Democrat sit-in on House floor

[Clocker]

Brilliant. This will really change some minds. :rolleyes:

Democrats are holding a sit-in on the floor of the House to demand a vote on their no-fly gun control proposal. Rep. John Lewis led the demonstration by calling Democrats down to the floor and giving a brief speech which concluded, “Now is the time to get in the way. The time to act is now. We will be silent no more.”

What does he mean, now is the time to get in the way? The government in general and the Dems in particular have been getting in the way of the American people for decades.

Take a look at the pictures and see if they look any different than usual, except for where they are sitting and doing nothing.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/22/democrats-are-holding-a-sit-in-on-the-house-floor/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/22/democrats-are-holding-a-sit-in-on-the-house-floor/)

[Tom]

Then go sit in the senate, where their fellow losers voted donw this very issue the other day.

How stupid do these dumocrats get? :lol::lol::lol:

I would call the Sgt at Arms to hand out a few wood shampoos and move the trash out to the curb where it belongs.

[Clocker]

I would call the Sgt at Arms to hand out a few wood shampoos and move the trash out to the curb where it belongs.

The Dems are whining because CSPAN turned the cameras off. What's the point of demonstrating your beliefs if you can't get face time for it?

The Sgt. at Arms should just turn off the lights in there and save the electricity.

[Boris]

The Sheila Jackson Lee tweets are gonna be comedy gold. Only politician I follow and SO worth it.

[Clocker]

The Sheila Jackson Lee tweets are gonna be comedy gold. Only politician I follow and SO worth it.

Do you really expect us to believe that that woman is capable of tweeting? :D

[mostpost]

Then go sit in the senate, where their fellow losers voted donw this very issue the other day.

How stupid do these dumocrats get? :lol::lol::lol:

I would call the Sgt at Arms to hand out a few wood shampoos and move the trash out to the curb where it belongs.
Not nearly as stupid as someone who posts something that is the exact opposite of what happened. It was the Republicans who voted down the ban on gun sales to people on the no fly list.

Here is the amendment: On the Cloture Motion S.Amdt. 4720: Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 4720; To authorize the Attorney General to deny requests to transfer a firearm to known or suspected terrorists.

Here is the vote by position on the subject:
Yeas---47
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---53
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Perdue (R-GA)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Notice that all of the NAYS are Republicans. All the Yeas are Democrats-plus two Republicans.

Also notice that the Amendment in question was offered by Senator Diane Feinstein a democrat.

[Tor Ekman]

Let them sit there forever, as long as they are on their collective asses, they won't be passing other idiotic legislation. More often than not, the best government action is inaction

[boxcar]

Too bad the Sarge at Arms can't lock those suckers in, cutting off their food supply -- until eventually they turn to eat one another, of course. :lol: :lol:

[pandy]

All I know is, they'd better get a gun bill through soon and at the very least it has to block people on the no fly list and people on the terrorist list. The fact that these people can buy guns is an outrage.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Except for given the current state of the no-fly list and politics in general, they'd probably just start populating it (no fly) with names from the phone book.

[boxcar]

Except for given the current state of the no-fly list and politics in general, they'd probably just start populating it (no fly) with names from the phone book.

Yeah...we'd end up with tens of thousands of grandmas and little grandkids on that list. This is exactly what they would do. Law enforcement would be empowered to put virtually anyone on that list, starting with all registered Republicans. (Remember how the IRS has abused its power?)

[reckless]

Not nearly as stupid as someone who posts something that is the exact opposite of what happened. It was the Republicans who voted down the ban on gun sales to people on the no fly list.

Here is the amendment: On the Cloture Motion S.Amdt. 4720: Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 4720; To authorize the Attorney General to deny requests to transfer a firearm to known or suspected terrorists.

Here is the vote by position on the subject:
Yeas---47
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---53
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Perdue (R-GA)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Notice that all of the NAYS are Republicans. All the Yeas are Democrats-plus two Republicans.

Also notice that the Amendment in question was offered by Senator Diane Feinstein a democrat.

Mosty... take a deep breathe for a second, really.

All four gun control bills were b-shat, especially Feinstein's but all were actually written and designed specifically for them to lose without any senator getting any real heat at home because of any of their votes.

This is the type of ruse often foisted on the electorate by our representatives. Not a single senator running in November will be hurt believe me. They will all say they did their best to ---- ... fill in the blank depending on their constituency.

You must have have noticed that each of the four bills --regardless of the sponsor-- had both Republicans and Democrats voting either for it and also against it.

It was really just a bi-partisan sleight of hand, with the American people being the marks in the Senate's game of 4-Bill Monty.

[Clocker]

Not nearly as stupid as someone who posts something that is the exact opposite of what happened. It was the Republicans who voted down the ban on gun sales to people on the no fly list.

Here is the amendment: On the Cloture Motion S.Amdt. 4720: Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 4720; To authorize the Attorney General to deny requests to transfer a firearm to known or suspected terrorists.



There were two bills dealing with the no fly list. The one you list here was the Democrat bill that included no procedure for due process for anyone wrongly put on the no fly list.

Feinstein as usual far exceeded the limits of rational thought. She wanted to deny a gun sale to anyone on the list or anyone who was not on the list but had been on the list within the last 5 years.

The Republican bill was similar, but included protection for due process to get off the list. If anyone claimed that they did not belong on the list, the DOJ had 72 hours to present evidence to a judge justifying inclusion on the list. That one was killed by the Democrats.

[Clocker]

As with Humpty Dumpty in Wonderland, Senator Feinstein contends that words mean exactly what she wants them to mean. The term "no-fly list", for example, does not mean just the no-fly list, as a rational person might think.

The Senate amendment in question, proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, would have applied to a much larger group than the no-fly list. As we reported in December, Feinstein’s office told us the measure, which would have allowed the attorney general to block gun sales to individuals on these lists, would have included a few terrorist databases, and the no-fly list is a subset of one of them.

The largest of the databases is the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE, which included 1.1 million people as of December 2013. The second is the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database, which is referred to simply as the Terrorist Watchlist, and contained about 800,000 names, Christopher M. Piehota, the Terrorist Screening Center director, said in congressional testimony on Sept. 18, 2014. The no-fly list is a part of that database. It contains about 64,000 names, according to Piehota’s testimony.


(http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/not-just-the-no-fly-list/)

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/not-just-the-no-fly-list/

[pandy]

I don't understand this. If the Republicans control the house, why can't they vote in the bill that they want? Oh, that's right, they are shills for the NRA.

[Clocker]

I don't understand this. If the Republicans control the house, why can't they vote in the bill that they want? Oh, that's right, they are shills for the NRA.

The bills discussed thus far in this thread were in the Senate. Because these were amendments to another bill, they required 60 votes to pass. The GOP only has 54 seats in the Senate.

I don't believe that there are any new gun control bills currently being considered in the House. The Dems are conducting a sit-it because they want one. The reality is that even if the House did pass a bill, whether Democrat or Republican, it would die in the Senate.

[pandy]

The bills discussed thus far in this thread were in the Senate. Because these were amendments to another bill, they required 60 votes to pass. The GOP only has 54 seats in the Senate.

I don't believe that there are any new gun control bills currently being considered in the House. The Dems are conducting a sit-it because they want one. The reality is that even if the House did pass a bill, whether Democrat or Republican, it would die in the Senate.


Sadly, that's good news for terrorists.

[mostpost]

The Republican bill was similar, but included protection for due process to get off the list. If anyone claimed that they did not belong on the list, the DOJ had 72 hours to present evidence to a judge justifying inclusion on the list. That one was killed by the Democrats.
And somehow you can't see how foolish that idea would have been. There are several hundred thousand people on the various lists covered by this amendment from Sen. Cornyn, Any one, or all of them could claim they did not belong on the lists.

How many would the DOJ be able to prove belonged on the list in three days? A few hundred? In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of potential terrorists would be free to board whatever plane they choose. And to buy guns.

How about this? If you are on a watch list, you prove you don't belong there. And we won't even put a time limit on you.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

How about this? If you are on a watch list, you prove you don't belong there.

Yeeesh. It all sounds so logical until you really think about what you are saying when the burden of proof is shifted to the informally or not even accused to prove that they are entitled to Constitutional protections as an American.

[Clocker]

How about this? If you are on a watch list, you prove you don't belong there. And we won't even put a time limit on you.

A little hard to do if the government doesn't even tell you that you have been put on double secret probation, let alone let you demand proof of why.

How about this? You pretend you live in the United States of America, where our laws are based on the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty.

How about this? We shouldn't have secret lists that the government can put a citizen on without due process and without even notifying that citizen that he is on such a list, let alone putting the burden on him to "prove" himself innocent, let alone not giving him the chance to do so.

How about this? I'll even concede that we can have such double secret probation lists for non-citizens, but that perhaps we need to treat citizens and non-citizens differently. Like treating citizens as if they had constitutional rights to life, liberty and property. How about that?

[Clocker]

And somehow you can't see how foolish that idea would have been.

What a foolish idea, to put the burden of proof of guilt on the government. :eek:

[mostpost]

The Dems are whining because CSPAN turned the cameras off. What's the point of demonstrating your beliefs if you can't get face time for it?

The Sgt. at Arms should just turn off the lights in there and save the electricity.
CSPAN did not turn the cameras off. CSPAN does not control the cameras. They are controlled by the House and the Republicans control the House.

[JustRalph]

All I know is, they'd better get a gun bill through soon and at the very least it has to block people on the no fly list and people on the terrorist list. The fact that these people can buy guns is an outrage.

Bob, both lists are terribly inaccurate. Ted Kennedy was on the no fly list for a while. Fix the lists and then it's worth a discussion. Until then.......

[JustRalph]

How about this? If you are on a watch list, you prove you don't belong there. And we won't even put a time limit on you.

Unconstitutional. The burden of proof in our society lies on the government or the prosecution. Requiring a defendant to act in there own behalf first, is illegal.

[rastajenk]

Aw, we can make an exception for Islamic terrorists, can't we, and anarchists of various types? And while we're at it, an exception for homegrown militia and paramilitary wannabes? Remember when hcap and his ilk enjoyed citing Homeland Security reports that said there were many more domestic terror threats than international ones? Well, we shouldn't keep those guys off watch lists. And patriots, veterans, casual subscribers to magazines of barely related interests, we better include them too; better safe than sorry. After all, the burden is on them at that point. The feds can manage it. What could go wrong?

[Tom]

And somehow you can't see how foolish that idea would have been. There are several hundred thousand people on the various lists covered by this amendment from Sen. Cornyn, Any one, or all of them could claim they did not belong on the lists.

How many would the DOJ be able to prove belonged on the list in three days? A few hundred? In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of potential terrorists would be free to board whatever plane they choose. And to buy guns.

How about this? If you are on a watch list, you prove you don't belong there. And we won't even put a time limit on you.


It's called due process.
Deal with it.
The NFL is a joke and never should have been allowed to become the road block that it is.

How many people could have been cleared by the House Rug Rats last night.

Meanwhile, we don't need no stupid gun laws.
W need more guns in the hand of the people.
Deal with that.
Bang, Bang.
Deal with that.

[pandy]

Bob, both lists are terribly inaccurate. Ted Kennedy was on the no fly list for a while. Fix the lists and then it's worth a discussion. Until then.......


I think this is a national crisis, so I'd pass the bill and make sure that the law gives those on the list a fair shot at proving they don't belong on it, at no cost to them legally.

People who don't want any more gun laws would be singing a different tune if a suspected terrorist, or even someone with a history of psychotic behavior, passed a background check, bought one of these assault rifles and shot one of their loved ones. We have to put ourselves in the place of the people who are getting shot, and their loved ones, who are in tremendous grief.

I know people say that more laws won't work, but our motor vehicle and driving laws work superbly. Without them we would not be able to drive because you'd have people driving drunk, over the speed limit, with bad brakes and poor eyesight.

[Tom]

The Rug Rats have no intention of allowing ANY gun laws to pass before an election. They do not care today and have never cared about the victims of gun violence. They want to use this as an issue, nothing more. Just look at that bunch of loonies crawling and crying on the floor.

My freaking CATS are more mature. And cleaner.

But now they are on vacation.
Which is more important to all them than any dead Americans.

You can't expect the system to be fixed by those who broke it in the first place. It is not a House of answers, it is a house of ill repute.:lol:

[davew]

What is different now than a few years ago when Reid and Pelosi were 0bama gatekeepers to Congress? Is it the lazyassed Dems are now trying to make a big deal out of doing nothing for many years?

[classhandicapper]

The Republican bill was similar, but included protection for due process to get off the list. If anyone claimed that they did not belong on the list, the DOJ had 72 hours to present evidence to a judge justifying inclusion on the list. That one was killed by the Democrats.

A bill along those lines would actually make some sense. The idea here is to have an accurate list of dangerous people but keep the government from putting people on it because of their politics or because the government is incompetent. You'd just have to tweak the details so the government could present its case in a timely fashion.

[Clocker]

CSPAN did not turn the cameras off. CSPAN does not control the cameras. They are controlled by the House and the Republicans control the House.

Well, that is really an important distinction. That was probably unconstitutional and violated the right of the people to know what was going on. :rolleyes:

Here's a clue. The cameras covering the House were turned off because the House was in recess.

[Tom]

The No Fly List must have the following:

1. Specific criteria for being placed on it, backed up by judicial warrants
2. Notification to the person as to why he/she has been placed on it
3. Specific appeal procedures

That is three things more than the rug rats are willing to do.
Dems just hate to do any real work ever.

