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: 15
26
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Someone posted this before, I want you all to note the difference, yes he stabbed three people seriously injuring one, but what he lacked was a mass of guns, not saying he couldn't have gotten them from somewhere but it was difficult for him to do so, in the end no one died not even him, In the San Bernardino 14 people killed in Colorado 3 killed , so I have to wonder why the difference.




posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

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?



Did you even read that second quote? Those other 98% CANNOT EVEN BUY GUNS ANYWAY. So literally, by design, this law is only going to affect Americans who have legal access to guns.

After that, the main problem lies with the fact that Obama is in charge of who is put on a watch list. Given his way, millions upon millions would be placed.

Cold. Dead. hands
edit on 8-12-2015 by chuck258 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: chuck258
Yes they can. In many states.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Not legally. If they're foreign nationals, they're prohibited from purchasing a firearm. By the same token, its also illegal for a private American citizen to sell one to them.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
There are some loopholes.

I will see if I can find them again later. On phone e now. Not conducive to searching

ETA: My point earlier/all along though was that if someone is on the list and already here but still using their real name they maybe should be checked harder and that someone on the list can be prevented from getting i to the country period.
edit on 12/8/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)


(post by Indigo5 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

You're right, there is one exception. If a person has legally established a permanent residence on a green card and has been living in the US for a certain period of time, they can. That may well be a policy that needs to be re-examined given the overall state of affairs in the world these days.
edit on 8-12-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Thanks. That is one. There are a few others and some are related to hunting licenses I think and there may be one more, plus these can all vary by state.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

The thing is, we're generally in agreement on the basic idea here. I just need to see more work on the legislative side to ensure that the process is fair, Constitutional and minimizes the potential for abuse before I can get on board.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
After yet another tragedy, glad they're finally taking some steps (as feeble as they will prove to be) on this, to revive this.

They are hardly trying to take your guns either. They are putting controls in place. Sort of, like, you know, the kind of controls used when you, oh, say, can legally drive a car. Actually this is still less than is needed to drive a car.

Mandatory education and proof of proficiency and knowledge should be added to this in my opinion.


Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy led a group of his Democratic colleagues in a filibuster Wednesday morning in an attempt to force votes on two gun control measures in the wake of the Orlando shooting. Murphy is seeking up and down votes on two bipartisan measures.

One would ban those on the FBI’s terrorism watch list from purchasing firearms or explosives, a measure that might have prevented the weekend tragedy at a gay nightclub, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, as the shooter Omar Mateen, had been on the FBI watch list at one time.

The second measure would close the so-called Charleston loophole in background checks, fully funding three-day background checks to ensure felons and drug users are not purchasing weapons. That bill would have prevented convicted drug user Dylann Roof from buying the gun he allegedly used to shoot nine people to death in a Charleston church a year ago Friday. [Source]


Both should have passed long ago.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
"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."


As of now. I tried to find how this list is compiled and updated. Do you know?

It sounds like it's possible that every single innocent person debating on ATS might find themselves on the list, at some point...if participating in government conspiracy forums becomes a 'criteria' down the road (and if it isn't already a criteria now).

And that is not far-fetched given the political/media climate regarding 'conspiracy theorists.'


edit on 15-6-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

As mentioned in this thread...multiple times...if the list is flawed then make part of this fixing that too.

And remember. The Orlando shooter was on one of more of the lists (per the FBI) for a time and removed. But this is in my opinion a flaw in someone's narrative.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: MotherMayEye

As mentioned in this thread...multiple times...if the list is flawed then make part of this fixing that too.



No, the list-compiling issues need to be fixed first. No innocent person who intends to remain innocent should be deprived of rights without due process.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
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.



And this wasn't an issue before? Why?

What about people wanting/needing to travel? What about people needing to visit sick/dying loved ones but are unable to do so because they're on a "no fly" or "watchlist"?

That's an immediate hampering of rights, vs. gun ownership. Not being able to say goodbye to your dying parents vs. a shiny new AR-15?

All of a sudden NOW these lists are a big darn deal, but never were a problem for anyone before. What a shame. What a shame indeed.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

How about at the same time? Geez.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: MotherMayEye

How about at the same time? Geez.


No. People would need to consent to the forfeiture of their rights and many people do not. No person should be deprived of rights without due process or consent.

The 'fixing' of the list issue needs to be resolved BEFORE any rights are infringed. If some innocent people on the list want to consent to the forfeiture of their rights, then that's fine. But Congress shall make no law infringing on people's rights without due process.

Fix the list-compiling...if it can be fixed and still be Constitutional. No one has the right to demand that others simply forfeit their rights in a rush to find a solution.

Especially when those benefitting most from these mass-shootings have yet to be formally and thoroughly investigated as suspects AND are the same people trying to push this legislation through.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I'm on the list. I was told it was because I have immunizations to CDC controlled agents and I use a nickname on some documents, not my formal given name. Therefore I could make bio-weapons and I'm willing to use a false identity.

So therefore, because of some bean-counter's criteria I could be refused a firearm if the list were the criteria.

I don't want bad guys to have guns. I also do not want un-elected, non-accountable bureaucrats to have any say over my unalienable rights.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Wow...how did you find out?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
The mentality of the American people has become childlike.

They want to do this, do that, stop this, stop that without making sacrifices.

The fact is we may have to sacrifice something to eliminate something else

It’s just the law of life. We teach it to children all the time but we grown ups won't practice it ourselves

American may have to sacrifice some of their rights to stop something.

The liberals may have to accept less privacy

The conservatives some gun rights

If you don’t do this these issues WILL NOT BE SOLVED

It’s just that simple



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join