How bout these loser Dems with a 25-hour sit-in?

[Piggly Wiggly 960]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/john-lewis-sit-in-gun-violence/

 

Dems have to be some of the biggest pussies out there... holy shit.

 

"Democrats can continue to talk, but the reality is that they have no end-game strategy," Ryan's spokeswoman AshLee Strong said in a statement. "The Senate has already defeated the measure they're calling for. The House is focused on eliminating terrorists, not constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. And no stunts on the floor will change that."

 

edit: thought I posted this in Politics... guess not. Mods move dis pls.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Piggly Wiggly

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

Yeah I was saying in the box yesterday and to my boss today at work that it just made them look like a bunch of babies. They do seem aimless.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Yeah, removing the ability to buy guns from people on the terrorist watch list no-fly list is totally a constitutional right of a law-abiding citizen.

 

The way the Dems went about this was silly, but they wanted a vote on two things which are not:

 

A) Remove the ability of people on the terrorist watch list no-fly list to buy guns.

B) Expanded background checks on people who do buy guns, specifically looking for signs of mental instability.

 

Of course, if we actually did those two things, it would be "taking away the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens" and "threatening Democracy." Puhlease. Both parties are just flagrantly pandering to their bases right now, but the idea that people who are identified as terrorists or have strong sympathies towards terrorists should not be allowed to buy guns is simply a common sense thing.

 

Sadly, both political parties have lost common sense and merely care about political pandering.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Thanatos

[oochymp 2,393]

A) Remove the ability of people on the terrorist watch list to buy guns.

B) Expanded background checks on people who do buy guns, specifically looking for signs of mental instability.

I'm entirely okay with B so I'm not going to spend any time addressing that one

 

I do take some issue with A as a Constitutional matter. The terror watch list as it currently works does not provide sufficient due process to infringe on a Constitutional right. But, you might ask, if this is okay to keep people from flying why is it not okay for gun restrictions? Simple, the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, the right to travel by plane isn't. You can debate what the right to bear arms covers all you want, but it's in the Constitution, while freedom of movement between the states is protected, that hasn't been extended to cover the means of travel.

 

As I said, I'm entirely okay with expanded background checks, and I wouldn't object to part of that being checking whether a person trying to buy a gun is on the no-fly list or any other terror watch list, even if it's a more inclusive list. But, because there isn't sufficient due process protection on those lists, inclusion on those lists shouldn't statutorily take away a Constitutional right. In practicality, if you force gun shops to run a background check that includes checking the purchaser against a terror watch list and give the shop any discretion, that's going to stop most gun shops from selling to people on terror watch lists. So I'm really splitting hairs here, and I'm aware of that, but that's what Constitutional law is all about.

[Cherry 1,302]

Oochy hit the nail on the head. Terrorist watch list currently has over a million names on it, many for absolutely garbage reasons. Barring someone from buying a firearm solely because they're on a watch list that has no due process is silly. Maybe if you give me a better list with evidence and a trial and I'll be for taking someone's gun away. Systematically eliminating guns from millions of people is the first step towards a tyrannical government.

 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5617599.html

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I don't mind the principled stand. It was obvious nothing was going to happen though -- the Senate already killed the bill that Congress wanted to vote on. It was completely 100% pointless to have a vote. Go back, rewrite the bill then maybe put it to a vote.

 

The general idea of keeping guns away from people on the watch list is a good one I think, the problem is that it is extremely flawed, like both Cherry and Oochy have pointed out. There are more innocent people on those lists than guilty ones.

If you are for banning people on those lists as they stand today from owning guns, you may as well just detain them all and throw them in prison. Are we okay with executing or sending people to prison who have not had due process and many who haven't even been charged with any crime let alone proven to be guilty?

Also, as a side note. I think that it is rich that Democrats want this really broad over arching search of the terror screening databases while none of them would even mutter the words Islamic Terrorism after the Orlando shooting.

And to be fair... I think it is also kind of funny that Republicans were wanting that term to be used, but their proposal was a more refined and stricter search form the no-fly and terror watch lists. Granted, even the stricter Republican-led legislation didn't get enough support from that side.

Each party is kind of abiding to rhetoric opposite of what they say publicly.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Favre4Ever

[Thanatos 2,847]

Oh sure, keeping them from buying guns is completely the same as throwing them in jail. Why stop there? Let's just let them all fly as well. After all, if we prevent them from flying, we might as well be throwing them in jail.

 

Edit: I see in my original post I mistakenly said terrorist watch list instead of no-fly list. Mea culpa. The argument the Dems- at least the ones I was reading- were making was not banning people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns. That database is somewhere between 1.5 and 2 million strong.

 

They are arguing about a subset of that database, which is the no-fly list. There are 81,000 names on the no-fly list, and less than 1,000 of those people are American citizens. That is who they wish to remove the ability to buy guns from.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Thanatos

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I kind of addressed Cherry's post already. What else did you want me to talk about?

[Cherry 1,302]

Didn't say a million on no fly list. As of September 2014 there were 820,000 on terrorist watch list. Definitely has risen since then.

 

Let's prevent people from their right of owning a firearm without DUE PROCESS. Great fucking idea Than. I'm fine with not allowing someone to purchase a gun if there is a better system of appeals and a much smaller amount of people wrongly put on the list. But you can't restrict a right of someone when they have committed no crimes. Unless there is substantial evidence (many times there is not) it's silly to prevent people from buying a gun. Consider it like obtaining a warrant rather than having access to all private information.

 

Terrorist watch list does not have rules. There is no judicial process with it.

 

Owning a firearm is not committing a crime. It's a constitutional right.

 

Removing rights from citizens without a trial is tyrannical.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Didn't say a million on no fly list. As of September 2014 there were 820,000 on terrorist watch list. Definitely has risen since then.

 

Let's prevent people from their right of owning a firearm without DUE PROCESS. Great fucking idea Than. I'm fine with not allowing someone to purchase a gun if there is a better system of appeals and a much smaller amount of people wrongly put on the list. But you can't restrict a right of someone when they have committed no crimes. Unless there is substantial evidence (many times there is not) it's silly to prevent people from buying a gun. Consider it like obtaining a warrant rather than having access to all private information.

 

Terrorist watch list does not have rules. There is no judicial process with it.

 

Owning a firearm is not committing a crime. It's a constitutional right.

 

Removing rights from citizens without a trial is tyrannical.

 

Owning a firearm is only a constitutional right for American citizens, at least within the US.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Oh sure, keeping them from buying guns is completely the same as throwing them in jail. Why stop there? Let's just let them all fly as well. After all, if we prevent them from flying, we might as well be throwing them in jail.

 

Edit: I see in my original post I mistakenly said terrorist watch list instead of no-fly list. Mea culpa. The argument the Dems were making was not banning people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns. That database is somewhere between 1.5 and 2 million strong.

 

They are arguing about a subset of that database, which is the no-fly list. There are 81,000 names on the no-fly list, and less than 1,000 of those people are American citizens. That is who they wish to remove the ability to buy guns from.

 

Since when is flying a Constitutional right? If you are willing to bypass due process for innocent people, where does it stop? Where do you draw the line on centralized power and authority before you give some shred of liberty to the people who live here? If they don't get due process and we are going to alienate them of their rights why are you so up in arms about throwing them in jail? Just get it over with... Lol

 

The measure proposed by Ms. Collins (A Rep) would block gun sales to terror suspects on the government’s no-fly list or on the so-called selectee list of individuals who are subjected to heightened screening before they are allowed to board a plane. It was far more narrow than proposals broadly favored by Democrats that focused on the much larger terror screening database, but it also put a far lighter burden on law enforcement officials seeking to block a gun sale than a measure put forward by Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the chamber’s No. 2 Republican.

 

 

New York Times

[oochymp 2,393]

Sorry, it looks like this confusion is my fault, it's the no-fly list Dems want to use as a no-guns list, not the broader terror watch list. I conflated the two concepts in my earlier post. So that I'm clear now, I don't think the no-fly list has enough due process protection to use as a no-guns list.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Naw its my fault I said terrorist watch list when I meant no-fly list.

[blotsfan 2,112]

How about we just cut the bs and repeal the second amendment? You don't need a gun. You aren't stopping any oppressive government, or starting a revolution. You don't need a gun. Hunting and shooting targets might be a nice hobby, but find one that doesn't allow people to have weapons that they use to kill people. You don't need a gun. You aren't going to protect your house from a burglar, you are much more likely to have that gun kill someone accidentally. You might be able to make a case for people in super-rural areas, but the average person in the US flat-out does not need a gun.

[Cherry 1,302]

How about we just cut the bs and repeal the second amendment? You don't need a gun. You aren't stopping any oppressive government, or starting a revolution. You don't need a gun. Hunting and shooting targets might be a nice hobby, but find one that doesn't allow people to have weapons that they use to kill people. You don't need a gun. You aren't going to protect your house from a burglar, you are much more likely to have that gun kill someone accidentally. You might be able to make a case for people in super-rural areas, but the average person in the US flat-out does not need a gun.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

 

Someone who carries a firearm is much more likely to successfully defend themselves from a criminal than someone who does not carry a firearm.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

How about we just cut the bs and repeal the second amendment? You don't need a gun. You aren't stopping any oppressive government, or starting a revolution. You don't need a gun. Hunting and shooting targets might be a nice hobby, but find one that doesn't allow people to have weapons that they use to kill people. You don't need a gun. You aren't going to protect your house from a burglar, you are much more likely to have that gun kill someone accidentally. You might be able to make a case for people in super-rural areas, but the average person in the US flat-out does not need a gun.

That's 2 terrible posts from you in a row. In Call of Duty, they call that a kill streak.

[blotsfan 2,112]

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

 

Someone who carries a firearm is much more likely to successfully defend themselves from a criminal than someone who does not carry a firearm.

 

Yes like I said, the Second Amendment should be removed. And if you compare the number of times a criminal is stopped from a "good guy with a gun" vs the people murdered using guns. Australia actually did something about their guns, and lo and behold it worked.

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

blots put up the Phail searchlight quick!

[blotsfan 2,112]

TheRepublicanPalace can press their red buttons as much as they want. I'm not worried.

[Cherry 1,302]

If I'm sitting at home and someone tries to break in I don't have the right to own a gun and defend myself? Just because some fucknugget uses a gun to commit a crime should not mean the average American gun owner should be stripped of their right to a firearm.

 

Also in a nation with hundreds of millions of guns in circulation it's impossible to completely remove guns. Makes people who legally own a firearm into criminals just because they want to be safe.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Chernobyl426

[BwareDWare94 723]

How about we just cut the bs and repeal the second amendment? You don't need a gun. You aren't stopping any oppressive government, or starting a revolution. You don't need a gun. Hunting and shooting targets might be a nice hobby, but find one that doesn't allow people to have weapons that they use to kill people. You don't need a gun. You aren't going to protect your house from a burglar, you are much more likely to have that gun kill someone accidentally. You might be able to make a case for people in super-rural areas, but the average person in the US flat-out does not need a gun.

 

There's nothing wrong with hunting or range shooting, but I do think it would be hilarious to tell people what the probability of their house being broken into is.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

 

There's nothing wrong with hunting or range shooting, but I do think it would be hilarious to tell people what the probability of their house being broken into is.

 

It's 1 in 36(homes that will be broken in to) in the US, according to the FBI in 2012.

 

This number is kind of flawed though, as obviously some areas are more likely than others(and some less likely). I know just off the top of my head that Memphis is absolutely terrible when it comes to crimes, break-ins included. In 2011, Flint, Michigan had a rate of 1 in 8 homes broken in to, which if I was reading correctly was the highest in the country.

 

--

 

On the topic of guns in general though, I don't really care if the statistic is "that low". I don't really care about myself, I can take chances with myself. I'm 6'5 and 240+ pounds. However the thought of my girlfriend being here alone with someone trying to break in without a gun to defend herself with isn't something I like, the thought of my mother maybe being alone and not having a gun to defend herself with, or elderly people, or insert any other easily preyed upon group of people here, isn't something I like either.

 

I've already had one experience with some creepy cunt trying to act like he was a police officer and wanting to get in to my house, and while I was already in this same stance in regards to a gun for home defense, that only cemented it, because if my girlfriend were the one here alone that night I don't even want to think about what he could have done. Would take the police a good 15-20 minutes to get out here(if not longer), so that does absolutely no good for us.

 

The chances of a break in may be relatively low, but I've heard of enough of them with friends/extended family and experience one creepy enough encounter as is to realize the statistic isn't nearly low enough for me to be happy with it.

 

I don't have an issue with people on the no fly list being unable to purchase guns, though, nor do I really see a need for AR-15s to be purchased(or similar weapons), but I don't really have a strong opinion on that aspect one way or the other.

[blotsfan 2,112]

 

There's nothing wrong with hunting or range shooting, but I do think it would be hilarious to tell people what the probability of their house being broken into is.

 

Theres nothing wrong with it, but its not worth it because it gives people and excuse to buy killing machines.

[Thanatos 2,847]

If I'm sitting at home and someone tries to break in I don't have the right to own a gun and defend myself? Just because some fucknugget uses a gun to commit a crime should not mean the average American gun owner should be stripped of their right to a firearm.

 

Also in a nation with hundreds of millions of guns in circulation it's impossible to completely remove guns. Makes people who legally own a firearm into criminals just because they want to be safe.

 

This argument is just not based in reality. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of homeowners with guns are not going to use them in self-defense. And they are far more likely to get themselves or someone else they know killed because of that gun than they are to defend themselves from an attack.

 

I'm not for repealing the second Amendment, but this argument is just simply not factual.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Thanatos

[Cherry 1,302]

 

This argument is just not based in reality. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of homeowners with guns are not going to use them in self-defense. And they are far more likely to get themselves or someone else they know killed because of that gun than they are to defend themselves from an attack.

 

I'm not for repealing the second Amendment, but this argument is just simply not factual.

It is based in reality. You're not going to defend from every break-in. Some people are going to be armed. Some people are going to catch you while you sleep. But the odds of you stopping a break-in are much higher when you have a weapon than when you don't. I used to be large in the anti-gun crowd because of the idea that the gun takes too long to get to. There are some instances where it is true that you won't be able to defend yourself, yes. A criminal with a firearm busts into your bedroom at 4 AM and you're way less likely to protect yourself. But if you have your gun on your hip watching TV at 9 at night and some unarmed or poorly armed criminal tries to bust in, you're going to have a means of defending yourself or at least scaring them off.

 

If I live alone why should I be stopped from owning a gun? Wouldn't harm a family member. If someone breaks in it's just me vs them right? As a homeowner I should have every right to defend my property. Even goes for couples without kids. Let's say I have a girlfriend who lives with me and I'm out of town when someone breaks in. How is she going to defend herself from a man who is probably twice as strong? The only concern is for families with kids having poor firearm containment and the kid getting ahold of the gun and shooting it.