RE: Vetting and guns. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


thishereboi -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/22/2015 4:55:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

So, hey guys, back to the topic, how come people on the no fly list can buy guns freely
...?

Because that information isn't put in to the background check system.
Most likely because you need a conviction.
Of course far to often information that is supposed to be there isn't, case in point Charleston. If the proper information had been in the system he couldn't have gotten the gun.


Perhaps instead of focusing so much on new laws, they should look into enforcing the ones already on the books.




Lucylastic -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/22/2015 5:53:21 AM)

It is on the books already




Lucylastic -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/22/2015 7:48:42 AM)

WASHINGTON (AP) — People on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list often can't board commercial airliners, but they can walk into a gun store and legally buy pistols and powerful military-style rifles.

Sensing a political opening from last week's Paris attacks, Democrats are renewing calls for Congress to pass legislation aimed at preventing terrorists from buying guns. Similar bills — including a post-9/11 measure backed by the Justice Department under Republican President George W. Bush — have been stymied for years, thanks in large part to opposition from gun-rights groups and congressional Republicans.

According to a March analysis by the Government Accountability Office, people on the FBI's consolidated Terrorist Watchlist successfully passed the background check required to purchase firearms more than 90 percent of the time, with more than 2,043 approvals between 2004 and 2014. The office is an investigative branch of Congress.

The FBI is notified when a background check for the purchase of firearms or explosives generates a match with the watch list, and agents often use that information to step up surveillance on terror suspects. Under current federal law, however, association with a terrorist organization doesn't prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives.

About 420,000 people are on the list administered by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, though only about 2 percent of those are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents legally able to buy guns.

The new Democratic push, which is considered unlikely to succeed in the GOP-controlled Congress, is focused on legislation by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would let the attorney general compile a list of known and suspected terrorists.

Federally licensed gun dealers would be barred from selling firearms to them, just as they are already prohibited from sales to people with felony convictions or serious mental illnesses. The proposed legislation would not prevent transactions that don't involve licensed dealers, such as those between private individuals at gun shows or many sales online, which don't currently involve background checks.

Feinstein introduced her bill in February, well before the mass killings in Paris injected new life into terrorism and public safety as top-tier political issues. The Islamic State group has claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Feinstein's bill echoes legislation that the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., proposed repeatedly over the last decade. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has also long pushed the same legislation to no avail.

Republicans took advantage of voters' newly aroused security concerns this week, when they easily pushed legislation through the House preventing Syrian and Iraqi refugees from entering the U.S. until the administration tightens restrictions on their entry.

That issue put Democrats on the defensive. Forty-seven of them voted for the bill, ignoring a veto threat by President Barack Obama, who said the current screening system is already strong and accused Republicans of fanning fear among worried voters.

Democrats are hoping to turn the political tables on Republicans by focusing the debate instead on terrorists' access to guns.

"I think this is a no-brainer," said Feinstein, a longtime gun control supporter. "If you're too dangerous to board a plane, you're too dangerous to buy a gun."

Congress has yet to vote on Feinstein's proposal or on nearly identical ones that have been introduced for years. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has not said whether he would be open to allowing a vote.

The GOP-run House has not held any votes on major gun control measures since the killings of 26 children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., did not respond directly when asked Thursday if he favored barring people on the watch list from buying guns, saying, "We are just beginning this process of reassessing all of our security stances."

The National Rifle Association signaled this week it will oppose Feinstein's bill, as it did those before it.

NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker pointed to past instances where innocent people were added to the watch list either in error or as the result of tenuous ties to others involved in suspicious activities. She stressed that the NRA doesn't oppose denying terrorists firearms, but said the group wants to ensure that Americans who are wrongly on the list are afforded their constitutional right to due process.

"It is appalling that anti-gun politicians are exploiting the Paris terrorist attacks to push their gun-control agenda and distract from President Obama's failed foreign policy," Baker said.

Under current law, people can try persuading the Justice Department to remove their names from a terror list or can file lawsuits challenging their inclusion.




MercTech -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/22/2015 8:15:09 AM)

quote:


WASHINGTON (AP) — People on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list often can't board commercial airliners, but they can walk into a gun store and legally buy pistols and powerful military-style rifles.


A bit of glaring omission from the article.
A. Is the person on the terrorist watch list a citizen of the United States? If not, they are barred from purchasing a firearm.
B. Is the person on the terrorist watch list a convicted criminal or is there a warrant out for them? If not, they are allowed to purchase a firearm. Just being on a watch list is not a disqualifying condition.

