Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Eschaton the entry barrier for that list is very low, after the Boston Marathon bombing people got into that list for buying pressure cookers online, and accessing any sort of material related to terrorist groups regardless of intent can put you there.
Watching this probably put me in a couple of those watch lists.
Concealed v Open Carry is mostly a boondoggle, aside from the light licensing standards for both. The core is strong enforcement of the existing regimen, and possibly more penalties for sellers (one end-run around the gun-show "loophole" is if a purely private seller could be held liable for any criminal damages done by the person who bought their gun, if the private seller did not conduct due diligence, raising the cost of selling legit guns).
On a more scifi level, i'd see smartguns becoming the industry standard and then put a ban on everything else, which wouldn't infringe on the reasonable right so long as they were about the same price as "dumb" weapons.
The problem with watchlists and no-fly lists is that they're administrative tools, not legal decisions. Taking away someone's legal rights — like the right to purchase a firearm — without due process is a very big no-no. And there have been enough stories about people getting put on those lists because of a clerical error or because they have the same name as someone else on the list that using them for damn-near anything is a nonstarter for me until those issues are fixed.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Yeah, I have to agree with you there. Those lists are due process nightmares. It's weird that a party that prides itself on its adherence to civil rights principles would be advocating for their use.
edited 15th Jun '16 4:13:57 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I still think there's a way to square the circle about watch lists. You can't just send someone a letter saying "hey, you're being summoned for a hearing about whether to put you on the no-fly list," it's just operational, you can't let dangerous people know that you know.
People on the list should have clear, speedy recourse for getting off of it (like a hearing within 90 days of the first time they discover they're on a list), but i don't think the lists are the worst idea.
Nah, the watch lists need to be dropped — well, you can't stop the FBI from compiling lists of people it doesn't like, but you can bar extrajudicial information from affecting one's civil rights. This stance is not incompatible with security since I don't support anyone carrying guns in public or buying a gun without licensing.
As far as the "no-fly list" goes, it's not hard to discover that you're on it... just try to fly somewhere. What's problematic is getting off it.
edited 15th Jun '16 4:24:26 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yeah I mean it's not that complicated, just make it so that the FBI I can't just add you to a list because it doesn't like you, it has to make a case to a judge, likewise it has to be able to specify who you are and why you should be on the list.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranJust saw this on the A single unified LGBT conversation board and felt it bore sharing:
The Lieutenant Governor of Utah has apologised for his anti-LGBT past, after the Orlando massacre.
@Fighteer: You know, one argument I have in favor of the right to self-defense, and to bear arms in pursuit of that, is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect individual citizens from harm.
Given that, I think that utilitarian arguments lose a lot of value (irony). If you don't have a right to be protected by the police, then you have a right to protect yourself and carry the necessary tools to do so.
Got a citation on that Supreme Court thing? It seems too fantastical to be true.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect anyone.
Source: NY Times. The decision was written by Scalia (no surprise) and came after a woman's children were kidnapped and murdered by her ex-husband. Essentially, you have no legal recourse if the cops fail to protect you or your family, even if they ignored an arrest order.
Oh. Constitutionally, sure. I don't see how you'd read a duty to protect into that document, if you're taking the matter literally. But it is their job description. The point, while interesting, is not relevant to the matter we're discussing.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yes it is, I think. You cannot require the police to protect your life. You cannot sue them for failing to do so. If you cannot force the police to "do their job," as you put it, then it may as well not be their job. (An obligation without an enforcement mechanism is meaningless.)
So what I'm getting at is, if you do not have a right to be protected from harm by society, then barring a Hobbes Was Right argument ("you have no rights against the government, yet you have a duty to obey it"), you have a right to self-defense. You can only argue that the right to defend yourself is given up (as part of living in a civilization) if you can count on society (the police) doing it for you.
That sounds dangerously like a "Wild West" justification: we live in a free-for-all, everything goes society despite having government and civil order and law enforcement, so it's every man's duty to be prepared to use lethal force at the drop of a hat.
The control on the behavior of police is the society that they work on behalf of. When that's lost, you get abuses, but the solution is not to turn into a private vigilante. That only makes the situation worse, because now when someone tries to step in to restore order, they can't tell if the people with guns are good guys or bad guys.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It's worth noting that just because the Supreme Court found that there's no constitutional requirement, that doesn't mean that there's no legal requirement. It's just not based in the constitution itself. Pass a law saying that they have to help, and they're legally required to help.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Hillary Clinton backs requiring women to register for draft.

They're in a fantasy land at this point. Their guy, who is the only honest guy in all of politics, got shut out of the system by Clinton's cabal of money-fueled insider criminals, and the Revolution will come sooner or later and put 'em all up against a wall.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"