It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP blocks efforts to deny guns to those on terrorist watch lists

page: 1
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   


WASHINGTON — At about the time Wednesday that two shooters under investigation for potentially having terrorist ties were gunning down people at a community center in San Bernardino, House Republicans blocked legislation that would help prevent people on U.S. terrorist watch lists from buying firearms legally.

Republicans blocked the bill again Thursday, without debate, fending off efforts by Democrats to pass the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015, sponsored by Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who had introduced the bill in February.

GOP blocks efforts to deny guns to those on terrorist watch lists


The NRA and Republicans argue that there are hundreds of thousands of people on terrorist watch lists and that a blanket ban on sales of guns and explosives to such people would be an overly broad prohibition on gun ownership. Referring to the placement of people on the terrorist watch lists, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Feinstein’s bill assumes “that the federal government never makes a mistake ... but we all know better.”


So what's up with this? They seriously said this? An overly broad prohibition?

If this doesn't tell you what their in office for, I don't know what will. They screech outta one side of their mouth about refugees fully vetted and don't pass this?



All y'all so skeert of the terrorists...grab the mic. And explain. Reconcile this ish for me. Please.

Tough Talk and a Cowardly Vote on Terrorism

The measure has been introduced repeatedly since 2007. The Government Accountability Office has documented that over years of congressional blockage, hundreds of suspected terrorists on the watchlist bought guns.<

Another bill that would have expanded background checks to gun show and online firearms sales to screen out convicted felons and the mentally ill also failed on Thursday. The four Republican senators running for president — Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham — all turned up to vote against these common-sense measures.


ETA

About 420,000 people are on the list administered by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, though only about 2 percent of those are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents legally able to buy guns. [Source]


NRA And Its GOP Stooges Block Bill To Keep Terrorists From Buying Guns

While the bill remained a nonstarter, more than 2,000 suspects on the FBI’s Terrorist Watchlist bought weapons in the U.S. over the last 11 years, according to the federal Government Accountability Office.

The GAO reported that 91% of all suspected terrorists who tried to buy guns in America walked away with the weapon they wanted over the time period, with just 190 rejected despite their ominous histories.



edit on 12/4/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



+32 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Considering the government put anyone who was former military, anyone critical of the gov, Christians and others in the group that could be considered on a watch list


I can't say I blame them


The issue isn't blocking people on it, it's that they get to make the list

Foxes guarding the henhouse


+14 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

What gets most people on a 'watch list'? Some bureaucrat hitting enter in a keyboard. Who defines terrorist? Bias institutions like the SPLC define militias with a broad stroke, bikers with a broad stroke, etc. (just like many do muslims).

This bill would effectively make it possible for a non-elected bureaucrat to deny an individual their 2nd amendment rights without due process of the law.

That might have a little something to do with folks' opposition to it.




posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
Yes, this. I'm sure there were earmarks tagging along too.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity
I can't tell your stance. Are you for or against the 2nd?

If you are for this legislation, you are potentially agreeing to give up your right to protect yourself and family because you go on ATS.


edit on 12 by Mandroid7 because: addition



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
It didint take long for people coming up with more excuses, here ill answer for you guys, its obamas, the liberals, socialist fault.


+3 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I would suggest you google "how do I get off the terrorist watch list?"!

Once your on it, they don't even have to tell you why you're on it! So much for innocent until proven guilty?

Talk about an unjust judicial system, when you find out you can't fly and yet you can't find out why?


edit on 4-12-2015 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

In my opinion it could be a bad idea to deny those people the right to by guns:


1)
You would alert them to the fact, that they are on a watch list
2)
They can still get guns, but now you will not know when they do - denying yourself knowledge of a red flag raising event

and of course:

3)
They are per definition innocent until proven guilty - can you really throw away constitutional rights based on mere suspension that they MIGHT someday do something illegal?


+6 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
It didint take long for people coming up with more excuses, here ill answer for you guys, its obamas, the liberals, socialist fault.


None of that was said, you're projecting

Legitimate concerns were proposed

Are you going to address those or just pander?



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: ~Lucidity

What gets most people on a 'watch list'? Some bureaucrat hitting enter in a keyboard. Who defines terrorist? Bias institutions like the SPLC define militias with a broad stroke, bikers with a broad stroke, etc. (just like many do muslims).

This bill would effectively make it possible for a non-elected bureaucrat to deny an individual their 2nd amendment rights without due process of the law.

That might have a little something to do with folks' opposition to it.



ETA

About 420,000 people are on the list administered by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, though only about 2 percent of those are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents legally able to buy guns. [Source]


So let the other 98% slide, eh?
edit on 12/4/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: ~Lucidity

What gets most people on a 'watch list'? Some bureaucrat hitting enter in a keyboard. Who defines terrorist? Bias institutions like the SPLC define militias with a broad stroke, bikers with a broad stroke, etc. (just like many do muslims).

This bill would effectively make it possible for a non-elected bureaucrat to deny an individual their 2nd amendment rights without due process of the law.

That might have a little something to do with folks' opposition to it.



Adding a bit more, there is no due process involved, no appeal, no oversight.

Basically anyone can be put on it for no proven reason.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
It will be on the Republicans if another terrorist attack happens using guns. The blood will be on your hands!

That's what y'all said about the liberals and how they forced that poor woman to not report the suspicious terrorists.

Goose and gander, and all that.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I actually agree with their concerns. How easy is it to be put on a government list without any indication you broke the law? Look at the no fly list. People are placed on it and then are refused information as to why and trying to fight it in court is extremely difficult.

This is not so much a slippery slope as it is a cliff.

The guns in the CA shooting were purchased legally and they werent on any list.
edit on 4-12-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
As soon as the terrorist watch list has judicial oversight, anyone on it should be excluded from gun ownership. We can't create an issue where the terrorist watch list is used as a political tool to disenfranchise us citizens.
edit on 4-12-2015 by onthedownlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Their concern...and its perfectly valid...is that people will be unjustly denied their 2nd Amendment rights and due process by landing on this 'watch list' when they shouldn't be. And last I checked, this country still operated on the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, though that may not be for much longer at the rate we're going.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Oh you, dont you change lol.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
And you never know what "other " laws they were trying to sneak through attached to this bill. You won't hear about that though. Only that the Republicans voted this part down.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: onthedownlow

These lists dont mean guilt and can be extremely damaging and dangerous to civil liberties... Restrictions without due process is just a evil as terrorism.


Joseph McCarthy anyone?
edit on 4-12-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I actually agree with their concerns. How easy is it to be put on a government list without any indication you broke the law? Look at the no fly list. People are placed on it and then are refused information as to why and trying to fight it in court is extremely difficult.

This is not so much a slippery slope as it is a cliff.

The guns in the CA shooting were purchased legally and they werent on any list.


Then fix the list. What the hell good is it otherwise?

That's not a top priority either, is it?

So what about the deal where only 2% of the list is U.S citizens? True of false?



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Its a backdoor gun grab and nothing more. The government wont fix it because its an unchecked power hiding under the guise of national security. Put a name on a list the government refuses to discuss.

Absolutely not.

I refuse to give up civil rights for false security.


The book 1984 was to serve as a warning, not a blueprint.
edit on 4-12-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join