I'm actually okay with background checks and licenses for guns, however am against out right bans or restrictions. I think criminals and mentally ill people should be barred from guns.
But, what's the hype about the terror watch list? On the surface it seems sensical to restrict a potential terrorist of a firearm, however I've seen people complain about the lists legitimacy.
Redpill me on it. What's bad about it and how does one get on it?
Other urls found in this thread:
washingtonpost.com
twitter.com
Bumping for interest
washingtonpost.com
Zero oversight, no due process, some guy throws your name on a list and now you have to jump through hoops to get your name off the list, if you're even able, all to do what should have been your right as a citizen in the first place.
>I'm actually okay with background checks and licenses for guns
SHALL
>I'm actually okay with background checks and licenses for guns
NOT
>I'm actually okay with background checks and licenses for guns
BE
>I'm actually okay with background checks and licenses for guns
INFRINGED
Combo breaker
A background check or license isn't infringing on your right idiot.
Nice try, faggot.
I'm not sure you understand what rights means
It's a backdoor way to eventually lead to more and more 'lists' that automagically disqualify people from gun ownership.
Notice how all the talk is about some 'list' and not about the criteria that must be met to end up on the list, etc.
Having the government approve you to own a gun undermines the protection of the second amendment. The second amendment if for the people to keep the government in check, not for the government to check the people.
Thank you. Is there any proposal to revise this list or at least what puts you on the list?
>the Trumpcuck is for things whenever his master says so
Remember user;
A man chooses, a slave obeys
Not to mention this latest sand nigger was on all kinds of lists, had been investigated multiple times, had made public comments that should have set off red flags if not for PC culture, etc.
Point being: lists don't do a fucking thing to prevent someone from engaging in criminal activity.
I do, not sure if you understand my position at all.
That's fine and dandy for law abiding citizens, however a Jamal or Syrian immigrant will take advantage of this and exploit it. A fucking nigger or criminal loses rights when putting society in danger.
When the government can not do their job right only the people get the blame.
>That's fine and dandy for law abiding citizens, however a Jamal or Syrian immigrant will take advantage of this and exploit it. A fucking nigger or criminal loses rights when putting society in danger.
KEY WORD:
>citizens
The ONLY burden to own a gun should be that above, and immigration needs to be restricted.
Criminal are fucking criminals, they break laws by fucking definition. Creating laws restricting the private ownership in anyway does not affect people who are already intent on breaking the law, and an illegal weapon charge means nothing to a person who is willing to take a murder charge.
Not that I'm aware of. I can't see how they could do much about the main issues either.
Transparency can't be achieved because it would be tipping the FBIs hand while they're running an investigation.
And turn around times and forcing people to prove they're not terrorists is both untenable under the presumption of innocence and just a bureaucratic nightmare to deal with(would need to have enough people to deal with complaints in a timely fashion and have a level of trust that terrorists can't just remove themselves from the lists with an inside man).
It's just a mess all over. I'm really disappointed in the NRA for entertaining the notion.
7-1/2 Billion people derping around on this planet.
I fully support a list of people, who after being convicted by a jury of their peers, restricts their rights, including their right to own a firearm, for an amount of time commensurate with their crime.
non-citizen immigrants, including illegals, should be eligible for the list for any reason or no reason.
Other than that, you can go fucking kill yourself, you communist shitstains.
The NRA hasn't been a second amendment based organization since I've been familiar with the organization, maybe it never has.
I'm not saying to punish the citizen, like you said "A criminal is a fucking criminal" but that criminal suspends all rights upon commiting crime and should forfeit his right to take a firearm, as should be the case for a mentally ill person or a generally inferior individual. Also I semi agree with you on the immigration.
Maybe there just needs to be an IQ test and maybe a test on something you need to study and do well compareable to an SAT.
That way anyone who just wants a gun because lmao, won't be able to get one.
Anyone that isn't able to set a goal and apply effort and stick to it won't be able to get guns either. Now this group is likely the same group of losers who blame the world for their laziness and go around shooting people up in anger.
>I agree with you
>Kill yourself
Wat? Can anyone fucking read?
"other than that" includes background checks.
Ausfalia proves why they don't deserve firearms.
That sounds pretty terrible then.
Thanks for the info though.
their list is about as valid as mine. watch this
NO-FLY-LIST
___________
>OP
>first poster
___________
now you guys can't buy guns. see how ridiculous it can get
A background check is to check for their record and see if they're a criminal.
