Thread: An interesting question on a prospective gun law

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.

I agree, definately not! Once they've been cleared then fine, but they shouldnt be allowed to stock up while theyre being investigated.

It's probably not a good idea to allow them to buy them, but you'd think a terrorist would have the support & connections to obtain them by other means.

The Irish managed, & to a certain extent still do, to get hold of some serious kit, despite it all being illegal.

There is not enough information in that article for me to make a decision, and I haven't taken the time to research it yet.

What does it take to get on the terrorist watch list? That's the big question to me. If there are no checks and balances to that, and it takes away people's rights then I am fully against it.

Or maybe a better question, how big of a deal is the watch list? How much evidence that someone is a terrorist is needed to add their name to the watch list? If all it takes is some beaurocrat saying "I think this guy needs to go on the list" just based on the fact that someone thinks maybe that person might be dangerous somehow, then no rights should be taken away.

There is not enough information in that article for me to make a decision, and I haven't taken the time to research it yet.

What does it take to get on the terrorist watch list? That's the big question to me. If there are no checks and balances to that, and it takes away people's rights then I am fully against it.

Or maybe a better question, how big of a deal is the watch list? How much evidence that someone is a terrorist is needed to add their name to the watch list? If all it takes is some beaurocrat saying "I think this guy needs to go on the list" just based on the fact that someone thinks maybe that person might be dangerous somehow, then no rights should be taken away.

AMEN +1

....

At first blush it seems like another way to regulate gun rights. If this passes you can be sure the the criteria used to determine who belongs on a watch list will be broadened.

Ever seen internet porn? ...Potential Terrorist
Already own a gun? ...Potential Terrorist
Ever a member of political party __blank___? ...Potential Terrorist
Strong stance (either side) of abortion issues? ...Potential Terrorist
Think Ron White is funny? ...Potential Terrorist
Are a member of __blank___ religion? ...Potential Terrorist
Identify yourself as __blank___ race? ...Potential Terrorist
Pointing out this is more complex that keeping guns out of terrorists hands? ...Potential Terrorist

Anyone remember last summers campaign to Flag 'fishy' emails or information about the the health-care plan?


Then there's the camels nose under the tent issue. This could be a way to get the Fed to control firearms regulations. A power the Constitution does not explicitly grant to the Fed, thus it falls to the states. Once Fed gets a toe hold in the firearms realm I don't think they will ever let go.

/

Of course I'm paranoid, everyone's trying to kill me

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

There is no judicial process that puts you on the watch list.
Yet it can apparently deny you rights under the law including
the right to travel freely.

A phone call from a pay phone...
Ill chosen in a letter to the department of motor vehicles....

Goodness help you if your dog uses the neighbors lawn
for the wrong reason.

Now some names on the list should be prosecuted but that
is a different thing. There are now

Who gets included in the TSDB?

"Per HSPD-6, only individuals who are known or reasonably suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism are included in the TSDB."

These people should be investigated and prosecuted but denying a right or property or anything else with out due process would be wrong.

I in 2008 by one account ""TSA's “no fly” terrorism watch list contains between 400000 and 1,000,000 names""

That many bad guys... -- might be right... but is likely wrong.