• #1
    The watch list is comprised of people, SUSPECTED as POSSIBLY being terrorists.

    They have committed no crime so I don't understand why this is even a question.

    Following the logic of barring them, can we then imprison people we think MIGHT commit murder, suspend Drivers Licenses of people we think might get enough points on their driving record to merit suspension, how about revoking lisences of people we think might drive drunk?

    Does the concept of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" ring any sort of bell?
  • #44
    And yet amazingly it happens far more often than it should. Possibly what's more scary is that 40% agree with it.
  • #68
    I understan the need for concern but if they are going to be put on a list the cause for doing so should justify the band or they should not be on the list. If facts don't support the action, don't single them out for restrictions.
  • #121
    In the US, citizens get more of a background check when applying for a credit card, opening a savings account or buying a car. They 'need' to have a license to drive a car.

    Crazily, they can walk into a store and buy a gun like a pack of gum - no license required, or checks done to establish that a person is fit and able to use a gun. A car has to be registered, why would a gun not need to be ?

    In the US, health care is a privilege and gun ownership is a right; it just doesn't make sense !
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    Oh good, then all the government has to do is list all Americans as potential terrorists and we could have automatic gun-control!
  • #3
    No person should have their rights denied without due process. Having your name on a list is not due process. Who controls the list? How does your name get on it? How do your petition your name for removal?

    It's called a watch list. It isn't an indictment.
  • #14
    "He would like to change the law so the U.S. attorney general would have discretion to block the gun sale for someone on the list."

    I wonder if those guns sold across the border were to anyone on the general's list.
  • #55
    I don't know if you were actually asking those questions or using them to make a point. Here are the answers (that I know):
    1. Your name gets on it if someone turns you in for suspicious activity, or you are associated with somone on the list, or if your name sounds similar to someone who is on the list (unfortunately, that last one isn't a joke.)
    2. You can't get your name off the list. You cannot contest it. You cannot appeal it. You generally cannot even find out why you are on it. Any information relating your being put on the list is generally classified for "national security."
  • #117
    Remember when TED KENNEDY was on a "No Fly List" and was delayed on a couple of different occasions? lol
  • #15
    The paranoia around here is so thick you can cut it with a knife. The terrorism watch lists were created by and administered with the hearty approval of Republican officeholders. How does this question immediately devolve into one of partisanship simply because the subject is firearms? If the change were made, there's no doubt that due process would be invoked and your constitutional right to stockpile killing machines would be protected -- as long as you are not a criminal or a nutbar. Doesn't ANYONE care about actually preventing weaponry from falling into the hands of malefactors and those who have mental challenges to avert massacres? Is that simply irrelevant? If so, this is one sick and sickening society.
  • #19
    'The paranoia around here is so thick.'
    You mean to tell me the sky isn't actually falling?
    *scans the clouds for debris*
  • #20
    Gee, a logical thinker. Get ready to be torn to shreds. Your suspicions are correct, these people will not give an inch no matter the consequence to others.
  • #21
    I certainly wouldn't want a person like yourself in charge of the list. The attorney general has stated he wants to ban guns.
  • #23
    @Russell797 that same argument could be applied to you also. Where does this idea that the defeated bill would have made anyone safer come from? It wouldn't have and that's why it was defeated. Come up with something that addresses the people that are committing the crimes and it might pass.
  • #31
    @GvtMule Why don't you come up with ideas that are viable. Saying if we were only tougher on criminals is easy and likely correct, but how to make that happen realistically is another story. No solution is perfect, you can find arguments against anything, including denying suspected terrorists. If you demand perfect solutions we will never be able to do anything.
  • R Load more replies

  • #9
    I was on the watch list for a time because I had too common of a name and was trying to buy a plane ticket, so more research should be done on the individual before barring them from buying a gun.
  • #38
    What makes you think that once on such a list, your name actually ever comes off such a list? So they erase your name off the copy you're not even shown. Then what?
  • #80
    @TheHandsomeOne I'm not really sure, maybe they realized a 12 year old (at the time) wasn't a likely terror suspect, or I may still be on there for all I know. I just know that's dont have any more problems buying plane tickets like I used to!
  • #81
    @Michael_Taylor I researched this after asking you. You can get "cleared", or at least 'lower alert levels', from TSA and some other agencies, but, can never be removed from all of these lists once added and nobody is saying which ones those are, who is in charge of them or even giving the parameters as to how you get on them.

    Adolf had similar lists and on his behalf, he didn't waste lots of time making it known who was on them.
  • #84
    @Michael_Taylor I'm much more likely to buy into children being raised to be terrorists than children born inherently deviating from many norms.

    Revisit Khmer Rouge.
  • #12
    So 220 times a year someone purchased a firearm who is on a terrorist watch list.
    We certainly need to screen those people better and filter the real threats.
    Perhaps they should not have firearms. I am ok with restricting them, just like felons.
    Having said that, you've shown where 220 times a year this occurs.
    I would submit a greater daily threat is the 220 times a DAY where 'Puffy-Z' sells stolen guns to 'D-Money' and some Mexican gang or MS13...guns they stole from you when they robbed your house.
    *but we'll catch them because they do the required background check paperwork, right?*
  • #50
    Problem is there is no due process. They put you on the list and thats it. You have no opportunity to challenge it, heck, people don't usually don't even know they are on the list unless they try to get on a plane or something.
  • #59
    No evidence, no formal charges, no way to appeal, and you cannot even find out why you are on the list because it is generally classified. Last I heard, over 1/3 of the people on the listwere on there errantly, DHS knows it, and are not trying to correct it.
    The list shouldn't even exist. Those on it certainly shouldn't lose their rights.
  • #5
    Yes they should and let me explain why. First question class. Raise your right hand if you trust the government. What is the qualification to be on a watch list? If democrats are in control and they do not like certain republicans, what would it take to get put on a watch list? The watch list would grow leaps and bounds. If they pass this the Obama administration could legally add millions of people to it's watch list, and BTW once something is law he can sign executive orders left and right to ad or make changes to it. And terrorist use mainly bombs, drug cartels like the guns!
  • #83
    A very large percentage of US citizens can now qualify as terrorist suspects.. Ron Paul supporters, tea party supporters, malitia members, certain religious groups apparently. The government is destroying our freedom because if they dont, the terrorists will... destroy our freedom. The only freedom fed wants us to have is the freedom to shop and spend
  • #96
    Your last sentence may need a bit of polish.......

    something like....

    'The only freedom the Feds want us to have is the freedom to perpetually enable the Feds the freedom to shop and spend....... with reckless abandon and until all wealth has been fully transferred from the fully enslaved to the accepted members of the plutonomy'

  • #97
    Does this "conspiracy"-my word but I know one when I hear one-have a leader- if so who is it- or is it a spontaneous occurrence that is the result of too many regulations and has therefore been brought to fruition by chaos ?
  • #6
    Innocent until proven guilty.

    If the Fed has irrefutable evidence that a "watch list" person is planning an attack then they should disarm that person(s).

    Otherwise the Fed can place anyone on a "watch list". It is just another means to their agenda of disarming people.
  • #43
    WTF? This is another article I can't read without being forced to that POPVOX page! How about letting me read the article first politix?
  • #82
    Terrorism Watch List ? and just who does our government have on such a list.
    Your poor grandmother, or uncle in a wheelchair?
    Apperantly...The Boston Bombers werent there....LOL!!
  • #77
    The myriad of ways people get on this list is too great to strip rights. Obviously those little bastards that bombed Boston weren't on it, and they had guns obtained through illegal sources anyway.
  • #56
    I have mixed feelings here government is to ineffective and to arbitrary to trust. There should be a special court where all costs are borne by the government before a person is put on such a list. Seems like appropriate due process is missing.
  • R Load more comments...