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.

 

Senate blocks gun measures offered in wake of Orlando shooting

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Thing is.. we already have both background checks and watch lists. We have background checks that flag people on a watch list, denying them access to things like fire arms. This entire shooting would have been stopped had they used these tools for this effect.

Now, they have some problems with their procedures. They can't keep people on the list forever. And that's great, but I think when the gun store owner called the FBI to inform them of this suspicious behavior, that should have raised a masssssive #ing red flag somewhere.

Need to have a look at the SOP for these situations, not gun laws which don't do jack #.

The bill is a complete farce. The entire thing is ridiculous.

This was an error of our government to use the tools is already has to stop this attack.




posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

The question again:

How does that, or any additional measure such as watch lists, infringe on any citizen's right to purchase or possess a firearm?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Liquesence

According to Some Interpretations of the Second Amendment , If taken Literally , Background Checks are in Reality , Unconstitutional . If that Is the Case , then Watch Lists are the Only Alternative for the U.S.Government to Take Action Against Possible Terrorists Threats to our Nation .


Oh, I know those interpretations.

That didn't answer the questions though.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I'm just saying that all of the folks who keep saying "What's wrong with barring people on the Feds terrorist watch list from buying firearms?" don't stop to think that over half of the citizens of our country could be on a terrorist watch list- people who travel frequently internationally, patriots who are outspoken about protecting our constitutional rights, people who post on conspiracy forums, little old grannies who go to church every Sunday .... ANYBODY!



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Husband said that all of McCaskill's voicemail numbers were broken and no longer taking messages today.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn


first proposal - Require states to add more information on mental health records. Alert law enforcement agencies when someone who is on a government watch list buys a gun


rejected


second proposal - Expand background checks for those buying guns at gunshows or online


rejected


third proposal - Delay gun sales to those on a govenrment watch list


rejected


fourth proposal - ban gun sales to those on a terror watch list


rejected


jesus age christ America.. what the f--- is wrong with you.



You reap what you sow!






edit on 20/6/16 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
Can someone explain to me how requiring background checks for certain guns and preventing people on watch lists from buying guns infringes on any citizen's right to keep and bear arms?

I keep hearing this argument, and, frankly, it's a FoS argument.



IT VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AFFORDED UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!!!!

That is how.


You see, even though some of these checks and bans on watch lists might sound good on the surface, they totally violate the right to due process, and if that happens, then we lose in a very big way, and maybe that is what these clowns want.
edit on 20-6-2016 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
You can bet Obama is p*ss*d right now. He said the other day that Americans are going to have to decide what kind of country they want. We have decided, but I have a feeling he is not going to like our decision one bit. Stay vigilant. Stay smart.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop

Gotta love the NRA lobby, which is more important to some congresspeople than safeguarding citizens.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

Watchitburn explained it quite well in his last post and I couldn't improve on it. Go back and read his post.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Liquesence
Can someone explain to me how requiring background checks for certain guns and preventing people on watch lists from buying guns infringes on any citizen's right to keep and bear arms?

I keep hearing this argument, and, frankly, it's a FoS argument.



IT VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AFFORDED UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!!!!

That is how.


Ah yes, that argument.

But it doesn't infringe on people's right without due process, since background checks look at criminal history and conviction.

As far as people on watch lists, so, anyone on a watch list should be able to buy any weapon unless they have had that right denied due to due process, even if they are a suspected terrorist?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop



second proposal - Expand background checks for those buying guns at gunshows or online


Sigh. Why don't people understand that, if you buy a gun online, it doesn't just come straight to your house. It has to be shipped to a FFL, who does a background check and all the paper work, before you can take posesssion of the gun.

As to all the rest, why aren't those lists already included in the NICS? Why isn't DHS or the Justice Dept sharing those lists with the FBI? Why do they keep writing more and more laws, when they fail to enforce what's on the books? The FBI Blew It on Orlando. Period. You can put the blame squarely on them.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn

Your whole argument is "no fly lists."

The question is not no fly lists, but watch lists and extended background checks.

How does that infringe on citizens' rights to legally purchase firearms?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Liquesence
Can someone explain to me how requiring background checks for certain guns and preventing people on watch lists from buying guns infringes on any citizen's right to keep and bear arms?

I keep hearing this argument, and, frankly, it's a FoS argument.



IT VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AFFORDED UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!!!!

That is how.


Ah yes, that argument.

But it doesn't infringe on people's right without due process, since background checks look at criminal history and conviction.

As far as people on watch lists, so, anyone on a watch list should be able to buy any weapon unless they have had that right denied due to due process, even if they are a suspected terrorist?


Why are they on a watch list? Is it some arbitrary joke or do they, the feds have some evidence of threat from the person being put on the list? Due process should be applied and if someone is a threat, then they need to follow that and have it run it's course. If the name is being put on the list because some dickhead doesn't like what you said on a blog, then the list is violating rights. Once we lose our right to due process we are Fuox0rd!

Get it?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: VivreLibre

" This was an error of our government to use the tools is already has to stop this attack. "

Precisely , Individuals Need to be Replaced ASAP in some of these Agencies . Accountability Must be Addressed as a Priority to Preventing Future Mismanagement of Government Procedures in these Instances .



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence




As far as people on watch lists, so, anyone on a watch list should be able to buy any weapon unless they have had that right denied due to due process, even if they are a suspected terrorist?


Do you know you can be put on a list for almost any reason? Do you know 10 year olds are on watch lists? Do you know that there are constant mix ups with people of the same names? Would you like to be thrown in jail and all your Rights taken away, without due process? With No Proof, other than some desk jockey's say so?
I've debated with folks like you before and no amount of reason is going to convince you. I give up.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

I do know that *some* people are put on watch lists for arbitrary reasons.

I also know that many people are put on watch lists for damn good reasons.

How does preventing people on watch lists from buying firearms infringe on your 2nd amendment rights?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Quoting myself:


I do know that *some* people are put on watch lists for arbitrary reasons.

I also know that many people are put on watch lists for damn good reasons.


And asking, again:

anyone on a watch list should be able to buy any weapon unless they have had that right denied due to due process, even if they are a suspected terrorist?


Keyword: anyone.

How does that infringe on your 2nd amendment right?

edit on 20-6-2016 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence


Because the requirement to have your name on that list does not go through ANY judical review. No judge, no jury, just some guy/gal in a federal office somewhere typing your name into a computer....period.

So, if I send your ATS handle to the feds and report you as a potential terrorist, and you get put on a terrorist watch list without your day in court to defend yourself, that is OK with you? THey can then completely refuse to protect your rights afforded by the Constitution. Currently that is a realistic scenario how the democratic amendment wanted it. It is very simple. The democrats did not WANT to put due process into the loop....does that explain it a bit more?



edit on 6/20/2016 by Krakatoa because: changed with to without, the real meaning of the post.



edit on 6/20/2016 by Krakatoa because: Added further clarifications



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

How does that infringe on your 2nd amendment right?




top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join