- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 45,404
- Reaction score
- 11,746
- Location
- Olympia Wa
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Guess what?
The right to keep and bear arms is not a requirement.
If you choose not to (like I currently do), that is YOUR choice.
Claiming that government has the final say in whether or not someone does? Violates that Constitutional protection which now applies to all levels not just the Federal.
List are used by government to control the population, by dividing us from each other. Those not on the list are okay, those that are okay to hate. To be gathered up and segregated. Placed in concentration camps. Exterminated.
All okay because...well, they WERE on that list, right?
Guess what?
The right to keep and bear arms is not a requirement.
If you choose not to (like I currently do), that is YOUR choice.
Claiming that government has the final say in whether or not someone does? Violates that Constitutional protection which now applies to all levels not just the Federal.
List are used by government to control the population, by dividing us from each other. Those not on the list are okay, those that are okay to hate. To be gathered up and segregated. Placed in concentration camps. Exterminated.
All okay because...well, they WERE on that list, right?
Thanks for clarifying.
Notice no one is taking away anyone's guns (with this list.) If you find yourself on the list you can still go to the range and hunt although I will dole out your ammo to you there.
Why the charade? The cat's outta the bag. "Serves the purpose of keeping guns out of hands".
I mean out of the hands that they shouldn't be in.
I was saving words.
What do you think of correctional inmates being armed? Do you think a five-year-old should be able to buy a Glock?
Of your three points, the final point may be valid, but I disagree with the preceding two.I disagree gentleman.
In the first place, a public list creates a stigma that can never be removed even if one somehow manages via appeal to be taken off the list.
Moreover, a public list serves no function except to excite public interest.
Finally, a public list simply alerts a true terrorist that he needs to go underground and then act fast or fear arrest before he can act.
And let's not forget these lists do not inform you you're on it, and are not publicly verifiable either! (until you inadvertently trigger a response)Exactly. Any list that is almost impossible to determine how you got on it in the first place much less how to get off of it is asinine at best.
Of your three points, the final point may be valid, but I disagree with the preceding two.
To the first: All court actions (virtually) are public, and having one's rights removed for just cause with due process would be no different than any other court action; so why should one's removal of their gun rights be any different than any other legal proceeding?
To the second: No - in this case a public list informs one that their rights have been infringed, if for some reason their rights removal was prosecuted in absentia.
So at least at this point following the arguments you've made, I'm not yet convinced this is a bad idea.
I haven't made-up my mind on your third point though, which as I stated before does appear to have some validity.
Guess what?...
Okay, so lets address your two objections.
As to the first. While MOST court proceedings are public, most people don't focus on them unless directly impacted OR the case is media noteworthy.
However, a public Terrorist Watch List once published will attract the attention of many citizens who feel the need to know who they need to keep an eye out for. Much like sex offender lists, there will be many such "public-spirited citizens" who will monitor those on the list and pass out flyers, emails, etc. to make sure their fellow citizens are made aware of this local threat too.
Moreover, this is not a something a court can or should rightfully do. If a person is facing trial for terrorism that is one thing. If a person is facing "trial" to be placed on a suspicion list? How is that justice? Smacks more of totalitarian justice, and if we can do this for suspected but not proven supporters/sympathizers, why can't we do it for anyone we merely suspect of something but don't have enough proof to convict on? Do you really want to open that door?
As to point two? Why not simply mail a person a notice, quietly and without fuss? Why must a public list be posted so you hear it from your co-worker first?
I almost mentioned that in my first post...but since I don't support lists in the first place, decided not to.
Your points are fair here, but you're missing the context of the O.P.Okay, so lets address your two objections.
As to the first. While MOST court proceedings are public, most people don't focus on them unless directly impacted OR the case is media noteworthy.
However, a public Terrorist Watch List once published will attract the attention of many citizens who feel the need to know who they need to keep an eye out for. Much like sex offender lists, there will be many such "public-spirited citizens" who will monitor those on the list and pass out flyers, emails, etc. to make sure their fellow citizens are made aware of this local threat too.
Moreover, this is not a something a court can or should rightfully do. If a person is facing trial for terrorism that is one thing. If a person is facing "trial" to be placed on a suspicion list? How is that justice? Smacks more of totalitarian justice, and if we can do this for suspected but not proven supporters/sympathizers, why can't we do it for anyone we merely suspect of something but don't have enough proof to convict on? Do you really want to open that door?
