General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGreenwald: People on watch list have a right to get guns. Democrats suck for thinking otherwise.
Last edited Fri Jul 8, 2016, 03:47 AM - Edit history (1)
America's libertarian nut laureate weighs in on Orlando, is gag inducing and pedantic as usual.
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/21/democrats-war-on-due-process-and-terrorist-fear-mongering-long-pre-dates-orlando/
Jesus I posted this back in June. How many sock puppets does Greenwald have.?
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)How about those added to a list because someone thought that they might have been loosely involved with a suspected terrorist?
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)As long as there's a mechanism in there to get yourself removed from the list if you shouldn't be there, I don't have any problem making people wait a little bit longer to get their gun. I think that the collective right to safety outweighs one person's right to get a gun right f'n now.
Justice
(7,185 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)If you find out you're on the list and challenge it, the government should bear the burden of justifying its decision.
Of course I don't like that Bushy list in the first place.
On a side note, I'm not aware of much in the way of judicial precedent concerning a "collective right to safety". I'm not against the idea but I can't say I'm familiar.
anoNY42
(670 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)So it's possible, and the Republicans are lying when they claim you can't get off of the list.
anoNY42
(670 posts)if you are being sarcastic. Are you earnestly suggesting that we should be ok with an 8 year appeal process in order to retain a Constitutional right?
scscholar
(2,902 posts)anoNY42
(670 posts)could easily include a quicker appeals mechanism so that people can get themselves off of that list. Thus, if one supports using the watch list as a "no buy" list, it does not necessary follow that one is also "fine" with an 8 year appeal process.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)That doesn't sound right.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)not suspected terrorists either.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Some are fellow New Jersey folk like us.
We don't need some secret list invented by Bush/Cheney to know if we're allowed to do something.
elleng
(130,861 posts)Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)Glen might be able to win a civil suit against you, but you still won't be charged with a crime.
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)Tune after they or somebody close to them was affected by gun violence.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Encountering violent, heavilly armed criminals, especially in areas where guns are strictly controlled has a way of demonstrating the obvious:
That law breakers and criminals dont give a shit about laws and regulations.
maxsolomon
(33,285 posts)in America?
Orrex
(63,199 posts)And the hypothetical gun advocate wouldn't be able to take their good ol' peacemaker into such strictly controlled areas anyway, so how would they help?
maxsolomon
(33,285 posts)encountering violent, heavily armed criminals in areas where guns are strictly controlled.
again, IN AMERICA?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)On another topic, for the sake of addressing your peculiar observation, is "gun nut" okay in DU, but "gun grabber" is not? What have you heard?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)are you saying the process actually respects due process in regards to constitutional rights?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)kept people from getting on an airplane
hack89
(39,171 posts)good question - have to dig into that one a little.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)JustinL
(722 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)JustinL
(722 posts)From Latif v Holder, 969 F.Supp.2d 1292, 1303 (D. Ore. 2013):
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)not accredited in all states.
JustinL
(722 posts)From Latif v Holder, 28 F.Supp.3d 1134, 1149 (D. Ore. 2014):
p. 1150:
As noted, the Court has concluded Plaintiffs have constitutionally-protected liberty interests in the right to travel internationally by air.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)right to fly in an airplane for the world. It doesn't. I don't disagree with the idea that a person is owed due process in this regard, but nevertheless, asserting that a person has a fundamental right to an airline ticket is a no sale.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)But it was also outside the NRA's domain.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)arendt
(5,078 posts)we all just went to sleep about it; accepted it.
Now they are going to stretch it a little further. And they always use the most heinous people as the poster child for the stretching of the illegal. Remember when that guy in Gitmo sued for Habeus Corpus? The pushback was "he is a terrorist. If you are for his rights, you are for terrorism".
This is the same shit.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Never could have foreseen people on the left take up and champion dubya's secret watch lists.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The more salient question may be for you: Do you oppose the terror watch list restricting the exercise of the Second? If so, why? I am consistent.
MattP
(3,304 posts)On the Terror watch list tried to buy a gun triggered a fbi call 49 lives in Orlando may be alive today he argues the Dems war on due process predates Orlando, wtf is his problem anyway
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)No matter what Obama/Congressional Dems decide to do, ol' Glennie is against it...
I can't wait to see Hillary get sworn in -- Greenwald might have a stroke on the spot
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)If Glenn the Glibb Gassbag strokes out, I won't mourn his passing.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Funny.....I always ask GG defenders what civil right of Matt Hale he was defending when he defended Hale after he was sued fo his role in the shooting of a black pastor, and orthodox teenagers.
