...
geomon666
(7,512 posts)I think everyone should be equally restricted from buying guns.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Pass legislation, and if it's unconstitutional, the courts will rule it as such and strike it down. And if they don't consider it unconstitutional, the law would stand.
That's the only way we decide what is and what isn't an infringement of the BOR.
maxsolomon
(33,340 posts)all Constitutional Rights are limited. yelling fire in a crowded theatre, for instance.
the 2nd is limited as well. the question is where the line is drawn. you would draw it at the top of the slope. I would argue that there is no slope.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)I mean...if as you say....all constitutional rights can be limited, then it is constitutional to remove the voting rights from populations you don't like.
Right?
maxsolomon
(33,340 posts)
again, I said many of our constitutional rights ARE limited already - REMOVING the right to vote is different than limiting that right. yes, in practice, requiring IDs to vote prevents the exercise of a right, but doesn't REMOVE it - you just have to jump through an unfair hoop.
another example: RPG launchers are "Arms", we have the right to own them, yet we have strict controls (and prohibitive taxes) LIMITING access to them. TYRANNY!
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Anytime someone uses it as an example of limited rights, I known they don't know what they are talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
maxsolomon
(33,340 posts)calling for the assassination of the president. etc.
point being, the right of free speech is not absolute. the right of arms ownership is not absolute.
when someone writes 'known' when they should use 'know', which would result in using the same word twice in a sentence in short succession, I believe they don't know what they are talking about, as well.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Speech is only restricted when it is used to threaten others.
swhisper1
(851 posts)its a slippery slope and any restriction can be abused by agencies. These weapons have no place for hunting or self protection. It takes one bullet to stop a terrorist
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Every now and then we will get emails from countries with governments that are not friendly with the US. I asked for and received a Sate Dept. list of approved countries to do business with in 2004. When an email came in from one of those listed countries, I deleted it, even though the inquiry was probably legitimate and had nothing to do with politics and were most agricultural related. About six month after receiving that list as probably 3-4 inquiries from those countries, I was given a bit of a surprise.
I had a flight to another part of the US. when i went to the airline counter at the airport, I was asked several questions - the reason for my travel, who I was meeting with, and if all the people were American citizens. After composing myself a bit, i leaned over and asked the attendant what it was about and he said "you are on the fly watch list". Me?? How?? I have seen people in civilian clothes walk onto the plane I was to be flying on more than once. I'm sure they were my "chaperones". One of them even sat by me on a flight. I asked him if he was watching over me and he looked surprised. I then told him that I was that crazy SOB that he would want a plane if something bad happened. No response. After about four years, I was no longer asked those questions. I guess I was off the list.
But after all of that, I really didn't care. The FBI doesn't give a shit about political payback. It really was not an inconvenience. If it made others around me feel safer, I was okay with that. The Constitution also states the government must provide for the safety of the people. It appears that far too many people actually think that they are self-important enough that somebody would want to restrict their freedoms. I'm a liberal, and even more than when I was younger. When a crime is committed, many people may be interviewed during the investigation, and most will be completely innocent. Do you propose that this practice is also unconstitutional? Pretty much the same.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)but I agree with Snowdon on this point:
"...This is really the legacy of mass surveillance. When you cast the net too wide, when you’re collecting everything, you understand nothing. We know for a fact it is not effective in stopping terrorist attacks, and it never has been.”
www.popmatters.com/review/vice-episode-13-state-of-surveillance/
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)Like a restraining order. They remove your guns then too. It is a right, but it can be regulated. Even Scalia conceded that.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 17, 2016, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)
To think that they're unique among possible people in power is.. naive at best.
We outlived 'em, too.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)
beergood
(470 posts)so i may be to young to make this comparison, but this terrorist watch list sounds a lot like what sen. McCarthy did. people were denied rights because they were accused of being communist.
do we really want to make that mistake again?
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)We could just rename it to watch list and expand it to many different people/reasons.
Getting a divorce, members of groups or organizations, bankers, and of course general terrorist, but also people that are on the edge based on facebook posts and such.
The only down side would be if the wrong people get in power again, but I don't see that ever happening again for the highest office, they just don't have the votes and are dying off everyday. We could hold the power to eliminate the rights of our enemies forever...
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)2001
baldguy
(36,649 posts)more closely monitoring and restricting ALL gun sales.
But the RW and the NRA doesn't want that to happen. For them, the rights of guns to be purchased outweigh the rights of children not to be riddled with bullets.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)If your gun is used to injure someone, your insurance pays the bills. And if it happens too often, you are uninsurable. Guns need to be inspected annually. If you don't bring them in, you will be arrested. They need to be tracked and accounted for at all times.
Etc.
I don't think these watch lists accomplish very much at all.
Wayburn
(24 posts)You realize insurance won't pay a dime when you break your contract by using the gun illegally don't you? If you burn down your own house or hurt someone with your car while robbing a bank insurance won't pay a dime.
Orrex
(63,209 posts)And anyone who insists that that would be "impossible" is in fact identifying a lack of will on the part of legislators, which in turn means that they value guns more than human life.
No surprise, of course.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Orrex
(63,209 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 18, 2016, 05:44 PM - Edit history (1)
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Goes to show how people can rationalize their support for something as long as "their" team is doing it, especially when "it" involves politicizing a tragedy like in Orlando.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)"Bush's super secret terra list"..
Now lots of love here for it, very confusing.
moriah
(8,311 posts)... similar names, etc.
But I support cooldown periods because of suicides. I very nearly lost a friend when his impulse was strong enough to go try to purchase. His DUI making the check take longer gave him time to reconsider.
Two months later, another one of our friends took his life, but he'd had the gun for years. A cool down period wouldn't have saved him, but at least I can still hug one of them.
Response to davidn3600 (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
SeattleVet
(5,477 posts)I share a name with over 200 other people in the country. One of them may have done something at some time to raise suspicions, so for the past 15 years every time I try to fly I get a boarding pass with a series of 'S's' across the bottom, and have to undergo 'enhanced screening'. "Step behind the screen. Please unbuckle your belt and open the front of your pants. Stand here with your arms out and legs spread. I'm going to touch you *here* now..."
I have a metal plate in my leg, and that usually gets a reaction, too. One guy grabbed my leg, felt nothing but flesh (the plate was installed in the mid-70's after I broke my femur) and realized that he should NOT have grabbed me that way...apologized to hell and back, but I think he was worried about what it was going to look like I complained and they reviewed the video of the screening area.
How are they going to verify that the 'name on the list' is actually the person that is *supposed* to be on their list? I can see several major lawsuits in the future if they try to do it this way.
JVS
(61,935 posts)Terrorists would love to be able to check their status by checking to see if a gun purchase goes through.