NRA is for the 2A infringement of those on any 'terror watch list'. What? Really?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by CoRoMo, Jun 15, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Onmilo

    Onmilo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,773
    Location:
    Illinois`
    There are at least THREE RIGHTS under the Bill of that are compromised or eliminated under the vague auspices of the "TerrorWatchList"

    AND having the NRA Institute for Legislative Action release a statement saying they agree with this line of thinking is blasphemy.
    Especially since they did so after meeting with Hillary and the Liberal Democrats schill Donald Trump.
    I was around when the NRA sold out legal gun owners in '86 & 94

    I have begun a campaign to DEMAND Executive Director Chris Cox step down IMMEDIATELY From the NRA-ILA
    His services are not needed no wanted.

    Link to his statement and pay particular attention to his opinion on "TerrorWatchLists"
    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160615/nra-statement-on-terror-watchlists
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2016
  2. Ellsnjel

    Ellsnjel Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2015
    Messages:
    86
    Location:
    Florida
    As am I. We need to emphasize when the anti gunners call for "compromise" that we have been compromising for the last 80 years since the NFA. If we continue to meet in the middle, we will eventually have no second amendment at all
     
  3. yokel

    yokel Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,235
    Of course it is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    They are well aware that there is little sense in expanding background checks.

    Don't you understand that it's just part of a series forming successive stages?

    The leftists may deny it for now, but in their estimation what we actually need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament, collecting and destroying guns from their civilian populations.

    Indeed, the ultimate goal is a total ban on weapons and they only make incremental claims to disguise their real aims.

    The unfortunate truth of the matter is that our obstinate adversaries detest the Second Amendment, and detest the people who seek to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment.
     
  4. Schwing

    Schwing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    2,265
    Location:
    Layton Utah
    While a am curious to know how many ACTUAL terrorists have been stopped by the "No fly list", I would be willing to bet big that is a very small number. I would probably even be willing to give double odds that that number is 0.

    Not only is this information unavailable, but so is the criteria to end up on the list. Even more disturbing is the fact that there is no information about getting OFF of the list if you end up on it in error. There isn't even the possibility of due process.

    Unless the government can show real hard data that proves these lists are effective, they need to go away completely. Even if they can show their relevance, there needs to be far more transparency as to the rules and those rules need to be constitutional.
     
  5. popper

    popper Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    980
    NRA is quickly becoming another political adversary to gun rights. I don't belong anymore. What difference does it make if the bad guy(s) use legal or illegal guns? Does it add any time to their punishment? The deer you shoot doesn't care, why should you? Just another path to confiscation, period. Gutless politicians.
     
  6. morcey2

    morcey2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,240
    Location:
    Central Utah
    _IF_ they can guarantee that clearing an innocent person off the list can be accomplished within 10 minutes, I'm all for it. :rolleyes:

    Combine this with the weaponization of the IRS as has happened under this Administration and horrible things will happen. It won't be "You can't buy guns if you're on these lists", it will be "You can't own or possess guns if you're on these list." Oh, and if you have a name that is substantially similar to someone on the list, that counts too. If you speak out against the administration, somehow magically your name ends up on the list. How do you find out you're on the list? You go to buy your next gun and denied. That signals the Feds to swoop in and seize all of your guns "for the safety of the collective." You'll get them back when you have finally cleared your name. That could take years and you'd have to basically prove a negative to do that. The Feds aren't going to tell you how you got on the list, who put you there, or what behaviors/contacts/web-surfing activities caused it.

    My understanding is that the No Fly list is relatively small and contains very few US Citizens. It doesn't have much identifying information other than the name in most cases, some of them being aliases. The name "T Kennedy" was added as an alias for a terrorist and that caused significant issues for Sen Ted Kennedy. (Maybe he was the terrorist know as the "Chappaquidick-One").

    Personally I believe that both lists that keep being mentioned probably contain more errors than correct information.

    So, No.

    Matt
     
  7. DeepSouth
    • Contributing Member

    DeepSouth Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    4,138
    Location:
    Heart of Dixie
  8. TheGerman

    TheGerman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Messages:
    60
    Isn't this how the background check already works? If anything comes up during the check, you will get delayed - if the outcome then is that you cannot own a gun because you are a terrorist, you have more problems than a denied application anyhow.

