http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...-democrats.html

Optics on this are pretty bad. The GOP doesn't want to stop people on terrorists watch lists from getting guns to kill Americans with, all just to spite Democrats. Shameful.

You probably know it, NCA but the point is not to allow terrorists on a watch list to have a gun to kill Americans with. The point is that without checks and balances or due process innocent people are regularly placed on these lists, often without their knowledge. Is it fair to deprive innocent Americans of their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms without a hearing or due process of law?...Geo

Geo, I think nca believes he has found political 'balance' to the more interesting and important news of the day. If he concentrates on the other thread, he may have more support from his Canadian friends. Perhaps a cell phone video would help?

Well according to the reporting Geo, moving the bill forward met resistance for the purpose of spiting the Democrats for their sit in. Checks and balances and due process didn't figure in to it, but as far as that goes, you also know that the rights of the individual are often balanced against the interests of the State. Just ask any US citizen of Japanese descent who lived in the 1940's.

Some learned scholars would agree that the State's interest in preventing terrorists from getting guns to kill Americans with outweighs the result that some people will be mistakenly put on the list. However as I understand the bill, Senator Collins put in a system for people designated on the list to appeal it, so there was some due process there to address that concern. Still the GOP blocked it!

Perhaps you just become unsettled when confronted with the hypocrisy of your ideology.

Suppose our central government, without due process, without a trial decided by a jury of his peers, deprives a citizen of his Second Amendment rights. How do you know the state won't next deprive him of the of his right of reasonable bail? Or his right to free speech? Or of his freedom to attend or not attend the church of his choice? Or his right not to incriminate himself?

I don't object to denying alien nationals firearms. I don't object to denying convicted terrorists or felons firearms. I object when a secret panel makes a secret ruling and deprives a citizen of any of his constitutional rights.

The left always like to define the vocabulary of the discussion. But the Republicans and I are not for selling terrorist guns, we are for preserving the Bill of Rights for citizens.

I would not presume to know what NCA's intentions here might be. You make a good point though about the importance of other news today.

Even through the filter of CNN reporting, the live news of the congressional hearing today with the testimony of the FBI chief in response to both republican and democrat questioning seems to be providing ample talking points about Mrs. Clinton to last at least through the November 8th voting. It probably will not prevent her anointment as our next President, but it should serve to shorten her coat-tails enough to prevent a legislative take over by the democrats...Geo

If there are actual terrorists on these 'lists' I couldn't care less about their rights. Round'em up and ship'em off to Gitmo.

You'd have to agree though that allowing innocent Americans to appeal their loss after the fact of a constitutional right (without due process) fails to quite live up to the equal protection and due process to which they are entitled...Geo

How about this Mike...

Suppose our law enforcement/police, without due process, without a trial decided by a jury of his peers, deprives a citizen of his life because while not brandishing a weapon, he resists arrest. How do you know the law enforcement/police won't next deprive the next guy of life because he refuses to ID himself or answer police questions?

I could go on, but you see the point. In your scenario that you seemed very alarmed about, you should recognize that the issues of due process could be worked out by the judiciary, and all that is lost is some people get denied an opportunity to by a firearm at a store.

Where my concern is that once law enforcement wrongly kills you. Its over. No Court, no amount of due process or checks and balances makes that right again. Yet you seem to be OK with that while concurrently upset some one might not get to buy a gun at a store.

I do agree with that Geo. but that kinda happens all the time. That is why we have Courts to address these grievances in the first place. There is no screening mechanism in the constitution or in the rules of congress that prevents unconstitutional stuff from getting passed. Its only after the fact and an individual is harmed by it that it goes to Court for scrutiny.

Just look at the TRAP laws that got struck down in Texas. That sh!t was unconstitutional from the start and it still got passed.

Sorry but I don't buy the line that the GOP is standing up for us gun owner's rights. This move was out of political spite and risks innocent Americans dying from it.

Well, you conflate two different discussions on two different threads.

I have not argued for the police executing citizens. I am not arguing for police executing citizens. In the two cases you gave on the other thread the facts have not been established. If a policeman executes a citizen for resisting arrest then that policeman committed murder and should be tried. If that citizen was armed and fighting with the policeman when he gets shot then it is a different matter.

Again, the Republicans do not argue for selling arms to terrorists, they argue for preserving the Bill of Rights for citizens.

Look at the videos Mike. Those men were armed but were NOT brandishing their firearms.

As for the GOP, the reporting is clear on this. Blocking the bill was not done out of a concern for the bill of rights. It was to spite the Democrats for the sit in. Shameful.

WTF am I missing here? Who says the ISIS and other towel-headed terrorists "Buy" their guns and ammo through legit channels- Cabelas, Gander Mountain, Bass Pro Shops- et. al, let alone the gun shows and small town dealers- They steal them, just as the gang-bangers do in Chicago, or buy them unregistered from street dealers, just as they buy their drugs and prostitutes- from the "Dark Under-Belly" of the world--

"If you’re too dangerous to fly, you’re too dangerous to come into our country and walk our streets. And if the people on the terror watch list are too dangerous to buy a gun, then why is the administration not prosecuting and incarcerating them? The administration’s failure to prosecute these people is a tacit admission that many of them do NOT belong on a watch list.

The hypocrisy here is that Barack Obama is falling head-over-heels to import Syrian refugees (which, no doubt, includes embedded terrorists who cannot be vetted). At the same time, he is all too willing to scapegoat 100-150 million law-abiding gun owners for a massacre that did not involve them in any way.

Francis,

Your missing that the Orlando Shooter and some of the guns bought by the San Bernadino shooters were bought legally by people who were on watch lists.

What are you going to prosecute them for Dave? Being on a watch list? We prosecute people for committing crimes, so do the investigation, gather evidence of criminal activity and have at them. I think that prosecuting them solely for being on the watch list doesn't survive any kind of judicial review.

You say your President is all to willing to scapegoat 100-150 million law abiding gun owners... are you suggesting that there are 100-150 million people wrongly included on terrorists watch lists?

We kill their people it is natural for some of them to seek revenge by killing us. Frankly I do not care if I die from bullets, from terrorist bomb, in car crash,...... The only thing that scares me is finding myself paralised from neck down and not be able to do anything about my state. To sum up for some of you that are "pant shiters" his the "brave new world" I would not let it get to me if I were you.

Again, you conflate and then leave it to me to disentangle.

The video taken by the girlfriend of the motorist with the CCL starts after the shooting. The police dashcam video is not out the last I checked.

The other guy was fighting with police who had been informed by the dispatcher that the now-decesed citizen brandished his gun at a another citizen/complainant who then called 911. He got in a fight with the police. He was in fact carrying a firearm.

And the Republicans were defending citizens' Bill of Right protections.

Shame on those that would throw our civil rights away like a half eaten bologna sandwich.

Wrong on the facts Mike. He was reported to have threatened someone with a gun, but the video clearly shows that there was no gun in his hands when the police had him on the ground. They shot him afterwards. Even if he had threatened someone with a gun, it was not being brandished when the police had him on the ground.

You are right that there is no dash cam video or lapel video yet on the second shooting. So I'll eat crow if it comes out that the fellow was brandishing his gun.

Nca225, you are indeed mixing 2 separate and distinct issues. As to the people police shoot in the course of their daily jobs, many of them were shot under circumstances that could only be considered suspicious.

However, the one I want to address is the no fly/no buy list. By law, once you get on this list you are not allowed to know how your name got put on the list, and there is no appeal process to get off the list. At that point, you're screwed. You're never going on vacation again, your reputation is besmirched and you will be watched forever. Oh, and you aren't ever going be able to buy a new shotgun/rifle/pistol again.

That's what the Republicans are fighting for.

Mergus

nca please read what I wrote again.

He had a gun on him when he was fighting police. I didn't say he brandished at the police. I did say the police were responding to a call. That a citizen called 911 and told the dispatcher that the now-deceased citizen brandished a gun at him. "Carrying" does not mean in hands, just means on him, as in "concealed carry".

Even if the dashcam video shows that the policeman incorrectly shot the CCL motorist, which I think it will, in a country of 330,000,000 people it is going to happen. I don't think the cop executed the motorist, I think he made a grave error or mistake. I may be wrong, the dashcam may show a justified shooting.

There is no doubt that the police make a disproportionate number of fatal errors when dealing with Black citizens. But murderers occur in the Black population at six times the per capita rate of Whites. The vast majority of Blacks are honest citizens. But that criminal rate means Blacks also have six times the per capita rate of interaction with the police than Whites do. And thus are disproportionate victims of unjustified police shootings.

Business Tip: If arrested by the police, put your hands up, don't fight, advise them you not only have a pistol in your right front pocket but a permit to carry it in your wallet. Don't reach for your wallet until you are given permission to do so. Black or white, it will save your life...Geo

Nope. I am merely pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of member's positions on these two issues. The position that some are taking on one issue i.e. the evils and shortfalls of the terrorist watch list as compared to the TFB attitude if you get shot by police, seems to me to be inconsistent with each other.

If we are all outraged by the "lack" of due process from being placed on a list, then why the lack of outrage at law enforcement for ending one's life without due process?

BTW, had you taken a look at the bill the GOP is blocking to spite the democrats, you would have seen the appeals process afforded to clear your name. the GOP is NOT fighting for you or me, they are fighting for the party to our detriment.

Mike, the store owner who shoot the second video indicated that the gun was pulled out of his pocket by the police after they killed him. The gun was in his pocket Mike. How does that justify shooting him dead?

NCA, you're leaving out the part about the gun being discovered by the cops while the guy was fighting them. One cop yelled "GUN" and another followed protocol and eliminated the danger. Justice Dept. and the courts will sort out whether the shoot was reasonable or not...Geo

See business tips above.

Intellectual dishonesty results from bias. I have a bias in favor of the cops. My intellectual integrity is not to be taken without question...Geo

nca:

You keep trying to get me defend arguments I did not make.

911 received a call from a citizen complaining that a man outside that store brandished a gun at him.

The dispatcher told the police to go to that store.

She informed the policemen that the complainant stated that the subject of the complaint had brandished a gun.

The police had reason to believe that the now-deceased citizen had a gun when they rolled up in their squad car.

The police and the now-deceased citizen got in a fight. The police believed it was likely that the now-deceased citizen had a gun. They would be worried that he was going to pull that gun in that fight and shoot them. They may have thought the now-deceased citizen had actually pulled his gun when they shot him. No doubt the shooting was a mistake.

The citizen was carrying a gun. Not in his hands but in his possession. So not only would the policemens' worry that the citizen had a gun be reasonable, it turned out to be factual.

I do argue that if you get in a fight with a policeman and you get shot it is your own damn fault. Not that getting into that fight gives the policeman the right to shoot you but that you use very bad judgement when you get in a fight with a policeman. If you survive that shooting you should get compensation for your lost wages, medical bills, and compensation for violation of your rights. If you don't then your dependent survivors deserve compensation. But it was your own damn fault.

First off, as I said earlier, I don't think this is a race thing. This is a concern over a Police State that you all seem comfortable with.

Now lets look at your position here... you feel that in a country of 330,000,000 people, when law enforcement gets involved, there are bound to be some mistakes, and some innocent people will get killed by the police. I think that since you feel that law enforcement is out there providing a necessary security function, through a very stressful job, these incidents where people are unjustly shot are the result of some grave and tragic mistake.

But when we have our government performing a necessary security function in a country of 330,000,000 and creating a terrorist watch list and wishing to prevent people on that list from getting a gun, for our own safety, the same inevitable and tragic mistakes of wrongly designating a person on that list is just too much to take.

How can you be idle about the prior and outraged by the latter?

I disagree with your assessment on it being the person's fault. I agree with everything else in that paragraph though!

Freedom is not free.

If we do not defend our rights we will lose them.

Much of our rights are laid out in the Bill of Rights. If we can, by administrative law, at the whim of a bureaucrat, be deprived of our Second Amendment rights we can also be deprived of our right to free speech. Of our right not to have a policeman knock on our door and search our house just because he thinks it is a good idea. If a government employee can, without judge or jury, take away my right to keep and bare arms he can take away my right to reasonable bail. He can take away my right to habeus corpus and jail me indefinitely without a hearing before a judge or a trial.

If people like you want to take away our Constitutional right to keep and bare arms take it away by repealing the Second Amendment. Don't risk throwing away the rest of our civil rights in an end run around the Second Amendment and the Constitution.

Of course I don't think you will be able to repeal the Second Amendment.

Mike, I'm not trying to take your constitutional rights away, and again I would point out in the scenario you outlined above, none of what you fear would ever withstand judicial scrutiny.

You criticize Republicans for refusing to pass a law that violates one of our rights protected by the Bill of Rights:

Then you state that laws that impinge on the Bill of Rights wouldn't withstand judicial scrutiny:


But the Republicans should have passed it anyway?

Once a bill becomes law it becomes orders of magnitude harder to get it overturned through judicial scrutiny. The burden is then upon the party seeking the overturn of the law. And, as King pointed out the courts are no more than another political arm of government. Who is presently in charge of the Country matters more than precedent or the Constitution. The repugs were right to kill this one...Geo

Even if old John Lewis was sitting on the floor.

.

Your presuming that I feel the watch list bill violates our rights. To the contrary, I feel it does not.

We'd just have to agree to disagree about that. Secret lists for secret reasons and resulting loss of perceived rights. But it's all ok because you could appeal it if you find out about it...Geo

After watching tv earlier, I would recommend not intending to feel. Then, you can pretty much twist law, rules and regs. to come out how you want them to. Also, don't mention being contrary to anything. You can always pretend to be civil and agreeable, but not let on that only your feelings matter. Agreed?

The Orlando shooter was NOT on a "watch list". He was questioned a couple times by the FBI about stuff he said and about being an acquaintance of a jihadist, and was deemed not a threat.

This same dance about denying gun purchases to people on a "watch list" happened earlier this year. Dems proposed their bill, Republicans made a counter-proposal that stopped a watch list gun purchaser for several days and required executive authorities to get a judge to sign off on the legitimacy of the prior restraint of rights. If there was error and no plausible threat, the buyer would be able to make the purchase. Neither party would support the other's bill, but the Dems made sound-bite hay by loudly and dishonestly accusing Repubs of being in favor of letting people on a watch list buy guns without restriction.

Virtually the same bills were proposed after Orlando, with the same result. Neither side will give any ground to move toward compromise, and the Dems shamelessly accuse the Repubs of giving terrorist watch list people the green light to buy guns.

It's not hard to find the facts if one takes a few minutes for critical assessment of sources. The same dishonest BS is happening now, here.

Jay

Try substituting some thinking in place of these feelings.

Being placed on the secret list without notice does not violate our constitutional rights. Using it to actually to deny constitutional rights without due process is. If we can deny gun purchases, then why not freedom of speech?

If the second amendment, why not freedom of religion.

Now I understand a number of "democrat-progressive" positions are that bad thinking people should not have rights, i.e. Freedom of speech for climate change deniers, religion for persons not wanting to participate in birth control and abortion schemes, and the right to purchase by star chamber listings.

Now the reality is the FBI and other Federal Agencies are blowing it. They have had missed opportunities in a number of major US terror incidents and failed.

If they were simply asking for an automatic notice to be generated to law enforcement when someone on the watch list was seeking to buy I would have no problem.

If they would just enforce the law by chasing down felons attempting to buy guns under the current laws I would have no problem. Note the number of persons who fail background checks after lieing on the form versus the percentage prosecuted of less than 1%.

Or maybe if they care about the number of murders and DUI deaths in America that they could prevent or cut significantly by enforcing immigrantion law as written. They could cut those dearhs by 19% if they only got half of the illegals. I would have fewer problems.

The reality is this administration is doing it with smoke and mirrors and not getting the tough stuff even attempted. They regularly lie, they cannot be trusted, and it makes me sick to believe that.

The watch list, gun purchasing debate is smoke screen bull.

You cannot tell me the actual criteria for inclusion or removal can you?

Part of what they are trying to push is a removal of rights some years after removal, that's right, if they erroneously put you on it you get a five year time out from your rights?

They think all of us are idiots, maybe the movers and shakers of the progressive left should look at our intent and understand we mean no harm and give us a pass, but then we are not fellow travelers.

Judicial scrutiny by a liberal supreme court. These are the same guys who just ruled its ok to have race as a factor, so much for a colorblind goaled society, not to mention unlike the last ruling some years ago put no clock on how long diversity is a legitimate goal to discriminate for.

If the progressive are able to pack the Supreme Court then your position is likely voided, forget what the bill of rights use to mean

A couple of "lists" are being confused here, I believe. Somewhere, I'm on one. I'm sure it's not the no fly list, and I don't think it's the terrorist watch list. But every year when I return from Scotland (with a shotgun), I get pulled aside by Customs and Immigration for additional screening. Asked them why; they said because of my very common name. However, last year two different agents noted (apparently they keep track) that I'd been through the additional screening thing several times and they were going to remove me. I thanked them. We'll see if that actually happens this year.

Re the FBI and their contact with Mateen: The same thing happened with the older Tsarnaev brother (Boston Marathon bombing). In both cases, checked out and cleared by the Bureau. I've had people say "But if they're suspicious, shouldn't they continue to watch them?" At which point I ask them just how large they would like the FBI to become. Interesting that supposed supporters of smaller govt and less govt interference would adopt a view of "once on the FBI's radar screen, always on it". Of course they say that AFTER the individual in question commits a crime. "How come the FBI missed them?" Well . . . what if there was nothing to miss? Tsarnaev was interviewed and cleared something like 2 years before the marathon bombing; Mateen also some time ago. How long does it take for someone to watch ISIS videos or listen to a radical imam and decide to join the jihad? If you look at cases of terrorist attacks, not all that long. But if you want the FBI to look like the old Soviet KGB, then I agree: Let's keep watching them even after they're cleared. If "watching" involves physical surveillance, the number of people involved gets pretty large pretty darned quickly.

Larry you are correct that there are several different list and the in-discriminant use of the terms by both Politicians and Media muddy the issues.

