Democrats literally holding the government hostage to take your rights away

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 4, 2009
34,576
15,789
136
lol this dude thinks trump will win.

Honestly I can now see Trump acting more rational maybe I'll be proven wrong but he seems to have a professional manager now. People also over estimate Hillary. I think Trump has a good chance of winning. I'll guess it to be around a 40% chance.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Honestly I can now see Trump acting more rational maybe I'll be proven wrong but he seems to have a professional manager now. People also over estimate Hillary. I think Trump has a good chance of winning. I'll guess it to be around a 40% chance.

I estimate his vote total to be ~40%, his chances of winning dismal indeed.

A professional manager can't change the past, can't un-say all the ridiculous things Trump already said.

There are 2 kinds of voters out there- those who pegged Trump as an obvious fraud & a charlatan long ago & those who never will. I believe the former are much more numerous than the latter.

In business, of course, the sharpies can always make a good living off the pigeons because they don't need a majority of the pigeons to be caught, just some, just enough, and that's been Trump's way all along. That's what he's doing now, as well.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,537
6,970
136
I estimate his vote total to be ~40%, his chances of winning dismal indeed.

A professional manager can't change the past, can't un-say all the ridiculous things Trump already said.

There are 2 kinds of voters out there- those who pegged Trump as an obvious fraud & a charlatan long ago & those who never will. I believe the former are much more numerous than the latter.

In business, of course, the sharpies can always make a good living off the pigeons because they don't need a majority of the pigeons to be caught, just some, just enough, and that's been Trump's way all along. That's what he's doing now, as well.

I see a 3rd kind of voter out there: The ones who will vote for Trump for no other reason than fealty to party, up to and including their acknowledging that the party takes priority over their own best interests. They'd vote for Nixon or Bush 43 again if it were possible. ;)
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I see a 3rd kind of voter out there: The ones who will vote for Trump for no other reason than fealty to party, up to and including their acknowledging that the party takes priority over their own best interests. They'd vote for Nixon or Bush 43 again if it were possible. ;)
I would add a fourth type, those who find Hillary so horrid that literally anyone is preferable.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
On PBS Newshour last night:

REP. DAVID CICILLINE: Well, I think there are Republicans who heard from their constituents last night, and I think, as they go home for break — imagine, in the middle of this argument, we’re asking them, let’s debate these bills. Tell us why you oppose them. Tell us why you think people on the terrorist watch list should be able to buy a gun. Tell us why you don’t think there should be universal background checks.
They wouldn’t come to the floor and debate those. Of course, there is no good argument against either bill.


Well, that clears it right up. It's a "terrorist watch list", so if you're on it, you're clearly a terrorist, and should have any and all Constitutional rights taken away. And of course if you oppose the Dems on this, you're clearly a moron, because there are no good arguments against this.

Liberals - usually right, almost always insufferable.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,576
15,789
136
On PBS Newshour last night:



Well, that clears it right up. It's a "terrorist watch list", so if you're on it, you're clearly a terrorist, and should have any and all Constitutional rights taken away. And of course if you oppose the Dems on this, you're clearly a moron, because there are no good arguments against this.

Liberals - usually right, almost always insufferable.

Again I'm not a fan of the watch list but is it that insane to think a foreigner on the watch list shouldn't be allowed to get a hunting permit then a gun or many guns. Keep in mind this person is not a citizen.
I agree its unlikely to happen but right now the above scenario is possible.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Again I'm not a fan of the watch list but is it that insane to think a foreigner on the watch list shouldn't be allowed to get a hunting permit then a gun or many guns. Keep in mind this person is not a citizen.
I agree its unlikely to happen but right now the above scenario is possible.

Is the "terrorist watch list" limited to non citizens? I don't think that it is, but I could be wrong on that.
 

JockoJohnson

Golden Member
May 20, 2009
1,417
60
91
Or just put it up to a vote, kill it & move on. Not that I agree with them over this bill, but Dems are willing to own their votes. Repubs obviously aren't.

You are either obtuse or pretending to be obtuse. You know the Dems would run around saying how Republicans want guns in the hands of terrorists. Oh wait, they already have started that...use Google to find it. Tons of stories about "Republicans want to sell guns to ISIS".

So why should they have even more fodder by voting against this bill? The stupid American people would lap it up without actually looking into the bill to see that the Republicans are for once on the right side of a bill, unless you consider taking away due process a good thing. I see one raging moron in this thread (not you) that strongly agrees with taking away due process.
 

JockoJohnson

Golden Member
May 20, 2009
1,417
60
91
So they could have forced a vote, staged a sit in and sent out 4 separate fund raising emails?

