War on Terror

To Keep Your Second Amendment Rights, 'Show You're Not a Problem'

Why are avowed civil libertarians so eager to abandon due process and the Bill of Rights?

|

Office of Mike Thompson

In a recent interview with The Washington Post's Greg Sargent, Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) defends the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, which would strip people on the FBI's so-called Terrorist Watchlist of their Second Amendment rights: 

Sargent: People have raised some fairly serious concerns about the Terrorist Watchlist and No Fly List—that there is no due process, that it essentially violates the presumption that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Thompson: Number one, it's not a prohibition against someone from buying guns if you're on this list. It's a pause to make sure that you should rightfully be on the list. If there is someone who's name is on the list and they shouldn't be there, it doesn't stop you from being able to buy a gun. It's just going to delay your ability to buy a gun until that's clear.

There are a number of reasons that you can be prohibited from buying a gun. You can be a domestic abuser. You can be dangerously mentally ill. You can be a felon. This just adds one more column—that is, if you're on that list, unless you get cleared, and show you're not a problem, I don't believe you should be able to get a gun.

All of the disqualifications that Thompson mentions involve more due process than he would give people on the watch list. People accused of felonies or of domestic-abuse misdemeanors must either plead guilty or be convicted based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. People who are compelled to undergo psychiatric treatment generally have to be proven a threat to themselves or others by "clear and convincing" evidence. By contrast, the bill that Thompson supports deprives people of their constitutional rights based on mere suspicion.

The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act sounds highly selective, focusing not just on terrorists but on "dangerous terrorists" (leaving the harmless ones alone?). But the bill gives the attorney general essentially unlimited power to block gun sales, provided he "determines" that the buyers are "appropriately suspected" of involvement in terrorism and "has a reasonable belief" that they "may" use the firearms "in connection with terrorism." As Scott Shackford noted last week, that language suggests blocked buyers need not even appear on the Terrorist Watchlist, which is supposedly limited to individuals "reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity" but may include more than 1 million people, perhaps two-fifths of whom have "no recognized terrorist group affiliation." 

The "pause" imposed by the attorney general becomes a full stop unless a buyer appeals the determination within 60 days, at which point the government need only prove by "a preponderance of the evidence" (which amounts to any probability greater than 50 percent) that the attorney general met the statutory requirements. In other words, the government must show it's more likely than not that the attorney general's suspicions were reasonable, which is even easier than showing it's more likely than not that the appellant actually is a terrorist. If there is, say, a 30 percent chance that a reasonable suspicion is correct, this standard would amount to a 15 percent chance that an appellant is a terrorist. Furthermore, the government can avoid showing the appellant evidence against him by claiming that doing so would jeopardize national security.

As far as Thompson is concerned, that's plenty of due process, since to reclaim your Second Amendment rights you need only "show you're not a problem." I think that is what Sargent had in mind when he noted that critics of the bill believe "it violates the presumption that people are innocent until proven guilty." Thompson, who has received the highest possible rating from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), does not seem to understand why that's a problem:

Sargent: What about just the implications of the Terrorist Watchlist and No Fly List? Don't those in and of themselves raise concerns? What they do is they presume guilt without any sort of due process or charge.

Thompson: They presume these are people we ought to watch. Hence the "Terrorist Watchlist."…If you're on that list, they don't round you up and lock you up. They're watching you.

Sargent: But you are denied the right to travel.

Thompson: That's true. And I believe should be denied the right to buy a gun.

Sargent: You said that this doesn't actually deny you the right to buy a gun. Are you saying it forces you into a process by which you appeal and determine whether you're supposed to be on the list?

Thompson: Correct….If it's justified that you should be on that list, then under this bill you wouldn't be able to buy a gun. You wouldn't be able to buy explosives.

Sargent: To clarify, even if you are forced to go through the process, the end result is that you could end up being denied a gun even though you haven't been charged or convicted of anything.

Thompson: That's correct.

