Trump drinking the koolaid with "terror watch list"

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I just watched Trump on O'Reilly. Bill (who is NOT a friend of the 2nd) tried to nail him down on Further restrictions or a Federal database (Registration) and Trump was totally unwilling to rule out a Federal Registration. He just went on about how the NRA endorsed him (like they had a choice) and he would "probably" go along with whatever they said. I would have thought he would at least be prepared to try and articulate what he believes. No wait……….Nevermind.

 

[halfmileharry]

Trump isn't a politician and I don't expect him to act like one either.
He runs on a different mind set than most people and it works for him.

I see this as a close election BUT the Democrats have the numbers to take any election unless Trump can out debate the evil witch

 

[Kutnupe14]

Hell... I am all for someone on the terror watch list not buying a gun. With a more comprehensive investigation. If they cannot come up with something after a certain amount of time, then they could get cleared off the list or something else done if there was a valid reason to be on a watch list. No fly is another matter, someone could be on the no fly list for cussing out a gate agent. There needs to be different levels of concern to be on that list IMHO.

Not me. If they're on a terror watch list, then I would hope that they're being watched in jail because of crime the committed. You don't deny free men their rights.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Not me. If they're on a terror watch list, then I would hope that they're being watched in jail because of crime the committed. You don't deny free men their rights.

It's done all the time. Commit a felony, serve your time, get out (as a free man), still lose your rights.

 

[KLB]

It's done all the time. Commit a felony, serve your time, get out (as a free man), still lose your rights.

Which is also wrong, but far different. In your example, at least the person in question was convicted of a crime. The watch list is a secret list onto which you can be added with no chance of defense or even being notified you have been added.

If you want to keep supposed terrorists from buying guns, prove they are actually terrorists. Don't say, well he might be a terrorist, or he associates with bad people, or he said the wrong thing on INGO. Go to court and make your case, giving the supposed terrorist his/her chance to defend themselves.

It truly scares me how quickly people line up to give away their freedom when something bad happens.

 

[Expat]

It truly scares me how quickly people line up to give away their freedom when something bad happens.

Why do you hate the children...

 

[KLB]

Why do you hate the children...

You're right! How could I be so blind!

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's done all the time. Commit a felony, serve your time, get out (as a free man), still lose your rights.

And I repeat.... You don't dent free men their rights. If they are so bad that they don't deserve the ability to protect themselves, they should still be locked up.

 

[Jludo]

You're right! How could I be so blind!

Hey if it could save just one life...

 

[jamil]

Haha I honestly had a bit typed up comparing him to an electron simultaneously being in multiple positions at once but I couldn't think of a good way to word it so I scrapped it. The premise is there just need someone to articulate it well.

My theory is that it's similar to the speed mirage in DC Comics, The Flash. If Flash moves between two points fast enough, he can appear to be in two places at once, creating the speed mirage. So in reality, Trump doesn't actually hold two positions at once. He flips back and for so fast, it appears he holds two conflicting opinions simultaneously.

 

[JTScribe]

Cornyn's compromise seemed reasonable to me. Of course, since the Dems were filibustering it couldn't pass with a simple majority.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/20/after-orlando-massacre-cornyn-gun-measure-fails-s/

 

[Jacky]

you whacked it right on the head!!

 

[jamil]

And I repeat.... You don't dent free men their rights. If they are so bad that they don't deserve the ability to protect themselves, they should still be locked up.

I think that's hard to argue against. But people argue against it. My idea was, if freedoms are to be denied for being on the list, it should require adjudication to get on the list, including the right to present one's case why they shouldn't be on the list. That would effectively eliminate the list.

I don't mind there being a "watch" list. But the purpose then would be to watch them. Not deny them. Also, I don't mind if the FBI gets an automatic notification if someone on the watch list buys a firearm. Then they can put the person under surveillance and figure out if they're up to no good.

 

[halfmileharry]

And I repeat.... You don't dent free men their rights. If they are so bad that they don't deserve the ability to protect themselves, they should still be locked up.

One problem is that we've outgrown the system.
I would like to see a system put in place for an appeal process on an individual basis.
Some people will never change and should not have guns.
Others that have served their sentences should be able to have their rights reinstated.