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

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
I fly a lot. And I really hate to take my shoes off and have my hands swiped by federal agents. It's an infringement of my right not to be touched. Can we fix that too?

Sure.. dont fly.

Drive, take a bus, ride a bike, walk...

a reply to: NihilistSanta


Pssst...I own guns too *winkwink and part of the reason I'm for some stricter controls (more and mandatory training and so on) is from my very brief stint as an assistant instructor at a gun range. Some people with guns are very scary.

The trouble I have is with politics, particularly the politics of opportunism, is that I can't reconcile the hypocrisy.

And while I may or may not agree with what a lot of you have said here, some of which made me look harder, I also don't believe these people voted against the bill because of the Constitution
________________________________________
FBI Terrorist Screening

Wow so the past two terrorist shootings were still not enough for a reasonable gun law.

That is crazy and makes one think what would it actually take for any sort of action to be taken that would ensure mentally ill people do not get guns.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You really said that? Oh geez.

originally posted by: theonenonlyone
Wow so the past two terrorist shootings were still not enough for a reasonable gun law.

That is crazy and makes one think what would it actually take for any sort of action to be taken that would ensure mentally ill people do not get guns.

I promise you that terrorists will always be well armed regardless of the law. The same goes for criminals and crazies. The problem with gun control is it really only affects law-abiding citizens.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Its never a big deal to someone not on a list...

It wasnt a big deal when Nazi Germany put Jewish names on a list.
It wasnt a big deal when Stalin put political names on a list.
It wasnt a big deal when Joseph McCarthy put names of people who didnt agree with him on a list.

Lists are fine when their are constitutional protections attached.

When there is no protections attached its a bad idea.. People who get added down the road who originally thought it was a bad idea find their weak pleas for help arent heard.

Dude, I'm ON a fly list. And my parents, as you well know were holocaust survivors.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

That screening didnt work in California the last few days.

a reply to: Metallicus

Sure. The bad guys.

When guns are available they're pretty much available to everyone. Good guys, bad guys, and in-between guys.

You think the gun manufacturers really care where their weapons wind up as long as they get that payola?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ~Lucidity

That screening didnt work in California the last few days.

Now you sound like a GOP hack.

You can do better. You should know better.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

You think the lists work.

They dont.

This old "make new laws" crap, has to stop! Everytime an old "law" is broke. They want to make a "new law". Why? So it can be broken also? It's like the "civilized" have become so "civilized" and "educated", they're now stupid. How about upholding a standard of civilization? Like? If you attack me, you and your people and family, will pay? That sounds, down right "legal" to me.

a reply to: ~Lucidity
Explosives a pretty strictly regulated.

They seem to sure show up a lot with these terrorists.

What makes you think applying the same logic from an existing, failed system, to another will make things better?

a reply to: theonenonlyone

Why would we need another law to do that? Its already illegal for a person adjudicated as mentally ill or having spent time in a mental institution to purchase or possess a firearm.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

You really think people should be denied rights based on a list? People arent criminals until they break the law and only then after a court finds them guilty.

I read an article that said Senator Ted Kennedy was on the no fly list. :ROFL: but this is the list the libs want to use to deny people the free exercise of constitutional rights.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ~Lucidity

You think the lists work.

They dont.

I do?

Regardless of that, you have a better idea? And you can reconcile in your mind why we have the list? Why it hasn't been challenged?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
You think the gun manufacturers really care where their weapons wind up as long as they get that payola?

Yep, they do. They know that if enough of those guns that they manufacture wind up in the hands of criminals, the .gov is eventually going to drop the hammer on the marketplace. If that happens, they stand to lose a hell of a lot more money down the road. It is, therefore, in the industry's best interests to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

www.washingtonpost.com...


Have a nice cup of that, proponents of this stupid idea.

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Explosives a pretty strictly regulated.

They seem to sure show up a lot with these terrorists.

What makes you think applying the same logic from an existing, failed system, to another will make things better?

I think that?

Yes, they are "pretty strictly regulated." And so, if they are, why do you think they are showing up "a lot" with these terrorists? Even being strictly regulated.

I believe in an extinct level event like a Neutron Star shredding the entire planet to pieces
Permanent solutions to permanent problems is ideal at this point.


Then lists laws war fear hate love opinions finance kingship leadership work actions ideas social classes judgement consequence and punishment would be no more