The Senate rejected a similar bill on December 3, the day after the San Bernardino massacre, by a vote of 54 to 45. Only one Democrat, North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), opposed the measure. Thompson is trying to force a vote on the House bill, which was introduced by Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and has 91 cosponsors, all but two of them Democrats. As in the Senate, they include a bunch of legislators who in other contexts have resisted the erosion of civil liberties by the War on Terror and who have received strong ratings from the ACLU, which describes the Terrorist Watchlist as a "virtually standardless" dragnet that "ensnares innocent people and encourages racial and religious profiling." In addition to Thompson himself, examples of civil libertarians who abandoned due process and the Bill of Rights to show that Democrats can be tough on terrorism include Tennessee's Steve Cohen (ACLU rating: 100 percent), Colorado's Jared Polis (84 percent), New York's Jerrold Nadler (100 percent) and Nita Lowey (84 percent), and California's Sam Farr (100 percent), Barbara Lee (100 percent), Zoe Lofgren (92 percent), and Adam Schiff (84 percent).

Advertisement

NEXT: Donald Trump vs. Clarence Thomas

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. MAYONNAISE FIGHT!

      1. Those say a lot more about the employees than the chains themselves.

        1. But they want $15 a hour…

          1. I decree that I be paid $ 1 million per hour. I will only work a few hours per month, but I decree that wage. So it must be ok.

  1. I see Gabby Giffords has an op ed on common sense gun control. I need to hear from that bitch on this subject like a need another hole in the head.

    1. For those wishing to enter the derp….

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../77245176/

    2. I need to hear from that bitch on this subject like a need another hole in the head.

      I see what you did there…

      1. another hole in the head

        Fun fact: Almanian currently has 19 nostrils, with new ones opening on a weekly basis.

        1. Hayfever season is a bitch

    3. You’re a funny guy!

    4. Gabby Giffords is writing op-eds like an inbred Hapsburg monarch ruled Europe: in name only.

      1. It has got to be uncomfortable having Kelly’s arm up her ass making her lips move. I have to wonder, how much is he getting paid to drag her around co-opting functions around the country.

    5. like she already got?

  2. Number one, it’s not a prohibition against someone from buying guns if you’re on this list. It’s a pause to make sure that you should rightfully be on the list.

    Rights delayed are rights denied. Asshole.

    1. Like a pause for, say, abortion? What do I win, Alex?

      1. Don’t be silly. Abortion is an explicitly protected constitutional right, unlike being an evil murderous gunnut. Read the constitution, moron! God, next you’ll be saying it’s okay to delay a person’s voting rights long enough to make sure they’re eligible to vote. Racist.

        1. The only legitimate force is kinetic force.

          1. Like the dark side of the kinetic force?

      2. Liberals are talking about buying a gun like getting an abortion?

    2. how about FedGov make sure I SHOULD be on that list…. before they put me there, and give ME the oportunity to examine their “evidence” underlying the addition. That list ai’t eggzackly a Who’s Who in Society Roster…..

  3. If there is someone who’s name is on the list and they shouldn’t be there, it doesn’t stop you from being able to buy a gun. It’s just going to delay your ability to buy a gun until that’s clear.

    Should only take a few years…

    1. Yeah, but by that time her hypothetical stalker ex will have moved on anyway.

      1. Right! After stabbing her in her driveway….

        (BUT HAS THAT EVER REALLY HAPPENED?!?!)

        1. Yep. At least once. Remember the big case where the woman was in her ex’s house when he got there and shot him in front of her kids after retreating to her car in the garage and retrieving a pistol? She was violating a restraining order by being there he was restricted from possessing a handgun because of a domestic violence charge.

    2. What I love most about that statement, is that its a tacit admission of the law’s unconstitutionality.

      1. “Sure, it’s unconstitutional but that’s OK because…” the fact that people no longer even blink when their betters say this shows how truly fcuked we are.

  4. Tangentially related, but I’m researching New York’s (state not city) gun laws because I will be stuck there for 2 years soon (don’t let your spouse go to medical school, kids!), and holy fucking shit. I just want to curl up and drink copious amounts of alcohol. Looks like I have no hope of owning a pistol, since I can’t even apply for a permit until I’ve been there for a year, and good luck getting approved at all, much less within another year.

    So, basically I have to give up my Glock and AR-15 to my brother and buy a shotgun which my petite wife will barely be able to wield. Goddamnit.

    1. If you like your 2nd Amendment rights, you can keep your…

      oh never mind.

    2. Looks like I have no hope of owning a pistol,

      Depending on how you calculate risk, sounds like you already have one, and as long as you keep your yap shut and keep it in a safe place, who’s to know?

      1. Exactly.

        The only time anyone would know is if there is a dead guy in my living room. Keep a shotgun handy and fill him full of slugs to where there is only chum left. See if they can figure out then what he was shot with.

