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: 13
37
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
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.



You're the "form police" now? LOL.

I've already clearly demonstrated the flaw in your argument. You're arguing that laws don't prevent crimes because criminals break laws. Even though for some odd reason, you won't state that outright.

Forcing a debate on the terrorist watch list and the ability of those on it to freely purchase firearms is not REDUNDANT.

Forcing a debate on movement on national standards for background checks is not REDUNDANT either.

Pretending that the concept of law is invalid because crime and criminals exist is absurd.

And we've wasted enough screen time peeing on this particular fence. Good day to you, Form Policeman, what-what?




posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: ketsuko

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


Yes fix the list then we can talk about the next step, until such a time as there are checks and balances in place to protect law abiding American citizens from losing their rights this idea is DOA... and rightfully so.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You haven't bothered to familiarize yourself with the barest details of what's being debated, or rather, what some were trying to debate.

When you do, I'll be glad to review the actual facts of the matter with you.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

And again, who gets to decide what constitutes reasonable suspicion to put a name on the list?

Do you get to be notified if you are on there?

If there an appeals process?

How will that be set up? Is it judicial?

And are you rights violated in the meantime while you try to fight your appeal? And will there be a process by which the government has to pay your fees if you win?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.


Yeah, I remember that clearly.

They're amending the bill now to include more oversight.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Please, which part do I not understand? Because if I "don't get it" then neither does anyone else in here arguing against you.

Must be nice to be the only person in the room who understands things. It lifts all the burden of cogent debate off your shoulders.
edit on 15-6-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

There is in fact a process to find out why you've been denied and then to fix it if erroneous. They cover that in the bill.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.


what specifics would you like addressed?

The fact this guy was investigated more completely than most military security clearance holders?

the fact he nothing actionable was found so his name was removed from a list twice..

the fact he was a licensed armed guard...

what you are suggesting would have done nothing to stop the orlando shooting, unless you suggest they lose their 2nd permanently?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: sirlancelot

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?


Yes, it's a complicated situation. Ignoring the problem (or kow-towing to interests like the NRA) is not the answer.

Again, you seem to be asking for fortune telling before we take any actions.

Who's to say that if Mr. Trump gets elected that right-left won't even matter anymore, that anyone who pisses the man off will be placed on such a list. Would that mean that we should no nothing to help restrict the domestic availability of firearms?

There are all sorts of hyperbolic scenarios, some more reasonable than others.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: ketsuko

There is in fact a process to find out why you've been denied and then to fix it if erroneous. They cover that in the bill.



How long does it take and how much will it cost? In the meantime, what part of innocent until proven guilty are they scrapping? It seems to me that this would at the very least open the thing up to judicial scrutiny on that basis.

I would be denied a right based on a legal process taken without my having been notified of my rights.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: ketsuko

There is in fact a process to find out why you've been denied and then to fix it if erroneous. They cover that in the bill.



So the government gets to deem you guilty and you then have to prove your innocence before being able to exercise your rights.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'll state again. More laws will not stop criminals. It is redundant. This list that you do/don't/do don't support is unconstitutional.

You have not demonstrated anything. Your being delusional or in denial, I can not help that.

So were back to the list?

Pretending that laws prohibit a criminal is just a little bit more absurd.






posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

I'm not talking about the Orlando mass-shooting, although that is more specific than basically chanting "Freedom! America!" as the argument.

The filibuster was to force a debate. The debate happened today to some degree but was handed off to the NRA where any changes will die. Thousandth verse same as the first. That matter seems to be finished.

As to Mr. Mateen's firearm purchases specifically.

He was an American citizen, and had the same rights we all do. Due process was one of those. Due process resulted in him being interviewed/investigated twice and being found "not a credible threat."

Regardless of what he thought his connections were to ISIS/al Qaeda/Hamas (and he thought he was loyal to all of them, who just happen to be dire enemies in the real world) what can be said is that the man was not in his right mind.

He crossed whatever line it is between being troubled and being a killer. In this specific case, would different laws have made a difference? Perhaps, perhaps not.

But throwing more impediments in the way of a terrorist/mass murderer is not necessarily a bad thing, right?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Denying someone their rights without due process is unconstitutional.

Placing someone on a list and denying them their rights, basically making them guilty before they can prove their innocence is unconstitutional.


You all are advocating for an unconstitutional act.

Hope you feel proud of yourselves.




posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Denying someone their rights without due process is unconstitutional.

Placing someone on a list and denying them their rights, basically making them guilty before they can prove their innocence is unconstitutional.


You all are advocating for an unconstitutional act.

Hope you feel proud of yourselves.



No one here is advocating for an unconstitutional act. That's simply not true, and shame on you for making such a base claim.

You are complaining about the threat of terrorism on a regular basis here, and have seemed to have no problem with laws that discriminate against others because of their religion (which happens to be a guaranteed freedom in the FIRST AMENDMENT for a reason) but you can't even contemplate any reasonable measure that might in any way collide with your sacrosanct worship of guns.

Physician, heal yourself.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: sirlancelot

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?


Yes, it's a complicated situation. Ignoring the problem (or kow-towing to interests like the NRA) is not the answer.

Again, you seem to be asking for fortune telling before we take any actions.

Who's to say that if Mr. Trump gets elected that right-left won't even matter anymore, that anyone who pisses the man off will be placed on such a list. Would that mean that we should no nothing to help restrict the domestic availability of firearms?

There are all sorts of hyperbolic scenarios, some more reasonable than others.


Your argument pre supposes the government is to be trusted. I think this is the main issue. Many do not have faith in our government serving us and our civil rights. I already eluded to an example where our govt lied big time. Obama and Hillary and maybe Trump always do thing based on a "means justifies the ends" approach.

My feeling is if we dont even enforce current laws what good will another one do? Seriously Chicago has guns(illegal) galore yet there are no gun stores and there dozens of killings each month.

I think what you seek is a utopian society. Lastly you are aware gun deaths are decreasing as gun ownership goes up right?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Of course I am not against throwing impediments at potential terrorists/mass murderers no right thinking person is..

But I also accept that living in a free society carries with it inherent risks, and giving up freedoms for a perceived security usually has not worked out well for the average person historically. Starting to stuff more caveats and addendum's into the bill of rights frightens me, cause sooner or later people that will force things in a different direction will gain power. (bit hyperbolic... yes..possible yes)

Whats the old saying Road to H@LL is paved with good intentions!



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

That's why we need to deal with this issue rationally instead of blatant moves that are grossly unconstitutional.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: sirlancelot

No, I would be the last person to say that the government "can be trusted." But for the record, let me tell you what I do believe:

Government at any level, national, state or local, is populated by authoritarians who crave power (at whatever level) and will use it for their own selfish ends. That fact doesn't mean we can just cry havoc and invoke anarchy (although, that would be my own tendency, LOL).

The American way of government is a living-breathing-evolving process of checks-and-balances not only between the different branches of the Federal, but also between the Federal and State, the State and Local, etc. etc.

Our government is intended to have certain powers and to be limited to those powers, again at every level. Those powers are intended to preserve the security of the People from exterior and interior threats, to use our collective power to promote growth and progress, etc. etc.

As to greater specifics, the fact that the government abuses civil rights does not eradicate the fact that it preserves them in others.

Every politician is an authoritarian, and every govenrment is authoritarian. We the People are the check on authoritarianism (or we're supposed to be when we're not divided and conquered as we are now.)

Chicago has severe problems, but I'm not going to ignore what needs to happen in the rest of the country because we can't fix Chicago.

I do not seek a utopian society by any means.

Gun ownership rises by approximately 10 million units a year now.

Obviously, that doesn't stop mass shootings, etc.

edit on 15-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Of course I am not against throwing impediments at potential terrorists/mass murderers no right thinking person is..

But I also accept that living in a free society carries with it inherent risks, and giving up freedoms for a perceived security usually has not worked out well for the average person historically. Starting to stuff more caveats and addendum's into the bill of rights frightens me, cause sooner or later people that will force things in a different direction will gain power. (bit hyperbolic... yes..possible yes)

Whats the old saying Road to H@LL is paved with good intentions!



I do not disagree with you that throwing away freedoms for "greater security" is a fool's game.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with "caveats and addendum's" being stuffed into the Bill of Rights. Are you referring to Supreme Court decisions? That's an inherent part of the Constitutional process. ???




top topics



 
37
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join