That bring up a question.
Should it be the dems lie on the floor of the House or dems lay on the floor of the House?

BOTH! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[boxcar]

How about this? If you are on a watch list, you prove you don't belong there. And we won't even put a time limit on you.

Isn't that a wee bit backwards from the way our legal system works? You truly do have a strong totalitarian bent, don't you?

[Clocker]

Isn't that a wee bit backwards

Consider the source. :rolleyes:

The use of secret lists as a tool for gun control is so screwed up, even the ACLU has figured it out and opposes the idea.

...regulation of firearms and individual gun ownership or use must be consistent with civil liberties principles, such as due process, equal protection, freedom from unlawful searches, and privacy.

Our nation’s watchlisting system is error-prone and unreliable because it uses vague and overbroad criteria and secret evidence to place individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government error and clear their names.

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

[johnhannibalsmith]

Good for them. Like I said in the "Say something good..." thread, ACLU has become a bit of a political organization and considered a tool of the left, but as long as they are among the last standing formally defending the Constitution, they are a critical voice.

[Clocker]

Ironic moments from the past.

In 2008, GOP Representatives disrupted the House to protest the failure to expand oil drilling. Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered the cameras turned off. :D

Every main stream media story on the sit-in mentions that Rep. John Lewis (D, GA) was a leader of the civil rights sit-in movement in the 60's. As a result, he was put on the terror watch list and spent a lot of time and effort trying to get off the list. But he still thinks it is a good idea to use the list for gun control. :rolleyes:

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Whose responsible for passing out blankees and pacifiers for the children on the floor? They are not doing their jobs.

[Tom]

Who is going to change all those diapers? :eek::eek::eek:

[Clocker]

Whose responsible for passing out blankees and pacifiers for the children on the floor? They are not doing their jobs.

The adults went home. Ryan adjourned the House early for the holiday break, and the House is in recess until July 5.

I wonder if anyone told the Dems? :p

[ebcorde]

Ironic moments from the past.

In 2008, GOP Representatives disrupted the House to protest the failure to expand oil drilling. Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered the cameras turned off. :D

Every main stream media story on the sit-in mentions that Rep. John Lewis (D, GA) was a leader of the civil rights sit-in movement in the 60's. As a result, he was put on the terror watch list and spent a lot of time and effort trying to get off the list. But he still thinks it is a good idea to use the list for gun control. :rolleyes:


Rep. John Lewis (D, GA) was a leader of the civil rights sit-in movement in the 60's. As a result, he was put on the terror watch list

AS I SAID AMERICA WILL NEVER FIX THE MIDDLE EAST , THANKS FOR THE
EXAMPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THEY CANT EVEN PRODUCE AN ACCURATE LIST. I GUESS THEIR AI IS NOT SUFFICIENT, OBVIOUSLY THIS SHOULD BE A MANUAL PROCESS TO INVOLVE FEDERAL JUDGES FOR APPROVAL, NOT AI SOFTWARE WITH THE BUSINESS RULES.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Rep. John Lewis (D, GA) was a leader of the civil rights sit-in movement in the 60's. As a result, he was put on the terror watch list



You mean there was actually a southern Democrat who was a leader of the civil rights movement in the 60s? Definitely deserves a medal to do so in the faces of the rest of the Democratic Party racists. Oh wait, Congressman Lewis is black. I thought you might have been referring to a white southern Democrat who supported civil rights. My mistake.

If you look at photos from the 60s, all you can see is conservatives marching with Martin Luther King -- including MLKs friend Charlton Heston, ex-President of the NRA.

You have to hand it to the Dems. They certainly have the marketing wizardry to make believe it wasn't them blocking the entrance to schools for black students.

[ebcorde]

You mean there was actually a southern Democrat who was a leader of the civil rights movement in the 60s? Definitely deserves a medal to do so in the faces of the rest of the Democratic Party racists. Oh wait, Congressman Lewis is black. I thought you might have been referring to a white southern Democrat who supported civil rights. My mistake.

If you look at photos from the 60s, all you can see is conservatives marching with Martin Luther King -- including MLKs friend Charlton Heston, ex-President of the NRA.

You have to hand it to the Dems. They certainly have the marketing wizardry to make believe it wasn't them blocking the entrance to schools for black students.


I could not care less about them A-holes, but I doubt John Lewis is a multi-millionaire. He's harmless.


. I only care about doing things right. The day they found that Ted Kennedy, and this guy was on the terror watch list was the day they should began to fix their fooging sheet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

same with immigration fix the fooging constitution to stop allowing these women to come here and pop their babies on US soil and get US citizenship.

same stupid sheet getting sucked into Iraq, 16 years in with another 50 years to go.


At least they fried my Philly boy Chaka ****tah, Hate that fake Muslim. I always told people in Philly "He changed his name to a cool sounding Muslim name to get your vote fools" hated him I hope he gets life, He did nothing for Philly.

[delayjf]

IMO, Our open borders renders any talk of gun control moot.

[Tom]

IMO, Our open borders renders any talk of gun control moot.

Renders any talk of us being a sovereign nation moot.
No borders, no country.

Simple idea.
Why can't the simpletons see it?

[Clocker]

It turns out that there was a House committee vote on a 'no-fly no-buy' bill yesterday, and the bill was killed. So the sit-in is a protest by Dems who were unhappy with the result and wanted to bring that bill to the full House.

So that the full House could kill the bill. Or to get House Republicans on record as killing the bill.

There are reports on the web that soon after the sit-in started, Democrats began a large scale barrage of fund raising emails, asking for donations for the upcoming elections.

What an amazing coincidence. :rolleyes:

[johnhannibalsmith]

The fact that all of the above isn't the story that is being reported here is what is truly amazing. Who in the media that has covered Washington for more than a day doesn't realize that this has more to do with elections than it does about guns or safety or victims?

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

The fact that all of the above isn't the story that is being reported here is what is truly amazing. Who in the media that has covered Washington for more than a day doesn't realize that this has more to do with elections than it does about guns or safety or victims?

Which is why we so desperately need to get rid of career politicians via term limits. (So many reasons incumbents have built in huge advantages.)

Obviously no politician will vote himself out of office by passing term limit legislation. The only way it can happen if voting politicians are EXEMPT from new term limit laws. Get them to feel good about themselves that future politicians will not be as crooked as they are.

[Clocker]

The fact that all of the above isn't the story that is being reported here is what is truly amazing. Who in the media that has covered Washington for more than a day doesn't realize that this has more to do with elections than it does about guns or safety or victims?

It seems that the real reporting today is on the web. From 'The Hill':

House Democrats are soliciting donations as they stage a highly publicized sit-in to protest inaction on gun control measures.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent a brief email shortly after the sit-in crossed into Thursday, signed by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.)

"This is an historically important moment! John Lewis has been leading a sit-in on the House floor for 11 long hours now. We’re fighting to prevent gun violence," the email reads. "The Republicans refuse to lift a finger. It’s shameful. I need your help to defeat them once and for all."

The email asks for 6,000 donations and gives several options to donate amounts between $1 and $250.

It was at least the sixth such email from the DCCC as the sit-in gained steam. Several were signed by Lewis, a civil rights leader and Georgia representative who has lead many of the demonstrations on the House floor.



http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/284564-dems-fundraise-off-of-sit-in (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/284564-dems-fundraise-off-of-sit-in)

[Tom]

Another big baby is crying live now - OBama, after SC loss.

What a pathetic example of a leader! :lol::lol::lol:

[Fager Fan]

The funny thing is that most of these old fogies won't be able to get up.

[mostpost]

Unconstitutional. The burden of proof in our society lies on the government or the prosecution. Requiring a defendant to act in there own behalf first, is illegal.
it's not a trial and the person is not a defendant. It would be more like a lawsuit and the person trying to get off the list would be the plaintiff with the government as the defendant.

I a short time, I am going to post some ideas as to how to solve this. I welcome your comments. Hell, it's not like I could stop you.

[johnhannibalsmith]

it's not a trial and the person is not a defendant. It would be more like a lawsuit and the person trying to get off the list would be the plaintiff with the government as the defendant.

...

Do you support such a list, any old list that you have no insight into and no control over and no access to, being used to remove an American's right to assemble? To free expression and speech? To practice religion openly? From unreasonable search and seizure? To register to vote?

As long as you have to hire an expensive lawyer and sue the government to get off this list and restore those intrinsic protections and rights?

Of course you don't. So don't open the door by justifying this one because it doesn't affect you personally.

[Parkview_Pirate]

it's not a trial and the person is not a defendant. It would be more like a lawsuit and the person trying to get off the list would be the plaintiff with the government as the defendant.

I a short time, I am going to post some ideas as to how to solve this. I welcome your comments. Hell, it's not like I could stop you.

Well, I hope it doesn't involve a list. If a person is deemed too dangerous to fly, then they should be in jail or deported.

[Clocker]

it's not a trial and the person is not a defendant. It would be more like a lawsuit and the person trying to get off the list would be the plaintiff with the government as the defendant.



You are talking about the process to get off the list. It is being put on the list in the first place without probable cause or due process that is unconstitutional. It is a violation of the 5th Amendment. And now the clowns in Congress want to use this violation of the 5th Amendment as an excuse to violate the 2nd Amendment.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
it's not a trial and the person is not a defendant. It would be more like a lawsuit and the person trying to get off the list would be the plaintiff with the government as the defendant.

I a short time, I am going to post some ideas as to how to solve this. I welcome your comments. Hell, it's not like I could stop you.


You amaze me at how stupid you can be, setting new records every week.
You are sanctioning the forcing of Jews to wear Stars of David. You disgusting excuse of a human being. What kind of a fascist puts the onus of having to prove your innocence on the citizen and not the government.

Oh, your kind of fascist. If Trump wins, I will tell him your last name is Sanchez and then YOU can try to prove you should not be deported.

[Fager Fan]

Ok, my fellow conservatives, where was your concern about the No Fly List prior? We've heard of little snags here and there, of some person who was mistakenly on the list, but they've apparently gotten off the list. Is being on the list mistakenly really that much of a problem? If so, I haven't been hearing about it.

Being on the No Fly List mistakenly is probably a bigger hardship on people regarding their ability to fly than buy a gun. You may already own a gun or you can wait for days (or weeks or months) without being pressed to get that gun in your hand. However, if you have to travel for business or just want to go on a trip or honeymoon, it can be a pressing matter. Where is the huge outcry over how terribly this list is and how it's causing business people to miss important meetings and the girl in Savannah who had to cancel her honeymoon to Tahiti?

[Tom]

I've posted the outrage before.
I was on the GD list once.

When you board an airplane, give every other passenger a loaded Glock.
Then you will not need a stupid list or airport security.

The reason 9/11 happened is because the planes were gun-free zones.
Had passenger been armed, none of the plane would have hit anything.

This way, you would WANT terrorists to be on planes, just so you could blow them away and get them their raisins.

[Clocker]

Oh, your kind of fascist. If Trump wins, I will tell him your last name is Sanchez and then YOU can try to prove you should not be deported.



Mohammed al-Mostie Sanchez! :p

[johnhannibalsmith]

I'm probably not considered a 'fellow conservative' unless we are on this topic or perhaps one about central government spending and power, but unless it hasn't come up here in the past I'm sure I've spoken out against the overall nature of the list. I didn't even like it when we executed an American citizen on foreign soil based on such a list. I do recognize that one of the only truly legitimate functions of central government is national security and am willing to be pragmatic about meeting that goal so we don't act like 18th century Brits wondering why the colonists fight with such dishonor, but I'm more than willing to play to role of idealist to keep that ball from rolling full steam ahead until we've grown accustomed to shredding basic protections.

[Fager Fan]

I've posted the outrage before.
I was on the GD list once.

When you board an airplane, give every other passenger a loaded Glock.
Then you will not need a stupid list or airport security.

The reason 9/11 happened is because the planes were gun-free zones.
Had passenger been armed, none of the plane would have hit anything.

This way, you would WANT terrorists to be on planes, just so you could blow them away and get them their raisins.

I guess you got off the list, too.

No offense to you, but you're going extreme and it doesn't help your side. Give every passenger a Glock and one of the idiots will blow a hole in the plane.

[mostpost]

Here then is my comprehensive plan for fixing the no fly list and whatever other lists there are.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY ANYONE WHO IS ON THE LIST.
1. The government should as quickly as possible make a good faith effort to notify anyone who is currently on the list. They should not be required to explain why the person is on the list at this time.
(By good faith effort, I mean by mail, email or text. Or all three.)

2. When a new person is added to the list, the government has a set period of time to notify that person. (Maybe thirty days.)Again, no explanation should be required at this time.

3. A system should be set up whereby, each time a person makes a flight reservation, they are notified whether or not they are on the no fly list and if the reservation has been accepted. If we have the capacity to notify someone at the airport when they are preparing to board their flight, we certainly have the capacity to notify them when they are booking a flight on line. Or via the phone.

A SPECIFIC APPEALS PROCESS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED, INCLUDING A SPECIAL COURT-MAYBE AS PART OF FISA courts.
1. An individual would have the right to appeal to the Special Court.
2. The government would be required to state the reason(s) the individual was placed on the list.
3. The government would be allowed to present to the judge reasons they could not comply with #2. Reasons such as national security, an ongoing investigation which would be compromised, or the divulging of classified information.
4. In regards to #3, the judge would have leeway to exclude some information while including as much as possible to benefit the individual.
5. The burden of proof would be on the individual as plaintiff to prove he does not belong on the list.