    The "suspects" lists exist today and to my knowledge are being used today - just like with the background check, I personally highly doubt that they make any sense.

    Criminals / terrorists would not go through a background check because they would not buy anything in a store, but steal the guns they want or kill a cop to get their weapons.
     
  9. LeonCarr

    LeonCarr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Messages:
    3,824
    Location:
    At The Range
    I have yet to see anything in writing describing exactly how you get on a No Fly List or Terrorism Watch List, or how you get off of a No Fly List or Terrorism Watch List.

    If anyone in High Road Land can direct us to an open online source for that, I think that would help clarify things a whole bunch.

    Just my .02,
    LeonCarr
     
  10. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,945
    Location:
    North Olmsted, Ohio
    So-called "universal background checks" are UTTERLY meaningless without REGISTRATION.

    Registration has NO purpose beyond facilitation of future CONFISCATION.

    NO, I REFUSE.
     
  11. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    Seeing as how I have yet to see anyone demonstrate or describe what 'due process' would look like with a Secret Disenfrachisement List (ain't no mere 'watch list' at that point, after all), I'll give double odds it is by definition impossible.

    The whole reason we have a court system in this country, is so the king can't just order you in for questioning, hold you indefinitely without trial, restrict your movements, or your associations with others, without presenting a solid case justifying before the public, why exactly it is justified in doing so.

    The only reason these lists exist is because Bush (and probably going back to at least Nixon --it's a secret list, after all; who says it started in 2001 or whatever?) and the FBI found building a legally-defendable case against these guys too confining, and wanted more authority than it was delegated under the constitution. So we invent this new class of people/citizens called "suspected terrorists" --brilliant name, btw, very scary, if legally meaningless-- and set to work convincing Americans they were too hairy, I mean, too scary, to be afforded all of their constitutional rights.

    They don't need to put everybody on the Watch List to disarm We The People, just the ones in opposition to further restrictions. The rest will then cheer, or fall in line.

    TCB
     
  12. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    So long as we're 'flagging' people merely under suspicion* for federal felonies, why not get the IRS in the loop and delay those who are being audited? By which I mean the IRS implicated in targeting political enemies of the President (the FBI/NSA would never do that, I'm told)

    TCB

    *There is no requirement that you be under investigation to be added; I've read the governing document they put out, you can be added by merely being associated with someone under suspicion, but who is not yet under investigation. Once you're on it, your family members and friends can be added since they know you. Basically, if Sauron casts his gaze upon you, you may be added to the list somehow or other.
     
  13. Blackbeard

    Blackbeard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,722
    Location:
    Behind the Daley Curtain (IL)
    All it takes is one executive order to put everyone on the watch list and BOOM -- guns are banned without Congressional approval.
     
  14. Kevin Rohrer

    Kevin Rohrer Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,403
    Location:
    Medina, Ohio USA
    eah, I think you are going to be pretty alone on that one.

    Yup. I am not in favor of allowing 100-terrorists to buy guns because one non-terrorist might be inconvenienced.

    Having written that, I know that most guns used in crimes are stolen, not bought in gun shops.
     
  15. Mauserguy

    Mauserguy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    795
    Location:
    Orange County California
    I'm very opposed to this and I'm surprised that the NRA has taken this position.

    Clearly future liberal administrations will place large blocks of citizens on watch lists, denying them freedom of movement (no fly lists) as well as no firearms and, perhaps, other rights.

    The belief that due process will restore denied rights in a timely manner is naive at best.

    Yes, I know I'll be attacked for this statement, but the truth is, and we all know it, that the root cause of this Orlando attack was the unremitting importation of people from terrorist cultures.

    While we are talking about abridging the rights of citizens we are actively importing hundreds of thousands of military age males from terrorist countries. This is national suicide and we all know it. Now ban me for stating the obvious.
    Mauserguy
     
  16. medalguy

    medalguy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,280
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Yeah future administrations may indeed use various "watch lists" for nefarious purposes. Today I read that Congress is considering a "second list" for people who WERE under investigation but have since been removed from the original list. Where does it end?

    Thinking about future administrations, I wonder how this would all go forward if Trump were to leak that he was considering putting all the registered Democrats on the "no fly" or "watch" list? Think that might change some minds in DC?

