Apparently this is not unprecedented. The Republicans were the last to do this. Quel irony.
Remember that removing the gun-buying rights of people on the no-fly list is something agreed upon by both sides, wanted by Trump, and overwhelmingly favored by majorities among the public.
My feeling is now there must be a bill voted out of the House, and it can’t be the worthless one favored by the NRA.
I can feel the political currents changing. I never expected that.
There are more important things than democracy, which is why you have a Bill of Rights in the first place. If the government can take away your rights without even accusing you of a crime, you have no rights. Anyone who is in favour of such a thing is either a fucking idiot or knows what they’re doing and is planning to abuse the hell out of it.
Some of us don’t agree with your interpretation of the Second Amendment and think that reasonable restrictions on who should be permitted weaponry are necessary for public safety.
You defend taking rights away from people with no due process because they asked a professional for help? Think about what you’re proposing here. Think about the consequences.
What does that have to do with revoking the rights of citizens with no due process based on mere accusations and conjecture? Which is what Grumman was referring to.
If he referred to “no fly no buy” then there would be a process to appeal. So you can’t buy something to kill other humans while they sort out a potential error. Cry me a river.
Certainly. However it should take more than some guy putting a name on a list to restrict the rights of a citizen. Maybe, just maybe, there ought to be a set of steps, a *process *of some sort that would be *due *to the person whose rights you wish to restrict.
Bob, You assume they mean to kill other hominids. What if they were offered jobs as rhinoceros poachers?
I for one an impressed by the American Right’s sudden concern for the mentally ill. Or would be, if it weren’t for the fact that they’re really afraid that they will be declared mentally ill and their guns taken away.
Why would that happen? Because they’re mentally ill, and their guns probably should be taken away?
There is currently not a legitimate process to appeal errors on the no-fly list. Did one of the failed bills the House Democrats are staging a sit-in for address this issue? Or are we talking hypothetically?
The history of policymaking by secrets lists without meaningful court oversight is not a pretty one. How sad to have John Lewis using his immense moral authority to support an ineffective bill that would principally target people of color for unfair treatment.
The no fly lists are a problem. Giving them even more weight is even more of a problem.
We also struggle as a country to define, treat, and understand mental illness. Until this stuff is defined adequately, I can’t just go along with ideas to curb gun ownership (as utterly stupid as I find it) based on it.
Due process exists for a reason. It protects all of us, not just bad guys. It is not just a technicality. We have to dot the i and cross the t when we want to impact people’s freedom. Yes, even if we think those people are gross or stupid or evil.
I haven’t read about the current situation, but at least a few years ago, that was my understanding, as well – that it was possible to land on the No Fly List without being aware of it, that Homeland Security didn’t have to tell you why you were there, and that it was extremely difficult to get off of it if you’d been placed there by mistake.
As much as I believe that there should be some limits on who can buy guns (such as suspected terrorists), I do have to acknowledge the right’s concern on this point.
I’m absolutely astonished that people are debating guns here rather than talking about the elephant in the room: whatever the bill’s content the Democrats are fighting for a cause using a traditional protest technique. That and that alone is worthy of being talked about, not another meaningless debate over your personal interpretation of the second amendment.
And that’s why it’s here in Elections. Gun rights debates belong in GD. Let’s stick to the political implications of this for fall.
John Lewis is a brave American hero, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt 10 times out of 10. I’m not sure about the effectiveness of this sit in, but if John Lewis thinks it’s necessary, he’s got my support.
