• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats mount gun control filibuster

TheDemSocialist said:
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]
Click to expand...

Sounds good, but lets make sure that the law clearly defines who should be in the watch list. A law like this could easily be abused to include every member of the NRA on the list. While I think that everyone can agree that if someone shows a lot of clear signs that they could be a threat (signs which need crystal clear definitions), then a non-partisan panel should be allowed to place them on such a list. But the potential for abuse is massive. Would you be OK with allowing Congress to pass a law that allowed the police to lock up anyone who might agitate for violence at a protest with little to no over-sight??
 
PeteEU said:
Common sense that should have been put in place 15 years ago?
Click to expand...

How about we just rendition these suspected terrorists to GITMO until we can sort out whether they are a danger or not?
 
Zyphlin said:
How strange. Obviously there must be a mistake. Sean Hannity seems to assure everyone that Donald Trump is a strong defender of the 2nd amendment seemingly every 15 minutes. This is just clearly a fake story :roll:
Click to expand...

The NRA supports No Fly No Buy, so long as there is due process to remove people wrongfully on that list.

https://twitter.com/NRA/status/743110378272350208
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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]
Click to expand...
While we are at it lets ban that person from his or her 1st amendment,4th amendment and other rights while we are at it.What you support sets a dangerous precedent. Your rights should not be denied without due process.And by the way all the gun control laws didn't stop terrorist in France from shooting up a concert.
 
faithful_servant said:
Sounds good, but lets make sure that the law clearly defines who should be in the watch list. A law like this could easily be abused to include every member of the NRA on the list. While I think that everyone can agree that if someone shows a lot of clear signs that they could be a threat (signs which need crystal clear definitions), then a non-partisan panel should be allowed to place them on such a list. But the potential for abuse is massive. Would you be OK with allowing Congress to pass a law that allowed the police to lock up anyone who might agitate for violence at a protest with little to no over-sight??
Click to expand...

Rights should not be taken away without due process.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Rights should not be taken away without due process.
Click to expand...

..and that's what I'm proposing - a clear definition of the legal process of both defining who should be on the watch list and how they should be handled. Someone else already offered this example, but I think that it's so good that I'll throw it out again: We have a Constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure, but there is also a process for over-riding that right. We need to use the same kind of standard for this issue...
 
faithful_servant said:
..and that's what I'm proposing - a clear definition of the legal process of both defining who should be on the watch list and how they should be handled. Someone else already offered this example, but I think that it's so good that I'll throw it out again: We have a Constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure, but there is also a process for over-riding that right. We need to use the same kind of standard for this issue...
Click to expand...

What I'm saying by due process: If they have not been convicted of any crime by a court of law then they should not lose their rights just because they are on a list.
 
Blumenthal just said that someone on the terror watch list is as dangerous as a convicted felon.

These Senators are dangerous. If they really believe this stuff then they are far more a danger to this nation than any terrorist or terrorist organization.
 
GettyImages-74071692-f906cd0655b9c34e98dfeb97693c6a46.jpgpopup.jpg

For obvious reasons, these two shouldnt be allowed to purchase guns. The fact that they are on the Terrorist Watch List is NOT one of those reasons. The fact that they are on the terrorist watch list speaks volumes about the terrorist watchlist.
 
Lutherf said:
Blumenthal just said that someone on the terror watch list is as dangerous as a convicted felon.

These Senators are dangerous. If they really believe this stuff then they are far more a danger to this nation than any terrorist or terrorist organization.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should start stripping rights from Senators....
 
Zyphlin said:
How strange. Obviously there must be a mistake. Sean Hannity seems to assure everyone that Donald Trump is a strong defender of the 2nd amendment seemingly every 15 minutes. This is just clearly a fake story :roll:
Click to expand...

hannity is absolutely right
here, listen to tRump discuss this
 
Murphy - (CT) now talking about how the current proposals are just a start.
 
Warren now talking about a "nation of fear and hate" while advocating for laws based in fear and hate. These people are sick.

-edit-
Now she's talking about "Rambo style" guns.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
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]
Click to expand...

Actually, since people get put on the NO-FLY list using a completely secret method, it's unconstitutional. If these Dems want the process to be completely public and out in the open then they need to do that first before denying Americans their 2nd Amendment rights.
 
Crovax said:
So we don't let them by guns and then they have pipe bombs like in CA or a pressure cooker like in Boston. We need to be able to act on intelligence not take away rights from law abiding citizens
Click to expand...

There is a reason most the guys opt for guns instead of pipe bombs and pressure cookers, though.
 
BrewerBob said:
There is a reason most the guys opt for guns instead of pipe bombs and pressure cookers, though.
Click to expand...

You mean because it's a hell of a lot easier to point your gun at a crowded area and pull a trigger? C'mon you're better than that.
 
reinoe said:
You mean because it's a hell of a lot easier to point your gun at a crowded area and pull a trigger? C'mon you're better than that.
Click to expand...

You tell me. Why are the overwhelming majority of planned, mass murders in the US not done by homemade bombs?
 
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well if we really want to ban guns used in murder we might as well outlaw handguns as I believe 72% of all murders committed by firearms are handguns.
 
Chillfolks said:
As long as it is defined how one gets on the terror watch list and how one can challenge being placed on the list fine. But if it's some secret list that people are placed on with the government saying because we said so as the final test then no way could I support it.

If the background checks are made free and easy to or at least keep fees low, my last gun I think it was 2 or 5 bucks. The price written into law and require law to raise ok. I am not a fan of using the background check as a backdoor poll tax by pricing the checks so only the wealthy can exercise this right.
Click to expand...

Hopefully they would do better than the no-fly list.

8 ways you can end up on the no-fly list | Fox News
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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]
Click to expand...

Except you don't KNOW you're on the list, you don't get a trial, recourse to remove from list is a nightmare... but hey, let's more to nullify Constitutional Rights without due process of law, it's the PROGRESSIVE WAY!
 
eohrnberger said:
Does this legislation contain the due process of determining if someone's been incorrectly added to the list?
Does this legislation contain the due process of requesting that one's self be removed from the list?
Does this legislation contain the due process of properly informing someone if they've been added and why?
Does this legislation contain the due process of how someone is added?
Does this legislation contain Congressional review and oversight as to methods, processes and procedures?

Form what I've heard, none of these things is part of the legislation, and if so, then it's not complete legislation, is it? It's only part of what the solution needs to be, and should be voted down until it is truly complete legislation.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head. This is just another example of Congress Critters taking advantage of hysteria to hurry up and pass something figuring they will work out the details on some other date. Or as they also like to do, just hurry and pass it so they look good to their constituents, then let the courts throw it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom