For once I agree with the NRA. If the "watchlist" had any credibility whatsoever I might think otherwise. But it doesn't, there's no evidence it's done any good, and there's plenty of evidence it's hurt people who shouldn't have been targeted. As the write-up says, there's little recourse if you get put on there for whatever reason.
Now, this freak-out is stupid. If anyone's a serious terrorist threat (whatever that even means these days), do you really think they don't have the resources to acquire firearms another way? Random street hoods can, but someone with the resources and training of a true terrorist (not the dumbass ones like those who tried to do the chemical bomb in England, which would be impossible to mix on an airplane and too unstable to make beforehand) can't? Give me a break.
Rep. McCarthy argues that any inconvenience to innocent people is overruled by preventing terrorists access to "AK-47s, TEC-9s, and Uzis."
This is one of the stupidest things I've heard in awhile. Either they're worried about people buying legal versions of those weapons (I'm not aware of a semi-automatic-only version of the Uzi existing, but you never know) which are no more dangerous than a hunting rifle, or they're trying to buy guns that are already illegal, so wouldn't be going through this background check anyway.
This is such nonsense.
Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
Stories like this remind me of what the real, core problem with government (at all levels) has become in the US.
Through the 1960s or thereabouts, most people in government - both the elected officials and the senior bureaucrats who administered day-to-day operations - were, again mostly, the "smartest people in the room". There was an actual tradition of governance as a noble professional calling. Liberals and conservatives alike in government were well-educated, well-read, thoughtful people for the most part.
I of course am completely aware that there are exceptions too numerous to count to what I have just written. I am also aware that in the 19th century, politics was often even more idiotic than it is today. Still, there was a time (more or less I would say the first half of the 20th century) when government was mainly composed of serious people grappling with serious problems.
Today, the federal legislature might as well be Ringling Bros' Clown College. The seats on both sides of the aisle in both Houses are filled with, bluntly, idiots. And by that I don't mean "people I disagree with" but real live idiots: People of mediocre IQ who have been poorly and sloppily educated, who never learned basic critical thinking skills and couldn't follow a logical argument if their lives depended on it.
Rep. McCarthy is certainly a prime example of this new kind of "statesman", but she is merely a member of a thundering herd. Personally I think that we are reaping the harvest of 40 years of self-esteem-based educational practices, but whatever the cause, the reality of the situation can't really be disputed.
I have no ideas on how to fix this mess, but until it is, we all better just get used to a terror watch list with no real terrorists on it, security procedures that do nothing to enhance security, and gun laws that ridiculously inconvenience honest citizens while doing nothing to reduce gun crime.
Cuz, you know, they gotta look like they are doing something because that's what wins elections. Think of the children!
Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...
8
 7
|
Re: I'll open up a HUGE can o'worms
Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 02:45:48 PM EST
|
I believe that what is happening is not so much that government is getting worse, or that elected officials are stupider; instead, I think that the US government has been making terrible mistakes pretty continually since WW II, first in the management of the Cold War and now in the management of the War on Terror, as well as assorted economic and environmental issues, and now is the time when those mismanaged problems are getting out of control, because of the cumulative effect of those decades of mismanagement. It was under the Eisenhower adminsitration that the CIA managed to install Reza Pahlavi as the Shah of Iran, and the consequences of that action have steadily worsened over the years, long after Eisenhower himself was gone.
Democracy has never been a reliable way to obtain good government, since a foolish electorate will elect the wrong people. Democracy does have just one advantage, which is that when the electorate discovers that it has elected the wrong people, it still has the chance to change its mind and elect someone else. But this remedy often comes too late, after terrible damage has been done, and of course, the electorate may never even realize how bad its choices have been; sometimes they remain fooled. So, we can't expect too much. I don't really expect too much even of Barack Obama, other than that he will be an improvement over George W. Bush.
Isn't it just like a liberal to call a right enshrined in the Constitution a "loophole in our law"?
One of the significant details that I recall about the Stalinist purges is that after going after all the counter-revolutionaries, he then went after al the potential counter-revolutionaries; the problem with that approach is that anybody might potentially become a counter-revolutionary. That potential is inherent in everyone.
