IGX

Yes I Have Balls wrote: Is the "No fly" list the same as the "terrorist watch" list that the NRA now approves the use of?

The no-fly/terrorist watch list is really multiple suspect/known terrorist/investigative watch lists created by different agencies. They are sort of amalgamated together to create the no-fly list. The size of them and where they come from is pieced together from testimony to Congress and some material released in statements, but because they are secret we don't actually know how they are created or how many citizens are on them. One of the problems with it is that it has become apparent that they are not lists of specifically identified people (i.e. name plus specific data such as SSN, age, etc.) but lists of just names. So in addition to wrongly being on the list, people have also discovered that they are on the list because they have the same name as somebody else.

Herv100 wrote:

Boris wrote:

Schlegel wrote:

Boris wrote:

Schlegel wrote: Like for Mexico "the BATFE traces a majority of crime guns to a US origin". No, just a majority of the guns they are given, which is a minority of confiscated guns. Guns obviously of other origin are not sent to the BATFE, because the BATFE cannot trace a gun that never entered the US.
...
I could go on all day with examples...

Come on now... the # of small arms going south across the border is pretty large (estimates put that number at 100,000+ and that's low balling it significantly). I have no idea what the number of arms supplied to govts. and rebels throughout Central and South America is, but I'm guessing it's huge.

In truth, no one agrees on the actual number, but it is not possible to say that 90% of Mexican crime guns are known to come from the US, although this is repeatedly published as unquestioned fact. certainly illegal US sales can not be a significant source of full-auto weapons, even though cartels use large numbers of them, since you can not just walk in and buy them in a US gun shop. Arms supplied to governments are known to fall in to cartel hands as an astoundingly high percentage of the Mexican Army defects annually, and they are known to occasionally attack and empty arms depots. By rights, these arms really should be discounted from the analysis, since no amount of US civilian gun control can reduce them.

I guess it all comes down to what you want to count...

Fwiw, I don't have an agenda and this is not a pronouncement of judgement (even though I know it sounds like one), but it's tough to argue against the idea that the world is awash in small arms largely because of the U.S. and our right to bear arms.

LOL, that's the dumbest thing I've read today. Guns across the world come mostly from military surplus. "The world is awash in small arms" because of... $$$.

Fixed it for you.

Go to Europe, Asia, or Africa and see if Colt or Smith and Wesson will ship you a firearm. Good luck.

Why would I need them to ship something that's already there?

The point is not that private American ownership = those same guns going to everywhere, but that the cries of freedom and "from my cold, dead hands" have enabled and emboldened a lobby and industry that influences US domestic and foreign policy, and also industry, government, and policy world wide.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Schlegel wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote: You're overstating the other side's. Nobody is saying, "Yeah, put them on a list that they can never get off of." If there's a mistake, it should be worked out. But until it's worked out, buying guns is going to take longer.

NRA now endorses this, BTW.

What we have right now is functionally a list you can't get off of.

You realize that can change, right?

No, when I said

Even if you don't like the NRA, I don't think saying that people wrongly on the list should have a due process legal procedure available so they can be removed from the list is at all unreasonable.

I had no idea that it might, just maybe, be possible to add due process to the list so you can get off it. None at all. Zero. What an astounding idea, I'm really impressed. Honest.

Literally no one is saying there shouldn't be a way to get off it. Nobody. You're arguing against a figment of your imagination.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Literally no one is saying there shouldn't be a way to get off it. Nobody. You're arguing against a figment of your imagination.

That's not quite fair...in that there is virtually no due process in getting off the list now. That's not a figment...that's the state of play now.

Whether you are arguing for a List or not, you have to acknowledge that currently, what we have is fuct and no one is making tremendous strides in getting it unfucked but a lot of noise from a lot of quarters is directed at making the notion of a list more sweeping, more invasive and more powerful. That's creeping incrementalism, which is what we should all be concerned with.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Literally no one is saying there shouldn't be a way to get off it. Nobody. You're arguing against a figment of your imagination.

