It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DOJ overrules FBI on gun sales debate, says no-fly list can be used for ban

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Honest question: Can Hilary or Obama purchase a firearm under this?

She is currently under FBI investigation and he has an association with a domestic terrorist in Bill Ayres. If they can buy, then maybe it needs some more work.




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX
They have a list that stops you from being able to get on a airplane..I wont weigh in on the governments infringment of movement (a right). it seems this has been in place for ages.
I see this as just another aspect of that. questionable, but if they are legit stopping people suspected of radicalism and seeking out to harm people...I am strangely ok with that.

but there needs to be more quick access to get people either charged, or off the no fly. I see it as investigation, not a punishment for just thinking badly..it should mean something. if there is 60k people on the list, investigate it. if its actually over a million (for all lists combined)..then we gotta wonder how effective this filtering process is.


And that's how we lose rights.

"Well if it stops something at some point ever, I guess it's a good thing." Piece by piece, bit by bit, that's how you lose rights.

Maybe if there was some semblance of due process to these lists then yes, sure. But there isn't. And there won't be. Due process only kicks in after you try to get yourself off the list, and then it's up to you to prove why you should be taken off the list, not up to the government to prove why you shouldn't.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
They are going to give anyone involved in criminal activity a red flag.

It's pretty retarded if you really think about it.

I know it sounds good to a lot of people but red flags ruin investigations, people drop ship and cut off all their contacts rendering any intelligence operations completely ineffective and a total waste of million of dollars potentially.

Continue with the idiotic knee jerk reactions from the Obama admin.


Obama doesn't care, he's not spending his money or the government's money, he's spending YOUR money. Anyway, how is this obama tool going to bankrupt the country unless he keeps spending above his intelligence grade?

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Honest question: Can Hilary or Obama purchase a firearm under this?

She is currently under FBI investigation and he has an association with a domestic terrorist in Bill Ayres. If they can buy, then maybe it needs some more work.


They don't need to.

People that are currently under FBI investigations should be BANNED from having secret service details.
edit on 16-6-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalShadow
Without due process??

Sorry, get ready for MASSIVE class action lawsuits for civil rights violations, failure to adhere to criminal rules of procedure, etc. etc. etc.

SUE SUE SUE... AND SUE SOME MORE!! 👌👌👍👍


Yeah, then it can go all the way to the Supreme Court, and ban lists deemed constitutional.

Doubtful a Hillary or Trump SCOTUS pick will care about meaningless stuff like Due Process and constitutions.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Maybe if there was some semblance of due process to these lists then yes, sure. But there isn't. And there won't be. Due process only kicks in after you try to get yourself off the list, and then it's up to you to prove why you should be taken off the list, not up to the government to prove why you shouldn't.

Then that is a different issue that should be championed.
The list should be a manual creation that every say, 6 months or so automatically drops you off the list unless someone actively decides you need to remain on due to clear and present danger..should also be checks and balances.

a streamlined list would be more effective also in keeping the actual radicals in focus while dropping the typical harmless jerks.

And then with the very streamlined list of suspected dangerous radicals, more pressure can be put on a full investigation until either something can be charged, or they have to give up...I am ok with continued close monitoring



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

They already know that criminals will get guns, if they want them. This is simply a way to keep anyone they don't like, and add to a list, from getting guns.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Maybe if there was some semblance of due process to these lists then yes, sure. But there isn't. And there won't be. Due process only kicks in after you try to get yourself off the list, and then it's up to you to prove why you should be taken off the list, not up to the government to prove why you shouldn't.

Then that is a different issue that should be championed.
The list should be a manual creation that every say, 6 months or so automatically drops you off the list unless someone actively decides you need to remain on due to clear and present danger..should also be checks and balances.

a streamlined list would be more effective also in keeping the actual radicals in focus while dropping the typical harmless jerks.

And then with the very streamlined list of suspected dangerous radicals, more pressure can be put on a full investigation until either something can be charged, or they have to give up...I am ok with continued close monitoring


No.

Fix the list. Then use it to keep people from getting guns if you think it'll work. And this is the problem. Due process is due process. A constitutional right is a constitutional right. You don't take it away from somebody and then say we'll get around to fixing this thing at some point.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Clearly a bad call.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Maybe if there was some semblance of due process to these lists then yes, sure. But there isn't. And there won't be. Due process only kicks in after you try to get yourself off the list, and then it's up to you to prove why you should be taken off the list, not up to the government to prove why you shouldn't.

Then that is a different issue that should be championed.
The list should be a manual creation that every say, 6 months or so automatically drops you off the list unless someone actively decides you need to remain on due to clear and present danger..should also be checks and balances.

a streamlined list would be more effective also in keeping the actual radicals in focus while dropping the typical harmless jerks.

And then with the very streamlined list of suspected dangerous radicals, more pressure can be put on a full investigation until either something can be charged, or they have to give up...I am ok with continued close monitoring


No.

Fix the list. Then use it to keep people from getting guns if you think it'll work. And this is the problem. Due process is due process. A constitutional right is a constitutional right. You don't take it away from somebody and then say we'll get around to fixing this thing at some point.


I hear what your saying, and on principle I agree
but then I also have a overwhelming not giving a f to islamic nutjobs having a hard time when they mostly just wanna see the west burn..so I will protest..quietly...and once I go do a thing and you know..take a nap..totally there to help out these flag burners and gay bashers continue on..just you know..my back is hurting so its hard to make it to the march for their rights, erm...
..
guess I gave up being a revolutionary constitutionalist once they attacked my hometown



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

If you can't be arsed to worry about people's rights, which are the same rights you have, that's all well and good.

Just don't bitch about it when yours are taken away too.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
So if people are on a "list" and they want to commit major crimes, what stops them from using false I.D. ?

Or what stops them from using straw buyers ?



Nothing, but that's part of the idea. Just the same as with gun control, purchasing/obtaining certain guns becomes illegal. You can't stop a lone wolf attack before it happens by arresting the person because there's nothing to hold them for. If you make the preparations illegal though such as driving someone to the black market for a gun, or getting a false ID, then they've committed actual crimes you can lock them up for.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
So if people are on a "list" and they want to commit major crimes, what stops them from using false I.D. ?

Or what stops them from using straw buyers ?



You don't even need to be a "bad guy" - just have the same name as a suspected "terrorist" and your 2nd Amendment rights are stripped away as if you were never even a citizen.

Anyone who enforces such a thing should immediately hang themselves in the town square out of embarrassment of their treason. If they don't, they should be executed as an enemy combatant immediately.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

And with the thousands of shootings/year committed by criminals with illegal guns, your plan would work how?




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: SaturnFX

If you can't be arsed to worry about people's rights, which are the same rights you have, that's all well and good.

Just don't bitch about it when yours are taken away too.

Yeah..I should feel bad about that.

I'll get around to it eventually..for now, I am still in the dont give a crap about islamic jihadists not able to fly..but eventually I will lose my common sense and go back to default ideology over danger.

I do however enjoy the idea of our defense not being reactionary keystone cops and instead proactively stopping schmucks from attacking the west..just a weird view I have I suppose.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Seriously people.

No fly lists,terrorist watch lists, and the second amendment.

Being pushed by the same people for the last eight year can't even bring themselves to admit such a thing as terrorism exists.

It's pucker time.

We are about to be royally screwed.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: SaturnFX
They have a list that stops you from being able to get on a airplane..I wont weigh in on the governments infringment of movement (a right). it seems this has been in place for ages.
I see this as just another aspect of that. questionable, but if they are legit stopping people suspected of radicalism and seeking out to harm people...I am strangely ok with that.

but there needs to be more quick access to get people either charged, or off the no fly. I see it as investigation, not a punishment for just thinking badly..it should mean something. if there is 60k people on the list, investigate it. if its actually over a million (for all lists combined)..then we gotta wonder how effective this filtering process is.


And that's how we lose rights.

"Well if it stops something at some point ever, I guess it's a good thing." Piece by piece, bit by bit, that's how you lose rights.

Maybe if there was some semblance of due process to these lists then yes, sure. But there isn't. And there won't be. Due process only kicks in after you try to get yourself off the list, and then it's up to you to prove why you should be taken off the list, not up to the government to prove why you shouldn't.


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Well everyone, if you aren't a student of history, you maybe condemned to repeat it. This story reeks of a return to the McCarthy style hearing of the fifties. Only this time it's not communist behind every bush, it's Islamic terrorist.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

And with the thousands of shootings/year committed by criminals with illegal guns, your plan would work how?



It makes guns tougher to get. When you make things more expensive it prices some criminals out of using them. It would take a long time certainly, there are a lot of guns on our streets after all but it could be done.

I'll say it right now, gun control will never stop 100% of gun crimes, I bet that in the US we're looking at it preventing 33% of crimes after 50 years of being in place. It would however help as part of a multifaceted approach.

What are your ideas? We can't guard every soft target, and we can't all walk around armed. Do we simply accept being part of a mass shooting as the price of freedom? I would be fine with that, most however would not because they demand safety.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I still find it hard to believe that people blame the tools used more than the people who use them.





top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join