Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On December 07 2015 22:41 evilfatsh1t wrote: honestly though how much safer can driving get? there really arent many more regulations you can put on top of the already heavily regulated cars and driving. the argument that this thread keeps on repeating however, is that guns arent regulated enough. no amount of regulation will prevent death, but its better to make an effort than to watch and do nothing. with guns, there is still a lot of effort to be made
Robot controlled cars. The dark future we all need because we have proven we can't handle texting and driving.
Jesus Christ am I tired of seeing idiots looking at their phones while driving a fucking car. Not to mention the traffic caused by all the idiots delaying traffic after the light turns green because they are on the phone. The cops don't enforce anything but inspection stickers and speed here...
Due to a recent ruling that people are allowed to use the phone for navigation, it’s almost impossible to bust someone for texting unless you see them typing. But you are not wrong.
And I would like to see a gun license made as difficult to obtain as a drivers license. And going up the scale of guns to long guns with 30 round clips is like going up the license grades in driving.
On December 07 2015 03:44 Dizmaul wrote: Wow I did not say that cars are not safe or that anyone can drive one without a license or permit. I was simply saying its interesting to me there is not a larger group of people just as passionate in making them safer since way more people are affected by the "accidents". Drunk driving, speeding, running red lights/stop signs, ect.How are car manufactures and engineers stopping those things? Are they not making cars that exceed speed limits anymore? Most will argue this is not the responsibility of the manufactures but the person using the tool. I'm also not saying "cars are no big deal so guns are fine". I think both are serious issues that should be a constant discussion till solved.
1. All of those are illegal. 2. All of those are enforced by police. 3. Car manufacturers consistently try to improve the safety of their cars. 4. Car manufacturers can't prevent people from driving drunk or carelessly speeding through lights, nor is it their job to do so. 5. Cars vs. guns is an awful analogy for a ton of reasons. Cars provide a necessary transportation service and convenience for most people on a daily basis. A car's primary purpose isn't to kill things. Nearly all automobile-related deaths are accidents; the number of purposeful shootings far outweighs the number of purposeful vehicular homicides.
On December 07 2015 22:41 evilfatsh1t wrote: honestly though how much safer can driving get? there really arent many more regulations you can put on top of the already heavily regulated cars and driving. the argument that this thread keeps on repeating however, is that guns arent regulated enough. no amount of regulation will prevent death, but its better to make an effort than to watch and do nothing. with guns, there is still a lot of effort to be made
Robot controlled cars. The dark future we all need because we have proven we can't handle texting and driving.
Jesus Christ am I tired of seeing idiots looking at their phones while driving a fucking car. Not to mention the traffic caused by all the idiots delaying traffic after the light turns green because they are on the phone. The cops don't enforce anything but inspection stickers and speed here...
Due to a recent ruling that people are allowed to use the phone for navigation, it’s almost impossible to bust someone for texting unless you see them typing. But you are not wrong.
And I would like to see a gun license made as difficult to obtain as a drivers license. And going up the scale of guns to long guns with 30 round clips is like going up the license grades in driving.
I'm still confused over the fact that Republicans are opposed to preventing suspected terrorists on the no fly list from buying guns. The only rationale I can come up with is they think the feds will abuse the list. The paranoia is strong.
On December 07 2015 22:41 evilfatsh1t wrote: honestly though how much safer can driving get? there really arent many more regulations you can put on top of the already heavily regulated cars and driving. the argument that this thread keeps on repeating however, is that guns arent regulated enough. no amount of regulation will prevent death, but its better to make an effort than to watch and do nothing. with guns, there is still a lot of effort to be made
Robot controlled cars. The dark future we all need because we have proven we can't handle texting and driving.
Jesus Christ am I tired of seeing idiots looking at their phones while driving a fucking car. Not to mention the traffic caused by all the idiots delaying traffic after the light turns green because they are on the phone. The cops don't enforce anything but inspection stickers and speed here...
Due to a recent ruling that people are allowed to use the phone for navigation, it’s almost impossible to bust someone for texting unless you see them typing. But you are not wrong.
And I would like to see a gun license made as difficult to obtain as a drivers license. And going up the scale of guns to long guns with 30 round clips is like going up the license grades in driving.
I'm still confused over the fact that Republicans are opposed to preventing suspected terrorists on the no fly list from buying guns. The only rationale I can come up with is they think the feds will abuse the list. The paranoia is strong.
I have the rationale for you: The Gun Lobby opposes all gun control measures. They want to sell guns to everyone, period. The watch list would prevent them from selling guns, so they fought the measure.
That is it. Its not about ideals. Its about money. The NRA gets the majority of its funding from people who make and sell guns for a living. Its not about rights any more, it about profits.
On December 07 2015 22:41 evilfatsh1t wrote: honestly though how much safer can driving get? there really arent many more regulations you can put on top of the already heavily regulated cars and driving. the argument that this thread keeps on repeating however, is that guns arent regulated enough. no amount of regulation will prevent death, but its better to make an effort than to watch and do nothing. with guns, there is still a lot of effort to be made
Robot controlled cars. The dark future we all need because we have proven we can't handle texting and driving.
Jesus Christ am I tired of seeing idiots looking at their phones while driving a fucking car. Not to mention the traffic caused by all the idiots delaying traffic after the light turns green because they are on the phone. The cops don't enforce anything but inspection stickers and speed here...
Due to a recent ruling that people are allowed to use the phone for navigation, it’s almost impossible to bust someone for texting unless you see them typing. But you are not wrong.
And I would like to see a gun license made as difficult to obtain as a drivers license. And going up the scale of guns to long guns with 30 round clips is like going up the license grades in driving.
I'm still confused over the fact that Republicans are opposed to preventing suspected terrorists on the no fly list from buying guns. The only rationale I can come up with is they think the feds will abuse the list. The paranoia is strong.
I have the rationale for you: The Gun Lobby opposes all gun control measures. They want to sell guns to everyone, period. The watch list would prevent them from selling guns, so they fought the measure.
That is it. Its not about ideals. Its about money. The NRA gets the majority of its funding from people who make and sell guns for a living. Its not about rights any more, it about profits.
If the surveillance state had ever accrued so many names into watch lists that merely blocking those people from buying guns would noticeably affect "profits" from gun sales, you would have a self-evident argument against government overreach.
You may have seen Obama's oval office address:
wherein he simultaneously 1) decries discrimination and 2) advocates that the state use lists, lists created by people in security agencies that were never elected, lists rife with people who have been racially (or otherwise) profiled as well as political subversives, to take away the rights of US citizens with no due process? (due process being another of our most fundamental rights)
Why? So the majority of us, whose rights aren't impacted, feel better? Whether we're actually safer or not?
According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).
At a reasonable but generous average of of $1,000 per gun, we're talking about less than $2 million worth of guns sold. And those are lists that have seen hundreds of thousands of names. I doubt "the gun lobby" follows this or would care about something so insignificant. The truth is this specific measure does not work.
Or wait, I guess it's just "paranoia," right? Government agencies never abuse anything unless it's the police or NSA? Very interesting that after the Bush administration gave us the Patriot Act, that Republicans are the ones on the civil rights side of this. And to see the left suddenly trust the government enough to back this kind of encroachment on liberties.
Here are some of the ways you can get on the terrorist watch list or No-Fly list:
1. Try to buy a plane ticket with a credit card you didn't realize was expired 2. Buy a one-way plane ticket to any one of a dozen+ Muslim-majority countries 3. Buy a one-way ticket to the US from any one of a dozen+ Muslim-majority countries 4. Visit certain internet sites 5. Have a name identical or similar to someone the government suspects is involved with terrorism 6. Have a relative who has a name identical or similar to someone the government suspects is involved with terrorism 7. Be in communication with someone who has a name identical or similar to someone the government suspects is involved with terrorism 8. Have friends who have friends who have friends the government suspects are involved with terrorism 9. Have a relative who has friends who has friends who has friends the government suspects are involved with terrorism 10. Be an anti-war activist 11. Be an anti-government activist 12. Be seen at a mosque that has a reputation for radicalism 13. Give any backtalk at all to anyone in a uniform at an airport about anything 14. Who the hell knows, the vast majority of names on the list have no discernible connection to terrorism whatsoever. Ted Kennedy was terrorizing to any unopened container of alcohol or attractive young woman but he wasn't connected to terrorism and somehow his name ended up on the No-Fly list
And once you get on, it is very very hard to get your name taken off.
Shoddy government lists being used to deny constitutional liberties seems short-sighted and "not America."
I agree with DEBs for once. Unaccountable secret lists that you get put on without knowing and can't get off of which result in you being denied things available to the general public without appeal sounds like a pretty bad idea.
Indeed. You have a judicial system for a reason, the government shouldn't discriminate against you if they can't proof that you are guilty of something. You shouldn't have to sue to get OFF a list that prevents you from flying, the government should have to prove that you belong onto that list in court before placing you on it.
I am still very much against guns being in everyones hands, but having unaccountable people decide who gets them without any oversight is even worse than noone getting them. Try to do things the right way.
On December 08 2015 06:45 KwarK wrote: I agree with DEBs for once. Unaccountable secret lists that you get put on without knowing and can't get off of which result in you being denied things available to the general public without appeal sounds like a pretty bad idea.
Ironically I haven't heard anyone on the right (politicians) trying to junk or even reform the No Fly list? Maybe I just missed it but having the list itself doesn't seem to bother those who want people on it to be able to buy guns.
I personally think the list makes sense but not without some realistic burden of evidence (which doesn't currently exist).
On December 08 2015 06:45 KwarK wrote: I agree with DEBs for once. Unaccountable secret lists that you get put on without knowing and can't get off of which result in you being denied things available to the general public without appeal sounds like a pretty bad idea.
Ironically I haven't heard anyone on the right (politicians) trying to junk or even reform the No Fly list? Maybe I just missed it but having the list itself doesn't seem to bother those who want people on it to be able to buy guns.
I personally think the list makes sense but not without some realistic burden of evidence (which doesn't currently exist).
Being on the watch list doesn't mean much. Plenty of attacks have been carried out by people that Western intelligence and security agencies 'were aware of.'
I can't remember where but I read that it takes 25 people to effectively have surveillance on someone 24/7, including their mail, phones, computers, job information, etc. One person. That's a lot of money.
They're really just silly things, both the lists. I guess they make people feel better but the terrorist watch list has a million+ names and then 50,000 more on the No-fly list. That's a lot of people. Lists so large have no practical use unless you're gathering statistics.
On December 07 2015 03:44 Dizmaul wrote: Wow I did not say that cars are not safe or that anyone can drive one without a license or permit. I was simply saying its interesting to me there is not a larger group of people just as passionate in making them safer since way more people are affected by the "accidents". Drunk driving, speeding, running red lights/stop signs, ect.How are car manufactures and engineers stopping those things? Are they not making cars that exceed speed limits anymore? Most will argue this is not the responsibility of the manufactures but the person using the tool. I'm also not saying "cars are no big deal so guns are fine". I think both are serious issues that should be a constant discussion till solved.
1. All of those are illegal. 2. All of those are enforced by police. 3. Car manufacturers consistently try to improve the safety of their cars. 4. Car manufacturers can't prevent people from driving drunk or carelessly speeding through lights, nor is it their job to do so. 5. Cars vs. guns is an awful analogy for a ton of reasons. Cars provide a necessary transportation service and convenience for most people on a daily basis. A car's primary purpose isn't to kill things. Nearly all automobile-related deaths are accidents; the number of purposeful shootings far outweighs the number of purposeful vehicular homicides.
Yes 1-4 is my point exactly thank you. I guess you did not read what I was responding to. I just don't agree that the reason why someone died completely outweighs that death happened. I think its a problem that the tool created for necessary transportation kills more people by mistake then the tool made primarily for killing...
On December 07 2015 22:41 evilfatsh1t wrote: honestly though how much safer can driving get? there really arent many more regulations you can put on top of the already heavily regulated cars and driving. the argument that this thread keeps on repeating however, is that guns arent regulated enough. no amount of regulation will prevent death, but its better to make an effort than to watch and do nothing. with guns, there is still a lot of effort to be made
Robot controlled cars. The dark future we all need because we have proven we can't handle texting and driving.
Jesus Christ am I tired of seeing idiots looking at their phones while driving a fucking car. Not to mention the traffic caused by all the idiots delaying traffic after the light turns green because they are on the phone. The cops don't enforce anything but inspection stickers and speed here...
Due to a recent ruling that people are allowed to use the phone for navigation, it’s almost impossible to bust someone for texting unless you see them typing. But you are not wrong.
And I would like to see a gun license made as difficult to obtain as a drivers license. And going up the scale of guns to long guns with 30 round clips is like going up the license grades in driving.
I'm still confused over the fact that Republicans are opposed to preventing suspected terrorists on the no fly list from buying guns. The only rationale I can come up with is they think the feds will abuse the list. The paranoia is strong.
Hi,
So the entire reason you mention this whole "can buy guns" while on the "no-fly list", is due to sneaky and evil political games. I have been on two different types of no-fly lists since 2011/2012 when I acted as an organizer for occupy and police brutality protests. Over 1 million americans are on the no fly list, with 100'000 added a month. The list has no legal basis. Zero. Google it.
I am for finding a good solution relating to guns but falling for McCarthyism and allowing a system that falsly imprisons Americans in their country to decide who can or shouldn't have guns is horrible.
For every Right-wing gun totting Jacksonian on the no fly list, there are a thousands like me who have done nothing outside of the law and yet are still punished and neither the Right wingers or Liberal protestors have any right to be punished BEFORE crimes... for them pre-thinking your going to do a crime. It is like pre-punishing an unproven pre-thought crime.
The Feds have abused the list. There is no way to get removed from the list. You cannot even find out if you are on the list until you try to book a ticket to England. Then Israel. Then France. And eventually you get to talk to Homeland security, who only tells you what you have recently figured out, "You are on a no fly list" and there is no reason to except it to go away.
The no fly list is unconstitutional, and not that I give a damn about that worthless piece of badly written trash but it is good to remind people who are recommending making laws which relate to it either by reason or actual dependency that they are advocating for a more draconian approach to law making then China or Russia have considered in decades. (I am not saying gun laws are draconian, I'm saying using secret spy lists that are aggravated by LE as a basis for anything legal is a horrible joke)
All the things you listed are arguments to make the lists better, not to allow the selling of guns to people on the list. There's no world in which it's completely okay to deny someone innocent the right to board a plane, but not the right to buy a gun. If you're so concerned with the rights of these people then you aren't fighting the right fight.
On December 07 2015 22:41 evilfatsh1t wrote: honestly though how much safer can driving get? there really arent many more regulations you can put on top of the already heavily regulated cars and driving. the argument that this thread keeps on repeating however, is that guns arent regulated enough. no amount of regulation will prevent death, but its better to make an effort than to watch and do nothing. with guns, there is still a lot of effort to be made
Robot controlled cars. The dark future we all need because we have proven we can't handle texting and driving.
Jesus Christ am I tired of seeing idiots looking at their phones while driving a fucking car. Not to mention the traffic caused by all the idiots delaying traffic after the light turns green because they are on the phone. The cops don't enforce anything but inspection stickers and speed here...
Due to a recent ruling that people are allowed to use the phone for navigation, it’s almost impossible to bust someone for texting unless you see them typing. But you are not wrong.
And I would like to see a gun license made as difficult to obtain as a drivers license. And going up the scale of guns to long guns with 30 round clips is like going up the license grades in driving.
I'm still confused over the fact that Republicans are opposed to preventing suspected terrorists on the no fly list from buying guns. The only rationale I can come up with is they think the feds will abuse the list. The paranoia is strong.
Hi,
So the entire reason you mention this whole "can buy guns" while on the "no-fly list", is due to sneaky and evil political games. I have been on two different types of no-fly lists since 2011/2012 when I acted as an organizer for occupy and police brutality protests. Over 1 million americans are on the no fly list, with 100'000 added a month. The list has no legal basis. Zero. Google it.
I am for finding a good solution relating to guns but falling for McCarthyism and allowing a system that falsly imprisons Americans in their country to decide who can or shouldn't have guns is horrible.
For every Right-wing gun totting Jacksonian on the no fly list, there are a thousands like me who have done nothing outside of the law and yet are still punished and neither the Right wingers or Liberal protestors have any right to be punished BEFORE crimes... for them pre-thinking your going to do a crime. It is like pre-punishing an unproven pre-thought crime.
The Feds have abused the list. There is no way to get removed from the list. You cannot even find out if you are on the list until you try to book a ticket to England. Then Israel. Then France. And eventually you get to talk to Homeland security, who only tells you what you have recently figured out, "You are on a no fly list" and there is no reason to except it to go away.
The no fly list is unconstitutional, and not that I give a damn about that worthless piece of badly written trash but it is good to remind people who are recommending making laws which relate to it either by reason or actual dependency that they are advocating for a more draconian approach to law making then China or Russia have considered in decades. (I am not saying gun laws are draconian, I'm saying using secret spy lists that are aggravated by LE as a basis for anything legal is a horrible joke)
Hi,
Your numbers don't seem to make much sense. Also I would like to see where you're getting your information on total people on the no fly list because from what I can find is only 2013 with 47k names.
On December 09 2015 02:29 Nebuchad wrote: All the things you listed are arguments to make the lists better, not to allow the selling of guns to people on the list. There's no world in which it's completely okay to deny someone innocent the right to board a plane, but not the right to buy a gun. If you're so concerned with the rights of these people then you aren't fighting the right fight.
Where in the constitution is the right to board a plane guaranteed?
The National Counterterrorism Center runs a central repository of more than 1 million people called Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE. The TIDE database, which includes about 25,000 Americans as of 2013, is drawn from intelligence community sources and is classified.
An unclassified subset of the TIDE database is made available to law enforcement as part of the Terrorist Screening Database. That database contains biographical and biometric information about potential terrorists and can be accessed by local, state and federal law enforcement officials who don’t have security clearances. As of 2011, that database was said to contain about 420,000 names, according to the FBI.
The Transportation Security Administration receives an even smaller list of people subject to travel restrictions drawn from the Terrorist Screening Database. In addition to the 16,000 names on the no-fly list in 2011, another 16,000 were on the selectee list. The selectee list doesn’t prevent individuals from flying but subjects them to extra scrutiny.
Dug this up from WSJ. The number of people who would actually be affected seems pretty small.
Protip: if you're gonna base your argument on a single statistic, make sure it's at least in the correct magnitude (or at most one above or below). Otherwise your credibility goes kaboom.
On December 08 2015 06:45 KwarK wrote: I agree with DEBs for once. Unaccountable secret lists that you get put on without knowing and can't get off of which result in you being denied things available to the general public without appeal sounds like a pretty bad idea.
Ironically I haven't heard anyone on the right (politicians) trying to junk or even reform the No Fly list? Maybe I just missed it but having the list itself doesn't seem to bother those who want people on it to be able to buy guns.
Yes, because it's a "No-Fly List" not a "No-Gun List," and despite the president's insistence it should be common sense that if you stop someone from flying you should also stop them from buying guns, despite that one of those is legally protected quite deeper than the other, it's clearly not the list's purpose.
The No-Fly List is surely fucked up on its own, but that's somewhat of a separate issue. For example, there might be problems with IRS auditing, but if I suggested that everyone on the No-Fly List also be audited by the IRS, you would be scratching your head.
On December 09 2015 02:29 Nebuchad wrote: All the things you listed are arguments to make the lists better, not to allow the selling of guns to people on the list. There's no world in which it's completely okay to deny someone innocent the right to board a plane, but not the right to buy a gun. If you're so concerned with the rights of these people then you aren't fighting the right fight.
Your logic sounds like you think your "opponents" are only worried about infringing on gun rights, and so if they don't care as much about freedom of movement by air travel, that justifies some other infringement. I'm not on board, as it were, with this argument.
What perverse thing do you have to do with something called the No-Fly List to make it an overreach in your mind? Why not imprison people on the list? Extraordinary rendition? How about waterboarding anyone on the list? Do we only need to make the list "better" and then all of these things become okay? If only there were constitutional amendments that protected against this stuff...
On December 09 2015 03:51 oBlade wrote: What perverse thing do you have to do with something called the No-Fly List to make it an overreach in your mind? Why not imprison people on the list? Extraordinary rendition? How about waterboarding anyone on the list? Do we only need to make the list "better" and then all of these things become okay? If only there were constitutional amendments that protected against this stuff...
Is this even a serious answer? No, I don't think you should be able to do those things to the people on the list even if the list was better. I also don't think there's an equivalency between not allowing someone you have tagged as suspicious to buy a gun and allowing them to get tortured. Do you disagree?
On December 09 2015 03:51 oBlade wrote: What perverse thing do you have to do with something called the No-Fly List to make it an overreach in your mind? Why not imprison people on the list? Extraordinary rendition? How about waterboarding anyone on the list? Do we only need to make the list "better" and then all of these things become okay? If only there were constitutional amendments that protected against this stuff...
Is this even a serious answer? No, I don't think you should be able to do those things to the people on the list even if the list was better. I also don't think there's an equivalency between not allowing someone you have tagged as suspicious to buy a gun and allowing them to get tortured. Do you disagree?
They're both constitutionally protected.
If you believe someone is dangerous and they bought a gun, why not arrest them?
EPT
