Re: But guns...but terrorists...but guns...but terrorists...

1

Oh man, this is so fucking awesome.

If only we could get things like abortion clinic bombings and violence against women to count as terrorism. Sigh.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 9:32 AM
horizontal rule
2

This is a sweet political move, although I don't like anything that takes the terrorist watch lists, which are by all accounts a joke, seriously.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 9:35 AM
horizontal rule
3

I believe in chess this is called a fork.


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
4

I don't like it, but it's pretty sweet politically.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 9:37 AM
horizontal rule
5

The Republicans are totally forked!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 9:38 AM
horizontal rule
6

And the best part of the freeper thread: how fast everyone starts blaming Gonzales. Because, you see, he's of Hispanic and probably illegal stock.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 9:38 AM
horizontal rule
7

As if the bill's content weren't enough, the title is sweet, sweet icing on the cake.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 9:40 AM
horizontal rule
8

2 gets it right. If this passes, people named John Doe won't be able to buy a gun.


Posted by: pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 9:40 AM
horizontal rule
9

My impression is that the pro-gun lobby is so strong that this is more likely to lead to the dismantling of the terrorist watch lists than to any sort of gun control.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 9:41 AM
horizontal rule
10

From the Free Republic comments:
The bill is not available to look at so I'll disregard whether it is constitutionally sound. it's obvious effect would be to provide terrorists with a simple means of discovering whether they were under suspicion...

Just try to buy a gun!


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 9:43 AM
horizontal rule
11

6: Ahem, that's General Gonzales.


Posted by: DaveB | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
12

Oh, right. Still. Hispanic!! Mine the border!!!


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 9:48 AM
horizontal rule
13

I don't like anything that takes the terrorist watch lists, which are by all accounts a joke, seriously.

Don't like s/b am very, very worried about

Viz:

Abe Dabdoub calls the day he was sworn in as an American citizen last year the proudest moment of his life, little suspecting that his new identity would set off a bureaucratic nightmare at the hands of the Department of Homeland Security.
Most of his family members live in Canada, and on each of Mr. Dabdoub's 14 trips to visit them since last August, on his way back across the Ambassador Bridge into Michigan, the Customs and Border Patrol agents have sent him through a security gantlet, he says.
He has been fingerprinted 14 times, his body searched 9 times, been handcuffed 4 times and isolated in a separate detention room 13 times....
Two months ago, he sought relief through a new online system that the Department of Homeland Security trumpets as a one-stop shop for travelers who think they have been wronged, the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, or TRIP. But the problem continues unabated and, typical of such cases, no one in the federal government nor his elected representatives will tell him why he is being singled out.
[...] A Government Accountability Office report issued last September said that just 31 individuals whose names were mistakenly on the watch list had them taken off in 2005. Thousands of such redress queries have been submitted, most of them from people who are misidentified.

NYT (reg. req'd)


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 9:49 AM
horizontal rule
14

Whoops, 13 was me. I think preview erased my name.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 9:50 AM
horizontal rule
15

My impression is that the pro-gun lobby is so strong that this is more likely to lead to the dismantling of the terrorist watch lists than to any sort of gun control.

Heads you lose, tails I win. Good on Lautenberg.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 9:51 AM
horizontal rule
16

9: Sounds like a win to me.


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 9:51 AM
horizontal rule
17

Here's the joy of not giving a damn about gun laws. I'm utterly unconcerned whether somebody has unjustified difficulty buying a gun.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 9:54 AM
horizontal rule
18

Lautenberg is a clever dude. Credit him with that famous "chickenhawk" comment years ago that was targeted against Cheney. Word to the wise: Don't mess with Lautenberg.


Posted by: swampcracker | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:09 AM
horizontal rule
19

From FR:

For years, I've had a vague suspicion that Bush was functioning as a means to keep conservatives quiet while he consolidated powers to be handed over to Hillary.

They're on to us!


Posted by: tom | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:17 AM
horizontal rule
20

They're on to us

In retrospect, having Bill and GHWB together on trips, clearly working out the amicable details for all to see, was a discretion error.


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:21 AM
horizontal rule
21

I learned a couple of interesting things from Lautenberg's bio over at Wikipedia. One, that he's pulled this manoeuver before; it's illegal to sell a gun or ammunition to anyone convicted of even misdemeanor domestic violence. Two, the dude was born in fucking 1924.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:21 AM
horizontal rule
22

And with Laura and GW supposedly separating, the stage is set for an arranged marriage to Chelsea. The dynasties shall be united at last!


Posted by: tom | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:23 AM
horizontal rule
23

9: Dismantling the terrorism watch list would be the ideal outcome. Denying guns to people on the list would be nice as a blow the the NRA, a minor bummer for constitutional liberties, so on the whole a "meh" outcome.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:23 AM
horizontal rule
24

I thought Chelsea was supposed to gay marry Jenna.


Posted by: DaveB | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:25 AM
horizontal rule
25

In a Nixon Goes To China move, Lautenberg is our best hope for restricting gun purchases by crotchety old men.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:25 AM
horizontal rule
26

So Sierra Club members and Buddists can't have guns now?

I think the debate about mental health and guns will be very tricky.

Will people avoid mental health treatment for fear of losing the ability to own a gun? This will be a very serious issue for a number of hunters and returning military.

Tough questions.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:25 AM
horizontal rule
27

The law itself is beside the point; it will affect almost nobody. What it *does* do is create a shitload of excellent campaign commercials about how the Republicans aren't remotely serious about combating terrorism and are prisoners of special interests.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:27 AM
horizontal rule
28

9 - That's actually the optimal result, especially if it causes a bunch of freepers' heads to explode. The brain cleanup bills in suburban basements nationwide could help goose the economy, too.

21 - He's ancient and not terribly popular in Jersey. I kind of hope he retires so that someone more progressive like Rush Holt can slot into that NJ seat, but this is a sweet piece of political theater.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:29 AM
horizontal rule
29

26: Fuck, man, people with security clearances avoid mental health treatment now for fear of losing their goddamn jobs.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:29 AM
horizontal rule
30

It is a crazy, crazy world.

Yet, the mental health professionals successfully lobbied in Virginia so that now, mental health professionals are BARRED from testifying in a custody case. That is right, barred.

Despite the fact that the court is supposed to consider the mental health of the parties and the best interests of the children.

Stupid idea.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:32 AM
horizontal rule
31

the dude was born in fucking 1924

What's the classic sci fi story that begins with a conversation between an ingenuous youth, 40, and an experienced hand, 80, flying to find the powerful hero, 60, hermitizing on the planet?

We're practically there now. In my youth an 83-yr-old guy was almost always frail, broken and addled. Now I know dozens who seem to be living an extended late middle age.


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:35 AM
horizontal rule
32

30: Was that on the grounds of it presenting a problem in terms of patient confidentiality? Or does it prevent expert testimony as well? Tough call, I think.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:35 AM
horizontal rule
33

It doesn't prevent expert testimony per se. But it prevents the counsellor or therapist or mental health professional of either of the parties or child from testifying, even as an expert.

The concept was that it would discourage people from getting help.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:38 AM
horizontal rule
34

33: That's probably true, that it would keep people from seeing shrinks. I think it's valid in most cases; it's going to be the exception, rather than the rule, that someone's going to be crazy enough that they shouldn't have custody.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:39 AM
horizontal rule
35

The bill sounds pretty shitty to me. It's not going to do anything truly useful to reduce gun violence, but lends credence to the watchlists by suggesting that anyone placed on the watchlists is, in fact, a terrorist. Is there any sort of due process that would require the government to actually prove that there's some basis for having placed someone on a watchlist?

Slippery slope, people.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:40 AM
horizontal rule
36

Slippery slope, people.

To what?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:42 AM
horizontal rule
37

OT, but if this comment goes through, Blackberry users can comment using Opera Mini.


Posted by: zadfrack | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:42 AM
horizontal rule
38

OT, but if this comment goes through, Blackberry users can comment using Opera Mini.


Posted by: zadfrack | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:43 AM
horizontal rule
39

Yay! It works!

(Sorry about the double post.)


Posted by: zadfrack | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:45 AM
horizontal rule
40

36: I took "slippery slope" to mean something like:

FDR promised that Social Security numbers wouldn't be used for any other purpose. Now they are ubiquitous identifiers for everything from financial records to college admission, and it's a very clear tell if you don't have one.

If we let "presence on terrorist watch list" be a signifier for anything else, even gun ownership, we are legitimizing the watch list.

Is that what you meant, Di?


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:52 AM
horizontal rule
41

The terrorist watch lists are already legitimized. They are the law of the land. Refusing to acknowledge their existence doesn't make them somehow go away.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
42

sweet, sweet wedge issues

Amen to that. I'm not crazy about the bill. I'm not real crazy about any legislation with the words "watch list" in it, but two cheers for the "Lautenberg maneuver." IMO, watching this bill get crushed by the Republicans would be the optimal outcome.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
43

41: Amen. Let's not get all Nader voter about this one, 'k?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 10:58 AM
horizontal rule
44

40: Yeah, that.

41: The "law of the land" for what purpose? Declare them reliable enough today to justify banning gun purchases. Tomorrow maybe they're reliable enough to justify banning cell phones. Maybe next week they're reliable enough that these dangerous people should be in camps.

Maybe it takes much, much longer than that, of course. Maybe people wake up and that shit never happens. I'm willing to acknowledge the existence of the watch lists, not the legitimacy of using them to deprive individuals of rights.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:01 AM
horizontal rule
45

43: Because selling out our principles in the interests of scoring political points is preferable?

(I did, however, cast my vote for Gore in that election.)


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:04 AM
horizontal rule
46

Slippery slope indeed. The name of a friend of mine is on the watch list. She is a native-born American. She is not a terrorist and not affiliated with any group that would cause suspicion. She is an environmentalist with a local government job. She did attend, however, an anti-Bush rally in protest of administration policy, i.e.' specifically the proposal to sell off National Forest lands. There were government agents at that rally IDing protestors.

Result: Every time she passes through an airport security check, she is pulled aside for additional interrogation. The anti-terror watch list is also being used as an instrument to stifle dissent.


Posted by: swampcracker | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:04 AM
horizontal rule
47

46 Great, and I just admitted I voted for Gore. Now I'll never get to buy a gun!


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:05 AM
horizontal rule
48

45: No, because confronting reality is preferable.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:09 AM
horizontal rule
49

It seems to me that using inclusion on the watch lists as justification for restricting people's rights goes a bit further than "confronting [the] reality" that the watch lists exists.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:12 AM
horizontal rule
50

Every time she passes through an airport security check

Oh, I get this already. Though I go by my middle name, my first name is Robert. My wife is named Roberta, and kept her maiden name (which is one of the ten most common surnames in the US). There is, apparently, somebody on the no-fly list named Robert [her name]. She gets searched every time she flies and when we fly together, it's like a wand-and-swab party.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
51

44: I think the beauty of the Lautenberg maneuver is that it's the perfect lever to turn Bush's Remaining Third against the watch lists, thus dooming the concept. Notice how the freepers are suddenly noticing how unconstitutional and tyrannical these arbitrary list are?

Playing with fire, of course. But, you're already in the fire. A little unconventionality might just be needed to get out.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
52

Also, I'm not clear that the watch lists are actually undesirable. Granted, they're being compiled and maintained by an administration with a nearly unblemished record of incompetence, but those are problems are ones of execution, not of concept. I *do* want the government to be watching people with ties to violent organizations.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:18 AM
horizontal rule
53

DK, I spend much time outdoors shooting wildlife, but not with a gun. I do not own a gun and have no intention to ever buy a gun. Actually, I despise guns.

Unfortunately, there is a so-called "make my day law" in Florida passed several years ago by that other Bush. It confers the right to carry and use a weapon against any presumed provocation.

So far, there are two 16 year old teens shot dead as assumed intruders. No investigations, and no right to prosecute the old curmudgeons who shot them. The law confers the right to kill with impunity. Complements of the NRA, of course.


Posted by: swampcracker | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:18 AM
horizontal rule
54

my first name is Robert. My wife is named Roberta

That reminds me of how funny I found it in elementary school that my sixth grade teacher was named Glenda, and was married to a man named Glen.


Posted by: Matt F | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:19 AM
horizontal rule
55

49: Look, the watch list exists. Proposing legislation that's going to force its defenders to confront the civil liberties issue is a good thing. Obviously sitting around crying about the way the list restricts civil liberties doesn't do a damn thing, because most people don't think that *they*, personally, are going to be affected. The proposed law forces the most virulent defenders of the PATRIOT act to confront the civil liberties issue because it puts pressure on one of their other pet issues. This is a good thing, and I'm sorry that that's what it takes, but, well, it is.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
56

As political theater it's pretty good.

I think that will's comment in 26 is important. If a particular therapist has a very specific concern that a patient will harm himself or another, he should break confidentiality. Otherwise not. See Tarasoff. (Of course, this doesn't apply to non-confidential forensic interviews.)

Generalized lists like this are stupid and dangerous, because they'll deter people from seeking care.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
57

56: Aren't they actually required to break confidentiality if they believe a patient is dangerous to other people or herself? At least, I always sign forms agreeing to that.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:29 AM
horizontal rule
58

B, if it acomplishes the goal of restoring respect for civil liberties, then I will retract. But it seems a rather risky gambit.

Apo, I'm all in favor of the government keeping an eye on suspected terrorists, too. I'm just hard-core opposed to restricting anyone's rights based on unproven suspicions.

Look, I see the point you guys are making. But I see the other possibility being that some of the folks who are otherwise at least a little squeamish about the watch lists start to think, "Well, I don't know how valid the lists are, but I suppose I'd rather take the chance of depriving an innocent person of a gun than the chance of letting a terrorist buy one."


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:29 AM
horizontal rule
59

Admittedly it helps that I just don't see what harm is done in denying someone's right to own a gun.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:31 AM
horizontal rule
60

The "law of the land" for what purpose? Declare them reliable enough today to justify banning gun purchases. Tomorrow maybe they're reliable enough to justify banning cell phones. Maybe next week they're reliable enough that these dangerous people should be in camps.

Every once in a while, we see a lawyer's testament here; I remember writing one myself.

Thinking of More—well, Paul Scofield—as I just was, it occurs to me that the idea of law and its protections can be traduced, and a country fall into tyranny for a time, yet the idea remains and can be recovered and reasserted. This I believe.


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:31 AM
horizontal rule
61

Bostoniangirl, in some states there are laws on the books that *require* therapists to not just report but immediately hospitalize patients who have expressed suicidal thoughts. A tough call for the therapist because there are subjects with Bipolar, for example, who carry these thoughts almost all the time. (I sometimes wish, however, that there were mandatory treatment provisions for young women with Anorexia -- 20% mortality risk long term)


Posted by: swampcracker | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:35 AM
horizontal rule
62

58: I think the bet is that the gun lobby is powerful enough that that's an unlikely outcome, and a second look at the terrorist watchlists is.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:35 AM
horizontal rule
63

I have never been a betting woman and am exceedingly risk averse. Maybe it's a good gamble. Gambling just makes me nervous.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
64

62: Yeah, if the bill passes (which is by no means guaranteed), it's obviously headed straight to the courts.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
65

What 58 said.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
66

The ones that just upheld the partial-birth abortion ban? I'm not as reassured as I'd like to be...


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
67

Sure would make for some interesting opinions, though.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:43 AM
horizontal rule
68

Would partial birth abortions be okay if you used a gun? Reasonable second amendment scholars can disagree!


Posted by: TJ | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:45 AM
horizontal rule
69

Ha!


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
70

Cynic!


Posted by: swampcracker | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:49 AM
horizontal rule
71

69: No, that's not allowed either. It has to be "HA!".


Posted by: pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:52 AM
horizontal rule
72

57: It varies by state. Here's a PDF comment on the subject. Actually, it looks like Virginia rejects the Tarasoff rule.

61: swampcracker, I'm pretty sure that psychiatrists are supposed to assess the risk of suicidal ideation before they report anything. They usually ask patients about whether they have actual plans.

I guess that I wasn't clear in my original comment. I don't really think that the laws in thsi area need to be changed all that much. The existing rules seem adequate to me.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 11:55 AM
horizontal rule
73

It confers the right to carry and use a weapon against any presumed provocation.

The first year I participated in NaNoWriMo, my novel was about precisely this happening in NC; a friend of mine referred to it as "poli-sci-fi." I can't believe this has actually happened.

Question regarding the actual topic at hand: is the list he's proposing they use the same as the no-fly list or is it some other, smaller list?


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
74

72 A judgement call the under the best of circumstances, and mortification if the call is wrong as sometimes happens.


Posted by: swampcracker | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 12:50 PM
horizontal rule
75

51 shows that 'Po is just happy about this bill because it will keep Mrs. 'Po from getting a gun.


Posted by: Clownaesthesiologist | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 12:59 PM
horizontal rule
76

NRA asking Bushies to back down on this. I'm with Ogged and DK. Can we not bolster the credibility of these lists? Horrible idea.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
77

Why is the NRA so much more effective than NARAL and Planned Parenthood? I don't get it.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 3:31 PM
horizontal rule
78

Who says they're more effective? It's almost impossible for a Democratic politician to be pro-life, just like it's almost impossible for a Republican to be for gun control.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
79

78: Right. Just as effective against a recently less powerful group of politicians.

Maybe Lautenberg never expected more? Still, Di wins the high ground on this one.


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 3:38 PM
horizontal rule
80

I really do think that the NRA is more effective on the slippery-slope arguments. The NRA wins its fights for assault weapons; NARAL and PP lose their fights for late-term abortion procedures, even with Democratic politicians. (Yes, Clinton vetoed the first one, but a bunch of Dem. senators voted for this recent one.)


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 3:42 PM
horizontal rule
81

Don't mess with Jersey, bitches!

I'm telling you, those Texan boys talk tough, but in the end all they're good for is starting wars they don't know how to win. Yeah, I'm looking at you, Lyndon & Georgie.

You want a badass who gets the job done? You gotta go to Tony Soprano's home. You gotta go to Jersey.

Also, Carol Lam? I believe she grew up in Jersey. You think Lautenberg is tough, he ain't nothin' next to a Jersey Girl.


Posted by: anonymous | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 5:03 PM
horizontal rule
82

I was on the watch list for a while. Never did get a clear answer why, but every time I flew they would spirit my ID away to a back room for some extra checks, and I would get searched more often than not. I always figured, "well, that's what calling yourself an internet terrorist in the national media'll buy ya," but then it seemed to stop of its own accord.

Then again, I don't want a gun.


Posted by: Beefo Meaty | Link to this comment | 05- 4-07 5:25 PM
horizontal rule
83

Shockingly, I never seem to have made it onto any watch list, despite having tons of stamps in my passport from all kinds of middle eastern countries. I kept expecting to get pulled aside every time I came back into the States, but it never happened.


Posted by: T/om Scu/dder | Link to this comment | 05- 5-07 11:00 AM
horizontal rule