Gun Control Question (US)

[OJsDad]

There were actually 4 bills voted on, two proposed by Dems and two by Repubs.  None passed. 

[Jarhead0331]

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.

[airboy]

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.

[Sir Slash]

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.... >:(

[JasonPratt]

Sir Slash may have won the thread... 

[OJsDad]

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.

[Sir Slash]

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.

[DoctorQuest]

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.

[Nefaro]

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.