Being on a list of people that MIGHT commit a crime is not reason to abridge a person's rights. The last time I looked there was this pesky custom of "due process".

I actually know someone who was on the watch list. He owns a limousine service in Florida and often has customers with less than savory business to conduct. My friend isn't bent but some of his customers would make a corkscrew look like a nail.

Being included in a list is not a reason to take away liberty in the U.S.




Lucylastic -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/22/2015 8:19:15 AM)


try reading the OP
nobody wanted to deal with it honestly and it was hijacked as usual.
Im trying to get back to the topic.





lovmuffin -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/22/2015 9:51:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

I believe firearms under the 2nd apply to "A well regulated militia..."


Yeah right, and Santa Clause is going to come down your chimney on Christmas eve to shit candy and nuts all over your living room.

I recently formed my own militia.
It currently has 4 members.
One is on temporary medical disability (heart surgery) we have regular meetings were we study strategy and tactics, for the uninformed they are not the same.


That's all fine but the problem is that it implies buying into the joether militia clause theory. Back in 1990 I joined a militia group for that same reason just to say hey, I'm in a militia so I qualify to own a so called assault weapon with high cap mags and all the rest of it.


The questiona I have for you then is this...

As part of the militia, would you have obeyed the orders given to you by a civilian government? Be it the local town/county you were located in? All the way up to the Governor or even US President? Would you follow an order directing your group to help with sand bagging operations due to a massive flood? Or help law enforcement evacuate people ahead of a forest fire? Would you follow orders given by a liberal whom was in any of those positions of civil government?

I'm asking very seriously too. Because the defining quality of a militia from a fake militia, is 'yes', they would follow orders from a civilian government. If society needed sand baggers to stop a flood; your group would step up without hesitation. And if the Governor was liberal, they would still follow the orders (except in the case of surrendering their arms*). The fake militias would 'do their own thing' regardless of civilian authority in the area. These groups, 'back in the day' were considered 'thugs with guns' (or highwayman if you want).

*: This is actual 18th century understanding of the fourth part in the 2nd amendment, "...Shall Not be Infringed.". It allowed a militia, upon receiving an order to surrender arms to take a vote. If they decided not to, they would not be considered 'enemies of the state' by which other militias could be called to de-arm them. A bit of US History that has been unfortunately lost due to politics.




It really doesn't matter how many ways or how many times you try to explain it and how much of a bombardment of text you use to do it with, your whole interpretation of the militia clause is flat out wrong. It's as if you're making it all up in your head. It's been proven to you over and over time and time again that the right to bear arms does not require participation or a membership in a militia organization. It is in fact an individual right. I'm not going to prove it to you again.




lovmuffin -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/22/2015 10:08:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


An assault weapon could be firearm that looks cosmetically like an assault rifle. And an assault weapon could actually be an assault rifle. Context is always important. And on this forum, I've caught gun nuts interchanging assault weapons with assault rifles. So everyone is to blame for that.



"Assault weapon" technically speaking, is not a category of firearms. The term was originally use by manufacturers and importers to advertise their *non military* firearms as being particularity bad ass. After that school yard shooting in 1989 and the lefties started focusing on semi automatics and military looking firearms, gun sellers stopped using the term and the lefties started exploiting it. None of the "gun nuts" on this forum have interchanged the term with assault rifles that I'm aware of. The term "assault rifle" refers to a specific category of firearms generally not available to the civilian market and also is a term that is misused when referring to many semi automatic rifles such as the AR 15.


So no, not everybody is to blame for that. Gun manufacturers and lefties are.




kdsub -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/22/2015 11:26:57 AM)

Yes and it is perfectly clear to me.

Butch




kdsub -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/22/2015 12:03:20 PM)

quote:

caprisious nature of what it takes to be on the list


Then why have the list?... Bama why not, meaning the NRA, just support the very few mislabeled that will be denied. Would you not say the vast majority of those on this list are there for good reason? Why put American lives at risk for the slight chance that someone may be denied a weapon? Why not just support that individual in his appeal. Would this not be the responsible way to do it?

Butch




ifmaz -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/22/2015 2:14:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Yes and it is perfectly clear to me.

Butch


I'm reasonably certain you would deny any Muslim residing in the US their constitutional rights so you'll excuse me if I take your words with a grain of salt.




