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

Quote: "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 did notice one major difference between the earlier report on the left, and the one on the right that the current administration issued. The earlier report was quite specific about which leftists groups were considered dangerous, often naming them. The current administration's report on the right uses such a broad brush to define potential right-wing extremists that as much as one-third of the adult population could be construed to be in that category. To me, it looks like an attempt to intimidate political opponents of current policies. "Don't be too vocal, or you will end up on a list." Even if that was not the intent, their definitions could easliy have a chilling effect on political opposition.
 
I did notice one major difference between the earlier report on the left, and the one on the right that the current administration issued. The earlier report was quite specific about which leftists groups were considered dangerous, often naming them. The current administration's report on the right uses such a broad brush to define potential right-wing extremists that as much as one-third of the adult population could be construed to be in that category. To me, it looks like an attempt to intimidate political opponents of current policies. "Don't be too vocal, or you will end up on a list." Even if that was not the intent, their definitions could easliy have a chilling effect on political opposition.
Click to expand...
Did you read the report? I don't read it the way you do. It doesn't single out tens of millions of people, which is a ridiculous claim on your part. Take a look:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Page 3 seems to specifically define the threat as "white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups" and NOT mainstream Republicans. Further, it identifies the thread of "lone wolf" terrorists outside of any specific group. The report says that the threat comes from small groups and "lone wolves" and not "as much as one-third of the adult population" as you claim. The report also distinguishes between right-wing extremists and law-abiding citizens in a very explicit way.

BTW, it is dishonest to describe either report as belonging to "this administration" since bother were commissioned by and rely on data gathered by the BUSH administration. Get a grip!
 
That's because you realize that as an anonymous poster on an internet site dealing with firearms and that occasionally disagrees with the mainstream media and government, you meet the official definition of an "extremist."

The battle for gun control has now transitioned to the battle for outright control. They have are pursuing the tactic of expanding the definition of those who are prohibited from owning guns until the existence of guns themselves is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, the people who you (falsely) claim want to take your guns away? Those are the people who are most active about eliminating the "terrorist watch list" and general government privacy intrusions in the name of "security."
 
I did notice one major difference between the earlier report on the left, and the one on the right that the current administration issued. The earlier report was quite specific about which leftists groups were considered dangerous, often naming them. The current administration's report on the right uses such a broad brush to define potential right-wing extremists that as much as one-third of the adult population could be construed to be in that category. To me, it looks like an attempt to intimidate political opponents of current policies. "Don't be too vocal, or you will end up on a list." Even if that was not the intent, their definitions could easliy have a chilling effect on political opposition.
Click to expand...

Did you read the report? I don't read it the way you do. It doesn't single out tens of millions of people, which is a ridiculous claim on your part.
Click to expand...

Rightwing extremism is defined in the footnote at the bottom of page 2:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
Click to expand...

Hate-oriented groups are probably fairly limited (the Sounthern Poverty Law Center only identified 926 such groups in 2008).
There are probably many more people who favor state or local authority over federal authority.
And a huge number of people are dedicated to single issues that run counter to progressive orthodoxy.
 
BTW, it is dishonest to describe either report as belonging to "this administration" since bother were commissioned by and rely on data gathered by the BUSH administration. Get a grip!
Click to expand...

So Pres. Bush didn't lie? :confused:

kenny b
 
So sorry, I disagree

BTW, it is dishonest to describe either report as belonging to "this administration" since bother were commissioned by and rely on data gathered by the BUSH administration.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it is dishonest at all. In fact, I believe that it is entirely honest to place the responsibility on this administration. EVERYTHING they have done since Jan 20 is their responsibility!

Sure, they may not have begun it, but this administration is in charge NOW. They are responsible. That IS the job they sought out and undertook!
Whether they allow programs and policies from the previous administration to continue, or shut them down in favor of new programs and policies, either way, they are now the ones responsible.
any other point of view is, to me, intelectually "dishonest"
 
I don't believe it is dishonest at all. In fact, I believe that it is entirely honest to place the responsibility on this administration. EVERYTHING they have done since Jan 20 is their responsibility!

Sure, they may not have begun it, but this administration is in charge NOW. They are responsible. That IS the job they sought out and undertook!
Whether they allow programs and policies from the previous administration to continue, or shut them down in favor of new programs and policies, either way, they are now the ones responsible.
any other point of view is, to me, intelectually "dishonest"
Click to expand...
They are responsible for the activities of permanent government nonpolitical agencies, tasked with doing work under the previous administration? Clearly, you don't understand the American government to any degree at all. That's like blaming the current administration for funding under Fiscal Year 2009, when that started in October 2008, when Bush was in office.

