I have gun control advocates ask me constantly “so what’s wrong with ‘no fly, no buy’?” – in other words, with barring people on the feds’ double-dog secret terror watchlist from buying guns.

My response:  “You mean, other than completely sidestepping due process?   Well, there’s this sort of thing“:

Hawaii could become the first state in the United States to enter gun owners into an FBI database that will automatically notify police if an island resident is arrested anywhere else in the country.

Most people entered in the “Rap Back” database elsewhere in the U.S. are those in “positions of trust,” such as school teachers and bus drivers, said Stephen Fischer of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Hawaii could be the first state to add gun owners.

In other words, the feds, or anti-gun states, can abuse databases – basically making entire classes of otherwise law-abiding citizens into de facto criminals with de facto trashed civil liberties.

Then, remember what happened in 2009 – when Homeland Security Theater secretary Janet Napolitano told law enforcement to watch out, essentially, for all conservatives, as potential terror threats.

Now, combine the three; the urge to abuse federal law enforcement, the power to ignore due process at will, and the technology to strip entire groups of their freedoms with the touch of a top secret button.

Obama’s America:  Orwell was only three decades off.

22 thoughts on ““Reasonable”

  1. Which terrorist attacks in the US (or mass shootings) would have been thwarted by this?
    No Orlando. Not San Bernardino. Not Boston.
    Gun control advocates will sometimes point out that a majority of Americans would like to keep people on the no-fly list from buying firearms.
    But people are ignorant. Most of them don’t know that the difference between the no-fly list and the terrorist watch list. They also don’t know that both lists are secret, as is the method used to place a person on the list.
    The terrorist watch list is much larger than the no fly list. This is presumably because it uses guilt by association. Some lawyers for terrorist suspects ave been placed on the terrorist watch list.
    It is said that the majority of people on both lists are not US citizens or permanent US residents.
    Our ‘constitutional law professor’ president is in favor of forbidding people on either list from buying firearms.

  2. Most people are looking at it wrongly. They assume Democrats will remain in charge of the list and therefore, Democrats will not be placed on the list. Only terrorists and Conservatives will be “listed.”

    Obama supporters must be hoping Hillary will forgive them for back-stabbing her eight years ago. Does the word “Menshevik” ring a bell?

    If you’re too dangerous to be allowed to fly, or to buy a gun, surely you’re too dangerous to be allowed access to a cell phone or internet to conspire with your fellow suspected terrorists? Surely you’re too dangerous to be allowed access to credit cards or electronic banking, to fund your suspected terrorist activities?

    Moderates: if you give the Queen the power to blacklist her enemies and she turns on you, can you get the power back from her while she controls the people who have all the guns?

  3. Joe, the people who would prefer to govern with feelings instead of laws and logic are unlikely to realize the magnitude of their error until they find themselves lined against the wall and just then notice the blood stains of the people of principle who preceded them.

  4. I agree with you that we need some sort of due process for those who are unfairly or inaccurately on the no fly list to get off of it.

    However, like having an order of protection against someone for their conduct, which includes due process, there seems to be a pretty fair and reasonable doubt about the safety and good intentions of someone who legitimately ends up on the no fly list such that they should be banned from buying weapons. But that should also be something where there is a subsequent hearing in a court of law within a reasonable amount of time.

    As to your whinging on again about conservatives being targeted as domestic terrorists — too bad, there is a reason for that. The reason is that there have been roughly twice as many attacks by right wing extremists (and sadly SO many right wingers have become extreme over the past decade) that they do represent a group over which there is reasonable concern. They don’t get a free pass just because you are rabidly conservative. And let us remember that Janet Napolitano was repeating valid statistics which were compiled long before she assumed office, by the ultra-conservative Bush administration.
    In point of fact, those stats are consistent regardless of the administration in office precisely because they are factual, accurate, and compiled by largely politically neutral / non-partisan professionals.

    Hooray for Hawaii; what we have learned over the decades is that gun control works, and that no one is horribly penalized or treated badly or unfairly. Rather it results in a drop in gun-related deaths and injuries, and particularly in a sharp decline in mass shootings.

    I have yet to see where more guns have resulted in any benefit. In particular the Snopes debunking of that recent South Carolina ‘prevention of a mass shooting by a concealed carry gunman’ for example turns out not to be true. Funny how in your usual unbalanced way THAT little piece of information doesn’t make it onto your blog…nah, not funny. All too predictable.

    The Constitution is doing just fine; it is too many Americans who are RIP because of too many guns in the wrong hands.


  5. Btw- although off topic a bit, over the weekend, Norway had to alter their monetary policy in anticipation of large losses to their economy from the UK Brexit decision. While Norway has a very favorable arrangement with the EU which is fundamental to their success as a nation that is NOT a member of the EU, they are anticipating major losses of business with the UK because of the UK going down the toilet after leaving the UK. No one believes the UK will successfully negotiate anything remotely resembling the good deal they had as EU members, but rather that the UK would be punished for leaving if anything when it comes to the negotiations.

    The informed perspective of Norway is quite the opposite of your shallow and detail-lacking fact-lacking assumption that if Norway or Switzerland can do just fine without being members, so will the UK.

    I can’t say that your writing on the topic of firearms regulation shows any better depth or breadth.

  6. DogGone; when the Democrats introduce a bill with provisions for due process, let us know, OK? For that matter, when the current administration allows due process (like FOIA requests, indictments of former staffers) to work, let us know that, too. Evidence is scant, to put it mildly.

    Moreover, regarding your claim that gun control works, all I can say is “Washington DC” and “Chicago”, not to mention a host of developing countries that have become war zones as they tighten gun controls. Sorry, your logic isn’t working too well.

    And your Snopes link? Suffice it to say they’re not doing themselves proud, as all they’re saying is that it’s not completely obvious to them that a man who fires his gun repeatedly at a crowd actually intends to kill a bunch of them.

    Seriously? You can’t see through that?

  7. OK, one final mini-fisking for DG: for Brexit to torpedo the British economy, that would require the other party, the remaining EU, to torpedo theirs, specifically by causing a trade war. Now you may indeed be arguing that the EU is a bunch of idiots, but that would seem to be a pretty good argument FOR Brexit, don’t you think?

  8. I agree with you that we need some sort of due process for those who are unfairly or inaccurately on the no fly list to get off of it.


    With all doubt removed by the FBI, Hillary is going to be counting on people that think “Too Stupid To Indict” is an endorsement. She has a real soulmate in dog.

  9. We should have a thread about the non-indictment. As I see it, the crimes she’s committed that definitely involve intent are perjury (she lied about providing all emails to the judge), obstruction of justice (by destroying a number of emails that should have been provided to the government), and lying to investigators–all of these open and shut cases, really. Her destruction of daily schedules also qualifies as obstruction of justice, IMO.

    She’s in good company with her “husband” in this regard, really.

  10. Dog Gone said:

    “they are anticipating major losses of business with the UK because of the UK going down the toilet after leaving the UK”

    Muddy thought produces a muddy comment. Dog Gone should reserve comment on the “*-lacking” of other peoples writing.

  11. The problem with Dog Gone’s proposal is that it’s backwards of how the Constitution works. Under the Constitution, we have the hearing first, then we take away your rights. Under Dog Gone’s system, we take away your rights first, then maybe we’ll get around to the hearing later, if we fee like it, or maybe not at all.

    Dog Gone is like The Red Queen shouting “Off With Their Heads” at anybody who offends her. That’s not just un-American, it’s anti-American.

  12. That’s not just un-American, it’s anti-American.

    It took you this long to figure DG out?

  13. No fly, no buy, no free.

    Too dangerous to be allowed to own a gun? Too dangerous to be allowed to run around free. Round ’em all up and send them to GITMO. No hearing, no notice, no prospect of ever leaving.

    How’s that sound to your bumper sticker gun grabbers?

  14. Lots of ignorance out there.
    The terrorist watchlist is huge, 2,000,000 or so names. No judicial procedure is used to put someone on the list. The criteria that gets you on the terrorist watch list is secret because if the terrorists know the criteria, they will game the system. Personally, I suspect that the algorithm changes over time. A hearing to get a name taken off the list, or even confirming that that a name is on the list, would expose the algorithm.
    The no-fly list is supposed to have around 20,000 names, the vast majority of the named are supposedly neither American citizens nor are they permanent US residents, meaning they can’t buy a gun anyhow. You don’t want to expose the no-fly criteria in a public hearing, either.
    It can be assumed that the vast majority of people on the list are not KKK types. They are, instead, Muslims, including Black Muslims.
    None of the conspirators in the San Bernardino attack was on the no-fly list or the terrorist watch list. The Orlando shooter was not on the no-fly list and was not on the terrorist watch list when he bought his weapons.

  15. Perhaps the way to point this out is to remind people that the greatest achievements in the civil rights era were access to the ballot box and to the courts. If one passes no fly, no buy, that would empower government to reverse public access to the courts in important areas. The sad irony here is that the Congressional (Liberal) Black Caucus is more or less campaigning to reinstate one of Jim Crow’s nastiest provisions.

  16. The reason is that there have been roughly twice as many attacks by right wing extremists (and sadly SO many right wingers have become extreme over the past decade) that they do represent a group over which there is reasonable concern.

    Cite your sources please. Give us concrete numbers. You’re the one making that claim, thus it is incumbent upon you to back up the claim with data. Mitch has a whole blog category about violence committed by the left that completely refutes that statement.

  17. She probably got the ratio of RW vs Muslim attacks from the self-enrichment fear mongers at the SPLC. The SPLC says the 2010 incident where a disgruntled gentleman flew a plane into an IRS building as a “right wing attack.’ The pilot’s suicide note ended with the words “The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”

  18. Mitch, just for fun, I took a look, and no, there’s actually not overlap between your list and theirs as far as I can tell.

    What I did notice is that none of the cases they mention actually are people who were in conservative circles. You’ve got about 120 cases in toto, 60 of which are anti-semitic/Klan type groups, 40 militia types, ~ 15 basic anarchist types, and about five pro-life types. There is some overlap in these categories, but what is lacking is any connection to the Republican Party, Tea Parties, etc..

    In other words, thanks, SPLC, for the smear, but the “National Socialists” aren’t exactly on the right, to put it mildly.

  19. Well, if (as someone said earlier) Stack crashing his plane into the tower in Austin TX was something the SPLC called “right wing”, then there’s an overlap.

    Indeed, many of the posts on the “Climate of Hate” page were wishfully attributed to the right in initial reporting.

  20. I think they fix the egregious errors they really get called on, but the bigger deal IMO is that they equate Neo-nazi, KKK, and Aryan Nations types with “conservatism”.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.