All US Border Crossings Now Require A 'Terrorist Risk Profile'

conlaw writes with a somewhat intimidating Washington Post article. "The federal government disclosed details yesterday of a border-security program to screen all people who enter and leave the United States, create a terrorism risk profile of each individual and retain that information for up to 40 years ... The risk assessment is created by analysts at the National Targeting Center, a high-tech facility opened in November 2001 and now run by Customs and Border Protection. In a round-the-clock operation, targeters match names against terrorist watch lists and a host of other data to determine whether a person's background or behavior indicates a terrorist threat, a risk to border security or the potential for illegal activity. They also assess cargo."

Comments

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[Doc Ruby]

There are lots of people who can't get guns, but might use them for other than self defense or sports, because of US gun control laws.

These inane immigration laws will also hurt people who are actual risks, but there's no soundness to any of the "logic" offered in either of these comparisons.

BTW, I guess you're opposed to drivers licenses, too.

Re:Soviet Vespucciland

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that we'll end up with Fag vs. Hag...Flamer vs. Icebox...Rich vs. Bitch in 08?

Don't stomp your little last season Prada shoes at me, honey

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[Firethorn]

Because making you wait 5 days *might* stop a Va Tech type massacre from happening. I would suggest that anyone who asks this sort of question is putting their own selfish self-gratification before the safety of others.

Did you totally miss my pointing out that I already own enough weapons to pull a VA Tech type massacre in addition to a texas tower sniper massacre? That I've undergone security checks that Seung-Hui Cho would not have been able to pass. Heck, with my arsenal I'd have SWAT sweating - their standard body armor isn't effective against some of the calibers I have(part of the battle rifle vs assault rifle thing). Add in the military training and a gas mask and many of their standard tactics would be reduced in effectiveness.

Even considering this, a 5 or 10 day waiting period would have done nothing - Cho obtained at least one of his weapons more than a month before commiting the massacre. And promptly committed a felony by filing the serial numbers off.

2) A woman's death - could've happened with a gun as well.

Maybe, maybe not. While not a domestic disturbance, Luby's massacre in Texas had a woman who was a competition pistol shooter - she lost both of her parents in it because her weapon was in the truck(no legal CCW or open carry at the time). I'm willing to say that the odds of her stopping it would have been high. Still, at least one of the women I'm thinking about had a restraining order, the police were on their way, and the man still strangled her to death.

The key to this problem might not lie in guns but other means, such as speeding up the restraining orders,

Worthless pieces of paper. The incidents I'm talking about the women already had restraining orders. No speedup necessary.

better police protection, increased funding for safe houses, etc...

Costs money, unfortuantly. In many cases the killer simply waited for the police to go away.

I would argue the solution shouldn't lie in the "let's populate our town with huge wolves to fight the man-eating bats we used to solve an earlier small problem" approach. What's next? Battered wives getting permits to carry M-16s around?

How about we get some sheep-dogs instead? Capable of violence but not going to reach for it until necessary, to protect the herd from the wolves that naturally exist?

Besides, a 12 gauge would probably work better than an AR. ;)

The black market doesn't enforce wait periods, but going to the black market means you're putting yourself at a risk of sting operations and such.

My arguement is to keep legal easy enough to keep the black market down enough that sting operations are actually likely to do more than skim the surface. I'm not asking for no limitations - merely go after accuracy and most 'bang for the buck'. IE use the measures that impact criminals the most and legal purchasers the least. Waiting periods ain't it.

why don't we just legalize all the drugs?

hehehehehe... Happens to be one of my other political beliefs that we'd be better off legalizing all that stuff. There's better drugs than Meth on all points. Going by prohibition as a model, drug use and violence would drop.

Why don't YOU buy your guns on the black market if it's so quick and cheap and easy?

Because I'm one of those people who try to obey the law? Besides, I live in a state without most of the annoying hassles so it isn't worth it.

Cars and guns are not the same thing. Objects that have one purpose, and one purpose only, to kill living things, should not be mentioned in the same breath as modes of transportation, or kitchen utensiles, etc.

More people still die from cars and kitchen utensiles each year than guns.

And no, target practice isn't "another purpose," it's just practice for the killing of living things.

I've still killed more living thing

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation 0
    50% Troll
    50% Insightful

Gun fetish trollMods don't want to talk about laws, they just want to shoot you down.