Dianne Feinstein introduces NO GUNS FOR TERRORISTS bill in Congress

[U8395279]

The bill would allow the US Attorney General to develop a database of potential terrorists, and anyone in this database would then be denied the right to purchase a gun.

Feinstein says this gun control law would prevent tragedies like Orlando from happening.

.

.
Feinstein says that this is a bill that the entire nation can support, because it would only apply to folks that pose a terror threat.

Read More

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Great, boy that didn't take long, did it? Another impenetrable list you won't know you're on and with no way to get off.
I feel so much safer already.

 

[U8395279]

Great, boy that didn't take long, did it? Another impenetrable list you won't know you're on and with no way to get off.
I feel so much safer already.

Well, since it would only apply to terrorists, none of us would have anything to worry about, would we?

.

 

[U8395279]

Senator Chuck Schumer says that he will do everything in his power to get the bill past by the Senate this summer,

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Well, since it would only apply to terrorists, none of us would have anything to worry about, would we?

.

I'm assuming the sarcasm flag is in there someplace, right?

 

[slimmer13]

Revocation of the BOR without due process or a conviction. What could go wrong?

 

[waglockfan]

No

 

[WWShooter]

So the sense of the folks posting in this thread is that the Sandy Hooks, San Bernardinos and Orlandos are fine so long as no one in the US is ever denied the right to buy an AK or an AR, even if they are suspected of being a terrorist?

Cool. I always wondered how deep the libertarian roots go.

I assume that when your wives or kids are shot by someone in a mass shooting somewhere you'll simply say, "gee, that's the price of freedom" and move on.

 

[OutlawHoss]

Alright, let's get some facts in here. From what I can see online, the bill the OP is referring to is one from 2015 S. 551, and already has been defeated once, as have most of her attempts to reintroduce the assault weapons ban. Sure they'll revisit it, but before we going crying wolf and working ourselves into a tizzy, let's deal with the actual threats as they come, not rumors. No doubt there will be a redux of every previous attempt with whatever new spin they can come up with, so let's stay focused!
Two good sites to sign up for the latest in bills being introduced, as well as the opportunity to easily write congress are:
GovTrack.us (https://www.govtrack.us/)
Its YOUR VOICE. Step up. Get informed. Be heard. (https://www.popvox.com/)

By the way, I didn't put that tag line ahead of the popvox address; I guess it got imported with the copy of the address from the header.

 

[WWShooter]

So AKs and ARs for all, regardless of their religious, political or jihadist beliefs?

Cool. You guys are hard core!

 

[U8395279]

Alright, let's get some facts in here. From what I can see online, the bill the OP is referring to is one from 2015 S. 551, and already has been defeated once, as have most of her attempts to reintroduce the assault weapons ban. Sure they'll revisit it, but before we going crying wolf and working ourselves into a tizzy, let's deal with the actual threats as they come, not rumors. No doubt there will be a redux of every previous attempt with whatever new spin they can come up with, so let's stay focused!
Two good sites to sign up for the latest in bills being introduced, as well as the opportunity to easily write congress are:
GovTrack.us (https://www.govtrack.us/)
Its YOUR VOICE. Step up. Get informed. Be heard. (https://www.popvox.com/)

By the way, I didn't put that tag line ahead of the popvox address; I guess it got imported with the copy of the address from the header.

Senator Chuck Schumer pretty much guaranteed today that Feinstein's bill will be re-introduced. This tragedy is considered to be too good of an opportunity to take advantage of, to not do so. So if Schumer is a man of his word, this is going to happen.

See:

Congressional Dems renew gun control push after Orlando massacre (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/congressional-dems-renew-gun-control-push-orlando-massacre-article-1.2671739)

.

 

[U8395279]

So AKs and ARs for all, regardless of their religious, political or jihadist beliefs?

Cool. You guys are hard core!

I think that it has more to do with the concept of due process.

Both the 5th and 4th Amendments to the US Constitution have due process clauses in them. At least in the past, our leaders believed in citizens being protected from arbitrary actions by the Federal government.

Of course, just how relevant the US Constitution is anymore in this day and age, is another aspect of this discussion. Following the Constitution may no longer be that important.

 

[OutlawHoss]

Senator Chuck Schumer pretty much guaranteed today that Feinstein's bill will be re-introduced. This tragedy is considered to be too good of an opportunity to take advantage of, to not do so. So if Schumer is a man of his word, this is going to happen.

See:

Congressional Dems renew gun control push after Orlando massacre (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/congressional-dems-renew-gun-control-push-orlando-massacre-article-1.2671739)

.

Like I said, it's failed once, along party lines, and that mostly likely won't change (from the article you linked above):
"Senate Democrats hope they'll get a vote on the law this week, but it's likely to go down in flames, just as it did in late 2015 — the last time they got a vote on it."

 

[Osarion]

Revocation of the BOR without due process or a conviction. What could go wrong?

