Republicans Protect Rights of Terrorist Watch List To Own Weapons.

[hortysir]

What do you expect? They let Bin Laden go and stopped looking for him. No matter what they say, history will remember them for that.

Who "let him go" first?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Just to be clear.

Without any real evidence to support a claim of being a "Suspected Terrorist", individuals on the "No-Fly List", can be denied their right to move freely within the U.S.....but owning firearms is must?

If one right can be denied without reason or qualification, why not another.

Are you not bright enough to realize why that is an idiotic thing to post, or are you just dishonest?

 

[hortysir]

By this logic the police need only to SUSPECT I have drugs in order to disregard the 4A ahd enter my home without a warrant

 

[S.J.]

Link?

Yes, this is funny.

For years now you and most others on the right have contrived and propagated lies about the president, Clinton, and scores of other democrats and 'liberals' absent any facts, evidence, or 'links,' that for a conservative now to demand proof is as ridiculous as it is amusing.

I didn't ask for proof, I asked for a link, fuckhead.

 

[S.J.]

Link?

GOP blocks bill to stop terrorists from buying guns

Senate Republicans rejected a bill that aims to stop suspected terrorists from legally buying guns, on Thursday. The vote came a day after at least 14 people were killed during the San Bernardino massacre in California by two suspects, including a woman said to have pledged allegiance to ISIS.

Forty-five senators voted for the bill and 54 voted against it. One Democrat, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and one Republican, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, crossed party lines.

The measure would have denied people on the terrorist watch list the ability to buy guns.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the legislation, argued that former President George W. Bush initially proposed the legislation in 2007, and the Obama administration also supports it.

I should have known that's the kind of link you guys would provide. The "terrorist watch list" would change dramatically if that had passed. We already know the Obama administration considers Christians, TP members, conservatives, and anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep with them as "potential terrorists". Who decides who goes on the "watchlist"? Obama? Hillary? Valerie Jarrett? Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[my2¢]

Typical Democratic tactic. This is how liberals get things done, they nibble and eat the elephant one bite at a time.

 

[The Rabbi]

Link?

Here you go. I did a search on republicans letting terrorists have guns. Here's the link. Just click and pick your article.

republicans vote to let terrorists have guns - Bing

When it comes to terrorism they are a lot of hot air and absolutely no action.

They want another terrorist attack here in America.

Sorry but terrorists have struck the US only immediately after Democratic presidents or during the administration of Democratic presidents.
Because Democrats secretly side with them.

 

[whitehall]

"Republicans protect" who? Last I heard Barry Hussein was still president.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Republicans protect" who? Last I heard Barry Hussein was still president.

If these terrorists are too dangerous to get on an airplane, and too dangerous to buy a gun, then WTF are they doing walking around free??

 

[blackhawk]

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

So, in their head long rush demand that President Obama "Do Something" about plossible terrorist acts in the U.S., the Republicans have decided that individuals on the Terrorist Watch List should be allowed to continue to purchase firearms in the U.S.

Second Amendment Rights and all that.

First off the No-Fly list is a flawed list, and should not be used to justify to revoke someone Constitutional Rights.

The fact is the Mass Shooters were not on the No-Fly list, so how did that list prevent them from being able to get Guns seeing they were not consider a national risk?

Finally, Ted Kennedy was once on that faulty list, so again not a good idea to use a list that once had the Former Senator on!

 

[bravoactual]

So, a person or person(s) unknown, can under the 2nd Amendment go into a sporting goods store (Big 5), or a Walmart type establishment or Gun Store and purchase a Shtotgun, Bolt-Action Rifle or revolver or a Semi-Automatic Pistol or Semi-Automatic Rifle and that is all kinds of fine, well, right and good.

That same person, cannot however get on an air-carrier and travel from city to another , from state to another. Which under the 1st. Amendment is an violation of their Right to Freedom of Assembly.

You are more than willing to allow possible terrorist to purchase a firearm because of the 2nd. Amendment.

You do not want that same person to travel because they might be a terrorist.

A possible terrorist can purchase a firearm and you want them to do that. You would allow them to do that. You would by your own inaction encourage them to do that. But at the same time because their name is on a list of possible terrorist suspects you do not want them to get on an airplane.

You would then blame President Obama if that happened.

Clear as the muddy water you drink.

"Clear as the muddy water you drink." You could have said "koolaid". That might have conveyed their clarity of thought a little better.

Muddying The Waters - Which is what the reference was for.

