GOP blocks efforts to deny guns to those on terrorist watch lists

Some sort of posting glitch. delete.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Flatfish

You're being sarcastic

Yeah, just a little.

But I was telling the truth about the conversation with my brother.

I'm glad they blocked unconstitutional bill. We have the right to due process. No one should be for the government being able to put American Citizens on a "watch list" and restrict constitutional protect rights as they see fit. How long before they make a "watch list" that bans someones 1st amendment right, just because the government doesn't like you speaking out about the bombing if civilians.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That bill might sound like a good idea but we all know the government would abuse the hell out of it. We already seen how they abused the unconstitutional "No Fly List".

It will not happen. Republicans own both houses of the legislature and the SCOTUS has ruled that the executive cannot make new laws via executive orders. Moreover the American public is vehemently opposed to it. any politician advocating it that wants to be elected (Shrillary for example) or reelected will crawfish on it fast enough to make a sonic boom. They are poll driven creatures and the polls are already coming in on the too quick gun grabbing hystrionics.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Are you anti gun?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Are you anti gun?

Why do you ask?

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
It will not happen. Republicans own both houses of the legislature and the SCOTUS has ruled that the executive cannot make new laws via executive orders. Moreover the American public is vehemently opposed to it. any politician advocating it that wants to be elected (Shrillary for example) or reelected will crawfish on it fast enough to make a sonic boom. They are poll driven creatures and the polls are already coming in on the too quick gun grabbing hystrionics.

Again. Your solution?

a reply to: Echo007

And yours?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Its a yes or no question.

Are you anti gun?

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am fully aware that it's a yes or no question.

And again I ask. Why do you ask? Is it because you can't tell? Or because you have conceived a category for me and want validation?

A little investigative work might get you your answer.

Reply to Flatfish:

No you did not hit the nail on the head. If you think the mentally ill guy that shot up Sandy Hook or the crazy kid that shot up a church is the same as the highly organized, technology savvy, international network of focused recruitment groups of radical Islamic Muslims, then you aren't using logical rational common sense thought.

There is such a thing as legitimate discrimination. I am not talking about irrational prejudices, but rather the common sense of everyday rational discrimination based on reality and experiences.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
It will not happen. Republicans own both houses of the legislature and the SCOTUS has ruled that the executive cannot make new laws via executive orders. Moreover the American public is vehemently opposed to it. any politician advocating it that wants to be elected (Shrillary for example) or reelected will crawfish on it fast enough to make a sonic boom. They are poll driven creatures and the polls are already coming in on the too quick gun grabbing hystrionics.

Again. Your solution?

Not a comprehensive list: Secure our fooking borders. tighten up scrutiny of foreign nationals. Reinstate profiling. end gun free zone nonsense. resume/allow metadata analysis. quit pretending we are able to actually vet people who have no records in our databases. put community outreach programs in communities from high risk populations (not just muslims either.) include community foot patrols to establish a rapport within neighborhoods how it used to be done all over america. This would prompt more information flow and trust.

originally posted by: queenofswords
There is such a thing as legitimate discrimination. I am not talking about irrational prejudices, but rather the common sense of everyday rational discrimination based on reality and experiences.

You can not take away a persons rights by putting them on a list no matter what you call the list. Why is that so hard for people to understand. For Democratic leaders not to understand this is scary indeed, and it should scare the sh@t out of everyone here.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: queenofswords
There is such a thing as legitimate discrimination. I am not talking about irrational prejudices, but rather the common sense of everyday rational discrimination based on reality and experiences.

You can not take away a persons rights by putting them on a list no matter what you call the list. Why is that so hard for people to understand.

I don't even want a list. If you re-read what I posted, it was a sort of rhetorical "IF". Sometimes nuances are lost in print form.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Your refusal to answer answered my question

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Your refusal to answer answered my question

What about my refusal to answer your question?

Here...sounds like you need a win...so here's the answer for you. www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: queenofswords
Reply to Flatfish:

No you did not hit the nail on the head. If you think the mentally ill guy that shot up Sandy Hook or the crazy kid that shot up a church is the same as the highly organized, technology savvy, international network of focused recruitment groups of radical Islamic Muslims, then you aren't using logical rational common sense thought.

There is such a thing as legitimate discrimination. I am not talking about irrational prejudices, but rather the common sense of everyday rational discrimination based on reality and experiences.

I never said they were the same, with exception to the fact that both are radicals and both commit mass shootings.

And seeing how the term "known radical" would include both, why limit it to Islamic Muslims?

Are you against trying to stop known radicals who are not Islamic?

Oops, Double post.

originally posted by: queenofswords

I don't even want a list. If you re-read what I posted, it was a sort of rhetorical "IF". Sometimes nuances are lost in print form.

I guess I was just talking to the whole crowd that anyone would even think of using a list to take away rights is about the scariest thing I ever heard.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

It doesnt answer the question..

Rosie Odonnell is anti gun except when it comes to her security detail. Most democrats are the same way.. They are pro gun when it comes to themselves and very anti gun when it comes to anyone else.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: queenofswords
Reply to Flatfish:

No you did not hit the nail on the head. If you think the mentally ill guy that shot up Sandy Hook or the crazy kid that shot up a church is the same as the highly organized, technology savvy, international network of focused recruitment groups of radical Islamic Muslims, then you aren't using logical rational common sense thought.

There is such a thing as legitimate discrimination. I am not talking about irrational prejudices, but rather the common sense of everyday rational discrimination based on reality and experiences.

I never said they were the same, with exception to the fact that both are radicals and both commit mass shootings.

And seeing how the term "known radical" would include both, why limit it to Islamic Muslims?

Are you against trying to stop known radicals who are not Islamic?

Radical Islamic Muslims only --- they are the ones who have openly declared war on us. They are the ones recruiting and radicalizing muslim "soldiers" and infiltrating our homeland by their own admission. They need to be identified and dealt with on that level.

Others will have to be dealt with on a domestic criminal basis.