NRA, Repubs block new law to stop suspected terrorists from buying guns

I love this thread. It's like liberals don't already know that if you don't invite the terrorists into your country, then you won't need to take away people's guns. Why do you think Obama is so anxious to bring in terrorists/refugees in from Iraq, and Syria?

 

Do you even know what the bill says?

 

Thats all they need to see is the NRA is against something. There default position is to support what the NRA is against... Lemmings...

 

The Bill gives total discretion to the Attorney General to deny gun ownership to who ever they want. Yes, the same attorney general that let Lois Lerner for the IRS Targeting scandal and Hillary Clinton off the hook for her private server housing classified material in her basement. Yea that's the jackass I want deciding who gets guns and who doesn't...

They've been trying to pass that piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) bill since 2011. Why the left trusts people like that I'll never know.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s34/text/is

 

I'm aware of 'false positives' and would be leery of the list if they didn't occur. And that changes nothing. Including my opinion on the matter. I have no intention of throwing out the baby with the bath water, as all of the right wing new-found defenders of civil liberties would like us to do to allow terrorists to openly buy guns and ammo.

 

You are leery of the list but yet you still call all those on it Terrorists.. Was Ted Kennedy a terrorist Grizz? Should his 2nd amendment rights been stripped do to an error? Say yes or you are not being consistent....

Things like

In October 2008, the Washington Post reported that Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent political activists as terrorists, and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases, with labels indicating that they were terror suspects. The protest groups were also entered as terrorist organizations. During a hearing, it was revealed that these individuals and organizations had been placed in the databases because of a surveillance operation that targeted opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war.[59]

you support.

 

Well, I'm on the verge of being a libertarian. Most of the most ardent gun rights folks I know are defenders of civil liberties. The NRA, for example, advocates for the First Amendment almost as much as for the Second Amendment. Liberties are all connected. Once we lose one, the rest are in danger.

The thing is, as you stated, most of the terrorists on the list are foreign. They aren't allowed to buy guns legally anyway. That leaves a small subset of citizens and resident aliens on the list. The thing is rights can only be taken away by due process, which you seem to want to ignore. Do you really want a system where due process is routinely ignored? Do you hate guns that much that you would rather degrade a fundamental part of the U.S. justice system?

The other thing, as I pointed out, the system doesn't just allow the terrorist watch list people to buy guns anonymously, and keep going. The NICS system in the case of the terrorist watch list folks, flags the sales and sends it to the FBI. It's not as simplistic a situation as the anti-gun people make it out to be. I think a compromise would be to still allow those on the watch list to buy guns, per federal law, but to delay the purchase to allow the FBI time for surveillance.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-127
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

 

His rights were NOT taken away. That's point one. Temporarily suspended, yes. Might it remain a problem in the future? Maybe so, and it could become a real nuisance, just like some guy with shrapnel pieces in him gets stopped and frisked every time he goes through airport security. Are his rights being infringed? I don't buy your argument.

Don't know how they are today, because they seem to have mostly merged with the fringes of the Republican Party (Tea Party types and such), but years ago I addressed the Atlanta group on issues of censorship. Didn't know hardly anything about them or their beliefs, but they were gracious enough to provide me with a fair amount of reading material. HOO-boy! Did I ever get an eye opener. Decided that, while I agreed with their general aims to a point, they simply went past what I viewed as common sense rules and obligations meant for society as a whole. I also believed they were as close to an anarchist party that we have today.

I am not ignoring the rights of anyone at all. However, there is no such thing as an absolute right, and I'm sure you know that. So if someone lands on that list, usually with good reason(s), they can step forward to say why they should not be there. Mistaken identity would, of course, be the best reason. The alternative would be to allow anyone, even those known to support terrorism, to obtain any weapon they choose. That to me would put at risk more lives. I grant you it's a fine line, and I'm not 100% sure the government might not have overstepped, but I'll accept it for the moment.

I'd rather the sales be suspended pending a hearing within a reasonable period of time.

 

So if a law is passed by congress that took away ALL your Constitutional rights, would you be fine with that?

 

Yes, Im okay with it, because this is merely a trick to get people to infringe upon the second amendment.

Obama and pals shouldnt let terrorists into our country in the first place.

 

His rights were only taken away for 3 weeks because he could call Tom Ridge directly and even then it took 3 weeks. Regular citizens dont have that option heck i even quoted Kennedy himself.

 

They don't as far as I know. However, we have our own home-grown nutcase wannabees who've grown up here who would like nothing more than to go all jihadi on innocent people. They're they ones I really worry about.

 

Who can blame the Republicans and the NRA, it was this administration that was so willing to brand anyone right of Stalin as a potential terrorist.

 

I'm sure Democrats would love to be able to summarily strip Americans of their right to keep and bear arms based on nothing more than "suspicion" of being a "terrorist" because Democrats have no respect for the law or for the liberties of the people. They are inveterate authoritarians who think every problem we have in America is the result of not enough government meddling. I honestly can't think of anything apart from abortion that Democrats think should be subject to less government control. Apparently, the only thing they consider a sacred "right" is the ability to flush human life down the toilet.

 

What makes no sense is the idea that the federal government can summarily strip people of their right to travel and/or keep/bear arms based on nothing more than a "suspicion" that they are "terrorists". Last I checked, the foundation of the common law system was a presumption of innocence and a right to speedy and public trial, not secret judgments based on the "suspicions" of government officials.

 

Those are rhetorical questions, right?

 

Oh, please. We all know you and many like you stood and cheered as Bush and Cheney stomped all over the Constitution and people's rights. They also got us into a war with no credible information upon which to base it by flat out lying to us, Congress and everybody else, yet were never punished for it.

 

He said:

Is he wrong? How do you know?

 

You cannot defend your authoritarian position so you resort to making things up. How sad.

 

home grown jihad?????

The only people on a jihad are terrorists hiding among refugees.

 

That's called "Conservative (*)(*)(*)(*)ed Up Logic 101.

 

Their travel is not being restricted, just one method of it. They are free to travel anywhere on their own two legs, or in automobiles or subways or trains or buses or boats or bicycles or horses and any of the other multiple methods of travel that don't include an airplane.

However, I do agree with you in part. There needs to be a way to challenge your name being on the list, as well as receive a reason from the government as to why you're on that list. I'm fine with restricting the air travel of folks for whom a compelling case can be made to do so.

 

Restricting "just one method" of travel is still a restriction on someone's travel. And that method is the only method of travel that allows people to travel large distances in relatively small amounts of time. Preventing people from flying is a massive hindrance in modernized, globalized economy.

Yes, and? Does that make it okay?

I'm fine with a presumption of innocence and due process of law. Anything less is tyranny.

 

The courts have consistently held that restrictions on travel and many other things can exist if a rational basis is given for them that shows the interests to the state outweigh the interests of the individual in those specific circumstances. I'm sorry, but what you're saying here is the way you'd like it to be, not the way it actually is.

It doesn't make it anything. It's just the truth of the situation. Restricting one mode of travel is not a restriction on being able to travel at all. If rational basis can be established for preventing the air travel of a specific person, it can be limited. But like I said, there does need to be a system in place to challenge your name being on the list.

So am I. Which is why I stated there needs to be a method to challenge your name being on the list.

 

just so were clear on this from the republicans:

The no-fly list isn't credible because it is to secretive, and could include people who shouldn't be on it so we can't deny them guns. But we can't allow Syrian refugees into the country because we don't know enough about them because they might use guns........


Holy schnikeys batman