        1. or, leave the handgun locked up well hidden, and use the scattergun for home defense. They might get suspicious of something (drunk while being invaded?) if the perp is nearly in two pieces. Despite the fact he WILL be at peace….

      2. +1 anarchist calisthenics

      3. I understand that many New York residents lost their “assault weapons” in a “boating accident” after the SAFE Act passed. Problem is I’m paranoid about my drive from my current home to my new home, since the 4th Amendment doesn’t mean jackshit anymore, especially to New York cops and judges.

        1. Yeah, I remember Reason featuring a woman who was facing a lengthy sentence for the crime of driving through New Jersey with a guns in her car, on the way to and from somewhere she legally could possess them. I’d leave them with your brother. Congrats on marrying up though.

          1. I’m pretty sure she was pardoned by Christie but that was only after she was arraigned and made the news.

          2. she was a resident of Pennsylvania, and had her PA Mother May I Card and was carrying… with HOLLOW POINTS in the handgun… pulled over for some inane traffic infraction, and naively volunteered that she was carrying her handgun.. I guess in compliance with PA’s preferences. Cop put her in the slammer, felony bust…. did not have the Jersey’s tyrannical version of the Mother May I Card, a prerequisite in that state for possession of ANY firearm, which might not be much of a problem.. EXCEPT that it is never issued to non-residents, and takes six weeks to six months to get. IF they deem you acceptable.

            I did not hear Christie pardoned her, but the case was dropped, without even a plea bargain offered. She was in the GreyBar for ten days or so.

            1. Christie DID get involved with a similar case… man moved to NJ to be near his Mum, lived with her a couple weeks while he found work and his own place. He put his firearms into his car to move them from Mum’s to his new home… pulled over for who knows what, car searched, long guns found in boot, no Mother May I Card, NJ version, and was convicted and began to serve a 20 year sentence. Christie did NOT pardon him, as he should have (one HUGE strike against him for pres… does not believe the 2nd means what is says, else he’d have pardoned AND stricken the record AND had his personal property returned. ) But Christie DID commute his sentence, busting him out of the Crowbar Hotel. He still is a convicted felon, never any guns for him, lost his guns, his car, and all his possessions he’d left in the new house he rented…. talk about a ruined life.

              And they are nattering on about MORE restrictive gun laws? And Christie presides over that nightmare and wants to rule the whole country? Delusional, he is.

        2. and New York and New Jersey refuse to recognise the Federal Firearms Owners Protection Act….. i theory, providing “safe passage” for someone with a gun lagelly possessed at point of departure, and at point of destination. That law needs revised to close the loopholes these arseholes use to arrest folks in spite of it….

      4. He’s screwed if he has to use it though. Unless he disposes of,the body……….

        1. A friend is someone who will help you when you have to move. A real friend is someone who will help you when you have to move the bodies.

    3. Conceal its existence, and ensure that you share knowledge of it with nobody, especially New Yorkers. Carrying it outside your home may lead to lengthy imprisonment, however, since pants-shitters are likely to report you.

      1. Yup. Build it into some piece of wooden furniture, and leave it there until you escape. DO NOT atke it out. Or telll anyone. Once you escape again, and are OUT of that hellhole, unbuild it from the piece of furniture.

    4. The make deer slugs for 410s, you know…

    5. No hope of owning it legally.

    6. But I heard that the only reason gun laws do not work is because people can simply bring them in from o0utside. and yet, you imply that bringing guns in is already illegal.

      1. in New York, with registration, yes. There are some states require a Mother May I Card as a precondition for possession of ANY firearm. Without that, if you are caught inside the state line with ANY firearm, its off to the Citizen Readjustment Centre for you, buddy.

    7. Get a storage unit now in a non-restrictive state, like Vermont. You want a feasible alibi, should anyone ever mention the existence of your property.

      Unfortunately, and I’m not saying this will ever happen to you, though professional schools are often very stressful on marriages, firearms rights are one of the first things to be lost in a contested divorce. Usually through DV temporary restraining orders and the like. Committing a very-easy-to-prosecute felony like possessing a non-registered AR in NY, post SAFE Act, is a big potential vulnerability.

      Be careful.

      Congratulations on entering Med School! It’ll be very hard work, but you both can make it.

      1. Good idea….. check out possibilities in Pennsylfania, Or if you are likely to be returning to your present state, and know someone reliable there, rent a small unit in your present town and put some things in it yhou’d like to have when you get back, and won’t need while hyou’re gone. Include the guns. Make cerrtain you can arrange an autopay or electronic pay for the rent.. else if something goes awry, they will sell off the contents when yuo don’t pay. Not hard to do. Something in Pennsylvania might also work, their gun laws are pretty decent. I hear Philly are at times nasty on concealed carry…. but that’s not what you’re wanting. I’d pick a state on the same side of New H York State as you live now, to avoid bringing the guns THROUGH New York. If anything happened on the way through, it will not be fun…… might forever lose your right to arms even when you are back home.

    8. Don’t carry a knife that can be opened by any amount of flipping or fingering or … don’t carry a knife that can be opened.

  5. Some examples of civil libertarians who abandoned due process and the Bill of Rights to show that Democrats can be tough on terrorism: Tennessee’s Steve Cohen (ACLU rating: 100 percent), Colorado’s Jared Polis (84 percent), New York’s Jerrold Nadler (100 percent) and Nita Lowey (84 percent), and California’s Sam Farr (100 percent), Barbara Lee (100 percent), Zoe Lofgren (92 percent), and Adam Schiff (84 percent).

    But libertarians who don’t trust the State are “crazy” and “paranoid”. Cuz our elected representatives are so principled and trustworthy.

    1. And remember, the ACLU won’t ding these douchenozzles’ ratings at all for this vote. Because it’s really the A(Some)CLU.

    2. Why are avowed civil libertarians so eager to abandon due process and the Bill of Rights?

      Because they are NOT civil libertarians.

      1. Because they are NOT civil libertarians.

        CLINOs.

  6. It’s a pause to make sure that you should rightfully be on the list.

    Is he saying the right to petition to be removed from the list will occur at this moment? If it’s found that you shouldn’t be on the list you will be removed? Your good name will be restored? The act of enjoying your Second Amendment rights will finally trigger a review of your Fifth Amendment rights to due process?

    1. The act of enjoying your Second Amendment rights will finally trigger a review of your Fifth Amendment rights to due process?

      2 does come before 5, Eugene.

    2. He’s obfuscating with typical bureaucratic blatancy, and he clearly doesn’t care that he’s being extremely obvious in his verbal gymnastics. It isn’t intended to be consistent, or logical.

  7. Number one, it’s not a prohibition against someone from buying guns if you’re on this list. It’s a pause to make sure that you should rightfully be on the list. If there is someone who’s name is on the list and they shouldn’t be there, it doesn’t stop you from being able to buy a gun. It’s just going to delay your ability to buy a gun until that’s clear.

    There are a number of reasons that you can be prohibited from buying a gun. You can be a domestic abuser. You can be dangerously mentally ill. You can be a felon. This just adds one more column?that is, if you’re on that list, unless you get cleared, and show you’re not a problem, I don’t believe you should be able to get a gun.

    Which will take years and thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to jump through the hoops that will never be clearly defined.

    1. Gun grabbing and a more business for lawyers, win-win for a Democrat.

  8. Thompson: Number one, it’s not a prohibition against someone from voting if you’re on this list. It’s a pause to make sure that you should rightfully be on the list. If there is someone who’s name is on the list and they shouldn’t be there, it doesn’t stop you from being able to vote. It’s just going to delay your ability to vote until that’s clear.
    .
    There are a number of reasons that you can be prohibited from voting. You can be a domestic abuser. You can be dangerously mentally ill. You can be a felon. This just adds one more column?that is, if you’re on that list, unless you get cleared, and show you’re not a problem, I don’t believe you should be able to vote.

  9. I wonder if the people who think that these “secret watchlists” are such a good fucking idea have ever thought it through. The names on the lists are “secret”…why? If it’s so the “bad guys” on the lists won’t know they’re being “watched”, then the cat is let out of the bag whenever they try to travel or–if this jerkoff has his way–tries to buy a gun.

  10. This is such sophistry. If someone is a terrorist, we should arrest them or at least deport them not put them on some stupid list that no criminal is going to read. And if we don’t have the evidence to arrest them or deport them, then we don’t know they are a terrorist.

    There is no rational case for this making anyone safer or preventing a terrorist act. It is just horse shit designed to get around the 2nd Amendment.

    1. It would have been prudent for Mike Thompson’s parents to consider abortion.

    2. You know how you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Same for taking away people’s rights.

      1. “Just the tip”

    3. true.. consider, if you will, that NEITHER of the two San Bernardino murders were on either the terror or no fly lists… but both SHOULD have been. Yet HE was able to legally buy two handguns IN CALIFORNIA. (the two long guns he had were obtained in violaton of Califnrona law….) So even that law if it were in place would NOT have prevented his obtaining the firearms used in that attack.
      Someone should thorw THAT one at this dweeb….

  11. Will there ever come a time when this sort of abjectly totalitarian degeneracy becomes repulsive enough to our countrymen for forcible deconstruction of this list to occur? Or are we loners in a nation of submissive serfs?

    1. 1) no
      2) yes

      Your consultation prize of Mexicans, pot and butt sex can be picked up in the lobby when you leave the building.

      1. “… butt sex…”

        *Intrigued.* With whom?

        1. Mexican potheads, obviously.

          1. Trump deported them all. I need a new set of candidates for backdoor frolicking.

          2. Yes, it’s an all in one package. Austerity is a bitch.

          3. +1000 Chiquita Lopez!!!

            HUZZAHH!!

    2. Well, the Wilson Administration did turn Americans off of a police state for a while.

  12. “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act”? DFEDTA? Come on, it’s like they didn’t even try to come up with a clever acronym. Let’s see, DEFEAT: Denying Explosives and Firearms to Enemies And Terrorists. That took me all of about thirty seconds. Get with it, Congress!

  13. “The “pause” imposed by the attorney general becomes a full stop unless a buyer appeals the determination within 60 days, at which point the government need only prove its case by “a preponderance of the evidence,” which amounts to any probability greater than 50 percent.”

    So basically the gov’t has to show a preponderance of the evidence that you’re engaged in some terrorism in some form? Am I crazy in thinking we already have a process to do that called an INDICTMENT? Because you know if someone is under indictment they’re a prohibited person, and the problem with them being armed goes away once they’re convicted and in prison….

    1. No you are not. And it is not even a preponderance. You only need probable cause to get an indictment.

      This guy’s proposal is based on the premise that there are thousands of people out there that the government knows by a preponderance of the evidence are terrorists but is doing nothing to stop them. If that is true, which is very unlikely, we have bigger problems than these terrorists being able to buy guns.

      1. It’s indisputable fact that the government is functionally retarded, and that its many organs often operate with divergent goals.

        1. Having a job that requires me to visit federal buildings from time to time, I have to say that a good half of the federal employees I have met are indeed retarded. We are governed by retards. Seriously. No hyperbole.

          1. They’re from the government, and they’re here to help.

          2. Whenever I fly and have to get a pat down or have my luggage checked (you know, the chemical residue BS test), I always tell the person patting me down: “If I had your job, I would shoot myself.”

            The last time I said it, I heard the guy tell his coworker: “Did you hear what he said? He said he’d shoot himself if he had our job.”
            I might be the only person who says it out loud, asshole, but we’re all thinking it!

            1. I talk to them too. I tell them that they could get a job with the city garbage department. About the same pay and benefits, but with more dignity.

              I had one supervisor in San Diego tell me that if I said one more thing I’d be talking to the police in the back. I chickened out at that time.

              1. They have the power to ruin someone’s day, and that’s why they love their job.

              2. wise call. For them, the process IS the punishment, And THEY HOLD THE CARDS. They have far too much latitude, accompanied by lots of bad attitude.

        2. To make matters worse, many of these retards are ambitious retards. They seek and attain management positions. No joke. Then again, if you look at it from government’s point of view, this is a feature, not a bug. Retards are likely to relish their power while unquestioningly following the rules that are given to them. Intelligent people might recognized that the rules are retarded (they were written by retards) and then the whole thing would break down. But retards are too retarded to care.

          1. True, I, and probably many of our hit n’ run brethren wouldn’t last 6 months under the idiotic rules of a massive bureaucracy.

        3. My big organ and my brain are often operating at odds with each other…

          1. “…My big organ…”

            I have heard a lot of musicians say that.

    2. I have revised that paragraph to clarify what the government has to show by a preponderance of the evidence: not that the guy actually is a terrorist, but that the attorney general met the statutory requirements, meaning his suspicions were reasonable.

      1. And I understand that the government can keep the “evidence” secret, is that right? National security and all that. How the bloody hell does the average citizen challenge secret evidence?

      2. Oops, I see you addressed that. It’s as bad as I thought.

    3. The govt has to show preponderance of evidence that they have a reasonable suspicion.

      srsly.

  14. Why are avowed civil libertarians so eager to abandon due process and the Bill of Rights?

    Because they’re not civil libertarians. They’re lying.

    1. “Because they’re not civil libertarians. They’re lying.”

      Sorta like proggies are ‘concerned about the poor’.

    2. Bingo Mexican. I really wish they would stop abusing the name by calling themselves that.

    3. A few things:
      Yes, they are lying. It’s what they do when there is a conflict between Pandering and Being Consistent. Pandering ALWAYS wins.

      More importantly, can you share your thoughts on mexican butt sex? I hear a lot about it on these threads and figure you may know more.

  15. For WaPo, that was a pretty adversarial interview.

  16. and I’m sure that appeal process won’t cost you a cent. Yep, no lawyers needed and it’s just a simple one-page form.

    1. What’s the big deal? Everyone Rep Thompson knows either is a lawyer or has a few on retainer.

  17. Sargent: To clarify, even if you are forced to go through the process, the end result is that you could end up being denied a gun even though you haven’t been charged or convicted of anything.

    Thompson: That’s correct.

    Due process is so quaint.

  18. Do I have to show I’m not a problem to get alt-text?

    1. You will get NO alt-text and you will LIKE IT.

  19. Thompson is trying to force a vote on the House bill, which was introduced by Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and has 91 cosponsors, all but two of them Democrats.

    Say what you will about representatives like Pelosi and DWS. Peter King is the worst representative in Congress and possibly the most vile human being in Washington DC.

    1. And to think he was seriously considering running for President. Shudder. He makes Trump look like Gary Johnson in comparison.

    2. Peter King, terrorist.

      Never forget to add that to his name.

  20. Furthermore, the government can avoid showing the appellant evidence against him by claiming that doing so would jeopardize national security.

    Ain’t that nice. They can simply claim that the evidence is classified, and it ends there. No way to challenge it.

    1. Fuck the government.

    2. It was good enough for the Inquisition.

  21. They presume these are people we ought to watch. Hence the “Terrorist Watchlist.”?If you’re on that list, they don’t round you up and lock you up. They’re watching you.

    So that’s what it took to get Democrats 100% behind the watchlist. Guns. Good to know.

  22. By contrast, the bill that Thompson supports deprives people of their constitutional rights based on mere suspicion.

    Even this gives their list too much credit. Suspicion would be one thing: cops might suspect a person has committed a crime, and their suspicion warrants followup. Their suspicion is not conclusive but at least it implies a) a single, known individual, and b) an ongoing investigation. The watchlist does neither: it provides a name, not an identity, and provides no particular reason for its inclusion beyond some bureaucrat’s say-so. So Thompson supports depriving people of their constitutional rights based on total horseshit.

  23. When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

    -Rudyard Kipling, “The Gods of the Copybook Headings”. 1919

    1. The entire poem is worth re-reading often.

      1. As is Tommy, Deadlier Than Male and advice for a soldier. Agree or not, Kipling knew about humanity. Even at his most hidebound and racist, he’s worth reading.

        1. Possibly his best work dealing with character and humanity is Captains Couragious… a total disconnect with all his other work, yet in my opinion one of his best. Careful you dont get one of the “abridged” children’s versions.. there is one incident and its attendant consequences left out of the children’s versions… and it is THAT occurrence that makes the whole story work. Make sure it is not a dumbed down sanitised version. Wonderful story, and his handling of the different characters and their relationships is phenomenal,

    2. In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
      By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
      But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
      And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”

  24. “One day after the deadliest U.S. mass shooting in nearly three years, the Senate voted down a pair of gun-control measures that were designed by Democrats to put Republicans on record on the charged issue.”

    http://www.politico.com/story/…..z3uPIs1gns

    There are currently 21 Republican seats up for grabs in the Senate this election, and the Democrats only have 10 up for grabs. You might expect the Republicans to give back some seats, but if you look at where those Republican seats are, you also might think the only issue people vote on is gun control.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ File:2016_Senate_election_map.svg

    The Democrats in the Senate don’t want to put the Republicans on the record as being against gun control; the Democrats in the Senate want to put themselves on the record as being FOR gun control. The Democrats out in the states running against Republican incumbents want the Democrats in the Senate to STFU about gun control, and if the Democrats keep pushing gun control anyway, they’re going to flush their best opportunity to take control of the Senate down the shitter.

  25. If Obama keeps talking about gun control, he may hand the Republicans majority control of the Senate, majority control of the House, the White House, and the control of enough state legislatures to bring up amendments to the Constitution. Maybe the Democrats are completely clueless about the danger they’re in, but I think it has more to do with them knowing that Obama is about to leave the White House, and he doesn’t have much time left to work his . . . magic.

    “Woe to you on earth and sea, for the Devil has come down with great wrath, becasue he knoweth that his time is short”.

    —-Revelation 12:12

  26. I do not think you understand how rights work, Thompson.

    The burden of proof is on you, not us.

    1. Prove it.

      /Thompson

    2. It’d be nice if that is how it worked in practice, and I hope you don’t get audited by the IRS and try that line…

    3. He’s going in circles, this sums it up pretty well;

      “To clarify, even if you are forced to go through the process, the end result is that you could end up being denied a gun even though you haven’t been charged or convicted of anything”

      Guilty until proven innocent. The entire criminal justice system is getting turned on it’s head in favor of the state due to these ignorant retards who want “safe.” Mr. Franklin wasn’t joking when he made that famous statement, he well understood what would happen when the people gifted the authority to make ones self safe to the state.

  27. Is it me or does this sound a little bit like “we don’t want to ban Syrian refugees, we just want to vet them better”?

    It’s probably just me.

    1. Yeah, we probably should’ve vetted you better.

  28. OT: Not sure if this has been discussed

    “A last minute amendment to Europe’s Data Protection Regulation, says this: “The processing of personal data of a child below the age of 16 years shall only be lawful if and to the extent that such consent is given or authorised by the holder of parental responsibility over the child.”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35100328

  29. Posted earlier:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNDcd1Fe5lg

    This effort will fail miserably.

    1)Obumbles supports it.

    2)It is wildly unconstitutional

    3)We have people like Gowdy (donate to his campaign when he is up for re-election)

  30. “Civil libertarians”

    “abandons due process”

    Things that don’t go together, ever

  31. Just for kicks, I went to the ACLU page where they rate Congressman. No Republican got over a 61%. There’s 3 pages, 535 Congressman. There’s no Republican until page two if you sort by rating. Probably like a 100 Dems have perfect ratings. So, basically, by ratings, its just all the Democrats in Congress sorted by marginal differences and then Republicans who range from 0 to 61%.

    1. Yeah, I’m pretty well settled that the ACLU is just another DemOP front organization at this point, which occasionally hits on the right side of legal issues, but mostly by accident.

    2. Well, since mexicans, pot, and ass sex are the only civil liberties that matter, the ratings of Republicans is pretty much a given.

  32. The fact that his suggestion that anyone on the No-Fly list should be made to surrender their weapons was as unconstitutional as it gets. Of course, that has never been a deterrent to Barack Obama. His absolute disregard for the Constitution is so widely documented it barely justifies recognition. But, just as an exercise, I would like to point out that the deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law is patently unconstitutional, and that is not who we are.

    christianmerc

  33. People in OUR government would never stoop to adding those with differing political opinions to a government watch list, would they? Like Hades they wouldn’t! They would, and they do.
    The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares, “No person . . . [shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Depriving an America citizen of his or her liberty to purchase a firearm (thus denying the fundamental right of self-defense) by the simple act of a government bureaucracy adding one’s name to a list (with no criminal conduct being committed) smacks of totalitarian regimes.

    Pastor Chuck Baldwin

    1. The push is now on to pass Peter King’s backdoor gun-control legislation: H.R. 1076. I urge readers to contact their senators and congressman IN MASS and let them know that the American people will NOT tolerate this extreme violation of constitutional liberties. This might be Barack Obama and his gaggle of gun-grabbers’ last opportunity during his administration to enact more gun control. And, again, they are capitalizing on a mass shooting in a gun-free zone as impetus for their tyranny. It never dawns on them that these shootings always take place in a gun-free zone. Instead, they want to turn the entire U.S. into a gun-free zone.
      If the government can ban a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms (or any other constitutionally-protected liberty) by simply putting them on a list, WE ARE ALL IN SERIOUS TROUBLE. Trump touts a pro-Second Amendment position, but if he would support this kind of governmental overreach, his commitment to the Second Amendment (and to the Constitution in general) is non-existent.

      Chuck Baldwin

      1. Chuck Baldwin was or maybe still is on the No Fly List….. as he learned in SanAntonio during his last campaign for president.

  34. For a second I thought he said, If I slapped my wife I couldn’t fly on an areoplane!

  35. At the risk of sounding overly harsh and or suspicious, the line that Congressman Thompson doesn’t ring true,nor in my view, is it acceptable.

    Thompson: Number one, it’s not a prohibition against someone from buying guns if you’re on this list. It’s a pause to make sure that you should rightfully be on the list. If there is someone who’s name is on the list and they shouldn’t be there, it doesn’t stop you from being able to buy a gun. It’s just going to delay your ability to buy a gun until that’s clear.

    For instance, he seems not to explain how one’s name came to be on this “list”, that is how did it get there, how does one get their name removed seem questions unanswered, something I find less than acceptable. Also this bit of double talk, as it strikes my ear as being. ” It’s just going to delay your ability to buy a gun until that’s clear.” How did “that” become “unclear”, and how long might it take to mitigate/eliminate this”delay”. By the way, re this”delay”, as I recall, Senator Barbara Boxer opined “rights delayed are rights denied”. Then there is his reference to “it’s a pause”. In English of The Kitchen Table variety, might someone translate for me.

    Strikes me that there is in this proposal, altogether to much that the citizen is asked to accept “on faith”, when there is precious little in the way of performance that either engenders or provided any basis at all for the required faith,sad to note

  36. Additionally,it seems to me that the congressman seems to have forgotten the oath of office he took, or would he prefer not to be reminded about that bothersome business involving “supporting and defending the constitution”?

  37. the dweeb author of this bill says this: ” This just adds one more column?that is, if you’re on that list, unless you get cleared, and show you’re not a problem, I don’t believe you should be able to get a gun.”.

    He then goes on to say that, if your name turns up on this list you can’t buy a gun until you prove yourself “not a problem”, that is, that you’re innocent. Well it is nearly impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a negative… I didn”t do anything to get on that list”. The Constitution declares that government, in order to deny any liberty to an individual, must PROVE a positive… “Charlie did THIS on such and such a day and time, and right there….. ” Then it is up to Charlie to present his own evidence that “I could not have done that then and there because I was in France that week, see, here’s my plant tickets hotel bills, and pictures of me and my pal beneath the Eiffel Tower, please note the date and time stamp on the digital file of the image.

    But this madness… government can put ANYONE on those lists… seems Ted Kennedy, Rand Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and 72 DHS employees are on the watch lists….. and there was one commercial airline pilot, US based and a US Citizen, who was on that no flhy list for thee years…… he could drive the big planes, but could not RIDE in them…. unless he was crew and in the cockpit. And HE could not buy guns…. yet he drove commercial airliners that whole time.

    Nuts, that is.

  38. Not sure how Jared Polis comes by his civil libertarian credentials. This is the guy who said he would have 10 rape-accused college students expelled if a smaller number actually committed the crime. That’s made him a darling among some but gives me the heeblie jeeblies. It’s one thing for people from affluent bckgrounds to endorse such a perspective, as they could envision themselves just attending another school, like Ezra Klein would, and dad would get them a great attorney, too. If you are not the son of, say, a bond trader or powerful tax attorney, things will look extremely different. Haven Monahan beware of the Jared Polises of Congress.

  39. How is this different from Guilty until proven innocent?

  40. “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act”

    If these people are “dangerous terrorists”, then why are they still walking around freely?

    They either are or are not terrorists.

  41. I swear, if someone invents a Mega Man-style arm cannon that can be installed in humans, I’m getting one just to spite these bastards.

    Also, because I’d then have an arm cannon.

  42. Thompson: They presume these are people we ought to watch. Hence the “Terrorist Watchlist.”?If you’re on that list, they don’t round you up and lock you up. They’re watching you.

    Sargent: But you are denied the right to travel.

    No. The no-fly list is not the same thing as the watch list. The no-fly list is much smaller. The watch list does not deny the right to travel. Sargent does his readers a disservice by conflating the two, and allowing Thompson to do so.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.