DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on June 22, 2016, 02:14:37 PM
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClkPlooWkAA56yi.jpg:small)
They didn't get exactly what they demanded so they had to make it appear that they supposedly cared
-
Beats shutting down the government and costing millions, which is what StupidTED did.
Fuck the NRA! Up their giggies with a wah-wah brush!
-
lol....doesn't change the present immature childish behavior by a bunch of "grown-ups", on grand display, for all to see. Looks like they're waiting to be told its nap time
-
This is a big adoo...
Is it about something or nothing?
If these measures had passed , how would any of them have improved any safety anywhere?
They may think it would , but the evidence is unconvincing.
-
The evidence is overwhelmingly unconvincing. NOT ONE of the bills that was voted down in the Senate would have stopped either the Orlando shooting or the San Bernadino shooting. And every one of the bills (2 GOP bills, and 2 Democrat bills) had poison pill amendments put on them, by the opposite party, to make sure they'd go down in defeat
It was a perfect example of just how dysfuctional & polar DC has become, and how the Dems simply wanted the "talking point", knowing nothing would pass, with the amendments were put on them
Now the House Dems wants to have the same talking points.....to claim that the GOP doesn't care, when they no nothing will pass, since NO ONE is working to try to find common ground. The NRA and GOP absolutely want to keep guns out of the hands of would be terrorists.....but you don't slaughter the herd to find the one rabid one. And you don't throw out due process and prevent someone from exercising their 2nd amendment rights, without having absolutely valid evidence of terrorist activity & ties.
-
The majority of the people favor a no fly, no buy policy. The majority of the citizens want fewer people with assault rifles.
That means the majority of the people know that the 2nd amendment was improperly interpreted.
I doubt Thomas Jefferson would have approved of assault weapons for everyone.
-
You need not doubt.
quote---."When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/when-government-fears-people-there-libertyquotation
In the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, the people are adequately armed when the government has reason to worry about it .
-
The majority of the people favor a no fly, no buy policy. The majority of the citizens want fewer people with assault rifles.
That means the majority of the people know that the 2nd amendment was improperly interpreted.
........................
Does the Majority of the people know that nothing at all prevents the government from putting the majority of the people on the terrorist watch list?
-
BINGO
-
Does the Majority of the people know that nothing at all prevents the government from putting the majority of the people on the terrorist watch list?
They could mail a traffic light ticket to everyone as well.
Logic prevents them from doing this. As usual, sirs, put your bingo back in your trousers.
-
There is no such thing as a no drive fast list. You don't get it. You're not sent anything,,... you're just placed on a no fly list because of "concerns" that the FBI might have. Your name could simply be similar to an actual terrorist, but you have no idea until you try to fly or attempt to exercise your 2nd Amendment right, at which time, THEN you find out that your constitutional right has been revoked, and its up to the person to petition the Government to get their rights returned that should have never been revoked in the 1st place
-
Does the Majority of the people know that nothing at all prevents the government from putting the majority of the people on the terrorist watch list?
They could mail a traffic light ticket to everyone as well.
Logic prevents them from doing this. As usual, sirs, put your bingo back in your trousers.
There is no logic that prevents this.
If the governments desires to curtail our rights as citizens , and use no due process , this is what it might look like.
A government that can put 100% of us in the terrorist watch list would have de facto repealed the second amendment.
Tell me with a straight face that President HR Clinton would use good logic rather than whatever dodge made an end run around the obstacles.
-
All logic prevents this.
In the Miami Herald daily poll, 70% of the people who responded (and I did not) support the Democrats.
I think it will help them get reelected.
=====================================================
Marco Rubio, a shameless opportunist entirely lacking in any ability other than corrupt Florida politics, now has decided that his Senate job was not that bad after all. I agree that it has far better salary and benefits than anything else anyone would pay this scummy little worm. Rick Scott, the man whose vast pilfered fortune allowed him to buy a position as governor of this unfortunate state, is not supporting Marco. He is supporting some other, richer, Republican't,
Christie made a total fool of Marco in the debates. And of course, he pledged NOT to run. But someone with money has pledged to support him. I am thinkint the Sugar Baron Fanjuls and some real estate scammers.
-
All logic prevents this.
Nope .
If the FBI wants to put you , or your category of persons on the Terror watch list , they will.
No logic prevents this.
No logic was required in the first place.
-
Would you prefer flying if they let dangerous people on board the plane?
You can dispute the way in which they make up no-fly lists, but it is pretty clear that people judged loony enough to blow up an airliner should not ab allowed to own deadly semiautomatic assault rifles.
-
Agreed. .... now demonstrate how people falsely placed will no longer be placed on said list
-
Hey the ACLU is not so slack as we might have thought.
The American Civil Liberties Union has voiced opposition to barring weapons sales to individuals listed on the current form of the No-Fly List, stating that: "There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform."[26] Specifically, the ACLU's position is that the government's current redress process—the procedure by which listed individuals can petition for removal from the list—does not meet the requirements of the Constitution's Due Process Clause because the process does not "provide meaningful notice of the reasons our clients are blacklisted, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List
Persons stopped from flight by the no fly list include.
