They don't want people 'wrongly accused' to be on that list...how the fuck would they know in the first place? I am glad the NRA is feeling some heat, they need to go away forever or become a 'gun club' again and drop out of politics.

so that bad citizens like Muslims or other suspects don't get it?

You can't be too safe: 9/11 9/11 9/11

What is the legal test for getting on that watchlist?

Does it only include people who have made terrorist threats?
Given our constitutional right to free speech and the fact that the Second Amendment is viewed by the Supreme Court thus far to grant a pretty broad fundamental right to gun possession, who determines whether the threat is protected speech or not? Not all speech is protected, but who is going to determine that? How publically will the decision be made? In a court?

Does the definition of a terrorist for the purposes of denying the right to own or possess a gun under the Second Amendment people with associations to suspected terrorists and what in the world does that mean?

Is this really just a way of denying guns to people of the Muslim faith? Of Middle Eastern descent? Of descent of any country in which the majority is Muslim?

What about racists and anti-abortion groups in the US that may advocate violence? Are they also to be denied guns under this proposed law?

What are the details? How in the world would this be administered? Would people be told they are on the terrorist watchlist and therefore cannot have guns? How practical is this?

I have no interest in guns myself. I'm just interested in civil rights, and I tend to think practically. I think this sounds like good rhetoric but would be a nightmare of lawsuits if enacted.

On the other hand, I don't have any really good suggestions for dealing wi there th this problem myself. Remember the kid who went into the church prayer meeting, prayed with the church members and then shot them. I don't care if he was mentally ill. I think he was a terrorist. Can a person be both mentally ill and a terrorist?

Seems possible to me.

This is more complicated than it sounds at first hearing.

make us safe without violating human rights.

We just have to figure out what that is.

I hope that I am just being pessimistic, but as with the surveillance by the NSA, knowing human nature as I do, I believe that these anti-terror measures will inevitably, in time, if not already, be used to repress legitimate dissent, that is dissent that is good for our society, that helps us progress and become better than we are.

Citizens should at least be told precisely what kinds of statements or activities put them on the list of suspected terrorists. And then I wonder how the suspect thing gets rationalized in terms of our Bill of Rights and Constitution?

We are entitled to the assistance of an attorney, a speedy trial and to confront witnesses against us. We are entitled to privacy and to have a warrant issued before we or our things are searched.

There has to be some way for our government to protect us and still respect and abide by our Constitution. We should at least have notice and the right to be heard if we are to be deprived of rights and privileges due people in our country.

This does not affect me personally. But I believe in human rights and in our Constitution, and I do not see how we can deprive people of basic rights guaranteed in our Constitution without some sort of right given to the person to be deprived of a right to defend his/her right to enjoy that right.

I would like to know what kinds of legal memos are prepared to justify these kinds of actions. I would like to know what kinds of evidence are used to label a person a suspected terrorist.

... imagine all the fucking guns they'll buy!!!

The ACLU opposes this list too.