Susan Collins Unveils a Gun-Control Compromise : No-Fly-No-Buy

that is the House, not the Senate. Difference you know.

Usually an attorney will want something up front. The question is are you confident that you will be off the list? If you are confident, then it is no problem since you will get reimbursed anyways.

 

Not "different" at all as both vote on it to pass. How do you fight charges if the evidence against you is "classified" did you even read the "summary"? This doesnt protect due process at all.

 

Hiya, snake, getting ready for the big "Brexit" vote? No doubt in my mind that poor, confused, mislead Great Britain will decide to stay in the toilet with the European turd-nations (and nothing will make the Germans happier -- schadenfreude). Happy continued Inundation! Because it's coming like a seismic sea wave, from all over Northern Africa and the Middle East. Think: lots of cheap labor for Mr Cameron, et al....

BTW, speaking of Germany... do you know what percentage of the German population were members of the Nazi Party at the height of its power? Ten percent! Oh, but only five percent of Great Britain's population is Muslim? Then, "not to worry"! . Have a seance sometime and ask the ghost of poor, old Lee Rigby whether or not having a mere five percent of your population being Muslim made any difference in what was at one time his life. He might offer the observation that if Great Britain continues to fling its borders wide open to dangerous Muslim trash then it is surely "beheaded" in the wrong direction....

 

So you are saying a sit in in the House of Representatives is going to affect a bill being introduced in the Senate?

 

Yes... not a difficult concept.. Neither is due process but some seem bound and determined to strip us of it.

 

Then you would be wrong. Senate bills have been introduced when the Senate was in Session but not the House, and vice versa.

 

I think that's fair. Suspected terrorists should not be allowed to buy a firearm. Citizen or not, they are suspects in a war. They must be treated as such.

 

You must have like when Japanese Americans were rounded up during WWII as well.

 

Where did I say suspected terrorists are being rounded up?

Stop making up ridiculous statements. All I'm saying is suspected terrorists shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.

Some people are SO dramatic. Comparing this simple notion to Japanese slave camps.

 

OK. My mistake. No camps.

But calling denial of due process a simple notion, is just about as bad.

 

“Trump's latest comment on the topic comes after the NRA's top lobbyist told ABC News'George Stephanopoulos on Sunday that he would discourage people from carrying a concealed weapon while drinking at a club. "No one thinks that people should go into a nightclub drinking and carrying firearms," said Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "That defies common sense. It also defies the law.”, Trump Contradicts Previous Stance on Guns at Pulse Nightclub, By RYAN STRUYK, ABC News, Jun 20, 2016, 8:08 AM ET

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-guards-orlando-club-armed-clubgoers/story?id=39984788

Frankly, it is the NRA position that is now embraced by Trump that defies common sense. It would have been far better if even the drunks in Pulse had been armed.

Gun Free Zones never make any sense. Will this flip cost Trump some support? It certainly will. Enough to help Clinton? Very unlikely.

 

[h=2]Susan Collins Unveils a Gun-Control Compromise : No-Fly-No-Buy[/h]
A very good friend of mine, who is a Sheriff's deputy, was on the No Fly list for years just because of his Wife's maiden name. She had the same last name as some leader of a Columbian drug cartel. It took him years to get his name removed from this list. He actually had to prove he and his wife were not associated with the drug cartel. They were both born and raised in Tacoma, Washington.

They were assumed guilty by our government in spite of zero evidence.

 

Thats your opinion. A gun is designed to shoot a projectile efficiently and consistently. Ive never seen a gun with a human kill efficiency stamped on it anywhere.

 

When was the last time a gun killed as many people in one year as cigarettes? The answer is factually.....Never. so according to the left its ok to kill 100 kids per year as long as its not on the same day but if 10 kids are shot on the same day, its a safety issue, even though 90% more die from smokers.

 

Freedom of movement is in fact in the Constitution.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

This is a nice start on the subject. Another might be reading article 4 of the Articles of Confederation.

William O. Douglas on the issue in Kent v. Dulles:

"The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."

The Magna Carta wasn't silent on the issue either:

(41) All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too.

* (42) In future it shall be lawful for any man to leave and return to our kingdom unharmed and without fear, by land or water, preserving his allegiance to us, except in time of war, for some short period, for the common benefit of the realm. People that have been imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the land, people from a country that is at war with us, and merchants - who shall be dealt with as stated above - are excepted from this provision.

Cheers
Labour

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

 

You who hate the right to keep and bear arms can blow around all day long about this and it only makes you look like stupid sheep. This latest muslim creep who murdered those 49 people in Orlando had been investigated by the FBI no less than three times. Tell me how in hell any of this anti-gun legislation that liberal Democrats want to shove down our throats would have kept Omar Mateen from getting any weapon and ammo he wanted?

But that's not the liberal's real goal. Instead what they are pushing for night and day is to overturn the 2nd Amendment so we can all be helpless and defenseless among criminals and murderers. Do all you liberals have a death wish or what?

 

I've never seen a gun shoot out a shield either.

If cigarette deaths were also considered murder, you'd see different numbers. lol What is this?

 

Two wrongs don't make a right...

The city of Chicago already has stringent gun control laws. And the state of Illinois requires every person living here to obtain a license in order to own a firearm. How much more would you look to see?

 

Undermining due process of law is common sense? Since when?

 

A Supreme Court ruling granted such right. However, it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

 

The gun doesnt need to shoot out a shield. Its very presence will most often stop attackers in ther tracks. Bet me money I cant produce those videos. Lets see if you believe what you say. If I win i will donate your money to PF. Bet?

 

I actually think this is the start of a good compromise. I can see common sense measures being made in this compromise.

 

Appeal and be compensated.

It can if it's designed for self-defense. Since it isn't...

What is this, rinse and repeat as if we didn't just cover it? Your original claim was that guns are designed for self defense. That claim is false... they're designed for lethality, and self defense is a byproduct of said lethality.

and no... PF will not get my money lol.

 

Well, there's your mistake. Under the rule of Mordor on the Potomac, no man or woman is free.

 

Of course it does. There are no set criteria for the list. An irritated HS agent can mess up your life that easily. It does place an additional unconstitutional burden to have to prove your innocence.

- - - Updated - - -

And the right to confront your accuser?