Presidential Address.

When President Barack Obama said ISIS, or ISIL, was contained, he "was responding very specifically to the geographic expansion of ISIL in Iraq and Syria."

...

Rhodes said Obama was talking about a particular aspect of containment that in no way dismissed the possibility of terrorist attacks in the West.

Obama: "Well, no, I don't think they're gaining strength.

Rhodes said that when Obama said ISIS was contained, he "was responding very specifically to the geographic expansion of ISIL in Iraq and Syria."

Obama: And in Syria they'll come in, they'll leave.

Further, experts told us that Obama is right that ISIS hasn’t expanded in the region in recent months, though this doesn’t give a full picture of ISIS’s global reach.

Looks like that picture is starting to fill up.

I’m seeing a lot of friends and others who generally hang out near me on the left of the political spectrum express outrage at a recent vote in Congress to reject fixing what at first glance seems like a terrible loophole: People on the terrorist watch list can still buy guns. Even President Obama, who called Sunday night for a law that would prevent people on a subset of the terror watch list from purchasing a firearm, is among this crowd.

Their outrage stems from the logical reaction, “If there are people we think are bent on doing us harm, why are we giving them easy access to the tools to do it?”

The concern is reasonable. The proposed remedy—to deny people on the watch list the ability to buy guns—is not, however. Not because it has anything to do with guns, but because it has to do with lists.

As Americans we understand well how important due process is. No one, for instance, should be thrown in jail just on the say-so of some government official who declares they deserve it. Such is the behavior of tyrants, the Founding Fathers understood, and so we enshrined in our Constitution the right to counsel, the right against being compelled to testify against oneself, the right to trial by jury, etc.

All of these rights are checks to ensure the government can’t simply pluck innocent people out of their lives and strip them of their life, liberty, or property. Only after fairly testing the charges against them can the government punish people with such deprivation.

But none of these hurdles must be overcome for the government to put someone on a list, especially not a list like this, which is a watch list. It is a list of people that for whatever reason (a reason that no one outside the government knows) the government has decided deserve closer scrutiny of their actions.

Is the government right to be concerned about these people? Maybe yes, but maybe not, and there is no way for ordinary citizens to know. Which means there is also no way for ordinary citizens to know whether any of them, even people who in no way intend to commit acts of terrorism, are also on that list.

In other words, there is no way to know whether you are on that list. Nor is there any way to know how to get off it.

That there is any list at all should give us all pause. It has not historically been the hallmark of a healthy democracy when governments have kept lists of people they didn’t like. It is hard to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people when the government keeps track of the people, including those dissidents who would challenge it (which is something that in a democracy they are allowed, and even supposed, to do).

So much of my yes. Please, take all of my yes.

Glad you learned something. Its a current fact of life in the USA. You can't get on a plane, but you can walk into a gun store and buy a gun.

When I first saw the thread title I thought this was about a street address.

1600 Pennsylvania Ave

Kinda frustrating that people keep seeing the gun control argument as being "no guns", when it's really about regulating the sales, trades, registration, etc of guns. If the legislation is done well, then it shouldn't affect the responsible gun owners much. That's a big "if" though.

It's foolish to take this guy at his word.

Kinda frustrating that people keep seeing the gun control argument as being "no guns", when it's really about regulating the sales, trades, registration, etc of guns. If the legislation is done well, then it shouldn't affect the responsible gun owners much. That's a big "if" though.

Kinda frustrating that people keep seeing the gun control argument as being "no guns", when it's really about regulating the sales, trades, registration, etc of guns. If the legislation is done well, then it shouldn't affect the responsible gun owners much. That's a big "if" though.

If you want real gun control, regulate manufacturers, not consumers.

Why do we need to increase troops, we ain't fighting a ground war?

Most of the highlights I saw about this speech was a lot of nothing and more of it.

Elaborate please.

How would regulating the manufacturers solve gun violence?

How is it the fault of the company who made the gun the fault of somebody using that gun to mass murder people?

Meanwhile, even terrorists can come to American and purchase assault rifles.

Only the extreme radicals believe that gun control is the same as "no guns."

It's more like more inefficient regulations that only apply to those who are responsible (see: law-abiding) gun owners and still doesn't do a damn thing to the real problem: illegal gun trafficking and criminals.

You can make a law that prevents a criminal from owning a gun legally, but since when do criminals follow the law?

Guns are, apparently, an ubiquitous a part of the American Dream™.

If you can't buy a gun, why bother being American, amirite?

See, that's the problem. We have an very unhealthy obsession with firearms.

Guns are, apparently, an ubiquitous a part of the American Dream™.

If you can't buy a gun, why bother being American, amirite?

See, that's the problem. We have an very unhealthy obsession with firearms.

Supply-side control. Yeah there's still the issue of the firearms already circulating, but you need to start somewhere.

Like I said, though, it would never happen and frankly it would help Mexico/Central America's gun violence problems more than our own domestic problems given that's where a lot of newly-manufactured American weapons end up.

Anyhow, like I said. The "answer" is multi-faceted and nigh impossible to attain, so...buckle up, because not much is going to change.

reminds me of judge dredd with their guns. have them be ID locked with biometrics and stuff but that will probably never happen