Gun Control postponed indefinitely by the GOP

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

The GOP decides to postpone the Gun Control vote indefinitely today. Of course burying it behind the news of FBI Director's interview by the House Oversite Committee. 

It's disgusting. What about our LGBT brothers and sisters who died. Do they not care?

Play at the video it's great. 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/house-gop-indefinitely-delays-gun-control-votes-225234

[JevyDuty 2,961]

Vote those losers out!! They are more worried about making politcal moves than moving for the American people.

Reject!

[CyanLights 15,576]

Of course. I'm not surprised anymore. I guess it's going to take another tragedy for it to be opened up again. 

[JustAnotherDay 8,402]

The GOP cares more pushing their agendas then doing what's best for the people, I won't be able to vote in this election so those of you who can better be voting for everything and not just president because it can be just as consequential 

[GloZell Green 11,723]

Wow that's nice. It's cute to see them "send their condolences" to those who lost a love one due to the lack of control, but when it comes to action and change, they don't give a f*ck. Really cute. At the end of the day, it seems like people care more about their Second Amendment than saving human lives being lost every single day.

[PaperIz 7,354]

Disgusting. 

[HEARTHUNTER 7,611]

Why pushing something you can do today for tomorrow?

[SKANK 14,288]

The Republicans blocking any kind of sensible gun reform is shameful, but if you think banning people who are on the no-fly list is sensible gun reform, you don't know the first thing about the no-fly list.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

53 minutes ago, SKANK said:

The Republicans blocking any kind of sensible gun reform is shameful, but if you think banning people who are on the no-fly list is sensible gun reform, you don't know the first thing about the no-fly list.

I agree, the "ban everyone on the no fly-list" idea is flawed. Not necessarily because of the concept of a no-fly list, but because of the state in which the no-fly list currently exists. If owning a gun is a right, then they'd be taking that right from tons of probably innocent people who probably pose absolutely 0 threat to the country.

If I remember correctly though, the vote was on a bill that encompassed more than just that though. Even if the bill had debated and they decided to throw the no-fly list and even other egregious provisions out, I'm still confident the GOP would have continued to block it. I don't think any revision or compromise could be made that would get the NRA and GOP members would get on board with unless it fundamentally went against the point of gun control. It's really quite a stubborn cycle  Basically, I find it hard to believe that the GOP or NRA is really looking for out for those 1000 Americans on the No-Fly list and that that's their reasoning for postponing the vote.

[SKANK 14,288]

25 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I agree, the "ban everyone on the no fly-list" idea is flawed. Not necessarily because of the concept of a no-fly list, but because of the state in which the no-fly list currently exists. If owning a gun is a right, then they'd be taking that right from tons of probably innocent people who probably pose absolutely 0 threat to the country.

If I remember correctly though, the vote was on a bill that encompassed more than just that though. Even if the bill had debated and they decided to throw the no-fly list and even other egregious provisions out, I'm still confident the GOP would have continued to block it. I don't think any revision or compromise could be made that would get the NRA and GOP members would get on board with unless it fundamentally went against the point of gun control. It's really quite a stubborn cycle  Basically, I find it hard to believe that the GOP or NRA is really looking for out for those 1000 Americans on the No-Fly list and that that's their reasoning for postponing the vote.

 

It's not just a thousand Americans on the Terrorist Watch list, it's tens of thousands, and as I'm sure you know it requires no evidence that you have or intend to commit a crime to end up on that list. It's not probable that there are innocent people on that list, there are innocent people on that list.

I'm not confused about the motivation behind the Republican's shameful decisions, I'm disturbed that the Democrats are using what the ACLU calls "dangerous blacklisting" in order to restrict people's rights.

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

10 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

It's not just a thousand Americans on the Terrorist Watch list, it's tens of thousands, and as I'm sure you know it requires no evidence that you have or intend to commit a crime to end up on that list. It's not probable that there are innocent people on that list, there are innocent people on that list.

I'm not confused about the motivation behind the Republican's shameful decisions, I'm disturbed that the Democrats are using what the ACLU calls "dangerous blacklisting" in order to restrict people's rights.

 

The "Terrorist Watch List" and the "No-Fly List" are different lists. Both of which have innocent people on them, I didn't mean probably as in the people are probably innocent, but rather that I assume there are probably a LOT of innocent people ("tons") that make up the list, like a majority. It was badly worded. I was also under the assumption that the people on the "No-Fly List" are the ones specifically being barred from owning guns under the bill's provision, seeing as thats the language being used in all media reporting on it... It could be as expansive as to include other lists like the "Terrorist Watch List" and another that escapes me, but I haven't read it in depth, so I took it to mean that it specifically referred to the No-Fly List. 

Its still not right, Im just clarifying.

 

[SKANK 14,288]

9 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

The "Terrorist Watch List" and the "No-Fly List" are different lists. Both of which have innocent people on them, I didn't mean probably as in the people are probably innocent, but rather that I assume there are probably a LOT of innocent people ("tons") that make up the list, like a majority. It was badly worded. I was also under the assumption that the people on the "No-Fly List" are the ones specifically being barred from owning guns under the bill's provision, seeing as thats the language being used in all media reporting on it... It could be as expansive as to include other lists like the "Terrorist Watch List" and another that escapes me, but I haven't read it in depth, so I took it to mean that it specifically referred to the No-Fly List. 

Its still not right, Im just clarifying.

 

 

The no-fly list is taken from the Terrorist Watch List. As I understand it the Terrorist Watch List is divided into two parts, the no-fly list and the list of individuals who are allowed to fly but are subjected to heavy scrutiny by airport security and at boarder crossing.

[Goosey 3,017]

3 hours ago, just4fun said:

It's disgusting.

Nope. It's great news. Study the issues instead of making hasty emotional responses.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-markup/use-error-prone-and-unfair-watchlists-not-way-regulate-guns-america

1 hour ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I don't think any revision or compromise could be made that would get the NRA and GOP members would get on board with unless it fundamentally went against the point of gun control. 

You realize the Republicans tabled an NRA-sponsored bill that would have prevented people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns? The Democrats voted it down.

The Republican proposition would have blocked the sale for three days, in which time the government would need to file a case against the purchaser.

 

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 minute ago, Goosey said:

You realize the Republicans tabled an NRA-sponsored bill that would have prevented people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns? The Democrats voted it down.

The Republican proposition would have blocked the sale for three days, in which time the government would need to file a case against the purchaser.

 

 

Source?

Also, I can't proclaim to know why, but things are hardly ever that black and white. Its important to not only observe events that occur but ask why and understand before we come to premature conclusions based on the events alone. I could make a bunch of logical guesses as to why, but I'd rather just know, so I'll do research  

[Goosey 3,017]

5 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Source?

Also, I can't proclaim to know why, but things are hardly ever that black and white. Its important to not only observe events that occur but ask why and understand before we come to premature conclusions based on the events alone. I could make a bunch of logical guesses as to why, but I'd rather just know, so I'll do research  

They said three days wasn't enough time to make a case. The Republicans likewise opposed the Democrat bill, which made no provision for those wrongfully suspected.

 

Senate Republicans rejected two Democratic proposals that would have barred firearm sales to people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list and required every gun purchaser to undergo a background check, arguing that the measures too dramatically expanded the federal government’s power.

“The Democratic alternative would not ensure due process, protect our constitutional rights, or require the government to periodically review its procedures to ensure it’s investigating the right people,” McConnell said.

Democrats, in turn, shot down Republican alternatives that would have required the government to prove probable cause within three days to block a gun sale to a suspected terrorist and increase funding for background checks. 

http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/21/see-how-your-senators-voted-on-4-gun-control-amendments/