Obviously a new law or new laws would have to be enacted. It would cost money to setup and run the courts involved. As always we would have to depend on the integrity of the judges assigned.

Or, we can continue to do what we are doing where one does not even know he is on the list until it is too late, has no recourse or even a way of finding out why and is able to purchase almost any kind of weapon despite being considered dangerous enough to be kept off commercial aircraft.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I'm not going to peck at the proposals mosite because at least you are trying to address the problem responsibility. Your ideas (other than having it under the FISA umbrella) are vastly better than anything currently considered. These are concepts, at least the founding principles that drive your ideas, that should have been implemented years ago. Thanks for a decent post on the matter. With some basic effort as suggested we can in fact find common ground in a way that is a win-win for everyone.

[Tom]

I guess you got off the list, too.

No offense to you, but you're going extreme and it doesn't help your side. Give every passenger a Glock and one of the idiots will blow a hole in the plane.

No, I specifically said every other passenger, assuming 50% of the passengers would be democrats, therefore, not fit to fire a weapon. ;)

[JustRalph]

Here then is my comprehensive plan for fixing the no fly list and whatever other lists there are.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY ANYONE WHO IS ON THE LIST.
1. The government should as quickly as possible make a good faith effort to notify anyone who is currently on the list. They should not be required to explain why the person is on the list at this time.
(By good faith effort, I mean by mail, email or text. Or all three.)

2. When a new person is added to the list, the government has a set period of time to notify that person. (Maybe thirty days.)Again, no explanation should be required at this time.

3. A system should be set up whereby, each time a person makes a flight reservation, they are notified whether or not they are on the no fly list and if the reservation has been accepted. If we have the capacity to notify someone at the airport when they are preparing to board their flight, we certainly have the capacity to notify them when they are booking a flight on line. Or via the phone.

A SPECIFIC APPEALS PROCESS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED, INCLUDING A SPECIAL COURT-MAYBE AS PART OF FISA courts.
1. An individual would have the right to appeal to the Special Court.
2. The government would be required to state the reason(s) the individual was placed on the list.
3. The government would be allowed to present to the judge reasons they could not comply with #2. Reasons such as national security, an ongoing investigation which would be compromised, or the divulging of classified information.
4. In regards to #3, the judge would have leeway to exclude some information while including as much as possible to benefit the individual.
5. The burden of proof would be on the individual as plaintiff to prove he does not belong on the list.

Obviously a new law or new laws would have to be enacted. It would cost money to setup and run the courts involved. As always we would have to depend on the integrity of the judges assigned.

Or, we can continue to do what we are doing where one does not even know he is on the list until it is too late, has no recourse or even a way of finding out why and is able to purchase almost any kind of weapon despite being considered dangerous enough to be kept off commercial aircraft.

Millions of dollars and huge delays. Due process be damned....no way this government can make it happen

[Parkview_Pirate]

Here then is my comprehensive plan for fixing the no fly list and whatever other lists there are.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY ANYONE WHO IS ON THE LIST.
1. The government should as quickly as possible make a good faith effort to notify anyone who is currently on the list. They should not be required to explain why the person is on the list at this time.
(By good faith effort, I mean by mail, email or text. Or all three.)

2. When a new person is added to the list, the government has a set period of time to notify that person. (Maybe thirty days.)Again, no explanation should be required at this time.

3. A system should be set up whereby, each time a person makes a flight reservation, they are notified whether or not they are on the no fly list and if the reservation has been accepted. If we have the capacity to notify someone at the airport when they are preparing to board their flight, we certainly have the capacity to notify them when they are booking a flight on line. Or via the phone.

A SPECIFIC APPEALS PROCESS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED, INCLUDING A SPECIAL COURT-MAYBE AS PART OF FISA courts.
1. An individual would have the right to appeal to the Special Court.
2. The government would be required to state the reason(s) the individual was placed on the list.
3. The government would be allowed to present to the judge reasons they could not comply with #2. Reasons such as national security, an ongoing investigation which would be compromised, or the divulging of classified information.
4. In regards to #3, the judge would have leeway to exclude some information while including as much as possible to benefit the individual.
5. The burden of proof would be on the individual as plaintiff to prove he does not belong on the list.

Obviously a new law or new laws would have to be enacted. It would cost money to setup and run the courts involved. As always we would have to depend on the integrity of the judges assigned.

Or, we can continue to do what we are doing where one does not even know he is on the list until it is too late, has no recourse or even a way of finding out why and is able to purchase almost any kind of weapon despite being considered dangerous enough to be kept off commercial aircraft.

You're trying to solve something that really isn't a problem, with <shocker> more government bureaucracy, where it then will become more of a problem.

Not sure exactly how one gets to be on the no-fly list, but again if deemed too dangerous to fly then a person shouldn't be out in public anyway.

[Clocker]

2. When a new person is added to the list, the government has a set period of time to notify that person. (Maybe thirty days.)Again, no explanation should be required at this time.



Bad start. Thirty days of delay equals thirty days of violation of due process. The government needs to contact the person before putting him on the list and allow due process without delay. If the government has probable cause to believe that he is dangerous enough to be put on the list immediately, the evidence should be presented to a judge, the judge should authorize it, and the person should be notified immediately.

[mostpost]

I'm not going to peck at the proposals mosite because at least you are trying to address the problem responsibility. Your ideas (other than having it under the FISA umbrella) are vastly better than anything currently considered. These are concepts, at least the founding principles that drive your ideas, that should have been implemented years ago. Thanks for a decent post on the matter. With some basic effort as suggested we can in fact find common ground in a way that is a win-win for everyone.
Thanks for the kind words. The reason I suggested the FISA court was because it is already established and could save considerable money. And also because this court has some expertise in national security. However, any reasonable alternative should be considered.

In the matter of the burden of proof being on the individual, I may be altering my position. I googled "Burden of proof in civil lawsuits" and found that it was not exactly what I thought.

At the start of a civil suit (which is what this would be), each side is considered to be 50% right and 50% wrong. As the evidence is presented, that balance shifts and at the end one side or the other is determined to have the better case. That difference can be as small as 51% to 49%. So, the Burden of Proof should be on each side equally.

[mostpost]

Bad start. Thirty days of delay equals thirty days of violation of due process. The government needs to contact the person before putting him on the list and allow due process without delay. If the government has probable cause to believe that he is dangerous enough to be put on the list immediately, the evidence should be presented to a judge, the judge should authorize it, and the person should be notified immediately.

