Trump to NRA: strip "watch listed" people of their 2A rights.

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No you didn't, you are lying. I never said that and you certainly didn't link it.

Sure did. Here it is again.

The right actually accepts the FACT that we have Islamic terrorists in this country.

The left seems to thing the best way to fight terrorism is to disarm the citizens and take down a flag.

Hey remember... Blah blah blah. *YAWN* More whiney cheap shots that are in need of deletion and not quotes.

Lol you are making yourself look so childish and immature because you know you've been cornered with a hypocritical argument. I like how you said earlier how Obama doesn't like to talk about Fast and Furious (even though he's addressed it tons of time) yet you refuse to acknowledge your own party doing the same #ing thing. Again more hypocrisy from your weak argument.

Trump to NRA: strip "watch listed" people of their 2A rights

Trump can go stuff it.

Just like CLinton can go stuff it.

Talk about being damned either way.

a reply to: abe froman

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Goddamned liar?

Is that or is that not you ridiculing gun control just yesterday?

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The difference is that administration wasn't simultaniously trying to disarm the populace and didn't result in the deaths of US law enforcement.

HAHAHAHAHA. Keep leaping through hoops to try to hide your hypocrisy.

Trump has no pull, and he never will bc he will never be our president, but thanks Trump, this is the smartest thing I think you've said.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: gladtobehere

McCarthy would have penalised people on 'watch lists' so maybe the Liberal/Conservative dividing line isn't as clear-cut as people like to think?

Watch-lists can be generated by unfounded allegations. They're historically favoured by Totalitarians and those folk exist across the political spectrum.

Yeah I refuse to agree to this idea until there is some significant federal oversight placed over who gets put on and taken off of the watch list. At the moment it is FAR too easy to be put on it for mistakes or other silly reasons.

It's the royal road to societal paranoia and greyness in the judicial system.

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
After reading the article I think this is falling into the same trap that progressives pulled when they acted like they didn't know the difference between an immigrant attempting to gain citizenship and an illegal immigrant.

He did say restrict the gun purchasing rights of those on the terror watch list and no fly list, but he also references the issues of people wrongfully being put on the list and making sure due process is taking place in each instance.

The people wrongfully being on the list seems to be the only thing people have any reason to be against what Trump said here. So I guess it comes down to whether you believe due process will in fact take place.

Honestly I hardly see this as a 2nd amendment issue as those who would be losing their guns (Outside of the wrong name on the list thing ) would all be people who are known terrorists.

This all hinges of course on the "wrongful name" issue to be fixed in an efficient way and it's certainly a slippery slope.

In effect I suppose, yes, this may be a very common sense measure of the issue of lack of due process is addressed here.

I could support something like this if due process was given to every person being placed on the list and if they had the ability to appeal that decision. And if I trusted our government to do the right thing.

Once all that happens, I can get behind this extrajudicial removal of people's rights.

But you aren't wrong. Lack of due process and lack of faith in those rendering said due process is the issue here.

We are all on the ATS watch list.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry, the "retort" YOU posted about wasn't actually made by you, you just referenced it. I responded to "And ... which party was it that declared Military Veterans are all crazy ... or that anyone who wants to own a gun is insane." A post made by another member that you were talking about.

That's not what you said I said, now you're changing the subject, I love the way you play lawyerball.

As far as Fastandfurious/Widereciever I have addressed it and in this situation it's apples and oranges.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Again changing the argument.

Show me where I whined about Hillary banning gun purchases for people on watch lists, which is what I was told I said.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: gladtobehere

McCarthy would have penalised people on 'watch lists' so maybe the Liberal/Conservative dividing line isn't as clear-cut as people like to think?

Watch-lists can be generated by unfounded allegations. They're historically favoured by Totalitarians and those folk exist across the political spectrum.

I don't have a lot of faith in watch lists. This shooter proved that. He was on the watch list for 10 months. FBI investigates and he said well my coworkers are just picking on me because I'm Muslim. The FBI go's oh we didn't know were sorry to disturb you. They take him off the watch list and he goes out buys a gun and no one was the wiser. The tools all ready exist to prevent terrorists from getting guns problem is no one's applying the rules. And please people stop he didn't have an assault rifle an AR 15 IS NOT HIGH POWERED NOR AN ASSAULT RIFLE.

AND FURTHER HE DIDN'T USE AN AR 15 he used a sig 223 which is basically for hunting small animals. The glock he purchased is a higher calibre and does more damage.

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Krazysh0t
That's not what you said I said, now you're changing the subject, I love the way you play lawyerball.

As far as Fastandfurious/Widereciever I have addressed it and in this situation it's apples and oranges.

Of course. When it's your guy providing guns to drug cartels, it's perfectly alright. Gotcha.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Watch lists are a joke.

If you have evidence, prosecute and convict. If you don't have enough evidence, you don't have what's necessary to deprive a person of their Second Amendment rights.

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Again changing the argument.

Show me where I whined about Hillary banning gun purchases for people on watch lists, which is what I was told I said.

I apologise, I got carried away.


Everyone, Abe never frothed at the mouth when Hillary said the same thing.
I was wrong and I shouldn't have accused him of such.


I stand by the rest of what I said.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fast and Furious provided murder weapons used to slay US law enforcement. Wide receiver didn't. While both programs were idiotic and stupid, the second time it was done the perpetrators had the benefit of hindsight which makes it dumber and it was so poorly handled it led to US deaths.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

www.washingtontimes.com...

The people that have been fighting the war on terror have been deemed to be 'terrorists'.

Our government is just absolutely twisted.

Now for the cherry on top.

Equate no fly lists,terrorism, and constitutional rights in to one giant crap sand which, and expect people to take a bite of it.

I pass.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Thanks I appreciate that. Just because we have hard debate here doesn't mean I don't respect all of you guys. I'm wrong sometimes myself.

Anybody coming through Cincinnati hit me up and we'll have a beer.

I'm leaving this thread while I still like you guys

See you on the boards.

wondering if I am the only who hopes that trump someday finds himself on that watch list....
really, it's a good idea, except for the fact that their watch list includes perfectly innocent people who don't pose a threat to anyone.

www.rt.com...

I am pretty sure that trump poses a much bigger danger than this little tyke does.

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fast and Furious provided murder weapons used to slay US law enforcement. Wide receiver didn't. While both programs were idiotic and stupid, the second time it was done the perpetrators had the benefit of hindsight which makes it dumber and it was so poorly handled it led to US deaths.

Look buddy. At no point am I excusing the actions of F&F, but YOU are trying to paint F&F like it was an isolated incident or that only the Democrats partake in it. You were wrong. Just admit it already. Both parties have sold guns to drug cartels illegally. Anyone who dredges up F&F in a gun control debate should realize that Operation Wide Receiver happened first and likely gave Holder and co the idea for F&F. So the Republicans are just as to blame for this # as Obama is.

So here's a thought, just leave it alone. Don't bring up the controversy and stick to the issues. F&F isn't a critical piece of evidence linked to what we are discussing, so bringing it up is more akin to a red herring.

a reply to: abe froman

That was totally my bad, mate.