- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
en. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) launched a talking filibuster on the Senate floor — which was quickly joined by fellow Democrats — in an effort to pressure Republicans to accept legislation that would deny suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms and require universal background checks.
The Senate is debating a spending bill that Democrats hope to offer gun amendments to, but Murphy said that the Senate should “not proceed with debate on amendments to this bill until we have figured out a way to come together on, at the very least, two simple ideas.”
“I’m going to remain on this floor until we get some signal, some sign that we can come together on these two measures, that we can get a path forward on addressing this epidemic in a meaningful, bipartisan way,” Murphy continued on the Senate floor on Wednesday, after he first started his filibuster at about 11:20 a.m.
Read more: Democrats mount gun control filibuster - POLITICO
Sounds like a common sense measure. If you're on a terrorist watch list you should not be able to legally purchase a firearm. [/FONT][/COLOR]
If you are charged with a crime then you should not own a firearm until you have served your sentence (if the crime was any kind of violence with a firearm then you should lose your right to own one permanently).
If you are not charged with a crime then you should be able to keep any of your civil rights. Period. The Government doesn't just get to arbitrarily choose who owns or doesn't own property.
I honestly don't know how the "watch list" works so if it includes a charge of some form then fine.
Otherwise we MUST adhere to innocent until proven guilty.
Read more: Democrats mount gun control filibuster - POLITICO
Sounds like a common sense measure. If you're on a terrorist watch list you should not be able to legally purchase a firearm. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Read more: Democrats mount gun control filibuster - POLITICO
Sounds like a common sense measure. If you're on a terrorist watch list you should not be able to legally purchase a firearm. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Read more: Democrats mount gun control filibuster - POLITICO
Sounds like a common sense measure. If you're on a terrorist watch list you should not be able to legally purchase a firearm. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Read more: Democrats mount gun control filibuster - POLITICO
Sounds like a common sense measure. If you're on a terrorist watch list you should not be able to legally purchase a firearm. [/FONT][/COLOR]
What other civil rights should you lose, without being charged and convicted of a crime?
Read more: Democrats mount gun control filibuster - POLITICO
Sounds like a common sense measure. If you're on a terrorist watch list you should not be able to legally purchase a firearm. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Just treason.
In my opinion, our gvmt had enough information on the Orlando shooter from what we've been told to take away his gun rights...with or without a criminal charge. Everyone on here has been bitching about the rights we lost with Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. I'd posit that this massacre shows "we" need to lose a few more.
I have no problem with universal background checks and no problem outlawing certain kinds of guns. AS LONG AS that gun outlawing comes with possessing guns illegally becoming a Federal crime with mandatory prison sentences. So we'd all have to unlock our wallets.
A compromise for these laws might include not being civilly liable for self defense shoots.
Read more: Democrats mount gun control filibuster - POLITICO
Sounds like a common sense measure. If you're on a terrorist watch list you should not be able to legally purchase a firearm. [/FONT][/COLOR]
I am so torn on this. I have two common sense positions battling against each other.
1. You don't let people suspected of plotting terror buy the tools they need to carry out that terror.
2. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is a fundamental part of the US justice system.
Of course we can say if the FBI has enough evidence to put a person on a terrorism watch list then they should have enough evidence to arrest. But that isn't always the case. Often times they are working toward building a stronger case or even surveilling the person in hopes of figuring out who his accomplices may be.
It is very tough. I would feel better if there was judicial review. If, similar to a warrant, the feds had to get a judge's approval to put someone on the list I would feel better about it. And the evidence needs to be more compelling than what we currently use for the no fly list.
I don't understand what you mean.
Well, I edited my post to include terrorist threats...just in case that makes it any clearer. Oh, wait, my bad. I was answering a question you didn't ask. "What other suspected crimes should you lose civil rights for without being convicted?"
Maggie is a dope. I hope I don't get in trouble for name-calling.
For once, I don't quite agree.
He was a citizen and only a judge should be allowed to remove a citizen from his right of possession.
Read more: Democrats mount gun control filibuster - POLITICO
Sounds like a common sense measure. If you're on a terrorist watch list you should not be able to legally purchase a firearm. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Read more: Democrats mount gun control filibuster - POLITICO
Sounds like a common sense measure. If you're on a terrorist watch list you should not be able to legally purchase a firearm. [/FONT][/COLOR]
NEW YORK – Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said Wednesday that he will be meeting with the National Rifle Association to discuss ways to block people on terrorism watch lists or no fly lists from buying guns as his party scrambles to respond in the aftermath of the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
Okay, could you agree with this? Removing right of possession becomes like a TRO. The reasons have to pass a judge's muster.
Read more: Democrats mount gun control filibuster - POLITICO
Sounds like a common sense measure. If you're on a terrorist watch list you should not be able to legally purchase a firearm. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Ntharotep said:I honestly don't know how the "watch list" works so if it includes a charge of some form then fine.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?