Leader Of Dem Sit-in Was On No-Fly List Himself

[Fair&Balanced]

"Democratic Rep. John Lewis was erroneously put on the no-fly list"

And?

The no fly list is not an issue by which to remove gun rights of all Americans.

Anyone who opposes blocking gun sales to those on the no fly list are terrorist sympathizers.

Bullshit. I oppose using the no fly list which is A) rife with mistakes and B) composed completely in secret as a tool to prevent people from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, that doesn't mean I don't favor other , more transparent methods of doing so.

The solution is simple, Full FBI background checks for anyone who wants the ability to buy a gun. If you get caught owning a gun without having undergone said background check , 10 years in prison. NO exceptions.

If you don't want to undergo the FBI background check, tough shit.

 

[mudwhistle]

"SHIT! So now I'm on the 'no-fly' list so that means under the new law I can't legally buy a gun! SHIT!
There goes my chances of ever getting any guns with which I intended to massacre as many innocent 'non-believers' as I could. SHIT! Guess this means I'll just have to cancel my road trip to the 'Gun Free Zone in SF. I was going rent a fucking Mustang and everything!"!

Hilarious. The point being a government agency or renegade president could decide on the criteria needed to be placed on your list. Possible excuses could be:

1. Religious extremist (Christian)
2. Iraqi War Veterans
3. Treated for depression
4. Openly hostile to big government (Republicans)
5. Critical of Obama Administration on social media (Twitter & Facebook)
6. Does not support same-sex marriages

 

[mudwhistle]

"Democratic Rep. John Lewis was erroneously put on the no-fly list"

And?

The no fly list is not an issue by which to remove gun rights of all Americans.

Anyone who opposes blocking gun sales to those on the no fly list are terrorist sympathizers.

Bullshit. I oppose using the no fly list which is A) rife with mistakes and B) composed completely in secret as a tool to prevent people from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, that doesn't mean I don't favor other , more transparent methods of doing so.

The solution is simple, Full FBI background checks for anyone who wants the ability to buy a gun. If you get caught owning a gun without having undergone said background check , 10 years in prison. NO exceptions.

If you don't want to undergo the FBI background check, tough shit.

That's essentially gun confiscation.

Some people have guns that have been in the family for decades if not over a hundred years. Are you gonna throw then in prison for that?

 

[Liminal]

Your intro in that post is 100% bullshit.

Whaaaaaaaaa!!!

We want your guns!!!!

Every statement you made in the intro is inaccurate. Does that win you some kind of nutbag prize?

Ever notice how the news media and gun control advocates never like to distinguish between the terrorist watch list and the no fly list? Have you ever wondered who's on the no fly list or how they got there?

 

[Liminal]

(1) Every member of Congress swears an Oath of Office, promising to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

(2) The Second Amendment affirms every American's individual right to "...keep and bear arms." (The right is granted by God, and protected by Government).

(3) The Fifth Amendment states that Americans shall not be deprived of "...life, liberty, or property..." without "due process of law."

(4) The laws on which the Democrats are "demanding" a vote would deprive Americans of the right to purchase (and own) firearms if they are found on a list that is generated without "due process," on the theory that such persons could probably, after spending time and money in some court, have their names removed from the "no-fly" list. This provision would be blatantly unconstitutional, as pointed out by the Speaker of the House. Consequently, he decreed that the House will (and should) not vote on a measure that it knows to be unconstitutional.

(5) Nothing in the proposed legislation would have prevented or significantly altered any aspect of the recent mass killings, other than the tools that were chosen to carry out those killings. It is like noting the large number of people killed in traffic accidents involving Chevy's, then making Chevy's illegal in the hope that that will stop traffic fatalities. It is mere silliness.

(6) The "Negro" legislators participating in this farce should be censured for their dishonesty. The problem in the "Black" community is not assault weapons or people on the "no fly" list buying guns. It is the devaluation of human life brought about by the welfare state.

Until someone comes up with a concept that can be Constitutionally implemented in a law or regulation that can have a significant impact on these lone-wolf mass-killers, Congress should have the humility to recognize that it is pointless to pass stupid laws (e.g., the creation of TSA) in response to any bad event or circumstance.

1) Every member of Congress could be put on a leaky boat in the middle of an ocean today and the country would be no worse off tomorrow.

2) We can probably stop at number one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

(1) Every member of Congress swears an Oath of Office, promising to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

(2) The Second Amendment affirms every American's individual right to "...keep and bear arms." (The right is granted by God, and protected by Government).

(3) The Fifth Amendment states that Americans shall not be deprived of "...life, liberty, or property..." without "due process of law."

(4) The laws on which the Democrats are "demanding" a vote would deprive Americans of the right to purchase (and own) firearms if they are found on a list that is generated without "due process," on the theory that such persons could probably, after spending time and money in some court, have their names removed from the "no-fly" list. This provision would be blatantly unconstitutional, as pointed out by the Speaker of the House. Consequently, he decreed that the House will (and should) not vote on a measure that it knows to be unconstitutional.

(5) Nothing in the proposed legislation would have prevented or significantly altered any aspect of the recent mass killings, other than the tools that were chosen to carry out those killings. It is like noting the large number of people killed in traffic accidents involving Chevy's, then making Chevy's illegal in the hope that that will stop traffic fatalities. It is mere silliness.

(6) The "Negro" legislators participating in this farce should be censured for their dishonesty. The problem in the "Black" community is not assault weapons or people on the "no fly" list buying guns. It is the devaluation of human life brought about by the welfare state.

Until someone comes up with a concept that can be Constitutionally implemented in a law or regulation that can have a significant impact on these lone-wolf mass-killers, Congress should have the humility to recognize that it is pointless to pass stupid laws (e.g., the creation of TSA) in response to any bad event or circumstance.

Fallacy of False Authority to Appeal and False Bias Conclusion.

No civil liberty is completely unrestricted. None.

 

[Liminal]

"Democratic Rep. John Lewis was erroneously put on the no-fly list"

And?

The no fly list is not an issue by which to remove gun rights of all Americans.

Anyone who opposes blocking gun sales to those on the no fly list are terrorist sympathizers.

So then by definition all the actors, musical entertainers, journalists, and authors on the no fly list must be terrorists. Gee whiz, I wonder what criteria was used to determine the crime?

 

[boedicca]

In the rush to take our guns, the hypocrisy by Democrats is glaring. Democrats think that love will protect us from a terrorist attack. Obama just released another terrorist from GITMO, most of which have gone back to terrorism, yet he and the Dems want to use an attack, the cause of which can be directly linked to the White House, as a reason to take away our rights. All of this screaming and yelling over a bill that will not save one single life.



Rep Lewis Was Once On The No-Fly List He Wants To Use To Restrict Gun Rights

Democratic Rep. John Lewis was erroneously put on the no-fly list he now wants to use to restrict gun ownership for U.S. citizens.

Lewis staged a “sit-in” at the House of Representatives Wednesday to call for a law barring people on the federal no-fly list from purchasing guns. But Lewis himself was erroneously put on the list at one point for an entire year, meaning he would have been unable to buy a gun had his new proposal been law.

Several different gun control measures have been circulating in Congress in the wake of Omar Mateen’s June 12 shooting spree at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. One of the proposals would ban anybody on the federal government’s no-fly list from purchasing a gun. In the House, Lewis has become a champion of such a rule, leading an occupation of the House floor to demand a vote on the measure.




Lewis may view the no-fly list as a good vehicle for stopping terrorists from getting weapons. But terrorists wouldn’t be the only people hindered by Collins’ proposal. In fact, if such a law had existed a decade ago, Lewis himself would have been victimized by it.

Press accounts from 2004 to 2008 reveal that Lewis’ name somehow ended up on the federal no-fly list, and remained there for years despite his best efforts to get it off. In 2004, he claimed he was stopped 35 to 40 times in a single year by airport personnel who tried to keep him from flying. Presumably, if the “no fly, no gun” law had been in place then, Lewis would have had even more trouble buying a gun than he had getting on a plane.

Lewis isn’t the only prominent person to have trouble with the no-fly list, as Sen. Ted Kennedy and singer Cat Stevens also claimed they were mistakenly placed on it. Their experiences illustrate one of the chief criticisms of the no-fly list: That it can limit individual rights while giving individuals very limited power to fight back.

According to the FBI, the current no-fly list has about 81,000 names, although only a few hundred of them are Americans.​

Our Dear Leaders always assume they have an "Exempt From The Law" card when caught in the traps they set for the rest of us.

 

[Liminal]

(1) Every member of Congress swears an Oath of Office, promising to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

(2) The Second Amendment affirms every American's individual right to "...keep and bear arms." (The right is granted by God, and protected by Government).

(3) The Fifth Amendment states that Americans shall not be deprived of "...life, liberty, or property..." without "due process of law."

(4) The laws on which the Democrats are "demanding" a vote would deprive Americans of the right to purchase (and own) firearms if they are found on a list that is generated without "due process," on the theory that such persons could probably, after spending time and money in some court, have their names removed from the "no-fly" list. This provision would be blatantly unconstitutional, as pointed out by the Speaker of the House. Consequently, he decreed that the House will (and should) not vote on a measure that it knows to be unconstitutional.

