this is like saying "hey, let's make sure child sex offenders can't be hired in places like schools"
like, are you serious? of course terrorists shouldn't have access to guns. wtf is this shit
this is like saying "hey, let's make sure child sex offenders can't be hired in places like schools"
like, are you serious? of course terrorists shouldn't have access to guns. wtf is this shit
this is like saying "hey, let's make sure child sex offenders can't be hired in places like schools"
like, are you serious? of course terrorists shouldn't have access to guns. wtf is this shit
The thing is, it's hard for most people to consider not being able to get a gun as an "issue." It just doesn't make sense or register to most people in the developed world, outside of 30-40% of the US population. I believe Switzerland has a policy where upon any new mental health diagnosis, you lose your guns until you get medically regulated. And you yourself can request to be put on the no gun list/have your guns held for a while if you feel you have some issues you need to take care of, no questions asked, and it will be granted, much like some people request temporary bans from GAF for a few months to focus on their studies or work.Those child sex offenders had their due process and were convicted of a crime that classified them as a child sex offender.
Do you understand how that's different than someone in the government typing your name onto a list for whatever reason they feel like and you not even knowing about it until you encounter an issue that utilizes this list?
None of that addresses the fact that the list has no oversight, needs no proof and we're using it to specifically deny constitutional rights that other citizens have.The thing is, it's hard for most people to consider not being able to get a gun as an "issue." It just doesn't make sense or register to most people in the developed world, outside of 30-40% of the US population. I believe Switzerland has a policy where upon any new mental health diagnosis, you lose your guns until you get medically regulated. And you yourself can request to be put on the no gun list/have your guns held for a while if you feel you have some issues you need to take care of, no questions asked, and it will be granted, much like some people request temporary bans from GAF for a few months to focus on their studies or work.
And these restrictions are considered great social services to have available, even if there is no due process/court procedure. Not Owning a gun just isn't seen as something to be concerned over.
We are blinded by our gun fetishism in the US
The thing is, it's hard for most people to consider not being able to get a gun as an "issue." It just doesn't make sense or register to most people in the developed world, outside of 30-40% of the US population. I believe Switzerland has a policy where upon any new mental health diagnosis, you lose your guns until you get medically regulated. And you yourself can request to be put on the no gun list/have your guns held for a while if you feel you have some issues you need to take care of, no questions asked, and it will be granted, much like some people request temporary bans from GAF for a few months to focus on their studies or work.
And these restrictions are considered great social services to have available, even if there is no due process/court procedure. Not Owning a gun just isn't seen as something to be concerned over.
We are blinded by our gun fetishism in the US
Who is saying that? What the hell are you talking about? Nobody is directly comparing people unjustly out on a watch list with dead victims of a mass shooting.
The fact that no mass shooters thus far have even been on one of these lists should tell you how worthlessly reactionary this potential law is. It's purely a play on people's emotions.
How the hell this was not even a thing?
took the words out of my mouth man
Maybe you'll understand me when you stop putting words in my mouth. Again I never said I was an advocate for this specific order. If there is a lawful way to restrict terrorists then we should be moving towards taking those actions instead of critiquing a government made list on the basis of imperfection.
The FBI says people on this list are acquiring weapons. Are we to assume that nobody on this list is unfit to own a gun? Are we to assume they're all just holding on to them and that they're not being circulated? These people exist so something legal should be done about that and contrary to your belief that people are being manipulated emotionally, I've felt that way long before mass shootings have become a daily occurrence. If there is a legal way to create a list and stop inappropriate individuals from having these weapons then we should pursue that. Even if a reversible mistake is made by the government. How is that a problem?
And as far as due process, US gun background checks already restrict people who haven't been convicted of a crime so people can get still get their due process and still be barred legally.
Maybe read the thread and you'll see why it's an abhorrent idea
nah man, fuck guns, in any way, by any means, without any thought, just fuck em all to death
Names that shouldn't be on the list is a mistake that can be rectified. Erasing the deadly aftermath of a possible alternative can't be.
The worst part about this is that Democratic politicians surely know this is an egregiously reactionary measure that will not withstand scrutiny, but will continue to push it to win political points while condemning xenophobia out of the other side of their mouths.
Some of us think we actually have a right to due process.
But hey, naw, let's just give in to fear and fascism. A secret government list with no accountability or oversight should definitely determine whether we have rights or not!
Great idea, guys.
This depends on whether you consider being able to buy a gun a right.
I don't, so I have no problem with preventing anyone from buying a gun for any reason. Someone in the government thinking you might have a terrorist tendency is more than enough for me. My crazy uncle thinking your left eye looks funny is enough for me.
I actually do have a problem with the no-fly list itself, as being unable to fly is much more burdensome for many people. I definitely want more oversight and recourse for that.
This depends on whether you consider being able to buy a gun a right.
I don't, so I have no problem with preventing anyone from buying a gun for any reason. Someone in the government thinking you might have a terrorist tendency is more than enough for me. My crazy uncle thinking your left eye looks funny is enough for me.
I actually do have a problem with the no-fly list itself, as being unable to fly is much more burdensome for many people. I definitely want more oversight and recourse for that.
It's a right, whether you want it to be or not. Our whole society is built upon the fact that we have rights that can't be taken away by the government. It depends upon the fact that you can't just pick and choose which rights you think are valid.
For the same reason, we can't just say that certain people don't get free speech because we don't like what they say, or that they can't be of a certain religion. We don't say that certain people don't get due process just because.
If you really believe this:
"Someone in the government thinking you might have a terrorist tendency is more than enough for me. My crazy uncle thinking your left eye looks funny is enough for me."
... then I'm glad you're comfortable with who you are. But just realize that you're both racist and fascist for supporting this.
I don't see what's wrong with this
You have a right to bear arms, not a right to buy it from a dealer.
Something something well regulated...etc pretty sure the people on the watchlist could get a gun through a private purchase
Glad to see most of GAF realizes this is a terrible idea. It's such a blatant affront to the Constitution and rule of law I can't believe Obama would suggest it.
Oh, this should be good.The Obama administration has been violating constitutional rights for quite some time, so this shouldn't surprise anyone really.
The guns don't matter here. It could be apples for all I care. The issue is a list being created with no oversight where you can get put on it arbitrarily with little recourse to get yourself off the list let alone being notified you're even on the list to begin with and as a result having your rights restricted or removed.
Everyone should be against this since if enforced it furthers the ability of the government to strip you of your rights without trial with a jury of your peers.
You guys are advocating allowing the government to convict you for a crime you have not committed.
Unlawful violation of the constitution
I'm not a fan of the second amendment but it's there and we can't just circumvent it in politically expedient ways by making legally arbitrary links as evidence of anything
But we'll probably pass it because we give zero fucks here when it comes to gun laws
I just meant Connecticut in comparison to other states at the very least. Laws that wouldn't fly literally anywhere else tend to make traction here in my experience.. Especially after sandy hook.... do we live in the same country?
I just meant Connecticut in comparison to other states at the very least. Laws that wouldn't fly literally anywhere else tend to make traction here in my experience.. Especially after sandy hook.
I'm glad there is at least some forward movement on SOMETHING but man this should be in place nation wide.
Given what has been going on in the United States over the past 15 years, you'd think people would put a little more thought into this issue than "Guns bad, so this good".
Yes guys, lets all celebrate an extrajudicial process whereby a seemingly arbitrary,admittedly faulty list can be used to determine which rights and privileges you are and aren't entitled to. This isn't the slippery slope: it's the busy intersection at the bottom.
I couldn't agree more.Owning a gun shouldn't be a right though.
Owning a gun shouldn't be a right though.
We definitely should let the government decide which rights people should have, on a whim with no oversight or due process.
What's the worst that could happen?
Like I said, it's not or shouldn't be a "right."
So if they take your guns I don't see them as stripping you of any rights. They are taking your killing toy that you shouldn't have access to in the first place.
And yet, it's the law of the land. If you feel fascism is justified because of the ends, well, I guess there's no convincing you.
Taking away your ability to own a killing machine, a machine that literally has no purpose other than causing damage, does not equal fascism.
Taking away your ability to own a killing machine, a machine that literally has no purpose other than causing damage, does not equal fascism.
Taking away your ability to own a killing machine, a machine that literally has no purpose other than causing damage, does not equal fascism.
Maybe they'll just put everyone on the list, problem solved.