HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Greenwald: People on watc...

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:10 PM

Greenwald: 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.?

148 replies, 7803 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 148 replies Author Time Post
Reply Greenwald: People on watch list have a right to get guns. Democrats suck for thinking otherwise. (Original post)
arely staircase Jun 2016 OP
CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #1
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #3
CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #19
Justice Jun 2016 #26
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #33
anoNY42 Jun 2016 #51
scscholar Jun 2016 #76
anoNY42 Jun 2016 #86
scscholar Jun 2016 #91
anoNY42 Jun 2016 #92
dumbcat Jun 2016 #57
Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #125
Florencenj2point0 Jul 2016 #133
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #138
elleng Jun 2016 #31
Captain Stern Jun 2016 #62
The_Casual_Observer Jun 2016 #2
jack_krass Jun 2016 #42
maxsolomon Jun 2016 #82
Orrex Jun 2016 #90
maxsolomon Jun 2016 #103
Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #126
geek tragedy Jun 2016 #4
hack89 Jun 2016 #6
geek tragedy Jun 2016 #7
hack89 Jun 2016 #9
geek tragedy Jun 2016 #11
msanthrope Jun 2016 #13
X_Digger Jun 2016 #40
JustinL Jun 2016 #44
X_Digger Jun 2016 #46
JustinL Jun 2016 #55
X_Digger Jun 2016 #84
msanthrope Jun 2016 #12
JustinL Jun 2016 #43
msanthrope Jun 2016 #45
JustinL Jun 2016 #54
msanthrope Jun 2016 #58
Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #128
msanthrope Jul 2016 #142
aikoaiko Jun 2016 #14
Scootaloo Jun 2016 #78
arendt Jun 2016 #16
NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #25
Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #130
Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #127
MattP Jun 2016 #5
Blue_Tires Jun 2016 #8
JoePhilly Jun 2016 #94
Surya Gayatri Jul 2016 #116
msanthrope Jun 2016 #10
arendt Jun 2016 #15
Kang Colby Jun 2016 #17
arcane1 Jun 2016 #27
arendt Jun 2016 #28
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #34
LanternWaste Jun 2016 #60
treestar Jun 2016 #88
G_j Jun 2016 #99
AntiBank Jul 2016 #111
Hassin Bin Sober Jun 2016 #18
arendt Jun 2016 #22
Gormy Cuss Jun 2016 #87
MagickMuffin Jun 2016 #98
Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #131
cali Jun 2016 #20
X_Digger Jun 2016 #41
struggle4progress Jun 2016 #21
zappaman Jun 2016 #72
femmedem Jun 2016 #23
0rganism Jun 2016 #24
still_one Jun 2016 #29
Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #30
arely staircase Jun 2016 #32
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #35
arely staircase Jun 2016 #38
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #39
arely staircase Jul 2016 #110
rhett o rick Jul 2016 #114
NuclearDem Jun 2016 #36
Bluenorthwest Jun 2016 #70
DesMoinesDem Jun 2016 #37
TomCADem Jun 2016 #61
baldguy Jun 2016 #47
ileus Jun 2016 #48
Odin2005 Jun 2016 #49
Hydra Jun 2016 #50
oberliner Jun 2016 #52
NickB79 Jun 2016 #75
oberliner Jun 2016 #80
Adrahil Jun 2016 #53
snooper2 Jun 2016 #74
treestar Jun 2016 #89
Odin2005 Jun 2016 #100
La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2016 #56
Bradical79 Jun 2016 #59
RAFisher Jun 2016 #63
DCBob Jun 2016 #64
Cali_Democrat Jun 2016 #66
DCBob Jun 2016 #67
AntiBank Jul 2016 #112
Electric Monk Jun 2016 #65
Cali_Democrat Jun 2016 #68
Electric Monk Jun 2016 #69
TomCADem Jun 2016 #71
Electric Monk Jun 2016 #73
TomCADem Jun 2016 #83
randome Jun 2016 #77
DesMoinesDem Jun 2016 #81
arely staircase Jul 2016 #144
DesMoinesDem Jul 2016 #148
Rex Jun 2016 #79
JoePhilly Jun 2016 #95
Donald Ian Rankin Jun 2016 #85
renate Jun 2016 #93
MineralMan Jun 2016 #96
Vinca Jun 2016 #97
oneshooter Jun 2016 #104
Vinca Jun 2016 #105
oneshooter Jun 2016 #108
Vinca Jun 2016 #109
oneshooter Jul 2016 #117
Vinca Jul 2016 #120
oneshooter Jul 2016 #122
Vinca Jul 2016 #123
oneshooter Jul 2016 #136
Vinca Jul 2016 #140
jack_krass Jun 2016 #107
HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #101
stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #102
jack_krass Jun 2016 #106
AntiBank Jul 2016 #113
kcr Jul 2016 #115
oneshooter Jul 2016 #118
kcr Jul 2016 #119
oneshooter Jul 2016 #121
kcr Jul 2016 #124
oneshooter Jul 2016 #135
kcr Jul 2016 #139
oneshooter Jul 2016 #141
portlander23 Jul 2016 #129
Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #132
portlander23 Jul 2016 #134
oneshooter Jul 2016 #137
bettyellen Jul 2016 #143
AntiBank Jul 2016 #145
arely staircase Jul 2016 #147
bluestateguy Jul 2016 #146

Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:21 PM

1. No right is beyond limits. I can't slander Glen, despite free speech. Terrorists shouldn't get guns.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:26 PM

3. How about suspected terrorists?

How about those added to a list because someone thought that they might have been loosely involved with a suspected terrorist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:52 PM

19. How often will someone NEED that gun before they can prove their innocence?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #19)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:21 PM

26. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #19)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 06:14 PM

33. I'm not okay with the burden being on the individual

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:55 AM

51. How does a person on that list "prove their innocence"?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anoNY42 (Reply #51)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 03:23 PM

76. Just read today that someone got off after an eight-year appeal

 

So it's possible, and the Republicans are lying when they claim you can't get off of the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #76)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 12:17 PM

86. I can't tell

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anoNY42 (Reply #86)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 12:50 PM

91. Obviously, we're fine with it since we're fighting for that right no in congress! (ntxt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #91)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 12:53 PM

92. Passing a law to limit sales to folks on the watch list

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 01:22 PM

57. " ... prove their innocence?"

That doesn't sound right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 03:45 PM

125. "Proving ones innocence" is found where in American jurisprudence?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 04:34 PM

133. I never thought I would argue this side but no

not suspected terrorists either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Florencenj2point0 (Reply #133)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 04:56 PM

138. Many feel the same way

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:30 PM

31. Thanks, CrowCityDem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 01:51 PM

62. You can slander or defame Glen all you want, and you won't be charged with a crime.

Glen might be able to win a civil suit against you, but you still won't be charged with a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:24 PM

2. I've yet to see a gun nut that didn't change their

Tune after they or somebody close to them was affected by gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The_Casual_Observer (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 12:24 AM

42. IME, the opposite is true...

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Reply #42)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:48 PM

82. where did that happen?

in America?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #82)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 12:43 PM

90. Yes, I would like to hear of this mythical place where guns are "strictly controlled."

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Reply #42)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 05:38 PM

103. still waiting to hear about your experience

encountering violent, heavily armed criminals in areas where guns are strictly controlled.

again, IN AMERICA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The_Casual_Observer (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 03:55 PM

126. Sorry, casual, but I have seen people arm up when "affected by gun violence."

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:27 PM

4. amazing how this became a due process issue when guns got involved nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:33 PM

6. Isn't it a due process issue?

are you saying the process actually respects due process in regards to constitutional rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:35 PM

7. the point was the due process concern existed when this

 

kept people from getting on an airplane

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:36 PM

9. Not sure that getting on a airplane is a civil right.

good question - have to dig into that one a little.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:38 PM

11. the right to travel is considered a constitutional right nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #11)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:40 PM

13. Yes....but use of airports, drivers licences are considered privileges. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 12:21 AM

40. The right to travel doesn't mean the right to get on a private plane. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #40)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:31 AM

44. with respect to international travel, the courts have ruled that it does

See post 43.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustinL (Reply #44)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 08:11 AM

46. Umm, no. Read your own excerpt, dear. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #46)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 01:19 PM

55. Um, read post 54. Is that clear enough for you? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustinL (Reply #55)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:41 PM

84. Perhaps you should read it yourself. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:39 PM

12. It isn't. The right to travel is a fundamental right. But using airports is a privilege. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:29 AM

43. with respect to international air travel, your position has been rejected by the courts

From Latif v Holder, 969 F.Supp.2d 1292, 1303 (D. Ore. 2013):

Although there are perhaps viable alternatives to flying for domestic travel within the continental United States such as traveling by car or train, the Court disagrees with Defendants' contention that international air travel is a mere convenience in light of the realities of our modern world. Such an argument ignores the numerous reasons an individual may have for wanting or needing to travel overseas quickly such as for the birth of a child, the death of a loved one, a business opportunity, or a religious obligation. In Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security the Northern District of California recently rejected an argument similar to the one made by Defendants here:

While the Constitution does not ordinarily guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation, given that other forms of travel usually remain possible, the fact remains that for international travel, air transport in these modern times is practically the only form of transportation, travel by ship being prohibitively expensive..... Decisions involving domestic air travel, such as the Gilmore case, are not on point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustinL (Reply #43)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:59 AM

45. Thanks.....but what you cite actually proves my point. Google Law School is generally

 

not accredited in all states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #45)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 01:17 PM

54. You should tell that to the Court. They continued to reject your point in a later ruling.

From Latif v Holder, 28 F.Supp.3d 1134, 1149 (D. Ore. 2014):

Accordingly, the Court concludes on this record that Plaintiffs have constitutionally-protected liberty interests in traveling internationally by air, which are significantly affected by being placed on the No-Fly List.


p. 1150:

Accordingly, on this record the Court concludes Plaintiffs' inclusion on the No-Fly List constitutes a significant deprivation of their liberty interests in international travel...

As noted, the Court has concluded Plaintiffs have constitutionally-protected liberty interests in the right to travel internationally by air.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustinL (Reply #54)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 01:23 PM

58. Yes....It's interesting how you think a single decision in the 9th circuit confers a fundamental

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #58)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 04:06 PM

128. The Ninth Court didn't "confer" a right. It recognized a restriction of a constitutional liberty.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #128)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 06:44 PM

142. Thank you for agreeing with me. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:41 PM

14. People complained about that too.



But it was also outside the NRA's domain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 03:28 PM

78. Maybe you didn't notice before now.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:49 PM

16. It was a due process issue ten years ago...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:20 PM

25. Been an issue since the Bush years. Just thought we'd be rid of these lists by now.

Never could have foreseen people on the left take up and champion dubya's secret watch lists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #25)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 04:08 PM

130. But... but, GUNZ!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 04:02 PM

127. Opposed "no-fly," oppose "no buy," then and now...

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:30 PM

5. Greenwald calls it a war on due process but if anybody ever

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:35 PM

8. Everybody knows his game by now...

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 01:17 PM

94. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 03:16 AM

116. ^^^AMEN to this!^^^

 

If Glenn the Glibb Gassbag strokes out, I won't mourn his passing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:37 PM

10. This would mean his White Supramacist civil clients would not be able to buy guns.

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:44 PM

15. When Ted Kennedy couldn't fly cuz Watchlist, we all hated it...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:50 PM

17. ^^^This.

I think it is horrifying that people are OK with the political legitimization of TWLs.



For the record, I am pro-rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:23 PM

27. We all hated the watchlist until 1/20/2009 n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #27)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:25 PM

28. Clever generalization, sir. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #27)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:02 PM

34. Funny how that goes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #34)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 01:46 PM

60. Inaccurate and unsupported generalizations are often funny.

Inaccurate and unsupported generalizations are often funny, regardless of how they go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 12:39 PM

88. That's the problem with it

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:22 PM

99. This is true..nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #15)

Wed Jul 6, 2016, 10:18 AM

111. THIS^^^^^^^+1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:52 PM

18. He's correct.

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 "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #18)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:57 PM

22. They are trying to legitimize the no-fly list. Guns are the excuse. n/t

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 12:37 PM

87. ^^^This^^^

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:03 PM

98. The Feds already have: the 4th Amendment the Feds took away our rights without due process

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MagickMuffin (Reply #98)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 04:15 PM

