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.

 

Democrats currently holding Filibuster to take away your gun rights

page: 10
37
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

How does any of that stop a would be shooter from acquiring a weapon and continuing on with his plans?



How does doing nothing accomplish anything? (Your question is hopelessly generic.)

Are you opposed to background checks? Do you think potential terrorists should have the same access to firearms as every one else?




Background checks already exist.
No not opposed to them. You going to answer my question>?




posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

There should be due process for anyone on the list. What will the process be for someone to assert their rights as an innocent person named on the terrorist list? Will the list be public? Will people be subject to the deprivation of their rights while they 'sort it out' with the government? Will the criteria to get on the list be expanded?

I wonder how this will all work....



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you know what it takes to get you on a watch list:

1. Sign your stuff with two different names; your given formal one and a shortened version of same

2. Carry debt

3. Have vaccinations that are not in the normal list of vaccinations

Those will do it apparently as my husband found out. The first constitutes an "alias," the second means you might be bribable or susceptible to monetary manipulation, and the last indicates you might be up to strange tinkering with germs or work in a biofacility with strange bugs.
'

Again, the viability of the terrorist watch list is not at issue here. That is a separate issue (and you've grossly misrepresented the situation, but that's not unexpected.)

Argue all you want about how the terrorist watch list is formulated. I haven't made a single claim about that.

This topic is about the current Democratic filibuster intended to force the Republican-controlled Senate to at least consider and debate the very valid concerns about the ease and availability of gun purchases in this country. That is all.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JimBielson

"Nefarious and evil" . . . okay. I can't debate that with you, because its a personal belief.

It's absurd to think that "all Americans" would be on a terror watch list.

What exactly are "real" Americans? The ones you agree with?

The items on the table for discussion, once again and as many times as it needs to be said, is no gun sales to terrorists and background checks. The ridiculous wailing about "no guns" is absurd, has always been, and is ridiculous so given the fact that there are now 320 MILLION guns in the hands of the American people, more than the military, or the combined police forces of the United States.

If at any point you're interested in talking about real things rather than boogey-men provided by the NRA and the wingnut press, let me know.



Real Americans are the ones that will not give up liberty for security. I do not consider anyone an American that does that and you seem to be in that group that wants to capitulate to terror.

Lets say you get your wish and all guns are banned because we all know that is what the left wants. Who are you saying are actually going to protect us? Who are the defenders that will protect mine?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The coward was a Muslim and a registered democrat.

Why not ban all Muslims and democrats from owning guns?


A little thing called the US Constitution for starters.

Is that really your suggestion?


What's the difference then when the target is simple law abiding citizens?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

How does any of that stop a would be shooter from acquiring a weapon and continuing on with his plans?



How does doing nothing accomplish anything? (Your question is hopelessly generic.)

Are you opposed to background checks? Do you think potential terrorists should have the same access to firearms as every one else?




Background checks already exist.
No not opposed to them. You going to answer my question>?


Background checks are not applied equally across the country and you're probably aware of that. Glad you're not opposed to a reasonable measure.

No, as I said, your question as phrased is meaningless and hopelessly oversimplified. I do not have an answer.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The coward was a Muslim and a registered democrat.

Why not ban all Muslims and democrats from owning guns?


A little thing called the US Constitution for starters.

Is that really your suggestion?


What's the difference then when the target is simple law abiding citizens?


Do you have a more specific example?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The proposal they have that they want to pass is the same one they had last time would be to make the list a means of denying gun purchases.

I listed the 6 points from an article that show the very real dangers of doing this as the list is not set up to be a means of arbitrating who should or should not have their rights denied.

Like the Patriot Act, this is a bad idea from the outset, but they want to pass it and then see what's inside it and then "fix" it.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

How does any of that stop a would be shooter from acquiring a weapon and continuing on with his plans?



How does doing nothing accomplish anything? (Your question is hopelessly generic.)

Are you opposed to background checks? Do you think potential terrorists should have the same access to firearms as every one else?




Background checks already exist.
No not opposed to them. You going to answer my question>?


Background checks are not applied equally across the country and you're probably aware of that. Glad you're not opposed to a reasonable measure.

No, as I said, your question as phrased is meaningless and hopelessly oversimplified. I do not have an answer.


I'm well aware of the rules in my state. So you are not answering my question.

About my question: Someone whom is bent on doing extreme harm does not succumb to laws. They will simply break them to ultimately ....get this...break the law!



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

There should be due process for anyone on the list. What will the process be for someone to assert their rights as an innocent person named on the terrorist list? Will the list be public? Will people be subject to the deprivation of their rights while they 'sort it out' with the government? Will the criteria to get on the list be expanded?

I wonder how this will all work....


I am always in favor of due process. That is a Constitutional right of every American.

Perhaps, in the process of our representatives (including Senators) having a reasonable debate on the merits, then there will be greater accuracy created in the "terror watch list" process. I am only arguing that we should be able to have the discussion seriously, and that the Democratic filibuster is intended to help "force" that on the Republican controlled Senate.

(And also, of course, that background checks and no guns for terrorists are not equivalent to "taking guns away from Americans.")



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

How does any of that stop a would be shooter from acquiring a weapon and continuing on with his plans?



How does doing nothing accomplish anything? (Your question is hopelessly generic.)

Are you opposed to background checks? Do you think potential terrorists should have the same access to firearms as every one else?




Background checks already exist.
No not opposed to them. You going to answer my question>?


Background checks are not applied equally across the country and you're probably aware of that. Glad you're not opposed to a reasonable measure.

No, as I said, your question as phrased is meaningless and hopelessly oversimplified. I do not have an answer.


I'm well aware of the rules in my state. So you are not answering my question.

About my question: Someone whom is bent on doing extreme harm does not succumb to laws. They will simply break them to ultimately ....get this...break the law!


Good for you. It's good to be knowledgeable about your state regulations.

The argument that laws don't keep criminals from breaking laws is just a bit tired at this point, don't you think?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The shooter was a Muslim and a registered democrat.

I said, ban weapons from Muslims and democrats.

You said it was unconstitutional.

So why is it "constitutional" to ban guns from law abiding citizens?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

The proposal they have that they want to pass is the same one they had last time would be to make the list a means of denying gun purchases.

I listed the 6 points from an article that show the very real dangers of doing this as the list is not set up to be a means of arbitrating who should or should not have their rights denied.

Like the Patriot Act, this is a bad idea from the outset, but they want to pass it and then see what's inside it and then "fix" it.


Now you're just muttering in politically-charged phrases.

Part of our political process in this country is that the People's representatives in Congress get to debate potential laws. That's how this works. The filibuster is one method by which the party that is not in power can force a subject to be considered by the body at large, and that is what is happening here.

If you don't agree with what you're afraid might happen, then contact your Senator and Representatives and make your voice known.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
It's extremely tired, and overused and correct!


You want to chip away and the 2nd amendment, you want to create a list for where there is currently no due process involved and furthermore you don't want to acknowledge that more laws are not the answer?


Cmon man


edit on 15-6-2016 by JinMI because: Stuff and Thangs



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

The shooter was a Muslim and a registered democrat.

I said, ban weapons from Muslims and democrats.

You said it was unconstitutional.

So why is it "constitutional" to ban guns from law abiding citizens?


It is unconstitutional to make laws based on an American's religion.

It is also unconstitutional to make laws based on an American's political party.

It is not unconstitutional to have background checks in place for gun purchases (that affects everyone equally).

As to the "ban guns" crap, it's crap.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   
We don't want to take everyone's guns- just military rifles and large magazines that make mass shootings easier.

What we really need is to change the second ammendment, but that probably won't happen even if there's a mass shooting in every neighborhood. There's just way to many selfish, ignorant, immature or sadistic people in America for that to happen.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

What do you define as an "assault weapon"?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's unconstitutional to infringe upon others bearing of arms...but here we are. Or is that argument tired as well?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Woah! So now a filibuster is a wonderful thing and the people in Congress were elected by their constituencies to represent them?

It's NOW all working as intended because it might be working in a way you like?

Ha!



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

I'm sure there are other countries that align themselves to your point of view.


edit on 15-6-2016 by JinMI because: Stuff and Thangs

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



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join