Democrats mount gun control filibuster (1 Viewer)

[TheDemSocialist]

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.

 

[Ntharotep]

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.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

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]

Are you on the terror watchlist?

 

[jimbo]

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.

I believe a watch list is a list of people or groups that have no suspected illegal activities, but evidence there might be some possible illegal activity. All levels of LEO utilize them.

The trouble withj watch lists is their inaccuracy. You can make a watch list by having the wrong name, being in the wrong place at the wtrong time, or belonging to the wrong club.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

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.

 

[shagg]

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]

On the one hand it seems obvious, suspected terrorists shouldn't be able to buy guns.

And on the other, it would add to the erosion that the patriot act started: sacrificing freedom for security, assuming guilt before innocence, making exceptions to fundamental constitutional rights

Technology has made the stakes so high that I feel some serious government counter terrorism measures need to be taken. But how can they fight such an insidious enemy without threatening the rights we treasure, and without sliding further into the "police state" scenarios?

If I had answers they would be in this space right here. It's a tough one.

 

[MaggieD]

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]

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.

 

[Chillfolks]

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.

 

[joG]

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]

As populist arguments go, it's dashing. As a proposal it is an attempt to slip the precedence around adherence to the Constitution and is the tricky dick type action we have become accustomed to from the statist liberals.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

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?

 

[MaggieD]

What other civil rights should you lose, without being charged and convicted of a crime?

Just treason and terrorist threats.

 

[Crovax]

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]

Sounds like a way to take away a constitutional right without due process, which other amendments from the bill of rights should be suspended if you are arbitrarily put on a list? The 8th? I'm sure torturing terror suspects would reduce terror attacks and how about the 5th? We could just indefinitely hold them without counsel or legal recourse.. problem solved. And certainly you don't think those on the watch list should be able to vote?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Just treason.

I don't understand what you mean.

 

[joG]

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.

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.

 

[Beaudreaux]

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]

Which Constitutional right is it reasonable to remove? Obviously, you feel that way about the 2nd Amendment. But, you and the Democrats in the OP also obviously feel that way about the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.

How many rights are you ready to sacrifice? As for me, I say none. There's absolutely nothing reasonable about what the Democrats are proposing.

THINK PEOPLE!!! Do not just react... think.

 

[Crovax]

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.

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

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

yep, blame the gun, not the psychotic muslim democrat with the gun.

 

[MaggieD]

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.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

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.

Is all good.

 

[MaggieD]

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.

Okay, could you agree with this? Removing right of possession becomes like a TRO. The reasons have to pass a judge's muster.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

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]

Ohh just thought of something rather ironic too.
What you're supporting is rather similar to McCarthy Blacklisting. :doh

 

[Cardinal]

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]

Well that puts gun rights activists in something of a pickle:

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.

Trump to discuss terrorism watch list, no fly ban with NRA | Fox News

 

[joG]

Okay, could you agree with this? Removing right of possession becomes like a TRO. The reasons have to pass a judge's muster.

Without having thought it through I tend to think that might work.

 

[cpwill]

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]

You should lose your first amendment rights as well. We've seen what terrorist proselytizing does.

From now on, having a random individual in the Executive Branch putting your name on a list - a list that you cannot see and which you are not allowed to know if you are on until you run up against it, and which you practically will face extreme difficulty getting yourself off, with no judicial review whatsoever - should be all the justification that is required for taking away your Constitutional Rights.

I'm sure President Trump won't abuse that at all.

I honestly don't know how the "watch list" works so if it includes a charge of some form then fine.

I have used TIDE for work. You can end up in TIDE for having a social media contact that goes bad, because your name might be on their reported activity ("And then Abu McJihad wrote a quick note to Jane Smith about that time when they had ice cream. Then he sent a message to Abu McKillTheInfidels about the need to get more C4.")

To translate this into domestic criminal activity, if one of your high school classmates commits a felony, these people are arguing that you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Because your name is on the list of his facebook contacts.

Oh. But you aren't allowed to see if you're on the list or not. You'll just have to wait and see what happens when and if you vote. You're upset that you can't vote? Too bad. File a complaint and maybe we'll think about it. Or not. Your name is on the list so... no rights for you. Including appeal.




This is a disastrously bad idea that nonetheless sounds good to the uninformed. Democrats are aware of this, which is why they feel safe damagogically using it as a club to bash Republicans with.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

It's rather amazing how people are willing to completely throw away their rights, exercised or not, over incredibly rare and unlikely things.