Democrats mount gun control filibuster

[cpwill]

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

True. If you are on A List, then the 5th Amendment no longer applies to you.

 

[Chillfolks]

If I was a Republican I would attach a national voter ID law to this Bill with the gun control admendment

You would counter the gun control outrage with the ID from your base. Then when the left tries to pull the disenfranchising the minority vote card in Nov, they have their vote to account for. Any dem that doesn't support the law because the ID part then is also painted as weak on keeping people safe.

 

[cpwill]

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

So long as its rights that are mostly exercised by others. Trump & Co. are willing to sacrifice the rights of others to be Muslim. Liberals are willing to sacrifice the rights of others to have firearms. Strangely, as soon as it becomes a right that they use, people become very serious about the importance of protecting them, and begin quoting Jefferson all over the place.


Maybe - just maybe - the solution to government screwing up isn't to give the government more power over us to screw up with?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

So long as its rights that are mostly exercised by others. Trump & Co. are willing to sacrifice the rights of others to be Muslim. Liberals are willing to sacrifice the rights of others to have firearms. Strangely, as soon as it becomes a right that they use, people become very serious about the importance of protecting them, and begin quoting Jefferson all over the place.


Want to see if any of them are serious?

I know you hate Trump, but it's all of them.
I'm so tired of having to be "equal" with morlocks.

 

[Ntharotep]

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.

I suspected it might be something like this. Sounds too sloppy just to remove someone's rights to me. But that's just my opinion.
I think "terrorism" has become too much of a special snowflake to begin with.
Giving the Government carte blanche on removing people's 2nd Amendment based on a watch list that may or may not be accurate, may be corruptible, is a bit shady at best.

 

[cpwill]

I know you hate Trump, but it's all of them.
I'm so tired of having to be "equal" with morlocks.

:shrug: I divide Trump, who is an authoritarian, from Conservatives, who are generally aghast at that kind of crap. Plenty of Republicans aren't down with a Muslim Ban, as he is. The logic for both is the same. "Some of [Item X] are involved in killing lots of people, so ban all [Item X], regardless of clear Constitutional prohibition!".

 

[Beaudreaux]

True. If you are on A List, then the 5th Amendment no longer applies to you.

Don't forget, in addition to the 5th Amendment, the 6th (the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel) and the 14th (the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause) Amendments are no longer valid if this proposal is acceptable and acted upon.

 

[americanwoman]

Just treason and terrorist threats.

My husband was put on a terrorist list after some guy with the same name popped up on a background check.

He also was charged with making terroristic threats after an altercation with a neighbor. It was dropped but still might show up on a check.

Based on those, he might lose his right to buy a gun yet he is in no way a terrorist or is radicalized in any way.

 

[cpwill]

Don't forget, in addition to the 5th Amendment, the 6th (the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel) and the 14th (the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause) Amendments are no longer valid if this proposal is acceptable and acted upon.

1. Democrats demand we deny rights to all people on watchlists
2. President Trump puts all Muslims on watchlists
3. NeverTrump dies of laughter, followed by tears, followed by alcohol-poisoning.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

:shrug: I divide Trump, who is an authoritarian, from Conservatives, who are generally aghast at that kind of crap. Plenty of Republicans aren't down with a Muslim Ban, as he is. The logic for both is the same. "Some of [Item X] are involved in killing lots of people, so ban all [Item X], regardless of clear Constitutional prohibition!".

The people who take the stage, imo are more or less alike.
Populist pandering nonsensical baboons.

Each of their fanboys lap it up like rabid dogs.
****tastic ideas like that presented here are proof positive that, no amount of "education" can fix stupid.
That democracy in action is "betters" being ruled by "lessers."

Bring on the dictatorship, at least there's less bull**** involved.

 

[cpwill]

Just treason and terrorist threats.

=/= being in the TIDE database. Senator Edward Kennedy, for example, wound up on it for a while. So did Steve Hayes, the Weekly Standard writer.

 

[cpwill]

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


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

:lamo :lamo :lamo

Way to go, NRA!!! You picked a Real Winner!!!

 

[AliHajiSheik]

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]

It would absolutely be common sense, if the watch list had a clear meaning and there was a procedure for getting off that list if there is a case of mistaken identify. You know, constitutional rights and freedoms and such.

 

[Cardinal]

View attachment 67202830

For what it's worth, I don't support the Democrats or Trump for the proposal, for the simple fact that the terrorist watch list is a piece of ****. In fact, any time you find yourself in agreement with Trump, you should consider yourself obligated to immediately re-analyze the rationale for your commonly held belief.

 

[Beaudreaux]

1. Democrats demand we deny rights to all people on watchlists
2. President Trump puts all Muslims on watchlists
3. NeverTrump dies of laughter, followed by tears, followed by alcohol-poisoning.

The actual threat to our nation, our way of life, and our future, is not Islamic Terrorists or "Assault Weapons." That both sides' extremes in this political rape fest of a Presidential election want to crush the Constitution and deny rights protected by that Constitution - THAT is the actual threat that exists, and we have people on both sides trying their best to justify it.