As to point two? Why not simply mail a person a notice, quietly and without fuss? Why must a public list be posted so you hear it from your co-worker first?
I almost mentioned that in my first post...but since I don't support lists in the first place, decided not to.
Okay, so lets address your two objections.
As to the first. While MOST court proceedings are public, most people don't focus on them unless directly impacted OR the case is media noteworthy.
However, a public Terrorist Watch List once published will attract the attention of many citizens who feel the need to know who they need to keep an eye out for. Much like sex offender lists, there will be many such "public-spirited citizens" who will monitor those on the list and pass out flyers, emails, etc. to make sure their fellow citizens are made aware of this local threat too.
Moreover, this is not a something a court can or should rightfully do. If a person is facing trial for terrorism that is one thing. If a person is facing "trial" to be placed on a suspicion list? How is that justice? Smacks more of totalitarian justice, and if we can do this for suspected but not proven supporters/sympathizers, why can't we do it for anyone we merely suspect of something but don't have enough proof to convict on? Do you really want to open that door?
As to point two? Why not simply mail a person a notice, quietly and without fuss? Why must a public list be posted so you hear it from your co-worker first?
I almost mentioned that in my first post...but since I don't support lists in the first place, decided not to. See this post:
Which the gov already has, but it doesn't seem to make public AFAIK.Not a terrorist watch list, simply a no gun purchase list.
Your points are fair here, but you're missing the context of the O.P.
The OP is stating a list is to be made, and it will entail losing one's right to purchase arms.
The poster I commented upon (Exquisitor) stated this list should be a public 'no gun purchase' list, and use due process through the courts.
You're arguing against the list itself, which is fine but not in the context of the OP.
Currently there is a 'no guns' list, and you find out if you're on it when you're turned down for a gun at a licensed dealer. Why shouldn't this be open to the public?
Lists are used by governments to control the population, by dividing us from each other. Those not on the list are okay, those that are; are okay to hate. To be gathered up and segregated. Placed in concentration camps. Exterminated.
All okay because...well, they WERE on that list, right?
...I do not support background checks.
Like weapon permits, I consider that a flag to government that YOU own a weapon. I don't care what other people believe about such checks being merely a vetting process. Despite government assurances to the contrary, I believe that our government security forces maintain records of such checks and may use them to identify weapons owners.
Assuming otherwise despite all the lies, spying, and other deceptions our government perpetrates in the name of security is IMO very foolish.
Not a terrorist watch list, simply a no gun purchase list.
We never discussed this issue Captain, and I only somewhat rarely venture into the gun forum due to the extreme divisiveness there. (despite my recently posting a video there in support of concealed carry)Oh...well I thought you had already been aware of my position on the Background Check issue.
You know I oppose that right? That as far as I am concerned only people incarcerated for mental or criminal sentences, or completing their sentences on parole or probation, should be denied the right to keep and bear arms?
That once they have completed their sentences, ALL of their rights should be returned?
What did I say about lists? In this thread this:
What did I say about background checks? Most recently this:
Now you can be forgiven for not knowing my general positions as a relative newcomer to the Forum.
Still, the foregoing response is applicable.
Moreover, A free society (to paraphrase an old movie line) "don't need no stinkin lists."
We never discussed this issue Captain, and I only somewhat rarely venture into the gun forum due to the extreme divisiveness there. (despite my recently posting a video there in support of concealed carry)
So despite my often agreeing with your posts, I obviously cannot be held responsible for evidence or opinion you did not present here.
Anyway, I am pretty much in agreement with your opinion on felons and others that served their time or sentence getting their full rights restored.
As to background checks, I don't agree with your fears of them acting as de facto registration prior to confiscation. But as long as we as a society are banning certain individuals from owning guns, then I believe there's an obligation to run the checks. Otherwise, what's the point?
But my earlier point of due process through the courts being required for any gun prohibition, and the requirement for it being public and transparent, I'll still maintain. And I still believe there should be public access to this data so one can ascertain if they're on it (i.e. 'the list').
Now arguing your position of never allowing firearms prohibition except to the incarcerated or dangerously mentally ill, is fair point (and one to which I largely agree) - but it's not where our laws currently are at, so until something changes I believe my above statements are reasonable.
It's getting kinda' hard to argue here, when I agree with pretty much everything you've written.I was not chastising you, I simply assumed you already knew my position. No worries.
The only judicial due process that is acceptable is conviction for a violent crime or court-ordered civil commitment to a mental institution. Now I am aware that there are nine reasons listed currently for failing a gun purchase background check. Most of those nine I find appalling. I am also aware that Congress can add any other restrictions they wish. That I also find appalling.
However, citing due process while allowing a denial of this right based solely on suspicion? It opens the door to all sorts of violations of personal liberty merely on suspicion. That is unconscionable.
Again, public lists would only make the citizen a public target. That's what lists like this do, as amply demonstrated by sex offender registration, another list I am opposed to for many reasons including this one.
It's getting kinda' hard to argue here, when I agree with pretty much everything you've written.
That I bolded is a good argument for you though, especially in that it identifies unarmed citizens leaving them vulnerable.
Oddly enough, apparently in certain neighborhoods in my city owning guns can make one's house more subject to burglary by those that know the owner's schedule, as crazy as that sounds!
I do think the sex offenders' list is a travesty though; the same for released felons being dogged all their lives. There seems to be little place today for redemption ...
New York Journal News Publishes Gun Owners' Names In Westchester, Rockland CountiesNew York Journal News Publishes Gun Owners’ Names In Westchester, Rockland Counties. The article includes an interactive map of Westchester and Rockland counties that allows readers to view those who have a license to own handguns around them. Some critics felt the Journal News article put people in danger. “Do you fools realize that you also made a map for criminals to use to find homes to rob that have no guns in them to protect themselves?"
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065974107 said:Much discussion has occurred recently about placing terrorism suspects on a watch list and depriving them of at lease one civil right without due process of law, which is to purchase a firearm.
Below are incidents that caused suspicion of the murderer yet none were reported until after the terrorism was committed. There are other incidents as well as this is not an exhaustive list. Should incidents like these place someone on a terrorist "watch list" until the individual can be thoroughly "vetted" by the FBI or whomever completes a thorough investigation?
What's the criteria for being on a watch list? Who determines the criteria?
Orlando terrorist reportedly raised suspicion at gun shop weeks before massacre | Fox News
I think we'll have to agree to disagree, I think there should be a list.
I have to admit that I'm not delusional about the Constitution. Like any Religious document you should know what it is and what it isn't. I question my Bible, my Koran, my "I AM" teachings and my Vedic input from the Hare Krishnas.
I think if my government doesn't want me to buy a gun for any reason that is fine just as long as there are others who can hold the fort.
Riiiight
My Cousin lived on the same block as a registered sex offender who is now back in prison for raping another women who lived in the area. I want to know if I'm living near someone who raped a woman or molested a child.Ditto for sexual offender registries, there was never any evidence that they do any good when we started them, and there still is about zero. In reality these lists are about retribution, making lives suck because we dont like them but cant use laws to do anything about it since there is a demand to at least give the laws the appearance of being about justice rather than retribution.
The should be no such thing as a "terrorism watch list."
Homeland Security should maintain an information database where all reports of suspicious activity can be compiled. This would be a general database with no identification until enough bits come together to indicate a possible threat.
Once enough hits lead to a high degree of probability, this information should pop up an alert and after evaluation shows a true-bill of concern, lead to a court ordered surveillance of the suspect.
(NOTE: This is in addition to the normal practice of investigating valid links to terrorist organizations from informants and other intel sources).
Unless and until this occurs, there is no reason to place anyone on a list.
As for all that after-the-fact "memory" of various informants cited by the article?
1. A Middle Eastern customer speaking his middle-eastern language over the phone is no signal of terror, it's a customer speaking a language to someone else (friend or family) who also speaks that language.
2. Buying bulk ammunition is not unusual. We have several members of this Forum who do so for practice, and training. One can burn up a lot of ammo on a range week to week.
3. I might be interested in body armor. Many preppers I know certainly are, and they aren't thinking of acting like a terrorist.
4. Acting "oddly?" Exactly what does that mean????
5. The "classmates" are making unsubstantiated allegations after the fact, perhaps to get their names in the paper? Article states there was no evidence of disciplinary action to support those allegations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?