Republicans Allowing Terrorists To Buy Weapons

Reagan was obviously a RINO.

regdog said:

Another bill which just failed ot pass would have expanded the background check on those buying at gun shows and limiting the access of those with mental illness to acquire guns.

Click to expand...

I just wish there would be as much concern for due process and the mentally ill as they seem to have for watch list folks. But, of course, all mentally ill are potential killers.

It's OK though because they will continue tweeting prayers for the victims as mass shootings continue to unfold on a near daily basis across the US.

Isn't the terrorist watch list an eyes only thing? It's not public, right? Using it to prohibit people from buying guns would tip them off and lead to lawsuit after lawsuit, I think.

Seriously, people who are prohibited from buying guns are so prohibited because of court decisions, i.e. being convicted of a felony.

Are we really suggesting that a "watch list"--that involves persons of interest who have been convicted of nothing--should be used in this manner? I find this to be a pretty shallow opinion piece, especially since it's coming from people who get wound up about the idea of inciting "Islamaphobia." Now they're basically justifying the same, imo. Ugly, stupid stuff, imo.

regdog said:

Another bill which just failed to pass would have expanded the background check on those buying at gun shows and limiting the access of those with mental illness to acquire guns.

Click to expand...

Dirty little secret of this point: This will not work with laws as they exist now. If there has been no police involvement (i.e. imminent threat to self or others that resulted in a call to police), then background checks cannot see this. HIPAA doesn't allow this health care data to be shared.

Also, that watch list is about as effective as a marshmallow vest would be against bullets. Numerous people have wound up caught in it simply because their name is SIMILAR (much less matches) to someone else's that's on the list.

robeiae said:

Isn't the terrorist watch list an eyes only thing? It's not public, right? Using it to prohibit people from buying guns would tip them off and lead to lawsuit after lawsuit, I think.

Seriously, people who are prohibited from buying guns are so prohibited because of court decisions, i.e. being convicted of a felony.

Are we really suggesting that a "watch list"--that involves persons of interest who have been convicted of nothing--should be used in this manner? I find this to be a pretty shallow opinion piece, especially since it's coming from people who get wound up about the idea of inciting "Islamaphobia." Now they're basically justifying the same, imo. Ugly, stupid stuff, imo.

Click to expand...

I agree that using a watch list in this manner would be worrying. Due process is important. The no-fly list is bad enough.

I do find it hypocritical and a bit suspect, however, that these politicians care about due process when it comes to gun rights, but apparently not when it comes to, say, closing Gitmo or penalizing the CIA for unconstitutional actions.

I suspect this may be a case of a wrong clock being right twice a day.

DancingMaenid said:

I do find it hypocritical and a bit suspect, however, that these politicians care about due process when it comes to gun rights, but apparently not when it comes to, say, closing Gitmo or penalizing the CIA for unconstitutional actions.

Click to expand...

Define "these politicians." Because Gitmo is still open and, if anything (as I pointed out in another thread) both sides of the political aisle are supporting INCREASED surveillance authority and autonomy for CIA, et al.

New York Time - not biased, is it?

First, a watch list is simply a list of suspected people. There is no connectable evidence, only suspicion. Would you like your rights suspended based on some government entity's suspicion of you? Remember the IRS and how it treated organizations that some individuals didn't like their ideology?

Sorry, that is not what the Constitution stands for, but what the hell.

Second, the idea of the private sale of firearms is a loophole is another political euphemism. It's not a loophole, it's a right of US citizens to be able to sell and trade private property amongst themselves. This is only one of the issues that makes the proposal a thorny problem.

The other issue is such legislation makes transfer of firearms ridiculous between family members, etc. Want to pass on your family heirloom to your son or daughter? Well, go to an FFL dealer, pay a fee, and undergo a background check.

Third, I don't want mentally ill people owning firearms (or guns, which technically are large weapons installed on battle ships and tanks), but who determines who is mentally ill? What is the recourse for those unfairly judged so or would you just assume there be none, just so we could be safe? That would be an infringement on the rights of citizens, but what the hell.

The whole issue about "gun control" is based on emotional arguments, not a full disclosure of the facts, but what the hell. Why let facts decide?

This is where the problems begin. Just cherry pick the facts that you want to support your argument and ignore the rest — like the NY Times will do.

When you actually look at the numbers you see a different story than what the government and media are leading with.

France has suffered more deaths from mass shootings just in 2015 than the last 7 years in the US, yet we have a hysteria about our fast and loose gun laws and the carnage we suffer.

Let's compare the USA to civilized Europe. The order of the most mass shootings over the last six years goes like this: Norway, Macedonia, Serbia, Slovakia, Finland, Belgium, Czech Republic, and now the USA (yes, we rank 8th).

Lastly, the idea that the NIC (National Instant Check) system run by the FBI works is another bogus claim. The claim that 1.5 million people have been denied may be true, but the actual number of prosecutions for an unauthorized person trying to buy a weapon is 0.055% or 44 people out of 80,000 submitted in 2012.

I've seen lawful active police officers denied. Obviously, the system is far from perfect. In fact it is quite imperfect, but if it makes people feel safer, what the hell. Remember, it's all about emotions.

DancingMaenid said:

I agree that using a watch list in this manner would be worrying. Due process is important. The no-fly list is bad enough.

I do find it hypocritical and a bit suspect, however, that these politicians care about due process when it comes to gun rights, but apparently not when it comes to, say, closing Gitmo or penalizing the CIA for unconstitutional actions.

I suspect this may be a case of a wrong clock being right twice a day.

Click to expand...

Guantanamo detainees are not US citizens, but actual prisoners of war. Under international law they have no US rights.

For that matter, since they were out of uniform, they have no rights under international law either and could have been shot on the battlefield as spies.

According to the director of National Intelligence, of the 647 detainees released, 116 were confirmed to have reengaged in terror. That's almost 1/5th, but that number may be higher since confirming what these people do is not exactly easy.

What would you have us do, release them at the Mexican border and grant them US citizenship? Maybe we could just send them to one of our sanctuary cites?

Yes, it would be wonderful if we could prosecute those in the CIA that break the law, but we can't even seem to bring to justice those in the IRS for abusing their power or those in the Justice Department responsible for Fast and Furious, or Benghazi, or you name it. It would seem that justice is not exactly equal when it comes to some government institutions, but that's politics and it crosses both sides of the aisle.

_TOG_ said:

Remember, it's all about emotions.

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the concept of unintentional irony?

_TOG_ said:

Let's compare the USA to civilized Europe. The order of the most mass shootings over the last six years goes like this: Norway, Macedonia, Serbia, Slovakia, Finland, Belgium, Czech Republic, and now the USA (yes, we rank 8th).

Lastly, the idea that the NIC (National Instant Check) system run by the FBI works is another bogus claim. The claim that 1.5 million people have been denied may be true, but the actual number of prosecutions for an unauthorized person trying to buy a weapon is 0.055% or 44 people out of 80,000 submitted in 2012.

I've seen lawful active police officers denied. Obviously, the system is far from perfect. In fact it is quite imperfect, but if it makes people feel safer, what the hell. Remember, it's all about emotions.

Click to expand...

Hi, _TOG_, Welcome to P&CE.

One of the things here we ask for from everybody is that they provide citations to support the claims that they make. Not saying you're wrong, but I'm looking for more proof other than you saying it. Can you find some citations for those stats?

_TOG_ said:

Third, I don't want mentally ill people owning firearms (or guns, which technically are large weapons installed on battle ships and tanks), but who determines who is mentally ill? What is the recourse for those unfairly judged so or would you just assume there be none, just so we could be safe? That would be an infringement on the rights of citizens, but what the hell.

Click to expand...

Again, what is it about "mentally ill" that makes them so dangerous, as a group, that is. Do you have any idea what kinds of mental illnesses are out there, the varying degrees of mental illness, the percentage of the mentally ill who are victims versus perpetrators? But they're a convenient group to target so politicians can say "Hey, see - we ARE doing something. We're penalizing and stigmatizing a whole ton of folks who are already heavily penalized and stigmatized so it doesn't matter if we pile on some more, right? I mean, they're crazy, so who cares?".

Haggis said:

Hi, _TOG_, Welcome to P&CE.

One of the things here we ask for from everybody is that they provide citations to support the claims that they make. Not saying you're wrong, but I'm looking for more proof other than you saying it. Can you find some citations for those stats?

Click to expand...

That source was from former Professor John Lott from University of Chicago and from Yale.

_TOG_ said:

That source was from former Professor John Lott from University of Chicago and from Yale.

Click to expand...

Do you have a link to an article or anything? Like Haggis said, not saying you're wrong, but that's the way we like to do it around here.

_TOG_ said:

That source was from former Professor John Lott from University of Chicago and from Yale.

Click to expand...

Since you are reluctant to provide a link, allow me: http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/co...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Apparently, according to that page, Australia has mass public shootings at a rate three times higher than the U.S.

Small countries such as Norway, Israel and Australia may have only one major attack each, one-fourth of what the U.S. has suffered, but the US population is vastly greater. If they suffered attacks at a rate adjusted for their population, Norway, Israel and Australia would have had attacks that were respectively 16, 11, and 3 times greater than the US.

Click to expand...

Of course, to get the single incident in their category of worst mass public shootings, they had to go back to the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. Which, as many of you will know, was the mass shooting that prompted the strengthening of gun ownership laws in Australia.

I'm sure those stats and the conclusions drawn from them are all totes legit.

In Germany, you are checked more thoroughly before adopting a dog. But whip out your driver's license and speak coherently, and congrats to your new M16?

Helix said:

Since you are reluctant to provide a link, allow me: http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/co...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Apparently, according to that page, Australia has mass public shootings at a rate three times higher than the U.S.



Of course, to get the single incident in their category of worst mass public shootings, they had to go back to the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. Which, as many of you will know, was the mass shooting that prompted the strengthening of gun ownership laws in Australia.

I'm sure those stats and the conclusions drawn from them are all totes legit.

Click to expand...

Not reluctant, my computer went down, but thanks for posting that link.

Note in that link that US homicide rates are not good,

However, the reasons for that are more sociological and much of that has to do with gang and drug related crime, sadly.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF

robjvargas said:

Define "these politicians." Because Gitmo is still open and, if anything (as I pointed out in another thread) both sides of the political aisle are supporting INCREASED surveillance authority and autonomy for CIA, et al.

Click to expand...

Oh, I fully blame both Republicans and Democrats for this. I do think, though, that Republicans are a bit worse at puffing out their chests and making unrealistic statements about what we need to do to fight the terrorists.

_TOG_ said:

What would you have us do, release them at the Mexican border and grant them US citizenship? Maybe we could just send them to one of our sanctuary cites?

Click to expand...

I would settle on releasing people back to their home countries, especially those who are cleared for release.

shadowwalker said:

Again, what is it about "mentally ill" that makes them so dangerous, as a group, that is. Do you have any idea what kinds of mental illnesses are out there, the varying degrees of mental illness, the percentage of the mentally ill who are victims versus perpetrators? But they're a convenient group to target so politicians can say "Hey, see - we ARE doing something. We're penalizing and stigmatizing a whole ton of folks who are already heavily penalized and stigmatized so it doesn't matter if we pile on some more, right? I mean, they're crazy, so who cares?".

Click to expand...

I agree. I think banning mentally ill people from owning guns is an overly-extreme band-aid solution to a real problem. We have a real problem of lack of mental health, and a problem of dangerous individuals falling through the cracks and not being recognized as posing a threat.

But it bothers me that in some states, any involuntary commitment can bar someone from buying guns. Not all mentally ill people are dangerous, and not everyone who is placed under a 72-hour hold is a threat to others. They may not even be mentally ill.

I also think that there's already so much stigma surrounding mental health and psychiatric hospitalization that we need to be really careful about discouraging people from getting help, or making them feel like they're being punished if they wind up being hospitalized. I think discouraging people from seeking help creates a much bigger threat than letting people who have a history of mental illness buy guns.

_TOG_ said:

Note in that link that US homicide rates are not good,

However, the reasons for that are more sociological and much of that has to do with gang and drug related crime, sadly.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF

Click to expand...

Yes, you mentioned cherry-picking facts.

DancingMaenid said:

Oh, I fully blame both Republicans and Democrats for this. I do think, though, that Republicans are a bit worse at puffing out their chests and making unrealistic statements about what we need to do to fight the terrorists.

Click to expand...

A bit? That's sufficient to ONLY call out Republicans?

Pulling party politics into a systemic issue is a guaranteed way to not resolve it.

robjvargas said:

A bit? That's sufficient to ONLY call out Republicans?

Pulling party politics into a systemic issue is a guaranteed way to not resolve it.

Click to expand...

Who said I'm only calling out Republicans?

I just think in this instance, some of these Republicans may be supporting a good position for the wrong reasons.

It's easy to end up on a no fly list.

That list, which contained 47,000 names at the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, has grown to nearly 700,000 people on President Obama’s watch. The fact that they are names, not identities, has led to misidentifications and confusion, ensnaring many innocent people. But surely those names are there for good reason, right?

Not really. According to the technology website TechDirt.com, 40 percent of those on the FBI’s watch list — 280,000 people — are considered to have no affiliation with recognized terrorist groups. All it takes is for the government to declare is has “reasonable suspicion” that someone could be a terrorist. There is no hard evidence required, and the standard is notoriously vague and elastic. So who ends up on the list who shouldn't and why? Take for example Weekly Standard Senior Writer and Fox News Contributor Steve Hayes, who was put on the no-fly list after a cruise.

Click to expand...

See Ted Kennedy.

Friday, August 20, 2004; Page A01

U.S. Sen. Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy said yesterday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government's secret "no-fly" list.
Federal air security officials said the initial error that led to scrutiny of the Massachusetts Democrat should not have happened even though they recognize that the no-fly list is imperfect. But privately they acknowledged being embarrassed that it took the senator and his staff more than three weeks to get his name removed.

Click to expand...