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

What do you make of this?

Republican senators first voted in favor of a half-measure that would allow the Department of Justice to issue an injunction against someone on the terror watch list within 72 hours of their attempt to purchase a gun. If that injunction doesn't go through, the sale goes forward, however. That amendment passed with just one Democratic supporter and one Republican voting against it.

Minutes later, most Republicans stood together to block resurrecting earlier legislation to improve the background check process. All four Republican senators running for president — Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — voted against it. www.nydailynews.com...

Also, tomorrow's New York Times is going editorial on it's front page about the gun epidemic. That should be interesting. www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: Tardacus

The fact its aimed at US citizens and not foreign nationals considering foreign nationals cant lawfully obtain a weapon, regardless of their passport / visa standing.

Why try to pass a law to do something that federal and state law already do?

Because its directed at US citizens. The current gun laws require due process for someone accused of violating them. It requires charges and a court hearing. This bill eliminates due process and the courts by virtue of your (or a name close to yours) going on a "watch list".

I have dealt first hand with these lists and it was an absolute cluster. Why? Because the person shared the same dob as a terrorist from N. Africa - nothing else. I had to call a number (my dispatch couldnt do it) and was told I couldn't disclose any info to the person I was dealing with.

This legislation is a bad idea.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

If I'm reading it right, the 'half-measure' that was proposed was more reasonable, providing for a crosscheck by forcing the DOJ to successfully file an injunction in order to stop it. Its still problematic, though, for the same reasons mentioned earlier.

As for the NYT editorial, I'm sure it'll do a fine job of preaching to the choir. Under the circumstances, though, they're not doing their position any favors, either in terms of public opinion or helping lower tier Democrats in competitive races next year.

a reply to: vor78

Oh. Thanks. That makes sense, I guess. Sort of sounded the same to me. But that blurb was a bit confusing as to what they voted for and then against. I also heard somewhere that the vote went down during or very close to the time of the shooting in SB...not sure that's true...and wondered if that had anything to do with it? Anyhow, so did they approve a bill or not based on thsi?

And there's already a thread on the New York Times thing too.

I am not on the terrorist watch list, but I do know that I am on a cautionary list. I have been told as much by one helpful baggage claim clerk at my local airport. I have immunizations to several select agents listed by the CDC, I use a nickname on several identifying documents instead the legal name on my birth certificate, and I have student loan debt.

Therefore some beancounter thinks there is a chance I might make a bioweapon for money and travel under a pseudonym to 'deliver the package'.

Yeah, I support what the GOP did.

First they say there's no such thing as 'terrorists'.

Then they say 'Oh damn them evil GOP for blocking.'

THEN they say don't worry bout terrorists. The climate is out to git us.

Then turns arounds and arms 'freedom' fighters in Syria,

Before that they were arming AQ.

Apparently the only people that can arm 'terrorists' is the US government.

So how bout we put them on a 'watch' list, and deny them weapons?


American politics sucks.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I am not on the terrorist watch list, but I do know that I am on a cautionary list. I have been told as much by one helpful baggage claim clerk at my local airport. I have immunizations to several select agents listed by the CDC, I use a nickname on several identifying documents instead the legal name on my birth certificate, and I have student loan debt.

Therefore some beancounter thinks there is a chance I might make a bioweapon for money and travel under a pseudonym to 'deliver the package'.

Yeah, I support what the GOP did.

i'm on the same list. i flew a lot of one way trips by myself when i was in college, from '99-'03. note that 9/11 fell right i the middle of those years. so my flight history alone gets me singled out for additional screening EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. i get on a plane. so i quit flying. road trips are more fun anyway.

the fbi isn't the only agency that keeps a terror watch list. lots of qgencies keep many lists and it's hard to reconcile them because they all have different criteria. here's some criteria that the government uses to put you on one of their lists (which list? depends on which agency finds out, i guess. )

weird flight patterns like mine
membership in "extremist" groups like peta, grass roots environmental movements, groups who engage in nonviolent protest, similar groups on the right side of the political spectrum (the government has a long history of spying on the left, but it actually regards the far right as more dangerous... possibly because they have sligtly more violent crazies than the left... the left has a few, too.)

stockpiling 3 days worth of food and water (seriously. that's considered dangerous for some reason. so every camper ever is a potential terrorist. wtf??)

do some research. the government watch lists and spy programs are so pervasive that they are totally ineffectual. they're too busy frisking grandma at the airport to find a real threat.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I am not on the terrorist watch list, but I do know that I am on a cautionary list. I have been told as much by one helpful baggage claim clerk at my local airport. I have immunizations to several select agents listed by the CDC, I use a nickname on several identifying documents instead the legal name on my birth certificate, and I have student loan debt.

Therefore some beancounter thinks there is a chance I might make a bioweapon for money and travel under a pseudonym to 'deliver the package'.

Yeah, I support what the GOP did.

I'm on something like you. I fly to Dubai a few times a year one way then a month later I fly back one way and go to other places like Europe and South America. Well my credentials are always double checked every time I check in. First by the counter person then they are handed off to another person who does further checks.

originally posted by: Spider879
, but i'd rather not board a plane with a known Isis friendly person, and certainly i don't want him walking into the local Gunz R Us..but that's just me.

Hahaha, so I guess you wouldn't board a plane with Obama and some top government officials on it then since they supported and armed ISIS then?

originally posted by: anotheramethyst

stockpiling 3 days worth of food and water (seriously. that's considered dangerous for some reason. so every camper ever is a potential terrorist. wtf??)

I'm screwed I got 6 months worth for a family of 4.

a reply to: neo96

This is the same party who the current president is a member of and their leader, who has made it his goal to get the guns while proclaiming isis as the jv team and saying their contained when they were busy shooting up Paris and now San Bernardino. All the while saying he thinks it "might" be terrorism.

The dems are pushing back door gun legislation. The republicans were right to block it. If this president didnt ignore the constitution then the claims about this legislation might, might, hold water.

Since he does ignore it.....

No, actually, Dems did.

Republicans wanted the AG to be able to have a 72 hour hold, and then have a hearing where it could be extended.

Dems were looking for political points, not solutions.

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: ~Lucidity

If I'm reading it right, the 'half-measure' that was proposed was more reasonable, providing for a crosscheck by forcing the DOJ to successfully file an injunction in order to stop it. Its still problematic, though, for the same reasons mentioned earlier.

As for the NYT editorial, I'm sure it'll do a fine job of preaching to the choir. Under the circumstances, though, they're not doing their position any favors, either in terms of public opinion or helping lower tier Democrats in competitive races next year.

Yep, the Dems went for something terrible knowing the Republicans would not support it (as they should not) and they could get political points. Republicans actually came up with a decent idea that gave the Dems exactly what they wanted, and the Dems voted against it.

Democrats don't care, it's all about politics and "winning".

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Yep, the Dems went for something terrible knowing the Republicans would not support it (as they should not) and they could get political points. Republicans actually came up with a decent idea that gave the Dems exactly what they wanted, and the Dems voted against it.

Democrats don't care, it's all about politics and "winning".

It was getting late here last night when I posted that and the idea that this was a case of the Dems playing games and going for cheap political points with it is something that slipped past me. But it makes perfect sense and is absolutely par for the course. I think you're almost certainly correct.

There are nearly 1 million names on the watch lists - I doubt there are 1 million terrorists lurking around waiting to strike

It is too easy for innocent people to get put on the lists

Take example of conservative writer Stephen Hayes, who writes for WEEKLY STANDARD. Hayes when flying found himself being pulled out of line and subject to invasive questioning/searches

How did he get put on list....?? Traveling to Mediterranean for vacation tour of the Greek islands with his wife paid cash for one way trip to Istanbul....... (he and wife returned by different route)

It is probably unconstitutional as well since gubmint using secret information without being adjudicated in a court
violates constitutional rights

originally posted by: neo96

Apparently the only people that can arm 'terrorists' is the US government.

So how bout we put them on a 'watch' list, and deny them weapons?


American politics sucks.

This part I cannot disagree with. But I also would like to see everyone one in the house and senate carrying. At work.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The dems are pushing back door gun legislation. The republicans were right to block it. If this president didnt ignore the constitution then the claims about this legislation might, might, hold water.

A Fed Up Obama Calls Republicans Insane For Supporting Selling Guns To Terrorists

For example, right now, people on the No-Fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane. If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun. And so I’m calling on Congress to close this loophole, now. We may not be able to prevent every tragedy, but—at a bare minimum—we shouldn’t be making it so easy for potential terrorists or criminals to get their hands on a gun that they could use against Americans.

Don't shoot the messenger here!

ETA: I don't think he called them insane. Not directly. He said it was insane that....

Yes, what could possibly be the argument?

This logic is idiotic to say the least - The GOP " we must talk about stopping these types of tragedies from happening but must not actually do anything about it"