Homeland security

[henschman]

It seems like any skilled politician would be able to spin this to his or her advantage by merely pointing out WHY it's a bad idea, but acknowledging a need to keep guns away from those suspected of terrorist intentions and then using this moment to fix a bigger flaw in our system.

Do you think being suspected of terrorist intentions by a government agency should be grounds for terminating one's "right" to bear arms? Is it really a right if it can be terminated on mere suspicion? The DHS has made it clear that they have a very broad view of what constitutes terrorist intentions. Remember the leaked MIAC report? It gave us a look into how these people think. If you have a point at which you'd be willing to resist the government with force of arms, i.e. if you believe in the rationale behind the Second Amendment (if you're an "insurrectionist," as they put it), it's perfectly conceivable that you could wind up on that list. Lots of the **** I say on this forum could probably get me on the list. Lots of us joke about how if you're not on some government list, you're not doing it right. Now we have people seriously suggesting that people on such a list should be stripped of rights. It is more than a little concerning.

 

[TerryMiller]

Do you think being suspected of terrorist intentions by a government agency should be grounds for terminating one's "right" to bear arms? Is it really a right if it can be terminated on mere suspicion? The DHS has made it clear that they have a very broad view of what constitutes terrorist intentions. Remember the leaked MIAC report? It gave us a look into how these people think. If you have a point at which you'd be willing to resist the government with force of arms, i.e. if you believe in the rationale behind the Second Amendment (if you're an "insurrectionist," as they put it), it's perfectly conceivable that you could wind up on that list. Lots of the **** I say on this forum could probably get me on the list. Lots of us joke about how if you're not on some government list, you're not doing it right. Now we have people seriously suggesting that people on such a list should be stripped of rights. It is more than a little concerning.

I like your thinking there.

In addition, there was a discussion on TV yesterday of commentators on the news media that inadvertently ended up on a No-Fly list, and the were good, law abiding citizens. Look at all the incidents of folks making a fuss on an airline flight and being ejected or arrested after said incident. Will they now be on the No-Fly list?

As for Homeland Security, it was noted yesterday on the news that the issues of the Secret Service's lack of keeping intruders out of the White House has increased considerably since the agency was put under Homeland Security. I thought it used to be a part of the Treasury Department.

 

[Dave70968]

Due process what?

 

[Larry Morgan]

I try not to let my thoughts run away from me, but these types of ideas do scare me quite a bit. Simply because they are advocating denying someone a legal right without proving they have or will have ever done something illegal.. Somebody, somewhere decides for some reason you are even remotely some kind of threat. Bam. No thanks..

 

[donner]

Do you think being suspected of terrorist intentions by a government agency should be grounds for terminating one's "right" to bear arms? Is it really a right if it can be terminated on mere suspicion? The DHS has made it clear that they have a very broad view of what constitutes terrorist intentions. Remember the leaked MIAC report? It gave us a look into how these people think. If you have a point at which you'd be willing to resist the government with force of arms, i.e. if you believe in the rationale behind the Second Amendment (if you're an "insurrectionist," as they put it), it's perfectly conceivable that you could wind up on that list. Lots of the **** I say on this forum could probably get me on the list. Lots of us joke about how if you're not on some government list, you're not doing it right. Now we have people seriously suggesting that people on such a list should be stripped of rights. It is more than a little concerning.

I try not to let my thoughts run away from me, but these types of ideas do scare me quite a bit. Simply because they are advocating denying someone a legal right without proving they have or will have ever done something illegal.. Somebody, somewhere decides for some reason you are even remotely some kind of threat. Bam. No thanks..

God forbid the GOP lead the charge to reform the system and stop these errors that put innocent people on the no fly list. Never mind adding protections to where a person can't easily be put on the list just for posting on an internet forum or such.

The thing about crafting a system is that you can put those checks in place. We already allow judges to limit access to fire arms for those deemed mentally unfit. Rather than ***** about what the system fails to do, the GOP should be out in front screaming for a better system that protects the rights of Americans and keeps people from ending up on the list by accident. Make the government go before a judge, heck 10 judges even. You don't want to end up on a 'list' because of your views then maybe its time to figure out how to make the government work harder at creating such lists in the first place, rather than reacting after the fact.

But no, it's easier to sit back and just say no and let a flawed system remain in place.