No one ever answers that question.....what right of Matt Hale was being violated?
arendt
(5,078 posts)The problem is that NO ONE KNOWS THE RULES for the watchlist. So, anyone can be put on it for any reason.
Its not just due process, its the f-ing secret government.
It would be the same as if they took away your right to visit a library or a sports facility if you were on the watchlist. How would you know, how would you contest it. The watchlist is NOT TRANSPARENT.
The problem is they are leveraging something that is inherently anti-democratic, opaque, and stinking of a police state. But, because guns are involved (and I am anti-2nd ammendment) all of the sudden this is a great idea?
Wake up, people. This is like the SCOTUS decision that Sotomayor just ripped. You think it is only going to be used for gun owners?
I and Donald Trump have a bridge to sell you.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)I think it is horrifying that people are OK with the political legitimization of TWLs.
For the record, I am pro-rights.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)arendt
(5,078 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Inaccurate and unsupported generalizations are often funny, regardless of how they go.
treestar
(82,383 posts)the people who get on it due to overabundance of caution, who don't really belong on it.
It might be oK to forbid people on the watchlist - the government interest in preventing terrorism and it being so easy now precisely because of the the second amendment. But it would not be right unless there was some way for a person on the watchlist to contest being on the watchlist.
G_j
(40,366 posts)AntiBank
(1,339 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,324 posts)I don't like it but, as along as the 2nd amendment is valid, people have the right to buy guns.
The Feds can't take a way a right without due process.
This sets a very bad precedent.
The no fly list is bad enough. I've never agreed that using a necessary means of travel was a "privilege "
arendt
(5,078 posts)No airplanes were involved in the Orlando massacre. So why go to the secret watchlist?
The gun shop owner said he notified the FBI and they did nothing. People in the shooter's mosque notified the FBI and they did nothing.
Whenever DHS messes up with the tools they have, we always give them even more anti-democratic tools.
Its not about the guns, its about the police state tactics used to fight some "terrorists". I.e., non-white, non-christian, non-male terrorists.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)The no fly list is not a trusted metric and using it as a predictor of who shouldn't have the ability to buy guns is a serious mission creep.
MagickMuffin
(15,933 posts)Because you know the war on drugs. Illegal searches and seizures happen everyday in America. I don't see anyone getting all bent out of shape because of it.
However, the 2nd amendment being changed ever so slightly and everyone is up in arms.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Not an auspicious time for so-called liberals and progressives; esp. when upbraided by the likes of Greenwald.
cali
(114,904 posts)Remember Ted Kennedy being on the no fly list- and the trouble he had with it? What about due process? Don't you find it gag inducing that we're not even told the number of Americans on the Terror watch list?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)So Teresa, Tad, Tim, Thomas, Terry, and Tony all got sent home or otherwise detained for a time.
struggle4progress
(118,274 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)femmedem
(8,201 posts)is a compromise they thought the Republicans might accept out of fear of looking completely unreasonable.
I am for very strict gun control for everyone but think that Greenwald has a valid point.
0rganism
(23,937 posts)i think that's the missing piece of the puzzle...
still_one
(92,122 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)stands for. I think it's call an ad hominem attack. You might as well attack him for his appearance.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Attacking his position on guns is the opposite of a personal attack. Even calling him a shitty writer (which he is) isnt personal.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)of denial? So much easier to blindly follow a tough authoritarian leader. Being skeptical is too hard. It's so much easier to believe what you are told. There are 2.5 million American children homeless because the 1% value profits over human lives. Why would anyone choose to side with them? Maybe for a pat on the head.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)in terms of bringing spouses to the US. Criticizing anyone who was in that position for making that choice is an act of bigotry in and of itself, not matter who the anyone is.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)TomCADem
(17,387 posts)Who is right?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Terrorist can be made to include gun nuts in general, NRA members, or anyone else we desire.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)But it's all OK when a Democrat is president, it seems.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)I would go further to say that as long as it suits the party's purposes, attacking due process is a-ok. Crazy stuff.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And we want it now.
NickB79
(19,233 posts)Pro-gun or anti-gun, once you get to the point you're ready to chuck civil rights out the window to achieve your goals, you gotta start questioning how you got to that point.
By this one reasonable proposal to start.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... so long as getting on it has a documented process which checks and balances, and that individuals can challenge being placed on it.
