If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Those on terrorist watchlist can still buy guns in America. We'd restrict them from it, but the NRA will tell us that we're infringing on our second amendment right to be shot by a terrorist   (npr.org) divider line 103
    More: Stupid, NRA, second amendment, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Richard Feldman  
•       •       •

1066 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Apr 2013 at 9:22 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



103 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-24 07:41:32 AM
So can people who subscribe to the New Yorker.  And people who own more than one cat.  And left-handed people.  It's a constitutional right, dumbass.  Until they turn into felons, they aren't prohibited.
 
2013-04-24 07:46:33 AM
People who are not convicted of a crime have access to firearms?
 
2013-04-24 08:00:49 AM
Wait, what? These are the people that insist they not have any identifiable information on any kind of registry, because it infringes on their 2a rights. Then, they turn around and claim that selling weapons to watchlisted individuals "where we had an opportunity to follow them" is a reasonable decision. What utter bullshiat.
 
2013-04-24 08:02:25 AM

syrynxx: So can people who subscribe to the New Yorker.  And people who own more than one cat.  And left-handed people.  It's a constitutional right, dumbass.  Until they turn into felons, they aren't prohibited.


And the NRA is working very hard to lift the ban on felons owning guns. It will happen soon.
 
2013-04-24 08:05:37 AM

PreMortem: syrynxx: So can people who subscribe to the New Yorker.  And people who own more than one cat.  And left-handed people.  It's a constitutional right, dumbass.  Until they turn into felons, they aren't prohibited.

And the NRA is working very hard to lift the ban on felons owning guns. It will happen soon.


It needs to be repeated until it's understood by all: The NRA cares not for gun owners. They exist (now) for the sole purpose of perpetuating fear to generate gun sales.
 
2013-04-24 08:17:02 AM
Is the right to life in the bill of rights?
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-04-24 08:22:21 AM

vudutek: They exist (now) for the sole purpose of perpetuating fear to generate gun sales.

raise campaign money for old,  white, male Republicans.

FTFY
 
2013-04-24 08:37:13 AM

PreMortem: syrynxx: So can people who subscribe to the New Yorker.  And people who own more than one cat.  And left-handed people.  It's a constitutional right, dumbass.  Until they turn into felons, they aren't prohibited.

And the NRA is working very hard to lift the ban on felons owning guns. It will happen soon.


Already succeeded in Louisiana.
 
2013-04-24 08:38:21 AM

PreMortem: syrynxx: So can people who subscribe to the New Yorker.  And people who own more than one cat.  And left-handed people.  It's a constitutional right, dumbass.  Until they turn into felons, they aren't prohibited.

And the NRA is working very hard to lift the ban on felons owning guns. It will happen soon.


So you're for the eternal loss of rights? Means no ex-felon voting either, right?

No due process for getting on or off the list? Then no restriction of constitutionally guaranteed rights.
 
2013-04-24 08:38:37 AM
"The U.S. Constitution specifically protects the right to purchase firearms. The Constitution has no specific right to use transportation of any mode," said Barton.

The Constitution isn't a f*cking permission slip for the citizenry.


nd in his experience, a lot of totally innocent people end up on the terror watch list - like business associates, roommates or landlords of suspected terrorists.
"Some of them are merely individuals who have proximity to terrorism suspects and are not themselves the focus of any investigation or any suspicion whatsoever," he said.


"See? It's totally OK because innocent people get completely f*cked over by these lists. We know they haven't done anything wrong, and they're not suspected of anything. But we're still gonna put them on the list with no way of them knowing and no way for them to remove themselves from it"

~murica
 
2013-04-24 09:17:59 AM

ArkAngel: PreMortem: syrynxx: So can people who subscribe to the New Yorker.  And people who own more than one cat.  And left-handed people.  It's a constitutional right, dumbass.  Until they turn into felons, they aren't prohibited.

And the NRA is working very hard to lift the ban on felons owning guns. It will happen soon.

So you're for the eternal loss of rights? Means no ex-felon voting either, right?

No due process for getting on or off the list? Then no restriction of constitutionally guaranteed rights.



I'm for and against a variety of laws and there are restrictions on those rights. Just about all of them.
 
2013-04-24 09:23:38 AM
We should outlaw fireworks since that's where the Boston terrists got the gunpowder!

/fark you if you really want to take away my fireworks
//even if I haven't bought any in many years
 
2013-04-24 09:25:12 AM
Being afraid to be shot by terrorist guns means that the terrorists have won. We don't just need to lift restrictions on terrorist gun ownership; we need to actively arm terrorists so they know we're not afraid of them.
 
2013-04-24 09:26:21 AM
In the not-soon-enough future, history will judge the NRA as a terrorist organization.
 
2013-04-24 09:26:34 AM

basemetal: We should outlaw fireworks since that's where the Boston terrists got the gunpowder!

/fark you if you really want to take away my fireworks
//even if I haven't bought any in many years


They're already banned in Massachusetts.

I think what we need to do is band all roads heading north of Lawrence.  There's nothing good up there.
 
2013-04-24 09:27:57 AM

syrynxx: So can people who subscribe to the New Yorker.  And people who own more than one cat.  And left-handed people.  It's a constitutional right, dumbass.  Until they turn into felons, they aren't prohibited.


What about people with an outstanding warrant for murder?

If Dzhokhar had escaped Friday night, he could have gone into a gun show and, if he found a private seller without an FFL, bought more weapons without a background check.

And the NRA is fine with that.
 
2013-04-24 09:28:48 AM
They can't stop you from buying a gun if you're on the watchlist because they would be admitting that you are on a watchlist and open it up to anybody perusing the list.

I'm sorry sir, you can't buy a gun.  I can't tell you why, I just can't sell it to you.
 
2013-04-24 09:28:55 AM

clkeagle: In the not-soon-enough future, history will judge the NRA as a terrorist organization.


rackjite.com
 
MFK
2013-04-24 09:33:12 AM
So the NRA is just going all in huh?

Well what's going to happen is that because they are unwilling to make any reasonable compromises that eventually we're going to get fed up with their shiat and just repeal the 2nd amendment outright
 
2013-04-24 09:34:44 AM

vudutek: PreMortem: syrynxx: So can people who subscribe to the New Yorker.  And people who own more than one cat.  And left-handed people.  It's a constitutional right, dumbass.  Until they turn into felons, they aren't prohibited.

And the NRA is working very hard to lift the ban on felons owning guns. It will happen soon.

It needs to be repeated until it's understood by all: The NRA cares not for gun owners. They exist (now) for the sole purpose of perpetuating fear to generate gun sales.


Hell, they used to be fine with restrictions on gun rights when "certain people" started exercising those rights. But that movement used fear as well.

i48.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-24 09:37:03 AM
And we all know how reliable/useful that terrorist watch list is.
 
2013-04-24 09:37:30 AM
I am heartened to see that so many people advocate abridging Constitutionally protected liberties based upon a secretly compiled and demonstrably erroneous list without any due process nor means of appeal, but denying firearm ownership to individuals whose names match entries on the secret list is insufficient. Individuals whose names match entries on the list should also be subject to warrantless searches of their homes, mail and vehicles, should be denied the right to speak freely and should not be permitted to claim a right against self-incrimination.
 
2013-04-24 09:38:33 AM

BizarreMan: I'm sorry sir, you can't buy a gun.  I can't tell you why, I just can't sell it to you.


Actually, they DON'T tell you why (with a NICS check).  It just a simple "Proceed" or "Do not proceed".  No reason is given.  So if the NICS system had access to the watchlist (which i have no idea if it does or not; probably not), then he couldn't have legally bought one from an FFL.
 
2013-04-24 09:39:23 AM
On a similar note, do any of our Fark FFLs know what the NICS actually does check?  Criminal record, I know, but anything else?
 
2013-04-24 09:40:01 AM
Meh since the Watch List is pretty fallible and arbitrary I can see the point of not using it. On the other hand the guy who says we don't want to tip off potential terrorists from buying weapons so we can track them? Aren't these guys against the government tracking legal gun sales?
 
2013-04-24 09:41:11 AM

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: BizarreMan: I'm sorry sir, you can't buy a gun.  I can't tell you why, I just can't sell it to you.

Actually, they DON'T tell you why (with a NICS check).  It just a simple "Proceed" or "Do not proceed".  No reason is given.  So if the NICS system had access to the watchlist (which i have no idea if it does or not; probably not), then he couldn't have legally bought one from an FFL.


An attempt by a prohibited person to obtain a firearm is itself a federal felony offense. Absolutely no method is available for individuals to determine whether a name matching their own is on the "terror watch list". As such, an individual on the list -- erroneously or not -- who attempts to purchase a firearm will be guilty of a felony offense without any means of knowing beforehand that their action is illegal.
 
2013-04-24 09:41:53 AM
I'm all for gun control but that watch list shouldn't be used to deny anyone anything. Haven't they detained 5 year olds at the airport because their name was on that list?
 
2013-04-24 09:42:16 AM

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: On a similar note, do any of our Fark FFLs know what the NICS actually does check?  Criminal record, I know, but anything else?


Individuals adjudicated as mentally defective are to be listed in the database also.
 
2013-04-24 09:42:25 AM
Once again the NRA shows it cares nothing for responsible, law abiding gun ownership. The care only about maximizing gun ownership and sales no matter to whom or what the consequences to society are.
 
2013-04-24 09:42:28 AM
Immigrants can still buy guns too. Even the illegal ones
 
2013-04-24 09:43:05 AM
I'm just thankful nothing has been done to curb my second amendment right to watch children get murdered in cold blood.
 
2013-04-24 09:43:34 AM

CPennypacker: I'm all for gun control but that watch list shouldn't be used to deny anyone anything. Haven't they detained 5 year olds at the airport because their name was on that list?


Yes. Senator Ted Kennedy was also detained at an airport because a name similar to his own was listed. Because of his status as a Senator, Mr. Kennedy was able to have his name removed after three weeks. Most individuals who will be affected by the list are not United States Senators, however.
 
2013-04-24 09:44:20 AM
Have a gun yourself; and be like Han and shoot first.
 
2013-04-24 09:44:37 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Once again the NRA shows it cares nothing for responsible, law abiding gun ownership. The care only about maximizing gun ownership and sales no matter to whom or what the consequences to society are.


Please explain why you advocate abridging Constitutionally protected liberties based upon a secret and demonstrably erroneous list while offering those affected no due process and no effective means of appeal.
 
2013-04-24 09:45:19 AM

Dimensio: I am heartened to see that so many people advocate abridging Constitutionally protected liberties based upon a secretly compiled and demonstrably erroneous list without any due process nor means of appeal, but denying firearm ownership to individuals whose names match entries on the secret list is insufficient. Individuals whose names match entries on the list should also be subject to warrantless searches of their homes, mail and vehicles, should be denied the right to speak freely and should not be permitted to claim a right against self-incrimination.


Which thread are you reading? In this there are not "people" advocating what you wrote. In fact, there is only one person making any sort of a counter-argument.
 
2013-04-24 09:45:54 AM
Okay, now there are "people."
 
2013-04-24 09:46:10 AM

CPennypacker: I'm all for gun control but that watch list shouldn't be used to deny anyone anything. Haven't they detained 5 year olds at the airport because their name was on that list?


terrorism watch list and no-fly list are 2 different lists. Both checked twice by Santa though, IIRC
 
2013-04-24 09:46:23 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: Dimensio: I am heartened to see that so many people advocate abridging Constitutionally protected liberties based upon a secretly compiled and demonstrably erroneous list without any due process nor means of appeal, but denying firearm ownership to individuals whose names match entries on the secret list is insufficient. Individuals whose names match entries on the list should also be subject to warrantless searches of their homes, mail and vehicles, should be denied the right to speak freely and should not be permitted to claim a right against self-incrimination.

Which thread are you reading? In this there are not "people" advocating what you wrote. In fact, there is only one person making any sort of a counter-argument.


I would respond, but you have already admitted to being a liar and a troll, thus you are not interested in honest discourse.
 
2013-04-24 09:49:17 AM
You can't fly but here have a gun.
 