Making things less clear. On one hand these dead from the neck up Cons want to do something about Terrorists, but at the same would allow would be terrorists to buy their firearms in the U.S. Just like Usama Bin Laden wanted his supporters to do.

 

[peach174]

So, in their head long rush demand that President Obama "Do Something" about plossible terrorist acts in the U.S., the Republicans have decided that individuals on the Terrorist Watch List should be allowed to continue to purchase firearms in the U.S.

Second Amendment Rights and all that.

And who on the Terrorist Watch List has actually shot up anyone?

 

[Searcher44]

So, a person or person(s) unknown, can under the 2nd Amendment go into a sporting goods store (Big 5), or a Walmart type establishment or Gun Store and purchase a Shtotgun, Bolt-Action Rifle or revolver or a Semi-Automatic Pistol or Semi-Automatic Rifle and that is all kinds of fine, well, right and good.

That same person, cannot however get on an air-carrier and travel from city to another , from state to another. Which under the 1st. Amendment is an violation of their Right to Freedom of Assembly.

You are more than willing to allow possible terrorist to purchase a firearm because of the 2nd. Amendment.

You do not want that same person to travel because they might be a terrorist.

A possible terrorist can purchase a firearm and you want them to do that. You would allow them to do that. You would by your own inaction encourage them to do that. But at the same time because their name is on a list of possible terrorist suspects you do not want them to get on an airplane.

You would then blame President Obama if that happened.

Clear as the muddy water you drink.

"Clear as the muddy water you drink." You could have said "koolaid". That might have conveyed their clarity of thought a little better.

Muddying The Waters - Which is what the reference was for.

Making things less clear. On one hand these dead from the neck up Cons want to do something about Terrorists, but at the same would allow would be terrorists to buy their firearms in the U.S. Just like Usama Bin Laden wanted his supporters to do.

Understood.

 

[bendog]

Sigh...once again, you cannot ban someone from buying a gun over suspicions

Then how can we legally prohibit someone who once assessed mental health treatment of buying a firearm? As a LIBERTARIAN I say AR-15's for everyone! Whackier the better!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

So, in their head long rush demand that President Obama "Do Something" about plossible terrorist acts in the U.S., the Republicans have decided that individuals on the Terrorist Watch List should be allowed to continue to purchase firearms in the U.S.

Second Amendment Rights and all that.

List isn't a reliable indicator. Ask Senator Kennedy.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Sigh...once again, you cannot ban someone from buying a gun over suspicions

Then how can we legally prohibit someone who once assessed mental health treatment of buying a firearm? As a LIBERTARIAN I say AR-15's for everyone! Whackier the better!

The mental issues have been confirmed, it's not a suspicion. I have no problem banning someone that is bat shit coo coo from owning firearms. It would most certainly cut down on Liberal gun owners

 

[paulitician]

So take all Americans' firearms away? That's the Communist/Progressive answer? Sounds like a pretty hysterical over-reaction. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water?

If you pass an FBI background check, you are entitled to acquire a firearm. That's the law. We already have 'Gun Control.' Deal with it Gun Grabbers.

 

[bendog]

Sigh...once again, you cannot ban someone from buying a gun over suspicions

Then how can we legally prohibit someone who once assessed mental health treatment of buying a firearm? As a LIBERTARIAN I say AR-15's for everyone! Whackier the better!

The mental issues have been confirmed, it's not a suspicion. I have no problem banning someone that is bat shit coo coo from owning firearms. It would most certainly cut down on Liberal gun owners

But the vast maj of those who access mental health services pose no threats, and will never commit a crime of any kind, beyone perhaps speeding. We legally deny them their 2nd amend rights because they might pose risk because they might not perceive reality. If you are saying people on a no fly are somehow different, you're being disingenuous.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Sigh...once again, you cannot ban someone from buying a gun over suspicions

Then how can we legally prohibit someone who once assessed mental health treatment of buying a firearm? As a LIBERTARIAN I say AR-15's for everyone! Whackier the better!

The mental issues have been confirmed, it's not a suspicion. I have no problem banning someone that is bat shit coo coo from owning firearms. It would most certainly cut down on Liberal gun owners

But the vast maj of those who access mental health services pose no threats, and will never commit a crime of any kind, beyone perhaps speeding. We legally deny them their 2nd amend rights because they might pose risk because they might not perceive reality. If you are saying people on a no fly are somehow different, you're being disingenuous.

I have no idea how one ends up on a no fly list but if you're diagnosed as a mental nut case no guns for you.