Feel free to blame Obama for things that are actually his fault, but when a non-partisan study commissioned by Bush, conducted when Bush was in office, comes out when Obama is in office, it is flat-out wrong to blame Obama when the results hurt your feelings, and correctly implicate right-wing domestic traitors who might share some of your views.

That doesn't at all, in any way, on any level mean that you are a traitor or a terrorist... that just means that some people who share your views ARE terrorists. That shouldn't seem like an implication of your own views, any more than if a terrorist eats at Burger King I should be worried because my dog is a huge fan of their onion rings.
 
Guess I'm too old for this stuff anymore, I miss the old days when black was black and white was white. I get enough of " that may be what I said but thats not what I ment" from the wife.

kenny b
 
Some things are easier to believe than others:

"All in needed to know about (him) I knew before the election." Re (his gun-control agenda.)
"We will change history." (Him.) In one of (his) post-election speeches.
DON"T bury your guns, yet. Buy a few more and bury THEM in cosmoline. You'll need them.
Watch (his) cronies and appointees, and VOTE RKBA in 2010, if we still can.
"If you don't watch, then you won't know. And what you don't know won't hurt you." Yah, right!
ANY combination of these 4 words is pretty dangerous, IMHO: " permanent government nonpolitical agencies."
"Permanent government" sounds quite monarchical to me. It is what King George thought, at one time.
"Government nonpolitical." Does this seem oxymorinical to only me? That's a LARGE uncontrollable entity!
"Nonpolitical agencies." Would these relate to skull-&-bones, et al?? No agency is ABSOLUTELY nonpolitical, IMHO.
Aren't "We The People" still in charge??
 
Last edited:
What is with all the Obamapologists who feel they have to constantly justify voting for their chance at the feed trough over the Second Amendment? You can rationalize your vote until Hell freezes over and it won't change the proven anti-gun voting history of the current Congressional leadership, the President, or virtually every single person appointed to a position of power in this Administration.

Whether you like it or not, it is THIS administration proposing to remove even more rights based on the "terrorist watch list". I guess all that opposition to the idea has floundered now? The President supports the proposed bill and so does the party leadership.
 
The entire idea of the "no-fly list" is absurd. It only makes sense if you assume you could ever get every "dangerous" person on it, which obviously you will never do. Otherwise you have to have stringent security anyway, since you're always going to have terrorists who aren't on the list and likely fail to fit your profile (like ZeSpectre's doppleganger there, which made my day).

At which point who cares if a "terrorist" makes it onto a plane? At worst, you simply have to pull them aside for additional screening. But at that point a plane is the safest place for them to be, no? Because theoretically there should be no way they're armed. Safer than a mall, or a school, or a park.

The idea that anybody can be too dangerous to board an airplane under restrictions so tight that I can't bring a darn bottle of water on board is ludicrous. Either our security is tight enough to prevent unnamed terrorists from doing harm, or it isn't..."known" terrorists should be no threat.

Heck, now you've got them locked down for the next hour or few, which just makes them easier to track.


As for whether they should be prevented from owning firearms? Well, I think the above should make my opinion obvious, but from a legal standpoint I ask one thing: would any reasonable person consider the requirements and process placing one on such a list "due process?"
 
It isn't like they fingerprint you. Fake documents are not all that hard to come by. Realize in many countries you can get real documents for a fake identity for a few hundred bucks to the right "underpaid" bureaucrat.
 
It isn't like they fingerprint you. Fake documents are not all that hard to come by. Realize in many countries you can get real documents for a fake identity for a few hundred bucks to the right "underpaid" bureaucrat.
Click to expand...

What is your point, exactly? I'm not sure what your trying to say here.
 
I'm late to this particular party, and haven't read all of the responses, but here's my take on the OP. If a U.S. citizen is on the watch list, and hasn't otherwise done anything which would prohibit him/her from legally obtaining a firearm, then his/her presence on such a list shouldn't be used to deny the purchase of a firearm. For a non-US citizen? I have no objection whatsoever to denying any non-citizen the ability to purchase a firearm, even on seemingly flimsy grounds.
 
What is your point, exactly? I'm not sure what your trying to say here.
Click to expand...
The name that you purchase an airline ticket under is the one run through the no fly list. If I steal Jane Doe's identity or create a new one and use it to buy a plane ticket my real name is never run through the list, just the fake/stolen one.
 
The name that you purchase an airline ticket under is the one run through the no fly list. If I steal Jane Doe's identity or create a new one and use it to buy a plane ticket my real name is never run through the list, just the fake/stolen one.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking, but I wasn't sure. Just one more reason to do away with list altogether. I wasn't quite sure if the comment was made to shore up another arguement, or to attack one. Too much reading of too many subjects today have got my head spinning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top