Due process does not always require a court proceeding.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)It is better than the idea of sending troops to the Middle East to prevent terrorism - at least it attempts to zero in on the terrorists.
Not that it helped that much when two of the 911 hijackers were on it. I think it only helps with people entering the US as opposed to people already here.
The real problem with it is the mistaken entries like Ted Kennedy. And people with similar names.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...anyone it doesn't like. Imagine what Trump would do with it.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)The 2nd amendment has never been clear cut.
RAFisher
(466 posts)If we are saying that you have a constitutional right to go on a suicidal killing spree, then I agree with Glenn. The Government can't just take that away without cause. The real question is why we give people that constitutional right in the first place.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Greenwald
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)He loved Bush and now he hates Obama.
Tell you all you need to know about him.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)AntiBank
(1,339 posts)http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more
Anyone who develops any sort of platform in US political debates becomes a target of hostility and attack. That's just the nature of politics everywhere. Those attacks often are advanced with falsehoods, fabrications and lies about the person. In general, the point of these falsehoods is to attack and discredit the messenger in lieu of engaging the substance of the critiques.
There are a series of common lies frequently told about me which I'm addressing here. During the Bush years, when I was criticizing George Bush and the GOP in my daily writing and books, there was a set of lies about me personally that came from the hardest-core Bush followers that I finally addressed. The new set comes largely from the hardest-core Obama followers.
I've ignored these for awhile, mostly because they have never appeared in any consequential venue, but rather are circulated only by anonymous commenters or obscure, hackish blogs. That is still the case, but they've become sufficiently circulated that it's now worthwhile to address and debunk them. Anyone wishing to do so can judge the facts for themselves. The following lies are addressed here:
1. I work/worked for the Cato Institute
2. I'm a right-wing libertarian
3. I supported the Iraq War and/or George Bush
4. I moved to Brazil to protest US laws on gay marriage
5. Because I live in Brazil, I have no "skin in the game" for US politics
6. I was sanctioned or otherwise punished for ethical violations in my law practice
snip
I supported the Iraq War and/or George Bush
These claim [sic] are absolutely false. They come from a complete distortion of the Preface I wrote to my own 2006 book, How Would a Patriot Act? That book - which was the first book devoted to denouncing the Bush/Cheney executive power theories as radical and lawless - was published a mere six months after I began blogging, so the the purpose of the Preface was to explain where I had come from, why I left my law practice to begin writing about politics, and what my political evolution had been..
The whole point of the Preface was that, before 2004, I had been politically apathetic and indifferent - except for the work I was doing on constitutional law. That's because, while I had no interest in the fights between Democrats and Republicans, I had a basic trust in the American political system and its institutions, such that I devoted my attention and energies to preventing constitutional violations rather than political debates. From the first two paragraphs:
I never voted for George W. Bush or for any of his political opponents. I believed that voting was not particularly important. Our country, it seemed to me, was essentially on the right track. Whether Democrats or Republicans held the White House or the majorities in Congress made only the most marginal difference. . . .
I firmly believed that our democratic system of government was sufficiently insulated from any real abuse, by our Constitution and by the checks and balances afforded by having three separate but equal branches of government. My primary political belief was that both parties were plagued by extremists who were equally dangerous and destructive, but that as long as neither extreme acquired real political power, our system would function smoothly and more or less tolerably. For that reason, although I always paid attention to political debates, I was never sufficiently moved to become engaged in the electoral process. I had great faith in the stability and resilience of the constitutional republic that the founders created.
When the Iraq War was debated and then commenced, I was not a writer. I was not a journalist. I was not politically engaged or active. I never played any role in political debates or controversies. Unlike the countless beloved Democrats who actually did support the war - including Obama's Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - I had no platform or role in politics of any kind.
I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form. Ask anyone who claims that I "supported" the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It's a pure fabrication.
At the time, I was basically a standard passive consumer of political news: I read The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic: the journals that I thought high-end consumers of news would read and which I assumed were generally reliable for getting the basic truth.What I explained in the Preface was that I had major objections to the Iraq war when it was being debated:
During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11.
Nonetheless, because of the general faith I had in political and media institutions, I assumed - since both political parties and media outlets and journalists from across the ideological spectrum were united in support of the war - that there must be some valid basis to the claim that Saddam posed a threat. My basic trust in these institutions neutralized the objections I had and led me to passively acquiesce to what was being done ("I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country." .
Like many people, I became radicalized by those early years of the Bush administration. The Preface recounts that it was the 2002 due-process-free imprisonment of US citizen Jose Padilla and the 2003 Iraq War that caused me to realize the full extent of the government's radicalism and the media's malfeasance: "I developed, for the first time in my life, a sense of urgency about the need to take a stand for our country and its defining principles."
As I recount in the Preface, I stopped practicing law and pursued political writing precisely because those people who had an obligation to act as adversarial checks on the Bush administration during the start of the war on civil liberties and the run-up to the Iraq War - namely, Congress, courts, and the media - were profoundly failing to fulfill that obligation.
I wasn't a journalist or government official during these radical power abuses and the run-up to the Iraq War, and wasn't working in a profession supposedly devoted to serving as watchdog over government claims and abuses. I relied on those people to learn what was going on and to prevent extremism. But I quickly concluded that those who held those positions in politics and journalism were failing in their duties. Read the last six paragraphs of the Preface: I started writing about politics to bring light to these issues and to try to contribute to a real adversarial force against the Bush administration and its blind followers.
It is true that, like 90% of Americans, I did support the war in Afghanistan and, living in New York, believed the rhetoric about the threat of Islamic extremism: those were obvious mistakes. It's also true that one can legitimately criticize me for not having actively opposed the Iraq War at a time when many people were doing so. Martin Luther King, in his 1967 speech explaining why his activism against the Vietnam War was indispensable to his civil rights work, acknowledged that he had been too slow to pay attention to or oppose the war and that he thus felt obligated to work with particular vigor against it once he realized the need ("Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam" .
I've often spoken about the prime benefit of writing about political matters full-time: namely, it enables you to examine first-hand sources and not have to rely upon media or political mediators when forming beliefs. That process has been and continues to be very eye-opening for me.
Like most people who do not work on politics or journalism full-time, I had to rely back then on standard political and media venues to form my political impressions of the world. When I first began writing about politics, I had a whole slew of conventional political beliefs that came from lazy ingestion of the false and misleading claims of these conventional political and media sources. Having the time to examine political realities first-hand has led me to realize how many of those former beliefs I held were based on myth or worse, and I've radically changed how I think about a whole slew of issues as a result of that re-examination.
The purpose of the Preface was to publicly explain that evolution. Indeed, the first sentence of this Preface was this quote from Abraham Lincoln: "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday." When I still trusted and relied upon the claims of the political and media class - when I was basically apolitical and passive - I tacitly accepted all sorts of views which I've come to see are warped and misleading. I've talked often about this process and am proud of this evolution. I have zero interest in hiding it or concealing it. Quite the contrary: I want readers to know about it. That's why I wrote the Preface.
But anyone using this Preface to claim I was a "supporter" of the Iraq War is simply fabricating. At worst, I was guilty of apathy and passivity. I did nothing for or against it because I assumed that those in positions to exercise adversarial scrutiny - in journalism and politics - were doing that. It's precisely my realization of how profoundly deceitful and failed are American political and media institutions that motivated me to begin working on politics, and it's those realizations which continue to motivate me now.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Did you disagree with Greenwald when it came to Citizens United?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)TomCADem
(17,387 posts)Greenwald is not a progressive or liberal. If you support gun control or campaign finance reform, then he is not on your side.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)TomCADem
(17,387 posts)You learn something new on the internet each day.
randome
(34,845 posts)He's just a second-rate wannabe.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)Greenwald's position is almost always inline with the ACLU. It is on this issue. Your position is almost always the opposite of the ACLU. I guess the ACLU thinks they are cool by taking contrary positions on almost everything.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)for provocation's sake. A troll, really.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I would be all in favour of taking the right to buy assault rifles away from everyone. Taking it away from a small subset of the population without due process of law terrifies me.
renate
(13,776 posts)and not for hunting or target practice, I think it makes perfect sense for those people who are on the watch list and who are actually potential terrorists to be allowed to buy them without any impediment so they can be used for their intended purpose.
It always feels so heavy handed to add the tag but there are probably people who think a right to effortlessly have access to a weapon that can be used to commit mass murder trumps the rights of people who just want to go to a nightclub or a movie without getting mowed down.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)He once accused me of posting Manichean things right here on DU. All black and white. He was wrong then, but is doing precisely that with this piece.
He has jumped yet another shark with this. In doing so, he ignores the simple fact that those weapons have killed so many people when in the hands of murderers who may never have broken any specific law until they shot some place up and sent innocent people to their graves. Greenwald thinks they had ever right to own those firearms. Because...rights...or something. All black and white, his reasoning is. Manichean.