One wanting to do away with the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments; the other wanting to do away with the 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments as well as ignore Article One by allowing the Executive Branch to legislate by fiat.

Trump and Clinton and all their mindless supporters are using jet fuel (flammable proposals) to fight a fire that they imagine is the threat to our way of life, just feeding the death of this great country with each proposal.

 

[bubbabgone]

It seems to me if the FBI had the goods on this guy they would have tagged him as someone who couldn't pass a current background check.

This proposal by Murphy, the conflating of alleged weak gun laws with terrorism, and anything Obama & Hillary said, is grandstanding meant to distract from the fact that the murders were terrorism that the current administration has been lax in fighting.

Two related examples are DHS rules that won't allow use of words like Sharia or Jihad and our President won't use the word Islam in conjunction with terrorism, allegedly because it's counterproductive.
How's that strategy working out?

As for the FBI, I have sympathy for how they're forced to work given the atmosphere in this Administration. Maybe that was the problem

 

[cpwill]

The people who take the stage, imo are more or less alike.
Populist pandering nonsensical baboons.

Each of their fanboys lap it up like rabid dogs.
****tastic ideas like that presented here are proof positive that, no amount of "education" can fix stupid.
That democracy in action is "betters" being ruled by "lessers."

Bring on the dictatorship, at least there's less bull**** involved.

One of the few silver linings of our ongoing descent is that, as a stable-married, highly-educated, government employee, at least I and my children will be Ruling Class.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

One of the few silver linings of our ongoing descent is that, as a stable-married, highly-educated, government employee, at least I and my children will be Ruling Class.

Yea, well I'm moving to....to....****!


:shock:

 

[eohrnberger]

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.

 

[cpwill]

The actual threat to our nation, our way of life, and our future, is not Islamic Terrorists or "Assault Weapons." That both sides' extremes in this political rape fest of a Presidential election want to crush the Constitution and deny rights protected by that Constitution - THAT is the actual threat that exists, and we have people on both sides trying their best to justify it.

One wanting to do away with the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments; the other wanting to do away with the 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments as well as ignore Article One by allowing the Executive Branch to legislate by fiat.

Trump and Clinton and all their mindless supporters are using jet fuel (flammable proposals) to fight a fire that they imagine is the threat to our way of life, just feeding the death of this great country with each proposal.

Yup. Exogenous threats aren't dangerous - our own idiotic hyperemotional overreactions to them are.

I liked this, and then unliked it so I could like it again. Nail, meet hammer.

 

[cpwill]

Yea, well I'm moving to....to....****!

:shock:

Yup. Other places are more economically free, but nowhere is as free as America is supposed to be.

Again, I repeat my lonely call for requiring people to pass the citizenship exam before they are allowed to vote.

 

[Beaudreaux]

=/= being in the TIDE database. Senator Edward Kennedy, for example, wound up on it for a while. So did Steve Hayes, the Weekly Standard writer.

So did I, and I didn't find out until after I was refused boarding a commercial aircraft at TPA after leaving a meeting at MacDill and called to find out why. Still don't know why. All I was told is that I had met certain criteria. I haven't had any trouble since then. I presumed it may have had to do with places I had travelled to over the years, some of which were less than public knowledge.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Yup. Other places are more economically free, but nowhere is as free as America is supposed to be.

Again, I repeat my lonely call for requiring people to pass the citizenship exam before they are allowed to vote.

It's not a lonely call.
It just won't happen.

 

[Beaudreaux]

One of the few silver linings of our ongoing descent is that, as a stable-married, highly-educated, government employee, at least I and my children will be Ruling Class.

Okay - I gut laughed at that one. Mostly, because it's true.

 

[Zyphlin]

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]

First, "common sense" is the most nonsensical overused political propaganda buzzword of recent time.

Second, this is a pathetic attempt to rape the fresh dead bodies for every bit of emotional capital they can get out of them, considering the fact that the individual in this particular case was not on a terror watch list at the time that these weapons were actually purchased.

Are there any other constitutionally protected rights we'd like to preemptively restrict from people besides the 2nd and the 5th. Could we also bar these individuals from purchasing broadband service which would potentially allow them to communicate with their terrorists networks and/or research information relating to an attack. Can we bar them from being able to enter into a holy site where they may be gaining the inspiration for their terrorist ideologies? Shall the complaints regarding the limitations on 4th amendment protections in relation to the war on terror be silenced if the individual resides on the Terrorist Watch List? Since we've seen numerous instances of these killers recently making use of their wife in some way, shall we deny them the ability to be married? Also, do stores inform them as to why they failed their background check, alerting them to their presence on said list?

If we're saying it's common sense to keep those suspected as having some link to terrorism in some fashion from purchasing guns, does it not stand to reason that it makes sense to limit them in other ways as well.

Admittedly, there are undoubtably things on those list that some on the right are likely going "Absolutely"! To which I'd ask a similar question that if we can do that, why couldn't we ban them from buying weapons?