Republicans Allow Potential Terrorist Buy Guns Legally?!?!

[CajunBlazer]

I was reading our local newspaper this morning when I came across a few lines buried in a news article which made my jaw drop. I rubbed my eyes and read it again. The print was the same and I had read it right the first time. It essentially said that Senate Republicans had voted down by a 45-54 mostly party line vote a bill offered by Dianne Feinstein (D-California) which would have denied individuals on the terror watch list the right to buy firearms. (One Republican and one Democrat crossed party lines and voted with the other side.) Senate Republicans also voted down another bill by one of their own, John Cornyn (R-Texas), by a similar margin which would have delayed for 72 hours the sale of firearms to those on the terror watch list - for due process.

Did Republicans really protect the rights of potential terrorists to buy weapons which they might be used to murder us? They can’t fly in airplanes with us, but they can buy guns? Now that is hard to believe. Thinking perhaps there was a misprint in the newspaper, I checked several news websites. Nope, the story was accurate. Wow! You would think that passing such bills would be a no brainer. I would have predicted they would have been approved by the Senate by a 99-0 margin. Shows what I know.

If you need further proof that the National Rifle Association owns Congressional Republicans, you need look no further that this stupidity because it follows the NRA’s party line: Allow no legislation to pass (no matter how reasonable) which in any way infringes on the right of individuals to own and operate firearms because once you do that it is a slippery slope to total gun control. The phrase in parenthesis is mine.

However, this is not a great deal more outrageous than failures by Congress to pass a requirement for universal background checks on all gun sales. .......

More > Republicans Allow Potential Terrorist Buy Guns Legally?!?!

[X_Digger]

1. It's called due process. See 5th, 14th amendments. n/t

[CajunBlazer]

4. Really, if that were a problem, why can we keep them from flying?

In addition, the alternate bill would have given those on the terrorist watch list a 72 hour waiting period in which they could contest their classification. (The reason given for the wait was specifically to address the due process issue.) Then even if they were able to buy guns we would at least know they had them.

Of course the Republicans voted that bill down as well.

[X_Digger]

7. Flying on a commercial airline isn't a civil right.

This is the tissue-thin excuse that congress used when this inanity was first passed. "We're not denying a civil right without due process, honestly!"

Would you apply the same list to.. voting? Being secure in their person? (I mean, c'mon, surely folks on the BushCo Supah-Sekrit Terrah list should be surveilled 24x7 without a warrant, right? right?)

[hunter]

87. I'm not so secure in my person when any damned fool can buy a gun.

I think the "no-fly" list is bogus too, but so are the airlines. I hate flying.

Automobiles, airplanes, automatic weapons, high explosives, none of that shit existed when the Constitution was written.

The Constitution was a very flawed document from the beginning, allowing white male property owners exceptional privileges while fucking over everyone else, most especially slaves and the people who'd been living in the Americas for thousands of years.

My European Ancestors fled to the lawless U.S.A. wilderness in the eighteenth and nineteenth century escaping European officials who hated pacifists and religious heretics. My very last immigrant ancestor was a mail order bride to the newly established Salt Lake City. The husband in Utah was little better than the husband she left in Scandinavia, and worse, she had to share him with other wives. So she ran away with a third guy, and later married him, establishing a remote homestead where nobody would bother her with religion or politics again.

I'm the child of a matriarchal family where the women hunt and the men farm. Or maybe worse, the men are artist and dreamers. My great grandmas were all fierce, the sort who could kill a bad man and depend upon the county sheriff-coroner to clean up the mess and fill out the proper paperwork. (That's not a good thing.) Pacifists by necessity, not by any natural inclination. Berserkers. Valkyrja.

Modern interpretations of the U.S.A. Constitution are equally flawed, most especially concerning the the mother-fucking-second-amendment and all the morons who worship it and their fucking guns, almost as the word of some demented deity, probably that same gawd who got his jollies penetrating the bodies of human sons and daughters with spears, knives, bullets, shrapnel, and frequently the dicks of his child-raping "holy" men.

I piss on guns. I piss on fundamentalists of any sort, religious or secular.

Every gun lover I've met reminds me of Sean Connery in Zardoz, but never so smart or as good looking.

I hate guns for maybe two reasons. In my family tradition it's acceptable to separate a fool from his guns. Sometimes literal "gun grabbing."

I've witnessed my mom taking guns from family, family friends, and horrifyingly a few times, strangers.

Worse, I've cleaned up gun messes. Replacing carpets. painting over blood in cheap housing with Kilz. My gun stories are all awful. Liberty-and-Justice-For-All had fled, and were washing the shit and piss out of their underwear at the nearest fast food place toilet while I was still trying to figure out what the hell had just happened.

Bam, bam, burrupity, bam bam, it's over. Slow motion is Hollywood fantasy.

As a foolish young man I was out climbing rocks once, alone, without proper safety equipment. I started sliding, flesh was being scraped off of me all over, but I managed to wedge a hand into a crack and halt my slide. It fucking hurt.

Gangster kids show up in the local hospital emergency room shot, screaming it hurts.

Well, duh. Boys and many grown men are weenies.

I don't have any personal experience of guns making a human conflict better, and I've been in some very rough situations where other people have been well armed. In my experience, anecdotal I know, guns tend to turn conflicts that are resolvable into horrible tragedies.