131. Yep. One prohibition (the WOD) got the 4th; the other attempt (on GUNZ!) goes after the 5th.

 

Not an auspicious time for so-called liberals and progressives; esp. when upbraided by the likes of Greenwald.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:53 PM

20. Lynch refuses to say even how many Americans are on the terror watch list

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #20)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 12:24 AM

41. Not even Ted Kennedy-- the no fly list included the name, "T. Kennedy"

So Teresa, Tad, Tim, Thomas, Terry, and Tony all got sent home or otherwise detained for a time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:57 PM

21. "Maybe the Libertarians can get two percent of the vote this year!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:42 PM

72. Dream big!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:07 PM

23. I think most Democrats would prefer stricter gun control for everyone.The terror watch list

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:13 PM

24. how about a process to *get off* the watch list?

i think that's the missing piece of the puzzle...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:27 PM

29. I wouldn't expect anything less from the man who supported President Bush when he signed the Patriot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:27 PM

30. Don't like GG's criticism? Quit giving him reason to criticize.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #30)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:38 PM

32. He needs no reasons other than his gigantic ego and tiny mind. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:03 PM

35. His hair is unkempt also. How childish.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #35)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:55 PM

38. I never said a word about his.appearance. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #38)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 12:10 AM

39. LOL. You don't get it. You are attacking him personally and not what he says or what he

 

stands for. I think it's call an ad hominem attack. You might as well attack him for his appearance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #39)

Wed Jul 6, 2016, 10:08 AM

110. You need a dictionary.

Attacking his position on guns is the opposite of a personal attack. Even calling him a shitty writer (which he is) isnt personal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #110)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 12:14 AM

114. What do you fear from those that want the truth? Will they rock your comfy bubble

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:07 PM

36. --Asshat who lives in Brazil.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:35 PM

70. Many same sex couples had to live outside the US because the US did not give LGBT any rights

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:18 PM

37. Greenwald is right as usual.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesMoinesDem (Reply #37)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 01:49 PM

61. Bernie Sanders vs. Greenwald re Citizens United?

Who is right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 08:20 AM

47. Greenwald is an asshole. He's always been an asshole.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 08:21 AM

48. Once we get this passed we can change the definition of terrorist to suit us.

Terrorist can be made to include gun nuts in general, NRA members, or anyone else we desire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 08:24 AM

49. We all hated the watch list when Dim Son was president.

But it's all OK when a Democrat is president, it seems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #49)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:52 AM

50. Yep, the new normal

I would go further to say that as long as it suits the party's purposes, attacking due process is a-ok. Crazy stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #49)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:59 AM

52. We wanted gun control when he was president

 

And we want it now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #52)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 03:20 PM

75. So by any means necessary then?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #75)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:41 PM

80. No

 

By this one reasonable proposal to start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #49)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:17 AM

53. I don't object to the watch list....

 

... 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #49)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:49 PM

74. I didn't hate the watch list...believe it is needed for some sick fucks out there

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #49)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 12:41 PM

89. Did we?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #89)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 04:36 PM

100. The problem is that it is easily turned into a way for the government to persecute...

...anyone it doesn't like. Imagine what Trump would do with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 01:20 PM

56. greenwald sucks for not being able to read the first part of the second amendment.

 

"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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 01:39 PM

59. Maybe he's right, maybe not

The 2nd amendment has never been clear cut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:08 PM

63. I think Glenn right. That just illustrates the insanity of the 2nd Amendment and why it needs to go

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:11 PM

64. Why is this idiot always against Democrats.. even to the point of siding with Republcans??


    Greenwald

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #64)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:13 PM

66. He was a big George W. Bush cheerleader.

 

He loved Bush and now he hates Obama.

