Senate leader McConnell says wants to deny guns to 'terrorists

Found this today:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-leader-mcconnell-says-wants-deny-guns-terrorists-192347078.html

"U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday said "nobody wants terrorists to have firearms" and that he was open to suggestions from experts on legislation that could address the problem."

"McConnell, a Republican, made his remarks amid blistering attacks by Democrats on the lack of action in Congress on legislation to prevent suspects on "watch lists" purchasing guns or explosives."

I am coming from a stance of complete ignorance on gun issues. I have been a lifelong Democrat, and we just never talked about gun stuff in my mostly military family, and I have honestly never heard gun stufff being talked about in union halls. Is it a bad thing to consider not selling guns to dudes that are on a "watch list". I am not being sarcastic or silly. Just asking a honest question.

 

Interesting reaction to a mass murder conducted by a guy who wasn't a terrorist and wasn't on anyone's "watch list."

 

Ted Kennedy was on the do-not-fly list, and only got taken off quickly because he was a US Senator. Good luck to Joe Sixpack trying to get off it.

I never liked Ted Kennedy, but the only times he was ever a threat to national security was when he was in the Senate chamber.

 

And to laugh is a good thing. :smile: Years ago, I used to go to great lenghts to ensure that I worded my posts with all the proper grammar, spell checks, and so forth. Nowadays, I just right down what I think they way that I think it. If it comes out funny, like the story I told about the K-nine police cars (or something like that) and it makes someone laugh, I will laugh along with them. I just don't take myself that seriously anymore. It is quite liberating I must confess. :smile:

Gotta split

 

I would repeal the 2nd amendment tomorrow if it were within my power, but I have to agree. The notion that a citizen's rights can be taken away simply because the FBI doesn't like who they associate with is plain and simple wrong. As wrong as Donald Trump wanting to bar entry to people simply because of their religion. If you want to take away someone's access to travel or guns, you should have to show evidence to a judge that they are a threat.

 

Because we stopped people from using illicit drugs by making them illegal.

Do you share that feeling about the other 9 Amendments to the Bill of Rights?

 

I have no interest in hijacking the thread with that old pie fight.

 

I will only respond to say that repealing the 2nd is not the same thing as prohibiting all guns nor do I think that would or should be the outcome if it were to happen. I don't believe that we need a specific constitutional right to bear arms any more than we need one to own cars, have kids, or drink beer. I therefore consider Bruce's comparison to the rest of the bill of rights a false equivalence. Since not enough people agree with me, the 2nd will, of course, stay right where it is. That's the essence of our political system.

 

Two-thirds of each house of Congress plus 38 states. (Thirty-nine if you count the NRA. I do.)

Not gonna happen.

 

You don't need a Constitutional Amendment to get on a soapbox and give a lecture on the Boston Common, either. The 1st Amendment protects that right from an oppressive Federal government, so it's not at all a false equivalent.

 

I don't believe you will find anyone promoting guns for terrorists (with the exception of all the shit we passed out in the middle east). The opposition to the no guns for folks on the no fly list are exactly as Davewill describes, the issue is due process. No one entity, however well meaning, should have that sort of control over people. The no fly list itself (as it stands) is simply wrong...you should be able to answer the allegations and a conclusion should be arrived at in court to deny access to basic services (at least for US Citizens).

 

A friend of mine has been a police officer for 10+ years, with absolutely no criminal record whatsoever. He and his family came here from Vietnam when he was 4 years old; they learned the language, worked hard, became US citizens, and now all the children have successful careers. They're the embodiment of the American Dream.

However, he recently tried to purchase a rifle, but was he was flagged by the FBI for being on some Secret Squirrel list of people who are prohibited from buying guns. He was given no reason, since the retailer had no information other than he couldn't sell him the gun. He was given a phone number and a .gov email address to contact to get him off the list, and you can probably guess how far he's gotten with that.

Here's a guy who had absolutely no reason to be on any sort of list; he passed the background investigation for the police department (kind of like a colonoscopy of your personal life), and is issued a gun by the government, he just can't buy one of his own.

That's but one reason why I don't trust the Federal government to have any sort of "do not" lists.

 

I agree that the government can certainly mess up some things but I'm not sure that the inconvenience experienced by your friend rises to the level of terrorists killing innocent people.

 

It's the point that almost anyone can land on one of these "lists", which abrogate your rights without even a hint of due process. To put a cherry on this odious sundae, good luck getting off these lists, once you're on one.