We need a "No Guns Allowed" list - similar to the "Do Not Fly" list

[Hugabear]

For example, if you're a member of a terrorist organization - international or domestic - you do not get to buy guns. If your belong to a hate group - you do not get to buy guns.

I can already hear the NRA rebuttal - "If you ban domestic terrorists from buying guns, they'll just buy them illegally, so what's the difference"

[HappyMe]

1. It might work.

How are they going to get every name of every organization and everyone that agrees with their agenda.

[Hugabear]

2. Won't get everybody - but you'll get a lot

For example, if you're a member of a hate-music band, then you're on the list.

If you're identified as a member of a group such as the KKK, Aryan Nations, etc - you're on the list.

I imagine it would work very similarly to how the No-Fly List works. And I know the No-Fly List isn't perfect - far from it - but it should definitely warrant discussion.

[slackmaster]

10. This is great stuff Hugabear! Please go ahead and flesh out your list a little more.

Would you include any religious organizations? I think members of the Westboro Baptist Church would be good candidates.

How about Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership?

Or the New Black Panthers, or Nation of Islam? They've advocated for violence.

[bongbong]

17. I have a great group to include

"NRA Talking Point Panderers"

This is the (large) group of gun religionists whose "reasons" for hating gun control are limited to tired & long-debunked NRA Talking Points (AKA Big Lies)

[Remmah2]

18. How about pander bears?

[img][/img]

[slackmaster]

19. Eats shoots and leaves

[Remmah2]

22. I should have seen that one coming................

LOL

[HappyMe]

13. The other thing is, how do you find out

who is who?
It's not like they all have sign up sheets laying around. Where do you draw the line? And who decides all of this?

[Hoyt]

3. Not a bad idea. Doesn't have to be foolproof. Even if stops 10% it's worthwhile.

Personally, I think anyone belonging to certain groups, purchasing a bunch of ammo, or a number of guns, or certain types of guns or explosives, etc., should be investigated.

A lot of times, domestic terrorists buy weapons from so-called "law-abiding" gun owners.

[belcffub]

4. most of the opposition to these lists comes from the lack of due process

so your names ends up on a list... how do you get your named removed... there currently exists no process to remove your name from the terrorist watch lists or any oversight as to who is on it...

[Xyzse]

9. Agreed... and yet...

We have a No Fly List which we can't seem to bypass.

---
In any case, if they will go for that, they might as well also go for something similar to "No Fly Zones" there should be "No Gun Zones". Where, Schools, Concert Areas and other spaces don't allow guns.
It also makes sense not to have them in bars. I could care less what they have in their house, or wherever else, but in certain areas, I wouldn't mind an area where one could reasonably expect to have no guns.

Of course, that would be considered too much of an infringement as is. I mean, if there are no smoking areas, there could be no gun areas too. Heck, a better comparison would be the "Free Speech Zones", where only a certain area is allowable for demonstration as popularized by Bush.

In any case, I don't think anything such as that will happen any time soon.

[HappyMe]

11. That's just it.

If your name is 'Green' and the person that should be listed is 'Greene', you get listed instead (clerical error). How can you clear your name?

[slackmaster]

5. We already have such a list. It's called the National Instant Check System (NICS) database.

For example, if you're a member of a terrorist organization - international or domestic - you do not get to buy guns. If your belong to a hate group - you do not get to buy guns.

Those restrictions would require the creation of new laws that define how organizations would get adjudicated by a court of law to be terrorist in nature. Also, how people are adjudicated by a court of law to be members of such organizations. There would have to also be a codified appeal process to ensure that people and groups who are falsely classified as members to get their names cleared.

And there would also have to be some changes to the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of association. In fact you'd have to throw that out altogether. It would make the country look a little more like Germany. Maybe you're OK with that, but my ancestors saw the writing on the wall and all bailed out of there before 1880.

Good luck getting that to pass, and to pass a test of Constitutionality.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. Only if such a list has due process and an effective appeal process

[RZM]

7. That wouldn't pass constitutional muster

Any group subjected to this would have to be classified as a terrorist organization first.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. It's good to know that you approve of Shrub's tactics and lists...

Why not go the full monte and tattoo everyone's eligability for anything right on their arm...

[slackmaster]

12. That's serious stuff there, OneTenth. I got excoriated by a now absent friend when I suggested...

...putting a red dot on the driver's licenses of people known to be prohibited from buying firearms.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. I'm referring to "unscannables" as depicted the Hollywood movie "Idiocracy"...

Their ID and bank account and other info is ready avalable for public inspection/scan. It plays a minor theme in the movie "Idiocracy". My use of the depiction in the previous post is an attempt to point out the 'idiocy' of the OPs idea.

You know, once you explain a joke/insinuation... it kind of ruins it... lol.

[4th law of robotics]

15. Can it be as well regulated and open as the DNF list?

Ie: if you kinda sound like a terrorist or someone accidently puts your name on it that's all it takes to get you kicked off a plane and there's nothing you can do about it.

No trial. No evidence. No recourse.

We should definitely expand that kind of practice.

This should also be expanded to other rights. So if you look a little 'araby' you don't get the right to protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Or to vote. Or against self-incrimination.

[slackmaster]

16. Yes, the blind squirrel that was the George W. Bush administration did find a few acorns

in case it isn't perfectly obvious to everyone reading this silly thread.

[1-Old-Man]

20. You forget about that pesky little 2nd Amendment

[Riftaxe]

21. Been awhile since we had a guilt by association thread

Are you now, or have you ever been a member of NetFlix? Great stuff!

I bet you dress snazzier then Mr McCarthy, but interesting to note that his ideas are still around and pondered seriously by a few....