BamaD -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/22/2015 5:13:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

caprisious nature of what it takes to be on the list


Then why have the list?... Bama why not, meaning the NRA, just support the very few mislabeled that will be denied. Would you not say the vast majority of those on this list are there for good reason? Why put American lives at risk for the slight chance that someone may be denied a weapon? Why not just support that individual in his appeal. Would this not be the responsible way to do it?

Butch

A better question is why not make the list better before we inflict it on anyone else.
Standardize what it takes to get on the list.
Properly identify the people who are supposed to be on the list, just using names is stupid. Identify the people on it better, then we can talk. It is hard to say who is on it reasonably due to the haphazard way it is put together. But hey, the list makes it look like something is being done. At one point Al Gore was on the list, it took him months to get off it, because he was denied accsess to flights twice. If with his resourses and high profile it was hard what would it be like for the average citizen?




ifmaz -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/22/2015 5:38:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

WASHINGTON (AP) — People on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list often can't board commercial airliners, but they can walk into a gun store and legally buy pistols and powerful military-style rifles.
...


How does one get on this 'terrorist watch list'?

quote:


1. You could raise "reasonable suspicion" that you're involved in terrorism. "Irrefutable evidence or concrete facts" are not required.

This guidance addresses how to place people in the broader Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), of which the no-fly list and the selectee lists -- which cover those selected for enhanced screenings before boarding flights -- are both subsections.

In determining whether a suspicion about you is "reasonable," a "nominator" must "rely upon articulable intelligence or information which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts," can link you to possible terrorism. As Scahill and Devereaux noted, words like "reasonable," "articulable" and "rational" are not expressly defined. While the document outlines the need for an "objective factual basis," the next section clarifies that "irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary" to make a final determination as to whether a suspicion is "reasonable." So how could intelligence officials be led to put you on the watch list?

2. You could post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises "reasonable suspicion."

According to the document, "postings on social media sites ... should not be discounted merely because of the manner in which it was received." Instead, those investigating the individual should "evaluate the credibility of the source" and, if they judge the content to pose a "reasonable suspicion" of a link to terrorism, nominate the person to the watch list, even if that source is "uncorroborated." If this sounds disturbing, don't worry: There's a sentence that explicitly prohibits listing an individual "for engaging solely in constitutionally protected activities." So as long as your free speech isn't accompanied by any other "suspicious" behavior, you should be fine, maybe.

3. Or somebody else could just think you're a potential terror threat.

The guidelines also consider the use of "walk-in" or "write-in" information about potential candidates for the watch list. Nominators are encouraged not to dismiss such tips and, after evaluating "the credibility of the source," could opt to nominate you to the watch list.

4. You could be a little terrorist-ish, at least according to someone.

The document explains that you could be put on a suspected-terrorist watch list if you are determined to be a "representative" of a terrorist group, even if you have "neither membership in nor association with the organization." Individuals accused of being involved with a terrorist organization, but who later are acquitted in a court of law or saw their charges dropped, are still potential nominees for watch-listing, so long as "reasonable suspicion" is established.

5. Or you could just know someone terrorist-y, maybe.

Scahill and Devereaux reported that the immediate family of a suspected terrorist -- including spouse, children, parents and siblings -- may be added to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), a broad terror database that feeds into the TSDB, "without any suspicion that they themselves are engaged in terrorist activity." According to the document, "associates or affiliates" of known or suspected terrorists, or just those somehow "linked to" them, can also be nominated to the TSDB watchlist, so long as the relationship is defined and constitutes a "reasonable suspicion" of a connection to terrorist activity. The document states that "individuals who merely 'may be' members, associates or affiliates of a terrorist organization" may not be put into the latter database, unless that suspicion can be backed by "derogatory information."

But there's also a more nebulous connection that could prompt your placement in the TIDE database. The document specifically provides for nominating "individuals with a possible nexus to terrorism ... but for whom additional derogatory information is needed to meet the reasonable suspicion standard."

6. And if you're in a "category" of people determined to be a threat, your threat status could be "upgraded" at the snap of a finger.

The watch-list guidelines explain a process by which the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism can move an entire "category of individuals" to an elevated threat status. It's unclear exactly how these categories are defined, but according to the document, there must be "current and credible intelligence information" suggesting that the group is a particular threat to conduct a terrorist act. Such determinations can be implemented and remain in place for up to 72 hours before a committee convenes to decide whether the watch-list upgrade should be extended.