You say that like it's a new thing. We live in the post 9/11 age. Secret courts handing out secret wire tap/surveillance orders isn't just fringe theories, it's reality. Thanks, patriot act! Also, thanks, GWB! Also, thanks the cowards who allowed our sacred liberties to be eroded to feel a bit safer!

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.

Yep, you sure got that right, Mr. Franklin of 226 years ago.



You have to hand it to Senator Feinstein though, this at least is an attempt. She could just call for an all out AWB again. *shrug*

 

[Diamondback]

The worry is if Trump makes non-Dems do a Full Hindenburg with him (as I expect) and Team Blue gets a majority even if by the slimmest margin. They knew ObamaCare was going to mean a bloodbath in the next election and also knew NFT would be done to seriously stop it, so they'll gladly sacrifice a few swing-seats to get a few more bricks into the wall...

You don't think they'll make the same mistakes they did that killed their '94 ban, do you? Without the Sunset there probably would have been no repeal, so they won't make that mistake twice...

 

[U8395279]

Like I said, it's failed once, along party lines, and that mostly likely won't change (from the article you linked above):
Senate Democrats hope they'll get a vote on the law this week, but it's likely to go down in flames, just as it did in late 2015 — the last time they got a vote on it.

Well, but you need to look at the Democrat's political strategy.

Gun control is one of the key issues that they are running on in this year's election. They want to force a vote on this, to get Republican Senators on record voting against "common sense" gun control.

So if they vote against the bill, they will then expose themselves to attack in the coming election.

How many Republicans might then sell out under such political pressure, and switch to supporting the bill?

And then there is the Bloomberg factor too. If Senators vote against the bill, will Bloomberg then flood the campaigns of their opponents in November with large contributions??

I would not underestimate the power of the Democratic Party.
.

 

[OutlawHoss]

Well, but you need to look at the Democrat's political strategy.

Gun control is one of the key issues that they are running on in this year's election. They want to force a vote on this, to get Republican Senators on record voting against "common sense" gun control.

So if they vote against the bill, they will then expose themselves to attack in the coming election.

How many Republicans might then sell out under such political pressure, and switch to supporting the bill?

And then there is the Bloomberg factor too. If Senators vote against the bill, will Bloomberg then flood the campaigns of their opponents in November with large contributions??

I would not underestimate the power of the Democratic Party.
.

I agree that the current dynamic you elucidate is definitely in play, and I certainly don't trust the politicos farther than I can throw them. I just think, personally, that the results of yet another vote of Feinstein's bill will look similar. Both parties are experiencing surreal absurdity with their candidates, and the 'down ballot' Republicans seem to be looking carefully to their constituents because they're scared (the Dems too). And they should be. The presidency is always very moldable and pliable; the person elected becomes 'the great compromiser' by necessity, not the personality we see on the campaign trail; this is almost true of every president elect to a significant degree Where I think 'we' need to focus is Congress and State legislatures, and the very real threat of overt non-compliance with the high minded activist politicos, that more than a few states and even more counties and their comissioners have displayed over the last 8 + years. The 400 million plus guns that will exist by the time the Liar in Chief takes his early retirement with benefits, and all those owners, new and old, will continue to weigh heavily, and that's a lot of very passionate people to continually disappoint. I know all of them aren't going to be vocal, but that contingency is increasing still.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

There is a segment of the "State Security Apparatus" who just can't get enough secret courts and lists which, once created nobody outside the feds can alter or delete the names.

We have seen this with the prohibited flying lists, even Senator Ted Kennedy was on it, and I'll wager abut anything that if he'd not been a wealthy Senator he'd still be on it, alive or dead.

These people such as Feinstein et.al. will persist in trying to use a hammer (laws) to fix a broken glass (mentally unstable people) and it is now, and shall always be, the wrong tool for that task.

You can't legislate sanity; the human mind is dynamic, and the person who is seemingly "OK" on Monday could be drastically NOT OK a week later, and: short of making everybody take psych tests every week there's no blanket law that's gonna keep a nutcase from hauling a gallon of gas into a nightclub or theater. Thankfully nobody's done that one, yet.

Now maybe there are a couple smart FBI people, I knew one, but he's retired now, but I have known a few who did not impress me as being all that bright, surely not bright enough to be masters of a who-is dangerous-and prohibited from-buying-guns list. Think of Michael Chertoff, co-author of the Patriot Act, and this is what we'd be dealing with, if Feinstein's Folly ever got off the ground.

 

[slimmer13]

So AKs and ARs for all, regardless of their religious, political or jihadist beliefs?

Cool. You guys are hard core!

You really don't see the issue of denying American citizens constitutionally protected rights simply based on what Web sites they may visit or something they post online or someone says they said?

Do you realize that according to the FBI, if you pay in cash, support the libertarian party, have disaster preparations, etc those are signs of a potential domestic terrorist?

The question is do you want to live in a free society or don't you, because if you do, there is always going to be a chance someone will use their freedom to hurt others, whether by firearm, gasoline, vehicle etc.

 

[BanjoGeek]

Does "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" ring a bell anywhere in this conversation?