The no-fly and terrorist watch lists are full of garbage data and should be abandoned.

[Bone]

@Ravenman

I will eat my hat if the primary motivation to avoid stricter laws dealing with mental illness and guns is that we should take a more sophisticated view of mental illness. It is quite obviously, for the most part, that if there are increased barriers relating to the mentally ill, then we’ve entered the slippery slope upon which gun grabbers will soon be kicking down doors and stealing everyone’s guns.

I think it can and is both of these things, and possibly more. One of the reasons why reporting isn’t mandatory in some states is to protect patient privacy, and explicitly to avoid actions that would cause people to not seek treatment. Simultaneously, there is a concern that increasing restrictions of any kind is not strategically sound.

Personally I think both of these reasons can be overcome if done deftly. Attempts thus far have been poor. I would love it if opposing folks could get together and understand legit concerns and work in areas there are common ground. From what I see of folks pushing more gun control they are more interested in calling the NRA terrorists and doing a blood dance every time there is a tragedy (somewhat hyperbole). It doesn’t motivate interest in compromise.

[Nava]

@up_the_junction

That’s a shame, you could use basic human rights legislation.

Ibn Warraq does?

[DrCube]

I was denied a FOID card in Illinois because I truthfully answered that I had seen a psychiatrist in the past five years. They wouldn’t have known otherwise, and I should have lied. But fuck if I’ll see another psychiatrist again. (Funny enough, I saw a psychiatrist before joining the Army and fighting two tours in Iraq, but the Army didn’t seem to give a shit about that.)

You don’t think denying basic rights to people who seek treatment will cause a whole lot of people to forgo treatment?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@DrDeth

**There is no legal definition. No due process. **You can simply be a political activist. or sending emails to an American imam the FBI may have been monitoring. or " *priests, elderly nuns, Green Party campaign operatives, left-wing journalists, right-wing activists and people affiliated with Arab or Arab-American groups." *

A laundry list of mistakes and overreach doesn’t debunk the point.

We make mistakes putting people in prison even with due process protections in place.

Make no mistake I am 100% with you that the program is a frightening overreach of government power particularly because there is no oversight and precious little means to extricate yourself from that mess even if it is a mistake and certainly they do make mistakes.

But as it stands you get in the list if you are a suspected terrorist or supporter of terrorism. To be fair what is the definition of terrorism? Again another reason why it is imperative there is judicial oversight.

Although since the SCOTUS put the final nail in the coffin of the 4th Amendment last night perhaps judicial oversight is overrated. Still, there should be at least some recourse to prevent on part of government from overreach.

[John_Mace]

@Whack-a-Mole

But as it stands you get in the list if you are a suspected terrorist or supporter of terrorism…

Got an objective cite for that?

[running_coach]

@Whack-a-Mole

A laundry list of mistakes and overreach doesn’t debunk the point.

We make mistakes putting people in prison even with due process protections in place.

Make no mistake I am 100% with you that the program is a frightening overreach of government power particularly because there is no oversight and precious little means to extricate yourself from that mess even if it is a mistake and certainly they do make mistakes.

But as it stands you get in the list if you are a suspected terrorist or supporter of terrorism. To be fair what is the definition of terrorism? Again another reason why it is imperative there is judicial oversight.

Although since the SCOTUS put the final nail in the coffin of the 4th Amendment last night perhaps judicial oversight is overrated. Still, there should be at least some recourse to prevent on part of government from overreach.

You can have the same name as someone on the list or even similar and be denied.
*There is no further identifying info beyond the name.
*

[John_Mace]

@Ravenman

Come on, this is a question of general principle. Do you think John Doe, who has a long history of schizophrenia, ought to be able to walk into a gun shop and walk out with a gun the same day? I’m saying such a person should undergo some kind of heightened scrutiny. I understand you’re asking for more data, but if I asked you answer question of general principle – such as whether a starving person should go to jail for stealing bread – I don’t think “I need to think about what kind of bread it is, or else I need a precise definition of starving” is a responsive answer.

Did you read past the first sentence? I said: “In theory, I think such a law could be crafted, but I wouldn’t bet my life on it.” But really, neither you nor I are medical doctors and I sure don’t know enough about “schizophrenia” to know whether everyone who suffers from it should be denied a right that the rest of us have. Maybe we can get one of our resident MDs to weigh in on the matter…?

[Ravenman]

@John_Mace

Did you read past the first sentence? I said: “In theory, I think such a law could be crafted, but I wouldn’t bet my life on it.”

I read that as being a technical matter of such a law being written, as opposed to you saying that you’d support such a law. I guess a simple misunderstanding.