Senate Republicans vote down bill blocking people on terror watch list buying guns

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
15,749
10,934
136
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/senate-gop-votes-terrorist-gun-bill-article-1.2454448

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans voted against barring suspected terrorists from getting guns on Thursday afternoon, parroting National Rifle Association arguments that doing so would strip some innocent people of their constitutional rights to gun access just a day after yet another massacre on U.S. soil.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who introduced a competing bill aimed at undercutting the provisions, warned that the Democratic legislation would mean "the government can take from you valuable constitutional rights," calling it "un-American."

"You'd have to believe that the federal government is always right and is all-knowing" to support the legislation, Cornyn said, pointing out that not everyone on the terror watch list is a terrorist.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the NRA is a "quasi-militant wing of the Republican Party" on the Senate floor Thursday morning before the vote.

"Those who choose to do the NRA's bidding will be held accountable by our constituents," Reid said. "Something has to be done. We must take a stand. The American people are desperately looking for help, some help, any help."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) blasted Republicans before the vote as well.


"Our thoughts and prayers are not even close to enough," he said. "The scourge of gun violence that has swept through the country in recent years has snuffed out thousands on thousands of lives. It's an epidemic that must be addressed head-on and that means keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have guns. That's what almost everyone in America believes but an intransigent few who happen to be Senators bowing to the power of the gun lobby have stopped the will of the American people from being enacted. Enough, enough, enough."

And Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the bill's sponsor, pointed out that the idea originated with the Bush administration in 2007.

Her legislation was blocked, with all but one Republican and just one Democrat voting against it.

Republican senators first voted in favor of a half-measure that would allow the Department of Justice to issue an injunction against someone on the terror watch list within 72 hours of their attempt to purchase a gun. If that injunction doesn't go through, the sale goes forward, however. That amendment passed with just one Democratic supporter and one Republican voting against it.

The Senate will later vote once again on tightening background checks and closing major loopholes that exist in the program — legislation that's almost guaranteed to fail in the GOP-controlled Congress.

What will make it harder for terrorists from getting guns.. saying the words "radical islamic terrorism" or actually passing a law that makes it harder?
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/senate-gop-votes-terrorist-gun-bill-article-1.2454448



What will make it harder for terrorists from getting guns.. saying the words "radical islamic terrorism" or actually passing a law that makes it harder?


You pretend liberals willing to throw a million people under the bus for a terror watch list proven to have flaws, unless you believe it's ok to break a few constitutional eggs in order to make a safe American omelet.

https://www.aclu.org/terror-watch-list-counter-million-plus

Terror Watch List Counter: A Million Plus [1]

Why are there so many names on the U.S. government's terrorist list?
In September 2007, the Inspector General of the Justice Department reported [2] that the Terrorist Screening Center (the FBI-administered organization that consolidates terrorist watch list information in the United States) had over 700,000 names in its database as of April 2007 - and that the list was growing by an average of over 20,000 records per month.1 (See also this new March 2008 report [3].2 )
By those numbers, the list now has over one million names on it. Terrorist watch lists must be tightly focused on true terrorists who pose a genuine threat. Bloated lists are bad because

  • they ensnare many innocent travelers as suspected terrorists, and
  • because they waste screeners' time and divert their energies [4] from looking for true terrorists.
Watch list main page [5]
Airline security page [6]
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
It's a slippery slope my friend. First they came for the terrorist named Mohammad's guns and next week they will come for my guns. We just need to make sure everyone has a gun to kill Mohammad.
 

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
15,749
10,934
136
It's a slippery slope my friend. First they came for the terrorist named Mohammad's guns and next week they will come for my guns. We just need to make sure everyone has a gun to kill Mohammad.

Except a muslim terrorist named David Headley is guilty of the Mumbai Terror attacks which were copied in Paris. There's a frontline documentary on this, quite interesting if you're interested.. no propaganda, just facts and missed signs by our government.

Here's the link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/david-headley/
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
This is stupid.