It's all black and white for those murderers, too. Manichean logic on display. Fortunately, in Greenwald's case, nobody will die due to his inability to see any nuance in anything.
Way to go, there, Glenn...way to go.
Vinca
(50,260 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 23, 2016, 03:19 PM - Edit history (1)
A couple of young Arab men go to the airport to board their flight back to the Middle East and are turned away because they are on the "no fly" list. So, since they're stuck in the U.S., they decide to blend in with the culture and head off to a gun shop to buy themselves AK-47s. (They were going to stop at the drugstore to buy cough syrup, but it was too much of a hassle so they opted for guns instead.) After picking up the weapons, they decided to emulate the open carry people carting weapons around Walmart and, with guns hanging from their shoulders, they head into the grocery store to pick up a few things. You and your kids are in the cereal aisle deciding whether to buy Trix or real food when the heavily-armed pair strolls past the granola display. What goes through your mind? This is the conundrum we face in this country. Guns, guns everywhere and no way to identify those who are strutting their stuff and showing off from those who are going to open fire on shoppers in a grocery store. Greenwald is concerned about the rights of people on the watch list, but doesn't seem to give a hoot about the rights of average citizens to go about their daily business without fearing for their lives.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Than any written test could.
Vinca
(50,260 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Vinca
(50,260 posts)No, I don't think it's true that I'm ignorant. Was that the question? The scenario I described could certainly happen. I've walked into an establishment and seen someone open carrying and turned around and walked back out. Unless you're blessed with supernatural powers, there's no way to know who is nuts and who gets off stroking their gun. What, precisely, is "ignorant" about my original remark? There is no reason anyone on any watch list can't buy a gun. That's the point of the whole discussion. If you're afraid to fly on a plane with someone, why would you feel safe standing in line at the checkout counter with them if they've got a weapon slung over their shoulder?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)If they went into a"gun shop" and attempted to purchase a firearm they would have been refused. Since they had no way of passing a background check and no legal state ID.
Your "story" is just that, a story with no basis in either fact or law.
Vinca
(50,260 posts)Vinca
(50,260 posts)I'm sick of talking about it, too.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Vinca
(50,260 posts)jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Arab men dont just randomly decide to shoot up grocery stores because they cant catch their plane.
Terrorism is usually very carefully planned, and no gun control law, even a gun ban would prevent terrorists from getting guns.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)They're not Muslims, they don't associate with Muslims or terrorists, and it's a complete mystery why they're even on the list. It would be exceedingly bullshit to deny them the right to purchase a gun if they chose.
stonecutter357
(12,695 posts)jack_krass
(1,009 posts)and get back to normal, until the next massacre and the next half-measure. It's sad.
Passing halfassed gun control laws in response to these mass killings wont do jack-shit. Even radical measures, even a total gun ban(which no politician would even.consider) wouldn't stop mass murders, and may make them worse.
We need to start looking at deeper ,underlying causes, including mental health, the role of the media, radicalizatio, isolation, etc.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)kcr
(15,315 posts)I don't like the watch list, but I don't oppose this measure. I don't care that some believe guns are an absolute right. I don't.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)kcr
(15,315 posts)But I would also mind if I was the victim of a shooting. I also mind it when I stub my toe, so. How I think It would affect me personally isn't really what drives my opinion. If I were on the list, the fact that I personally couldn't buy a gun wouldn't mater to me one bit but the fact I couldn't get on a plane sure would.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Are no problem to you?
kcr
(15,315 posts)I do not have a problem with depriving anyone of guns because guns are weapons. It's the fact they're weapons, see?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)a train. You said it would affect you if you could not fly.
Only eight years to get it removed. How much money? I could not know.
kcr
(15,315 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)portlander23
(2,078 posts)I guess this stuff it cool when Democrats are in office. And let's reify this secret list of terrorists by tying gun control to it.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)portlander23
(2,078 posts)ALEXANDRA ROSENMANN
Raw Story
1. US Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
2. Bolivian President Evo Morales
3. Nelson Mandela
4 6. The James Robinsons
7. CNN Reporter Drew Griffin
8. 6-Year-Old Alyssa Thomas
9. 8-Year-Old Mikey Hicks
10. Stanford Ph.D Student Rahinah Ibrahim
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)AntiBank
(1,339 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)You really want to give a future President Donald Trump control over that list, and who is allowed to buy a gun?