If the San Bernardino "terrorists" had been left to live then their stories would be as stupid as the stories of anyone who thinks guns will solve their stupid problems.

[Photographer]

28. Can't argue with 'em on this point. It's in the NRA book of answers for Good Guys w/Guns

If you try to interject logic at this point they will tell you that it's not a clip and that you are a fool for calling it an assault gun then remind you that there are too many guns in America so we shouldn't try to do anything about it or they're going to go all Red Dawn on your ass.

After that, they will tell you they like the salty taste of Play-Dough and that they're made of hot dog filling.

[GGJohn]

33. So you're in favor of Bush era secret govt lists also?

Be honest, is it because it's about firearms?
Let's say it was about voting, would you still be in favor of these secret lists?

[Photographer]

35. Hot dog filling? Really?

[GGJohn]

37. Interesting.

You won't answer the question.

[Photographer]

40. I would have more success discussing Kant with a Koi.

[darkangel218]

51. That.^^

Some people wind up by accident on the no fly list. Ted Kennedy did:

In August 2004, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) told a Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the No Fly List that he had appeared on the list and had been repeatedly delayed at airports. He said it had taken him three weeks of appeals directly to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to have him removed from the list. Kennedy said he was eventually told that the name "T Kennedy" was added to the list because it was once used as an alias of a suspected terrorist. There are an estimated 7,000 American men whose legal names correspond to "T Kennedy". (Senator Kennedy, whose first name was Edward and for whom "Ted" was only a nickname, would not have been one of them.) Recognizing that as a U.S. Senator he was in a privileged position of being able to contact Ridge, Kennedy said of "ordinary citizens": "How are they going to be able to get to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List

[Duckhunter935]

2. the question is

How do you get on Bush's secret list? What are you legal protections and remedies? I agree with the ACLU on the use of these secret lists that you have no notice of being added to and have many errors like the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

What other rights and due process are you willing to give up, free speech, free association?

[CajunBlazer]

14. I am not willing to give up our right to be safe in our environments provided.....

....that it doesn't intrude obtrusively into the rights of others. The history of the Supreme Court is full of cases which decided where our rights under one section of the constitution end and our rights under another section begin.

Right now I believe that it is reasonable for the FBI and other federal agencies to investigate those who might be planning terror attacks and those whose very suspicious activities (such posting their belief in Jihad) should be put on a list. Perhaps such a list should be made public, but the argument against that is that it would alert those under suspicion and make them more careful about their activities and force them to act more surreptitiously such that law enforcement officials can no longer detects real threats. I am not in favor allowing such individuals to by assault rifles with large capacity magazines which would make them able to kill large quantities of innocent people at one time.

[Duckhunter935]

19. nice of you to agree to give up rights

And agree to the Bush secret lists. I for one agree with the ACLU and do not want to give up rights like we did under the PATRIOT act. Please use semi-automatic weapon as it is the function of the weapon not the look that should be limited to do anything like what you want. What is a large capacity magazine? The murderer at Virginia Tech did pretty well with so called low capacity ones. The Colorado shooters stupid mega capacity magazine jammed and made that weapon useless.

[darkangel218]

54. +1 million !!!

[GGJohn]

20. There's that "by assault rifles" again.

[Duckhunter935]

27. well when the news and our elected representatives

Can not bother to learn or in my opinion are deliberately deceiving, hard to hold the less informed of that error.

[GGJohn]

29. Yep.

He's now actually claiming that "assault weapons" were banned for sale during the 94 AWB.
His uninformed "facts" make it so easy.

[Duckhunter935]

31. does not California

Have an assault weapons ban now, lol

[GGJohn]

34. Yes they do,

didn't seem to stop the 2 terrorists.

[CajunBlazer]

44. You're right, it can't stop terrorists who legally buy their AR-15 and high capacity magazines...

....in other states. That's federal ban are needed.

[GGJohn]

46. Those 2 AR-15's weren't bought in another state,

they were bought in CA, they were CA compliant until the 2 terrorists modified them.
Do try to keep up.

[sanatanadharma]

41. Good point

The no-fly list restricts "free association".

Grab your guns and storm the TSA stations, the Feds have clearly crossed over the insurrection barrier.
BTW, who is the authorized person who can tell everyone else that it is time for insurrection?

The 2nd amendment defenders have to leave this decision to the individual to avoid the collective (hereafter called the rest of society) meaning of the amendment.

It seems to me that the logic that 2nd amendment gunners use (insurrection against the government) grants the San Bernadino killers the same 2nd amendment right to declare that today the insurrection begins.

However, gunners logic (even when anti-social and contrary to the best interests of other Americans) 'trump' bullet-riddled bloodied kid bodies any day in the minds of those who go insane.

That first 22 caliber rifle is the gateway drug to the paranoid delusions of collectors of vast arsenals.

[GGJohn]

3. I don't know how many times this has to be explained.

Those Bush era govt secret lists are an abomination, unless your a rich, connected person, you have no way of even knowing that you're on those lists, no redress to get off of them if by chance you find out you're on one, and the standard for ending up on one of those lists is set very low, all it needs is for a name to sound like yours and voila, your name is on the list.

The NRA, ACLU and just about every civil rights organizations oppose these list as unconstitutional, which they are.

