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: 17
26
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Why don't you take that as homework and come back and let us know.




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
It might have to do with the fact many laws are written to make the other side look bad. Simply if you don't vote for this you support child molesters knowing that that has nothing to do with the real vote. Riders are written to screw people over.





posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: mikell


If I'm remembering right this was attached to yet the millionth attempt to kill the ACA. But I don't have time right now to look.

Clearly many people would prefer to remain paralyzed and do nothing than to at least try to do something.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

IMO, passing something so unconstitutional is worse than doing nothing. But, fear will do that to people. We need to apply FDR's WWII mindset to this tragedy.

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself" - FDR

We should not let fear cloud our judgement and make rash an knee-jerk legislation that will in the long run do more harm than good JUST to placate the fearful in our society. Now is the time to be a sheepdog, not a sheep. For the wolves are at the perimeter. We need to assess the situation rationally, and not act out of fear by further curtailing our rights. If we do that, we play right into their hands and rids the field of the sheepdogs, leaving only sheep to remain for the slaughter.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Clearly many people would prefer to remain paralyzed and do nothing than to at least try to do something.


I have no issue with 'trying something', as long as that something is the right thing for the right reasons. I'm open to this idea, but the proposals I've seen in the past had critical flaws that made them unacceptable and that need to be addressed. Someone may have posted it, but I've yet to see the actual text of what they're proposing this time around.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

They're revising it to try to reach a compromise. It will probably come up for a vote Tuesday.

An interesting side note was a nearly identical but actually do-nothing bill by, I believe Toomey (R), which had to be approved by the NRA (because they're part of our government now, dontcha know) and also simply, as I understand it, extended the waiting period by three days with no other action taken (I missed part of that report). Toomey now supports the Feinstein watchlist proposal and the Murphy-Booker-Schumer proposal to expand background checks to gun shows and Internet sales.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Why don't you take that as homework and come back and let us know.


Soooo, you are supporting this legislation and apparently have no idea how the process would work.

Gotcha.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I guess we are expected to pass it to know what is in it. I think we know how that strategy worked out last time. To the tune of billions of wasted taxpayer dollars.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

The prior GOP bill was, IMO, a step in the right direction, because it made it a two-step process. It delayed the sale for 72 hours, during which the FBI could review the case and file a court injunction to potentially block it permanently. It still needed significant work before I could have supported it. The Democrat version was unacceptably vague and broad both in terms of its application and the appeals process.

I would need to see the criteria and circumstances of applying this list to 2nd Amendment rights be clearly defined and relatively narrow in scope before I could support it, as well a guaranteed, relatively quick time frame for the government to address individual appeals.
edit on 16-6-2016 by vor78 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2016 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Not exactly the way I remember it, which is pretty much the way this article lays it out.

What’s at the Heart of the Senate Fight Over Sensible, Constitutional Gun Control?


After a 15 hour filibuster, today the Senate announced it will vote on background check and terror watch gun legislation. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s proposed legislation would ban anyone on the terrorist watch from purchasing a gun, if they are on the terrorist watch list currently, or have been in a five year period prior to the date of attempted purchase.

Republicans, on the other hand, want restrictions limited to the much smaller no-fly list. And they want the reverse of the Democrat’s procedural safety net. They don’t want a ban, they want a 72 hour waiting period, after which the buyer can purchase the gun, unless the FBI obtains a court order stopping the sale.


You think the FBI or any agency has the manpower for this? Getting court orders? That was Toomey's NRA-approved bill and it lets them slide after 72 hours which in my understanding is why so many on the watch list were able to obtain weapons last year.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

The article pretty much says the same thing. It would have imposed a 72 hour delay, during which time the FBI can petition the court to prevent the sale altogether.

Does the FBI have that kind of manpower? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. If it doesn't, I'd much rather they hire more guys to ensure that they do than see Congress pass a bad law with easy potential for misuse and abuse.

As I said the last time this thread was active, I want the same basic thing you do here. I don't want terrorist buying firearms, period. But I have serious reservations about the manner in which some of these proposals achieve that.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Yes, court orders. That is called due process....and should be a requirement to strip a citizen of their constitutional rights when on a list that requires ZERO due process. Honestly, what is so flipping difficult to understand about that???



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
This issue was explained in the first few responses to this thread. Yet, some aren't willing to accept it.

And here we are, YET AGAIN trying to beat that same dead horse.

I tell ya, the anti-gun proponents never fail at seizing opportunity after a tragedy. It's getting to be disgusting.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Yes, court orders. That is called due process....and should be a requirement to strip a citizen of their constitutional rights when on a list that requires ZERO due process. Honestly, what is so flipping difficult to understand about that???


Both bills have due process. The difference seems to be that GOP bill, if they don't hear from the FBI, lets the purchase go throught. The other does not.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Yes. I am going to be that person that says: FIX WHAT IS WRONG WITH CONGRESS AND ADDRESS CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT or I refuse to budge one more inch.

If current events were taking place under GWB, I would feel the exact same way. In fact, I loathe and decry The Patriot Act.

If current events were taking place under GWB, I would speculate that most liberals would not be cool with and trusting about today's events in Congress.


It is obvious cognitive dissonance thinking that our government us corrupt, bloated and amoral, and in the same breath expect them to fix everything for us.

Uhhh....ok?!




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Something doesn't make sense and totally pisses me off about objections to this. The narrative being put forth by Paul Ryan and others is that this could impede investigations into terror suspects by thwarting the terrorist from following through on the plot.

Yeah!? SOOOOO?

I'm sure the families of the 49 dead people in Orlando would much rather an investigation was botched and Mateen be alerted that the Feds were on to him, than for him to follow through with it.

If we can't be assured that once a watch listed person purchases the guns, they will be stopped before causing terror, mayhem and death, then screw the Feds investigative process. Maybe we NEED to let these extremists know that we know what they are up to. Maybe they will feel less emboldened.

The investigative/surveillance system is flawed if someone like Omar Mateen can still get guns after being under investigation three times and surveillance via informant. And if the "investigative process" is the argument people want to cling to in order to block this loophole closure, then that's failed logic as Mateen's investigation was an abject failure and we don't know much more about Mateen's radical contacts or network post Orlando than we did if he had never bought the guns. Letting him "follow through" didn't get us a damn thing but dead people.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chickensalad
This issue was explained in the first few responses to this thread. Yet, some aren't willing to accept it.

And here we are, YET AGAIN trying to beat that same dead horse.

I tell ya, the anti-gun proponents never fail at seizing opportunity after a tragedy. It's getting to be disgusting.


Yeah because we should do nothing but stay silent until the next tragedy and then think and pray again.

The term anti-gun people is entirely disingenuous. Fully 70% or more of gun owners support sane controls and things like national databases, not allowing purchases to those one no fly lists, and education and licensing based on demonstrated proficiency.

Speaking of these loopholes, nibble on this for a minute.

The Next Dylann Roof Can Still Buy a Gun



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Why don't you take that as homework and come back and let us know.


Soooo, you are supporting this legislation and apparently have no idea how the process would work.

Gotcha.


No. I just don't have the time to explain this to you. And i don't enjoy conversing with you. You seem to be baiting and very ignorant about the subject so I really don't know where to even start with you.

You fear or mistrust the government. You want to fix that never before taking any steps to fix immediate problems. So we have nothing further to discuss, you and I.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Oh! You found a poll!

Here's another More Americans Oppose Stricter Gun Control

News flash! Did you know that a myriad of known and convicted criminals across various cities can still buy guns?


I guess we better pass some legislation to keep that from happening.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

And????? SO, you are in favor of stripping the citizen of their constitutionally protected rights as a side-effect because it might take too long to process? So, expediency over rights? That is acceptable to you?

No thanks. You might be willing to give up your rights that fast, I, however am not.




top topics



 
26
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join