Democrats backing away from gun control

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Democrats backing away from gun control

Post by Flagg »

Zwinmar wrote:
Flagg wrote:
Lonestar wrote:It didn't help that HRC and Obama both indicated they wanted to look at Australia as a way to solve gun violence/stop spree killings. That was a def "ho-ho-ho it's Christmas" set of moments.
Yeah. But at the same time the NRA wasn't just saying "even people on the terrorism watch list shouldn't be restricted from buying guns" they we pushing for more guns for everyone. And really, we still have the 2nd Amendment so an "Australia type" solution is laughably absurd.
That anything like the no-fly list which is kept secret and there is no way to appeal to get off it?
Not really.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Beowulf
The Patrician
Posts: 10619
Joined: 2002-07-04 01:18am
Location: 32ULV

Re: Democrats backing away from gun control

Post by Beowulf »

Flagg wrote:
Zwinmar wrote:
Flagg wrote: Yeah. But at the same time the NRA wasn't just saying "even people on the terrorism watch list shouldn't be restricted from buying guns" they we pushing for more guns for everyone. And really, we still have the 2nd Amendment so an "Australia type" solution is laughably absurd.
That anything like the no-fly list which is kept secret and there is no way to appeal to get off it?
Not really.
We don't care about the Interpol list. We care about the FBI list. Which is completely opaque.
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Democrats backing away from gun control

Post by Flagg »

Beowulf wrote:
Flagg wrote:
Zwinmar wrote:
That anything like the no-fly list which is kept secret and there is no way to appeal to get off it?
Not really.
We don't care about the Interpol list. We care about the FBI list. Which is completely opaque.
That's the only one that came up when I searched. Can you link me to information on the other lists? I wasn't aware there was more than one of them.

That said, I don't see how it matters what you care about. I said terrorism watch list and when questioned I provided a terrorism watch list.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Democrats backing away from gun control

Post by MKSheppard »

TheFeniX wrote:There's been historical research into the links between it and crazy/violent aristocracy over the years as, before switching to pewter. Then again, I'm no history buff and I'm not going to try and debate historical aspects of lead contamination.
Even as far back as 1937 or so, they knew lead was bad shit -- USN BuAer memorandums were quite concerned about lead contamination from running plane engines in the Lexington Class CV hangars, which since they were built on former battlecruiser hulls, had armored sides, instead of the open hangars found on purpose built carriers; so ventilation was a major issue there.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Democrats backing away from gun control

Post by Flagg »

MKSheppard wrote:
TheFeniX wrote:There's been historical research into the links between it and crazy/violent aristocracy over the years as, before switching to pewter. Then again, I'm no history buff and I'm not going to try and debate historical aspects of lead contamination.
Even as far back as 1937 or so, they knew lead was bad shit -- USN BuAer memorandums were quite concerned about lead contamination from running plane engines in the Lexington Class CV hangars, which since they were built on former battlecruiser hulls, had armored sides, instead of the open hangars found on purpose built carriers; so ventilation was a major issue there.
Even the Romans, who used it for water pipes and put finely ground lead in their wine to sweeten it knew it was bad shit. But they still used it.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
houser2112
Padawan Learner
Posts: 464
Joined: 2006-04-07 07:21am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Democrats backing away from gun control

Post by houser2112 »

While I knew lead posed health risks, I had no idea that it was capable of damaging someone mentally to the point that they would commit crimes.
User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4139
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Democrats backing away from gun control

Post by Formless »

Yup, lead can do all of that and more-- lower IQ is by itself correlated with criminality, and as stated lead can lower IQ. You can look at prison statistics for evidence of this correlation. It isn't causative, of course, its just that the dumber you are the harder it is to think of legal means of getting what you want, especially if you think your survival is at stake.

Actually, I think people who do shooting are possibly more aware of this fact precisely because bullets are traditionally made of lead (solid copper bullets being a recent industry trend). The most acutely aware are probably those who cast their own bullets, because it is essential to know the risks before you go melting down a pot full of lead.

Hell, almost all of the heavy metals are toxic if they get into your system. Lead and mercury are probably the most well known for having neurological effects and for being common environmental pollutants in decades past and in some poorer parts of the world today.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.
User avatar
Zwinmar
Jedi Master
Posts: 1085
Joined: 2005-03-24 11:55am
Location: nunyadamnbusiness

Re: Democrats backing away from gun control

Post by Zwinmar »

Flagg wrote:
Beowulf wrote:
Flagg wrote: Not really.
We don't care about the Interpol list. We care about the FBI list. Which is completely opaque.
That's the only one that came up when I searched. Can you link me to information on the other lists? I wasn't aware there was more than one of them.

That said, I don't see how it matters what you care about. I said terrorism watch list and when questioned I provided a terrorism watch list.
And how do you know if you are on such a list? If anyone can be placed without a ruling from a judge then it really just arbitrary based on some form of profiling.
User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4869
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Democrats backing away from gun control

Post by TheFeniX »

Zwinmar wrote:And how do you know if you are on such a list? If anyone can be placed without a ruling from a judge then it really just arbitrary based on some form of profiling.
While IIRC the Ted Kennedy issue was blown out of proportion (he wasn't actually on the no-fly list, he was "merely" mistaken for someone on the "selectee list" which means they interrogate you more), the idea that someone at the top levels of U.S. government could be mistaken for a someone else in a security screening goes to show how piss poorly the lists are cobbled together, maintained, and utilized.

And that's just one problem with it, as stated, there's more than one list and many of these you can not even tell if you're on them until you get stopped at whatever check-point you end up at, there's no official process for getting removed from them.

I'm not going to argue the merits of a watchlist type system, but the current U.S. implementation of them should be fought on principal. It's a run around due process and let's anyone with an axe to grind to create their own Nixon's List.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Democrats backing away from gun control

Post by Flagg »

Zwinmar wrote:
Flagg wrote:
Beowulf wrote: We don't care about the Interpol list. We care about the FBI list. Which is completely opaque.
That's the only one that came up when I searched. Can you link me to information on the other lists? I wasn't aware there was more than one of them.

That said, I don't see how it matters what you care about. I said terrorism watch list and when questioned I provided a terrorism watch list.
And how do you know if you are on such a list? If anyone can be placed without a ruling from a judge then it really just arbitrary based on some form of profiling.
It doesn't matter because I never said I was for, against, or don't care about the terrorist watch list or lists. I'm not arguing in favor of whatever selection process is or isn't used, I simply made the true statement that the NRA is flat out against preventing people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms.

When asked if it was like the "No fly list" (which I think is a totally fucked goat-screw, especially since one of Darth Wong's (at the time of the incident, prepubescent) sons was on it) I did a search and got the Interpol list, which I posted. But since it wasn't the horror show "other terrorist watch lists" (which I asked for more information on and such information has still not been presented) supposedly are I was told no one cares about it.

So basically, I'm still waiting for evidence showing that there are other terrorist watch lists that are horrible abominations. But to take the wind out of your sails before you go on a quest to "prove me wrong" (if you have that intention), know that I wouldn't be shocked if such a list and/or lists are as bad or worse than the "no fly list" and if such is the case then it should be overhauled and reformed.

Basically if you're looking for a fight, you won't find one here. :wink:
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Lonestar
Keeper of the Schwartz
Posts: 13321
Joined: 2003-02-13 03:21pm
Location: The Bay Area

Re: Democrats backing away from gun control

Post by Lonestar »

As an aside, I would be interested to see what the homicide rate is in states that border Canada and compare them to the bordering provinces.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
User avatar
Beowulf
The Patrician
Posts: 10619
Joined: 2002-07-04 01:18am
Location: 32ULV

Re: Democrats backing away from gun control

Post by Beowulf »

Flagg wrote:
Beowulf wrote:
Flagg wrote: Not really.
We don't care about the Interpol list. We care about the FBI list. Which is completely opaque.
That's the only one that came up when I searched. Can you link me to information on the other lists? I wasn't aware there was more than one of them.

That said, I don't see how it matters what you care about. I said terrorism watch list and when questioned I provided a terrorism watch list.
Third google result for me is: Terrorist Screening Database aka terrorist watch list. This is then filtered to produce the no-fly list, etc. This would be the database used by the D proposed law on restricting people on the watch list from buying guns. 38% of the records in a sample done by their IG showed errors. There are 1.9 million people on the list in June 2016. It's impossible to know if you're on the list. There's no effective way to clear your name (even suing the government may not result in your clearing your name).

The fundamental problem with them is that they restrict a right without due process of law (which in American jurisprudence means: have a hearing before a judge first, with a chance to hear all the evidence against you, so you can dispute it).

And it's not just the NRA: it's the ACLU as well
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Democrats backing away from gun control

Post by Flagg »

Beowulf wrote:
Flagg wrote:
Beowulf wrote: We don't care about the Interpol list. We care about the FBI list. Which is completely opaque.
That's the only one that came up when I searched. Can you link me to information on the other lists? I wasn't aware there was more than one of them.

That said, I don't see how it matters what you care about. I said terrorism watch list and when questioned I provided a terrorism watch list.
Third google result for me is: Terrorist Screening Database aka terrorist watch list. This is then filtered to produce the no-fly list, etc. This would be the database used by the D proposed law on restricting people on the watch list from buying guns. 38% of the records in a sample done by their IG showed errors. There are 1.9 million people on the list in June 2016. It's impossible to know if you're on the list. There's no effective way to clear your name (even suing the government may not result in your clearing your name).

The fundamental problem with them is that they restrict a right without due process of law (which in American jurisprudence means: have a hearing before a judge first, with a chance to hear all the evidence against you, so you can dispute it).

And it's not just the NRA: it's the ACLU as well
Well I certainly am not in favor of secret lists that you may or may not be on and in no way can confirm if you are or are not on it and why.

That said, there are precedents in US law that require people to "prove their innocence" when it comes to law enforcement seizing assets under certain anti-drug and organized crime statutes. There are many people who've have assets (things like large amounts of cash, high end vehicles, and jewelry found during a traffic stop or at a residence during a search warrant being served) seized solely based on the cop not believing that they did not obtain the cash/property through legal means. So someone buying a tens of thousands of dollars boat in cash because they or the seller doesn't trust banks who gets stopped by police can (and this has happened countless times) have that cash seized and be forced to go before a judge with proof that they obtained whatever was taken by legal means.

