Thread: An interesting question on a prospective gun law

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Here is a column in today's NY Times on some proposed legislation here in the USA. What do you think ? I am for prohibiting people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms, ammo, explosives .....etcetera.

Can you name one thing that has been prohibited, that has disappeared because of said prohibition? Drugs have been prohibited, yet are in any city big or small. Murder has been prohibited for quite a while, yet people are still murdered every day. Guns have been prohibited in europe, yet gun crimes continue. The only thing prohibition does is give us a false sense of security, making us less safe, imo, and turns law abiding citizens yesterday into criminals today. Laws are meant to punish, not prevent, as they can never prevent s**t, but of course that hasnt stopped us from trying to go against human nature.

Pretty much a typical feel good response, and a way of adding yet another useless gun law to the books...

I know this has been said so much that people are sick of hearing it... But laws only control "Law Abiding Citizens"

I honestly wonder why the response wasn't "Why was he allowed to be a Citizen he did after all lie there, correct??? But bringing that little nugget of info up is not as PC as "MORE GUN LAWS" on the evening news

Originally Posted by LarryP

Innocent until proven guilty if you're a citizen. If you're a citizen & got on the watch list because you've committed a felony, then no gun. If you're a citizen & got on the watch list because some bureaucrat with dough between his/her ears just thought it was a good idea, then said bureaucrat can go pound sand. If you're not a citizen, no matter what the circumstances, then you don't get to own a gun here. Period. This is how it would work if I was in charge. Just my .02 worth.

That's crazy and your views are way out there!



peace

I was leaning towards no, but then I remembered hearing so many cases about inocent people who are on the terrorist watch list just because they share the same name. If there were no mistakes with the terrorist watch list then I would say no. But now I say maybe.

I'm wondering what it takes to be on a watch list.

And then I wonder how many people are on this list and aren't involved in some sort of covert activity.


In reality, there's no way Big Brother is going to turn over information like this... no way.

Another exclusionary measure is exactly what we need because they work so well...like the No Fly list worked with Faisal Shazad, (Time Square Bomber), he was on a plane when they arrested him...

Here is some more food for thought: According to an internal audit released in September 2007 by the Justice Department, there were 700,000 names on the terrorism watch list, and that list was growing at an estimated 20,000 names/month. There were also serious flaws in the ways in which this information was sorted and updated, as well as in the ways in which people could A) get themselves removed from this list, and B) even find out if they are ON the list to being with.

See the report here: OIG Audit Report 07-41

For more links to public documents about such watch lists, see Watch Lists | American Civil Liberties Union

Originally Posted by hardblues

Another exclusionary measure is exactly what we need because they work so well...like the No Fly list worked with Faisal Shazad, (Time Square Bomber), he was on a plane when they arrested him...

Did you mean to say he was on the 'No Plane' list? As far as I read on the news he didn't fly, so the 'No Fly' list appears to have actually worked. Or is the 'No Fly' list you're mentioning related to keeping the pants unbuttoned/unzipped for easier explosive underwear inspection?

Originally Posted by gugi

Did you mean to say he was on the 'No Plane' list? As far as I read on the news he didn't fly, so the 'No Fly' list appears to have actually worked. Or is the 'No Fly' list you're mentioning related to keeping the pants unbuttoned/unzipped for easier explosive underwear inspection?

Hey Gugi, long time no pun...where ya been buddy? Actually,the term No Fly list was exactly what I intended to say and As far as I read it's purpose is to prevent people on that list from boarding a commercial aircraft for travel in or out of the United States...I'm gonna gamble with a guess here and throw it out there that they may be thinking that flying comes after boarding...but...I really don't know for sure

I had a professor a couple of semesters ago that was on the "no fly" list. He did some environmental protesting in the 60's. Something about strip mining in Kentucky. The guy is in his 80's now and can't board an airplane.