I find it the height of hypocrisy that progressives will oppose these Bush secret lists until it comes to firearms, then they're all for it.

If these people on the list are so dangerous, then maybe they shouldn't be walking free.

[CajunBlazer]

5. I find it interesting that very progessives Senators voted for the bill and....

.....all of the very conservative senators, who are all for using secret lists, voted against it. So this is obviously not about "secret lists".

Maybe you are in favor of not having lists of people who might be well be plotting to kill a lot of innocent people, Maybe a "real progressive" like you is against investigating people at all. Doesn't such investigations infringe on their "rights".

Fess up! You're not concerned about "secret lists", your following the NRA party line.

[GGJohn]

6. Maybe the cons got something right for a change?

You know, that broken clock thing.

I'm in favor of transparency, something you seem to be against and would rather have those secret Bush era lists.

Fess up! You're not concerned with the unconstitutional secret list, you're just following the Bush policy of secrecy and unconstitutional laws.

[CajunBlazer]

9. Nope the reason you believe they got something right is because...

... this is something on which you have always agreed with them. I suspect you have the "but this is a progressive thing" argument in your playbook for just this kind of situation.

Here is the problem with the NRA playbook - when you continue with the "no more gun regulation of any kind" stance even in situations when a such stance are stupid (like this one), sooner of later the general public is going to start believing that your entire narrative is stupid, and that won't be good for your side.

It has already started to happen. In the most recent poll, 92% - including 92% of gun owners - said they were in favor of background check for all gun sales without exception. When Congressmen start defying the wishes of that high a percentage of Americans, the NRA is going to eventually lose. Where it goes from there is anyone's guess. It would be best if the NRA and those that support that organization agree to reasonable gun laws in order to protect themselves from more onerous ones later.

[GGJohn]

11. Nice rant,

now what the fuck does this have to do with your support of Bush era secret govt list?

[GGJohn]

13. Gee, ya caught me,

I'm on the side of the NRA, ACLU, NAACP, and all the other civil rights organizations that believe in govt transparency and due process.
Wow!!! What a position for a progressive to take.

[CajunBlazer]

15. I didn't know the NRA is a civil rights organization.

[GGJohn]

17. I never said it was, notice I listed them seperate?

But of course you want to twist my words because that's all you've got left.

Why are you here, on this progressive website, championing BUSH era secret govt lists?
Doesn't that shit belong over at Freeperville?

[CajunBlazer]

21. I am simply ridiculing Republican Senators who....

...who never gave a damn about anyone's rights in the past voting to protect the rights of potential terrorists. That would be comical if it weren't so weird. These are the Senators who approved the lists in first place, surely they believe they are valid, yet they are saying that people on the terrorist watch lists shouldn't be allow to fly but should be able to buy any guns they want to buy, including the AR-15's with high capacity clips used in San Bernardino .

So I agree with the most progressive people elected to the Senate, but you believe I shouldn't be on a progressive website? Are you saying that Al Franken Elizabeth Warren and Mazie Hirono aren't progressive enough to be on this site. They all voted for both bills. And what about Dianne Feinstein? She proposed the most restrictive bill. So why don't you write each of the 44 Democratic Senators and tell them why they aren't real progressives.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. Again, the argument from authority. This is wrong, and it remains wrong *whoever* approves of it

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. Was FDR's approval of the internment of Americans of Japanese descent also acceptable to you?

Nobody in their right minds would call *him* a conservative, so was that okeydokey?

[CajunBlazer]

56. Surely you are not equating the no fly list with.....

..... with the internment of nearly the entire Japanese population of the United State during World war II, are you?

There are huge differences. There was absolutely no evidence that the vast majority of the Americans imprisoned, essentially for being of Japanese decent, were disloyal in any way, shape or form.

On the other hand if you fought with ISIS in Syria or Iraq you and came back to the US, you will probably end up on the no fly list. If you frequent terrorist websites which teach the making of bombs and the best way to take out the maximum number of people in the minimum amount of time and then pledge allegiance to ISIS, you are probably going to end up on the no fly list.

Mistakes can and do happen - someone may be kept from flying because they happen to have the same name is someone on the list. For that reason I favor a definite procedure for challenging federal authorities when your name ends up on the list. But only an idealist fool would want these people completely unfettered until they decide to put their thoughts into action.

Different rights often conflict and these types of debates have occurred since the Constitution was signed. For instance when does the right to free speech conflict with the right of the public to be safe in secure. There is the famous example of yelling "fire!" in crowded theater. Or is it okay to incite others to violence.

So the question here is when does suspicion rise to the level where some of a person's rights are suspended. It is a subject for debate, but the proper course of action is not as cut and dry as you claim it to be.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. Due process: ever hear of it? If these people are dangerous, then why are they not in jail?

If they have broken the law, charge them accordingly and treat them like any other
person accused of wrongdoing

If they have not broken the law, they have the same right to go about their business
and do what anyone else may legally do.

Prior restraint is un-American

[GGJohn]

24. Dianne Feinstein progressive?

Many of those "progressive senators" voted to created the Patriot Act and the secret govt lists that offer no due process.
You want to agree with them?
I find myself in bad territory when I have to agree with the repukes on an issue, as I do with this particular issue, but once again, it's that whole broken clock analogy, while at the same time, you're siding with the Senate Dems who are voting to uphold those secret govt lists just because it's about firearms, if it were about anything else, like voting rights, they'd be the first screaming that it's unconstitutional to restrict their ability to vote, and rightly so.

