Guns and terror watchlists

[rocketman]

What is more notable is that Houston, TX is a conceal carry city (soon to be open carry) and Chicago, IL is a gun free city (wink, wink, nod, nod). The data is rather conclusive that where good citizens are able to carry firearms, homicides go down. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun after all. :AoO:

 

[ok doser]

:darwinsm:

:thumb:

 

[Nick M]

Homeland Security was investigating Farook and was ordered to stop and the files erased.

Phil Haney, a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol analyst, says he was ordered to stop investigating Deobandi Islamist groups and his work on them was erased. He even says he was subjected to a disciplinary when he attempted to blow the whistle.

If he’d been allowed to continue his investigation, he claims Malik’s visa application would have been flagged for greater scrutiny.

He explained: “The administration was more concerned about the civil rights and liberties of foreign Islamic groups with terrorist ties than the safety and security of Americans”.​

All of you that voted for Obama in 2008, let alone 2012 can go straight to hell. We told you and told you this is who he is. Those of you who only voted for him once, congratulations, you are only a basic moron.

According to Mr. Haney, the agencies argued that since the radical Islamist groups are not specially designated as terrorist organizations, tracking individuals related to them was a violation of the their “civil liberties.”

After his work was shut down he says he met with the DHS Inspector General several Members of Congress in 2013. The DHS and the Justice Department subjected him to an investigation, which showed no wrongdoing on his part, Mr. Haney claims.
​

 

[musterion]

What is more notable is that Houston, TX is a conceal carry city (soon to be open carry) and Chicago, IL is a gun free city (wink, wink, nod, nod). The data is rather conclusive that where good citizens are able to carry firearms, homicides go down. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun after all. :AoO:

Leftists (whether they actually believe it or not) say law enforcement is the answer to most problems even though many of them secretly and often illegally arm themselves while working to see others disarmed. They are literally lawless.

A clear example of their lies is how they make fun of the bumper stickers, "I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop" or "When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away" even though they know both are perfectly true.

 

[rocketman]

Leftists (whether they actually believe it or not) say law enforcement is the answer to most problems even though many of them secretly and often illegally arm themselves while working to see others disarmed. They are literally lawless.

Leftists are the ones currently undermining law enforcement in this country so, I am not sure if law enforcement is the left's answer, I see them being more on board with a government enforcer akin to the brown shirts or the SS. They are so fond of tyranny & fascism I would expect this to be their alternative, heaven forbid actual citizens carry firearms, don't move to Texas is all I can say. :chuckle:

A clear example of their lies is how they make fun of the bumper stickers, "I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop" or "When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away" even though they know both are perfectly true.

I know, that is why I put those kind of bumper stickers on my commuter car fondly named "the piñata" my beater :chuckle: I also like "Gun Control Is Using Both Hands". Nick & I both hate the "Coexist" bumper sticker & the platitude it represents we spoke about it in a thread once but, I found the perfect counter to that bumper sticker right here:

 

[musterion]

 

[rocketman]

I like this one...:chuckle:

 

[TomO]

I'm quite anti-gun. But I don't favor expanding the use of the no-fly list. The government shouldn't be allowed to punish citizens without due process. We don't allow felons to possess firearms, but they've at least been convicted of some crime. I think that we should be very skeptical. I just don't see where there's room for making lists to punish people for predicted crimes.

Thank you for not being a miserable hypocrite...I mean that sincerely. :e4e:

 

[rexlunae]

Briefly, what gun control measures do you support? I was thinking of creating a thread with a multiple-choice poll to see where TOLers stand on various measures.

I think the fact that guns are considered a Constitutional right is bad. So, I think it's perfectly acceptable to place the burden of proving fitness on the person seeking to own the gun. But this must be done fairly and according to the law, and the no-fly list doesn't meet that standard.

Do you think the no-fly list is already punishing citizens without due process and should be removed?

Yes, absolutely. I honestly don't see a place for it in this country, at least as applied to citizens. If there's someone who we have a legitimate reason to suspect of being involved in terrorism, we ought to have a process in place involving warrants and courts, where the burden of proof is on the government, not arbitrary administrative action. I can maybe see how there might be foreign nationals who we don't have enough evidence to charge for crimes under our own laws, but who we consider a risk to our air travelers, and I think that's probably a reasonable stopgap, but even those people should have access to some sort of due process to clear their names.

 

[rocketman]

I think the fact that guns are considered a Constitutional right is bad. So, I think it's perfectly acceptable to place the burden of proving fitness on the person seeking to own the gun. But this must be done fairly and according to the law, and the no-fly list doesn't meet that standard.

Sounds like you along with the rest of the fascist left feel all society's ills would be cured by taking rights away. Which other constitutional rights give you a rub? free speech? religion? private property?

 

[rocketman]

Yes, absolutely. I honestly don't see a place for it in this country, at least as applied to citizens.

Being able to board a commercial aircraft is not a right, it is a privilege and no due process exists if you are denied, it is an inconvenience for the potential flyer to clear up with the authorities but, make no mistake there is no "right" to fly.

If there's someone who we have a legitimate reason to suspect of being involved in terrorism, we ought to have a process in place involving warrants and courts, where the burden of proof is on the government, not arbitrary administrative action.

So, you do believe boarding an aircraft is right not a privilege...well I can tell you that if you want to fly the onus is on the flyer to make sure that they are not on the list and clear up any false positive before they are ready to fly. The list is for the protection of all and not to just be an inconvenience to you personally though it might seem that way if your name comes up.

I can maybe see how there might be foreign nationals who we don't have enough evidence to charge for crimes under our own laws, but who we consider a risk to our air travelers, and I think that's probably a reasonable stopgap, but even those people should have access to some sort of due process to clear their names.

The no-fly list isn't for the purpose of indictment or prosecution but, a safety check put into the system to keep the skies safe from potential terrorists rex. There is a process for clearing your name from the list as well, uncomfortable as that might be. Keep in mind that air travel is not a right.

On another note, I like you, agree the no-fly list is not perfect and should be updated, nor is it a good way to screen for who should or should not be extended their constitutional rights to own a weapon.

 

[Right Divider]

if you read timothey mcveys autobiography you can see he is very intelligent..

but paranoid as I myself am..

do I condone His Cowardly attacks on innocents?? absolutely not... but alot of his points are spot on...

we are in a surveillance state... freedom is an illusion.. and I am not mentally ill or on drugs..

I do not condone your punctuation or your grammar. :think:

 

[Nick M]

I just don't see where there's room for making lists to punish people for predicted crimes.

Now if people would only see the complete evil of the plot in "Minority Report" and apply that idea to things they think are right but are not right.

 

[rexlunae]

Sounds like you along with the rest of the fascist left feel all society's ills would be cured by taking rights away. Which other constitutional rights give you a rub? free speech? religion? private property?

I think it's a very dubious right.

Being able to board a commercial aircraft is not a right, it is a privilege and no due process exists if you are denied, it is an inconvenience for the potential flyer to clear up with the authorities but, make no mistake there is no "right" to fly.

When the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process, the word that it uses is "privileges", not "rights". If there's a distinction to be made here, I'm not sure what it would be. Arbitrary administrative actions against individuals outside of a legal mechanism is Constitutionally dubious at best, whether you interpret it as applying only to some special privilege. And freedom of movement is generally-speaking a right, recognized by our courts and international law, which implies access to the means of movement.

So, you do believe boarding an aircraft is right not a privilege...

Yes. A right that derives from the freedom of movement, which is actually one of the most fundamental rights.

well I can tell you that if you want to fly the onus is on the flyer to make sure that they are not on the list and clear up any false positive before they are ready to fly. The list is for the protection of all and not to just be an inconvenience to you personally though it might seem that way if your name comes up.

I'm not sure how you're supposed to make sure you're not on a list that is secret, and with no process for redress or correction.

The no-fly list isn't for the purpose of indictment or prosecution but, a safety check put into the system to keep the skies safe from potential terrorists rex. There is a process for clearing your name from the list as well, uncomfortable as that might be. Keep in mind that air travel is not a right.

What is the process? Can you explain it to me? Where would I start?

And why is the burden on the traveler to justify their right to travel against arbitrary government action?

On another note, I like you, agree the no-fly list is not perfect and should be updated, nor is it a good way to screen for who should or should not be extended their constitutional rights to own a weapon.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I can understand how it may have filled a hole that needed to be filled quickly. But curtailing a person's freedom should never be done arbitrarily, and I don't trust the government to do it based on behavioral predictions alone.

 

[rocketman]

I think it's a very dubious right.

Thankfully, the authors of your liberty didn't consult you, the rights you hold under the constitution are far from dubious, they are well defined in the constitution itself and the reasons for said rights are are expounded on thoroughly in the federalist papers & other extraneous writings at the time of it's adoption into the constitution. Not to sound cliche but, if you are so put off by the rights granted to you & I why are you not attempting to immigrate to a society that appeals to your sensibilities? The UK is a good choice, a socialist country, a gun free zone, socialized medical care, a liberal mecca... I am not trying to throw a jab or put you down, I am being deadly serious rex, have you considered such a change in venue?