(5) Nothing in the proposed legislation would have prevented or significantly altered any aspect of the recent mass killings, other than the tools that were chosen to carry out those killings. It is like noting the large number of people killed in traffic accidents involving Chevy's, then making Chevy's illegal in the hope that that will stop traffic fatalities. It is mere silliness.

(6) The "Negro" legislators participating in this farce should be censured for their dishonesty. The problem in the "Black" community is not assault weapons or people on the "no fly" list buying guns. It is the devaluation of human life brought about by the welfare state.

Until someone comes up with a concept that can be Constitutionally implemented in a law or regulation that can have a significant impact on these lone-wolf mass-killers, Congress should have the humility to recognize that it is pointless to pass stupid laws (e.g., the creation of TSA) in response to any bad event or circumstance.

Fallacy of False Authority to Appeal and False Bias Conclusion.

No civil liberty is completely unrestricted. None.

Plus our leaders and elected representatives have done such a good job with the Fourth Amendment over the past fifteen years that now looks like a good time to go to work on the Second.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liminal, your logic remains incoherent.

 

[Liminal]

Liminal, your logic remains incoherent.

You're just a little slow.

 

[Liminal]

Begs the question: Why aren't there more smart people posting on this forum?

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[Fair&Balanced]

"Democratic Rep. John Lewis was erroneously put on the no-fly list"

And?

The no fly list is not an issue by which to remove gun rights of all Americans.

Anyone who opposes blocking gun sales to those on the no fly list are terrorist sympathizers.

Bullshit. I oppose using the no fly list which is A) rife with mistakes and B) composed completely in secret as a tool to prevent people from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, that doesn't mean I don't favor other , more transparent methods of doing so.

The solution is simple, Full FBI background checks for anyone who wants the ability to buy a gun. If you get caught owning a gun without having undergone said background check , 10 years in prison. NO exceptions.

If you don't want to undergo the FBI background check, tough shit.

That's essentially gun confiscation.

Some people have guns that have been in the family for decades if not over a hundred years. Are you gonna throw then in prison for that?

You clearly are not reading what I'm writing.

Under MY plan, if you don't get in trouble with the law, the law would never know what kind of , or how many, or even IF you actually owned any weapons. ALL they would know is "yep Mudwhistle passed a background check" UNLESS you broke the law to the point that a search warrant is issued , at which point I contend that I don't much care about your rights at that point.

 

[mudwhistle]

(1) Every member of Congress swears an Oath of Office, promising to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

(2) The Second Amendment affirms every American's individual right to "...keep and bear arms." (The right is granted by God, and protected by Government).

(3) The Fifth Amendment states that Americans shall not be deprived of "...life, liberty, or property..." without "due process of law."

(4) The laws on which the Democrats are "demanding" a vote would deprive Americans of the right to purchase (and own) firearms if they are found on a list that is generated without "due process," on the theory that such persons could probably, after spending time and money in some court, have their names removed from the "no-fly" list. This provision would be blatantly unconstitutional, as pointed out by the Speaker of the House. Consequently, he decreed that the House will (and should) not vote on a measure that it knows to be unconstitutional.

(5) Nothing in the proposed legislation would have prevented or significantly altered any aspect of the recent mass killings, other than the tools that were chosen to carry out those killings. It is like noting the large number of people killed in traffic accidents involving Chevy's, then making Chevy's illegal in the hope that that will stop traffic fatalities. It is mere silliness.

(6) The "Negro" legislators participating in this farce should be censured for their dishonesty. The problem in the "Black" community is not assault weapons or people on the "no fly" list buying guns. It is the devaluation of human life brought about by the welfare state.

Until someone comes up with a concept that can be Constitutionally implemented in a law or regulation that can have a significant impact on these lone-wolf mass-killers, Congress should have the humility to recognize that it is pointless to pass stupid laws (e.g., the creation of TSA) in response to any bad event or circumstance.

Fallacy of False Authority to Appeal and False Bias Conclusion.

No civil liberty is completely unrestricted. None.

Again.....your support of Obama and his policies reveals your true affiliation.

 

[mudwhistle]

Liminal, your logic remains incoherent.

Put a sock in it.

 

[HenryBHough]

In the rush to take our guns, the hypocrisy by Democrats is glaring. Democrats think that love will protect us from a terrorist attack. Obama just released another terrorist from GITMO, most of which have gone back to terrorism, yet he and the Dems want to use an attack, the cause of which can be directly linked to the White House, as a reason to take away our rights. All of this screaming and yelling over a bill that will not save one single life.



