Should no-fly mean no buy?: Our view

[smilesammich 10,727]

post above removed and returned to view minus the personal attack

ffs. remove my whole comment. that wasn't a 'personal attack'. and i'd love to know how that conclusion was reached.

[ExPatty 502]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/10/no-fly-list-guns-terror-watch-list-congress-editorials-debates/77113240/

Beautifully said and completely agree.

You would want this man to be able to buy a gun , even if the FBI was investigating him..?

You would want this man able to buy the materials to make a bomb from home depot, even if the FBI was investigating him..?

There's also the fact that nobody on the no fly list has apparently bought a gun and killed anybody.

I think if somebody is a big enough risk they are not allowed to fly and not allowed to buy a gun I am hoping they can be convicted of something meaningful and put in prison over it. If somebody is that bad I don't want them around me or able to drive an SUV into a crowd of children walking home, either.

Edited December 15, 2015 by ExPatty

[Rob L 3,811]

then your rights don't count

Really..all of the gun rights experts and no pushback?

We have no defenders of the second amendment? Does our constitution only apply to Citizens?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

ffs. remove my whole comment. that wasn't a 'personal attack'. and i'd love to know how that conclusion was reached.

Whatever happened I was joking yesterday about reporting you. I only report Marvin

[smilesammich 10,727]

Whatever happened I was joking yesterday about reporting you. I only report Marvin

it doesn't matter. all this talk about political correctness going too far and apparently restating a widely known opinion of a poster is a 'personal attack'. it would be similar if someone here said - valerie doesn't like christians - and instead of clarifying my position or refuting it all together, i reported the comment. stupid, but i get that certain vj'ers would love to run me off

Edited December 15, 2015 by elitesthuglib

[Sousuke 1,214]

We have no defenders of the second amendment? Does our constitution only apply to Citizens?

[Boiler 45,657]

post above removed and returned to view minus the personal attack

For the record I can handle personal attacks, what I do not like is people repeatedly posting incorrect information on immigration matters.

[smilesammich 10,727]

For the record I can handle personal attacks, what I do not like is people repeatedly posting incorrect information on immigration matters.

for the record, there was nothing about immigration in my comment that was altered. also wasn't a personal attack in there but you know, whatevs.

[Boiler 45,657]

for the record, there was nothing about immigration in my comment that was altered. also wasn't a personal attack in there but you know, whatevs.

I can not be bothered to go back and review, but if there was something it was so minor to be of no consequence to me.

[lostinblue 1,989]

[smilesammich 10,727]

I can not be bothered to go back and review, but if there was something it was so minor to be of no consequence to me.

but of course.

[Rob L 3,811]

Why? becuase it is not a fact that is why

[smilesammich 10,727]

Why? becuase it is not a fact that is why

i don't know why the integrity of the free beacon, american thinker, townhall etcetc aren't enough for you but...

http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/fedblog/2015/12/no-72-dhs-employees-are-not-terrorism-watch-list/124303/

When a member of Congress refers to federal employees as terrorists, it’s bound to turn some heads.

That was exactly what happened when Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., told a radio stationin Boston last week that 72 employees at the Homeland Security Department were on a terror watch list. The comment spurred several outlets running the headline that dozens of DHS employees were on the list.

One problem, however: Lynch’s claim was not true. The radio station -- WGBH -- asked him why he was one of 47 Democrats in the House that voted to effectively block Syrian refugees from entering the United States.

The DHS inspector general, he said, conducted an investigation and found “72 individuals that were on the terrorist watch list that were actually working at the Department of Homeland Security.”

Therefore, he reasoned, the data collected by the department could not be trusted, and Syrian refugees needed to go through a more rigorous review process than DHS was conducting.

Turns out, no such investigation ever took place. Lynch, typically an advocate of federal employees and a member of the subcommittee with primary oversight of the federal workforce, was likely referring to a June report titled, “TSA Can Improve Aviation Worker Vetting.” That audit found 73 (not 72) airport and airline workers -- in the private sector and not employed by DHS or any federal agency -- were on the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (not the Consolidated Terrorism Watch List, to which Lynch had alluded). TIDE is the government's central repository of information on international terrorist identities.

A spokeswoman in the DHS IG’s office confirmed Lynch was most likely referring to those findings. The report was certainly troubling and has led to reforms at the Transportation Security Administration. It does not, however, indict any federal workers with suspected links to terrorism.

Lynch’s office did not respond to repeated requests for clarification of his comments.

[Boiler 45,657]

i don't know why the integrity of the free beacon, american thinker, townhall etcetc aren't enough for you but...

http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/fedblog/2015/12/no-72-dhs-employees-are-not-terrorism-watch-list/124303/

Apart from that what have you got?

[smilesammich 10,727]

Apart from that what have you got?

oh boiler, as much as i would love to go back and review..i can not be bothered. please do giyfs, maybe try the links embedded.