Tell you all you need to know about him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #66)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:19 PM

67. Then why is he seen as such a hero by many on this board?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #66)

Wed Jul 6, 2016, 10:35 AM

112. Bullshit. But you knew that already.

 

Glenn Greenwald Responds to Widespread Lies About Him (on Cato, Iraq War, and more)

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:11 PM

65. Mark it on your calendars: I disagree with Glenn Greenwald about something. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #65)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:21 PM

68. Why do we have to mark it on our calendars?

 

Did you disagree with Greenwald when it came to Citizens United?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #68)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:25 PM

69. To Protect Hillary Clinton, Democrats Wage War on Their Own Core Citizens United Argument

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #69)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:37 PM

71. Greenwald Trying to Deflect Again

Greenwald is not a progressive or liberal. If you support gun control or campaign finance reform, then he is not on your side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #71)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:45 PM

73. To Protect Hillary Clinton, Democrats Wage War on Their Own Core Citizens United Argument

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #73)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:51 PM

83. Wow! Bernie is Actually Protecting Hillary!

You learn something new on the internet each day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 03:23 PM

77. Greenwald thinks he's 'cool' by taking contrary positions on almost everything.

 

He's just a second-rate wannabe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #77)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:44 PM

81. Contrary to who? You? Someone always has a contrary position.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesMoinesDem (Reply #81)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 03:15 AM

144. As in contrarian. One who takes provocative posititions

for provocation's sake. A troll, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #144)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 08:16 AM

148. The ACLU is a bunch of trolls!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 03:31 PM

79. libertarian nut laureate - I am so stealing that!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #79)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 01:18 PM

95. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:43 PM

85. Much as I loathe and despise Greenwald, on this specific point he's not wrong.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 01:15 PM

93. well, since the only purpose of an assault weapon is for the killing of people

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 01:35 PM

96. And Glenn Greenwald issues another Manichean screed.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 01:44 PM

97. So imagine this scenario -

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #97)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 08:26 PM

104. That senerio shows more about your ignorance of the current laws

Than any written test could.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #104)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 07:53 AM

105. A person calling me ignorant should check their spelling and punctuation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #105)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 08:28 AM

108. So you do not deny that what was said is true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #108)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 12:44 PM

109. It would be nice if you would elaborate.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #109)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 09:23 AM

117. These "young arab men" are not legal residents nor are they citizens of the US.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #117)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 02:18 PM

120. Well, I hope you have the opportunity to fly with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #120)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 03:16 PM

122. ?????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #122)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 03:17 PM

123. The point of the thread is "no fly, no buy."

I'm sick of talking about it, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #123)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 04:50 PM

136. Then run away. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #136)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 05:09 PM

140. To quote you: ??????????????????????.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #97)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 08:19 AM

107. The picture you paint is silly, like a caricature

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 04:42 PM

101. I know a couple people on the watch list.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 04:49 PM

102. who?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 08:09 AM

106. I Agree with Glen. The establishment wants a "quick fix" so they can pat themselves on the back

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Wed Jul 6, 2016, 10:44 AM

113. nothing like a little Greenwald to get the authoritarians buzzing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 02:43 AM

115. I would agree if guns weren't weapons and being denied guns was a burden. It's not.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #115)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 09:25 AM

118. So you would not mind it if your name is on the list? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #118)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 10:32 AM

119. Of course I would mind if my name was on the list.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #119)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 03:14 PM

121. And a eight year process to be removed from the list, and the funds needed to do so.

Are no problem to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #121)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 03:43 PM

124. Why would you ask that? Are you assuming they would be?

I do not have a problem with depriving anyone of guns because guns are weapons. It's the fact they're weapons, see?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #124)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 04:49 PM

135. You keep going back to guns. I am speaking of loosing the right to board an airplane, possably

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #135)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 04:58 PM

139. No one said you had to reply to my post in the first place n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #139)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 05:23 PM

141. OK then, be rude THEN run away. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 04:06 PM

129. Remember when liberals were against the government declaring people terrorists with no due process?

 



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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 04:28 PM

132. Hats off to the DUers here who support gun-control, but do not support the Terrah Watch List.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 04:43 PM

134. What the hell were these 10 people doing on the terrorist watch list?

 

What the hell were these 10 people doing on the terrorist watch list?
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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to portlander23 (Reply #134)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 04:51 PM

137. Not getting on an airplane? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 06:59 PM

143. Fuck that rat fucking libertarian fool.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #143)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 03:18 AM

145. I disagree profoundly. He is a vital force that uplifts the country.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Reply #145)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 04:05 AM

147. Brazil? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 03:44 AM

146. The lists are badly flawed and arbitrary

You really want to give a future President Donald Trump control over that list, and who is allowed to buy a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread