247 people on the no fly list have bought guns

[PDXFonz]

I do fault them for trying not to do what is needed. We, the people of the United States have had war declared on us. Acts of war have been committed several time now, targeting the people of this country. These are not criminal acts, they are acts of war by enemy combatants. They should be treated as enemy combatants, not criminals. The FBI should be hunting enemy combatants, not trying to determine if people intend to commit crimes.

To make this change in approach to the threat we face, the Presdent needs to ask Congress to declare war on our advisary. Congress needs to do it's duty and define the enemy. Then the forces of this country can begin to focus on the real problem, those that would attack the people in this country to cause maximum carnage for being non believers.

There are Muslims in this country that know Islam needs to under go a reformation, I suspect there are others in the rest of the world. They can help and we should help them get it done. We will be under attack until we get on track to do something objective to change the current status.

Isn't that one in the same?

And what will this accomplish. Will defeating a group of people force others to change their minds on how one should act? Or will it inspire others to step up and act in the same way as their predecessors?

 

[MarAzul]

Or are you not completely thinking this through

Ask "a" question, perhaps I can answer.

 

[PDXFonz]

Good question. We do have history to look for possible answers. What is your preference?

How about the history of the war on terrorism against Al Qaeda, and the resurrection of hate via Isis?

It's like the Hydra of Lerna. Eliminate "the enemy" and another will pop up.

You can defeat a certain terrorist organization, but that doesn't get rid of their corrupted beliefs which are the root of their evil.

 

[PDXFonz]

Ask "a" question, perhaps I can answer.

How can you claim it is a democratic opinion when a republican candidate has a similar approach?

 

[MarAzul]

Isn't that one in the same?

What is the same?

 

[PDXFonz]

What is the same?

The FBI should be hunting enemy combatants, not trying to determine if people intend to commit crimes.

The enemy combatants they are hunting are because of the crimes they are doing. Shouldn't they then determine who intends to commit crimes in order to hunt the enemy combatants?

 

[MarAzul]

How can you claim it is a democratic opinion when a republican candidate has a similar approach?

What? I have not heard Trump say anything about more gun bans.

 

[barfo]

Good question. We do have history to look for possible answers. What is your preference?

My preference would be to not sell them guns.

Your preference, apparently, would be to hunt and kill them instead. Do I have that right?

I'm not clear on how they have constitutional rights to buy guns, but not to live.

I guess the constitution is funny that way.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

The enemy combatants they are hunting are because of the crimes they are doing. Shouldn't they then determine who intends to commit crimes in order to hunt the enemy combatants?

They are not empowered to hunt enemy combatants as it stands right now. They investigated this fellow on tips from Disney and co-workers but had no solid evidence of the crime he would commit. So they were looking for potential criminal activity but found none. According to the FBI director, they backed off because of fear of harassing a Muslim. When they are looking for enemy combatants the game changes, enemy combatants do not have the same Constitutional protection.
Thus it matter what we call these people that have declared war on us, and we should return the favor to set the game on the correct legal playing field for Law enforcement.

 

[MarAzul]

My preference would be to not sell them guns.

>> Check

Your preference, apparently, would be to hunt and kill them instead. Do I have that right?

>> Only if necessary. Capture and interrogate could be more productive.

I'm not clear on how they have constitutional rights to buy guns, but not to live.
>> Enemy Combatants have no Constitutional rights, to buy guns or other.

I guess the constitution is funny that way.

>> Due process changes.

barfo

 

[Further]

I have guns, I enjoy shooting them, but the FBI should be able to put a hold on my ability to own or buy guns for a period of time while they actively investigate me as a threat to the USA or human lives.

 

[MARIS61]

Bad people shouldn't have good guns.

There were 10,000 names on the list in 2011, 21,000 in 2012, and 47,000 in 2013.

However, the list has been criticized on civil liberties and due process grounds, due in part to the potential for ethnic, religious, economic, political, or racial profiling and discrimination. It has also raised concerns about privacy and government secrecy. Finally, it has been criticized as costly, prone to false positives, and easily defeated.
The No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism. The Terrorist Watch List contained around 1,000,000 names by March 2009.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List

 

[MARIS61]

I have guns, I enjoy shooting them, but the FBI should be able to put a hold on my ability to own or buy guns for a period of time while they actively investigate me as a threat to the USA or human lives.

We can all agree you are the rare exception to the rule.

 

[MarAzul]

I have guns, I enjoy shooting them, but the FBI should be able to put a hold on my ability to own or buy guns for a period of time while they actively investigate me as a threat to the USA or human lives.

That happens today in response to certain events, like a conviction for domestic violence. The same should happen when you declare allegence to an enemy of the United States. Right now we have none documented, we should have at least one. The same one this fellow declared allegiance to, ISIS or ISIL.
But that is up to the President and he has no stomach for the responsibility.

 

[barfo]

They are not empowered to hunt enemy combatants as it stands right now. They investigated this fellow on tips from Disney and co-workers but had no solid evidence of the crime he would commit. So they were looking for potential criminal activity but found none. According to the FBI director, they backed off because of fear of harassing a Muslim. When they are looking for enemy combatants the game changes, enemy combatants do not have the same Constitutional protection.
Thus it matter what we call these people that have declared war on us, and we should return the favor to set the game on the correct legal playing field for Law enforcement.

Well, he was a US citizen. So, you are ok taking away all his constitutional protections if the government labels him (or maybe you) an enemy combatant?

Seems like all of a sudden you trust government a lot more than you used to.

barfo

 

[Further]

Most of these people lately didn't declare allegiance till they were deep into the act of terrorism. When the FBI receives chatter about someone, or they are corresponding with likely ISIS members or are believed to be sympathizers, the FBI should have the power to put a hold on their gun purchases. We need to get away from this NRA type thinking that any action restricting firearm ownership is the end of America.

 

[MarAzul]

constitutional protections if the government labels him (or maybe you) an enemy combatant?

Hell, he did it himself, multiple co workers said he did and he told the FBI he was with ISIS. But we are not at war with ISIS officially, so they have no legal basis
for finding enemy combatants.

Yes, once you declare support for the enemy of the United states, you should lose all rights and privileges of being a citizen. You are a traitor and possibly an enemy combatant.

 

[MarAzul]

put a hold on their gun purchases.

That's why we need to define our enemy and make it official. I don't think anyone, including the NRA would expect to sell arms to enemy combatants.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

That happens today in response to certain events, like a conviction for domestic violence. The same should happen when you declare allegence to an enemy of the United States. Right now we have none documented, we should have at least one. The same one this fellow declared allegiance to, ISIS or ISIL.
But that is up to the President and he has no stomach for the responsibility.

Hell, he did it himself, multiple co workers said he did and he told the FBI he was with ISIS. But we are not at war with ISIS officially, so they have no legal basis
for finding enemy combatants.

Yes, once you declare support for the enemy of the United states, you should lose all rights and privileges of being a citizen. You are a traitor and possibly an enemy combatant.

No he didn't. He didn't say he was with ISIS until the night of the shooting.


Mateen became a person of interest to the FBI in May 2013 and July 2014. The 2013 investigation was opened after he made "inflammatory" comments to coworkers about having family connections to al-Qaeda and being a member of Hezbollah.[71] The 2014 investigation was opened after he was linked to Moner Mohammad Abu Salha, an American radical who traveled to Syria and committed a suicide bombing there. He was interviewed three times in connection with the investigations, which were both closed after producing nothing that appeared to warrant further investigation.[63][72][73]

 

[barfo]

I'm not sure you are going to get very far by identifying enemy combatants by their own identification as such.

And this guy self-identified as a member of various groups but wasn't actually a member of any of them. He was dangerous, but he was a wannabe, not a member.

What of people who aren't dangerous, but just want attention? Throw them in Guantanamo?

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I'm not sure you are going to get very far by identifying enemy combatants by their own identification as such.

And this guy self-identified as a member of various groups but wasn't actually a member of any of them. He was dangerous, but he was a wannabe, not a member.

What of people who aren't dangerous, but just want attention? Throw them in Guantanamo?

barfo

Commie Pinko Pirates are Enemy Combatants.

 

[jlprk]

Ruth B. Shipley, Chief of the State Department’s Passport Office from 1928 to 1955. Look it up.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

Terrorists are winning. We are focusing on restricting our citizens out of fear while their attacks get worse. What we need to do is turn isis strong holds into giant sheets of glass.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

Nuke a known isis strong hold, then send some illegal immigrants in radioactive protected gear to draw this in the glass

About 40 miles square. Then video it from the air and put it on youtube for the sympothizers to watch.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

When the FBI receives chatter about someone, or they are corresponding with likely ISIS members or are believed to be sympathizers, the FBI should have the power to put a hold on their gun purchases. We need to get away from this NRA type thinking that any action restricting firearm ownership is the end of America.

If the FBI were given the power to restrict a citizen's constitutional rights without due process, there would need to be a very clear process and timeline for the completion of the process or lifting of the restrictions. The temporary restriction of rights can be reasonable; the biggest problem with using things like the no-fly list or the terrorist-watch list is the seemingly arbitrary and indefinite nature thereof.

 

[Denny Crane]

My preference would be to not sell them guns.

Your preference, apparently, would be to hunt and kill them instead. Do I have that right?

I'm not clear on how they have constitutional rights to buy guns, but not to live.

I guess the constitution is funny that way.

barfo

We didn't sell them guns. They use AK-47s. Those are made by the Russians or Chinese.

We did leave a lot of weapons and tanks and jeeps and such when we surrendered.

 

[barfo]

We didn't sell them guns. They use AK-47s. Those are made by the Russians or Chinese.

We did leave a lot of weapons and tanks and jeeps and such when we surrendered.

I think you may need to reread the thread.

barfo

 

[Further]

If the FBI were given the power to restrict a citizen's constitutional rights without due process, there would need to be a very clear process and timeline for the completion of the process or lifting of the restrictions. The temporary restriction of rights can be reasonable; the biggest problem with using things like the no-fly list or the terrorist-watch list is the seemingly arbitrary and indefinite nature thereof.

I agree that limits should be in place. Perhaps timelines, or a judicial sign off. However, I would like to see an actual amendment removing such unfettered firearm access from being constitutionally protected. The capacity of these firearms is so much greater than when the constitution was written I think the concept needs to be revisited. I just want firearms to be considered more of a privlage and less of a right. Like being able to drive, we need to demonstrate a level of competence.

I know this is going to be attacked by many around here, but I just think the time has come to revisit the gun issue. Tens of thousands of gun deaths s year in our nation, perhaps we could reduce those numbers by some considerable fraction. Then again, perhaps we couldn't, and if that's proven out through unbiased studies I would be more willing to continue down the path we are on now. The point is, I think as a society we need to stop being so rigid on this issue and at least have serious and open debate based on research and the betterment of society. Both sides need to listen and consider more options.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think you may need to reread the thread.

barfo

We arm terrorists all over the world. Or at least we have. We even arm Mexican drug cartels.

 

[MarAzul]

I would like to see an actual amendment

Yea! I applaud your willingness to use the correct process. I will oppose your amendment I think, but I am please you are not ignoring the Constitution.
Good show!