GOP blocks efforts to deny guns to those on terrorist watch lists

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Even I would have eventually voted against this, as well.

The reason is that when we put checks in place for who can and cannot buy a firearm, they are based on things with fairly static definitions. For example, it takes the same thing now to be identified as a felon as it will 20 years from now (for the most part) and being institutionalized probably won't have a different meaning any time soon.

A terrorist watch list, however, has extremely high potential for a fluid and changing definition. It is a classification made up specifically by our government. It doesn't take a slow evolution to decide if a person is placed on it.

So it sounds like an awesome idea, it truly does, but it is waaaaay too flexible. I would support something just as meaningful but perhaps based on something not so transient.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Wouldn't this be a matter of due process? How can you take someones constitutionally protected rights away without any charges solely based on suspicion? This is really an attempt to circumvent the constitution by adding people to various list. I rarely see people talk about the act that made it possible for them to prevent people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from owning guns. The problem is that domestic violence is a blanket term that can be applied to a number of situations involving domestic partners. I have known people to get this charge for yelling and another for text messages. Just another slow erosion before our eyes.

I fall into a narrow group though because I support gun rights even for felons. I think the whole idea of felons not being able to get guns in a society that embraces gun rights is kind of laughable. The felons aren't acquiring legal firearms for robberies and such anyways. Regardless of that self defense is a basic human right in my eyes and should never be outlawed.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
So terrorist watchlists are a bad idea?

We should just let anyone into the country or get on planes bound for it if they have a vaild passport?

Punishment by virtue of a name on a list is in fact a BAD idea. Endorsing that mindset means we joined the league of ordinary nations.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: ~Lucidity

It wouldn't stop anything. Do you live in such fear? Are you so complacent, that you strut out your/the door, thinking, "I pay people to "protect" my worthless hide"? So what you're saying, is Americans can't trust YOU with a gun?

Nope. I have NO fear compared to these alarmist fearmongering representatives (outta one side of their mouth). Well snakes and spiders, but that's about it.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
So terrorist watchlists are a bad idea?

We should just let anyone into the country or get on planes bound for it if they have a vaild passport?

No, absolutely not. You're missing the point. We're not saying the lists are a bad thing. We're saying that using these lists to determine whether a citizen has Constitutional rights without granting them proper due process IS a bad thing.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
If the suspicion is unfounded they'll have their gun with a slight delay.

If it's founded, then it's a win.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

He''s gotta lotta guns to "grab" and less than a year to do it. Hmmm....

Assuming he leaves office as required and doesnt use a list to justify suspension of the constitution while arguing a slight delay in elections wont hurt anyone.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ~Lucidity

No its not... Why are you so eager to destroy due process? People like you support these insane government paranoid erosion of rights.. I cant wait till you end up on a list and arent told why while being punished with no due process or the ability of redress of grievances.

It is a slippery slope argument and you are freely jumping off the cliff via fear and ignorance.

Me? Eager to destroy due process?

I merely asked people to explain this, and you all have. I still don't see it as alarmingly big numbers, just an extension of background checks that should already be in place.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Nope. I have NO fear compared to these alarmist fearmongering representatives (outta one side of their mouth). Well snakes and spiders, but that's about it.

Your entire premise is based on fear.

Fear of terrorists, disguised as law abiding citizens, getting firearms.

They are terrorists. If they want firearms, they will get them. Discarding the rights of actual law abiding citizens will not prevent that.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: ~Lucidity

It wouldn't stop anything. Do you live in such fear? Are you so complacent, that you strut out your/the door, thinking, "I pay people to "protect" my worthless hide"? So what you're saying, is Americans can't trust YOU with a gun?

Nope. I have NO fear compared to these alarmist fearmongering representatives (outta one side of their mouth). Well snakes and spiders, but that's about it.

Often times I find you to be a thoughtful, intelligent poster even when we disagree.

Sadly, today is not one of those days.

Why don't we all tell our elected officials that we don't want any of them telling us what to do anymore. Why are all the issues so partisan? The only issue that matters is are the elected officials trying to limit our freedom on a particular issue. If the answer is YES then we all need to tell them to go jump in a lake.

The Government is the enemy. Not terrorists or gun owners.

The only people that I fear live in DC.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

A lot of that was the Patriot act...the redefinition and broadening of what a terroristic threat was.

As for the felons, I am of the conviction that once someone does their time, they get their rights reinstated.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
I merely asked people to explain this, and you all have. I still don't see it as alarmingly big numbers, just an extension of background checks that should already be in place.

The numbers shouldn't be the issue. Would you agree with someone who said, 'Ah hell, its just 2% of those death row inmates that are innocent! Who cares?'

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: ~Lucidity

It wouldn't stop anything. Do you live in such fear? Are you so complacent, that you strut out your/the door, thinking, "I pay people to "protect" my worthless hide"? So what you're saying, is Americans can't trust YOU with a gun?

Nope. I have NO fear compared to these alarmist fearmongering representatives (outta one side of their mouth). Well snakes and spiders, but that's about it.

Often times I find you to be a thoughtful, intelligent poster even when we disagree.

Sadly, today is not one of those days.

Was it the snake thing?

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Nope. I have NO fear compared to these alarmist fearmongering representatives (outta one side of their mouth). Well snakes and spiders, but that's about it.

Your entire premise is based on fear.

Fear of terrorists, disguised as law abiding citizens, getting firearms.

They are terrorists. If they want firearms, they will get them. Discarding the rights of actual law abiding citizens will not prevent that.

I have a premise?

Dupe

A large majority of those lists are false positives. And then those who are actually legal to own have to jump through a ton of red tape and money to fix it.
Perhaps the system needs to actually list REAL terrorists first, before anyone passes this.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

This was before 9/11. It began with The Lautenberg Amendment .

The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban often called "the Lautenberg Amendment" ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence", Pub.L. 104–208,[1] 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)[2]) is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as "the Lautenberg Amendment" after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D - NJ).

I am glad to see we are in agreement regarding felons though. Kind of surprising you feel that way based on some impressions from previous post. I liked being surprised Kudos!

I fly a lot. And I really hate to take my shoes off and have my hands swiped by federal agents. It's an infringement of my right not to be touched. Can we fix that too?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Its never a big deal to someone not on a list...

It wasnt a big deal when Nazi Germany put Jewish names on a list.
It wasnt a big deal when Stalin put political names on a list.
It wasnt a big deal when Joseph McCarthy put names of people who didnt agree with him on a list.

Lists are fine when their are constitutional protections attached.

When there is no protections attached its a bad idea.. People who get added down the road who originally thought it was a good idea find their weak pleas for help arent heard.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
I have a premise?

If you didn't, you wouldn't have an argument...so, yes, you have a premise.
2nd.