Filibuster for Gun Safety

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The key part of your qualification is the word "privately". We may come to different conclusions, but there is a colorable argument to be made (iow, reasonable people can disagree) that the founders did not expect all religious civil liberties to be constrained to a private space. On one end of the spectrum, left-leaning folk would clearly prefer to constrain the exercise of religion to private spaces as much as possible if not completely (e.g., most liberals probably wouldn't accept that church-affiliated schools, including universities, should have the same broad religious liberties as churches). On the other end, right-leaning folk want to expand the space that religious civil liberties are permitted as far as possible (e.g., Bush's faith-based initiative program or school vouchers to parochial schools).

These are very complicated issues with no objective correct answer, but I only raise them to point out that there are intersections of government power and civil liberties where democrats clearly want to constrain civil liberties....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, exactly what is Hillary's position on gun control? Specifically? I would honestly love to know, because the statements I have read are extremely vague and boil down to "there are bad guns and we need no make sure bad people don't get guns".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not quite. The Oregon judge only ruled that international air travel is a constitutional right. Indeed, the judge implicitly recognized that there is no constitutional right to domestic air travel (and good case law remains to support the latter point).

Try to wrap your mind around that conclusion (essentially that a constitutional right exists to certain modes of transportation when no other modes are cost effective or timely).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not quite. The Oregon judge only ruled that international air travel is a constitutional right. Indeed, the judge implicitly recognized that there is no constitutional right to domestic air travel (and good case law remains to support the latter point).

Try to wrap your mind around that conclusion (essentially that a constitutional right exists to certain modes of transportation when no other modes are cost effective or timely). \\



The problem with the no-fly list is that the criteria for being placed on it is very secretive and the process for getting off it is not clear-cut. There is a basic lack of due process involved in the no-fly list. You may have the same, or a similar, name as someone on it. It is not a simple matter of appealing it to a judge. This has strong ramifications if an administration or a President (let's say named Trump) decided you go on the no-fly list. What are your options if this becomes a political enemies list? Hell, Ted Kennedy had trouble getting off the list and he was one of the most powerful people in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, exactly what is Hillary's position on gun control? Specifically? I would honestly love to know, because the statements I have read are extremely vague and boil down to "there are bad guns and we need no make sure bad people don't get guns".

From hilaryclinton.com:

Gun violence prevention

It is past time we act on gun violence.

Hillary will:

Strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in the current system.

Hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable.

Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill.

“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.”
HILLARY, AUGUST 27, 2015

As president, Hillary will increase the number of gun sales subject to background checks:
Comprehensive federal background check legislation. Background checks reduce gun trafficking, reduce the lethality of domestic violence, and reduce unlawful gun transfers to dangerous individuals. It is reprehensible that bipartisan legislation supporting background checks failed in Congress after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But Hillary is not giving up—she will continue to fight for legislation to build on the Brady Bill’s success.
Closing the “Charleston Loophole.” Hillary will push Congress to close the loophole that allows a gun sale to proceed without a completed background check if that check has not been completed within three days. This loophole allowed the alleged Charleston shooter to purchase a gun even though he had a criminal record.
Tightening the gun show and Internet sales loophole if Congress won’t. If Congress refuses to act, Hillary will take administrative action to require that any person attempting to sell a significant number of guns abide by the same commonsense rules that apply to gun stores—including requiring background checks on gun sales.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not quite. The Oregon judge only ruled that international air travel is a constitutional right. Indeed, the judge implicitly recognized that there is no constitutional right to domestic air travel (and good case law remains to support the latter point).

Try to wrap your mind around that conclusion (essentially that a constitutional right exists to certain modes of transportation when no other modes are cost effective or timely). \\



The problem with the no-fly list is that the criteria for being placed on it is very secretive and the process for getting off it is not clear-cut. There is a basic lack of due process involved in the no-fly list. You may have the same, or a similar, name as someone on it. It is not a simple matter of appealing it to a judge. This has strong ramifications if an administration or a President (let's say named Trump) decided you go on the no-fly list. What are your options if this becomes a political enemies list? Hell, Ted Kennedy had trouble getting off the list and he was one of the most powerful people in the country.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think that should stop a "No Fly No Buy" bill. Steps should be taken to remedy this process for getting on the no-fly list. But it's baffling to me that folks would be more concerned about mistakingly removing someone's right to buy a gun than their ability to fly on an airplane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, exactly what is Hillary's position on gun control? Specifically? I would honestly love to know, because the statements I have read are extremely vague and boil down to "there are bad guns and we need no make sure bad people don't get guns".

From hilaryclinton.com:

Gun violence prevention

It is past time we act on gun violence.

Hillary will:

Strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in the current system.

Hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable.

Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill.

“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.”
HILLARY, AUGUST 27, 2015

As president, Hillary will increase the number of gun sales subject to background checks:
Comprehensive federal background check legislation. Background checks reduce gun trafficking, reduce the lethality of domestic violence, and reduce unlawful gun transfers to dangerous individuals. It is reprehensible that bipartisan legislation supporting background checks failed in Congress after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But Hillary is not giving up—she will continue to fight for legislation to build on the Brady Bill’s success.
Closing the “Charleston Loophole.” Hillary will push Congress to close the loophole that allows a gun sale to proceed without a completed background check if that check has not been completed within three days. This loophole allowed the alleged Charleston shooter to purchase a gun even though he had a criminal record.
Tightening the gun show and Internet sales loophole if Congress won’t. If Congress refuses to act, Hillary will take administrative action to require that any person attempting to sell a significant number of guns abide by the same commonsense rules that apply to gun stores—including requiring background checks on gun sales.

And if all of the above were to happen, specifically which mass shootings would have been prevented?

[Anonymous]

For those of you arguing against the gun control bills at issue here - can you at least agree that you are in the small minority? The vast majority (90%) of Americans support universal background checks. 80+% support denying guns to people on the terrorist watch list. THOSE are the only 2 bills at issue today. And the Republicans still refuse to hold a vote.

It is not based on their constituents who widely approve of these bills. And it is not based on due process or whatever else they are trying to claim. It is based on the NRA's influence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not quite. The Oregon judge only ruled that international air travel is a constitutional right. Indeed, the judge implicitly recognized that there is no constitutional right to domestic air travel (and good case law remains to support the latter point).

Try to wrap your mind around that conclusion (essentially that a constitutional right exists to certain modes of transportation when no other modes are cost effective or timely). \\



The problem with the no-fly list is that the criteria for being placed on it is very secretive and the process for getting off it is not clear-cut. There is a basic lack of due process involved in the no-fly list. You may have the same, or a similar, name as someone on it. It is not a simple matter of appealing it to a judge. This has strong ramifications if an administration or a President (let's say named Trump) decided you go on the no-fly list. What are your options if this becomes a political enemies list? Hell, Ted Kennedy had trouble getting off the list and he was one of the most powerful people in the country.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think that should stop a "No Fly No Buy" bill. Steps should be taken to remedy this process for getting on the no-fly list. But it's baffling to me that folks would be more concerned about mistakingly removing someone's right to buy a gun than their ability to fly on an airplane.

I get that a lot of people on this forum hate guns. What I don't get is that highly educated people on here don't understand that the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights gives citizens the RIGHT to own a gun and it's right up there with the First Amendment right to free speech and freedom to practice your religion. This right has been raised before the Supreme Court numerous times and the laws we have are a result of these numerous tests. Banning someone from a right to own a gun is not nearly as simple as taking away someone's driver's licence. Please understand the importance of this distinction. If we decide to repeal the Second, I'm okay with that, but as things stand, there is a RIGHT to own a gun, and it is not subject to the whims of some Congressional vote or an Executive Order. It would involve amending the Constitution. If banning guns is your issue, you need to get a movement going to amend the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those of you arguing against the gun control bills at issue here - can you at least agree that you are in the small minority? The vast majority (90%) of Americans support universal background checks. 80+% support denying guns to people on the terrorist watch list. THOSE are the only 2 bills at issue today. And the Republicans still refuse to hold a vote.

It is not based on their constituents who widely approve of these bills. And it is not based on due process or whatever else they are trying to claim. It is based on the NRA's influence.

Again, I'm not trying to be a dick, but what mass shootings, or what number of run-of-the-mill shootings would this prevent. The only thing this would do is raise the constitutionality of the so-called "terrorist watch list" and "no-fly list".

[Anonymous]

Has ANY control law proved to prevent crime?

We don't need gun "safety". We need criminal safety.

Take all guns away and criminals will still have them. That's because they're criminals, and criminals don't obey laws.

[Anonymous]

Has taking our shoes off before getting on a plane been proven to prevent a crime? No but we are required to do it anyway.

If banning people on a terrorist watch list from buying a gun would just prevent 1 death - isn't that worth it? How does that infringe on your rights? Are you thinking you may be on a terrorist watch list?

People say it is a mental health issue, terrorist issue, video game issue - fine. Let's work on all of those. But why can't we also work on reasonable gun control as well? Why is the 2nd Amendment so much more sacred than any other Amendment on the Bill of Rights?

The NRA used to be in favor of reasonable gun control. Back then, you didn't hear all of these arguments that the 2nd Amendment is absolute. Now that the NRA opposes any gun control whatsoever, suddenly everyone is a Constitutional scholar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has ANY control law proved to prevent crime?

We don't need gun "safety". We need criminal safety.

Take all guns away and criminals will still have them. That's because they're criminals, and criminals don't obey laws.

Yes, it does. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/06/12/gun-killings-fell-by-40-percent-after-connecticut-passed-this-law/

[Anonymous]

I have been wondering about one thing . Why can't we do for guns , what we did for prohibition? The 21 amendment repealed prohibition, however it gave states wide latitude to regulate the distribution , retail and consumption of alcoholic beverages with little to no federal involvement .

The results can be seen in how different laws governing alcoholic beverages vary widely by states . In some states you can buy beer and wine at a grocery store, in others you can't . In some states you buy can spirits on a Sunday , in others you can't . These are just a few examples

We may be living in the same country but we are not culturally alike and we don't face the same realities . It is absurd for millions of people to be held hostage by some antiquated law that brings nothing but carnage every other day in this country . Does anyone really think that if voters in say California , MD, DC , NY, NJ to name a few were to head to the ballot to decide whether to keep or ban guns , that the outcome will be the same ?