What method are they proposing? Serious question. I haven't yet found specifics, for some reason they are lacking in the news reports, although I did see that they want the AG to be able to add names at will, in contrast to the Republicans who are advocating for a Judge to approve it, similar to search warrants.

I hope it's a better method than their last one:

Democrats argue there would be ample recourse for anyone mistakenly barred from procuring a gun under Feinstein’s proposal, as people prohibited from obtaining a firearm could file suit against the government if necessary.

I don't consider making you sue the Feds and win an acceptable method of returning civil rights. It's not exactly timely, and I bet it's expensive.

Six years ago, the ACLU filed its own challenge to the no-fly list on behalf of individuals including Nagib Ali Ghaleb, a San Francisco janitor in his early 30s who was reportedly blocked from boarding a U.S.-bound plane in Yemen because of his inclusion on the no-fly list.

This case is still grinding along in federal court in Oregon.

Schlegel, you got to make the right people care. Work to make it so you can't buy a gun if you are on the terror/no-fly list. Then the NRA will give a shit and knock their congress-beeyotches on the head and this will all get fixed pronto.

nafod wrote:Schlegel, you got to make the right people care. Work to make it so you can't buy a gun if you are on the terror/no-fly list. Then the NRA will give a shit and knock their congress-beeyotches on the head and this will all get fixed pronto.

I assume you are joking?

I like my NRA narrowly focused...I like my ACLU narrowly focused. Hell if each of the amendments had a watch dog group I'd be happier still.

nafod wrote:Schlegel, you got to make the right people care. Work to make it so you can't buy a gun if you are on the terror/no-fly list. Then the NRA will give a shit and knock their congress-beeyotches on the head and this will all get fixed pronto.

That's like taking a sick friend to the ER and then stabbing him in the hope he''ll get to jump to the head of the line.

Boris wrote:

Herv100 wrote:

Boris wrote:

Schlegel wrote:

Boris wrote:

Schlegel wrote: Like for Mexico "the BATFE traces a majority of crime guns to a US origin". No, just a majority of the guns they are given, which is a minority of confiscated guns. Guns obviously of other origin are not sent to the BATFE, because the BATFE cannot trace a gun that never entered the US.
...
I could go on all day with examples...

Come on now... the # of small arms going south across the border is pretty large (estimates put that number at 100,000+ and that's low balling it significantly). I have no idea what the number of arms supplied to govts. and rebels throughout Central and South America is, but I'm guessing it's huge.

In truth, no one agrees on the actual number, but it is not possible to say that 90% of Mexican crime guns are known to come from the US, although this is repeatedly published as unquestioned fact. certainly illegal US sales can not be a significant source of full-auto weapons, even though cartels use large numbers of them, since you can not just walk in and buy them in a US gun shop. Arms supplied to governments are known to fall in to cartel hands as an astoundingly high percentage of the Mexican Army defects annually, and they are known to occasionally attack and empty arms depots. By rights, these arms really should be discounted from the analysis, since no amount of US civilian gun control can reduce them.

I guess it all comes down to what you want to count...

Fwiw, I don't have an agenda and this is not a pronouncement of judgement (even though I know it sounds like one), but it's tough to argue against the idea that the world is awash in small arms largely because of the U.S. and our right to bear arms.

LOL, that's the dumbest thing I've read today. Guns across the world come mostly from military surplus. "The world is awash in small arms" because of... $$$.

Fixed it for you.

Go to Europe, Asia, or Africa and see if Colt or Smith and Wesson will ship you a firearm. Good luck.

Why would I need them to ship something that's already there?

The point is not that private American ownership = those same guns going to everywhere, but that the cries of freedom and "from my cold, dead hands" have enabled and emboldened a lobby and industry that influences US domestic and foreign policy, and also industry, government, and policy world wide.

Yeah, the 2nd Amendments and its advocates are why there are Russian AKs and Belgian FALs all over Asia and Africa. LMAO

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Literally no one is saying there shouldn't be a way to get off it. Nobody. You're arguing against a figment of your imagination.

That's not quite fair...in that there is virtually no due process in getting off the list now. That's not a figment...that's the state of play now.

Whether you are arguing for a List or not, you have to acknowledge that currently, what we have is fuct and no one is making tremendous strides in getting it unfucked but a lot of noise from a lot of quarters is directed at making the notion of a list more sweeping, more invasive and more powerful. That's creeping incrementalism, which is what we should all be concerned with.

I'm of the mindset that a political issue is more valuable than a political solution. If the Progressives really want a no fly no buy list, they should be scrambling for a prompt and effective due process solution that gun rights advocates in Congress can get behind, or at least use as cover with their gun clinging constituents. It might be happening behind the scenes but most of what I see is grandstanding, primarily from the left.

Herv100 wrote: Yeah, the 2nd Amendments and its advocates are why there are Russian AKs and Belgian FALs all over Asia and Africa. LMAO

No to mention that the small arms manufacturers are bit players in US arms sales.

this is from April- this just 2 transactions:

However, the Pentagon and the State Department both have signed off on the sale of some 36 F-15 fighter jets to Qatar and 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to Kuwait, both built by Boeing. The White House is expected to follow suit shortly.

The sale to Kuwait is worth about $3 billion and the one to Qatar is probably close to $4 billion, sources familiar with the matter said.

for comparison, in 2015, Smith and Wesson's best year ever, they estimated that total world-wide sales revenue was $660 million.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
......Whether you are arguing for a List or not, you have to acknowledge that currently, what we have is fuct and no one is making tremendous strides in getting it unfucked but a lot of noise from a lot of quarters is directed at making the notion of a list more sweeping, more invasive and more powerful. That's creeping incrementalism, which is what we should all be concerned with.

I'm of the mindset that a political issue is more valuable than a political solution. If the Progressives really want a no fly no buy list, they should be scrambling for a prompt and effective due process solution that gun rights advocates in Congress can get behind, or at least use as cover with their gun clinging constituents. It might be happening behind the scenes but most of what I see is grandstanding, primarily from the left.

To those points. Notice the continued conflation of 'no-fly' with 'terror watch'. Most people do not know there's a difference and it would appear an attempt to greatly broaden the feds sole discretion. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... &tid=ss_tw):

Washington Post wrote:The American Civil Liberties Union has sued the government over the no-fly list, on behalf of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who couldn’t fly because they were on the list without being told why they were on it, or being given a “reasonable opportunity to get off it.”

The Intercept in 2014 obtained the National Counterterrorism Center’s 2013 Watchlisting Guidance, which revealed the government was allowed to designate individuals as representatives of terror organizations “without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations; it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place entire ‘categories’ of people the government is tracking onto the No Fly and selectee lists.”
.....
The Pinocchio Test

The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015 would have given the discretion to the attorney general and DOJ to decide whether or not to deny the sale and transfer of firearms and explosives to people on the Terrorist Watchlist. It also does not immediately ban someone on a no-fly list, or even the broader Terrorist Watchlist, from buying a gun.

We advocate precise and accurate language that minimizes public confusion. In this case, politicians are focusing on the specific no-fly list when referring to Feinstein’s amendment. But the actual provisions in the bill were more broad-reaching, and the provisions were more nuanced than the catchy phrase: “If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous to buy a gun.” This is the language that Feinstein has used, and that her fellow Democratic lawmakers, Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail and also President Obama have repeated.

But such phrasing lacks context and doesn’t portray the full impact of the bill — and thus, earns Two Pinocchios.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:It might be happening behind the scenes but most of what I see is grandstanding, primarily from the left.

It's definitely a really bad optic to argue you are the waterboarding party of tough on terrorism but then allow someone to buy an assault rifle that you wouldn't let get on an airplane, even after passing through a metal detector and whatever the hell that thing is where you get scanned with your hands up. Of course they are going to use that leverage.

Sua will post some nuanced response, but it won't fit in a tweet and so will be lost to the ether.

This is just quite a conundrum for the repubs, no matter what. Now that American citizens with their American rights are using their ready access to the mini-WMD assault rifles to execute the terror attacks for ISIS...what's an AR-15 hugging waterboarding tough on terror party to do? Which rights to infringe and which to protect? The NRA is watching very, very carefully. Insert tough decisions here.

I envy Andy1000 sitting there in his rocking chair watching this shit-show go down.

nafod wrote:I envy Andy1000 sitting there in his rocking chair watching this shit-show go down.

It's after 3pm....he's likely already in bed.

nafod wrote:
This is just quite a conundrum for the repubs, no matter what. Now that American citizens with their American rights are using their ready access to the mini-WMD assault rifles to execute the terror attacks for ISIS...what's an AR-15 hugging waterboarding tough on terror party to do? Which rights to infringe and which to protect? .

Good.

It's long past time to shuck this dualistic approach. There's not a single goddamn issue in play that doesn't at least have a third fourth or fifth way of approaching it. You can hug your individual rights, be against torture, be hard as diamonds on foreign agents, be pro-legal immigration, be anti-religious dogma yet pro-religious freedom without the barest sliver of contradiction. Hard issues like this is how we get there.

Liberal friends have been a disappointment if not a surprise on the watch list.

Blaidd Drwg wrote: .......There's not a single goddamn issue in play that doesn't at least have a third fourth or fifth way of approaching it. You can hug your individual rights, be against torture, be hard as diamonds on foreign agents, be pro-legal immigration, be anti-religious dogma yet pro-religious freedom without the barest sliver of contradiction. Hard issues like this is how we get there.

Nice. I'm unabashedly stealing this.

i'm a little confused.

i believe i understand the problem of a restrictive list on which i could be placed without due process and for which there is no process to enable my removal if i were wrongly included.

i am puzzled though by assertions that the orlando shooter was kept off or dropped from the list because of some political correctness. perhaps i misunderstand, but that's what i got from pl54's post and, of course, the donald.

it seems, though, on the one hand the process (or lack thereof) for the list is a problem, but on the other hand, for some who are toubled by the lack of process, the lack of restrictions on perhaps dangerous people, especially muslims, is also a problem.

i think b.d. is saying that insisting on due process (the foundation of our judicial system) could mean the list is less inclusive and possibly more people die in attacks, and he accepts that as necessary to our fundamental approach to governing.

i've got no argument with that. i'm trying to follow the thread.

Herv100 wrote: Yeah, the 2nd Amendments and its advocates are why there are Russian AKs and Belgian FALs all over Asia and Africa. LMAO

You forgot to add *drops the mic*... You should because that adds a lot to an adult conversation...

dead man walking wrote:i'm a little confused.

i am puzzled though by assertions that the orlando shooter was kept off or dropped from the list because of some political correctness. perhaps i misunderstand, but that's what i got from pl54's post and, of course, the donald.

Yeah, anytime the Drumph says something suffers due to being political correct, his mouth-breathing trogs dream of the days before a black president and when they could stop off at the 7-11 on the way home from church and beat up some faggots.

The Department of Justice allocates resources for the FBI (and other agencies) to work the names on the watch list. It's like a triage at a hospital after a large accident. Those that pose the biggest problem get the most resources, those that are not an immediate danger get put to the end of the list, and eventually if no further suspicious action is noted by that person, eventually they are taken off the list.

It's not rocket surgery.

Sua Sponte wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote: .......There's not a single goddamn issue in play that doesn't at least have a third fourth or fifth way of approaching it. You can hug your individual rights, be against torture, be hard as diamonds on foreign agents, be pro-legal immigration, be anti-religious dogma yet pro-religious freedom without the barest sliver of contradiction. Hard issues like this is how we get there.

Nice. I'm unabashedly stealing this.

Yes. Agreed.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:
Yeah, anytime the Drumph says something suffers due to being political correct, his mouth-breathing trogs dream of the days before a black president and when they could stop off at the 7-11 on the way home from church and beat up some faggots.

This is too dumb to let pass by. The emergence of a black president didn't bring about nor did it bring to an end hatred of any flavor nor was any act of such description legal before the current administration. Painting others who disagree with you as caricatures makes you one.

Mateen was investigated and he was released from observation. Current understanding is he was released despite admitting to making threats connected to ties to known terrorist organizations, because a) the FBI could show no ties to the organizations and b) he claimed the reason he made the comments was the racism of his co-workers. One has to take pause at the idea that a person who makes terrorist threats isn't a threat because he currently doesn't have direct ties to a known organization. One has to take pause that "all my co-workers are racist" is a viable explanation for the threats as made. Also, not long before the FBI did revise their training on the handling of people meeting Mateen's description. I'm guessing, and it's just a guess, the agents have guidelines on what represents a threat and those may need some updating. Dismissing out of hand that the guidelines the FBI follows may be too quick to accept racial bias as an explanation for aberrant behavior would be unwise as a matter of public well-being, policy, procedure and politics.

Yes I Have Balls wrote: The Department of Justice allocates resources for the FBI (and other agencies) to work the names on the watch list. It's like a triage at a hospital after a large accident. Those that pose the biggest problem get the most resources, those that are not an immediate danger get put to the end of the list, and eventually if no further suspicious action is noted by that person, eventually they are taken off the list.

Aside from other obvious distinctions, it differs from triage in that a) in triage there's no secret list of who needs treatment, b) it's no secret why the person is there to begin with, c) it's no secret what the conditions of release are, d) how severe the patient is isn't based upon claims from other people. The FBI reportedly has the ability to investigate 10k people at a time. There are reportedly ~1M people on the terror watch list. That's a ratio of 100. Assuming a short 3 month investigation, it would take 300 months to clear the list. 25 years. That's only true if the list were stagnant. It's growing. So while it is true that if an investigation turns up nothing the person must be dropped form the list, you may be there along, long time waiting for it. Which makes it a very easy political football. This is just the new McCarthyism.

Sua Sponte wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:
Yeah, anytime the Drumph says something suffers due to being political correct, his mouth-breathing trogs dream of the days before a black president and when they could stop off at the 7-11 on the way home from church and beat up some faggots.

This is too dumb to let pass by. The emergence of a black president didn't bring about nor did it bring to an end hatred of any flavor. Painting others who disagree with you as caricatures makes you one.

I believe you believe that, but there was even a clear shift here. A pretty good number of Americans in general were deeply uncomfortable with the idea of a black President, and the not-so-subtle dog whistling since has had an impact.

Now, in part, maybe it's because a large portion of Americans were already more racist than I thought and just got more comfortable expressing it, since their political party was telling them it's OK. But the idea that the election of Obama had zero impact on racism on the right is flatly not true.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Sua Sponte wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:
Yeah, anytime the Drumph says something suffers due to being political correct, his mouth-breathing trogs dream of the days before a black president and when they could stop off at the 7-11 on the way home from church and beat up some faggots.

This is too dumb to let pass by. The emergence of a black president didn't bring about nor did it bring to an end hatred of any flavor. Painting others who disagree with you as caricatures makes you one.

I believe you believe that, but there was even a clear shift here. A pretty good number of Americans in general were deeply uncomfortable with the idea of a black President, and the not-so-subtle dog whistling since has had an impact.

Now, in part, maybe it's because a large portion of Americans were already more racist than I thought and just got more comfortable expressing it, since their political party was telling them it's OK. But the idea that the election of Obama had zero impact on racism on the right is flatly not true.

All well and fine except the idea portrayed was one that before Obama such things were okay and they're not now. Perhaps one can find isolated instances of the same but the idea that there's a new sheriff in town cleaning things up and people are only angry because he's black doesn't hold water on either account. Political divides are deep, more so than religion and every bit as irrational. While one needn't look hard to find racists who will hate anything the man says or does on that point alone, it does not mean that anybody who finds fault with his administration is de facto racist. I'll bet before you answer you will agree with that, it seems a self-evident truth that for every racist there's an equal number of bigots who cannot believe there's any reason to dissent other than racism. Replacing one type of prejudice with another is a form of the oft promised "change" but it is not progress.