The story above talks about suspected terrorists buying guns, but also has a line about Caroly McCarthy's bill to prevent "potential terrorists" from buying a gun. Everyone is a potential terrorist, although not everyone is equally likely to realize that potential.
Acts of terrorism can be committed even without the use of guns (as we saw on 9/11). If someone is actually suspected of being a terrorist, it is not sufficient to put their name on a list (which then doesn't even prevent them from buying guns, apparently). If the suspicion has some substantial basis, it needs to be investigated (and if it has no substantial basis, it is worthless and should be disregarded). Is this person a terrorist or not? Actual terrorists should be arrested, tried, sentenced, and jailed or executed, depending upon the severity of the terrorism in question. And if a person suspected of terrorism turns out not to be a terrorist, then of course there is no need to put their name on a list or to take any other special precaution about that person.
What if someone isn't actually a terrorist but is thinking of becoming one? Well, such a person may very well need help, but is not yet a criminal. Thought is not a crime. And in any event, we often do not know what people are really thinking. So the law must operate on the basis of what people actually do.
3
2
|
Re: terrorists: real, suspected, and potential
Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 11:48:32 AM EST
|
Exactly. Instead the law continues to allow random administrative proceedings to arbitrarily deny regular citizens their right. When you need a gun you need it now. You don't want to have to wait for some faceless bureaucrat to grant you your rights.
I'd argue that speech or the pen is a lot stronger of a weapon than a firearm. Yet we never hear these do-gooders demanding that suspected terrorists not be allowed to talk in public or petition the government for a redress of grievances. Which is odd, because al qaeda has recruited US members before (see that Adam Azzam guy). How many times have they bought guns from a gun shop (the legal way) to do people harm?
Furthermore, terrorists are likely to bring in weapons from overseas or buy them on the free flowing domestic illegal market. These laws do nothing except cause some people to fall into an endless and arbitrary bureaucratic nightmare.
Finally, how many times have people like Carolyn McCarthy been told that automatic weapons are nearly banned in this country? Yet they rail on and on about how people are buying full auto weapons in gun shops. It has gone way beyond misunderstanding an issue and is now becoming obvious they don't care if they intentionally misrepresent facts to their constituents.
♫You's a superstar boy, why you still up in the hood?♫
100,000,000 inquiries over the past decade
Wait! There have been 100 million gun purchases over the last ten years?
My only thought re: Sen. Lautenburg's comment is this:
If its a known terrorist, why the hell didn't the check result in an arrest. I've been to gun shows -- the background check takes at least 40mins if not longer. How long does it take to send a patrol car to go arrest a 'known terrorist'. For that matter how many 'known terrorists' is the good senator allowing to wander unarmed through our communities? Shouldn't we be looking at incarcerating them for the crimes they committed as 'known terrorists'?
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
This uproar and the suggested remedies put forth by clueless legislators, are stupid on many, many levels.
What I love most about it, though, is that in the name of gun hysteria these legislators are willing to completely compromise the fundamental purpose of having a secret list.
Not following me? Think about it for a second. What's the point in having such a list? Obviously so that people that we believe may be potential terrorists are selected for extra scrutiny in certain circumstances, without them knowing they are under suspicion.
Now imagine you're a terrorist mastermind and you want to select someone for a mission but you aren't sure what members of your network the feds may be scrutinizing. If you send the wrong person your plans may end in failure and worse, your network may be compromised if the person is captured alive. What to do.. what to do.. I know! I'll send my potential agents out to make a perfectly legal gun purchase and stop using the ones who can't make the buy -- obviously the feds have flagged them for extra scrutiny. The ones who are allowed to make the buy are not on the list, so I can use them for the big boom.
Bottom line -- security policies should be made by someone who thought about the issue for more than two minutes before deciding on a strategy and it helps not to stampede into measures that are actually counterproductive. Assuming that you're actually interested in security, that is -- the rules are different if you're just looking for ways to advance a personal agenda or boost your chances for re-election.