Senator Edward Kennedy (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Ted_Kennedy%2C_official_photo_portrait_crop.jpg/220px-Ted_Kennedy%2C_official_photo_portrait_crop.jpg)
Civil rights attorney David Cole(https://www.law.georgetown.edu/_cs_apps/pt_photo_gallery/uploads/facultyprofile/large/cole-david_1.png)
Antiwar Activists, such as Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordon (http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/10/32/36/2205616/5/920x920.jpg)
http://www.progressive.org/mag_mcnofly
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-two-peace-activists-wound-up-on-the-governments-no-fly-list/
two more peace activists found themselves on the list. Rebecca Gordon and Jan Adams were detained by San Francisco police at the airport there, reported Alan Gathright of The San Francisco Chronicle
Now if you want to object that these people were on the no fly list for short times , there is also this guy, who was on it for years.
Nelson Mandela
(http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/67/x75567-004-6585DB51.jpg.pagespeed.ic.YhUfUyhd2r.jpg)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/12/07/why-nelson-mandela-was-on-a-terrorism-watch-list-in-2008/
-
Not to mention, people falsely put on a no-fly terrorist list, have no idea they're on any such list, until they either try to fly, or exercise their 2nd amendment rights. And then the burden falls on THEM to petition the Government to have that right reinstated??
What other Constitutional right should we allow the Government to simply claim they can remove?? How about the 1st amendment....let's say a person can't make up a political internet blog to criticize a politician or party....until they petition the Government to have that right reinstated. Ooo, how about the 8th amendment, whereby the Government decides to absolve you of that right, until you have petitioned the Government to give it back to you.
-
You say that like Nelson Mandela actually wanted to fly to the US for decades.
I do not recall him having any actual difficulty getting to the US when he wanted to come.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOr4F2eNDq8
-
Not the point now, is it
-
You say that like Nelson Mandela actually wanted to fly to the US for decades.
I do not recall him having any actual difficulty getting to the US when he wanted to come.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOr4F2eNDq8
There was reason to put Mr. Mandela on the list.
Reasons are not hard to come up with.
Due process would be better.
-
Not the point now, is it
WRONG! it is precisely the point. Ted Kennedy was not prevented from flying, either.
Ireland has a multitude of men named Edward Kennedy,and in the 1970's, there was certainly at least one of them that belonged to the IRA Provos, who were terrorists.
-
No, that's you arguing an alternate point, trying to imply being on some terrorist list didn't deprive someone of flying (which it should have) or that someone on the list wasn't likely to visit America anyway (irrelevant)....no, the point is the Government being able to decide (many times in error), to simply place someone on some "terrorist list", with NO due process, and thus robbing someone not of their ability to fly in/out of the U.S., but deprive them of a Constitutional right, without due process. You don't strip someone of their Constitutional rights because their name might sound like someone known to be a terrorist
-
Not the point now, is it
WRONG! it is precisely the point. Ted Kennedy was not prevented from flying, either.
Ireland has a multitude of men named Edward Kennedy,and in the 1970's, there was certainly at least one of them that belonged to the IRA Provos, who were terrorists.
He was, it was a real incident.
Of course at his level of clout mistakes like this get corrected the same day, several people with less political pull have fought years to get themselves removed.
-
Then what they need to do is a better job of compiling the no fly list.
I don't think the ACLU would know how to do this. They only know how it should not be done.
I belonged to the ACLU for three years, and at least here in Miami, it is a bunch of lawyers whose meetings are shouting matches and who do nothing but pester the members for money, money, money.
-
Then what they need to do is a better job of compiling the no fly list.
That's what we've been saying all along. sheeesh No one says we shouldn't have a terrorist watch list. No one is saying a terrorist should be allowed to purchase a firearm. There MUST be due process however, to place any American on such a list. This can't simply be left to the whims of a political bureaucracy.....especially one with an agenda
I don't think the ACLU would know how to do this. They only know how it should not be done.
No one is claiming that the ACLU should be some designated agency to do this. Kimba simply brought them in, as a tangential discussion.
-
A person can already loose the right to buy a firearm, but like the loss of property or other rights it requires a process that allows an accused person the chance of refuting his accusers and puts the burden of proof onto the accusers.
If anyone sees the Terror watch list as an easy way to strip a person of his rights without due process and without reasonable appeal, shame on them.
The "no fly" list already needs improvement to do the job it has.
-
The "no fly"list seems to have done its job. No planes have been used in suicidal terrorist crashes lately.
Having a hearing for each and every person on a no fly list would be extremely complicated and expensive. I do not see this happening.
-
No, not when you see folks wrongly placed on said list....then it has NOT done its job, when you wrongly wrongly remove someone's constitutional rights. Freedom trumps "sense of security. Due Process trumps political agenda
-
The "no fly"list seems to have done its job. No planes have been used in suicidal terrorist crashes lately.
Having a hearing for each and every person on a no fly list would be extremely complicated and expensive. I do not see this happening.
I think that the no fly list can't prove it has been effective at all.
Certainly not as well as having all passengers ready to leap upon any hijacker has proven effective.
Those Boston Bombers took long flights , to their old home and back. The list may be useful but there is no way to make this list complete and reliable , unless you are willing to include everyone possible, and this would be the end of flight.