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

Yes. He is wrong. There has been not the first Democratic piece of legislation introduced to "summarily strip Americans of their right to keep and bear arms". Also, because right wingers are totally unable to read minds, including mine, proven many times over on this board.

None of the terrorists in France were hidden among the refugees. Most, maybe all, of our local jihadis are all home-grown products.

Wanna bet neither one of them goes to Europe any time soon? Know why? Didn't think so.

 

Nailed it!

 

Well, no, its not that simple as the media would have you believe. There are approximately 1 million on the terror watch list. Do you know the criteria? Did you know Senator Teddy Kennedy was once stopped because he was on a terror watch list? Do you know how people get on the watch list? Do you know how one would go about getting off in the event you were erroneously placed on the list?

Did you know the gun grabbers lied about plastic guns that were undetectible by airport metal detectors? Did you know they lied about "cop killer bullets" they wanted to ban? Did you know they lie, lie, and lie to disguise their agenda? I don't think I want the same government that used the IRS to target and punish Obama's political opponents (you know, one of the reasons Nixon was impeached) to be denying citizens rights over placement on a list for which there are such arbitrary reasons for inclusion, secrecy, and no real process for removal.

Maybe you want such a list.

Here is a commentary on the facts of the case. A relevant paragraph is below. http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/23/sorry-democrats-but-there-is-no-loophole-that-allows-terrorists-to-buy-guns/

- - - Updated - - -

Um, you are praising a non-sequitur.

 

Actually, what I'm saying is that a restriction on someone's ability to fly is, by definition, a restriction on their travel rights. The fact that they have other means of travel does not change that fact.

And of course I'm talking about how things should be as opposed to how they are. Talking about how things should be is a common theme in political discussions. Restricting discussions to how things are is just a futile exercise in pointing out the obvious.

It's called a "speedy and public trial", otherwise known as "due process of law". Apparently, you think the government is justified in circumventing the clear intent of the law if they simply cook up some kind of sophistic, semantic rationale for it.

How can you be in favor of the presumption of innocence and due process of law when you favor stripping people of their rights based on nothing more than suspicions absent a speedy and public trial?

 

What are you blathering about now? You accused me of being a Bush supporter, so where is your evidence for that? Or do you think it's appropriate to make baseless accusations with nothing to substantiate them?

 

A process that can take years to resolve, if at all. At least one judge has declared the system as is to be unconstitutional because there is no due process involved, and no way for those affected to even find out why they are being affected.

Then perhaps it is time for you to answer another question. If these individuals on the watch lists are truly so dangerous that they cannot be allowed to fly, and should be be allowed to own a firearm, why is there absolutely no effort being made to round them up, and take them out of society where they can do the most damage? Why is someone who is too dangerous to be allowed to travel in an airplane, but not dangerous enough to arrest and convict them of some crime?

 

Terrorist ringleader got into EU as 'refugee'......Thousands of jihadists not being monitored

Do you ever grow weary of being wrong?

 

So let's parse this out.

Republicans don't want Syrian refugees to be allowed into the country because it's too easy for them to buy guns...

And those same Republicans don't want any restriction on the ability of people who are suspected of being terrorists to buy guns...

And we are to understand that only THOSE people should be restricted from the easy access to guns in this country because NO ON ELSE is a danger?



That hurts my head...

 

If the White House could make the no fly list a means of gun control , then the list would be in the 100,000,000's .

 

Again...you don't want refugees here because of the easy access to guns...but you defend that same easy access to guns as if THOSE are the only people who would misuse them...

My head still hurts.

 

Go back to the clouds.

 

Thanks for saying nothing

 

strict gun control certainly did not seem to stop the terrorists in France. Stupid libs still think that just passing a LAW will keep people from acting

 

Really?
Tell me about the DC gun laws before the SCotUS overturned them.

- - - Updated - - -

Straw, man.
Thanks for playing.

 

A lower court found sections of gun laws on concealed carry to be unconstitutional, however, they also still allow these provisions to stand:

Firearms also still cannot be carried in the District in schools, hospitals, government buildings, public transportation vehicles, establishments that serve alcohol, stadiums or arenas, or within 1,000 feet of a dignitary under police protection.

And you still need a permit.

 

Maybe because the key word is " suspicion "

You should not be limiting people from flying or exercising their rights based on suspicion.

In this case you have proven that the NRA is fighting the good fight protecting civil rights from government overreach. In this case the right to due process.

 

Yeah I am okay with it. We don't restrict people's second amendments rights based on what they might do. That is against the constitution.

 

A terrible analogy. One group are not citizens one group are. They have different rights by law.

 

Even now, the NRA is inserting provisions in a GOP led bill on mental health that would automatically allow patients dischared from a mental institution after being involuntarily committed to buy guns.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/mental-health-gun-control-nra-216221

 

None of this has anything to do with the DC guns laws -before- they were overturned by the SCotUS.
Before then, those gun laws, introduced by Democrats, stripped Americans of their right to keep and bear arms.
This is, of course, why they were overturned.

 

"Gun control activists say Cornyn's language allows for patients’ gun rights to be restored immediately upon their release from involuntary treatment. In addition, they say it narrows the definition of who is actually prohibited from buying a gun."
Of course they do.
Where's the text of the bill that states this?

 

Disclaimer: I haven't really researched this issue.

That said, this would seem to be a by-product of "due process". In order to be stripped of the right to purchase and own a weapon, due process of law must have occurred. As I understand it, what it takes to get on a "no-fly" list does not count. That, of course, brings up the question of whether or not the "no fly" lists are themselves Constitutional, but perhaps we should stick to one subject at a time.

 

If the hospital discharges them are they not capable? Why would you want to punish those seeking help?

 

Why did they say they opposed it? Are you really trying to assert they did so because they want terrorist to buy guns? Please quote them saying this.

 

I'm guessing the AG putting you on a list with no due process would be a good reason...