Democrats currently holding Filibuster to take away your gun rights

a reply to: Gryphon66

Sorry not expressing myself very well, sat up wide awake after about 4 hours sleep.. i am usually sound asleep right now.

the caveats and such would be things like this proposal to strip people of their rights without charging them with a crime.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sorry not expressing myself very well, sat up wide awake after about 4 hours sleep.. i am usually sound asleep right now.

the caveats and such would be things like this proposal to strip people of their rights without charging them with a crime.

No worries.

Which proposal are you talking about specifically? Do you think something "new" was being debated in the Senate today?

(I'm honestly confused here.)

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

I 100% agree with everything you just said!

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.)

It is per your words why we MUST be able to maintain our ability to have a voice. For me having a few firearms is my way of ensuring I can check the power albiet on a miniscule scale. I also like know if I walk into a Walmart and someone decides to choose me for their social experiment that I have the ability to do something about it.

Leave you with this:

The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.

a reply to: sirlancelot

Thanks for the Sun Tzu!

I understand the romantic or idealistic feeling that our guns might allow us to stand up against a tyrannical government.

However, the reality I fear is that they are meaningless against a Hellfire missile from a drone five miles away, and that's merely the most blunt example of the inequity of power.

Nite though.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Putting people on the watch list and removing their right to the 2nd..

the list as it stands today is horribly flawed (it is to easy to land on, and lack of judicial over sight)and needs to be fixed before they bring up possibly stripping american citizens of their rights.

Also the judicial over sight shouldnt be some super secret process, it needs to have some actual level of transparency to it or its useless.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66

Putting people on the watch list and removing their right to the 2nd..

the list as it stands today is horribly flawed (it is to easy to land on, and lack of judicial over sight)and needs to be fixed before they bring up possibly stripping american citizens of their rights.

Also the judicial oversight should not be some super secret process, it needs to have some actual level of transparency to it or its useless.

So, fix the list. I said clearly from the beginning that I wasn't advocating for the list, merely for the fact that if we determine a person to be a threat, they wouldn't be able to easily purchase whatever guns they wish.

How transparent can the fight against covert terrorists actually be? I guess that's one of the big questions here.

I believe it's on right now. Cspan2. Channel 351 for direct tv viewers.

a reply to: Gryphon66

thats the trick.. I will freely admit I am not smart enough to figure out that line...

but its a line that must be figured out and the law needs to be written to make sure that line cannot be crossed.

Or the idea needs to remain DOA.

Cory Booker will be president soon. Wish it could be now.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

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.

Sure...as more and more people die. Great idea. The checks and balances are already there. Go read up.

originally posted by: xuenchen
And Democrats went nuts in the House the other night....

House erupts into shouting after moment of silence for Orlando

Big gun control yelling.

I have to agree with those who grow tiresome of all the moments of silence while young people die at the hands of these people. Congress needs to get off their asses, put their politics and speaking points and lobbyists aside, and actually do what the taxpayers are paying them to do. Change the laws to keep this # from happening so I can walk into a public place with my family and not have to worry about being mowed down with 50 other people in 5 seconds or less.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: Irishhaf

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.

Sure...as more and more people die. Great idea. The checks and balances are already there. Go read up.

Since this discussion occurred because of Orlando; what law would have stopped the shooter at the night club?

I keep asking and nobody has offered anything beyond banning and confiscating firearms... which would violate a few little steps in the constitution.

originally posted by: ScoobyWho

originally posted by: xuenchen
And Democrats went nuts in the House the other night....

House erupts into shouting after moment of silence for Orlando

Big gun control yelling.

I have to agree with those who grow tiresome of all the moments of silence while young people die at the hands of these people. Congress needs to get off their asses, put their politics and speaking points and lobbyists aside, and actually do what the taxpayers are paying them to do. Change the laws to keep this # from happening so I can walk into a public place with my family and not have to worry about being mowed down with 50 other people in 5 seconds or less.

I wasnt aware that a mass killing occurred with automatic weapons...why isnt this in the news?

