Democrats currently holding Filibuster to take away your gun rights

So you are in favor of an up or down vote, that if it passes can strip americans of constitutional rights without due process?

Does that about sum up..

Cause as I understand it the filibuster is about voting on stripping americans of the right to bear arms without actually arresting them for a crime..

If I am wrong please enlighten me, I freely admit I could be reading things wrong..

eta: Its actually not meant to do anything its purely political posturing, but the way the watchlist works today, this would not be a good thing for the average american.

originally posted by: sirlancelot

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Gross hyperbole. Have you been labeled a terrorist? Are you on a watch list? If not, get real.

The Bundys were terrorists. Yes, they should be on a watch list. No, it wasn't "just because of their politics" but because of their illegal actions.

Yes, "US Born Philosophies" ... like say, lynching. Timothy McVeigh followed another such "philosophy."

Yada yada left wing, yada yada fascist yada yada BS.

No guns for terrorists. Background checks. That's swhat's on the table. Neither should take a thing away from any law-abiding American.

Yeah and we where supposed to be able to keep our doctor and save $2500 per month for insurance under Obamacare. How is that working out? Point is the govt lies and even when they dont they rely on the stupidity of the American People as Gruber so succinctly put it.

I have no doubt a Terror list amendment under the auspice of fighting terrorism will be used to place ANYONE who upsets the apple cart on the list. Johnson just said they got a hard for Right wing extremist.

Obamacare is not the topic here.

Your answer then is to do nothing and keep allowing terrorists to freely purchase weapons?

Okay, noted.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I see you have no clue what your spouting.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

I see you have no clue what your spouting.

I see you have no ability to make any cogent argument for your claims.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

I see you have no clue what your spouting.

I see you have no ability to make any cogent argument for your claims.

I see you lack the ability to comprehend an argument laid before you.

Oh no don't take away out AR-15's AK's and P90's. I can't live only owning a 12 gauge or 30.6.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
So you are in favor of an up or down vote, that if it passes can strip americans of constitutional rights without due process?

Does that about sum up..

Cause as I understand it the filibuster is about voting on stripping americans of the right to bear arms without actually arresting them for a crime..

If I am wrong please enlighten me, I freely admit I could be reading things wrong..

eta: Its actually not meant to do anything its purely political posturing, but the way the watchlist works today, this would not be a good thing for the average american.

Do you think that folks who are engaging in terrorist activities in the borders of the US should be able to buy guns freely? We're not talking about folks with misspelled names or whatnot.

The question of how someone is placed on the terror watch list is a good one. The idea that they shouldn't be able to freely purchase weapons once there is not, or, that there should be a Federal level background check for any firearms purchases that looks for past criminal activity, mental impairment, etc. Or are you also okay with lunatics and dangerous criminals being able to purchase freely?

originally posted by: wantsome
Oh no don't take away out AR-15's AK's and P90's. I can't live only owning a 12 gauge or 30.6.

I understand the common 30/06 rifle is one of the most deadly long-guns available ... and no one is trying to legislate against it.

That's either humorous or sad or both.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

I see you have no clue what your spouting.

I see you have no ability to make any cogent argument for your claims.

I see you lack the ability to comprehend an argument laid before you.

I see you can argue in hypocritical circles.

Here's your argument that you don't even have the dignity to back up: laws are irrelevant because there are criminals.

If you can't even state your premise and back it up, you have no business making any claims about anyone else.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
So you are in favor of an up or down vote, that if it passes can strip americans of constitutional rights without due process?

Does that about sum up..

Cause as I understand it the filibuster is about voting on stripping americans of the right to bear arms without actually arresting them for a crime..

If I am wrong please enlighten me, I freely admit I could be reading things wrong..

eta: Its actually not meant to do anything its purely political posturing, but the way the watchlist works today, this would not be a good thing for the average american.

... and so, the logical course would be for the Congress to fix the watch list and keep the potential terrorists on it from buying firearms freely, wouldn't it?

Kill two birds with one stone?

Win win?

But no, instead, folks are going to spout mindless platitudes and pointless arguments about nothing.

The senator doing the filibustering said one thing that would be unconstitutional that was in the way the bill was wrote.

That is if you are on the watch list and wanted to get off it all you had to do was prove you were not a criminal terrorist.

The US HAS ALWAYS BEEN A COUNTRY THAT YOU DID NOT HAVE TO PROVE YOU WERE NOT A CRIMINAL BUT A COUNTRY THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD TO PROVE THAT YOU ARE GUILTY IN COURT>

For this reason i support the GOP.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Golly gee that's kinda logical.

a reply to: DanteGaland

Much in the SAME way the GOP held the entire country HOSTAGE not only ONCE but SEVERAL times over the national budget? Anyone remember those times? The shutdowns AND furloughs?

It really is a shame they did not keep the damn place shut down and then maybe we would not be facing 19+ trillion deficit today..... in spite of the record monies taken in.

This is so much B.S. with the billions spent on home land security..... with every text and email supposedly stored and sorted by A.I. not to mention phone conversations yet one known to the FBI Muslim guy goes in and kills people in Florida... And they want to ban guns... How about cutting back on the 680,000 green cards handed out to the non or impossible to vet Muslims these last 5 years for starters. Crickets

My crystal ball says this incident is but the tip of things to come... gun ban or no gun ban

www.judicialwatch.org...

a reply to: Gryphon66

Your assuming this congress is capable of an original rational thought..

This shouldnt even be a debate, if people want to live in a free society, you dont give up your guaranteed rights for perceived security.

I will argue against this until they fix the process of putting people on these "lists",then I will entertain the idea of it, I still wont like the idea unless you can prove the person is a threat to society, which leads us back around to due process...

Everyone can relax.

The Republicans are in the process of killing the potential for reasonable debate once again.

Hope dims for Senate action on guns after frenzied day

The NRA formally backed an approach favored by Senate Republicans that would allow a judge to arbitrate people who mistakenly end up on the terrorism watch list and want to buy guns, while Democrats prefer giving the Justice Department such authority. Both bills were voted down by the Senate last December. “If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watch list to be removed,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.

a reply to: Gryphon66

None of those are my words. My dignity is firmly in place thanks for the thought. MORE laws are irrelevant because, redundancy.

Spend more time reading and less time assuming. Bad form.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your assuming this congress is capable of an original rational thought..

This shouldnt even be a debate, if people want to live in a free society, you dont give up your guaranteed rights for perceived security.

I will argue against this until they fix the process of putting people on these "lists",then I will entertain the idea of it, I still wont like the idea unless you can prove the person is a threat to society, which leads us back around to due process...

No, I'm not assuming anything about Congress, however, we have what we have. The alternative is to do nothing, and that seems to have won again.

You're evangelizing about free societies and guaranteed rights. You're not addressing any specifics.

If you've read any of the articles I've posted, you realize that the method of due process for the lists is a primary part of the debate, which would be, perhaps a win-win.

However, NRA says no, so it's no for the Republicans.

Maybe things will change after November.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am talking about the very same list that the Congress is even now undergoing filibuster to debate using to deny Americans the right to keep and bear arms.

That list is not compiled by any kind of due process. It is merely a list of suspicion only. They do not need warrants or anything else in order to put someone on that list. Someone decides a name goes on there, and it is added. The person whose name just went on there is not notified. After all, this is simply a list of people who are being kept under special scrutiny but haven't done anything really wrong yet. They just meet some criteria someone, somewhere thought might make them prone to terrorism.

And names can move on and off this list with no real scrutiny on a whim.

But now, they want to make this list of suspicion enough to deny someone on it the right to buy a gun.

Understand, this WOULD NOT have prevented Orlando at all.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: sirlancelot

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Gross hyperbole. Have you been labeled a terrorist? Are you on a watch list? If not, get real.

The Bundys were terrorists. Yes, they should be on a watch list. No, it wasn't "just because of their politics" but because of their illegal actions.

Yes, "US Born Philosophies" ... like say, lynching. Timothy McVeigh followed another such "philosophy."

Yada yada left wing, yada yada fascist yada yada BS.

No guns for terrorists. Background checks. That's swhat's on the table. Neither should take a thing away from any law-abiding American.

Yeah and we where supposed to be able to keep our doctor and save $2500 per month for insurance under Obamacare. How is that working out? Point is the govt lies and even when they dont they rely on the stupidity of the American People as Gruber so succinctly put it.

I have no doubt a Terror list amendment under the auspice of fighting terrorism will be used to place ANYONE who upsets the apple cart on the list. Johnson just said they got a hard for Right wing extremist.

Obamacare is not the topic here.

Your answer then is to do nothing and keep allowing terrorists to freely purchase weapons?

Okay, noted.

Listen it is obviously a difficult situation. I don't want ANY suspected terrorist to be able to buy weapons. I just don't trust that the TRUE terrorist would be the only one's put on that list. ei Lets say Hillary is elected and I can't stand her and I post all kinds of stuff about her (op ed's not threats) who is to say I wouldn't be coined a right wing extremist and wallah Im on the list? It isn't having a list that concerns me it is the process and people that determine who is on it that scares me.

So how do you put obvious people (radicals tied to hate groups of all kinds who promote and insight violence ei Radical Muslims) on a list without unfringing on my right to massively protect myself if need be?

a reply to: ketsuko

Then fix the damn list. Geez people. It's a process.