So a bill to prevent people on the terrorist watch list from being able to get or hold guns was defeated.
Simple question - why was, what appeared to be on the surface a sensible suggestion, rejected?
Is it to do with Federal Government sticking their oar in to peoples lives? Is it because you see it as opening a crack in a door that could potentially be booted open in years to come?
I've fired the question of getting rid of guns many, many times over the years to my American pals and I have to say that over the years I've had great feedback on why people want to keep their guns. I used to think it was just about the 2nd Amendment - "your right to bear arms". But as seen in the UK very recently, gun control really just means law abiding people can't have guns...people unconcerned with the law will always be able to get a hold of them.
I think it would be a regressive step if the UK ever lifted it's ban on guns or relaxed gun control laws because I see people regularly on a daily basis and whilst I it's not their political views or their state of mind that would give me concern about them holding a gun...I would most definitely be against them having a gun because they're just plain, old fashioned idiots and I wouldn't trust them with a spoon.
But I can see why tampering with gun control laws in the US is so fervently fought against.
So - I just thought I'd ask your views on why you think it was blocked and whether you personally thought the idea was a sensible one or whether it was right to be blocked, and why?
I should add I am using the "headline" story as reported here today in the UK. I don't know the specifics of the law and I haven't heard any arguments as to why.
I imagine some people may have thought it was a rush job for Obama to be able to say "I got some control over guns"...but I genuinely have no other depth of knowledge than what I put in the headline post above - it was a question designed to find out what people thought of the bill and the rejection.
Not an American but my take on it is that there is no due process involved with the terror watchlist. In most cases, one does not know that they've been placed on it until they do something such as try to fly. There's no chance to defend oneself against being placed on the list, there's little chance of finding out why one has been placed on the list, and unless one has connections or the savvy to be able to raise enough public awareness to create a stink, no real method of getting oneself removed from the list.
The way the watchlist is being used represents a complete lack of oversight and a serious case of government overreach. Janet Napolitano, former head of Homeland Security, pushed to have people such as returning veterans and those with "extremist" bumper stickers such as "don't tread on me" or the Gadsden flag placed on the list.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 21, 2016, 12:52:10 AM
So a bill to prevent people on the terrorist watch list from being able to get or hold guns was defeated.
Simple question - why was, what appeared to be on the surface a sensible suggestion, rejected?
+1 O0
I was just thinking the exactly the same thing.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 21, 2016, 12:52:10 AM
I think it would be a regressive step if the UK ever lifted it's ban on guns or relaxed gun control laws because I see people regularly on a daily basis and whilst I it's not their political views or their state of mind that would give me concern about them holding a gun...I would most definitely be against them having a gun because they're just plain, old fashioned idiots and I wouldn't trust them with a spoon.
That's the truth! O0
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on June 21, 2016, 01:04:19 AM
Not an American but my take on it is that there is no due process involved with the terror watchlist. In most cases, one does not know that they've been placed on it until they do something such as try to fly. There's no chance to defend oneself against being placed on the list, there's little chance of finding out why one has been placed on the list, and unless one has connections or the savvy to be able to raise enough public awareness to create a stink, no real method of getting oneself removed from the list.
The way the watchlist is being used represents a complete lack of oversight and a serious case of government overreach. Janet Napolitano, former head of Homeland Security, pushed to have people such as returning veterans and those with "extremist" bumper stickers such as "don't tread on me" or the Gadsden flag placed on the list.
That is actually a very good argument for rejection. It says little of the effectiveness of government on an important issue though, which is scary.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on June 21, 2016, 01:04:19 AM
...Janet Napolitano, former head of Homeland Security, pushed to have people such as returning veterans and those with "extremist" bumper stickers such as "don't tread on me" or the Gadsden flag placed on the list.
wow - and that has answered my question
The way the watch lists are managed are a completely embarrassing farce. As noted above, there's virtually no due process to get on them, it's almost impossible to get off of them, and while DHS is supposed to have oversight of them, there's a lot of folks that aren't convinced that DHS is doing anything remotely useful.
Heck, for all I know I'm on the terrorist watchlist!
No kidding: I was nearly detained as a suspected Iranian terrorist for having diarrhea and trying to enter the US with various papers other than a passport. It just occurred to me this might have put me on the watchlist by some kind of clerical association. (Um, paperwork clerical, not religious clerical.)
To be fair, an alert had been issued that 4 known Iranian terrorists would be trying to enter the US that weekend, three of whom looked enough like me to nevermind, and (thanks to the upset stomach) I had been acting weirdly in line while trying not to be late to catch my plane out of Montreal. Also, having made a flash trip to Montreal, I had been told I wouldn't need a passport (which had long expired) so long as I had various other identifications (which I did). Worked fine going into Canada, not so much coming back!
Fortunately, I think the custom's guy decided I was too stupid to be a terrorist. >:D "You know who coaches the UT Knoxville women's basketball team, but not who your governor is?!" "Pat Summit is a lot more important in Tennessee than our governor."
Agree totally with SDR's statement and reasoning. A longer 'Hold' on buying guns if you're on the Watch List would've made more sense but until the Watch List is replaced by something more accurate, it's open to massive abuse-- which is probably what they're shooting for. Punned you! :2funny:
Quote from: Sir Slash on June 21, 2016, 09:29:40 AM
Agree totally with SDR's statement and reasoning. A longer 'Hold' on buying guns if you're on the Watch List would've made more sense but until the Watch List is replaced by something more accurate, it's open to massive abuse-- which is probably what they're shooting for. Punned you! :2funny:
That's it, you're on the list...
Don't shoot the messenger! Just had to pop-off about it.
Quote from: Sir Slash on June 21, 2016, 06:34:13 PM
Don't shoot the messenger! Just had to pop-off about it.
SDR has you "bang" to rights! ;)
Surely it was just a shot in the dark at someone here - with both barrels? :buck2:
Do you though? Or is that just a warning shot? :2funny:
There were actually 4 bills voted on, two proposed by Dems and two by Repubs. None passed.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 21, 2016, 12:52:10 AM
So a bill to prevent people on the terrorist watch list from being able to get or hold guns was defeated.
Simple question - why was, what appeared to be on the surface a sensible suggestion, rejected?
Simple answer.
It is the height of arrogance, hypocrisy and deceit. Its not often that Republicans actually offer a gun control law, but sure enough, it was Democrats who voted it down. Democrats, who insist upon an unlimited ability to label, and deprive people of their rights without due process. Consider what these vile leftist politicians did:
1) Democrats failed to enhance funding for the Instant Background Check system.
2) Democrats failed to enhance the background check system with additional data from the states.
3) Democrats failed to agree to a law that would have blocked a sale for 3 days pending a deeper examination for those on the terror watch list.
These are all "common sense" regulations that Democrats always claim they want, but when the GOP proposed laws that require citizens (not terrorists) to be afforded representation, and due process the Democrats balked.
As Obama would say, "make no mistake", the opportunity was there. However, for Democrats, the bigger opportunity was to use this vote to make outrageous claims against the NRA, its members and the millions of gun owners in this land. Democrats want nothing more than a fund raising issue, an ad campaign, and a talking point. At no time were they really serious about protecting the health and safety of our nation, and most importantly the foundation of our judicial system... that citizens are innocent until proven guilty. I despise every last one of them.
Everything Jarhead said was true - but let me elaborate further.
The Dem bill would let DHS put anyone on a "terror watch list" for any reason. There was no real means to appeal this designation.
The Republican alternative bill which got 53 votes would allow the Justice Department to put someone on the list, but the government attorneys would have to provide proof in court within 72 hours of such designation. That was probably too short of a time frame to be workable if someone's name came up suddenly.
The sticking point is the Republicans demand the ability of anyone who has a constitutional right revoked (owning firearms) to have a day in court to challenge the revocation. Democrats refuse to allow this wanting instead the Federal Government to be enabled to deny a right under the US Constitution to not be subject to challenge in the Federal Courts.
A workable compromise could be worked out, if the Democrats would allow individuals to challenge the Government banning them from owning firearms in Court. So far, the Dems have refused to do this.
If you are in favor of the Executive branch to accuse, convict, and remove Constitutional rights from individuals and not have that decision reviewable by the Courts with an appeal by the individual - then you are in favor of the Democrat bill.
Under Obama I've become convinced that Dems no longer believe in the US Constitution or the rule of law.
I wonder how the Dems would feel if they passed their bill and then President Trump's Attorney General put all them on the No-Fly List. They'd look like this.... >:(
Sir Slash may have won the thread... :2funny:
Quote from: Sir Slash on June 22, 2016, 09:57:52 PM
I wonder how the Dems would feel if they passed their bill and then President Trump's Attorney General put all them on the No-Fly List. They'd look like this.... >:(
It's make it harder for the Dems in Congress to get back and forth the DC and their Home districts.
I just bought a gun last week. A new .22 pistol for Target Shooting. I have no problem with the Background Check connected requirements. Also in the shop were two gentlemen who couldn't buy a gun because of previous felonies. I'm VERY glad about their Background Check requirements. But I don't for a second think the 2 gentlemen cannot get a gun if they really want one--- elsewhere. It's only the Law-Abiding that get held-up by abiding the law. My 2 cents.
Quote from: Sir Slash on June 24, 2016, 10:00:19 AM
I just bought a gun last week. A new .22 pistol for Target Shooting. I have no problem with the Background Check connected requirements. Also in the shop were two gentlemen who couldn't buy a gun because of previous felonies. I'm VERY glad about their Background Check requirements. But I don't for a second think the 2 gentlemen cannot get a gun if they really want one--- elsewhere. It's only the Law-Abiding that get held-up by abiding the law. My 2 cents.
But part of the point here has to be that these 2 gentlemen did not get to walk into a gun store and purchase a firearm with the ease of a law-abiding citizen. I am a gun owner and I don't like the hassles but I am willing to put up with them for the safety of the community. I'm not sure we want to start arguing that just because some can skirt the law we should not have a law. We have people that routinely violate the speed limit. Does that imply we should not have speed limits?
We all suffer from the fact that laws and regulations were put in place to deal with the lowest common denominators among our fellow citizens. I cring when it is suggested the solution to gun violence is to arm everyone. The idea that we can assume everyone will be a responsible gun owner just seem to stretch credibility to a breaking point. A firearm is the most dangerous object you can carry on your person short of some sort of explosive device. We have already seen instances where concealed carriers trivialize the dangerous nature of a firearm to the point of getting themselves killed.
This all being said...... I completely agree that the government should not have the authority to nullify the rights of its citizens without due process.
Quote from: airboy on June 22, 2016, 07:52:02 PM
Under Obama I've become convinced that Dems no longer believe in the US Constitution or the rule of law.
QFT.
Seems like they're constantly attempting to circumvent the Constitution and our citizens' rights via such loophole proposals.
Fortunately their hidden goal is so obvious, in these proposed changes, they usually get shot down.
The biggest problems come when political hack appointees abuse a Department/Agency's powers to do same, without the need for a vote. That's where their trespasses go through an excessively long federal court process, taking ages to get resolved.