That said all are lists based on criteria which is essentially secret and always evolving. The failure of the federal government to effectively manage these lists leaves much in doubt.

Regardless, Suspicion may or may not be properly founded. In the case of US citizens in this country, rights are not automatically voided by suspicion. If we want to create automatic notification of law enforcement I have no issue. If we want to deny rights then I have an issue.

I know, those damn Founding Fathers thought of everything. Due Process and all those other checks and balances that hinder you wacky Democrats. If it wasn't for them, you people could have all the secret government 'watch list' you could think of and you could 'watch' all those 'intolerant' people who don't agree with your 'tolerant' point of view.

I wouldn't disagree with any of these thoughts, but whose 'job' is it if the tone here is don't blame me.

If what you mention is true, shouldn't the tone of leadership be how to concentrate assets, or profile. Shouldn't leadership signal to citizens that there's a difference between vague vigilance, and criminals that flourish under pc. The pres from a foreign country and the cb caucus only profiled law abiding gun owners as the cause of the sensational headlines.

How come the fbi just concluded a privilege blind investigation with a non prosecution recommendation, while at the same two press conferences, stated for the record that their own agents would not be afforded the same privilege. Do they answer to the people or logic, or do they answer to leadership in their branch of gov.

Funny stuff. Obama has already shown a willingness to weaponize the federal government against his ideological and political opponents and deprive them of their constitutional rights. The Democrat bill would enable Obama and his minions to place countless Americans on his list, deprive them of their second amendment rights, and prevent any judicial review or recourse. There is nothing surprising about this attempt, merely the continuation of 70 year attempts of implementing Soviet subversion doctrine, In this case the elimination of free gun ownership.

Why such concern now for lists and none for intrusions, secret and otherwise, of The Patriot Act? Some members said it was no big deal, all for greater national security. Rights were bowled over like tenpins. Not a boo.

Plenty of boos to the Patriot Act King, mine included!...Geo

The Patriot Act clearly has problems. I opposed it at the time, not so much about concerns about the Bush administration, but what would happen when a committed, totalitarian statist came to office and decided to use it against his political and ideological opponents. It's too powerful in the hands of zealots who are out to destroy constitutional freedom.

" . . . profiled law abiding gun owners as the cause of the sensational headlines."

True or not, everyone knows the sensationalized procession of national tragedies is not because of law-abiding gun owners.

It's because of an ungovernable, irresolvable miss-mash system of what citizens believe is reasonable made into law by thousands of legislatures.

Constitutional notwithstanding.

If you look back, I don't think I mentioned that anti gun political rhetoric was or is legislated law, confused or otherwise. It's broadcast to the world, but do the people of Poland take the pres at his word, or is it assumed that they arrive at your 'truth' about law-abiding gun owner by their own means.

No, I don't believe everyone 'knows' that law abiding gun owner are not responsible for criminal sensationalism. What they know is what they're taught to demonize, not think about. They get the okay to 'feel' in a divisive way because leaders and policy are not vetted or questioned, only praised for approval ratings.

'Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon' is an approved slogan for 'peaceful' protest by the press and the pres. Sure, not the entire gaggle, but what criminally inclined types would be attracted, white, married, heterosexual soccer moms? Those moms are a demographic that proudly lean dem, but don't the sensational criminals lean that way also?

Could it just be a cultural thing?

Poland, moving quickly from liberal to authoritarian right, listens to no one but itself, certainly not to US trying to disengage from dead-end foreign adventures, knowing how many times they've been screwed over by the West.

I don't know where you're going with your notions about feelings, as if they're not germane to striving for a higher standard of human values. There's as much of US verities today as when Norman Rockwell reflected them in the Saturday Evening Post.

You ask, could it be a cultural thing? It is a cultural thing, The pie, hand over heart, warmth and generosity are still there---the feelings---only poisoned by egregiously partisan stratagems of the punk's game, tearing US apart.

Craig, my American friends here and in the US and those I meet every year overseas say to my wife and me, "I wish we could talk this way at home." We're only talking about what we do and how we feel about what we do, for god's sake.

Not all Ass wipes are Leftists, however most Leftists are Ass wipes.

Durn King, are all your friends running high fevers. Don't all progressive have code words that tear down any barrier? Just kidding, we aren't entitled to good friends, they're earned.

Don't worry about that Poland quip. I was just thinking there might be a place or two more appropriate to air out non legislative unilateral US domestic policy. Unless of course, it would have been appropriate, if his audience was a bunch of college kids. Heaven forbid any thought was put into it.

I don't care to take the time to read this thread but based on your premise "GOP enabling ISIS". if that the case the Bunny Hop makes it easier for rabbits to procreate.