The gunman in orlando had hours to kill 50 people... if you want to be outraged why did the police wait so long to engage the shooter, it was my understanding the rule for cops was to engage the shooter asap to stop the death of innocents.

I am waiting to hear why it took them nearly 3 hours to get into the nightclub.

I'm pretty sure I posted this already in my December thread a few times, but here it is again again for some background.

GUN CONTROL AND THE NO-FLY LIST: ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW

So, in a nutshell...people on terrorist watchlists and no-fly lists can't fly but they can buy guns. And this makes sense in what world?

Also...



And just for reference, Mr Me Me Me tried to convince people that he was going to get the NRA to change its position.



Anyway, filibuster is over. Vote tomorrow.

originally posted by: DanteGaland

originally posted by: Konduit
So basically they're throwing a tantrum until they get their way. Welcome to the political left.

Much in the SAME way the GOP held the entire country HOSTAGE not only ONCE but SEVERAL times over the national budget? Anyone remember those times? The shutdowns AND furloughs?

Hm.

Good for the goose, but not the gander I guess?

Support what you believe! Ignore the rest! Yay!

I'd be very happy if the filibuster ran for the next 7 months really...What has congress done that benefited any of us at all anyway?!

Let them filibuster and that will ensure they don't pass any more stupid laws!

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Newsweek

“The government puts people on the no-fly list using vague and overbroad standards, and it is wrongly blacklisting innocents without giving them a fair process to correct government error,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project. “Our no-fly list lawsuit seeks to establish a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the list, which is error-prone and has had a devastating impact on their lives.”

So even the ACLU has a beef with using these watchlists...

That should be all that needs to be said on the subject

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Newsweek

“The government puts people on the no-fly list using vague and overbroad standards, and it is wrongly blacklisting innocents without giving them a fair process to correct government error,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project. “Our no-fly list lawsuit seeks to establish a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the list, which is error-prone and has had a devastating impact on their lives.”

So even the ACLU has a beef with using these watchlists...

That should be all that needs to be said on the subject

Right. So there is acknowledgement all-around. And there is a path to remedy erroneous placement on the list, maybe even in the bill (not sure what they changed since December) but they are addressing this issue.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: Irishhaf

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.

Sure...as more and more people die. Great idea. The checks and balances are already there. Go read up.

Since this discussion occurred because of Orlando; what law would have stopped the shooter at the night club?

I keep asking and nobody has offered anything beyond banning and confiscating firearms... which would violate a few little steps in the constitution.

Especially considering this guy was clearly under scrutiny and was removed from it and several times suspicion looked the other way because he was Muslim. It wouldn't be PC to suspect him. We're just learning now that a shop owner denied him a bulk purchase because he felt it suspicious and notified authorities.

What good did it do? After he'd been under scrutiny by the FBI, After the complaints by coworkers ...

Clearly there was a pattern, and putting this up for debate or vote would not have stopped him, either. He had every red flag and THEY WERE IGNORED BY TPTB.

But no, let's go ahead and take everyone else's rights away because it makes people feel better today instead of addressing the real problems. Mateen was on our radar; we just plain ignored him until he blew up. If the radar caught him, then clearly we have a system in place that should work. The real question is why it doesn't, not what we can do to remove the 2nd Amendment.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Oh, I'm sure they are ...

Pardon me if I'm not re-assured. They say they are "addressing" lots of things in bills that turn out to be clusterclucks when they get put into practice. Where our current government is concerned the only thing I have any re-assurance of is that they want power, no matter who is in charge, and they will do whatever is in my worst interests.

Those people who are trying to take 2nd amendment rights from everyone for the mistakes of a relative few are not worried about us shooting each other down here.

They are worried (pretending to be) about somebody with a gun coming for them, while their bodyguards and themselves keep theirs.

The gun violence in this country has been blown all out of proportion by the media and the people seem to be falling for it.

It isn't even about guns, it's about setting precedent and going right on through the rest of the constitution and bill of rights and gutting everything and all protections they provide for the sake of protecting the people from those who would do them harm, which is them.