Rep Lewis Was Once On The No-Fly List He Wants To Use To Restrict Gun Rights

Democratic Rep. John Lewis was erroneously put on the no-fly list he now wants to use to restrict gun ownership for U.S. citizens.

Lewis staged a “sit-in” at the House of Representatives Wednesday to call for a law barring people on the federal no-fly list from purchasing guns. But Lewis himself was erroneously put on the list at one point for an entire year, meaning he would have been unable to buy a gun had his new proposal been law.

Several different gun control measures have been circulating in Congress in the wake of Omar Mateen’s June 12 shooting spree at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. One of the proposals would ban anybody on the federal government’s no-fly list from purchasing a gun. In the House, Lewis has become a champion of such a rule, leading an occupation of the House floor to demand a vote on the measure.




Lewis may view the no-fly list as a good vehicle for stopping terrorists from getting weapons. But terrorists wouldn’t be the only people hindered by Collins’ proposal. In fact, if such a law had existed a decade ago, Lewis himself would have been victimized by it.

Press accounts from 2004 to 2008 reveal that Lewis’ name somehow ended up on the federal no-fly list, and remained there for years despite his best efforts to get it off. In 2004, he claimed he was stopped 35 to 40 times in a single year by airport personnel who tried to keep him from flying. Presumably, if the “no fly, no gun” law had been in place then, Lewis would have had even more trouble buying a gun than he had getting on a plane.

Lewis isn’t the only prominent person to have trouble with the no-fly list, as Sen. Ted Kennedy and singer Cat Stevens also claimed they were mistakenly placed on it. Their experiences illustrate one of the chief criticisms of the no-fly list: That it can limit individual rights while giving individuals very limited power to fight back.

According to the FBI, the current no-fly list has about 81,000 names, although only a few hundred of them are Americans.​

But Lewis was what one might say: "freed upon appeal".

Now that we know a little more about his activities, how do we security-conscious Americans go about appealing that appeal and getting his sorry ass (and the rest of him as well) back ON the list. For our own safety!

 

[mudwhistle]

In the rush to take our guns, the hypocrisy by Democrats is glaring. Democrats think that love will protect us from a terrorist attack. Obama just released another terrorist from GITMO, most of which have gone back to terrorism, yet he and the Dems want to use an attack, the cause of which can be directly linked to the White House, as a reason to take away our rights. All of this screaming and yelling over a bill that will not save one single life.



Rep Lewis Was Once On The No-Fly List He Wants To Use To Restrict Gun Rights

Democratic Rep. John Lewis was erroneously put on the no-fly list he now wants to use to restrict gun ownership for U.S. citizens.

Lewis staged a “sit-in” at the House of Representatives Wednesday to call for a law barring people on the federal no-fly list from purchasing guns. But Lewis himself was erroneously put on the list at one point for an entire year, meaning he would have been unable to buy a gun had his new proposal been law.

Several different gun control measures have been circulating in Congress in the wake of Omar Mateen’s June 12 shooting spree at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. One of the proposals would ban anybody on the federal government’s no-fly list from purchasing a gun. In the House, Lewis has become a champion of such a rule, leading an occupation of the House floor to demand a vote on the measure.




Lewis may view the no-fly list as a good vehicle for stopping terrorists from getting weapons. But terrorists wouldn’t be the only people hindered by Collins’ proposal. In fact, if such a law had existed a decade ago, Lewis himself would have been victimized by it.

Press accounts from 2004 to 2008 reveal that Lewis’ name somehow ended up on the federal no-fly list, and remained there for years despite his best efforts to get it off. In 2004, he claimed he was stopped 35 to 40 times in a single year by airport personnel who tried to keep him from flying. Presumably, if the “no fly, no gun” law had been in place then, Lewis would have had even more trouble buying a gun than he had getting on a plane.

Lewis isn’t the only prominent person to have trouble with the no-fly list, as Sen. Ted Kennedy and singer Cat Stevens also claimed they were mistakenly placed on it. Their experiences illustrate one of the chief criticisms of the no-fly list: That it can limit individual rights while giving individuals very limited power to fight back.

According to the FBI, the current no-fly list has about 81,000 names, although only a few hundred of them are Americans.​

Our Dear Leaders always assume they have an "Exempt From The Law" card when caught in the traps they set for the rest of us.

Party members are always exempt in authoritarian regimes.

 

[WillowTree]

Somebody interviewed Charlie Wrangle on the phone. He said no private citizen needs to own a gun. She said but. Aren't you surrounded by guns? He said, well, that's different. Fuck those stupid democrats. They are gun grabbers.

 

[HenryBHough]

Put a sock in it.

When a sock gets into a sock without the first sock's written consent would not that, on most university campuses, be considered rape?