Wake Up, Mr. President

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by major56, Nov 16, 2015.

Loading...
  1. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    I see. So, it is wholly unreasonable to admit women with children under 10 and individuals over 60 as refugees but we simply must allow people on the government's terror watchlist to buy firearms?

    Granted, I agree that there should be some sort of procedure to remove yourself from said watchlist (or fight being placed on it in the first place).

    But if being on the watchlist doesn't at least slightly delay you in buying firearms what, exactly, is the point of having a watchlist?

    "Yep, we watched him buy all of the guns he used to kill those people with."
     
  2. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    It's an unworthy straw man for you to suggest that one cannot both oppose government overreaching by denying refugees sanctuary and also oppose government overreaching by denying certain people's rights by bureaucratic fiat.

    So yes, if it's one's right be keep and bear arms, then simply being on a "watch list" should be no impediment whatsoever. If such a person has committed a crime, indict him for it. If not, well, he's innocent until proven guilty.

    Or, more bluntly, government-by-dictate is exactly what these refugees are fleeing. It makes no sense to respond by going further down the path of instituting one.
     
  3. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    33,000 people killed annually by firearms. Almost all of them by Americans. Pogo was right.
     
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Did I say that? No, I don't believe that I did.

    The "watch list" as it's currently constituted is beyond a joke. As Steve mentioned, Ted Kennedy was on the list, and while I was never a fan of his, he certainly was never a threat to blow up a plane or hose-down the food court of a shopping mall with an AK-47.
     
  5. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Of which 21,000 are suicides. If someone wants to kill themselves, lack of a firearm isn't even a speedbump, trust me.

    According to the Centers for Disease Control, you have a much better chance of dying by a fall, from a car crash, or by unintentional poisoning than you do by being killed by someone with a firearm. Even those numbers include criminals lawfully killed by police & armed citizens, since all deaths caused by another are homicides, but not all homicides are murders.

    FastStats - Leading Causes of Death
     
  6. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    This entire thread is ridiculous. You all know that, right?

    ---

    Eh, so I decided to edit this post and add something a little more substantial than that. Call me ridiculous, too, if you want.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html

    Now, here are some questions in my mind. I've read/heard/seen interviews with people who claim they did not know they were on the watch list and had a heck of a time getting off of it (if they were even successful). Are they supposed to know they are on the list? Are they supposed to not know?

    If I knew I was on such a list, I would be afraid to buy a gun (legally) or board a flight, since that would raise suspicion towards me (justifiably or not). If I didn't know I was on the list, I would find out I was on the list if I was banned from a certain purchase or activity.

    So... yeah. Is there any way that such a list could be anything but ambiguous? Is there any way such a list would not be an abject bureaucratic nightmare? Does the list serve so much more good than harm that we should just accept that c'est la vie and let the feds be feds?

    http://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/61052962.jpg
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2015

Share This Page