When the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process, the word that it uses is "privileges", not "rights". If there's a distinction to be made here, I'm not sure what it would be. Arbitrary administrative actions against individuals outside of a legal mechanism is Constitutionally dubious at best, whether you interpret it as applying only to some special privilege. And freedom of movement is generally-speaking a right, recognized by our courts and international law, which implies access to the means of movement.

If there is a right to board an aircraft, I would love to see it.

Yes. A right that derives from the freedom of movement, which is actually one of the most fundamental rights.

So, what your saying is that you have a legal case against the government. Somehow I don't think in this day and age of terrorism that they will hear your plea, or mine for that matter. This list is a public safety issue not an individual's claim to rights or privileges rex. If your name shows up on the list you or I will have to get it worked out with the authorities painful as that may be...you got to love regulations & the departments that make them, it is a byproduct of a bloated federal government.

I'm not sure how you're supposed to make sure you're not on a list that is secret, and with no process for redress or correction.

What is the process? Can you explain it to me? Where would I start?

You will know right away when you go to get ticketed and yes, it is a hassle to fix or at least it used to be, I have heard that the DHS system is getting better & the fix less painful to redress.

http://consumerist.com/2007/02/22/howto-get-your-name-off-the-no-fly-list/

And why is the burden on the traveler to justify their right to travel against arbitrary government action?

I hate to break it to ya, air travel is not a right any more than the issuance of a drivers license is a right, it is a privilege, and one that can be denied.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I can understand how it may have filled a hole that needed to be filled quickly. But curtailing a person's freedom should never be done arbitrarily, and I don't trust the government to do it based on behavioral predictions alone.

If you don't trust the government than why are you a big government liberal voter? :idunno:

You may not like the fact that you could be inconvenienced, having your person under suspect but, it is for the safety of us all that the "No Fly List" exists and given that we have been hit with terrorist attacks since 911 even recently, the list is just something we will all have to deal with.

 

[rexlunae]

Thankfully, the authors of your liberty didn't consult you, the rights you hold under the constitution are far from dubious, they are well defined in the constitution itself and the reasons for said rights are are expounded on thoroughly in the federalist papers & other extraneous writings at the time of it's adoption into the constitution.

Much of the Constitution is great. Some of it is not (slavery, for instance). That's why there's an amendment process. The Founders thought that the country was going to be defended by militias, so they wrote the Second Amendment in support of that notion, and they limited how Congress could appropriate funds for armies. And then they almost lost the War of 1812, and they realized that that wasn't going to work. But the Second Amendment hangs on.

Not to sound cliche but, if you are so put off by the rights granted to you & I why are you not attempting to immigrate to a society that appeals to your sensibilities? The UK is a good choice, a socialist country, a gun free zone, socialized medical care, a liberal mecca... I am not trying to throw a jab or put you down, I am being deadly serious rex, have you considered such a change in venue?

I'm sure that sounds like a sensible solution when referring to a random stranger on the Internet, with no concept of their life. Especially if you tend to view people as one-dimensional stereotypes. But there are few people with no ties to the place they live, and my family has been here for centuries. Why don't I leave my home and everyone I know and love so that I don't have to live with violent lunatics with easy access to high-powered weapons? I would think the answers would be obvious, if you give some thought to it.

If there is a right to board an aircraft, I would love to see it.

As I said before, due process. The government can't arbitrarily curtail your rights. You really didn't respond to what I said.

So, what your saying is that you have a legal case against the government.

I don't. And the burden should be on the government to bring a case against a traveler.

Somehow I don't think in this day and age of terrorism that they will hear your plea, or mine for that matter. This list is a public safety issue not an individual's claim to rights or privileges rex.

This country puts a fairly high priority on individual rights.

If your name shows up on the list you or I will have to get it worked out with the authorities painful as that may be...you got to love regulations & the departments that make them, it is a byproduct of a bloated federal government.

I can't really tell if you support that situation, or if you're just resigned to it. Ultimately, the government is only as oppressive as we allow it to be.

You will know right away when you go to get ticketed and yes, it is a hassle to fix or at least it used to be, I have heard that the DHS system is getting better & the fix less painful to redress.

http://consumerist.com/2007/02/22/howto-get-your-name-off-the-no-fly-list/

Of course, this is an administrative process. And the government can refuse to do anything. And while they're making their decision, your rights to travel are drastically curtailed.

I hate to break it to ya, air travel is not a right any more than the issuance of a drivers license is a right, it is a privilege, and one that can be denied.

I agree it's the same basic situation. And the government can't arbitrarily refuse to issue a driver's license to you either. It has to follow the law.

If you don't trust the government than why are you a big government liberal voter? :idunno:

Part of the reason that I can trust the government is the fact that it has significant limits placed upon it and checks and balances against the arbitrary exercise of power. The more salient question would be, if you're a small government advocate, why are you arguing for big, unaccountable government that can impose its will on innocent citizens with essentially no oversight? I don't identify with that description, partially because it's a somewhat disingenuous right-wing straw man that almost no one genuinely embraces. I'm not ideological about the size of government either way. I support in right-sized government: Figure out what government must do, and then raise funds and do it.

You may not like the fact that you could be inconvenienced, having your person under suspect but, it is for the safety of us all that the "No Fly List" exists and given that we have been hit with terrorist attacks since 911 even recently, the list is just something we will all have to deal with.

There's no evidence that I'm aware of that this system has saved a single life or prevented a single attack. And, again for the safety of all of us, the government is about to claim the right to refuse firearm ownership to anyone it wants to put on a list. And did you notice that none of the redresses available for people refused the right to travel mention what you're supposed to do if you're refused the right to purchase a gun? Maybe they can just list the entire country, and take all the guns.

The fact that you don't have a problem with this is a little bit frightening. It's so Orwellian. But I guess that's the power of fear.

 

[JosephR]

I do not condone your punctuation or your grammar. :think:

it is pretty bad,,, aint it

 

[kmoney]

Homeland Security was investigating Farook and was ordered to stop and the files erased.

Phil Haney, a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol analyst, says he was ordered to stop investigating Deobandi Islamist groups and his work on them was erased. He even says he was subjected to a disciplinary when he attempted to blow the whistle.

If he’d been allowed to continue his investigation, he claims Malik’s visa application would have been flagged for greater scrutiny.

He explained: “The administration was more concerned about the civil rights and liberties of foreign Islamic groups with terrorist ties than the safety and security of Americans”.​

All of you that voted for Obama in 2008, let alone 2012 can go straight to hell. We told you and told you this is who he is. Those of you who only voted for him once, congratulations, you are only a basic moron.

According to Mr. Haney, the agencies argued that since the radical Islamist groups are not specially designated as terrorist organizations, tracking individuals related to them was a violation of the their “civil liberties.”

After his work was shut down he says he met with the DHS Inspector General several Members of Congress in 2013. The DHS and the Justice Department subjected him to an investigation, which showed no wrongdoing on his part, Mr. Haney claims.
​

Yesterday I read about another red flag that was missed during her screening process. She posted messages on social media in support of jihad/radical Islam but the authorities never reviewed social media so it went completely missed. She wasn't even secretive about it.

 

[kmoney]

I think the fact that guns are considered a Constitutional right is bad.

I read your exchange with rocket so I understand more of where you're coming from on this. I do think you have a good historical point about the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment. However, if something is done I'd be in favor of installing more training, etc. to being back some semblance of a militia instead of abolishing the right. CabinetMaker had a thread along those lines.

So, I think it's perfectly acceptable to place the burden of proving fitness on the person seeking to own the gun. But this must be done fairly and according to the law, and the no-fly list doesn't meet that standard.

What do you mean by 'proving fitness'?

Yes, absolutely. I honestly don't see a place for it in this country, at least as applied to citizens. If there's someone who we have a legitimate reason to suspect of being involved in terrorism, we ought to have a process in place involving warrants and courts, where the burden of proof is on the government, not arbitrary administrative action. I can maybe see how there might be foreign nationals who we don't have enough evidence to charge for crimes under our own laws, but who we consider a risk to our air travelers, and I think that's probably a reasonable stopgap, but even those people should have access to some sort of due process to clear their names.

I saw you mention driving in another post to rocket. It seems that the reason we have a no-fly list but no no-drive list is that taking down a plane is much more catastrophic than what someone could do in a car. Is that justification enough? :idunno: Does prohibiting flying curtial someone's right of movement in a significant enough way to be un-Constitutional?

 

[Nick M]

What do you mean by 'proving fitness'?

Disarming the populace, that is what he means. It will be an impossible standard for those that need it most.