7. Finally, you could just be unlucky.

The process of adding people to the terror watch lists is as imperfect as the intelligence officials tasked with doing so. There have been reports of "false positives," or instances in which an innocent passenger has been subject to treatment under a no-fly or selectee list because his or her name was similar to that of another individual. In one highly publicized incident in 2005, a 4-year-old boy was nearly barred from boarding a plane to visit his grandmother.

The watch-list guidance was supposedly revised in part to prevent incidents like these, but with more than 1.5 million people added to the lists in the last five years, mistakes are always inevitable. Just ask Rahinah Ibrahim, a Stanford University student who ended up on a no-fly list in 2004 after an FBI agent accidentally checked the wrong box on a form.

But then if you were to be mistakenly added to a list, you probably wouldn't know -- unless it stopped you from flying. The government has been extremely secretive about the names on the various watch lists. If you were to learn that you were wrongly placed on a watch list, good luck getting off it. As Scahill and Devereaux reported, you can file a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, which begins a review "that is not subject to oversight by any court or entity outside the counterterrorism community."

And if you were to get your name removed from the watch list, the intelligence agencies aren't even obligated to inform you of your updated status. Helpful.

The secretive nature of the terror watch lists has come under court scrutiny recently. A federal judge ruled in June that the government must develop a new process under which individuals can challenge their inclusion on the no-fly list. The judge found the current process "wholly ineffective."


The Huffington Post wrote this article.




ifmaz -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/22/2015 8:55:28 PM)

Here's some more info on this 'terrorist list':

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/terrorist-watch-list-database_n_1936515.html
...
The system is called TIDE, which stands for Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, and includes more than 500,000 names. According to the National Counterterrorism Center, which maintains TIDE, it's supposed to contain "all information the U.S. government possesses related to the identities of individuals known or appropriately suspected to be or have been involved in activities constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, with the exception of purely domestic terrorism information."
...
Yet, even after the system was supposed to have been improved so that it no longer tripped up people such as the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the TIDE system still includes apparently ridiculous entries.
...
“Would you buy a Ford?” the Senior Reports Officer asked. “Ford Motor Company has a TIDE record.”
...
Civil liberties advocates, though, said the report highlights flaws of a paranoid, kitchen-sink approach to an anti-terror effort that swoops even infants into its nets, while making if harder to spot real threats -- such as the Christmas Day underwear bomb plotter Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who had a record in TIDE but still boarded a plane to the United States in 2009.
...
"When you create a database that people no longer have confidence in, they're going to start ignoring its hits. The fact that there is a hit is no longer of relevance," said Michael German, the senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union.
...


Haven't we all suspected Ford was full of terrorists?

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2015/11/18/did-terrorists-have-a-91-success-rate-with-buying-guns-in-america/
...
This does not mean that 1,119 terrorists found a loophole so they could openly buy guns and/or explosives in America. The “Terrorist Watch List,” like the “No-Fly List” and other secret government black lists, includes the names of suspects, relatives of suspects, friends of suspects, former college roommates of suspects, and more. No doubt these inclusions are useful for FBI agents and other officials as they search for terrorists and their accomplices, but they are not vetted lists of bad guys.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration has attempted to add these government black lists to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) before. In the spring of 2010, for example, former Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama’s adviser Rahm Emanuel (now the mayor of Chicago) wanted NICS to reject people whose names appear on the secret FBI watch lists.

The problem with this unconstitutional idea is that you can find yourself on one of these lists by having the same name as a suspected criminal or terrorist or by simply traveling to Turkey, and if you are on a list, you may not be able to determine which one you are on, much less get yourself removed. Basically, such a power would give the federal government the ability to make secret lists that could be used to take away a constitutionally protected right from anyone it chose—even the late Senator Ted Kennedy once ended up on a “no-fly list” for reasons that were never made public.
...


quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/nelson-mandela-terrorist_n_4394392.html
...
Former South African President Nelson Mandela passed away Thursday evening at the age of 95. While he was revered by politicians today as a human rights icon, Mandela remained on the U.S. terrorism watch list until 2008, when then-President George W. Bush signed a bill removing Mandela from it.

Then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the restrictions a "rather embarrassing matter that I still have to waive in my own counterpart, the foreign minister of South Africa, not to mention the great leader Nelson Mandela."
...





Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875