Ah yes, let's not forget the real reason for the sit-in -- Fund Raising! And at least they stopped the sit-in before the nice looking weekend. I guess they raised enough money during that time to call it quits on this charade of a sit-in.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,576
15,789
136
Is the "terrorist watch list" limited to non citizens? I don't think that it is, but I could be wrong on that.

Its both I'm pretty sure most are not Citizens. I know the no fly list is mostly foreigners. *edit* I may be confusing it with another watch list I read about.

Back to my original point honestly I see no reason why a non citizen needs to buy a gun. I realize there are collectors and I'm sure occasionally Alaska needs some expert wolf hunter or FL may need son crocodile Dundee guy but come on.
 
Last edited:

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,431
10,328
136
Stupid move. This is a classic elections have consequences issue. Violating the parliamentary rules of the HOR is a very bad precedent.

Imagine the Republican version of this stunt.
 

Artdeco

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,682
1
0
Ah yes, let's not forget the real reason for the sit-in -- Fund Raising! And at least they stopped the sit-in before the nice looking weekend. I guess they raised enough money during that time to call it quits on this charade of a sit-in.


And they knew they had to do it quickly, before people learned more facts and quit freaking out.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,092
136
Did not realize they had also pulled stupid shit. Still think it's not the right way to protest.

You think people have a low opinion of congress now. Just keep this shit up.

Congress has in the vicinity of a 10% approval rating. This has been the case for many years. I don't know how much worse it can get.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,576
15,789
136
And they knew they had to do it quickly, before people learned more facts and quit freaking out.

All Congress critters fund raise, all use flashpoints to raise funds whether its this or abortion or gay marriage or who is in which bathroom. Currently the alternative would be only take donations from wealthy business owners.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Every one of those democrats' names should be written down and remembered for thier heinous intentions and outright sleezeball tactics. This sort of scum doesn't deserve political power.

HR2578

The Infamous No-Fly No-Buy Gun Bill HR 2578:

"Blatant Rape of the Constitution."

-- Legislators who proposed this should be removed from office --


Has anyone even read the bill that has democrats
staging a sit-in on the floor of Congress?

"No district court of the United States
or court of appeals of the United States
shall have jurisdiction to consider the
lawfulness or constitutionality of this section...
"

It gets worse.

Under the excuse of fighting terrorism, these democrats, with republican allies, want to deny Americans their individual rights to keep and bear arms -- without probable cause, without due process, and get this -- without being able to view the evidence against them or face their accusers. Their accusers and the evidence remains a secret. Your rights would be denied solely by a secret-police list.

You can't challenge the proposed law's legality because it hasn't got any. It would not pass even the slightest scrutiny, and they know that, hence that clause. My republican senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, supports this, smiling when he announced it on TV.

The people proposing this 17-page tyrannical travesty should be removed from office.

No court shall consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section.

This wholesale violation of the Bill of Rights evaporates the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. There is no valid legal argument for doing this. In fact, the arguments being used are overwhelmingly absurd. It's preposterous even if you hate guns -- it makes no sense -- while undermining our entire legal system. Does that matter?

The sound bite looks good at first blush:

It's insane to let people on the no-fly list buy guns.

But the truth burns the sound bite:

Then isn't it insane to let people on the no-fly list travel?

And isn't it insane to let people on the no-fly list keep all the guns they have?
(They can you know, didn't anyone tell you that?) That's because:

People on the no-fly list aren't charged with anything,
haven't been convicted of anything,
and can't be locked up for any violation of anything.

If people on the no-fly list are that dangerous -- why are they out walking around?

What's to stop them from driving to Orlando, or taking Amtrak or a bus? (Hint: nothing.)

And don't the TSAairport checkpoints work on these people?
They work on us -- or don't they?

And how do you get on the list if you aren't charged with anything? (It's a secret.)

And if they're that bad, how come the law lets them keep guns they already have?
(People added to the no-fly list can't buy new guns but are not banned from guns in any other way.)



But the real truth is too deep for most people today, and is grounds to have politicians removed from office:

Politicians want to give central government the power to take people's rights away by writing your names on a list. Their justification: "The muslims made me do it!"

and of course --

Where do they find any legitimate delegated authority to remove a person's rights like this, and how do you expect to get away with it?
The democrats' dream scheme gives broad discretion to "proper authorities" to decide if you can buy a gun. The conditions are spelled out for many pages. Any bureaucrat could fit you into the descriptions with ease. Does this make you safer, or make you feel safer?

By coincidence, the same Justice Dept. decides if: 1) you meet the criteria for the no-new-guns list, and 2) for the freedom-to-travel-but-not-by-air list, and 3) it's the same Justice Dept. that controls review of the list, and 4) it also controls appeals for reversals if you sue. By law, after your first hearing, no appeals are allowed. Have a nice day:

"(h) EXCLUSIVE REMEDY.—The judicial review under a petition for review filed under subsection (c)* shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for a claim by an individual who challenges a denial under subsection (a)(1).

