DHS Official: Using Terror Watch Lists To Infringe On Second Amendment Rights*Snipped

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

So profiling Muslims as terrorists is ok, but as soon as gun owners are profiled that is when the line is crossed? Gotcha.

No, it bears out that 'enemies of the homeland' are the people, whether foreign or domestic. Foreign countries being unjustly subjugated will eventually result in rebellion on some level at home and they want to know where all the firearms are beforehand. They cover for that by using firearms owner contact information so it looks like they aren't focusing on arms themselves.

There are no aliens, people from out of the country, jihadists, subversives, Guantanamo prisoners, etc. on the no-fly-list. There are only Americans who were put there as political punishment. Wake up, Comrades...

This is something North Korea would do and probably does.

Friendly reminder

At least 72 DHS employees are on the terror watch list.

Friendly Reminder: At Least 72 DHS Employees Are On The Terror Watch List

And other Peeps like this:

Sen. Kennedy Flagged by No-Fly List

a reply to: neo96

People won't care about this until a republican is in office and uses the list to deny rights to leftists.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Valid point . I for one am pleased to see the gentleman from the DHS expressing the case of no fly lists and gun purchasing as apples and oranges. It couldn't be more obvious.

As for another member conflating Muslims into this OP, why hasn't his posts been removed for thread drift?

Good lord. Neo - if you are on a terror watch list, then it's your own doing.
YES - gun owners and purchasers should be "profiled" - they are a danger to themselves and others by definition.

If you are clean and minding your own business, with no history of terrorist public statements, you have nothing to worry about.

Sheesh.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So you agree that people should be denied their rights without due process?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Right because glitches don't happen like that Muslim child a couple of years back who was pulled off.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Good lord. Neo - if you are on a terror watch list, then it's your own doing. YES - gun owners and purchasers should be "profiled" - they are a danger to themselves and others by definition.

No For those that actually BOTHERED to read the article.

Nearly 300,000 people on these lists have zero ties to terrorism.

One more just for kicks.

7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List

a reply to: DBCowboy

Looking into background and mental health status is "due process." Would you allow a 100-year old lady who had never driven a car, nor been taught how to drive one, get a license and then get behind the wheel?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Show me the part of the constitution that says driving is a right.

a reply to: thesaneone

Lame. Give me a break. The "Constitution" was written hundreds of years ago.
Just like the Bible, only younger.

People had no way to foresee what would happen.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: DBCowboy

Looking into background and mental health status is "due process." Would you allow a 100-year old lady who had never driven a car, nor been taught how to drive one, get a license and then get behind the wheel?

So you support the idea of people simply being placed on a list losing their rights.

If you are unaware, let me show you the 5th Amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Bold is mine.

It is disturbing that you think that Constitutional rights can be disregarded.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The 14th says pretty much the same thing.

4th,5th,6th,7th

Also say something about DUE PROCESS.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Did you know that there is a process you can take to be taken off of the no-fly list? You can even do it online. It takes a bit of time, but it's doable.

Also, did you know that the ACLU is leading the fight against the no-fly list issues?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: DBCowboy

Did you know that there is a process you can take to be taken off of the no-fly list? You can even do it online. It takes a bit of time, but it's doable.

Also, did you know that the ACLU is leading the fight against the no-fly list issues?

Are you notified when you are placed on a no-fly list? (the answer is no)

So when placed on the list, without your knowledge, your rights are lost, again, without your knowledge, until you try to exercise said rights.

Explain to me where the due process is.

a reply to: DBCowboy

NO ONE is disregarding your rights!

"Due process" applies if you are accused of something. It does not excuse you from showing responsibility.

If door-to-door gun confiscation were to happen in some fantasy-land of yours, THAT would be "without due process."
But that is not what we are talking about.

a reply to: introvert

Was put on the no fly list in 2006. Was on a bereavement flight to get to fathers funeral on time. When i landed in Idaho, a tsa agent tried to make me pay a tip just for walking by him. I explained i was on a bereavement flight and that i had a total of 70 something cents to my name. He told me it was mandatory, i just him to go # himself. 2 months later I'm on the list. Spent 5 years, 2 lawyers, 8 grand trying to get off the list before i gave up. Still on the list, now i just drive if i need to get somewhere.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: DBCowboy

NO ONE is disregarding your rights!

"Due process" applies if you are accused of something. It does not excuse you from showing responsibility.

If door-to-door gun confiscation were to happen in some fantasy-land of yours, THAT would be "without due process."
But that is not what we are talking about.

The president wants the authority to deny an individual their rights by simply placing their name on a list.

And you are supporting this despotic act.