Democrats currently holding Filibuster to take away your gun rights

a reply to: matafuchs

I don't have any guns.

... and now, for a tiny bit of actual truth ...

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) launched a talking filibuster on the Senate floor — which was quickly joined by fellow Democrats — in an effort to pressure Republicans to accept legislation that would deny suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms and require universal background checks.

Politico

Thus this thread once again puts the lie put to so many of you claiming to be troubled by terrorists killing Americans.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
The job of Congress is to represent the will of the people. The majority of the populace feels something needs to be done about all these mass shootings. So aren't these Senators actually doing their job by trying to force a discussion on the matter? It's clear that all the thoughts and prayers arent doing jack to curb all these American deaths. So maybe, just maybe, it's time for both sides to come together and put forward some solutions.

It doesn't matter what the 'will of the people' is when it's in direct conflict with the Bill of RIGHTS.

It's entire reason for being.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... and now, for a tiny bit of actual truth ...

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) launched a talking filibuster on the Senate floor — which was quickly joined by fellow Democrats — in an effort to pressure Republicans to accept legislation that would deny suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms and require universal background checks.

Politico

Thus this thread once again puts the lie put to so many of you claiming to be troubled by terrorists killing Americans.

Who gets to define 'terrorist?' The Southern Poverty Law Center?

ETA: I fail to see any truthful revelation in your comment.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... and now, for a tiny bit of actual truth ...

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) launched a talking filibuster on the Senate floor — which was quickly joined by fellow Democrats — in an effort to pressure Republicans to accept legislation that would deny suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms and require universal background checks.

Politico

Thus this thread once again puts the lie put to so many of you claiming to be troubled by terrorists killing Americans.

Who gets to define 'terrorist?' The Southern Poverty Law Center?

ETA: I fail to see any truthful revelation in your comment.

The truthful revelation is that no Democrat is standing up for legislation "to take your guns."

What in my quote mentioned SPLC? I find your comment specious if not intentionally misleading.

a reply to: neo96

So then no conversation needs to be had? We should just allow Americans to continue dying? Thoughts and prayers are worth nothing. A serious conversation needs to be had on how to prevent even more tragedies from occurring. If it takes a filibuster to do so, then so be it. At least these Senators are trying to do something other than offer empty platitudes.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

So then no conversation needs to be had?

'
Inalienable RIGHTS are clear cut.

No conversation.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The San Bernadino guns were purchased by a straw buyer. Explain how a watch list, assuming if it were 100% fool-proof and only terrorism suspects were on said list, prevents that.

Bad guys are going to figure out how to get weapons that do maximum damage, regardless of the laws.

Legislation that makes it harder to get weapons will only impact law-abiding citizens. Law abiding-citizens are the people that we are not concerned about getting guns. In fact, we *want* law-abiding citizens to have guns. It makes for a polite society.

Any talk of gun control is an attack on law-abiding citizen's freedom.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... and now, for a tiny bit of actual truth ...

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) launched a talking filibuster on the Senate floor — which was quickly joined by fellow Democrats — in an effort to pressure Republicans to accept legislation that would deny suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms and require universal background checks.

Politico

Thus this thread once again puts the lie put to so many of you claiming to be troubled by terrorists killing Americans.

Who gets to define 'terrorist?' The Southern Poverty Law Center?

ETA: I fail to see any truthful revelation in your comment.

The truthful revelation is that no Democrat is standing up for legislation "to take your guns."

What in my quote mentioned SPLC? I find your comment specious if not intentionally misleading.

I do not mean to be misleading or put words in anyone's mouth. But the SPLC is a resource used by the FBI. So I think it's fair to wonder how people would be deemed to be 'terrorists' in the eyes of the federal government. Mateen was born and raised a U.S. citizen, so the list will surely not be exclusive to foreign terrorists.

Am I going to be deemed a terrorist because I am a 'birther?' I am pretty sure the SPLC hates me and I am a nonviolent person who has never owned a gun and has no criminal record.

