The terror watchlist is bogus. You dont have to go thru a court or a hearing to be put on one, and in fact you can be effectively on one if your name is just very similar to someone on it. You would have no idea you’re on it, and no real process to be taken off one.
The watchlist is just a tool and a pretty bad one. Even the Government agree it’s very inaccurate, about 35% inaccurate.
It’s a very poor idea.
The Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General has criticized the list for frequent errors and slow response to complaints. An Office of Inspector General audit found that 38% of a 105 record sample contained inaccuracies.
I can’t imagine that “no guns for anyone on a terror watch list” could withstand a court challenge. But I’d appreciate if one of our resident legal experts would weigh in.
Point noted. I am not knowledgeable in the details of the current state of various imaging technologies that might detect a specific element accurately.
This is absolutely false. Reginald Cooper, alive in 1790, could hand-crank his press and produce some broadsheets. Getting those distributed instantly to the entire country was simply impossible; his news traveled as fast as a horse and was limited by how much that horse could carry. The new media means that I can blog about something and have it go viral in an hour and be read by anyone from Fairbanks, Alaska to Fairfax, Virginia. That kind of instant reach wasn’t anticipated by George Mason and company any more than semi-auto handguns were.
In fact, given the evolution of firearms, I’d suggest that Reggie’s contemporaries could much more easily extrapolate the development of faster rates of fire in guns than they could an “Internet.”
Given that there were already efforts in the colonial era to develop breech-loading weapons and repeating weapons, why would they have trouble extrapolating success of those efforts?
Latif et al v. Holder. It’s a federal district case out of Oregon. It’s a denial of due process, since the inclusion on the terror list lacks a sufficient process for the excluded person to challenge the decision.
What constantly amazes me in these discussions is the confident tone taken by those who argue these points, combined with a huge gap in substantive knowledge of the field.
I doubt seriously that HH is aware of the evolution from matchlock, c. mid-15th century, to wheelock to flintlock to percussion cap and finally cartridge-based systems, and how these affected the rate of fire possible.
But he’s quite willing to draft laws based on that complete lack of foundational knowledge.
I don’t have a solution. I do find it amusing that the second amendment is cited in these discussions. From my perspective, the relevancy of the second amendment as written is the issue. I am highly skeptical of any political solution but am also highly frustrated that there is no ability to have a serious discussion about it.
The recent shootings in CA were cited as a reason gun laws don’t work because it was a state with some of the toughest gun laws. That just as easily is evidence that we need consistent laws to keep people from picking the jurisdiction where to purchase.
A caller to CSPAN cited the “before guns it was knives, before knives it was sticks, etc” as a reason that gun laws won’t help. That could be evidence that we need to restict guns. If someone is at my kid’s school and is going to kill as many as he can before the police arrive, I’d rather him be lugging a 50 pound boulder versus a semi-automatic rifle.
And yes, I would also favor discussion about free speech in the world of modern communication. I don’t think those things should be be changed lightly but there is a reason there is a way to change them.
The main thing is to support our troops - and the second amendment in case we need to kill them.
Project Exile had ALREADY BEEN CITED and described in this thread when you posted your question. I’m sure you haven’t seen anything that the NRA supports because you ignored it when it was posted on page 1 of the thread, probably because it doesn’t fit what you want to believe. And just a few more:
It was the NRA and not gun control groups that pushed to create NICS, the background check system everyone loves to talk about today. It’s utterly bizarre to see people talk about background checks in one breath, and to say that nothing the NRA supports falls into a definition of gun control. Gun control groups wanted a (useless) nationwide 5-day waiting period and no background checks at all. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia
Pointing out that people routinely do things like make straw purchases without being prosecuted does not mean that I make straw purchases myself, it just means that I’m attempting to bring some actual facts into this ‘common sense’ discussion. The fact that you turn ‘you pointed out a fact about how the legal system works’ into an accusation that I am a criminal says quite a lot about you.
Those of us who support better regulation of guns see weekly mass shootings as a problem, one that the rest of the developed world doesn’t seem to have. Those of you who support less or zero regulation of guns, despite your dazzling knowledge of calibers and stock/muzzle ratios, don’t seem particularly concerned about it or aware that changes might be necessary. Is that something you’re proud of?
What makes you think they haven’t? What you seem to be saying is: “The SCOTUS needs to agree with me about what the 2nd amendment means in the modern age.”
it’s just that you all sound so ridiculous bitching and ranting about things you clearly don’t understand on even the most elementary level. The fact that your ignorance could be rectified with, perhaps, an hour or two of reading highlights the pride you take in that ignorance. It appears, from my POV, that you consider your ignorance a badge of moral superiority. your post I just quoted nicely illustrates that.
Incidentally that knowledge is just about as necessary to drafting laws on gun control as it would be necessary for someone to understand the history and complexity of modern micro processors, modems and digital displays would be to draft a digital copyright law.
I’ll also add that i disagree with HH if his stance is that we should limit the number of guns a person can own. The goal of a gun control law should have responsibility as its core. A weapon that holds 100 7.62x39 rounds in a responsible and safety minded owners hands is not dangerous.
According the FBI (in the very same link you provide in #54) almost 2,000 US murders a year are due to “firearms, type not stated.” Because of that, we simply do not know the “used total” of rifle homicides.
It’s not me who is being authoritative, it’s SCOTUS. You claim you can’t exercise your first amendment rights anonymously and I cite two SCOTUS cases saying you can. Your response is, *but I really want the world to be what its’ like in my imagination!
*