Discussion: ACLU Opposes Use Of ‘Unfair Watchlist System’ To Enforce Gun Control

TPM Article Topics
#42

The only reason to buy that kind of weapon is (1) if you are a terrorist, or (2) if you are insane, either paranoid or psychopath or both. There is no legitimate, Constitutional excuse to own any semi-automatic weapon, any more than there is to own a bazooka. Neither was in the minds of the drafters of the Second Amendment.

There is no legitimate defense of continuing to allow such gun purchases by terrorists and the insane, except that the person in favor of those sales is either a traitor or mentally incompetent. I stopped donating to the ACLU decades ago – their fundraising scam sham surveys are just too dishonest.

Yes, the no fly list is a problem. Adding this to it will help prompt the reforms needed there. Being able to travel is a legitimate right. Owning a semi-automatic weapon is not.

#43

Life is not black and white. Why the insistence on false equivalencies? I can make the argument that without a driver’s license, I cannot live. I cannot drive to work, or take my children to school, or get to the doctor, or drive to my local polling station to vote. I can live without a gun. Anyone can. The NRA argues that the right to own a gun of any type is not subject to any limitations. The ACLU seems to agree.

#44

A citizen should never have to prove their innocence first, the government must always prove guilt first in a court of law. Funny how the Dems used to be against the no fly list on this principle right up until they found a use for it.

Sorry, but this logic is the same old BS that gets us the Civil Forfeitures where cops can just take peoples money at a traffic stops and then you must spend almost as much and wait years to try to get it back.

But hey, we get it, you oh so ‘liberal’ Dems that support this all have perfectly Anglo sounding last names and this will never effect you so as long as it gives you any sort of ‘win’ on gun control you will throw all those weird named brown people under a kafkian bus.

2 Likes
#45

Sorry, but this quickly becomes, “but think of the children!!!”

Please try to put aside the emotions engendered by the latest mass shooting. There are good and legal ways to put a stop to this epidemic of gun violence, ways that don’t require us to abandon basic principles. Let’s use them.

We can, and do, prohibit private ownership of certain classes of weapons. We need to expand that list. We can, and do, require background checks for purchasing firearms. We need to close the loopholes in that system. We can, and do, impose waiting periods in some states for firearms purchases. We need to make that uniform. The list goes on.

These are all steps that would make a real difference, without running afoul of the Constitution (even given Scalia’s mangled reading of it). The proposed measure, on the other hand, would make no difference, and would extend the use of a legally indefensible mechanism (the no-fly list).

2 Likes
#46

Why not just a simple ‘No Buy’ list and not confuse or conflate the two?

This is an attempt to sneak around the real problem by appealing to the right and trying to shame them with the ‘terrorist’ side of the bill.

I know this is the game but it’s a stupid fucking game.

Regulate the weapons, the sellers and the purchasers and make smart laws that are enforceable nation wide or we are just pissing in the wind and listening to the clock tick as the next mass shooting occurs while we pretend to be shocked about the last one.

NRA money is blood money, the heart of the problem is that.

1 Like
#47

Yes. And if I prevailed, the proposed law makes clear the DMV pays my legal bill.

1 Like
#48

Again, you seem to be comfortable with “guilty until proven innocent.” I’m not.

#49

I gave up on the ACLU because they equate money with free speech. They opposed McCain-Feingold and argued for Citizens United. They see nothing wrong with the Koch Brothers buying Congress…

#50

Not false. In this case if they prevail in court they can once again legally purchase a firearm.

1 Like
#51

This is another advantage of my suggestion. Want to find out if you’re on the no-fly list? Just go buy a gun and find out.

1 Like
#52

When it comes to purchasing weapons, you bet. Just like driving legally means you have to prove yourself compitent (testing, liability insurance, etc.) before you can legally do so.

And yes, I am going there in regards to the 2A is a vestigial and poorly crafted “right”, particularly as it has been interpreted since Heller.

Let’s also not let the whitewashing of the 2A obscure the fact it was crafted with the intent to allow southern states to have the ability to put down slave rebellions without Federal control.

2 Likes
#53

It seems that the Dems are using the No-Fly list as an excuse to get the camel’s nose under the tent of limiting access to weapons. I agree with the intent, but disagree with the method. Perhaps they assumed that the TGOP would not disagree with the No-Fly list idea because it is code for “dangerous Mooslims”. Certainly many otherwise liberal-types seem OK with using a secret list created by secretive agencies as a baseline because the ends justifies the means, right?

My view is that we ought to support gun limitation efforts that are effective, but not efforts that confuse the issue or compound another problem that needs to be solved as well. The loss of civil liberties that accompanied the national hysteria after 9/11 still exists and should not be further entrenched in law as legitimate. We should fight hard for expanded background checks on guns, and closing the gun show loophole, but not exacerbate another problem at the same time.

1 Like
#54

It’s not bogus. The right to have a gun is a Constitutional right. It may be a right that we despise for being horribly misguided and outdated and dangerous, but it’s a right nonetheless. Granting the executive branch powers to secretly and arbitrarily deny Constitutional rights is a terrible idea.

#55

“The proposed measure, on the other hand, would make no difference” Are you asserting that no one on that list is actually a terrorist? If not, then you cannot say it would make no difference. That is the NRA argument. Put aside “think of the gun owner!!!”

#56

Because it’s a Constitutionally protected right. It may be a shitty right with horrible consequences, but it’s a right nonetheless.

#57

As already noted the proposed bill allows an appeal process in open court. The 2A is not an absolute right and can be limited by law (witness limiting of automatic firearms, convicted felons post release, etc.).

1 Like
#58

I have no idea. But of the 30,000+ gun deaths in the U.S. in the past year, how many were caused by firearms legally purchased by someone on the list? That’s my point.

1 Like
#59

You have a constitutional right to buy any gun of your choosing? That depends upon your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I say you do not, and let’s not forget the phrase “well-regulated” The courts have determined that the government can apply limitations to that right.

#60

We don’t know, and neither do you. It could have potentially prevented Orlando.

2 Likes
#61

I hear you, and I agree. I’d love to see the same sorts of requirements applied to gun ownership that we apply to car ownership - testing, licensing, registration, insurance, safety inspections, etc.

But should there ever be some sort of “secret” requirements for obtaining a license (driver’s or gun owner’s)?

Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available