 

[Glocktogo]

God forbid the GOP lead the charge to reform the system and stop these errors that put innocent people on the no fly list. Never mind adding protections to where a person can't easily be put on the list just for posting on an internet forum or such.

The thing about crafting a system is that you can put those checks in place. We already allow judges to limit access to fire arms for those deemed mentally unfit. Rather than ***** about what the system fails to do, the GOP should be out in front screaming for a better system that protects the rights of Americans and keeps people from ending up on the list by accident. Make the government go before a judge, heck 10 judges even. You don't want to end up on a 'list' because of your views then maybe its time to figure out how to make the government work harder at creating such lists in the first place, rather than reacting after the fact.

But no, it's easier to sit back and just say no and let a flawed system remain in place.

The GOP is being led on this subject by RINO pols like Peter King (R) NY. He's a full blown Statist and doesn't care about your rights. So turning to the GOP on this is a non-starter.

BTW, you do realize that even if the system is overhauled, denying a constitutionally enumerated right based on a Homeland Security Watch List is essentially a "Precrime" measure? Are you sure you really want to go down that road?

The Terrorist Indices Datamart Environment (TIDE) is an aggregate of about 26 different lists. People nominated to those lists for additional scrutiny are often cross-populated to other watch lists, sometimes automatically via internal reporting protocols. There are currently about 1.2 million names on these lists. Obviously most of them never actualize in the commission of a felony crime.

People like POTUS and most of the elected officials who are throwing this idea around, don't actually have a clue how the system works. They also don't understand why it works the way it does. Doing things like putting a denial flag in NICS based on a watch list nomination, can have 2nd & 3rd order effects that are detrimental to the mission they're designed to support.

No, this is a bad ideal all around. Not to mention that I'd like for anyone to point out to me when any of these active shooters have been on a terror watch list prior to committing their attacks? Yeah... Didn't think so.

 

[dennishoddy]

So is the solution to do nothing about this? Yes, i'm very aware that these people will always get weapons and that no laws will stop them fully, but it does seem like there is room where something could be done.

So your proposing "common sense gun laws?"

Just what could be done?

 

[dennishoddy]

God forbid the GOP lead the charge to reform the system and stop these errors that put innocent people on the no fly list. Never mind adding protections to where a person can't easily be put on the list just for posting on an internet forum or such.

The thing about crafting a system is that you can put those checks in place. We already allow judges to limit access to fire arms for those deemed mentally unfit. Rather than ***** about what the system fails to do, the GOP should be out in front screaming for a better system that protects the rights of Americans and keeps people from ending up on the list by accident. Make the government go before a judge, heck 10 judges even. You don't want to end up on a 'list' because of your views then maybe its time to figure out how to make the government work harder at creating such lists in the first place, rather than reacting after the fact.

But no, it's easier to sit back and just say no and let a flawed system remain in place.

the flawed system is that judges, including the supreme court judges are appointed positions for the most part. If there is a democratic majority in office, and a judge retires/dies, that position becomes a political appointment. That's not right.

 

[RugersGR8]

According to the congressional investigation, DHS had a 95% failure rate at finding weapons on passengers.


http://freebeacon.com/national-security/72-dhs-employees-on-terrorist-watch-list/
72 DHS Employees on Terrorist Watch List
BY: Adam Kredo
December 6, 2015 4:12 pm
...“Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.) disclosed that a congressional investigation recently found that at least 72 people working at DHS also “were on the terrorist watch list.”...

 

[henschman]

God forbid the GOP lead the charge to reform the system and stop these errors that put innocent people on the no fly list. Never mind adding protections to where a person can't easily be put on the list just for posting on an internet forum or such.

The thing about crafting a system is that you can put those checks in place. We already allow judges to limit access to fire arms for those deemed mentally unfit. Rather than ***** about what the system fails to do, the GOP should be out in front screaming for a better system that protects the rights of Americans and keeps people from ending up on the list by accident. Make the government go before a judge, heck 10 judges even. You don't want to end up on a 'list' because of your views then maybe its time to figure out how to make the government work harder at creating such lists in the first place, rather than reacting after the fact.

But no, it's easier to sit back and just say no and let a flawed system remain in place.

I agree the system is flawed, but not for the same reasons as you. For one thing, it is a flaw that there are prior restraints on our liberties, like background checks being required to buy a gun in the first place -- so I'm certainly not going to support adding to them in any way.