And many times, even if the judge orders the return of what is by then evidence with a serial number, the police working in the evidence room may find it "missing" or what was an envelope with $100,000usd is now an envelope with $70,000usd in it. And at that point the person has to hire a lawyer and sue the agency. It should come as no shock that every agency involved in the seizure gets a cut of the cash and the valuables after auction. And this has been going on for decades.

So we're already doing "we think you're a criminal and if you feel differently, get a lawyer" with "the war on drugs/organized crime". I believe it's part of the RICO Act. Of course the glaring difference is not being able to know if you are on the lists or not, and that definately needs to change.

So I certainly agree with you that as it stands now, the "terrorist watch/no fly lists" shouldn't be used to determine who gets to purchase a gun of whatever make and model is legal in their area, let alone a plane ticket. But if/when the many problems with the lists are worked out (and I'm not holding my breath, believe me), allowing gun purchases for those on such lists should be revisited.

But yeah, as things are I can't support it.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4869
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Democrats backing away from gun control

Post by TheFeniX »

Flagg wrote:That said, there are precedents in US law that require people to "prove their innocence" when it comes to law enforcement seizing assets under certain anti-drug and organized crime statutes. There are many people who've have assets (things like large amounts of cash, high end vehicles, and jewelry found during a traffic stop or at a residence during a search warrant being served) seized solely based on the cop not believing that they did not obtain the cash/property through legal means. So someone buying a tens of thousands of dollars boat in cash because they or the seller doesn't trust banks who gets stopped by police can (and this has happened countless times) have that cash seized and be forced to go before a judge with proof that they obtained whatever was taken by legal means.
There's plenty of bad precedent in U.S. law. They really shouldn't be defended. Authorities shouldn't have to right to deprive someone of rights or property based on a hunch. That's what due process is for. Laws that subvert due process should be fought on principal.

This is why the ACLU fights bullshit "alongside" an axe-grinding association like the NRA. They have principals, even if I don't agree with them on a few things.
And many times, even if the judge orders the return of what is by then evidence with a serial number, the police working in the evidence room may find it "missing" or what was an envelope with $100,000usd is now an envelope with $70,000usd in it. And at that point the person has to hire a lawyer and sue the agency. It should come as no shock that every agency involved in the seizure gets a cut of the cash and the valuables after auction. And this has been going on for decades.
This is why police, or whothefuckever, should not be allowed to take from private citizens without due process. Because getting things back from them is a herculean effort and they'll try and fuck you either way.
Of course the glaring difference is not being able to know if you are on the lists or not, and that definately needs to change.
Not really much of a difference. I, personally, could cross multiple state lines with loads of cash and, baring corrupt police, would likely never deal with cops attempting to fleece me out of my money because "I looked suspicious."

Now, be black or hispanic and try the same thing.

The point is, you don't know how the perfectly legal act of carrying a large amount of cash on you could get you into a load of shit because you ran into the wrong cop on the wrong stretch of road. In effect, there really is little difference in how the systems function: they just fuck with whoever they think is worth fucking with.
So I certainly agree with you that as it stands now, the "terrorist watch/no fly lists" shouldn't be used to determine who gets to purchase a gun of whatever make and model is legal in their area, let alone a plane ticket. But if/when the many problems with the lists are worked out (and I'm not holding my breath, believe me), allowing gun purchases for those on such lists should be revisited.
The "watch-list" is a run-around the Bill of Rights. It can never be "right," much like multiple provisions of the patriot act. We already have laws in effect to curtail suspicious people, namely those under an active investigation. Use those, not some bullshit feel-good list thought up after multiple failings of our government to keep us safe.

I can't think of any way to defend the idea that someone is SO FUCKING DANGEROUS, we can't risk them boarding a plane, yet that person can do WHATEVER THE FUCK ELSE he/she wants to do. Oh yea, let's say now "can't buy a gun either." Yea, that'lll stop em! Tax dollars at work.

You want to go this route of secret list bullshit, just cut the act and start disappearing motherfuckers. Oh wait... we already have Gitmo.

NOTE: I get you do not have a dog in this fight, so I'm not trying to bust your chops. But you can't give these fuckers channeling 1984-for-idiots any slack in this area. They've shown time and time again they just want the power to do whatever they want WHEN they want. So fuck em.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Democrats backing away from gun controlo

Post by Flagg »

TheFeniX wrote:NOTE: I get you do not have a dog in this fight, so I'm not trying to bust your chops. But you can't give these fuckers channeling 1984-for-idiots any slack in this area. They've shown time and time again they just want the power to do whatever they want WHEN they want. So fuck em.
Oh yeah, I'm far from trusting the government to simply plow the fucking roads and protect children from bears at the bus stop, let alone act with any type of responsibility regarding secret lists. I was under the atmittedtly dumbshit idea that the "terrorist watchlist" was published. Bad reaction to a different form of meds. I went a day and a half not knowing where and when I was, unfortunately.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Post Reply