I think the 2nd amendment is an archaic folly that should be repealed. I think the scary majority of people who have guns are idiots. I think the passion people feel for this tool is creepy. I think there is no need for a general right to guns and that our current laws are ridiculous.
And I feel that we do currently have a right to individual possession of guns, and curtailing that right requires due process and very stringent rules and justification. If we want to be a nation of laws, we need to be a nation of laws.
They envisioned a system where large blocs of citizen-voters actually hold some sway with their representatives. Did you think the NRA was made up of robots? No, it’s full of American voters. Disagree with the outcome if you want, but don’t try to spin it as undemocratic.
You think it represents people? It represents gun manufacturers. The merchants of death make out like bandits every time the sheep members flock to the gun stores after a mass shooting occurs. As long as they can milk the paranoia of the gun lovers, they’ll laugh all the way to the bank. And as long as they keep writing checks to Republicans, they’ll still be the owners of Congress.
I’m not convinced this particular bill is the gun control vote to do-or-die on (i’m really not a fan of the "no-fly list as is), but I too am astonished that the Democrats have suddenly grown backbones.
Presumably whatever electoral number crunching they’re doing suggests the winds of change are blowing fair in their direction. Whether this is so remains to be seen.
Kind of a scary change and hard to believe that the Democrats doing this really understand the implications of what they are doing…or if they do, hard to believe that there are so many people seemingly on this board who are good with this line of reasoning. Should we, in addition to taking away peoples ability to fly and to purchase or own guns because they are on the No Fly list, should we go ahead and take away their right to vote, to assembly and speech? Maybe we should revoke their drivers license and access to alcohol too, and deny them access to purchase anything that could, potentially, be used to make a bomb, since they are a supposed risk to society. If you feel comfortable taking away their right to guns based on being on this list why not other things?
I think there’s a difference between voting and purchasing items that have the sole purpose of slaughtering large numbers of people in rapid fire succession. The Democrats have the people behind them, large majorities support no fly no buy. In opposition you have ISIS and the NRA (as well as their wholly-owned subsidiary, the Republican Party.
They don’t control the NRA- the gun manufacturers do. The big money comes from them, they’ll happily cash Joe Sixpack’s check but they take their marching orders from the guys who write bigger checks.
Can you clarify this statement? Yesterday, the House adjourned until July 5th, almost two weeks away. Did they get approval to do so from the other Chamber?
If not, why are two weeks acceptable, and six weeks are not?
I am sure, XT, it’s merely because they don’t believe it should be a right so it doesn’t feel bad taking it away.
I guess people figure this is a toe in the door for greater gun control but I am, as usual, disappointed that yet again a big event is being used as an excuse to push legislation that would not have affected said event. Neither the Orlando nor the San Bernardino shooters were on terror watchlists when they committed their crimes.
I’ve argued elsewhere that it’s a matter of consistency - if the people on the no-fly list are so dangerous that they can’t be allowed to board a plane no matter how much scrutiny they get, then it makes no sense to not place restrictions on their ability to freely purchase weapons that allow them to kill a lot of people very quickly. Either they’re an extraordinary threat to the general public or they aren’t.
I’d rather see the list scrapped than have one more thing added to the long list of ways the government gets to treat individuals as criminals just because they say so, but here we are.
What is that difference? If you can take away one right, why not others? If you can take away one privilege why not others? Let me answer for you…because this isn’t about the No Fly List, this is about gun control, and you are good with gun control and really, truly don’t see how this could set a precedence for arbitrary removal of other rights based on such lists in the future. All you REALLY care about is using the current fear to chip away at a right you don’t like and don’t think Americans should have, and whatever you can do to achieve that is good.
And me, and people like me who would cheer if we repealed the 2nd but find the no fly list a horrific basis for curtailing liberty. Yes, even the liberty of people I think are cretins.
I don’t for one second believe that you have a right to own guns. The partisan Heller 5-4 decision was this generation’s version of Dred Scott and will in time be overturned.
Again, do you think the NRA is composed of robots? There are 5 million dues paying members of the NRA, which represents about 5% of American gun owners. Do you believe they are just composed of 5 million gun manufacturers? Do you believe no other gun owners are sympathetic to (part or all of) their message? Do you feel this way when unions or doctors persuade the government to pass law in their interest, too?
This assumes that the standard for a person’s ability to take a commercial flight should be the same as for a person exercising a fundamental enumerated constitutional right. Why do you think those two separate items should have the same standards?
So if you think the list is a bad practice, and you are faced with choice of expanding the use of the list to limit something else you think is bad practice, do you think it’s a principled position to encourage use of the list? That is not consistency.