2013-04-24 09:50:15 AM

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: I'm all for gun control but that watch list shouldn't be used to deny anyone anything. Haven't they detained 5 year olds at the airport because their name was on that list?

terrorism watch list and no-fly list are 2 different lists. Both checked twice by Santa though, IIRC


According to the article, the "terror watch list" is a compilation of multiple lists, including the "no fly" list. The article also states that the lists are secret, that no method is available for removal and that having a name similar to a name used by a suspected terrorist is sufficient to be "flagged" by the lists. Nonetheless, many individuals advocate abridging liberties, without due process, based upon the lists.
 
2013-04-24 09:50:34 AM

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: I'm all for gun control but that watch list shouldn't be used to deny anyone anything. Haven't they detained 5 year olds at the airport because their name was on that list?

terrorism watch list and no-fly list are 2 different lists. Both checked twice by Santa though, IIRC


oh right. I wonder if Santa cross-checks
 
2013-04-24 09:50:38 AM

Dimensio: Please explain why you advocate abridging Constitutionally protected liberties based upon a secret and demonstrably erroneous list while offering those affected no due process and no effective means of appeal.


That's the larger problem with the terrorist watch list itself.
 
2013-04-24 09:51:43 AM

Dimensio: Uranus Is Huge!: Dimensio: I am heartened to see that so many people advocate abridging Constitutionally protected liberties based upon a secretly compiled and demonstrably erroneous list without any due process nor means of appeal, but denying firearm ownership to individuals whose names match entries on the secret list is insufficient. Individuals whose names match entries on the list should also be subject to warrantless searches of their homes, mail and vehicles, should be denied the right to speak freely and should not be permitted to claim a right against self-incrimination.

Which thread are you reading? In this there are not "people" advocating what you wrote. In fact, there is only one person making any sort of a counter-argument.

I would respond, but you have already admitted to being a liar and a troll, thus you are not interested in honest discourse.


You responded to say you aren't responding. How mature. Cry moar.

And I was more or less agreeing that it's silly to take someone's rights away without a conviction. I would be okay with a court order for temporary confiscation in some situations.
 
2013-04-24 09:54:05 AM

cman: People who are not convicted of a crime have access to firearms?


People can't concern troll about the loss of civil liberties unless they strip people of their civil liberties.
 
2013-04-24 09:55:57 AM

Mrbogey: People can't concern troll about the loss of civil liberties unless they strip people of their civil liberties.


not_sure_if_serious.jpg
 
2013-04-24 10:04:29 AM

GoldSpider: Mrbogey: People can't concern troll about the loss of civil liberties unless they strip people of their civil liberties.

not_sure_if_serious.jpg


it shouldn't be used as an automatic strike against owning a gun but I have zero issue with it being a criteria used in the background check.
 
2013-04-24 10:05:07 AM

skullkrusher: GoldSpider: Mrbogey: People can't concern troll about the loss of civil liberties unless they strip people of their civil liberties.

not_sure_if_serious.jpg

it shouldn't be used as an automatic strike against owning a gun but I have zero issue with it being a criteria used in the background check.


criterion - sorry, nazis
 
2013-04-24 10:06:57 AM
As an admitted, dyed-in-the-wool liberal I actually agree with the NRA on this one.

Owning a firearm is a right. This is a fact.

It is also a fact that getting your name on the terrorist watchlist is not subject to any form of due process, is often arbitrary and can happen at the whim of individuals who have the power to do so.

To deny someone their rights via a mechanism that is not subject to any form of due process, is often arbitrary and can happen at the whim of individuals who have the power to do so is flat out wrong.

While there are no doubt many real terrorists on the watchlist, it still doesn't justify depriving innocent individuals of their rights. Sort of a 2nd Amendment interpretation of Blackstone's formulation.
 
2013-04-24 10:15:26 AM

Dimensio: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: On a similar note, do any of our Fark FFLs know what the NICS actually does check?  Criminal record, I know, but anything else?

Individuals adjudicated as mentally defective are to be listed in the database also.


Which never happens, because the NRA lobbies against funding to do so.
 
2013-04-24 10:16:30 AM

johnryan51: Is the right to life in the bill of rights?


Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness is in the Declaration of Independence. And if you believe that everything the founders wrote has some sort of double secrete meaning, life is more important that liberty.
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report