* "(c) An individual... who seeks to challenge a denial... may file a petition for review and any claims related to that petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or in the court of appeals of the United States for the judicial circuit in which the individual resides."

And for good measure, in case you want to know why you have been denied:

"(d)(4) No discovery shall be permitted, unless the court shall determine extraordinary circumstances requires discovery in the interests of justice." Read it all for yourself if you have the stomach.




Please pardon my constant rant, but why hasn't the "news" media even mentioned any of this? The public is too bored with the details? They can't understand it, haven't got the attention span? It's not sexy enough? We don't need an informed republic? Constant repetition of inanity is enough? We need more time to hear about the candidates?



HERE'S WHERE IT GETS UGLY

"No district court of the United States or court of appeals of the United States shall have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section except pursuant to a petition for review under section."

Yes, this says you cannot question if the Flake Amendment (my name for it), the no-fly-no-buy law is legal. Clearly, it isn't, hence they won't tolerate questions. This is so much like what we endured with King George.

The absurd attempt to deny review if this thing gets enough votes is an affront to every American -- blamed on the muslim jihad, guns, and rationalized for safety. Due process is removed, you are guilty before any trial, and in fact there is no trial. Constitutional rights are simply summarily suspended.

But second, look again, the sentence is incomplete, so it makes no grammatical sense. It could be used at the discretion of whoever implements it, unless or until challenged, "pursuant to a review under section." This has no meaning. They know this. There is no review.

There are plenty of other problems of course, but do you really want to be bored? The members of Congress yelling from the floor only read the Talking Points, if that, and those don't mention what's actually in the bill. They just say, "Save the children," metaphorically speaking. The media is no better, they're just broadcasting the spitting. I've asked around. I had a hard time find the language myself.

No need to take my word for it.
You can read it, it's in more-or-less English. I posted it here:
HR2578



Contact:
Alan Korwin
BLOOMFIELD PRESS
"We publish the gun laws."

And you leftist nutbags wanted a vote on this?
 

Art&Science

Senior member
Nov 28, 2014
339
4
46
Every one of those democrats' names should be written down and remembered for thier heinous intentions and outright sleezeball tactics. This sort of scum doesn't deserve political power.

HR2578



And you leftist nutbags wanted a vote on this?

Yeah, it's pretty fucking bad.

We already have enough secret courts. This is flat out gestapo shit.

No one, Democrat or Republican should support this. In my mind this should not be a partisan issue at all (and it's not apparently because you have Dems and Pubs supporting it).

This is flat out EVIL.

You want to have an honest debate about gun control - let's have it. But this is NOT it... this is something else. This is EVIL PEOPLE using a national tragedy to establish a way for the government to punish its enemies without them having broken any laws.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,528
5,045
136
In what context are those sentences used?

Specifically, what sentences preceded those alarming sentences quoted by NoStateOfMind? What are those quoted sentences referring to....talking about....defining?

Or are you both just depending upon the article quoted and have not read the bill itself to discover what's actually being defined by those quoted horror sentences?
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
In what context are those sentences used?

Specifically, what sentences preceded those alarming sentences quoted by NoStateOfMind? What are those quoted sentences referring to....talking about....defining?

Or are you both just depending upon the article quoted and have not read the bill itself to discover what's actually being defined by those quoted horror sentences?

It's pretty standard jurisdiction stripping text. It defines an appeals process and denies federal courts jurisdiction to hear challenges to the law outside of that process. It also limits the available remedies; if an appeal is successful, the blocked firearm purchase will be allowed, but the petitioner will remain on the no-fly list.

To be removed from the no-fly list, the petitioner must forward the court's order to the Department of Homeland Security. DHS will then review the order and "reach a final determination" about whether the petitioner should be removed from the list.

I can't recall any cases of jurisdiction stripping where the law in question wasn't a steaming pile of shit, and this bill continues that trend. It's far from the most egregious, though.
 

Artdeco

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,682
1
0
Yeah, it's pretty fucking bad.

We already have enough secret courts. This is flat out gestapo shit.

No one, Democrat or Republican should support this. In my mind this should not be a partisan issue at all (and it's not apparently because you have Dems and Pubs supporting it).

This is flat out EVIL.

You want to have an honest debate about gun control - let's have it. But this is NOT it... this is something else. This is EVIL PEOPLE using a national tragedy to establish a way for the government to punish its enemies without them having broken any laws.

I feel the same way, when members of congress are sworn in, they agree to uphold the constitution, by supporting this bill, they're not supporting multiple articles, this is star chamber shit.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
physremfb.jpg