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

At first I thought there was a mistake in the wording of the title. (seriously) Now I only wish there was a mistake.

People who are so scary they can't fly on our airliners, yet they can buy guns. ????

In what universe does this make sense? Idiocracy?

Congress has gone psycho, boarded the crazy train, ready for the funny farm, however you want to call it.
The photo of the guy from NRA passing the check to Congress is probably as good an explanation as any.

these CA terrorists were not on any no fly list. they would not have been prevented from getting any guns by no fly list gun bans.

The no fly list contains thousands of americans who are on it in error with no due process. Kennedy was on and it took him weeks to get off and if anyone thought he was a terrorist they are idiots. there are people whose legitimate travel itineraries or their name itself gets them on there. and there are some on there for political reasons do we want the same govt that went after political groups with the IRS to be able to prevent people from getting guns on a list that the selection criterion process and redress systems are national secrets. the idea is stupid and no matter how many libs jump up and down screaming for it; it will not happen.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
these CA terrorists were not on any no fly list. they would not have been prevented from getting any guns by no fly list gun bans.

The no fly list contains thousands of americans who are on it in error with no due process. Kennedy was on and it took him weeks to get off and if anyone thought he was a terrorist they are idiots. there are people whose legitimate travel itineraries or their name itself gets them on there. and there are some on there for political reasons do we want the same govt that went after political groups with the IRS to be able to prevent people from getting guns on a list that the selection criterion process and redress systems are national secrets. the idea is stupid and no matter how many libs jump up and down screaming for it; it will not happen.

It is a nudge toward the end game. Don't fall for it. Let your congressman know that blanket denial because you are on a
no-fly list is unacceptable. If that list says Known Radical Islamic Muslim, then we can talk.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

But others are.

Paranoid fears of having our guns taking away can't live together in some heads with the idea of fears of the terrorists you think you need your guns for even if that means they can get the guns as easily and hell probably more easily than you can.

I swear the sresistance to even the possibility of a compromise, for which the legislation on the no-fly list was a good step, here is borering on childish.

A compromise means working out a system that is acceptable to all. But that means you might have to give a little from both sides. Digging your heels in and plugging your ears and humming the same old tunes is nothing but, again, childish and useless.

People seem to love the complain about what's wrong but not want to work toward solutions we all can live with. What's the point in that?

They want what they want and don't want to give an inch.

Sorry but you can't have it both ways. There has to be some sacrifice and some cooperation and compromise at some point. And if we don't do it ourselves it'll be done for us.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
these CA terrorists were not on any no fly list. they would not have been prevented from getting any guns by no fly list gun bans.

The no fly list contains thousands of americans who are on it in error with no due process. Kennedy was on and it took him weeks to get off and if anyone thought he was a terrorist they are idiots. there are people whose legitimate travel itineraries or their name itself gets them on there. and there are some on there for political reasons do we want the same govt that went after political groups with the IRS to be able to prevent people from getting guns on a list that the selection criterion process and redress systems are national secrets. the idea is stupid and no matter how many libs jump up and down screaming for it; it will not happen.

It is a nudge toward the end game. Don't fall for it. Let your congressman know that blanket denial because you are on a
no-fly list is unacceptable. If that list says Known Radical Islamic Muslim, then we can talk.

So what's your solution?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
these CA terrorists were not on any no fly list. they would not have been prevented from getting any guns by no fly list gun bans.

The no fly list contains thousands of americans who are on it in error with no due process. Kennedy was on and it took him weeks to get off and if anyone thought he was a terrorist they are idiots. there are people whose legitimate travel itineraries or their name itself gets them on there. and there are some on there for political reasons do we want the same govt that went after political groups with the IRS to be able to prevent people from getting guns on a list that the selection criterion process and redress systems are national secrets. the idea is stupid and no matter how many libs jump up and down screaming for it; it will not happen.

It is a nudge toward the end game. Don't fall for it. Let your congressman know that blanket denial because you are on a
no-fly list is unacceptable. If that list says Known Radical Islamic Muslim, then we can talk.

So what's your solution?

She just told you!

Limit it to Muslims and it will immediately garner every Republican vote in Congress.

Go figure!

Yesterday in this very thread, I stated that the only way Republicans would pass any new gun restrictions would be if they were limited to Muslims and someone said I was just trying to inject racism into the discussion.

I knew the ugly truth would raise it's head before this thread was over and I'd bet good money that it's just a matter of time, (and a short one at that) before Republicans in Congress make just such a proposal.

a reply to: Flatfish

Oh. Brilliant.

And we determine who Muslims are how?

A religion test?

What?

72 Department of Homeland Security employees on terrorist no fly list.
freebeacon.com...

A federal judge has already ruled the no fly list is Unconstitutional.
www.reuters.com...
reason.com...

The GOP was only right to vote against a Unconstitutional list being used.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: stormbringer1701

But others are.

Paranoid fears of having our guns taking away can't live together in some heads with the idea of fears of the terrorists you think you need your guns for even if that means they can get the guns as easily and hell probably more easily than you can.

I swear the sresistance to even the possibility of a compromise, for which the legislation on the no-fly list was a good step, here is borering on childish.

A compromise means working out a system that is acceptable to all. But that means you might have to give a little from both sides. Digging your heels in and plugging your ears and humming the same old tunes is nothing but, again, childish and useless.

People seem to love the complain about what's wrong but not want to work toward solutions we all can live with. What's the point in that?

They want what they want and don't want to give an inch.

Sorry but you can't have it both ways. There has to be some sacrifice and some cooperation and compromise at some point. And if we don't do it ourselves it'll be done for us.

compromise on a terrible idea is foolish. here's a thought experiment. someone hands you a glass full of dissolved anthrax culture. he insist you drink the whole thing. you want to compromise and agree to only drink half of it. what happens? how does this serve the good? Moral: compromise is not always a good thing. with libs it is almost never a good thing because nearly all of their ideas are akin to drinking anthrax.

so they want a new law restricting constitutional rights that has nothing to do with the situation at hand. these terrorists were not on a no fly list. they would still be able to get guns .and even if by some miracle they came up with a law which would have prevented them from getting the guns they did they would have still gotten guns via other means.

originally posted by: ANNED
72 Department of Homeland Security employees on terrorist no fly list.
freebeacon.com...

A federal judge has already ruled the no fly list is Unconstitutional.
www.reuters.com...
reason.com...

The GOP was only right to vote against a Unconstitutional list being used.

So make part of the compromise to clean that list up. And as has been mentioned numerous times in this thread a lot of that data is based on old news. It's been cleaned up and is being cleaned up more as we speak.

I'm on the extended no-fly list for two extended-family reasons. So what? They explained it and we cleared it up. And I still get pulled to the side half the time, but I understand why.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Flatfish

Oh. Brilliant.

And we determine who Muslims are how?

A religion test?

What?

Oh that one's easy.

They're brown skinned, they have beards, they wear funny hats and if they belong to ISIS, they wear black.

When the CA attack first took place, my right-wing brother called and told me he new without a doubt that the attackers were ISIS because they were wearing black.

I told him that umpires and judges wear black too, but he could care less.

This is fixing to get really weird, really fast.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
these CA terrorists were not on any no fly list. they would not have been prevented from getting any guns by no fly list gun bans.

The no fly list contains thousands of americans who are on it in error with no due process. Kennedy was on and it took him weeks to get off and if anyone thought he was a terrorist they are idiots. there are people whose legitimate travel itineraries or their name itself gets them on there. and there are some on there for political reasons do we want the same govt that went after political groups with the IRS to be able to prevent people from getting guns on a list that the selection criterion process and redress systems are national secrets. the idea is stupid and no matter how many libs jump up and down screaming for it; it will not happen.

It is a nudge toward the end game. Don't fall for it. Let your congressman know that blanket denial because you are on a
no-fly list is unacceptable. If that list says Known Radical Islamic Muslim, then we can talk.

So what's your solution?

She just told you!

Limit it to Muslims and it will immediately garner every Republican vote in Congress.

Go figure!

Yesterday in this very thread, I stated that the only way Republicans would pass any new gun restrictions would be if they were limited to Muslims and someone said I was just trying to inject racism into the discussion.

I knew the ugly truth would raise it's head before this thread was over and I'd bet good money that it's just a matter of time, (and a short one at that) before Republicans in Congress make just such a proposal.

Tsk Tsk! Shame on you. I did not say limit it to muslims. I said IF....IF...there was a list that said Known Radical Islamic Muslim, then we might TALK about a list. Big Big difference, Silly.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

So dig your heels in, cower in your fear of Muslims and of government and of a police state, and shake your fist and get irate and refuse to even discuss the subject with any viable alternatives.

Compromise is the adult thing to do.

Compromise is things like putting a time limit on it and seeing how it goes. If your fears are unfounded good. If there are issues, fix them.

Compromise is as I mentioned above fixing the list if the list has issues.

Compromise is saying yeah okay maybe we can limit the sale of X and Y but not Z.

It's a fluid thing, not a static we can never go back from it situation. Not if it's done right.

Did i mention it isn't going to happen? no how no way. Not by executive order and certainly not through congress.

a reply to: Flatfish

You're being sarcastic

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
Did i mention it isn't going to happen? no how no way. Not by executive order and certainly not through congress.

And your ideas for a solution?

On the one hand we have the issue of potential terrorists in our country. On the other hand we have a whole band of people willing to allow them access to weapons because they're not willing to give an inch. Lose-lose.

What's your win-win?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: stormbringer1701

So dig your heels in, cower in your fear of Muslims and of government and of a police state, and shake your fist and get irate and refuse to even discuss the subject with any viable alternatives.

Compromise is the adult thing to do.

Compromise is things like putting a time limit on it and seeing how it goes. If your fears are unfounded good. If there are issues, fix them.

Compromise is as I mentioned above fixing the list if the list has issues.


Compromise is saying yeah okay maybe we can limit the sale of X and Y but not Z.

It's a fluid thing, not a static we can never go back from it situation. Not if it's done right.

I have a sandwich made out of actual crap. you must eat it. ok go ahead and compromise with me on that.

Compromise is always good; right? bon appetite.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: stormbringer1701

So dig your heels in, cower in your fear of Muslims and of government and of a police state, and shake your fist and get irate and refuse to even discuss the subject with any viable alternatives.

Compromise is the adult thing to do.

Compromise is things like putting a time limit on it and seeing how it goes. If your fears are unfounded good. If there are issues, fix them.

Compromise is as I mentioned above fixing the list if the list has issues.


Compromise is saying yeah okay maybe we can limit the sale of X and Y but not Z.

It's a fluid thing, not a static we can never go back from it situation. Not if it's done right.

I have a sandwich made out of actual crap. you must eat it. ok go ahead and compromise with me on that.

Compromise is always good; right? bon appetite.

Too bad a society is made up of more than just you and people who think exactly like you, eh? Maybe you should go live in the desert or the hills. Away from all this. With your guns. Because you don't appear to trust anybody or anything or be able to have an adult conversation.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
these CA terrorists were not on any no fly list. they would not have been prevented from getting any guns by no fly list gun bans.

The no fly list contains thousands of americans who are on it in error with no due process. Kennedy was on and it took him weeks to get off and if anyone thought he was a terrorist they are idiots. there are people whose legitimate travel itineraries or their name itself gets them on there. and there are some on there for political reasons do we want the same govt that went after political groups with the IRS to be able to prevent people from getting guns on a list that the selection criterion process and redress systems are national secrets. the idea is stupid and no matter how many libs jump up and down screaming for it; it will not happen.

It is a nudge toward the end game. Don't fall for it. Let your congressman know that blanket denial because you are on a
no-fly list is unacceptable. If that list says Known Radical Islamic Muslim, then we can talk.

So what's your solution?

She just told you!

Limit it to Muslims and it will immediately garner every Republican vote in Congress.

Go figure!

Yesterday in this very thread, I stated that the only way Republicans would pass any new gun restrictions would be if they were limited to Muslims and someone said I was just trying to inject racism into the discussion.

I knew the ugly truth would raise it's head before this thread was over and I'd bet good money that it's just a matter of time, (and a short one at that) before Republicans in Congress make just such a proposal.

Tsk Tsk! Shame on you. I did not say limit it to muslims. I said IF....IF...there was a list that said Known Radical Islamic Muslim, then we might TALK about a list. Big Big difference, Silly.

If there's such a big difference, why not just limit the wording to "known radical?"

Why include "Islamic Muslim?"

What do I care what religion the "known radical" aspires to?

Was the Carolina church shooter Islamic or Muslim?

Was the Sandy Hook school shooter Islamic or Muslim?

You may disagree, but I think I pretty much hit the nail squarely on the head.