Democrats currently holding Filibuster to take away your gun rights

a reply to: ~Lucidity

So you fix it.. then you show the people you fixed it then you have the debate over stripping people of their rights without due process.

How many times have millions of Americans lamented the fact that it seems like all our Politicians are nothing but liars and thieves...

Now so many people seem H@ll bent on trusting these same liars and thieves with doing things correctly in regards to our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

I can not fathom that train of thought... when it comes to things like this they must fix the problems and prove they fixed the problems before you tell me your going to pass a law that strips rights from citizens that have not been arrested or convicted of a crime.

This idea needs to remain DOA ... bad idea is horribly bad..

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!

There's a pretty big difference between trying to find common ground with financial accountability versus the shredding of our constitution, don't ya think?

They are pushing for blocking gun sales to those on the do not fly list. The bad thing is the NRA even supports it.

a reply to: defiythelie

www.huffingtonpost.com... only after they have been fully vetted with option to face their acusers and be treated as innocent instead of presumed guilty and fix the problems and errors of the program . hell is mostlikely freezing over right now as Huff post and NRA are in agreement on something along with the ACLU

But to understand its argument, one must look beyond the Second Amendment the group loves so dear to another part of the Constitution: the one that guarantees due process of law for anyone whose rights the government intends to target. On this front, the NRA has forcefully and successfully argued government watch lists are constitutionally problematic because they’re bloated and sweep far too broadly, ensnaring innocent Americans that otherwise pose no threat to national security — including one prominent U.S. senator, media pundits, executives, even babies and the late Nelson Mandela. When anti-gun furor following the Paris terrorist attacks reached fever pitch last year, the NRA pointed to our own coverage here in The Huffington Post to underscore the myriad problems with terror watch lists, and sought to dispel the public misperception that the organization was somehow interested in arming homegrown jihadists. “The NRA does not want terrorists or dangerous people to have firearms, any suggestion otherwise is offensive and wrong,” a statement from NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker read at the time. The NRA’s only objective is to ensure that Americans who are wrongly on the list are afforded their constitutional right to due process. National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker She continued: “The NRA’s only objective is to ensure that Americans who are wrongly on the list are afforded their constitutional right to due process. It is appalling that anti-gun politicians are exploiting the Paris terrorist attacks to push their gun-control agenda and distract from President Obama’s failed foreign policy.” Notice the Second Amendment is nowhere in that statement, but due process is. It was the latter constitutional right, which provides citizens a judicial forum to challenge unwarranted government overreach, that brought to the NRA’s side an unlikely bedfellow: the American Civil Liberties Union.

as a progun person this fillibuster makes me laugh but only because i am informed of how the law friggign works, there are allready background checks on fire arms i bought 6 guns online last month and each transaction had a background check and im in frigging montana (not an anti gun state at all)

im not even opposed to the terror watch list provision as long as it is revamped to allow people to challenge this classification (being put on the list ) so that due process rights are not infringed upon.

now a brief rant to anti gunners: the problem alot of pro gun people have with anti gun people is the overwhelming ignorance portrayed by anti gunners, they call semi automatic weapons fully automatic weapons(see michale moore and Bernie sanders statements)

they lie about the capabilities of the fire arms they are talking about (calling semi automatic weapons assault rifles when that is just not the case)

they echo the false narrative that "no one needs an AR-15 for deer hunting" the second amendment has never been about hunting and some people who dont live in cities have to deal with predators and threats to live stock (we have bears and wolves here)

they often quote "the founders could never have imagined such weapons" when even before the founding of America rapid fire repeating fire arms were in existence (hell there is a 20+ shot flintlock among other examples)

the TLDR they argue false narratives from a stand point of ignorance and ignore any good points made and brought up in arguments and scream from the roof tops for the children because the bulk of them have no idea what the hell they are talking about

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

Your cynicism, non-assurance, opinion, theory, and paranoia about things that have no demonstrable evidence to support them is not in many minds good enough reason stall, obstruct, nitpick, block, and do nothing about what is clearly a serious issue in this country while offering no rational or viable alternative is the way to go. So do nothing and continue to let people die. Try nothing and continue to let people die.

I see.

That may be the kind of nation you wish to live in. Me? I choose the option of doing something, trying anything, than allowing this to continue.

a reply to: stinkelbaum

Don't be trite, man. If you want a gun free country, I urge you to relocate to the UK or Oz. Their laws are perfect for passive ponies like yourself. Here, we celebrate the Constitution and Bill of Rights; The two things that make us different from the rest of the world.

So let me get this straight.

No fly lists are PERFECTLY acceptable.

Then all Trump has to do is put every muslim in the middle east on one.

Therefore they can not come to the country.

And there is NOT A DAMN thing his critics can say about it.