Nope, it's all because of the firearms issue.

[branford]

38. Yes, the NRA is a civil rights organization.

The right to keep and bear arms is indeed a constitutionally protected civil right in the USA, and the NRA seeks to protect it, your opinion on the right itself or firearms notwithstanding.

I am not a member of the NRA, and do not support many of their position or tactics (I've never even owned firearms), particularly since their advocacy often hurts the electoral chances of Democratic candidates, but the meaning and definition of words do not change because I may have disagreements with a group's positions.

[CajunBlazer]

49. The NRA are protectors of one interperation of the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution...

...which has the most ambiguous language in the entire constitution. There are equally valid interpretations of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. In fact for 218 years, Supreme Court Justices and other judges overwhelmingly concluded that the amendment authorized states to form militias, what we now call the National Guard.

Then, in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upended two centuries of precedent. In the [Heller case], an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia declared that the Constitution confers a right to own a gun for self-defense in the home.” So the NRA supports only one very interpenetration of the 2nd Amendment. It is interesting that the NRA has the Second Amendment inscribed in their lobby, but with the militia clause removed.

There were many groups down though history that supported various interpretations of various sections of the constitution. For instance, several group Southern groups before the Civil War claimed that the Constitution projected the their right to own slaves.

After the war the KKK and other groups like the Red Shirts claimed that the 13th Amendment was illegal and contested the right of the federal government to tell them how they should conduct their state governments in the South.

I guess if we stand on our head and twist our tongue a bit like you did, we could also call the KKK a civil rights group.

[branford]

50. You can adopt any personal interpretation of the 2A (or anything else) that you wish.

However, that does not change the fact that the NRA does indeed unquestionably exist to advocate for the broadest interpretation of an actual enumerated constitutional right, an interpretation largely supported by actual Supreme Court jurisprudence, to say nothing of its five million dues-paying, and largely law-abiding, members.

It doesn't require your (or my) agreement with a group for them to still be a civil rights organization.

I don't support the NRA (although I support gun rights), but I'm similarly not blind or in denial.

[Eleanors38]

8. From your posts, you are soft on Constitutional rights.

Right here for all to see.

[CajunBlazer]

10. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the people, through their government,....

....have the right under the Second Amendment to impose reasonable restrictions on weapons. For instance the Supreme Court is not going to over turn laws that mandate that you have to have a special license to possess a rocket propelled grenade launcher, or a operational tank, or a flame thrower, or an automatic weapon. The only thing at issue is what is a reasonable restriction and what is not.

Reasonable people can have reasonable discussions about what is reasonable and what is not without being "soft on the constitution". I can recall when some believed that favoring integration was "soft on the constitution". So let's not go the shall we.

[GGJohn]

12. Yet here you are, supporting Bush era, yes, BUSH era secret govt lists,

that the ACLU and all other civil rights organizations oppose.
Bush would be so proud of you.

[CajunBlazer]

16. My postions are not dictated by the ACLU or any other organizations

And apparently nether are the positions of the most progressive Senators who voted for the two bills. I also find it interesting that the most conservative Senators completely agree with you. That is some what of a disconnect in your arguments, isn't it.

And hey, if you are in favor of allowing people who are potential terrorists to fly with the rest of us and buy assault rifles with high capacity magazines, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, as I am to mine.

[GGJohn]

18. Buy assault rifles?

You don't even know that assault rifles have been illegal for sale to the general public since 1932?
And the 1986 NFA banned the production of automatic weapons for sale to civilians?

Yeah, you're real credible.

I still find it curious that you would side with those that want to do away with due process and support BUSH era secret govt lists.
Hmmmm, very interesting.

[CajunBlazer]

25. Don't display your ignorance - The law banning assault weapons expired in 2004

That law was passed in 1994 and it banned even non automatic versions of weapons like the AR-15, the AK-47, StG 44 and many others. That law expired in 2004 and has never been renewed.

Automatic weapons are stilled banned, but you can buy an semiautomatic assault rifles (as previously defined by that law) like the AR-15, the AK-47 and many others at your local gun store and Walmart if they still carry them.

I can't imagine while you would be amazed that I agree with most progressives on this issue.
Any way, I don't have any more time to play word games with you, so have the last word and go on about your business.

Bye,

[GGJohn]

26. Your ignorance is showing again,

it did no such thing, it banned certain cosmetics on semi auto firearms, there were still brand new ones sold throughout the 10 year AWB, and existing pre ban ones were still sold legally, albeit, for a much higher price, but they were still for sale.

Semi auto rifles are not assault rifles, assault rifles are select fire weapons, as in full auto, 3 round burst, single round.

[X_Digger]

30. No, it didn't actually ban guns.

All existing guns and magazines were grandfathered, hence 'pre-ban' guns, and new guns just had things like a pinned stock and muzzle brake.



The above rifle was legally purchased during the 'ban', from a federally licensed dealer.

AR-15 type guns actually increased in sales during the period.

[branford]

32. Politicians from both political parties are hypocrites and pander to their constituencies.

This is hardly revelation.

"I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

When the NRA, ACLU and most other civil rights groups are actually in agreement on an issue, it really speaks for itself.

Moreover, no one, liberal or conservative, is suggesting that they're against the government investigating people they reasonably suspect of plotting to kill innocent people. However, we are a nation of laws, and absent recognized due process, these suspects get to keep their constitutional rights.

I was concerned and objected to the secret lists when Bush was president, along with most progressives, and my opinion has only hardened in response to calls to expand their use, no less to deprive people of constitutional rights (and the right to own a firearm is constitutionally protected, unlike the privilege of flying).

[Dems to Win]

39. A Pox on Both their Houses

Good article here, from the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/05/no-fly-list-terrorism-gun-control-democrats-debate-republicans

It's messed up for Democrats to use the no-fly list to push for gun laws

Trevor Timm
And Republicans pushing back by citing due process after years trying to squelch it is no less hypocritical

...snip
If Republicans want to vote down this largely symbolic and hypocritical gun control legislation by Democrats, that’s their prerogative. But let’s not pretend that they suddenly care about the due process rights that they have spent the last decade and a half attempting to destroy.

At the same time, we should all acknowledge that the no-fly list is an abomination, and it’s shameful that the Democratic party is not only defending its use but trying to further legitimize and intrench it into America’s laws. On the surface, Republicans are right about one thing: the list is a due-process nightmare that is riddled with mistakes and has ensnared countless innocent people over the past decade and a half.

A federal judge recently ruled the process for finding out if you’re on the list and any attempt to get off it unconstitutional, given its Kafkaesque procedures and extreme secrecy, which make it impossible to challenge. The administration has supposedly been incrementally changing its procedures in response to that court order and other lawsuits brought by innocent people who have had their rights violated, but they have only doing so while kicking and screaming.

I am not arguing that Congress shouldn’t pass more stringent gun control laws. Even the gun-loving US supreme court has indicated there are plenty of ways to do so without violating the Second Amendment. But we should stop pretending that this legislation will come close to stopping the mass murder problem we have in this country.

[Glassunion]

42. I have one question about "The List"

If they are so dangerous, that they are on a "no-fly-list", then why are they not in jail?

Why haven't we rounded them up, used the Patriot Act, labeled them as a terrorist, and detained them in jail indefinitely?

If they are too dangerous to allow on a plane, how is it we let them walk around in public, shop at malls, pick up their kids at school, visit relatives in hospitals, ect...?

If they are such a danger to safety, why haven't we arrested them, but instead allow them public access to crowded public spaces?

[dumbcat]

47. Crickets

Not surprised.

[Duckhunter935]

53. does not surprise me at all

That is a good question to ask the politicians that are saying this.

[LittleBlue]

60. Very good question

We won't let them on planes but trains and subways are just fine?

[ileus]

43. Why not just go ahead and toss them in gitmo.

Who's on the list, and what landed them there?

[CajunBlazer]

45. When I posted the OP, I thought it would be fairly non controversial. I forgot about the gun lobby

A little alarm bell must go off somewhere on DU.

[GGJohn]

48. When you post mis-information,

then of course you're going to be challenged on it.

[CajunBlazer]

57. Read the OP again, I didn't post anything but factual information

Everything I posted is factually accurate. Every word.

Tell the truth: I posted something you didn't like - and that is why I was challenged. And look around, there hundreds, perhaps thousands of people on DU, and at this point there have been 685 view of the OP. Only you and a few of your gun buddies and one over idealistic progressive challenged me. Most other people who read the OP just took it at face value, absorbed it as information and went own about their business. Look around, you and your buddies are pretty much alone; you are the odd men out.

Everyone knows that you guys show up anytime anyone discusses gun legislation and they are tired of all of your NRA supplied pat arguments for everything. I guess that I am the only one stupid enough to argue with you guys, but since your pat answers have numerous holes in them, its been kind of fun. Its been kind of like messing with a slow snake; exciting, but there was never really any chance of getting bit.

Bye again, it's been fun.

PS: One more thing, thanks for constantly kicking my list to the top where more people could read it - your a real pal.

[GGJohn]

61. So far you support Bush era secret lists,

you posted false info about the AWB, you've practically accused me and others of being RW'ers because of our support of the 2A.
Need I go on?

[CajunBlazer]

65. I also support the positions of President Obama, Mazie Hirono, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren,......

and 40 other Democratic Senators on this issue.

You on the other hand support a position taken by the most conservative members of the Republican Senate delegation, Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, Orrin Hatch, Mitch McConnell and 50 other Republican Senators. You are also supporting the position taken by Macho Rubio, Rand Paul, and Mike Huckabee and nearly all of the Republican candidates for the Republican nomination.

These are people have again and again supported and even voted for measures which violated people's rights under the Constitution using fear as their excuse. In other words they are cowards!

So let's not play stupid games and pretend these people are more concerned about individual rights than upholding the NRA's golden rule - "no more gun legislation no mater how reasonable". They are scared of the NRA and for that they are again cowards. They are also cowards because they have proven that they don't care about individual rights, but they do care more about safe guarding their political careers than protecting the American people.

You need to quit deceiving yourself and everyone else as well. I think that it is more than fair to judge someone by the company they keep. I find myself in good company, you - not so much. You're simply repeating conservative Republican talking points of the people you are supporting.

If you want to proclaim your support of some of the most conservative politicians in this country here on DU - by all means please proceed to ruin your credibility on this board.

[GGJohn]

67. I'm proud to say I support transparency and due process,

something you apparently don't.

[CajunBlazer]

75. Really, because that is 2 things the Republicans who agree with you ....

usually have a lot of trouble with. I think that your talking points come right out of the NRA book entitled - "How to Argue with Liberals about Gun Rights". Then again I strongly suspect you would use any argument that you think would give you a leg up in the gun rights debate.

But here is your problem, the more you defend stupid concepts such as, "Wait, you can't deprive a would be terrorist from buying an AR-15 (used in many recent mass shootings) along with high capacity magazines - what about due process", eventually the average American will think you have lost your mind and learn to disregard all of your arguments. And when I refer to average American I am not talking about the folks on DU, I'm talking about the average Joe on the streets.

Ever play poker? You can only overplay your hand so many times before your opponents will call on it every time. It the same in public relations. If you keep saying stupid, seemingly indefeasible things, and sooner rather than later you will be looking at gun control laws which you won't consider reasonable.

[GGJohn]

79. Again, I support transparency and due process, which is something you don't.

As far as the Repukes, again, it's that broken clock thing, everything else coming from your mouth.........well, in the infamous words of Joe Pesci from My Cousin Vinny, everything that guy said is bullshit.

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. Still arguing personalities rather than the merits of the issue. Also, you're *still* not...

... a DU political officer/zampolit/politruk, regardless of your pretentions.

[Duckhunter935]

55. well since it is the Bush list

And you give up people's due process rights, I am glad it is being pointed out.

[madville]

58. Gotta love those lists

"Gulet Mohamed, a U.S. citizen from Virginia, was placed on the no-fly list as a teenager in 2011 while he was visiting family in Kuwait. Because he was on the no-fly list, he was unable to return to the U.S. before his visa expired. He was taken into custody in Kuwait for overstaying his visa, where he alleges that he “was repeatedly beaten and tortured by his interrogators,” one of whom spoke “perfect American English.”Kuwaiti authorities tried to deport him to the U.S., but the airline denied him boarding, presumably because he was on the U.S. no-fly list, and he was returned to prison. While he was imprisoned in Kuwait, a lawsuit was filed on his behalf in the Eastern District of Virginia by the Council on American Islamic Relations. After the lawsuit was filed, he was allowed to return to the U.S.; the U.S. government then moved to dismiss the lawsuit as moot. On May 28, 2013, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government's motion to dismiss Mohamed's lawsuit. On January 22, 2014, Judge Anthony J. Trenga denied most of another government motion to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed toward trial."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List#Lawsuits

[Duckhunter935]

59. sickening

But I am sure many here support that. He was on the lis .

[philosslayer]

84. Bush's lists were an abomination

As this example exemplifies.

[GGJohn]

86. And yet, we have one on this very thread vigorously defending this abomination

and accusing those of us condemning it of being closet repukes.

[CajunBlazer]

66. Ask yourself - why does President Obama support these bills along with....

nearly every Democratic member of the Senate? Also ask yourself why 54 Republican Senators voted against them and why they are supported by every Republican candidate for President? Then decide for yourself which is the best position to take.

We are all judged by the company we keep.

[Duckhunter935]

68. this one I take the side of the ACLU

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. Congratulations-combining the 'argument from authority' and associational fallacies is a rare feat.

[CajunBlazer]

71. You mean using logic I'm sure.

Yes, I understand that is something gun enthusiasts often have trouble trouble with.

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. Nope, you're basically telling us "*These* people support this, therefore you're wrong"...

...a classic argument from authority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Argument from authority, also ad verecundiam and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy...

...An integral part of the appeal to authority is the cognitive bias known as the Asch effect.[27] In repeated and modified instances of the Asch conformity experiments, it was found that high-status individuals create a stronger likelihood of a subject agreeing with an obviously false conclusion, despite the subject normally being able to clearly see that the answer was incorrect.[36]

Further, humans have been shown to feel strong emotional pressure to conform to authorities and majority positions. A repeat of the experiments by another group of researchers found that "Participants reported considerable distress under the group pressure", with 59% conforming at least once and agreeing with the clearly incorrect answer, whereas the incorrect answer was much more rarely given when no such pressures were present.

[CajunBlazer]

76. Quit the BS - anyone can copy from a website

although DU rules mandate that you not plagiarize as you have obviously done. Do you want me to google what you have "written" and let every one know where you stole it from.

More importantly, if I were making an argument that the President and every Democratic member of congress had opposed, you would be using that as part of your argument that I was wrong, and we both know that.

Come on dude, surely you can do better than that. You're not even fun to play with.

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. Repeatedly telling us who likes this and who doesn't as if it mattered is a diversion...

...and if you believe I've violated DU's Terms of Service, send an alert. You will discover
quickly that a quote with a link to the source is a citation, not plagarism

[GGJohn]

82. He really is making a fool of himself here isn't he. eom.

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. Most of us learned about the difference between 'plagarism' and 'citation' in high school

Most of us...