There's no (valid) point in voting for a bill that would be overturned by the courts. Anybody advocating that the federal govt be allowed to unilaterally strip away core constitutional rights without 'due process' is insanely stupid.

If a person is placed on the terror watch list should they also be denied the right to vote in elections too?

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,773
54,813
136
This is stupid.

There's no (valid) point in voting for a bill that would be overturned by the courts. Anybody advocating that the federal govt be allowed to unilaterally strip away core constitutional rights without 'due process' is insanely stupid.

If a person is placed on the terror watch list should they also be denied the right to vote in elections too?

Fern

I'm not at all confident it would be overturned by the courts. You also can't own a gun based on some mental illness diagnosis, which there is no due process for.

I think this is a dumb idea too, by the way. There is no way to know if you're in the watch list and there's no way to get off it once you're on. (At least not easily) Taking away rights due to an unaccountable list seems like a terrible idea.

We need lots of additional gun control in this country, but this is just pandering to fears of terrorism the same way the idiots arguing against Syrian refugees are. No thanks.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Another faux outrage thread by our new village idiot.

Maybe you should start a thread: "Democrats vote down bill blocking illegal immigrants from voting in US elections"
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Another faux outrage thread by our new village idiot.

Maybe you should start a thread: "Democrats vote down bill blocking illegal immigrants from voting in US elections"

Shameful. We need more Jesus voting in this country.
 

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
15,749
10,934
136
If a person is placed on the terror watch list should they also be denied the right to vote in elections too?

Fern

I wouldn't go that far as we're in the process of giving voting rights to felons already. But I think it warrants at least putting them on a no fly list.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
I'm arguing for more gun restrictions in the other thread

I'm arguing against this stupid idea in this thread

Due-process...it is important in this country.

And having been on a black-list in the past (long story) I know first hand how these lists are generated and they are flawed to say the least...
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,217
12,907
136
I'm arguing for more gun restrictions in the other thread

I'm arguing against this stupid idea in this thread

Due-process...it is important in this country.

And having been on a black-list in the past (long story) I know first hand how these lists are generated and they are flawed to say the least...

Pretty much this.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
Wouldn't want to deprive gun makers of sales to terrorist suspects.
If I recall, the guy from the blog ThePointsGuy was on the watch list after making a simple small trip to Turkey. Was pretty ridiculous, be travels religiously for his blog and all of sudden they asked him to step aside and explain his travel with interrogation for 1hr+ for a few months straight for every flight he took.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,026
46,662
136
Saw this the other day. Nice to see people come to their senses.

http://thehill.com/regulation/healt...r-who-banned-gun-control-research-has-regrets

In a letter released Wednesday, former Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) disavowed his efforts two decades ago to block gun control research.

“Back in [the 1990s], I took part in cutting off gun violence research dollars at the federal level because of what was considered a misapplication of the dollars by the CDC. I have recently expressed my regrets that we didn't continue that research,” Dickey wrote in a letter released Wednesday by House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force Chairman Mike Thompson (D-Calif.).

"Research could have been continued on gun violence without infringing on the rights of gun owners,” Dickey added.

Senate Republicans should ponder this.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,846
4,942
136
If I recall, the guy from the blog ThePointsGuy was on the watch list after making a simple small trip to Turkey. Was pretty ridiculous, be travels religiously for his blog and all of sudden they asked him to step aside and explain his travel with interrogation for 1hr+ for a few months straight for every flight he took.

It was because he traveled Religiously to Turkey.

Fair cop.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/senate-gop-votes-terrorist-gun-bill-article-1.2454448



What will make it harder for terrorists from getting guns.. saying the words "radical islamic terrorism" or actually passing a law that makes it harder?

Neither will make it harder. They will get guns regardless. Gun control laws don't affect them, just like they don't impact criminals much.

I support the republicans in voting down this bill, people should not be deprived of their rights simply by being placed on a list with no due process or recourse.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,773
54,813
136
Neither will make it harder. They will get guns regardless. Gun control laws don't affect them, just like they don't impact criminals much.

I support the republicans in voting down this bill, people should not be deprived of their rights simply by being placed on a list with no due process or recourse.

The idea that gun laws cannot prevent people from getting guns is incredibly stupid. It's basically NRA propaganda for the easily fooled.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Saw this the other day. Nice to see people come to their senses.

http://thehill.com/regulation/healt...r-who-banned-gun-control-research-has-regrets

In a letter released Wednesday, former Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) disavowed his efforts two decades ago to block gun control research.

“Back in [the 1990s], I took part in cutting off gun violence research dollars at the federal level because of what was considered a misapplication of the dollars by the CDC. I have recently expressed my regrets that we didn't continue that research,” Dickey wrote in a letter released Wednesday by House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force Chairman Mike Thompson (D-Calif.).

"Research could have been continued on gun violence without infringing on the rights of gun owners,” Dickey added.

Senate Republicans should ponder this.

I would oppose it for the reason that it's stupid research to begin with and not a public health concern appropriate for the CDC in any event. Just like with "global warming" the research won't cause an infringement, it would allow people with bad policies to point to it as a plausible justification for their bad policy besides just their opinion, as if they needed an excuse.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,773
54,813
136
I would oppose it for the reason that it's stupid research to begin with and not a public health concern appropriate for the CDC in any event. Just like with "global warming" the research won't cause an infringement, it would allow people with bad policies to have a plausible justification for their bad policy besides just their opinion.

Interesting that something that kills tens of thousands of people a year isn't a public health concern.

You should probably check the CDC website as to what their mandate actually is.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
The idea that gun laws cannot prevent people from getting guns is incredibly stupid. It's basically NRA propaganda for the easily fooled.

Bullshit. Unless you want to advocate a nationwide outright ban on guns including confiscation of the hundreds of millions already out there, other gun laws are worthless in preventing criminals from getting guns. How well did it work in Paris? How well does it work in Chicago? Gun laws realistically impact those who care about following the law, not those who are going to break it anyway. There is a ready supply of guns for anyone who wants one regardless of gun laws. Perhaps you'd like to explain how gun laws will make getting guns difficult, when drugs laws and trillion dollar drug "war" have done nothing to make getting illegal drugs difficult at all?

Gun control laws are the knee-jerk reaction of those seeking a solution in the wrong place. Just like you can't stop the flow of drugs by stopping the import of drugs, you can't stop gun violence by restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. You have to address the users to stop drugs, and you have to address those willing to commit crimes with guns to reduce gun crime.
 
Last edited:

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
The idea that gun laws cannot prevent people from getting guns is incredibly stupid. It's basically NRA propaganda for the easily fooled.
Seriously? I see illegal gun sales take place on a Facebook garage sale page nearly every week. Right out in the open - no one cares. I'm in NY - one of the most restrictive states.

As pointed out above, there are nearly a million people on the watch list. Obviously, they cannot all be watched. There are statistics on how many people on that list have (legally) purchased firearms. That should help the FBI narrow down their focus a little bit - you see 4 people known to associate with each other all get guns at roughly the same time - red flags should be going off. Of course, this relies on government agencies being competent. If they're not, then the watch list is pointless in the first place.

But, again, I see (otherwise) law abiding citizens purchasing guns via social media. You really think that a law making it illegal for people on the watch list - many who don't even realize they're on the watch list - to purchase guns will stop them from purchasing guns??
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Interesting that something that kills tens of thousands of people a year isn't a public health concern.

You should probably check the CDC website as to what their mandate actually is.

So car safety is a CDC is a public health concern then as well? Are they doing research in that area?

I'm for legitimate research that could be useful to society, but I suspect the CDC research would simply be a political ploy to push gun control.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,640
30,179
136
I'm arguing for more gun restrictions in the other thread

I'm arguing against this stupid idea in this thread

Due-process...it is important in this country.

And having been on a black-list in the past (long story) I know first hand how these lists are generated and they are flawed to say the least...
This