Senate to vote on new gun proposals this afternoon

[XBowHunter]

looks like they are trying to...

The Democratic proposals:

Brought by Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., it would give the Justice Department the power to stop anyone from purchasing a gun if that person has been on the federal terrorist watch lists sometime in the past five years. This measure would also make it easier for the government to halt a gun purchase, based on "reasonable belief" as opposed to "probable cause" that the individual will use the firearm to commit terrorism. The White House backs this measure.

An amendment by Chris Murphy, D-Conn., would close the "gun show loophole" by requiring every gun purchaser to undergo a background check and to expand the background check database. It would also extend background checks to Internet sales.

The GOP proposals:

This one from John Cornyn, R-Texas, would require that law enforcement be alerted when anyone on the terrorist watch list attempts to buy a weapon from a licensed dealer. If the buyer has been investigated for terrorism within the past five years, the attorney general could block a sale for up to three days while a court reviews the sale. The government would have to show probable cause that the person is a known or suspected terrorist.

An amendment by Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, would clarify what it means to be found mentally deficient, and giving people suspected of serious mental illness a process to challenge that determination.

[slickfish]

If the buyer has been investigated for terrorism in the last five years? How about if they have ever been investigated they are denied...

Sent from my SGH-T999L using Tapatalk

[BrandonA]

Remember under this administration American Veterans were consider big terrorist threat/risk..

[batmaninja]

would close the "gun show loophole" by requiring every gun purchaser to undergo a background check and to expand the background check database. It would also extend background checks to Internet sales.

So to sell a gun you have to have a FFL?

How else would someone say selling a gun in the classifieds do a federal background check?

[PowThudBeer]

What about due process? I don't like anything that would/could take away a right of mine or anyone else's without due process. What am I missing?

[Clay C]

If the buyer has been investigated for terrorism in the last five years? How about if they have ever been investigated they are denied...

Sent from my SGH-T999L using Tapatalk

Being investigated does not equal guilt.

[slickfish]

Being investigated does not equal guilt.

I understand. If you put yourself in a position to be investigated for terrorism it should be automatic denial. Isn't that better for everyone as a whole?

[Mike D]

What about due process? I don't like anything that would/could take away a right of mine or anyone else's without due process. What am I missing?

You're not missing anything. A few other folks in this thread and others similar are though.

Without due process we are screwed.


"An honest government has no fear of an armed population".

[Mike D]

I understand. If you put yourself in a position to be investigated for terrorism it should be automatic denial. Isn't that better for everyone as a whole?

Do you understand what due process is and why it's important?


"An honest government has no fear of an armed population".

[Shane]

You're not missing anything. A few other folks in this thread and others similar are though.

Without due process we are screwed.


"An honest government has no fear of an armed population".

Exactly.

[Clay C]

I understand. If you put yourself in a position to be investigated for terrorism it should be automatic denial. Isn't that better for everyone as a whole?

NO.

Besides the main issue with denying a right without due process, do you know what kind of "situation" as you called it would trigger an investigation? Me either.

[batmaninja]

I understand. If you put yourself in a position to be investigated for terrorism it should be automatic denial. Isn't that better for everyone as a whole?

Wait, wait, wait.

Clinton is on that list right. Both of them have been, investigated.

[Bazo]

I understand. If you put yourself in a position to be investigated for terrorism it should be automatic denial. Isn't that better for everyone as a whole?

People are put on the list by mistake. Then it will show you have been investigated and for 5 years you can't buy anything. These people can't even build a health care website, you think they can manage a terror watch list??

[DarrellS]

Do you understand what due process is and why it's important?


"An honest government has no fear of an armed population".

Exactly, we could all be placed on the list because we're conservatives.

[Clay C]

Exactly, we could all be placed on the list because we're conservatives.

I posted this in another thread but it seems relevant in this one as well.

These lists exist solely based on suspicion, there is nothing there criminally. If there was enough to actually act on, there wouldn't be a list, there would be arrests. We know for a fact that they play fast and loose with these things. Look at who they were labeling as "Domestic Terrorist" in recent years. There's a good chance if you are a Tea Party member you would end up on one of these list.

As for it being "easy for you to get overturned if you are a model citizen", nothing involving bureaucracy is easy. There would likely be courts involved. Also, that is horse hockey any ways because that right is already guaranteed to you and I. "A right delayed is a right denied" comes to mind.

This is a government who most on this site would agree we cannot trust, a government that does not want us to be armed, an administration who has repeatedly voiced in favor of Islam over people like us, and yet so many people want that same government to link one of our God given rights to some arbitrary list that no one gets to see. Do you honestly think it would be used in the capacity it was meant to be?

This is playing right into the lefts hand. They immediately controlled the narrative by changing it from an Islamic Terrorist attack to being about guns and we fell for it hook line and sinker. They screamed Auto Weapons Ban knowing it was on the extreme side of things, making a compromise not look so bad in comparison and we ate that bait too. Every time we give a little, we get nothing in return. When it cumulates, it is a huge win for the enemy.

It will be the sum of these seemingly small legislations that eventually becomes our downfall. Sorry for the long post everyone.