    I also just heard moments ago that the administration is going to accelerate admissions of immigrants from Syria. Just wow. That makes sense, huh?
     
  17. Jlr2267

    Jlr2267 Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,222
    Location:
    South Carolina


    How about a "due process" before one is put on the list? Some transparency on how one gets put on the list would be a necessary component as well.
     
  18. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,961
    Location:
    Central PA
    There may be several "root causes" of this attack, but this dude was born in New York and held a job with a security company. It's going to be hard to piece together how "unremitting importation of people" from anywhere prompted this particular attack.
     
  19. Swing

    Swing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,640
    "sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing"

    A delay is a big difference than adding those on the watchlist to the Prohibited persons category.
     
  20. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    It has long been known that the second generation offspring typically spawn the most radical folks (well documented back to English colonial times, and beyond). Not saying this trend is sufficient grounds for broad policy that only has the most tangential relationship. That's a totally different issue with it's own justifications, that has nothing to do with this forum.

    Ongoing investigations "go on" for years, by the way; the Watch List started out as a clearinghouse for cases with so little evidence they couldn't proceed to slowly agglomerate evidence as it came in piecemeal, or was determined from parallel inquiries. EVERY person on that list is 'under investigation,' they just haven't been charged (because that starts an inconvenient timer for the authorities to put up or shut up, and we can't maintain extensive dossiers on everyone otherwise)

    Sadly, I understand it; the NRA likes this proposal (as they did video game bans and mental health bans) because it doesn't focus on the guns --and that's about as far as their strategy goes at this time. They aren't worrying about whether this will be the core of the strategy used to outlaw their organization within ten years, they'll be long-retired or dead by then! I hate to attribute such crass shortsightedness to such a valuable ally, but they've shown to be exactly that during numerous critical junctures throughout their history (even the anti-gunners pick up on this, though mistakenly they attribute it to fealty to the gun industry over their supporters)

    TCB
     
  21. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,550
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    The fundamental problem with the "due process" argument is that it's tough to apply due process to something done without due process.

    The process is rather simple.
    1. A qualified person (If you don't know who that is, you're not qualified to ask) brings a request before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Established under the Foreign Surveillance Act of 1978, aka FISA).
    2. The FISA Court then reviews the materials submitted--which may or may not include numerous John Doe and aka requests for warrant).
    3. The Court can then grant the warrant, with whatever stipulations it feels warranted.
    4. Done.

    The warrants are sealed; the court dockets are classified. The "and such other persons" parts of the warrants can include people on the same block, in the entire extended family, or whatever the "qualified party" deems apt for their investigation. Unlike a wiretap, where both Probable Cause, and an expected End have to be stated, the FISA warrants are open-ended. They are "for the good of the Nation." One other thing, these investigation warrants are so secret that, often, one agency does not know another is investigating a person.

    Some agencies are already using blocks of IP addresses. How would you like to be included on a surveillance list just because your router's IP fell in a given range?
     
  22. DoubleMag

    DoubleMag Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,381
    To even begin to support this, someone needs a special insurance policy to cover the co$t$ involved. You're not talking $3000 to file 2 motions, and you're not talking about a 3 week process. That way you can enjoy your 'privelages' to fire say, a 22 rifle...
    So if anyone is really for this stuff can you donate to a ca$h pool set up by a trustworthy organization, say, the NRA?
     
  23. DeepSouth
    • Contributing Member

    DeepSouth Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    4,138
    Location:
    Heart of Dixie
    I don't think that's it at all, the overwhelming majority of Americans will favor this.....after all who wants terrorist to have guns? So politicians "can't" fight it to hard when it auctually has public support, especially when they're running for president. :scrutiny:
     
  24. Crawdad1

    Crawdad1 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    3,725
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    This discussion is a deflection away from the issues that hurt the Democratic nominee. The main stream media who are in the back pocket or should I say purse for the Democrats do not want to bring attention to or talk about the economy or the newest job report or the e-mail scandals, they want to talk about guns. Trump is simply trying to dispel this deflection and get back on message.

    That's all it is so don't get all fired up about it and say, "Well Trump's not pro gun so I'm not going to vote now, so there."

    Its politics, grow the F up.
     
  25. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,595
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    My letter I sent to the NRA-ILA today.


     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice