Dianne Feinstein introduces NO GUNS FOR TERRORISTS bill in Congress

[Stomper]

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.

My wife and kids are able to shoot back... I'm not married to a sheep (I'm not from New Zeland, LOL), nor did I raise sheep.

The problem is these list will be used as a political weapon against those who would dare stand against the "ideology de jure". They're already starting to refer to "climate change deniers" as "terrorist" (as an example), and that list can be as broad (or narrow) as an arbitrary bureaucrat wants to make it.

Think that's a foolish notion? Compare how upside down logic and reason of the general population is compared to just 20 years ago.

 

[bolus]

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.

My friend, no one here wants their family shot up by a terrorist or by some crazy person at a mall. But we are also not willing to give up due process to feel a little safer. Who maintains the potential terrorist list? is it like the million plus people on the no fly list? Should we go one step further and allow the government to search the homes of the people on this hidden list without warrants? Do we also trust them to search the homes without shooting pets and throwing flash grenades into cribs?

There will always be terrorists. Look at France and also recently Israel. Did Israel call for more gun control when the mall was shot up? Yes, removing all guns from this country would reduce these scary shootings, though they would not eliminate them. So what freedom are you willing to give up to feel a little safer?

What if your name happens to be on the secret list because your name is similar to an American who decided to go fight in Siria? Should your rights be restricted for the "good" of the rest of us?

Yes, if me and my family get killed by terrorists (though we will be armed and will go down fighting) I say now that "This is the price of Freedom" because Im not so naive to think that the government has my best interest and will protect me

 

[Doc In UPlace]

And this proposed legislation is not a partisan issue, either, though the current version of it certainly is.

The original "no guns for terrorists" was a product of the justice department under the George W. Bush administration in 2007.

Look it up!

Behind the dog-and-pony show trappings of Elephants and Donkeys and (D) and (R) this is about unaccountable power being wielded by people who can scoot behind the curtain of "National Security" any time a citizen demands to know why they are on a prohibited list.

This is from Feinstein's own site:

• Allow the attorney general to deny the purchase or transfer of a firearm or explosive to a known or suspected terrorist if the prospective recipient may use the firearm or explosive in connection with terrorism.

• Maintain protections in current law that allow a person who believes he has been mistakenly prevented from buying a firearm to learn of the reason for the denial, and then to challenge the denial, first administratively with the Department of Justice, and then through a lawsuit against the Justice Department.

• Allow the Justice Department, in any administrative or court proceeding challenging the accuracy of a denied firearm or explosive transfer under the bill, to protect information that, if disclosed, would compromise national security.

(The highlighting is mine.)

Here's the page:

 

[Stomper]

Stop being PC and profile... sheesh!

 

[biggie24420]

That's funny.... government can put anyone on a crap list, I mean "terrorist" list and (s)he can't legally buy a gun? hahahaha while the government gets to sell to terrorists all over the world.

 

[Hawaiian]

Feinstein and Clinton will declare the NRA a terrorist organization and all members will be placed on the prohibited list. And no, I am not joking.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

They don't need any more great ideas.

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

to the title of this thread: LOL

 

[donaldc]

Should we deny American citizens the right to attend religious services because they are on a terrorist watch list? Should we be able to search someones home without a warrant because they are on a terrorist watch list? How about detaining American citizens for an indefinite amount of time without a trial because they are on a terrorist watch list?

We cannot take away any constitutional rights without due process. If someone really is a terrorist, I have no problem denying them the right to own a firearm, but that has to include due process.

Or here's a novel idea: if someone is on a terrorist watch list, put them under legal surveillance and WATCH THEM.

 

[Stomper]

Hillary made a public statement just recently saying anyone under an FBI investigation should not be allowed to buy any guns.... although it's apparently OK for someone to run for President of the USA while under investigation... cough, cough.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Hillary made a public statement just recently saying anyone under an FBI investigation should not be allowed to buy any guns.... although it's apparently OK for someone to run for

President of the USA while under investigation... cough, cough.

And to be protected at taxpayer expense by people with guns, and to be able to encourage laws that deny constitutional rights while under investigation.

Just two things I don't like about that person; her face.

 

[PaulB47]

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?

No, it's not fine. But it is a direct result of this government's invasion of places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, and installing and maintaining dictators in places like Egypt. The sensible plan would be to stop doing that, rather than attacking the rights of all Americans.

The first thing you have to learn, is the function of government. Hint: It's not there for our benefit. Also, gun control, such as what you advocate, is never for our benefit, despite all the soothing assurances from the ruling class.

 

[Mark W.]

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.

HOW would this bill if it had been law before any of the events you mention change their outcome?

 

[DMax]

Only IF they repeal every Exe Order related to gun and ammo control. Don't hold your breath. SO I have this right no military vets, People on Social Security I am sure there are more I'm missing and know after all this Terrorists. That will include Conservatives classified by the IRS, Climate Deniors, Hate Speech about gov, Simple we are all terrorists to what I say enough talk go ahead and give it your best shot to take em. I will put my money on the American Patriot 1776 2.0

 

[Martini_Up]

They should make a law forbidding anyone to get cancer. That will save waaayyy more lives.

What? You don't agree? How would you feel if your loved one died of cancer? I bet you would change your mind then!!!!!111!!!!!oneone!!!

 

[aflineman]

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.

I have lost a couple of friends due to a recent mass shooting. I have also lost many more friends and family due to drunk driving, and to speeding. I do not advocate gun control, nor do I advocate prohibition or a crackdown on fast cars. And, Yes I am a Libertarian.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

So the sense of the folks posting in this thread is that the Sandy Hooks, San Bernardinos and Orlandos are fine.

Yep, not only fine, just wonderful, hoping for another every hour, each worse than the previous until the end of time.
The night is young, but that just might be the dumbest post I'll see for some time.

 

[U8395279]

No, it's not fine. But it is a direct result of this government's invasion of places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, and installing and maintaining dictators in places like Egypt. The sensible plan would be to stop doing that, rather than attacking the rights of all Americans.

THe US government was not by any means behind or even supportive of the Egyptian military's overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt back in 2013. In fact, when Clinton was secretary of state, she thoroughly backed and supported the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power. And Obama absolutely condemned the Egyptian military when they took the government over from the Muslim Brotherhood. And he has continued to criticize them.

The fact is that many Egyptians want a secular government, and do not want to have an Islamic state like what most of the rest of the Middle East now has. The ultra-reactionary viewpoints of the Muslim Brotherhood and their adherence to the same extremist Wahhabi sect of Sunni Islam really makes them little different from ISIS.

There are quite a few mosques inside the USA that preach Wahhabism, including the mosque that the Orlando shooter attended:

Orlando shootout: Wahhabi fire reaches Florida (http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/orlando-shootout-wahhabi-fire-reaches-florida/story-JcORP7ZECKCnqtHG8msRkN.html)

You are right that the USA should not be fighting in all of these other countries. But you are totally wrong when it comes to Egypt.

.

 

[U8395279]

Yep, not only fine, just wonderful, hoping for another every hour, each worse than the previous until the end of time.
The night is young, but that just might be the dumbest post I'll see for some time.

Well, he has stated in the past that he is a Bernie Sanders supporter, and is strongly opposed to the NRA. So I think that he has major issues with most of the people here on this website when it comes to politics and gun rights.

I think that it is best to simply respect that he has a different viewpoint, and avoid using terms like "dumb".

He appears to like to hunt with traditional style hunting rifles and shotgun, and is not into "Black Rifles", or tactical or self-defense topics. He is still a gun owner, and enjoys hunting.

If an older late friend ( who past away 13 years ago ) had not introduced me to AR rifles back in 1997, I would probably have a similar opinion of them. He was a Vietnam Veteran, and had got introduced to the gun while in the service. He used one for all of his varmint hunting, and it blew me away what he could do with his Colt.

Anyway, after hunting with him several times, I eventually let him twist my arm into getting my first AR-15.

.

 

[Hawaiian]

Hillary made a public statement just recently saying anyone under an FBI investigation should not be allowed to buy any guns.... although it's apparently OK for someone to run for President of the USA while under investigation... cough, cough.

If I was allowed to like a post more than once, that would be it. Since she is being investigated by the FBI, she should lose her constitutional right to run for public office.
She does not believe in due process for others, so her majesty should live by the same rules as us common folks.