[GGJohn]

85. Makes on wonder how old he really is and what grade he's in.

[CajunBlazer]

88. Sorry, my appoligies, I didn't see the link you provide the first time - my bad.

I'm assuming here that it was there all along and you didn't add it after the fact. Nah, Isee no evidence of that and surely you don't win an argument that bad.

However, it is interesting that when you couldn't come up with a good reply to my post on your own, you had to go find someone else's thoughts to try to win the argument. Hey, I understand that it was difficult to argue that you are taking a "progressive position" when every progressive is voting against your position and and every conservative is voting for it.

That's hard argument to over come - you obviously couldn't so you resorted weasel tactics - that's my definition for trying to shift the subject of the argument when you know you're losing. It's done all of the time on DU.

What I find really fascinating that your weasel attack my argument consisted of saying I was using "authorities" to make my point. But you couldn't. or at least didn't make that argument on your own. What you did was rely on an "authoritative" website to make your argument for you. Didn't your just do what you accused me of doing - using an authority to make your point? That's rich - the pot calling the kettle black.

And by way, apparently your little gunny sidekick apparently don't think you can win a debate on your own so they try to pitch in from the sidelines. Why don't you tell them that you are a big boy and you will call them in only if you are losing real bad.

[GGJohn]

90. Nice rant.

Yet, you're STILL defending the Bush era secret govt lists that denies due process to those secretly put on those lists.
The ACLU would be so proud of you.

[CajunBlazer]

92. Yep, I am and proud of it. I am not owned by the ACLU or any organization

I am a pragmatist, and a realist, not a heads in the clouds idealist.

Like a stopped clock, occasionally even W and the Republicans in Congress got something right. If you think the list denies people of due process, challenge it in court.

But Republicans in congress are owned by the NRA, but they are eventually going to lose.

Already 92% of voters, including 92% of gun owners and 89% of the Republicans, say they favor background checks on every gun sale. And with every major shooting - whether it is some crazy person or terrorists pulling the triggers - pressure mounts to pass "sensible" gun control legislation. Sooner or later your Republicans friends in Congress will feel more pressure from their constituents than they feel from the NRA and they will eventually fold or lose their seats. Count on it.

Unfortunately, sooner or later we are all going to feel the sting of one of these mass shooting attacks executed with legally obtained weapons. Already the town where I was born, Lafayette, Louisiana, had a movie theater shot up with an AR-15 - three innocent lives snuffed out - nine seriously wounded and it could have been much worse. It was a lightly attended movie. The shooter was from Alabama and "just passing through". Trust me when multiple deaths come to a place near you, you take on a whole new prospective.

[friendly_iconoclast]

95. *cough,cough*...compurgation...ahem. Sometimes, otherwise good people are wrong

See: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and internment...

[friendly_iconoclast]

94. "(Y)ou had to go find someone else's thoughts to..." What if those thoughts are also *my* thoughts?

I daresay thoughts and ideas are far more relevant to an argument than simply naming those who agree with me.

What you are doing isn't argument, it's the intellectual equivalent of compurgation...

[CajunBlazer]

96. ho hummm

boring bye

[GGJohn]

81. ...

Quit the BS - anyone can copy from a website although DU rules mandate that you not plagiarize as you have obviously done. Do you want me to google what you have "written" and let every one know where you stole it from.

You don't even know the TOS, yet you are lecturing others what the rules are here.
Pure comedy gold.

[GGJohn]

74. And you're still siding with those that would deny due process because............GUNS!!!!

[branford]

77. That's an easy question.

Simple political pandering and wanting to give the appearance of "doing something," particularly because they know such a bill has absolutely no chance of passing Congress. Hypocrisy and pandering are certainly not confined to the right-wing. I am a loyal voting Democratic; I am not an idiot.

In any event, I thought the government lists were a moral and constitutional abomination when first proposed, and then only generally applied to "privileges" like flying, and now even worse if applied to firearm ownership, a enumerated constitutional right. If the government believes anyone is so inherently dangerous or disturbed that they should not be able to own firearms, they should present their evidence in open court, bear a high burden of proof and with required due process, and be subject to appeal and oversight.

I've yet to hear anyone from the administration detail how many people actually purchased firearms legally who would have been prevented from doing so had they been on any of the anti-terror lists, and then proceeded to commit crimes or acts of terror. I believe the number is 0. For instance, it is my understanding that Malik and Farook were not only not any list, but could, and did, pass any required background check like almost every other mass shooter who didn't steal their weapons. The terror list proposal, like UBC's, appear to be little more than solutions looking for a problem, essentially Trojan Horse legislation to enact otherwise unpopular gun control policies. Instead of the usual gun control wish list, it appears we need better investigation and oversight of visa and others admissions to the county. At least that could have possibly prevented the San Bernadino tragedy. However, such strict scrutiny, although popular with much of the country, is disfavored by many in the administration (and here on DU) because it would appear to justify Republican concerns about asylum seekers.

You believe people should be judged by the company they keep. Well, congratulations, the company you keep includes people like Bush and Cheney who created the lists you now support.

[CajunBlazer]

89. It was brilliant political tactic - it made those Republicans Senators look like fools

Anytime you can make your political opponents look like major hypocrites, it is a job well done! And it succeed brilliantly.

