The Goat Pen

Professor Tiger wrote:Be careful what you ask for. Conservatives might play this game too. If one group of citizens can have their constitutional rights stripped just because liberals don't like them them, then there's nothing to stop conservatives from doing the same to liberals. I can easily imagine President Trump's Attorney General Ted Cruz putting every member of Black Lives Matter, NOW, NARAL, AFL-CIO, ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN on a terrorist watch list and denying them the right to vote or practice journalism or get an abortion. Those people are dangerous, you know.

Dear Professor Tiger,

The group of citizens you described are persons deemed a threat to national security by the FBI and Homeland Security...not the Daily Kos. The Federal No Fly List was instituted by George W. Bush in December of 2001...not by George Soros. The constitutional right to purchase a gun is guaranteed except when the person in question exhibits one or more of these conditions:

• convicted of a felony, or convicted in any court of a crime punishable by a term of more than one year or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years
  
  a user of illegal drugs or an addict
  
  involuntarily committed to a mental institution
  
  an illegal alien
  
  dishonorably discharged by the armed forces
  
  renounced your U.S. citizenship
  
  subject to a restraining order for threatening a family member
  
  convicted of domestic violence

These are federal disqualifiers, most of which were added with the passage of the Brady Bill in '93. The states have their own criteria that can limit an individual's ability to purchase a firearm. Adding No Fly List inclusion to the ranks of the other federal disqualifiers - alongside drug dealers and wife beaters - seems like a no brainer. Are "individuals convicted of domestic violence" a partisan opportunity for liberals to deny God-fearing republicans a chance to buy a gun? Really? Of course not.

By the way, any of the above disqualifiers (except for the felony/incarceration period ones) can be appealed by the person being denied a purchase due to a federal firearms transfer background check.

There have been people placed on the no-fly list improperly. Getting removed takes more than an email, as well.

Some people have been misidentified as drug dealers and Section 8s, too. That's why there's an appeals process.

If there's a legit reason why you can't fly because you pose a threat to national security, then it's fair to assume that you (at least temporarily) should be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Right?

You are correct that there is some kernel of sense in there logically, but just because you can quasi-legally do one thing, it does not mean that you can automatically quasi-legally do a bunch of other things. There is not a constitutional amendment that says people have a right to board their flight, while right to bear arms is specifically indicated.

Maybe the no fly list could also be made into something like a "no-drive list" and it would pass muster, but it should take real due process to deprive someone of constitutional rights.

I'm not a fan of the list in its current form. Here is a piece from the ACLU:

https://www.aclu.org/cases/latif-et-al- ... o-fly-list

If you want guns to be highly regulated in the name of safety, IMO, the left should come out and say what they want, the repeal of the 2nd amendment. Why dont they do that? Because they fear they would come out on the wrong side of public opinion?

And along with the super-secret no fly list, you have the super secret "selectee" list with 5 times as many names. You can fly, but you get put through tons of extra "security" - and considering that security is meted by the TSA, well, you know how I feel about the TSA. It's ridiculous security theater.

And despite being from something called "The Daily Beast" the picture the author paints is on target:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -time.html

aTm wrote:If you want guns to be highly regulated in the name of safety, IMO, the left should come out and say what they want, the repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Classic slippery slope. Time tested; NRA approved.

Yeah im a real NRA gun nut. I dont care at all of guns are banned, besides being anti-regulation in general.

Banning assault rifles does nothing, no guns for no fly does nothing. So why do they not argue for real regulation of guns, esp handguns?

aTm wrote:If you want guns to be highly regulated in the name of safety, IMO, the left should come out and say what they want, the repeal of the 2nd amendment. Why dont they do that? Because they fear they would come out on the wrong side of public opinion?

Liberals seldom win with popular votes to get their way. They usually get their way through regulation and the courts.

They want to ban all guns and confiscate all 200 million of them. But thy know they would never be able to repeal the 2A. So they'll use regulatary state and petition friendly judges to render the 2A moot.

Yeah, the 2nd Amendment is really moot. Jesus...

aTm likes men in Batman underwear

hedge wrote:Yeah, the 2nd Amendment is really moot. Jesus...

Please note the future tense I used. It is not moot, yet.

CA Cop Who Mistakenly Shot DUI Suspect Will Not Be Charged http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/m ... -1.2464035

This video is too bizarre for words but I'll give it a try. Cop drives up on accident scene...car overturned, mangled body lying beside car. Cop pulls gun (?!) as driver emerges through window, cop shoots him in neck, driver falls back into car. Cop demands driver get out of car; paralyzed driver croaks "can't, you shot me." It's the rest of the story...the cops actions, the DA's findings..that are beyond all reason. You really can't believe your lying eyes on this one... (shooting is at the 1:19 mark)

I mean, rather than check on the dying woman, the cop is looking all around the ground for his brass for crissakes. He never admitted the shooting until the EMT's found the bullet hole.

And I passed Chris Christie's tour bus on I-40 a little while ago. On to Nevada!

Was the bus visibly leaning to the side Christie was sitting on?

bluetick wrote:CA Cop Who Mistakenly Shot DUI Suspect Will Not Be Charged http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/m ... -1.2464035

This video is too bizarre for words but I'll give it a try. Cop drives up on accident scene...car overturned, mangled body lying beside car. Cop pulls gun (?!) as driver emerges through window, cop shoots him in neck, driver falls back into car. Cop demands driver get out of car; paralyzed driver croaks "can't, you shot me." It's the rest of the story...the cops actions, the DA's findings..that are beyond all reason. You really can't believe your lying eyes on this one... (shooting is at the 1:19 mark)

I mean, rather than check on the dying woman, the cop is looking all around the ground for his brass for crissakes. He never admitted the shooting until the EMT's found the bullet hole.

To be fair (to Paradise), if they charge the cop, that will add another $2 million to the settlement. The driver will then be able to fight the manslaughter charge. Of course, the state will be on the hook for caring for a paraplegic in prison, which will likely cost more than settling the case.

Professor Tiger wrote:

hedge wrote:Yeah, the 2nd Amendment is really moot. Jesus...

Please note the future tense I used. It is not moot, yet.

Can you name any meaningful gun legislation passed since the Brady Bill in 1993? There's been nothing. And all that imposed was an "oppressive" five day waiting period.

The gun industry owns Congress. Absolutely owns it. And absolutely encourages every American to believe that 1) Crime is worse than ever before and 2) the only way to ensure your family's safety is to purchase guns annually

The idea that the 2nd Amendment is threatened is delusion. Guns have never been easier to get and use. As I've said, it's the only Amendment conservatives genuinely respect. You sure as shit don't give a damn for the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, or 26th.