After all no fly lists, and denying constitutional rights is about stopping 'crimes' before they happen.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

the TLDR they argue false narratives from a stand point of ignorance and ignore any good points made and brought up in arguments and scream from the roof tops for the children because the bulk of them have no idea what the hell they are talking about

I grew up during a completely different time, in a whole other United States. My parents would have been classified as child abusers and domestic terrorist, if I was born 50 years later.

I was raised in the country and unbeknown to me, at the time, we were poor. By the time I was 8 years old, I was cooking the family meals, washing clothes, hanging clothes, folding and ironing clothes. I was baby sitting, up before the sun to help with chores before school, and came home to change out of my school clothes, to more chores, then homework. I had to help or prepare dinner, wash the dishes, and be in bed by 8 pm.

I don't remember the first time I had a gun placed in my hands, but by the time I was 8, I was a fair shot. I also had more than a healthy respect for all the guns my father had in the house, and none of us children ever thought of them as toys or something that you touched without permission.

Of course back then children were seen and not heard. Children didn't sass, and children received spankings, sometimes by relatives and neighbors. My parents were not big on spankings but I do believe they should have won the global prize for coming up with creative punishments that always fit the crime.

This is not a, I had to walk 10 miles to school, up hill both ways, story. There was nothing unique or special about my childhood. It was petty much the same in all the neighboring homes.

People did bad things, even back then. People killed and people were killed. No one ever blamed the axe, the poison, the knife, or the gun for the killing. The blame was always placed were it belonged, even if there were more then one person involved.

Back then everyone had guns and they carried them openly. I was a child, so I don't know for sure, but I don't think any licensing was required either. All those guns, yet people got hurt or killed with knives more often than by guns. Funny thing is, I heard of three stories around the time I was a child, were children got hurt with BB guns. I never heard one story of a child being hurt with a real gun.

We don't need more gun laws and gun restrictions. We need more people educated and respectful of guns. We have seen that more and more gun laws are not effective in controlling crimes committed with guns. Why don't we try something that is not novel, in fact a a bit old fashion. Maybe it will level the playing field, and people won't be so quick to attack a bunch of innocent people, if they know they can, and will shoot back.

a reply to: defiythelie

The NRA supports a lip-service version that will tie people up in FISA courts or some such. They got their mitts all over Toomey's bill which made it entirely impractical. i meant to mention that. Trump going to the NRA instead of to Congress. That's pretty telling too. Weird world.

a reply to: neo96

There are three levels of watchlists as I understand it. The article I posted earlier with the NRA statement pretty well explains the long-existing issues with them and explains why some of these will by the very nature of the lists probably always remain issues.

Republicans should just shut down or prevent the vote when the time come and tell Reid, just kidding, we just wanted to f@%k with you guys.

Probably be real easy to get on a list and real expensive if not impossible to get off. Which is exactly what they really want and why Congress has to keep saying no.

We already see DHS calling out groups / ideologies that disagree with administration.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

As I understand it Marteen traveled to Saudi Arabia.

So much for 'no' fly lists.

a reply to: matafuchs
Because it's the Dems doing this, there will be no outcry about "holding the government hostage" or "shutting down the government."

Harte

Just stay home. Put an entertainment room in your house, no vacationing, and order most everything online to be delivered. It is going to get worse cause there is nothing to stop the violence.

a reply to: matafuchs

how is this ok?

Omar Mateen was not on any "Lists" because the FBI took him off 2 years ago.

So using the "Lists" to control guns is useless.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ~Lucidity

As I understand it Marteen traveled to Saudi Arabia.

So much for 'no' fly lists.

Ah that hole in the narrative. Because hard as everyone is saying it is to get off the list, the FBI is saying they removed him after the inconclusive investigation.

There;s a little more on the subtleties between the dem and gop and the no-fly lists here if you're interested.

What’s at the Heart of the Senate Fight Over Sensible, Constitutional Gun Control?

a reply to: xuenchen

See above. For the eighth time.

The Real Agenda of Trump
There’s been lots of speculation that Donald Trump is secretly working for Hillary Clinton www.nationalreview.com... I was recently told by a reliable source that not only is this the case but that there is a much larger agenda at play. My source tells me that as me move closer to the election we will see Trump making more and more controversial statements. The end game is not for him to get elected. It’s all about who ultimately votes for him in the general election – even after all these statements. What you end up with a targeted group of people who have essentially self-identified themselves as radicals through their voting of Trump. When Hillary gets elected – and the numbers indicate it’s all but certain these people will be placed under special surveillance.

a reply to: Bramble Iceshimmer

They already did that in December. Right after the last huge shooting.

It is neither impossible or expensive to get off the list. Finding out someone is on it is another story, but by its vvery nature and what it is in place to prevent, that's one of the sacrifices that have to be made.