It demonstrated just how far the "protect guns rights at any cost" politicians will go to toe the NRA party line. When the "we will do anything to protect you from terrorism, even strip you of you rights" Republicans will even risk allowing potential terrorist to buy weapons, it demonstrates to everyone in the country just how scared the Republicans are of the NRA.

And don't give me that "due process" crap - the Republicans who voted against those two bills never gave a damn about due process before. They used fear tactics to scare the American people into allowing them to pass laws which violated the rights of Americans citizens and many others, all of the name of protecting Americans from terrorism. Now, all of sudden, they don't want deprive potential terrorist of their ability to buy guns legally because of due process. That's hilarious. Everybody, and I mean everybody knows that is pure BS.

[GGJohn]

91. The Repukis may have ulterior motives for voting against it,

but the fact remains that you're defending the BUSH era secret govt lists denying Americans of due process just because it's about guns, but if it were about anything else, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs how unconstitutional it is.
Hypocrite much?

[branford]

93. I don't care about Republican hypocrisy. I already expect it, and don't vote Republican.

You're also really missing the point. What the "no guns for people on the terrorist list" proposal from Democrats does is expose is OUR unequivocal hypocrisy and blatant pandering.

Simply, the policy has absolutely no chance of passage through Congress, wouldn't do a damn thing to reduce gun deaths or terrorism if it did, Republicans will easily maintain popularity with their own constituencies and many independents in important states with their unified position, and when the next similar issue comes up, and it will, Democrats will have totally lost the moral and legal authority to complain. You don't get your preferred gun regulation, and our Party still loses. For example, when Republicans like Trump want to keep out all Muslims "just to be sure," don't be surprised when they assert that Democrats believed the justification was good enough to deprive actual American citizens of enumerated constitutional rights, so how can Democrats complain about foreigners who have to right to enter the country.

Not only is gun control generally a big electoral loser almost everywhere for our Party, we've now established we're hypocrites, all without managing to change any gun laws. If that's a "brilliant political tactics," I no doubt would be terrified by what you would identify as a screw-up.

As I stated, I hated the terror list from the beginning, and nothing has changed. Sadly, many in our party appear to have situational ethics and are little more than fair weather liberals when tested. It's these moments when I understand why some people stay home on election day, or just don't trust Democrats.

[CajunBlazer]

97. All's fair in love and politics.

I am all for making the Republicans in Congress look bad - even if the methods are sneaky and "hypocritical" - heaven knows they deserve to look bad.

Be careful, gun issues are not the election losers they used to be as far as American voters are concerned. For instance a November poll indicted 92% of all voters as well of as 92% of all gun owners and 89% of all Republican voters favor universal background checks for all gun sales. And those percentages have gone up with every new mass shooting.

That means that Republicans in Congress and most of the Republican candidates for their party's nomination are out of step with with the American people and even with their own constituencies. The average American doesn't give a rip if one party or the other is deviating from their ideologies. They only care about solutions to their problems which make good walking sense.

The Republican nominee for the Presidency and the Republican candidates for the Senate in purple states are going beat about the head about the refusal of Republicans to agree to universal background checks. They are also going to be beat bloody about their refusal to stop gun sales to potential terrorists. As AR-15 and similar rifles continue to be the weapons of choice for mass shooting attacks, pressure is going mount to bring back the ban on "assault weapons".

If the NRA and its supporters were smart, though there is no evidence that they are, they would agree to come "common sense" gun legislation in order to preserve their basic right to buy and posses guns.

[branford]

98. You are free to keep telling yourself that.

However, I think you need to look at a political map. Republicans control the Senate, have their largest majority in the House in generations, and control a clear majority of statehouses and governorships. Heck, look at one of our only recent political victories, Democrat John Bel Edwards gubernatorial win in Louisiana. He needed to be pro-Life and pro-gun to do it (100% rating by LA Right to Life Federation, 93% rating by NRA, respectively - he's more Republican than many Republicans!). Moreover, none of these Republicans are suffering in the polls because of their stances on gun control, no new national gun regulations will be passed, gun sales and NICS checks are hitting new record highs, and people are becoming increasingly desensitized to the issue.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/66464/john-edwards#.VmeGGfkrLIU

If you really believe this is making the Republicans look bad, and the Democrats left unscathed, you need to both get out and read far more. You're letting confirmation bias cloud your perception of reality.

As for the abominable (and ineffective) policy of denying people constitutional rights because someone put them on a list without due process, if you want to get a sense of where public opinion is shifting even on our side of the political spectrum concerning such ideas and the inherent risks of such policies, such as racial profiling, I leave you with two articles from the LA Times and Slate, bastions of Democratic liberalism.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-terrorist-watch-list-20151207-story.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/12/president_obama_s_bad_ideas_for_fighting_gun_violence_assault_weapons_and.html

[GGJohn]

80. ....

We are all judged by the company we keep

Well, you're right about that, and the company you keep on this particular issue believes in Bush era secret govt lists that ban people from due process.
Nice company you keep there, but we all know that if it weren't about firearms, you'd be condemning this roundly.
Hypocrisy much?

[Dawson Leery]

52. Kasich has no problem with it.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/kasich-banning-terror-watch-suspects-weapon-access-will-only-tip-them-off/

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. Kasich is wrong

[Duckhunter935]

69. yes he is