Suddenly 2nd Amendment cheerleaders are caring about the rest of the Constitution? Since when?
2 Likes
Iâd really like to see Republicans come back at them with something like âThe terrorist watch list is an unaccountable violation of our essential liberties and should not be used to restrict gun ownership!â
That way, whatever happens, we make progress on something as a nation.
7 Likes
Exactly. I thought we were pretty much against the security theater or watchlists and secret unaccountable government lists. Why the fuck are these lists suddenly no longer a problem for the left?
4 Likes
Nope.
Itâs one per day.
1 Like
What about, the GOP helped a terrorist get an assault weapon and perpetrate the worst mass murder in modern memory?
Or, The GOP is weak on guns â weak on terror.
No one can credibly deny that those are true statements about the GOP?
3 Likes
Maybe the trouble is, theyâre true of many democrats as well.
1 Like
Canada has had 8 mass shootings in the last 20 years, Australia has had⌠0.
I was proud of that 8 until I saw that 0. Way to be aspirational!
6 Likes
Because apparently when our opposition to unchecked government surveillance and secret courts that effectively try people in absentia meets our fear of gun ownership, fear wins.
(Not @ActionAbe)
Look, Iâm not opposed to reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, including a national database, which when coupled with a waiting period, could provide law enforcement agencies time to identify suspects, obtain warrants, and keep tabs on their activities. But taking away an citizenâs rights on the basis of a secret government watch list seems blatantly unconstitutional, and like a really bad idea - itâs the sort of slippery slope that leads to an expansion of the Surveillance State.
We donât need to retreat to our corners and say âall guns are bad and must be outlawedâ or âguns ownership is a right that cannot regulatedâ - there is a reasonable middle ground that respects the 2nd, 4th, and 14th amendments and still address our security needs.
2 Likes
If you really want to see the watchlist gone, put a ban on gun ownership for people on it. Then watch all the big money lobbying of the NRA get used to fight the existence of the watchlist.
7 Likes
But all individual rights, including freedom of speech and association have reasonable limits. If a rational basis can be found for the watch list, one can be found for restrictions for people on it. What better way to bring the matter to a head than to limit gun ownership based on it. Let the NRA do something useful for people for a change. If they could use their money and power to eliminate the terror watch list or at least subject it to federal court scrutiny, so much the better.
3 Likes
Right, and what bothers me most is the rush to accept the validity of the Watchlist in the wake of the shooting. IIRC (on my phone, so I canât double-check this) he wasnât on the watchlist anymore when he bought the guns.
6 Likes
True, but in most cases affecting fundamental rights, restrictions are narrowly tailored, and either universally applied to all citizens (threatening speech, for instance), or they are court-adjudicated (barring the mentally ill from possessing firearms). A âterror suspectâ is not something that is adjudicated, and in fact is a fairly capricious, inaccurate, and @ActionAbe pointed out, often racist.
On its face it would seem to make sense; if we have a âno fly listâ that should also be a âno gun list.â But the problem with that shortcut is that it fails to address the central problem of how the no fly list is generated in the first place, and it applies that flawed process to a fundamental right which requires a different level of scrutiny.
4 Likes
And, despite what the NRA folks claim, we didnât even have to ban guns to do it.
You can still get a gun in Australia if you need one for work (farmers, security guards, etc.). And you can have a gun if youâre a recreational hunter or target shooter, or if youâre into Napoleonic history and want a musket or somesuch.
But the guns you can have are restricted to the sorts of guns that are sensible for the job youâre putting them to. You donât need a rapid-fire low-recoil high-capacity tumbling-round semiauto to hunt pigs. And the licencing process is a real licence: thereâs training, and tests, and a thorough background check. Which includes talking to your friends and family to try and make sure youâre not a violent arse with a short fuse.
The process takes several months to complete. Weâve taken the view that anyone who wants a gun right now probably shouldnât have one.
20 Likes
hopefully, we have finally reached it.
Is the terrorist watchlist the same as the âno fly listâ or is it maintained by the same people?
'Cos we know that the no fly list is maintained with scrupulous care, no one gets put on it by mistake, and there are clear procedures for finding out if you are on the list and what you need to do to be removed from it.
2 Likes
Actually, I sure do. This whole idea of screening pre-criminal behavior massively roils my bowels.
If a non-citizen is doing something threatening, just deport his or her ass. (edit)As far as I am concerned they have no constitutional right to remain here.
If a citizen is suspected of doing something illegal, get a warrant to collect evidence, arrest and go to trial. Not enough evidence? Tough shit Mr. DA, close the case . As my right wing friends are fond ot saying, thatâs the price of freedom.
3 Likes
Sigh. Not surprised. Interesting that we go collectively bananas when itâs all at once, when, if you look over the year, itâs a much, much bigger number. I guess itâs the rate of death thatâs important:
where B = bananas, D = Death and t = time.
To my knowledge, no.
I donât like the idea of vague, nebulous lists, and certainly donât like the idea of adding people to an ill-defined list with no means of being removed. However, when weâre talking about determining who gets access to military-grade weapons meant to murder groups of people, I think being overly cautious in this case makes more sense than deciding if a guy with a funny name gets to go on vacation with his family or not.
Yes, but like all rights, it has limits. Just like my freedom of speech doesnât let me yell FIRE! in a theater or BOMBS ARE AWESOME while going through airport security, the right to bear arms doesnât let me own a bomb or missiles. We banned assault weapons before. Itâs long past time to do it again.
I have no problem restricting assault weapons. We could ban them outright or require a permit just like we require for fully automatic weapons.
The problem of course is defining what an assault rifle is; most of what makes an assault rifle different from a hunting rifle is cosmetic. It seems like a problem states have struggled with, and that gun manufacturers have found ways around. Iâm sure it could be done, though it might also end up restricting a lot of other firearms. And that would rile a lot of people.
And then thereâs the pesky problem of the Supreme Court. The recent decisions on gun ownership werenât based on a right to hunt, they were based on a right to self defense. That would make restricting large classes of firearms, such as gas-operated semiautomatic guns, which would be the most rational place to draw a line, problematic.
1 Like