Also, I think it's an over-simplification to reduce the argument to "taking your guns." There is a clear effort to restrict gun ownership and I absolutely do not trust any of the people - left and right - legislating this issue.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: neo96

So then no conversation needs to be had? We should just allow Americans to continue dying? Thoughts and prayers are worth nothing. A serious conversation needs to be had on how to prevent even more tragedies from occurring. If it takes a filibuster to do so, then so be it. At least these Senators are trying to do something other than offer empty platitudes.

There is a conversation to be had, but so long as roughly 40% of the Congress is beholden to political correctness and progressive utopias of gun free zones being a cure-all, that conversation can't happen.

The conversations requires that we have adults in the room on both sides who are willing to accept that the American people aren't gun-toting cowboys, and we can take care of ourselves.

a reply to: neo96

So then we just allow made shootings to happen and do nothing? A conversation doesn't necessarily mean gun control. It means trying to find a root cause for all these shootings and finding a way to prevent future ones. If it turns out that gun control is the best way to go then I'm for it. Human life is worth more than an inanimate object.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: neo96

So then we just allow made shootings to happen and do nothing? A conversation doesn't necessarily mean gun control. It means trying to find a root cause for all these shootings and finding a way to prevent future ones. If it turns out that gun control is the best way to go then I'm for it. Human life is worth more than an inanimate object.

This is not just about guns. At its core, this debate is about freedom from government intervention in our lives "for our own good".

F that noise.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

So then we just allow made shootings to happen and do nothing?

What do you mean NOTHING ?

For over 80 years they been acting like Sisyphus pushing that boulder(gun control) up a hill only for it to roll back down.

On top of existing LAWS that says we can't go around shooting each other.

Let's make more LAWS that a small percentage of the population is NEVER going to follow.

The only way to stop illegal gun sales is to use the military.

Full force.

Anybody really want that?

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
The job of Congress is to represent the will of the people. The majority of the populace feels something needs to be done about all these mass shootings. So aren't these Senators actually doing their job by trying to force a discussion on the matter? It's clear that all the thoughts and prayers arent doing jack to curb all these American deaths. So maybe, just maybe, it's time for both sides to come together and put forward some solutions.

It doesn't matter what the 'will of the people' is when it's in direct conflict with the Bill of RIGHTS.

It's entire reason for being.

lol

there is a reason for the amendment process. Jefferson, Madison, Adams, etc all wanted the constitution to evolve with the times.

also bear in mind is was written by slave owners who didn't want women to vote or give any rights to regular old white men that didn't own land

let's evolve, ok ?

a reply to: syrinx high priest

Good luck amending the Entire Bill of RIGHTS, and the 14th.

In case you forgot what they were.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: neo96

Propose a solution then.

I just wish there was some proof to these gun control laws actually working. I have looked and looked and absolutely nothing but baseless conjecture and incomplete assessments.

If you can at least provide some data showing that it does work definitively, I'll support it

There are dozens of well done studies from across the world that show it doesn't.

People who think they work are completely out of the touch with the real world.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: neo96

Yeah, because there's war...and then there's shooting up a school/theater/nightclub.

Totally the same thing.

Well, we are at war both here and abroad...the *ahem* War on Terror. So we should be unarmed?

I don't even own a gun -- I hate them and they make me nervous. But I do not trust our government -- especially Congress -- to do right by the American people and I am disgusted by the mess they've gotten us into. The more they attempt to disarm us, the more I am certain nothing good is intended to come from it. They never do anything that helps anyone who actually needs help.

Yeah those dudes who shot up theaters, schools, and clubs were fighting a war on terror. Okay.

I do own guns or hate them. Until the time when our government proves that we can't trust them...definitively...I will trust law enforcement and the military to do their jobs.

a reply to: VivreLibre

I believe there are some stats as to what happened after 2005. Don't have time to find them now. and not that some here would believe them.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: syrinx high priest

Good luck amending the Entire Bill of RIGHTS, and the 14th.

In case you forgot what they were.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

so you went form impossible to difficult with one post ?

see, you can evolve !!!