The watchlist is most definitely exploitable to barr "unruly individuals" AKA people like us.
change the law so the mentally ill are the only ones that can have firearms. that'd show em
A background check infringes on their rights. An ID card should be enough to prove citizenship. Beyond that there should be periodic parole office checks of their living spaces and stop / frisks while they're walking around. A national database check for every purchase is ripe for federal abuse.
>A criminal is a fucking criminal" but that criminal suspends all rights upon commiting crime and should forfeit his right to take a firearm, as should be the case for a mentally ill person or a generally inferior individual
A felon already is prohibited from owning a firearm. And background checks don't keep ex-criminals from getting guns. All it takes for a prohibited person to get a gun is for them to get someone else to make a strawman purchase, which is also illegal, but still happens. Resctricting classes of citizens like those deemed mentally ill sounds good on the surface, untill they classify owning a gun for protection as a sign of paranoia or classify conservatism as a mental illness and use that as a justification to take them away.
So you're in favor of people's rights being taken away by law enforcement without adjudication. Is that what you are saying here?
It's humorous how they will and do consider political dissidents 'terrorists.'
>You can't questiin you government, that's anti-democratic!
THIS. Zero due process. If you're not charged with a crime they cannot infringe upon your rights. It's unconstitutional no matter how common sense it might sound. We're better off securing the border and banning immigration of muslims etc at least those things would have a meaningful impact and improve the lives of everyone in this country. It might not solve all shooting deaths, but we shouldn't expect that anyway. We have 50,000 plus deaths by automobile each year and people don't try to ban cars, there is an amount of death that should be considered acceptable just out of pure statistics. Everything in our lives has an acceptable risk except guns, even one death seems to be insane to some people. When you actually boil it down too the deaths are usually minorities on minorties, crimes of passion, or suicides. The real numbers of actual mass shootings is neglible, more people die from lightning strikes and falling off ladders.
> I'm actually okay with background checks and licenses for guns
I hear you. Common sense does seem like this would be reasonable but I contest that its scary "someone" who you never see or speak to can deny you your rights. It might not happen much now because they want these crazy people slipping through the gaps and doing this shit so they can push further gun control but when their back is against the wall and they actually start using NICS to deny people, who knows how your name might be added and it has nothing to short of a complete pain in the ass to get off of the NICS system. Imagine a watch list thats controlled by DHS or some very partisan govt agency. This is what keeps me up at night.
In short, while you can take away the rights of people convicted of a felony, the rights of a citizen of the united stated to own a firearm SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, especially in a manner that denies due process justified by the possibility that a person may be dangerous.
Either they are a felon for whom who possession of a firearm is another felony, or they are a law abiding citizen whose rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
this is an issue i have not heard raised yet so i'll post it here
how many members of state militias have been put on watch lists?(the bundy ranch oregon bird sanctuary guys)
how many people will loose a right just for being to proud of that right?
They are not on that list, but they are being watched...
It is easier to just let them play army rather than get into a big supreme court case with some gun nuts in the middle of nowhere, and then occasionally send some ATF agents to their meetings to eventually raid it when some idiot shows off/tries to buy an illegal weapon or talks about overthrowing Obama and gets drawn into an entrapment sting.
It's an issue becuase the process has no oversight, it's one thing for a convicted felon to have their gun rights revoked but American citizens are guaranteed the right to due process, granting the executive branch the power to unilaterally rescind the rights of it's populace is stupid and dangerous.
That said if it can be shown beyond a resonable doubt that person poses a clear and present danger to themselves and/or others then we might be able to discuss the matter. However, any such process would need to be transparent, carried out by the judicial branch rather than the executive, and open to appeal and/or a temporary messure pending investigation in order to protect the rights of the people.
>licenses for guns
Nigga what?
And the problem people have with the terror watch list is the government can arbitrarily decide who a terrorist is, like all white males could be terrorists one day. The problem with gun control is that it doesn't work to stop crime, yet they still keep pursuing it, WHY? WHY do they pursue when they know the data isn't behind them so they have to use appeal to emotion even on the floor of the Senate? Because they want to control people, it's a lot harder to control people if they don't have guns, specifically rifles. Look at the Bundy ranch situation. Do you think that would have been a stand off if they hadn't of had guns? No, BLM would have just taken their land by force, and they would have stood there.
as long as thats not the same list i feel like this could be a good thing
i just see a scene where the law passes and 70% of our militia gets told to turn em in and goes all 1776 actually bringing about the marshal law they fear so much
as long as that gets sorted out im kinda interested to see what trump can figure out with the NRA
a bill for sensible yet freedom loving gun control with an endorsement instead of a fight from those guys could be a powerful promise for trump and other republicans trying to win over moderates in the general
No law does a damn thing to protect against terrorism when the President and state dept are protecting muslims from investigation. This is purely about control. He wants to disarm people against the government and against terrorists it seems like.
The DHS and by proxy Obama control the list. Still think its sensible? It needs due process and needs to be far the fuck away from the hands of DHS or the President.
>sensible yet freedom loving gun control
Does not fucking exist. If you find a convicted felon or a foreign nation and found with a gun they get arrested, anyone else gets to buy them.
The only problem with the current gun control is that there is too much. The problem is not that I can walk into Walmart and buy an AR-15 in 7 minutes, the problem is that I have to wait 7 minutes and I can't buy one that is full auto with a grenade launcher.
i agree that was sort of something i glossed over in saying as long as the problems can be sorted out
most people support the idea that a isis terrorist should not be eased in his arming but we need to hold firm and force the liberals to make the kind of compromises needed like
due process before the fact
independent oversight to prevent political groups being targeted IRS style
i actually am a felon(for pot in washington no less)
while i was in jail i looked around and realized how glad i was that those people cold not buy guns right at that time in their lives
5 years with no crimes and i can get it back
i've got 7 months and my fines are all paid
And we agree, that as felons, they forfitted that right. Foreign nationals have yet to earn it. Every one elses rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
This does not mean pending a background check or only certain arms, btw. That sentance ends with a period.
If Republicans really cared about the violation of due process in the terrorist watch list then they would have long ago lit a fire on the national practice of banning people from flying based on FBI investigations. Sure, a Republican with half a brain (like O'Reily) might argue "but that's just a private agreement with private airlines and it isn't a legal matter" well just try and pass that line of logic to the Supreme Court. They won't be having any of that loophole shit. As the Supreme Court has ruled again and again (such as in anti-trust cases), "the law of the land" is effectively law, it doesn't matter what you call it or if it's in any books.
Restricting the people's right to travel, which all Americans use every day? Sure, no problem. Restricting the right for people to own and use weapons, something only used by a little over 5% of Americans? Republicans won't be having any of that.
That faggot represents by state. His shills were going door to door during elections...wish I though of some cool way to brutalize and humiliate them.
Didn't answer the door and played vidya.
Do you need a background check to exercise any other right in the Bill of Rights?
Many people have had a problem with that for years, even republicans. Alot of republicans had major issues with that, but the social conservatives of yore pushed that through thanks to media jewery and fearmongering, and now we have to fight back against it. It is coming, in due time.
If Jamal takes advantage of his freedom, then we better make sure there are 10 guns aimed back at him.
I've said this about 50 times on this board on various threads, but i'll say it again. HE DIDN'T COMMIT ANY CRIMES THAT WERE REPORTED. IT's not a crime to associate with bad people, its not a crime to beat your wife if she doesn't report it, its not a crime to go to Saudi arabia, its not a crime to praise isis on twitter or facebook, its not a crime to do anything that he did otherwise he would be punished for it and put on the existing NICS list.
there must be a balance somewhere
we have civil forfeiture of property
we have a procedure to declare somebody insane
we need a process to declare somebody too dangerous to be trusted with a weapon
im pretty open on how we go about it but we need to make figuring out how to do that the issue not weather to act or not because then the left will say were doing nothing and eventually if we keep doing nothing enough people will believe them to vote for something without all this thought put in to it
It does not seem sensible "on the surface". It seems like an extra-judicial, anti-due process move to bar political dissidents from purchasing firearms. It is a violation of both the second and the fifth amendment.
Well fair enough, if they're consistent about it. But that sounds like a loosing case if you ask me. "Due process" is a pretty general thing and the Supreme Court has acknowledged multiple interpretations in multiple contexts. There are a lot of ins and outs to the various interpretations and clearly I'm not an expert on that if I don't even know the grounds where the Republicans are fighting, but just because the extensive federal oversight that goes into the FBI managing the watch list is not part of the judicial branch and is not made explicitly public does not mean it violates due process (especially when the verdicts it institutes are not punishments or imprisonments). For example, the IRS can make numerous provisions and restrictions that are not subject to judicial review and are never made public.
>we have civil forfeiture of property
Unconstitutional. 4th amendment.
>we have a procedure to declare somebody insane
That is actually fine under the processes outlined in the 6th amendment. Otherwise, it is unconstitutional. It is dangerous territory though.
>we need a process to declare somebody too dangerous to be trusted with a weapon
We do. Those are people, who by their actions, have commited felonies and those who are not citizens of this country.
The lives lost by a few incidents are a small price to pay for our freedoms, and those freedoms were given to us by millions of men who died to protect them. And those lives outweigh those lost to these incidents, and are a small price to pay. The first amendment gives us the right to our ideas including those mentioned below it, and the second allows us to protect the first. As long as there is an America left afterwards, any amount of lives given to protect those rights is a small price to pay for those freedoms.
>Sup Forums will not respond to this.
fuck this board, it was based on anarchy and total freedom, now all they do is obey cucks.
>The lives lost by a few incidents are a samll price to pay for our freedoms
This exactly. Cost of doing business. I don't care if its 1 million a year. It's the cost of freedom. People have to pay the price, we haven't "had" to fight any wars or wars on our own turf in many generations. People have gotten soft and this is the tree of liberty that so badly needs to be refreshed. COST OF DOING BUSINESS.
if the procedure to declare somebody insane
is actually fine under the processes outlined in the 6th amendment.
is a supporter of a middle eastern death cult that seeks to cause voilence to innocence in order to bring about a world war in order to summon their messiah criminally insane?
6th amendment. If your rights are going to be infringed you need a speedy and PUBLIC trial.
Even under the 15th amendment, the IRS is unconstitutional in alot of the ways it functions due to the 6th.
Just because something exists does not make it right under the constitution.
>is a supporter of a middle eastern death cult that seeks to cause voilence to innocence in order to bring about a world war in order to summon their messiah criminally insane?
If they desire and INTEND TO ACT based on that desire to commit harm to another human being, then after PUBLIC judicial review, they are deemed to be a threat, then yes, that would satisfy due process. It is still dangerous territory as a crime has yet to be committed. How they are able ascertain that he intends to commit harm raises alot of questions too, especially with the 1st and 4th amendments. That said, personally, I would rather we error on the side of waiting till a person has to attempt to harm a person, which is a crime, vs sectioning people for mental issues that may possibility lead to a crime. As I said before, it is a dangerous legal territory that raises alot of issues.
It's very possible to incorrectly be placed on both lists and you are relying on an inefficient bureaucracy to get off of them in order to exercise your rights. That's a little scary. But better than Clinton.
>Even under the 15th amendment
Ment to say 16th
what's bad about the list is there is no framework for:
1) being put on the list
2) challenging being put on the list
3) knowing you're on the list
4) being taken off of the list
> put everybody on the watchlist
> start collecting their guns
Brilliant plan, actually.
then thats what we need
a public judicial review that would satisfy due process but with standards that can be applied before the intended act is committed while still in the planning or radicalizing phase
i admit it raises a lot of issues but ithink working through those issues will be better then allowing them to stop all progress on the issue of stopping terror
basically i just want the right to do it so it gets done right instead of becoming "another victory" to be won by the ridiculous left
for
There is no right way to do it.
We have the laws in place. Murder is illegal. Attempted murder is illegal. The tool used is irrelevant.
And there are procedures in place for people who publicly state they intend to cause harm to others, on a case by base basis, under the judicial system, that the recourse is not banning them from owning one specific tool while leaving others at their disposal.
Making everyone go through a process to make sure they are not going to kill people INFRINGES on peoples rights, as people have to wait on approval, vs, a person being approves untill it is proven otherwise, which is a 5th amendment issues as well in making everyone go through this process with out evidence or indictment that they have or are going to commit a crime.
Also, what happens when it is declared that wanting to own a gun is evidence of a person planning on committing a act of violence, as the argument will then go that guns are inherently a tool of violence and that a person who wants one intends to commit an act of violence.
The basis of our constitution is that the rights of the people of this nation as a whole are more important than their individual lives. Our founders understood that you can't have both freedom and complete safety, and went so far to say that those who would give up their freedom for safety deserve neither.
Our country is built on the ideal that we would rather die than not be free. Unfortunately, part of that ideal is that we must accept the risk of possible death as a price of that freedom. We do our best to mitigate that risk by having consequences for people causing harm to others, but the ideal of our nation was to always protect the freedom of the many over the lives of the few.
This. Well said. Ben franklin was right. Those whould give up liberty for the false sense of security deserve neither.
I have a pretty strong suspicion that no Jews will ever end up on this list.
YOU CANNOT TAKE AWAY A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS YOU FUCKING FAGGOT