The simple answer is; nothing - except Democrats want it. Now, had Obama and/or the Democrats called for open carry Nation wide, the GOP would have come out swinging against it - because they feel they have to.

To be fair, the Democrats act the same stupid way. If a Republican called for clean water, the Democrats would introduce a bill repealing the clean water act.

I swear, every time I see the Congress in action, I have to make sure I haven't gotten onto the kindergarten channel by mistake.

Did you read my post? I think I will have one of my law enforcement friends call and report you for suspicious activity and have YOU put on a list. Morgan, that is literally all it takes. Which part of no due process and no proof did you overlook? The standards for getting put on one of these lists would be thrown out of any court. People are put on it with no proof, and have to hire a lawyer at their own expense to clear their names. Is THAT what you want? NO PROOF IS REQUIRED. People are put on this list for reasons that would not justify a judge issuing any sort of warrant, even for a search. If you know a cop or LEO, you could have ME put on one. Personally, I really cannot afford a lawyer's fees at this time to be taken off. You might be on the list yourself, because your name is similar to someone else's. Don't bother to ask. They won't tell you if you are on one or not.
The idea of a terror watch list sounds good, but it is a complete disaster when it comes down to actually doing one, because of the slack requirements and the even slacker bureaucrats who compile these lists.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


None are so blind as those who will not open their eyes.....

The majority of people, apparently you also, no offense, don't realize that there are at least 25,000 US citizens on these lists. It is not "a" list, there are at least three. You can be put on this list basically on someone's unsupported word, or by mistake, and you have very little in the way of a remedy. There have been several people put on the list by mistake who have had to go to court at their own expense to clear their names. Included on this list are toddlers under the age of five, at least 2 US Marshals, a number of active duty service people who had the misfortune to have a name similar to someone else who was on the list, probably wrongfully. A nun was put on this list, as were Senator Ted Kennedy, a Georgia Congressman, and a Cub Scout.
The list compilers place more than 98% of the "recommendations" on the list. Most are unproven accusations, or mistaken identity. The standards for making this list would be thrown out of any court. How would you like to be one of the 25,000 plus innocent US citizens placed on a terror watch list, with no proof, no due process, no chance to face your accuser, and have to engage the service of an attorney at your own expense to clear your name?
Do you support a law that would be blatantly unconstitutional, because it violates the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? Do you think that inalienable rights are actually privileges to be extended or revoked at the whim of the Government du jour? Lastly, do you ACTUALLY think there are 25,000 US citizens who deserve to be on a terrorist watch list?

Point taken, if this is what the lists consists of, maybe the list should be taken more seriously by the processors on who goes on it and have a more stringent profiling procedure. With that being said If a person would be red flagged as a danger to society to the point of not being allowed to fly a plane with others, I certainly would think that would not entitle him/her to buy a gun.

I don't believe one should have to go through expense and to clear himself, and the government should be efforts to expedite an approval.

As far as 25000, innocent people, that is only about.00008 of the population, that sounds like they're doing their job for home security.

No offense but I think you're going over the edge here, no one is revoking the Bill of Rights and even a criminal gets a lawyer if he can't afford one and due process. What I'm seeing is people want protection but they want to tie the hands of the enforcement to do it. And if someone is a danger I sure as hell don't want him working in a daycare or school, do you? There needs to be a evaluation and than be done with it.

I see what you're saying, logic and reason must prevail and to ensure the government doesn't overstep.

Point taken, if this is what the lists consists of, maybe the list should be taken more seriously by the processors on who goes on it and have a more stringent profiling procedure. With that being said If a person would be red flagged as a danger to society to the point of not being allowed to fly a plane with others, I certainly would think that would not entitle him/her to buy a gun.

I don't believe one should have to go through expense and to clear himself, and the government should put in effort to expedite an approval.

As far as 25000, innocent people, that is only about.00008 of the population, that sounds like they're doing their job for home security.

The simple answer is; nothing - except Democrats want it. Now, had Obama and/or the Democrats called for open carry Nation wide, the GOP would have come out swinging against it - because they feel they have to.

To be fair, the Democrats act the same stupid way. If a Republican called for clean water, the Democrats would introduce a bill repealing the clean water act.

I swear, every time I see the Congress in action, I have to make sure I haven't gotten onto the kindergarten channel by mistake.