Senate GOP Votes Down "Susptected Terrorist" Gun Bill

[drumsofgrohl]

I know this article is clearly hard leaning left, but I was just wondering what the opposition to this is.

Senate GOP votes down gun legislation
In short:

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans voted against barring suspected terrorists, felons and the mentally ill from getting guns on Thursday afternoon, parroting National Rifle Association arguments that doing so would strip some innocent people of their constitutional rights to gun access just a day after yet another massacre on U.S. soil.

A pair of Democratic measures - one to close background check loopholes to make it harder for felons and the mentally ill from buying guns, another to ban those on the terror watch list from buying guns - both went down in flames against near-unanimous GOP opposition.

Basically, why would the GOP vote this down? The article mentioned something about it being 'un-American' but I have a hard time believing thats the reason.

I'm not trying to argue whether this should or should not have passed, I just want to know what the arguments are.

Is this just an anti-Obama, or anti-left antic?
Are there other provisions hidden in the bill that republicans had issues with?
Is it because restrictions of guns wont prevent killings, so don't waste our time?
Is it because once you start restrictions, where does it end?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You can't ban someone for being "suspected" of something.

 

[Pete7469]

Someone must be charged, tried and convicted of something before being prohibited from exercising their civil rights.

It's called due process.

Remember when Janet Napalitano suspected vets and anyone who displayed the Gadsden Flag to be suspects for domestic terror?

I do.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

But the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was “dumbfounded” that such a report would be issued.


“This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans - including war veterans,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, in his letter sent Tuesday night.

 

[Auld Phart]

I know this article is clearly hard leaning left, but I was just wondering what the opposition to this is.

Senate GOP votes down gun legislation
In short:

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans voted against barring suspected terrorists, felons and the mentally ill from getting guns on Thursday afternoon, parroting National Rifle Association arguments that doing so would strip some innocent people of their constitutional rights to gun access just a day after yet another massacre on U.S. soil.

A pair of Democratic measures - one to close background check loopholes to make it harder for felons and the mentally ill from buying guns, another to ban those on the terror watch list from buying guns - both went down in flames against near-unanimous GOP opposition.

Basically, why would the GOP vote this down? The article mentioned something about it being 'un-American' but I have a hard time believing thats the reason.

I'm not trying to argue whether this should or should not have passed, I just want to know what the arguments are.

Is this just an anti-Obama, or anti-left antic?
Are there other provisions hidden in the bill that republicans had issues with?
Is it because restrictions of guns wont prevent killings, so don't waste our time?
Is it because once you start restrictions, where does it end?

Were you a big fan of Senator McCarthy, and his search for communists?

Did you cheer when FDR put Japanese-Americans in camps?

Were you, or members of your family, at the front when mobs chased people with German, or German sounding names out of town in the 40s?

How do you see this as different?

 

[elchorizo]

I have a lot of people on my FB that are asking me why people are against laws such as these. Forget for a moment that the title and name of the bill is misleading, and nevermind the pork that gets into bills like this. I usually respond with something like:


The reason you see resistance to anything akin to a “registration” system or more hurdles, approvals, etc. is because that is step 1 in the government keeping citizens from being able to purchase guns at all. You may think that this is “crazy” for people to make a leap from this step to the stop of not selling any guns at all, but it is has happened in many countries all over the world. History repeats itself.


So… Look at it like this:


Step 1. (we already have tons of requirements for being able to purchase a gun)


Step 2. Government runs a list of who can and can’t buy a gun, on the pretense that its only for the bad guys not to get one.


Step 3. The list expands over time and many are guilty of some unkown infraction, can’t buy a gun. I’ve been on the do not fly list at least 5 times simply because of my name. If you think that innocents won’t get caught in this, you are delusional.


Step 4. The list continues to expand, and the government uses this list now instead of a “blocking” list, but instead turns it around and only “certain” names on the list can purchase a gun at all. Connected people. Bribes, friends of the state.


Step 5. Since you’ve been registering all your guns, the government knows about everything you have and comes to take them. What’s that? You no longer have this gun? Off to jail for hiding weapons from the government.


Don’t think of the above as some far fetched scenario. It’s happened before in other countries. The constitution has wording very specific because it wants to avoid this very scenario. The government shall not, nay, MUST NOT, be in a position to keep a reasonable citizen from owning a firearm. I believe very strongly not just in this part of the constitution but many others.


We should not forget that at times in the past when rappers were making music that people consider dangerous many people tried to change the 1st Amendment. What would our country be like if we kept changing it based on the whims of the current popular opinion? We already have given up so many rights, civil liberties and privacy in the name of “progress” or “change” or “protection”.


I shudder at the thought of our country in 100 years.


Most reasonable gun owners have no problem with legitimate checks… I’m all for the same background on private party sales as I am on guns purchased through a gun store. But please make no mistake, all of these discussions about banning guns, doing additional background checks, etc. would not have stopped any of these mass murders from taking place. All were purchased legally, with background checks by either the individuals who did the crime or were owned by family members where the criminals had access to them anyway.


Every single gun used in Paris was illegal. France has very strict gun laws, yet they did not protect anyone. I’m not saying that since these laws didn’t stop them we shouldn’t have any, I’m just saying we need to think with our brains and logic and not just “guns are bad and kill people, ban them all!” like some people are screaming.

Just my 2c.

 

[drumsofgrohl]

Were you a big fan of Senator McCarthy, and his search for communists?

Did you cheer when FDR put Japanese-Americans in camps?

Were you, or members of your family, at the front when mobs chased people with German, or German sounding names out of town in the 40s?

How do you see this as different?

I didn't say I agreed with the article. I just didn't consider it from that side. Thats a fair argument.
Also, I was not alive for any of those events.
But don't we suspend certain rights for suspected terrorists as a result of Bush's War on Terror? Aren't they on certain watch lists? So maybe those are un-American as well, but is this any MORE un-American?