Should people on the terrorist watch list be allowed to buy guns?

A nameless group who answers to nobody in particular makes up a secret list (that has no oversight and no review) and if you are on it your rights are suspended.
I have a good friend who is on a/the list. He's an Armenian immigrant who came here as a refugee. He initiated citizenship procedures as soon as he got here, and he has shown nothing but love for this country.

He gets stopped at the airport every time he goes through. He was detained at a roadside seatbelt checkpoint for over an hour because "something odd" came up on his background check. He was almost denied a job teaching at a state university because, again, "something odd" came up in his records.

He has never had so much as a parking ticket. He was interviewed shortly after 9/11 because his father (who died when he was four) studied with a college professor in the 1970's, who then went on to teach someone suspicious. See the logic?

Of course, nobody will admit he's on a list. Those lists are kept secret for our protection, ya know? So, there's no way to find out which list he's on, or with which agency. As such, how does he go about getting removed?

The TSC claims that inappropriate entries are removed, but it's been nine years for him, and of course, there's no way to know what the actual process or criteria are.

To the best of my knowledge, this man has never said an unkind word about this country, nor has he ever been openly critical or any policy or politician.

So, if I speak at a 2nd Amendment rally and there are a few skinheads in the back, do I get on the list? What if something I've written just strikes the wrong chord with someone in charge? What if someone who just doesn't like me calls a hotline out of spite?

How will I even know? Essentially, I'll be prohibited from buying firearms, and I will have no recourse.

Be very wary of the rhetoric, and be even more critical of policies implemented in its wake.
 
It seems to me that governments evolve into abusive systems

Not inherently. The problem is that humans tend toward laziness. A great many people are easily taken in by the desire for quick fixes and a dislike for nuance or complexity. They want simple, quick fix answers to everything. It's easier to look like you're doing something than to actually fix the problem, thus that's where many politicians go.

So you get mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, even though forced rehabilitation has a vastly lower recidivism rate. You get ineffective gun laws that harass legal owners, instead of going after the roots of gang violence. You get "let's bomb somebody" as a solution to foreign policy instead of careful, grueling diplomacy.

It's easy to blame politicians, but whenever you're talking about the failings of democratic government, one must remember that you're by nature talking about our own failings. These are, after all, the people we elect.

and the Islamic terrorists are probably one of our least threatening foes in history.

I'm still shocked that anybody continued to take them seriously after their frontline volunteer for the second wave of attacks proved unable to light a fuse. Blind stupid luck combined with defenders asleep at the switch doesn't make an existential threat.
 
Wouldn't we be banning firearm ownership from our returning military personal? Seems they were flagged as a high risk a few months back by our new administration.

kenny b
 
Wouldn't we be banning firearm ownership from our returning military personal? Seems they were flagged as a high risk a few months back by our new administration.
Google Robert J. Johnson (although his inclusion on the list is probably due to his political opinions) and Daniel Brown (Marine who served in Iraq and happens to have the "wrong" name).
 
Google Robert J. Johnson (although his inclusion on the list is probably due to his political opinions) and Daniel Brown (Marine who served in Iraq and happens to have the "wrong" name).
There is nothing nefarious about the fact it has happened to a few soldiers. Soldiers are just people with demanding jobs and fall victim to the same pitfalls of circumstance as all of us. To try and make it some ridiculous "Obama/Dems hates the troops" scenario is so tired.

My own sister was placed on a "no fly list" right after 9/11 because she shared a similar name with another person...who isn't even a woman. Her first name just happens to use the masculine spelling. She had to take a Greyhound all the way from WV back to Oregon before it could get cleared up. You know how hard it is to tell that 32 year old women are not actually 55 year old men.
 
Wouldn't we be banning firearm ownership from our returning military personal? Seems they were flagged as a high risk a few months back by our new administration.

Most everyone on this forum falls into that category, according to DHS. Wallabing, this means you too.
 
I did read them. To try and portray them as a bias of the administration against the troops is an absurb exaggeration. The reports say nothing that has not been being said since the 1950's. Dishonest people ar taking small tidbits and distorting them.
 
