doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com The GOP makes it easier for ISIS to kill Americans

Being placed on the secret list without notice does not violate our constitutional rights. Using it to actually to deny constitutional rights without due process is. If we can deny gun purchases, then why not freedom of speech?

If the second amendment, why not freedom of religion.

Now I understand a number of "democrat-progressive" positions are that bad thinking people should not have rights, i.e. Freedom of speech for climate change deniers, religion for persons not wanting to participate in birth control and abortion schemes, and the right to purchase by star chamber listings.

Now the reality is the FBI and other Federal Agencies are blowing it. They have had missed opportunities in a number of major US terror incidents and failed.

If they were simply asking for an automatic notice to be generated to law enforcement when someone on the watch list was seeking to buy I would have no problem.

If they would just enforce the law by chasing down felons attempting to buy guns under the current laws I would have no problem. Note the number of persons who fail background checks after lieing on the form versus the percentage prosecuted of less than 1%.

Or maybe if they care about the number of murders and DUI deaths in America that they could prevent or cut significantly by enforcing immigrantion law as written. They could cut those dearhs by 19% if they only got half of the illegals. I would have fewer problems.

The reality is this administration is doing it with smoke and mirrors and not getting the tough stuff even attempted. They regularly lie, they cannot be trusted, and it makes me sick to believe that.

The watch list, gun purchasing debate is smoke screen bull.

You cannot tell me the actual criteria for inclusion or removal can you?

Part of what they are trying to push is a removal of rights some years after removal, that's right, if they erroneously put you on it you get a five year time out from your rights?

They think all of us are idiots, maybe the movers and shakers of the progressive left should look at our intent and understand we mean no harm and give us a pass, but then we are not fellow travelers.

Judicial scrutiny by a liberal supreme court. These are the same guys who just ruled its ok to have race as a factor, so much for a colorblind goaled society, not to mention unlike the last ruling some years ago put no clock on how long diversity is a legitimate goal to discriminate for.

If the progressive are able to pack the Supreme Court then your position is likely voided, forget what the bill of rights use to mean

A couple of "lists" are being confused here, I believe. Somewhere, I'm on one. I'm sure it's not the no fly list, and I don't think it's the terrorist watch list. But every year when I return from Scotland (with a shotgun), I get pulled aside by Customs and Immigration for additional screening. Asked them why; they said because of my very common name. However, last year two different agents noted (apparently they keep track) that I'd been through the additional screening thing several times and they were going to remove me. I thanked them. We'll see if that actually happens this year.

Re the FBI and their contact with Mateen: The same thing happened with the older Tsarnaev brother (Boston Marathon bombing). In both cases, checked out and cleared by the Bureau. I've had people say "But if they're suspicious, shouldn't they continue to watch them?" At which point I ask them just how large they would like the FBI to become. Interesting that supposed supporters of smaller govt and less govt interference would adopt a view of "once on the FBI's radar screen, always on it". Of course they say that AFTER the individual in question commits a crime. "How come the FBI missed them?" Well . . . what if there was nothing to miss? Tsarnaev was interviewed and cleared something like 2 years before the marathon bombing; Mateen also some time ago. How long does it take for someone to watch ISIS videos or listen to a radical imam and decide to join the jihad? If you look at cases of terrorist attacks, not all that long. But if you want the FBI to look like the old Soviet KGB, then I agree: Let's keep watching them even after they're cleared. If "watching" involves physical surveillance, the number of people involved gets pretty large pretty darned quickly.

Larry you are correct that there are several different list and the in-discriminant use of the terms by both Politicians and Media muddy the issues.

That said all are lists based on criteria which is essentially secret and always evolving. The failure of the federal government to effectively manage these lists leaves much in doubt.

Regardless, Suspicion may or may not be properly founded. In the case of US citizens in this country, rights are not automatically voided by suspicion. If we want to create automatic notification of law enforcement I have no issue. If we want to deny rights then I have an issue.

I know, those damn Founding Fathers thought of everything. Due Process and all those other checks and balances that hinder you wacky Democrats. If it wasn't for them, you people could have all the secret government 'watch list' you could think of and you could 'watch' all those 'intolerant' people who don't agree with your 'tolerant' point of view.

I wouldn't disagree with any of these thoughts, but whose 'job' is it if the tone here is don't blame me.

If what you mention is true, shouldn't the tone of leadership be how to concentrate assets, or profile. Shouldn't leadership signal to citizens that there's a difference between vague vigilance, and criminals that flourish under pc. The pres from a foreign country and the cb caucus only profiled law abiding gun owners as the cause of the sensational headlines.

How come the fbi just concluded a privilege blind investigation with a non prosecution recommendation, while at the same two press conferences, stated for the record that their own agents would not be afforded the same privilege. Do they answer to the people or logic, or do they answer to leadership in their branch of gov.

Funny stuff. Obama has already shown a willingness to weaponize the federal government against his ideological and political opponents and deprive them of their constitutional rights. The Democrat bill would enable Obama and his minions to place countless Americans on his list, deprive them of their second amendment rights, and prevent any judicial review or recourse. There is nothing surprising about this attempt, merely the continuation of 70 year attempts of implementing Soviet subversion doctrine, In this case the elimination of free gun ownership.

Why such concern now for lists and none for intrusions, secret and otherwise, of The Patriot Act? Some members said it was no big deal, all for greater national security. Rights were bowled over like tenpins. Not a boo.

Plenty of boos to the Patriot Act King, mine included!...Geo

The Patriot Act clearly has problems. I opposed it at the time, not so much about concerns about the Bush administration, but what would happen when a committed, totalitarian statist came to office and decided to use it against his political and ideological opponents. It's too powerful in the hands of zealots who are out to destroy constitutional freedom.