Rand is supporting gun control, I'm done supporting him

[Matt Collins]

No you didn't.

Actually I did. Me and 2 other people were involved.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Good. That's what I thought. Some of your earlier remarks made it sound like you thought I was misrepresenting how bad this law is.

I would be much more comfortable with this law if the benefit of the doubt were given to me as a gun purchaser during that 3-day period, rather than the government. I should not be prevented from buying a gun until after the establishment of probable cause that I shouldn't. Until then, no infringement of my rights should be permitted.

That would defeat the whole purpose, of course, as you'd have already bought the gun.

Thoughts on my robber example?

 

[unknown]

You guys who are defending this list, youre being really naive if you think this list wont be abused or incrementally used to chip away at 2A rights.

This list, the brainchild and spearheaded by Rahm Emmanuel, has the Left frothing at the mouth to get it passed.

As if they actually care about violence.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I wont agree that watch lists should exist, which is different from an investigation.

If they are investigating someone then they should prove their case one way or the other and move on.

So, if the FBI finds someone who they think may be a terrorist (or whatever kind of criminal), and isn't able to convict them of a crime within some arbitrary period of time, they should delete their records of that person and forget about them? That would be the logical implication of not keeping watch lists, though it's rather absurd wouldn't you say?

The no fly list (with 47,000+ people) has a presumption of guilt as does the political dissident, I mean "terrorist", watch list (with 1.5 million+ people).

As I said, it's not the keeping of names of persons of interest on a list that's a problem; that violates no ones rights, ever.

The problem lies in restricting the rights of people on that list without due process - as by preventing them from getting on a plane.

 

[erowe1]

That would defeat the whole purpose, of course, as you'd have already bought the gun.

No it wouldn't defeat the whole purpose. They can take the gun away after I have been proven guilty (which I won't be--so my right shouldn't be violated in the first place like this law does), just like they already do for convicted criminals. Giving the benefit of the doubt to me, rather than the government, would still mean that the attempt to purchase a gun would alert the government and put on the fast track their attempt to prove my guilt.

Besides, do we need more laws?

 

[erowe1]

You guys who are defending this list, youre being really naive if you think this list wont be abused or incrementally used to chip away at 2A rights.

This list, the brainchild and spearheaded by Rahm Emmanuel, has the Left frothing at the mouth to get it passed.

As if they actually care about violence.

The no-fly list is already terrible. And as far as I know, that has never been disputed here.

Until today.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

No it wouldn't defeat the whole purpose. They can take the gun away after I have been proven guilty (which I won't be--so my right shouldn't be violated in the first place like this law does), just like they already do for convicted criminals. Giving the benefit of the doubt to me, rather than the government, would still mean that the attempt to purchase a gun would alert the government and put on the fast track their attempt to prove my guilt.

That clearly wouldn't be as effective (the malevolent buyer could use the gun before the case was made).

Besides, do we need more laws?

I don't think we need this law.

I'm just saying that it's not prima facie unlibertarian.

It would be justifiable if the threat it's aimed to reduce were great enough, and it would actually reduce it.

I happen to think the threat is trivial, and this wouldn't do much to reduce it, but it's an empirical question, not a question of principle.

i.e. libertarians with exactly the same ethical principles can disagree about this

 

[Krugminator2]

Where is the due process for being placed on a list which shouldnt exist in the first place?

This isnt the DU or Hotair.

These are the Ron Paul forums.

Here we believe in rights and freedom.

Good point. What an authoritarian I am thinking it is reasonable for a person on a terrorist watchlist to have to wait three days to buy a gun. And I think it is even reasonable for the FBI to put people on terrorist watchlists.

And look at what this slaver said. I guess she must have been a Hot Air poster.

[FONT=&quot]Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, non-criminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Handguns are instruments for killing people -- they are not carried for hunting animals -- and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don't know how the issue is going to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[unknown]

So, if the FBI finds someone who they think may be a terrorist (or whatever kind of criminal), and isn't able to convict them of a crime within some arbitrary period of time, they should delete their records of that person and forget about them? That would be the logical implication of not keeping watch lists, though it's rather absurd wouldn't you say?

As I said, it's not the keeping of names of persons of interest on a list that's a problem; that violates no ones rights, ever.

The problem lies in restricting the rights of people on that list without due process - as by preventing them from getting on a plane.

These arent investigations (that we know of), these are bonafide "watch lists", which have to be rejected on principle alone.

But firearms and "terrorism" aside, for how long will/do they investigate someone before they determine that theyre satisfied and that there is or isnt enough to justify moving forward (rhetorical question)?

So they should just be allowed to keep compiling a never ending list of people in perpetuity who cant fly (in addition to who knows what else) and now cant buy a firearm until our generous caretakers allow it?

 

[jmdrake]

So, just because I communicate with someone that the government calls a member of ISIS (how do they go about determining who is a member of ISIS anyway?), I lose my right to keep and bear arms? It doesn't even matter what the content of that communication is?

Well if your communication is innocent under the Cornyn bill you get a chance to make that case in court. The standard being proposed is probable cause that you are planning an attack. It doesn't matter whether you or anyone you are communicating with is a member of ISIS. As written if you were Terry Nichols communicating with Tim McVeigh about blowing up the Murrah Federal Building in OKC the Cornyn amendment would apply.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

These arent investigations (that we know of), these are bonafide "watch lists", which have to be rejected on principle alone.

But firearms and "terrorism" aside, for how long will/do they investigate someone before they determine that theyre satisfied and that there is or isnt enough to justify moving forward (rhetorical question)?

I'll take this as an affirmative answer to my rhetorical question.

...apparently you really do think the FBI should delete their investigative records after some arbitrary period of time.

To my mind, on the other hand, it makes perfectly good sense to keep a list of previous subjects for future reference.

So they should just be allowed to keep compiling a never ending list of people in perpetuity who cant fly (in addition to who knows what else) and now cant buy a firearm until our generous caretakers allow it?

For the third time, keeping a list of possible terrorists =/= violating the rights of anyone on that list.

It's perfectly possible to have a watch list, and only take any action against people on that list through due process.

...as the Cornyn amendment proposed.

 

[jmdrake]

Actually I did. Me and 2 other people were involved.

Well I asked Rand to run for something in 2008 when he came to Nashville to speak for the opening of our campaign headquarters there. And I bet somebody talked to him even before me. He just kind of chuckled a bit and said "Yeah...people keep asking me that."

 

[staerker]

Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, non-criminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun.

Handguns are instruments for killing people -- they are not carried for hunting animals -- and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don't know how the issue is going to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim

Just give that privilege to cops, yay protection. Rands of both varieties are hardly proper idols.

 

[jmdrake]

You guys who are defending this list, youre being really naive if you think this list wont be abused or incrementally used to chip away at 2A rights.

This list, the brainchild and spearheaded by Rahm Emmanuel, has the Left frothing at the mouth to get it passed.

As if they actually care about violence.

Who's defending the list? And for the record it's not the brainchild of Rahm Emmanuel. Not unless Bush got the idea from him. Using it to take away gun rights, yeah that's Rahm's idea. (Maybe). That said, this particular amendment is the first time I've seen anyone attempt to apply due process to the list. It was wrong to tell people they couldn't fly without due process. The amendment should include language specifying how to get off the list period.

 

[unknown]

Well if your communication is innocent under the Cornyn bill you get a chance to make that case in court. The standard being proposed is probable cause that you are planning an attack. It doesn't matter whether you or anyone you are communicating with is a member of ISIS. As written if you were Terry Nichols communicating with Tim McVeigh about blowing up the Murrah Federal Building in OKC the Cornyn amendment would apply.

Why is anyone taking these lists at face value.

And these are horrible examples which couldnt get more extreme.

Who here actually believes that the near 2 million people on various lists are plotting these kinds of attacks and if they were, I would imagine that is reason enough to arrest them.

Haven't we learned if you give these Critters an inch they'll take a mile.

Of-course and everyone here is well aware of it despite their defending these anti-liberty watch lists.

Couldnt ask for a better real life example. No fly list. "Terrorist" list. KILL list.

 

[jmdrake]

Good point. What an authoritarian I am thinking it is reasonable for a person on a terrorist watchlist to have to wait three days to buy a gun. And I think it is even reasonable for the FBI to put people on terrorist watchlists.

And look at what this slaver said. I guess she must have been a Hot Air poster.

Originally Posted by AYN RAND
Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, non-criminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun.

Handguns are instruments for killing people -- they are not carried for hunting animals -- and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don't know how the issue is going to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim

Are you trying to give me yet another reason not to like Ayn Rand?

As for the FBI putting people on the terrorist watchlist, have you paid any attention to the fact that toddlers have ended up on that list? That said, there's nothing unconstitutional about having a list. It's what you do with the list that's the problem. That said, the Cornyn amendment, as written, isn't that bad.

 

[unknown]

Who's defending the list? And for the record it's not the brainchild of Rahm Emmanuel. Not unless Bush got the idea from him. Using it to take away gun rights, yeah that's Rahm's idea. (Maybe). That said, this particular amendment is the first time I've seen anyone attempt to apply due process to the list. It was wrong to tell people they couldn't fly without due process.

Yah, I was referring to the anti-2A aspect.

The amendment should include language specifying how to get off the list period.

Of-course.

 

[jmdrake]

Why is anyone taking these lists at face value.

And these are horrible examples which couldnt get more extreme.

Who here actually believes that the near 2 million people on various lists are plotting these kinds of attacks and if they were, I would imagine that is reason enough to arrest them.

Who said I'm taking the list at face value? I'm not. Certainly senators and congressmen have been put on the list as have toddlers. But if the FBI has to go to court to defend the list, why is that not a step in the right direction? I think this hearing idea should be applied to the no-fly portion of the list. Then you would see the list itself shrink dramatically.

Of-course and everyone here is well aware of it despite their defending these anti-liberty watch lists.

Couldnt ask for a better real life example. No fly list. "Terrorist" list. KILL list.

So wanting the government to have to go to court to defend putting someone on this list is defending the list?

 

[unknown]

I'll take this as an affirmative answer to my rhetorical question.

...apparently you really do think the FBI should delete their investigative records after some arbitrary period of time.

To my mind, on the other hand, it makes perfectly good sense to keep a list of previous subjects for future reference.



For the third time, keeping a list of possible terrorists =/= violating the rights of anyone on that list.

It's perfectly possible to have a watch list, and only take any action against people on that list through due process.

...as the Cornyn amendment proposed.

Investigation records arent used to restrict activity (as far as we know).

Principles of freedom aside, it is absolutely naive to believe these watch lists are comprised of just "terrorists".

If .gov has compiled a list of 2.4 million+ potential terrorists running around and are doing nothing about it other than preventing them from flying and buying a firearm, we're in big trouble.

As of June 2016 the list is estimated to contain over 2,484,442 records, consisting of 1,877,133 individual identities.[1][2].

At which point does it become an issue for "liberty minded" people.

Watch lists, no fly lists, no buy lists, terrorism lists, kill lists that continue to grow in perpetuity, when the list hits 5 million, 10 million, a 100 million?

 

[unknown]

Who said I'm taking the list at face value? I'm not. Certainly senators and congressmen have been put on the list as have toddlers. But if the FBI has to go to court to defend the list, why is that not a step in the right direction? I think this hearing idea should be applied to the no-fly portion of the list. Then you would see the list itself shrink dramatically.

So wanting the government to have to go to court to defend putting someone on this list is defending the list?

I dunno, I think I replied to your other post above?