There's the initial DHS report, and then the lexicon DHS came out with that laid out definitions for "extremist," "domestic terrorist," etc. The lexicon was more damning than the initial report itself and, because it would define what those terms meant for DHS, would have an impact far greater than the initial DHS report.
 
And, as I said, it does not say anything different than what was being said back in the 50's and 60's by the intel/law enforcement communities. Anytime there is an unpopular war such activity spikes in the ranks of disenfranchised ex-patriotic types. To try and spin it as a slam by the Obama administration against the troops is dishonest and weak.
 
Last edited:
"sovereign citizens"
LOL, I guess they mant people who can think.
Oh, never mind, they define it later.

They defined "underground," and not what I would consider correctly.
Some of those were pretty broad definitions. More crazy groups out there than I thought. I am going to start reporting my neighbors.
 
People on a terrorist watch list?

No....but nobody should be on a list like that unless they are worth watching 24/7. Otherwise its a witch hunt list.
 
Playboypenguin, I never stated "Obama/Dems hates the troops" I clearly stated "military personal was flagged as a high risk" and they were as I include the link for you.
Here is what you said..
Wouldn't we be banning firearm ownership from our returning military personal? Seems they were flagged as a high risk a few months back by our new administration.

Sounds to me like you are doing exactly what I said...just as was another poster in a post that seems to have been deleted.

All of it is a gross exaggeration and partisan game playing. This has been a stated fact since well before our current administration and is nothing new to either parties. Also, returning military personnel are not "flagged" for anything. The report discusses how some returning military persons who fit a particular profile are at high risk of being inducted into anti-government movements. This risk increases during times of unpopular wars.

These watch lists are in no way exclusive to our military or even in any new way biased towards them. It is all old news and definitelt not the handiwork of "the current administration." The lists themselves are meaningless since they are so random and are nothing that should ever hold legal weight.
 
Last edited:
The DHS report......

Did, and still is upsetting a number of people. Primarily people who aren't looking beyond the initial sound bytes.

It is the job of people in organizations like DHS to be professionally paranoid. The report recently released covers about all the potential possibilities focusing on those on the "right" side of the political spectrum. The report was released by the current administration. Stating this is just a simple statement of fact. Reading an agenda into that statement is not.

A very similar report, focusing on those on the "left" side of the political spectrum was released by the previous administration. Also a simple fact.

I have issues with the idea of a "secret" list(s), and the way these things are being handled. While sometimes necessary during time of crisis, unchecked and unchallenged, these things become entrenched, and are fundamentally at odds with our professed system of government, and respect for the individual rights of our citizens.

It is not an inconceivable leap of faith to go from secret lists to star chambers and the epic observations of Martin Niemoeller.

"When they came for the trade unionists......"

Legal avenues exist to prevent that sort of thing from happening in this country. Whether we use them effectively or not....is another matter.
 
Did, and still is upsetting a number of people. Primarily people who aren't looking beyond the initial sound bytes.

It is the job of people in organizations like DHS to be professionally paranoid. The report recently released covers about all the potential possibilities focusing on those on the "right" side of the political spectrum. The report was released by the current administration. Stating this is just a simple statement of fact. Reading an agenda into that statement is not.

And thus declare war on the American people. ...and when a government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people...

A very similar report, focusing on those on the "left" side of the political spectrum was released by the previous administration. Also a simple fact.
and it was wrong when they did it as well.

I have issues with the idea of a "secret" list(s), and the way these things are being handled. While sometimes necessary during time of crisis, unchecked and unchallenged, these things become entrenched, and are fundamentally at odds with our professed system of government, and respect for the individual rights of our citizens.

It is not an inconceivable leap of faith to go from secret lists to star chambers and the epic observations of Martin Niemoeller.

I agree. When the people on the lists begin disappearing, it is too late.

Legal avenues exist to prevent that sort of thing from happening in this country. Whether we use them effectively or not....is another matter.

One of those avenues is sites like this, and the 1A. Using it to shape public opinion helps. The 2A is an absolute last resort, not to be used lightly.
 
Back
Top