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: 4
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
If they're a U.S. citizen and they're on a terrorist watchlist, then there's probably a reason. Also see above.

I wasn't the one complaining.


Then they can abide by the constitution and file charges in a court of law and let the courts decide. I refuse to accept the cowardly line than just because someones on a list there is probably a reason. That argument is also a backdoor gun grab.

Yes you did complain - page 1.

I refuse to allow your ignorance and fear to justify further erosions of the constitution.




posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
If they're a U.S. citizen and they're on a terrorist watchlist, then there's probably a reason. Also see above.

I wasn't the one complaining.


Then they can abide by the constitution and file charges in a court of law and let the courts decide. I refuse to accept the cowardly line than just because someones on a list there is probably a reason. That argument is also a backdoor gun grab.

Yes you did complain - page 1.

I refuse to allow your ignorance and fear to justify further erosions of the constitution.


I don't see how it's cowardly to put safeguards like this in place.

I complained that the watchlist was inaccurate? I most assuredly did not.



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?

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



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: ketsuko

Might stop the next one. Or the one that gets you.


Yes I'm sure a person hell bent on murdering lots of people will be stopped by a law.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Nope. Just pointing out a bit of cognitive dissonance amongst our illustrious representatives who speak with forked tongue in comparing their stances on the two issues.


Seems to me that you're the opposite side of the same coin.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Oh. Like an enigma?



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Safeguards are in place - You must be a US citizen to buy a gun. You yourself pointed out only 2% of people on the list are citizens so explain to me how this list is a safeguard? How does a name on a list justify denial of constitutional rights? The courts are constitutionally required to sit in judgment and punishment and not the lawmakers.

2% of the list now.. I wonder what that percentage would become once we endorse a McCarthy tactic?

I wish people would stop giving up their rights because the government says boo.

You want added safeguards move to a country that bans firearms. I refuse to allow people with your mindset to deny rights based on ignorance and fear.


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



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

They're saying its OK to strip one group of their rights based on suspicion. Guess what? So are you.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
double post
edit on 4-12-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   

“People can’t get on planes but those same people who we don’t allow to fly could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm and there’s nothing that we can do to stop them,” Obama said in an interview with CBS News. “That’s a law that needs to be changed.” national.suntimes.com...



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: ~Lucidity

They're saying its OK to strip one group of their rights based on suspicion. Guess what? So are you.


If the suspicion is unfounded they'll have their gun with a slight delay.

If it's founded, then it's a win.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

A backdoor gun grab.

Obama is going to keep trying to destroy the constitution and is not going to like the response if his goons try to take guns away by bypassing the courts.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: ~Lucidity

They're saying its OK to strip one group of their rights based on suspicion. Guess what? So are you.


See above.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Lol. We trampled one right, now people are bitching about us trying to trample another. We need to change the law.

2nd.
edit on 4-12-2015 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ~Lucidity

A backdoor gun grab.

Obama is going to keep trying to destroy the constitution and is not going to like the response if his goons try to take guns away by bypassing the courts.


He''s gotta lotta guns to "grab" and less than a year to do it. Hmmm....



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

It wouldn't stop anything. Do you live in such fear? Are you so complacent, that you strut out your/the door, thinking, "I pay people to "protect" my worthless hide"? So what you're saying, is Americans can't trust YOU with a gun?



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

It wouldn't stop anything. Do you live in such fear? Are you so complacent, that you strut out your/the door, thinking, "I pay people to "protect" my worthless hide"? So what you're saying, is Americans can't trust YOU with a gun?



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Good. Good. i feel your anger (OP.) But you need to consider that there are several reporters and some politicians on that damned watch list. do you think that they should have their right to protect themselves denied because they got put on a list that has very little means of redress if errors are made? That list is a mess and without a means of effective redress/appeal this denial of constitutional rights is ill advised.
edit on 4-12-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Can you guarantee that they'll have their firearm with only a 'slight delay'? No, you can't. And if the suspicion is unfounded, why should they suffer a delay to begin with?

Again, all we're asking for here is a transparent system and proper and expedient due process. I don't know why that's such a problem, but its something we clearly don't have right now in this regard.
edit on 4-12-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
So terrorist watchlists are a bad idea?

We should just let anyone into the country or get on planes bound for it if they have a vaild passport?



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

No its not... Why are you so eager to destroy due process? People like you support these insane government paranoid erosion of rights.. I cant wait till you end up on a list and arent told why while being punished with no due process or the ability of redress of grievances.

It is a slippery slope argument and you are freely jumping off the cliff via fear and ignorance.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join