To expand on your first point: it is actually possible/common to take away rights of people convicted of crimes. Prisoners often times cant get guns, or have restricted speech and may not even be able to vote. However being on a terrorist watchlist does not require committing a crime. So the argument is that if we start taking away constitutional rights of people who haven't committed crimes then we start down a very slippery slope. This time its guns, which you might agree with, but next time it might be habeas corpus and then it will be too late.

I think it's worth pointing out, for anyone who might claim this is the slipper slope fallacy, that a situation that allows legal precedence like punishing non-criminals to be created does indeed allow a slippery slope scenario to happen.

This comment is based in several fallacies- The NRA spends a lot of money, therefore the public is swayed based on (presumably) false information, therefore congress fears negative public reaction to their votes, therefore they vote against what would (presumably) otherwise be a excellent ideas. This implies a baseness in behavior (reacting in self-interest/fear) on the part of the congressmen that reduces them (and the public, for that matter) to mere children- pawns of the manipulation of the NRA. How about you talk to someone actually affected by these laws before passing judgement?

Being affected by a law is not a pre-requisite for understanding, criticizing or supporting it. As a male I am not affected by illegal abortions but I support criminalizing unlicensed medical personnel from conducting back-alley abortions.

You forgot the part about any joe-random disgruntled TSA agent can add you to this "Terrorist Watch List" without any due process, and you wouldn't even know it, and would have little-to-zero recourse to fight it and get removed. Not to mention zero people on the Terrorist Watch List have shot up schools or anything... so it would be not effective (and before anyone tries to argue that it could prevent something and therefore should be done, look at the voter id debate... )

The quotes about the NRA are blatantly inflammatory and perpetuate the canard that it is a sui generis out-of-control Godzilla instead of a grassroots group supported by millions of individual citizens.

@chrylis it's an industry lobbying group. While it may have been founded decades ago as a grassroots group, it's hardly that today. Their primary mission is lobbying and supporting the industry and making sure their candidates are the ones that get elected.

@chrylis The NRA presents assessment of fitness to own a gun (based on mental health, etc.) as a "thin end of the wedge" strategy to ultimately stop private gun ownership. It's fairly obvious that those millions of individual citizens are more likely to believe these "alternative facts" from an organisation they believe supports their interests.

@blip The NRA has millions of individual "card carrying" members, each paying a minimum (but often far, far more) of $25 annually. That's where the NRA gets most of it's funds. It is an organization supported by it's members - and it looks after it's member's. To claim it's only an industry lobby group is very disingenuous.

@Graham You've deliberately truncated the argument to your advantage. Many members oppose the "mental health fitness" qualifications because they are more-or-less arbitrary, and the incarnations that have been kicked around by legislators often include measures to remove firearms from individuals without any due process. A simple argument with a family member could be enough cause to remove the individuals rights to own a firearm - which certainly violates our constitution's afforded protections.

@snakedoc I didn't say it's only anything. I did say it's an industry lobbying group. It takes in millions and millions of dollars from gun manufacturers and a big part of its purpose is heavy lobbying against any attempt at gun control, gun violence research, gun data collection, etc.

@blip This is complete nonsense. They don't oppose "any", they oppose nonsensical knee-jerk reactions, such as the emotional overreaction that inevitably occurs after any incident involving a firearm. That's exactly what their members want them to oppose (and yes, the industry too obviously). Unfortunately, gun control to many people means preventing individuals from owning firearms - which is unconstitutional - and is precisely what interest groups like the NRA are supposed to oppose. Just because you disagree doesn't mean this group is bad or only interested in protecting big bad businesses.

@SnakeDoc they oppose all attempts at gun regulation. What is nonesense is your belief that 'many people want to ban gun ownership' which is not true at all. Most proposed gun legislation has to do with tracking, regulations, data collection, etc--and the NRA fights all of that. I didn't say the NRA is bad because they protect big business interests. That's exactly what the NRA is hired to do. I would say Wayne LaPierre is an asshole, but that's a different debate...

@blip You can pick and choose facts to support your argument, but it doesn't make your argument any more true. The NRA has a very long history of supporting responsible gun ownership, teaching gun safety, and even supporting reasonable gun control measures. The problem we have today is most gun control measures are not reasonable. Things like so-called "smart grips" can be dangerous to the carrier, or basing mental fitness on relative's uneducated diagnosis, or the fact that "mental health" is an incredibly (deliberately) broad spectrum, or this very question about secret government lists.

@SnakeDoc I don't disagree at all with your comments about the long history of the NRA. I don't disagree that judging people's mental health is a dumb way to regulate guns. I don't disagree that the no-fly list is a joke. I do feel that attempting to stop all gun legislation does not make LaPierre look reasonable, nor the people he represents. They've fought legislation along the lines of wanting to collect crime data and aggregate it. They've fought legislation to computerize registration so data can be shared.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@blip Today, in 2017, it may appear as-if the NRA opposes any and all gun control measures - and that may very well be true today, in 2017, due to the specific gun control measures being put forth. That's not to say they would oppose reasonable gun control measures if they were proposed (which lately, doesn't seem like they are being proposed). Let's not paint too broad of strokes simply because of recent events. From my perspective, the NRA is doing exactly what they should be doing. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that front.