That is just not practical. Stop thinking of this as the government taking away the freedom of the individual. The only thing a person on the no fly list can't do is fly. They are not going to jail; they are not being executed; they are not even being fined. I'm pretty sure there is no constitutional right to fly. To travel yes, to fly no.

If a person is accused of murder and is considered a flight risk or is unable to post bail, he is kept in jail. The trial may be months away. Are you going to argue that person should be let back out on the streets?

[AndyC]

Thanks for the kind words. The reason I suggested the FISA court was because it is already established and could save considerable money. And also because this court has some expertise in national security. However, any reasonable alternative should be considered.

In the matter of the burden of proof being on the individual, I may be altering my position. I googled "Burden of proof in civil lawsuits" and found that it was not exactly what I thought.

At the start of a civil suit (which is what this would be), each side is considered to be 50% right and 50% wrong. As the evidence is presented, that balance shifts and at the end one side or the other is determined to have the better case. That difference can be as small as 51% to 49%. So, the Burden of Proof should be on each side equally.

Burden of proof should never be 50/50 when constitutional rights are being taken away.

The government should be obligated to present their case within X number of days or any ban should be lifted. Currently there is a backlog of some 3 years for immigration hearings. I can foresee a convenient 3 year wait for a no-fly list hearing.

[mostpost]

No, I specifically said every other passenger, assuming 50% of the passengers would be democrats, therefore, not fit to fire a weapon. ;)
It's the Democrats who are most fit to carry a weapon, since we don't think the solution to every problem is to shoot someone.

[mostpost]

Burden of proof should never be 50/50 when constitutional rights are being taken away.

The government should be obligated to present their case within X number of days or any ban should be lifted. Currently there is a backlog of some 3 years for immigration hearings. I can foresee a convenient 3 year wait for a no-fly list hearing.
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FLY.

[Tom]

Ridiculous idea.
A person indited and jailed has had due process of law.

[Clocker]

Stop thinking of this as the government taking away the freedom of the individual.

It most certainly is taking away freedom without probable cause and without due process. In today's world, the inability to fly can mean the inability to earn a living for some people. Flying is not a luxury, it is a necessity of modern life for many, to their eternal sorrow. And you casually talk about the government taking that away, possibly for a long period, and putting the burden of proof on the citizen.

To repeat, our legal system is based on the presumption of innocence. The current system, and your proposed 'improvements', are based on the presumption of guilt. And it is not even the presumption of being guilty of having committed a crime. It is the presumption of your probability of committing a crime. That's the realm of the Thought Police.

[Tom]

If you tie buying a gun - a second amendment right - to the NFL, then you cannot deny them the right to fly and you cannot put them on a list that does not allow them to fly.

Get it through your head - the government CANNOT deny citizens their rights without due process.

[Clocker]

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FLY.

Spoken like an ignorant American tourist who thinks that foreigners will understand English if you speak it loud enough.

You are speaking a foreign language here, and you don't understand that you are not communicating.

There is no right to fly specifically spelled out in the Constitution. There is no specific right to own an AR-15 spelled out in the Constitution either, and there are troglodytes on the left that argue that the 2nd Amendment applies only to muskets. There is no specific right to abortion spelled out in the Constitution either. But the courts have ruled that the principles in the Constitution make abortion and owning AR-15s basic rights.

Being put on a no-fly list is certainly a restriction of personal liberty. The courts have yet to rule as to whether or not that is enough of a restriction so as to infringe on our constitutional rights. You and the government are assuming, without legal process and proof, that it is not. I'd rather not have you or the government make that determination.

You say that there is no constitutional right to fly. I say that it has never been established under law that there is not such a right.

[johnhannibalsmith]

As nice as it would be to undo a lot of these extrajudicial or pseudo-extrajudicial components of our system, it isn't going to happen with the trajectory of our population (incorrectly, in my opinion, for the record) as a near-whole believing that the government is capable of responsibly making exceptions to basic principles. But what we can do is improve them and if you look at mostpost's ideas strictly in terms of the NFL, the concepts at least address a few of the major and most blatant offenses in a better way. Perfect? No, not at all. Better? I'd say so. I'd get behind trekking down his road if only for the sole reason to get a little closer to the sort of checks that we are entitled to as citizens. And the best news of all is that by the time we ever managed to get anything remotely close to this accomplished, there would be plenty of time for the dipshits in Congress to explain the concept of a constitutional convention whereby the people and the states can settle this once and for all and write an amendment with language that doesn't cause every bill to spend an eternity in court review regardless. If you allege to be so utterly serious about the need for change and that there is a mandate from the citizens and you are tired of poorly crafted legislation that may or may not stand, here's your chance. Prove you don't want to piss on the Constitution. Utilize it.

[Tom]

IT has to be done in a comprehensive, 100% now format or it will not work.
As we saw in the 1986 Immigration Act, Reagan got hoodwinked by the slime-ball Ted Kennedy. Promises were made up front, Ronny assumed Teddy to be a man of honor and integrity :lol::lol::lol: and now we have 22-25 million illegals here.

Do not ever trust a democrat on anything.
Their goals have nothing to do with any bills or compromises you are working on. That is just an excuse for them to forward their communist agenda.

[Fager Fan]

Burden of proof should never be 50/50 when constitutional rights are being taken away.

The government should be obligated to present their case within X number of days or any ban should be lifted. Currently there is a backlog of some 3 years for immigration hearings. I can foresee a convenient 3 year wait for a no-fly list hearing.

Is there currently a 3-year wait to get off the no-fly list?

If not, then why do you see the sky as falling?

[Fager Fan]

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FLY.

Goodness. Stay up with the conversation. If they use the same list to refuse the sale of a gun that is legal to others, then THAT is where the unconstitutionality comes from.

[Fager Fan]

It most certainly is taking away freedom without probable cause and without due process. In today's world, the inability to fly can mean the inability to earn a living for some people. Flying is not a luxury, it is a necessity of modern life for many, to their eternal sorrow. And you casually talk about the government taking that away, possibly for a long period, and putting the burden of proof on the citizen.

To repeat, our legal system is based on the presumption of innocence. The current system, and your proposed 'improvements', are based on the presumption of guilt. And it is not even the presumption of being guilty of having committed a crime. It is the presumption of your probability of committing a crime. That's the realm of the Thought Police.

The inability to drive is worse, but that doesn't stop governments from suspending and revoking drivers' licenses.

[MONEY]

You say that there is no constitutional right to fly. I say that it has never been established under law that there is not such a right.

The U.S. Constitution protects our lawful rights.

U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103

[Fager Fan]

Both sides in here are making nutty arguments. Try meeting in the middle and not being so extreme (and wrong) in your arguments.

[Clocker]

Both sides in here are making nutty arguments. Try meeting in the middle and not being so extreme (and wrong) in your arguments.

What is so nutty about due process?

[boxcar]

That is just not practical. Stop thinking of this as the government taking away the freedom of the individual. The only thing a person on the no fly list can't do is fly. They are not going to jail; they are not being executed; they are not even being fined. I'm pretty sure there is no constitutional right to fly. To travel yes, to fly no.

If a person is accused of murder and is considered a flight risk or is unable to post bail, he is kept in jail. The trial may be months away. Are you going to argue that person should be let back out on the streets?

You should FLY thousands of miles around analogies because you give really bad ones. :rolleyes: An accused murderer could only be considered a "flight risk" at his formal court arraignment. And cases that reach that level are considered to be strong enough to be winnable by the D.A. Are people on a no-fly list indicted for anything?

[boxcar]

Mohammed al-Mostie Sanchez! :p

A sure one-way ticket out of the country. :lol: :lol:

[Clocker]

The inability to drive is worse, but that doesn't stop governments from suspending and revoking drivers' licenses.

The courts have ruled that driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. And no one revokes your driver's license without due process or based on a secret list.

[davew]

The House of Representatives has riles of conduct - why doesn't the Sargeant of Arms remove these people?

[Fager Fan]

The courts have ruled that driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. And no one revokes your driver's license without due process or based on a secret list.

You made the case that flying could be a "right" hence my response. And no, you lose the ability to drive immediately upon blowing over the limit or refusing to blow.

You need to offer a compromise solution instead of just saying no.

[Clocker]

You made the case that flying could be a "right" hence my response. And no, you lose the ability to drive immediately upon blowing over the limit or refusing to blow.

You need to offer a compromise solution instead of just saying no.

I speculated that flying might be covered under the right to liberty. In any case, all rights are limited such that your exercise of a right can't infringe on the rights of others.

Losing your license for refusing a sobriety test is due process because of implied consent.

And no, there is no compromise on due process. Period.

[Parkview_Pirate]

And no, there is no compromise on due process. Period.

You would think that concept would be quite clear to any American who ever took a civics class. But in the U.S. today, the Bill of Rights is under attack from all directions, and those screaming the loudest for changes we MUST have don't realize they're putting their necks in the noose.

It's a sad state of affairs.

[Tom]

The inability to drive is worse, but that doesn't stop governments from suspending and revoking drivers' licenses.

Through due process.

[AndyC]

Is there currently a 3-year wait to get off the no-fly list?

If not, then why do you see the sky as falling?

Because there is no set process or time limit to respond to people on the no-fly list. The government with no due process could take away constitutional rights. With the proper safeguards I am not against using such a list as a no gun purchase list. I am against such a list now because it would be an uncontrolled tool of government to take away rights of people they don't agree with.

[MutuelClerk]

The country should be in uproar. The " problem " is 80-90% agree with the actions. So there is that. More uproar. Good.

[Clocker]

The country should be in uproar. The " problem " is 80-90% agree with the actions. So there is that. More uproar. Good.

The problem is that the majority don't understand the issues, and you can get any polling result you want depending on how you word the question.

After the mass school shooting a few years back, a poll was said to show that 80+% of Americans favored stricter gun controls, including a majority of gun owners. But the question asked was, do you favor expanded background checks that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental health problems.

Who could say no to that? And who could write a bill to do that?

[Clocker]

How's this for due process?

In 2005, Rahinah Ibrahim, a Malaysian architecture professor and doctoral candidate at Stanford University, went to San Francisco International Airport where she was told that she couldn't board an airplane.

Her name was on a government no-fly list of suspected terrorists.

Eight years of court battles later, a federal judge agreed that Ibrahim didn't belong on the list.

The FBI ultimately acknowledged that she ended up on there because an agent investigating her had checked the wrong box on a form, said her attorney, Elizabeth Pipkin.

Of course, she wasn't a citizen, so she had no rights. And the government would never do that to a citizen, would they? :eek:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/06/23/it-took-this-innocent-woman-eight-years-to-get-off-the-nofly-list-n2182845 (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/06/23/it-took-this-innocent-woman-eight-years-to-get-off-the-nofly-list-n2182845)

[mostpost]

IT has to be done in a comprehensive, 100% now format or it will not work.
As we saw in the 1986 Immigration Act, Reagan got hoodwinked by the slime-ball Ted Kennedy. Promises were made up front, Ronny assumed Teddy to be a man of honor and integrity :lol::lol::lol: and now we have 22-25 million illegals here.

Do not ever trust a democrat on anything.
Their goals have nothing to do with any bills or compromises you are working on. That is just an excuse for them to forward their communist agenda.
Exactly how did Reagan get hoodwinked by Kennedy?

[Fager Fan]

Through due process.

No, it's suspended immediately. You then may get it back after going to court.

I agree that the process should be quick, but we're not hearing of many who haven't been able to get it fixed. You apparently did. How long did it take you? We have one story posted just above. We need it to be quick, but we also shouldn't act as though mistakenly being on the list has been a huge problem.

[Tom]

Exactly how did Reagan get hoodwinked by Kennedy?


He believed him.

[Tom]

No, it's suspended immediately. You then may get it back after going to court.

I agree that the process should be quick, but we're not hearing of many who haven't been able to get it fixed. You apparently did. How long did it take you? We have one story posted just above. We need it to be quick, but we also shouldn't act as though mistakenly being on the list has been a huge problem.

That is the defined process - due process.
There is clearly identified criteria for the suspension, not whim.

[mostpost]

He believed him.
Stop avoiding the issue. He believed him about what? Or is this another example of him shooting your mouth with no ammunition. Failure to answer will constitute proof of your further dishonesty.

[Tom]

I thought you knew everything already?

Kennedy got Reagan to agree to blanket amnesty in exchange for laws to restrict immigration. But Dead Ted made sure the rules were written in such a manner as to be virtually unenforceable.

At the time, we considered the left to be worthy opponents who just differed from us in philosophies. The 1986 Screw Job showed us that we are dealing with lying bastards who cannot be trusted. BTW both Bushes must have missed the memo. They, too, allowed the left to push them the wrong way.

Not to worry....we have TRUMP now.

[mostpost]

I thought you knew everything already?

Kennedy got Reagan to agree to blanket amnesty in exchange for laws to restrict immigration. But Dead Ted made sure the rules were written in such a manner as to be virtually unenforceable.

At the time, we considered the left to be worthy opponents who just differed from us in philosophies. The 1986 Screw Job showed us that we are dealing with lying bastards who cannot be trusted. BTW both Bushes must have missed the memo. They, too, allowed the left to push them the wrong way.

Not to worry....we have TRUMP now.
I do know everything, but I don't know things that never happened.According to the New York Times, Kennedy voted against amnesty in 1986-as did many Democrats-so why would he try to get Reagan to agree to it.

Kennedy was not a sponsor of the legislation. In the Senate, the only sponsor was Alan Simpson, a Republican from Wyoming. In the House, Peter Rodino, Democrat from New York was a sponsor. There may have been others.

The Washington Post says that in order to gain support from business, the sponsors watered down the enforcement provisions of the law; the sponsors, not Ted Kennedy.

While the law required an immigrant to supply the employer with a valid ID proving he was legal, it also stated that the employer only had to be reasonably certain that the ID seemed valid. And the law punished the Employer if he made too intense inquiries into the immigrants status.

A second problem was that Congress never appropriated sufficient funds to increase border security. I am not sure which party controlled Congress at the time; but I do know which party is not fond of appropriating money.

[Tom]

but I do know which party is not fond of appropriating money.

It only looks that way compared to the party that pisses away money faster than a race horse on lasix.

[dartman51]

I do know everything, but I don't know things that never happened.According to the New York Times, Kennedy voted against amnesty in 1986-as did many Democrats-so why would he try to get Reagan to agree to it.

Kennedy was not a sponsor of the legislation. In the Senate, the only sponsor was Alan Simpson, a Republican from Wyoming. In the House, Peter Rodino, Democrat from New York was a sponsor. There may have been others.

The Washington Post says that in order to gain support from business, the sponsors watered down the enforcement provisions of the law; the sponsors, not Ted Kennedy.

While the law required an immigrant to supply the employer with a valid ID proving he was legal, it also stated that the employer only had to be reasonably certain that the ID seemed valid. And the law punished the Employer if he made too intense inquiries into the immigrants status.

A second problem was that Congress never appropriated sufficient funds to increase border security. I am not sure which party controlled Congress at the time; but I do know which party is not fond of appropriating money.

There were 2 sponsors of the bill. Alan Simpson, a Republican from Wyoming, and Romano Mazzoli, a Democrat from Kentucky. :ThmbUp:

[Clocker]

Paul Ryan said that the House will take up a terrorism bill after the July 4th recess, including a provision to prevent suspected terrorists from purchasing guns. Democrats say that they will oppose any bill that contains 'probable cause' or 'due process' restrictions on the government's ability to deny gun purchases.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/286122-house-to-vote-on-gun-bill-next-week (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/286122-house-to-vote-on-gun-bill-next-week)

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Democrats say that they will oppose any bill that contains 'probable cause' or 'due process' restrictions on the government's ability to deny gun purchases.
...

If there's no cow to milk, you might have to dine on steak.

[Tom]

Does Paul Ryan understand that the democrats are the real enemy here?
They have done far more harm to the nation than Al Qeda and ISIS combined. They will more harm in the coming years than any terrorist group ever will.

Let's put together some kind of gun/dem bill.........

[Track Collector]

Does Paul Ryan understand that the democrats are the real enemy here?
They have done far more harm to the nation than Al Qeda and ISIS combined. They will more harm in the coming years than any terrorist group ever will.

Let's put together some kind of gun/dem bill.........

No, Paul Ryan is part of the older Republican ESTABLISHMENT. Don't expect him to do conservatives any favors.

Hasn't endorsed Trump yet either, has he? Remember for many ESTABLISHMENT Republicans, they keep their niche power positions with Hillary that they would likely lose if Trump wins the presidency. With Hillary they can pretend to be fighting for their side, while at the same time going along with the other side.

A Trump presidency at least has some potential to flush out some of the career politicians on both sides of the isle, particularly in key appointment areas. (Call me foolish, but I still cling to "some" hope.). I guess that makes me one of those bitter clingers. :p

[Tom]

There is no hope beyond Trump.

[reckless]

There is no hope beyond Trump.

Republican's who live in Wisconsin's 1st CD district could vote in their August 9 -- for conservative Paul Nehlen.

Paul Ryan is the epitome of everything that is wrong with the GOP and a Paul Nehlen upset win will send a big message to Washington and the RNC that the people still have a say in their government and their life.

[Thebart]

No, Paul Ryan is part of the older Republican ESTABLISHMENT. Don't expect him to do conservatives any favors.

Hasn't endorsed Trump yet either, has he? Remember for many ESTABLISHMENT Republicans, they keep their niche power positions with Hillary that they would likely lose if Trump wins the presidency. With Hillary they can pretend to be fighting for their side, while at the same time going along with the other side.

A Trump presidency at least has some potential to flush out some of the career politicians on both sides of the isle, particularly in key appointment areas. (Call me foolish, but I still cling to "some" hope.). I guess that makes me one of those bitter clingers. :p

Foolish doesn't do justice to your right wing blindness. The real liar in this election are the twin evils of Trump and Cruz. Lying Ted and Don the Con. If they win, you will see once and for all how duped you are.

[rastajenk]

In what way? Will they be new and unusual ways of being duped? Or just the same old bait and switch we've experienced under The One?

[rastajenk]

:p :p

Double post somehow. :blush:

[Tom]

Foolish doesn't do justice to your right wing blindness. The real liar in this election are the twin evils of Trump and Cruz. Lying Ted and Don the Con. If they win, you will see once and for all how duped you are.

If Hillary wins, we have not been duped? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hillary told the truth once.
1994, and she had been drinking heavily at the time.

[Clocker]

Coming soon to a socialist state near you. Governor Moonbeam in California signed 6 new gun control bills into law. Some were minor. One big one is the requirement to show ID and undergo a background check to buy ammo. The law will also establish a state database of people who buy ammo.

It is currently illegal to buy or sell 'high capacity' magazines in the state, those capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Any 'hi-cap' magazine purchased before that law went into effect was grandfathered. A new law will make it illegal to possess such a magazine. If you own any, you must get rid of them.

Another law prohibits lending a gun without a background check to anyone except to your parent, child, sibling, grandparent, or grandchild. The loan of a gun cannot exceed 30 days.

[Tom]

Nothing a good old black market with no id's checked, no questions asked won't solve.

[Clocker]

Nothing a good old black market with no id's checked, no questions asked won't solve.

I am shocked, shocked at the suggestion that citizens of the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia would not comply totally and willingly with the law.

They should take their example from the law-abiding citizens of the Peoples Republic of New York, where citizens rushed to comply with the requirement that they register their 'assault weapons'.

The law was enacted in 2013, and within just 2 years over 44,000 weapons were registered, out of an estimated 1 million owned in the state.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/23/gun-group-cites-low-compliance/29193905/

[davew]

Does Paul Ryan understand that the democrats are the real enemy here?
They have done far more harm to the nation than Al Qeda and ISIS combined. They will more harm in the coming years than any terrorist group ever will.

Let's put together some kind of gun/dem bill.........

the black caucus is going to disrupt Ryan this week in the house

[Tom]

I open he has them thrown out and then arrested.

Racist thugs.


Gun deaths would be cut considerably if the BC has some influence on Black people. This is the pot calling the........never mind. :rolleyes: