Filibuster for Gun Safety

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is great! Finally!

yes but why the hell did it take so long! Where was the desire to do this after 20 5/6 yr olds were gunned down? Is it just because it was a Muslim that did it? Is the magic number 50? Because it sure wasn't 30 something which was the number of folks who died from the VTech shooter.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cornyn's Republican Proposal (backed by NRA): Under Republican legislation, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause" that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. But if the government cannot show that the individual is plotting terrorism within 72 hours, the individual gets the gun.

Dem Proposal: The Democratic bill allows the federal government to block anyone on the government's watch list from buying a gun. The gun buyer can challenge the block in court. The government's decision will be sustained only if a "preponderance of evidence" [i.e., more likely than not] indicates that the attorney general has a "reasonable belief" that the prospective gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism.

When did the FL shooter buy the gun? Was it more than 72 hrs? Then it won't help. If a person is planning it for weeks/months, this wouldn't help. OTH, this guy had been investigated by the FBI several months ago and was known to be a sympathizer. So, I would say the 72 hr clause is useless if you are trying to prevent terrorists from buying guns.

It's not going to stop them all but its a step in the right direction. There is no reason that a law-abiding citizen cannot wait 72 hours for a gun.

[Anonymous]

So with all this bluster and celebration, where is Hillary? You guessed it - reading the polls. In her heart, Hillary wants to grab the guns, but she will never have the courage to state it, unlike safe Senators and Congressmen that everyone is talking about. Why won't Hillary take a principled stand - you guessed it, she will lose..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is great! Finally!

yes but why the hell did it take so long! Where was the desire to do this after 20 5/6 yr olds were gunned down? Is it just because it was a Muslim that did it? Is the magic number 50? Because it sure wasn't 30 something which was the number of folks who died from the VTech shooter.

This.

I think back then we looked to Obama. We thought he's going to take care of this.

Now more people are getting into it. I think it was the combined tragedy of this one plus Newtown. And the fact that it's just more people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cornyn's Republican Proposal (backed by NRA): Under Republican legislation, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause" that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. But if the government cannot show that the individual is plotting terrorism within 72 hours, the individual gets the gun.

Dem Proposal: The Democratic bill allows the federal government to block anyone on the government's watch list from buying a gun. The gun buyer can challenge the block in court. The government's decision will be sustained only if a "preponderance of evidence" [i.e., more likely than not] indicates that the attorney general has a "reasonable belief" that the prospective gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism.

I do not understand what is so wrong in Dem's proposal. Why should gun buying within 72 hours is critical?

Because the democrat proposal denies due process, your fifth amendment right. It also doesn't define criteria for what puts you on the list other than up to AG and it doesn't define how to get off. The republicans are simply asking the 5th amendment rights are not infringe on.

No, there is no violation of Due Process. Anyone who is dangerous enough to get put on the no-fly list, and who wants to challenge that designation, has the right to go to a court of law to make his case. Indeed, when they go to court, the burden is on the AG to prove a reasonable belief that the gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism. The gun buyer doesn't have to offer any proof at all. All he has to do is ask for a court hearing, and that forces the government to come forward with proof. No loss of Due Process at all.

Agree. The due process argument is a red herring. I heard Senator Murphy say that 90%(!) of the people on the terrorist watch list have purchased guns. That is scary. This is just about the NRA and the fact that they want everyone to have access to guns. Perhaps blocking people on the terrorist watchlist would be blocking some of their best customers.

No. The due process argument is valid. The stupid argument is the no fly list argument. There is no constitutional right to fly in an airplane. Denying you access to airplane flight does not violate any rights under the constitution.

Regardless of your opinion on the matter, the law of the land is that owning guns is a constitutional right. Now there must be some kind of due process to deprive someone of that right. Tweak the argument just a little bit: recruitment of potential terrorists poses a real threat to America, thus, the federal government can deny you your first amendment speech and first amendment religion rights for 72 hours if you are on the no fly list and the burden is then on you to prove you shouldn't be on a no fly list. No democrat would ever accept that argument.

The no fly list argument is complete and utter bullshit coming from Obama because he does know better.

[Anonymous]

Somehow Republicans only care about someone's civil liberties when there are guns involved.

So we can start spying on Muslims simply because of their religion but we can't deny guns to people suspected of terrorism?

[Anonymous]

And regardless of your views, why can't there at least be a vote? Because the Republicans do not want to be on record voting no for keeping guns away from terrorists - a bill that most Americans support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Somehow Republicans only care about someone's civil liberties when there are guns involved.

So we can start spying on Muslims simply because of their religion but we can't deny guns to people suspected of terrorism?

And somehow Democrats don't care about civil liberties when it comes to conservative Christians or gun owners....

[Anonymous]

And I ask again, where is Hillary on the gun argument - MIA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And I ask again, where is Hillary on the gun argument - MIA.

WTF are you talking about? She advocated this restriction in the speech she just gave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somehow Republicans only care about someone's civil liberties when there are guns involved.

So we can start spying on Muslims simply because of their religion but we can't deny guns to people suspected of terrorism?

And somehow Democrats don't care about civil liberties when it comes to conservative Christians or gun owners....

I'm confused. . are you saying Conservative Christians are gun owners. . Omar Mateen was not a Conservative Christian. Or are you saying Dems don't care about the civil liberties of Con. Christians? if the latter, how?? How have Christians been blocked from privately practicing their faith? On government property yes they are but the President has a national Prayer breakfast for crying out loud, religious Christians are very much a part of the conversation. And if you talking about the fact the conservatives want to obsess over sex and genitalia in front of children in public instead of keeping things private and using their own good judgement- thats on you. I'm very religious - think homosexuality is immoral as is sex outside of marriage and all sorts of things but I also think people shouldn't be talking about this stuff outloud in front of God and everybody. If you see someone who looks strange (I live in chinatown: men dressed in makeup and heels everywhere) I just look down and go on my way. Their behavior is not my business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I ask again, where is Hillary on the gun argument - MIA.

WTF are you talking about? She advocated this restriction in the speech she just gave.

Ugh. "Assault weapons", AK-15s, handguns, semi-automatics, what the hell is she talking about? Semi-auto long guns are a minuscule part of gun deaths. Is she posturing or does she want to get rid of guns that do the bulk of killing? She sounds uninformed at best, a panderer at worst. She is trying to play both sides of the coin. Please take a stand Hillary, I will respect it either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somehow Republicans only care about someone's civil liberties when there are guns involved.

So we can start spying on Muslims simply because of their religion but we can't deny guns to people suspected of terrorism?

And somehow Democrats don't care about civil liberties when it comes to conservative Christians or gun owners....

What are you prattling about? If you're talking about the so called conscience laws, those violate others' rights (e.g., if you don't want to buy contraception for yourself, then don't; you have no right to control someone else's choice.) And gun owners . . that's what we're discussing. No right is without limits. Period. You seem to think you can do whatever you want and have any gun you want. That is to be determined and will be decided after much discussion and debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I ask again, where is Hillary on the gun argument - MIA.

WTF are you talking about? She advocated this restriction in the speech she just gave.

Ugh. "Assault weapons", AK-15s, handguns, semi-automatics, what the hell is she talking about? Semi-auto long guns are a minuscule part of gun deaths. Is she posturing or does she want to get rid of guns that do the bulk of killing? She sounds uninformed at best, a panderer at worst. She is trying to play both sides of the coin. Please take a stand Hillary, I will respect it either way.

I don't care if semi-automatic long guns are "a minuscule part of gun deaths". They are involved in a non-miniscule number of terrorist attacks and hate crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cornyn's Republican Proposal (backed by NRA): Under Republican legislation, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause" that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. But if the government cannot show that the individual is plotting terrorism within 72 hours, the individual gets the gun.

Dem Proposal: The Democratic bill allows the federal government to block anyone on the government's watch list from buying a gun. The gun buyer can challenge the block in court. The government's decision will be sustained only if a "preponderance of evidence" [i.e., more likely than not] indicates that the attorney general has a "reasonable belief" that the prospective gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism.

I do not understand what is so wrong in Dem's proposal. Why should gun buying within 72 hours is critical?

Because the democrat proposal denies due process, your fifth amendment right. It also doesn't define criteria for what puts you on the list other than up to AG and it doesn't define how to get off. The republicans are simply asking the 5th amendment rights are not infringe on.

No, there is no violation of Due Process. Anyone who is dangerous enough to get put on the no-fly list, and who wants to challenge that designation, has the right to go to a court of law to make his case. Indeed, when they go to court, the burden is on the AG to prove a reasonable belief that the gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism. The gun buyer doesn't have to offer any proof at all. All he has to do is ask for a court hearing, and that forces the government to come forward with proof. No loss of Due Process at all.

Agree. The due process argument is a red herring. I heard Senator Murphy say that 90%(!) of the people on the terrorist watch list have purchased guns. That is scary. This is just about the NRA and the fact that they want everyone to have access to guns. Perhaps blocking people on the terrorist watchlist would be blocking some of their best customers.

No. The due process argument is valid. The stupid argument is the no fly list argument. There is no constitutional right to fly in an airplane. Denying you access to airplane flight does not violate any rights under the constitution.

Regardless of your opinion on the matter, the law of the land is that owning guns is a constitutional right. Now there must be some kind of due process to deprive someone of that right. Tweak the argument just a little bit: recruitment of potential terrorists poses a real threat to America, thus, the federal government can deny you your first amendment speech and first amendment religion rights for 72 hours if you are on the no fly list and the burden is then on you to prove you shouldn't be on a no fly list. No democrat would ever accept that argument.

The no fly list argument is complete and utter bullshit coming from Obama because he does know better.

The government tried arguing the same the court disagreed

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms