• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Divided Senate Rejects Gun Curbs, Despite Orlando Massacre [W: 710]

TurtleDude said:
think what the headline of that biased article said

every time there is a massacre, there should be more restrictions passed on honest gun owners.
Click to expand...

Exactly - hence the reason I mentioned the bias, and the reason I used this article to post rather than others that were hitting the interwebs at about the same time - to not only discuss the votes in the Senate, but to also discuss the bias of many in the media against the 2nd Amendment Rights of the people. When we have main line first tier news organizations framing the conversation around a fundamental right as if the right itself is what posses the danger and threat to the citizens of this country, it MUST be shown for what it is.

There are many here that accuse you, me, and others that are pro-2A, of being paranoid when we state that the banners and 2A haters are after our guns, well...

I can't remember who said this first, but it's as true in this instance as it is anywhere else: It ain't paranoia if they really are after you.
 
Bootlace said:
You're speaking my language now. I started reloading about 16 years ago.
Click to expand...

I've reloaded shotgun and pistol rounds for over 40 years (was taught how as a kid by my uncle - I'm 52 now), and I'm looking forward to start doing so with my rifle rounds. I have a fire safe that I keep my powder and primers in. I also have a few #8 caps that I can use with ANFO to remove stumps from the ground.
 
haymarket said:
I remember my three years working for the Michigan legislature when the Republicans had majorities in both houses and took a so called "education crisis" in Detroit and passed all manner of legislation which basically castrated the Detroit school system, the union and its employees, and what remains is a shell of the district.

But why let a crisis go to waste as you say.
Click to expand...

Taking corrective action on a failing government agency is a valid response by government. A school district that has more kids enter prison than graduate, and a literacy level below third world countries is a valid target for government scrutiny.

Taking away constitutional rights that wouldn't stop the crisis in question is not a valid use, it is an excuse.

A valid government response to the Orlando shooting is to figure out why it was that the shooter managed to avoid the detection for so long even while being interviewed numerous times by federal police agencies. The government failed so miserably that they gave this dirt bag a job as an armed guard. Focus on those failures, not the rights of people who didn't shoot anyone.

So, to differentiate to two examples: The response in Detroit to a glaring issue in Detroit schools is to fix government while the Democrats response to the failures of government in Orlando is more government and fewer rights.
 
Last edited:
Below is an email I got from Kelly Ayotte's mass email (if anyone is curious why she broke ranks on the one bill):

Good morning,

Last night, I voted on several gun-related amendments, and today there will no doubt be a lot of misinformation flying around about those votes. So, I wanted to make sure that you heard the truth directly from me.

To watch my floor speech regarding last night’s votes, click here.


We need to more aggressively take the fight to ISIS and radical Islamist terrorists, and I'm going to keep pushing the White House to do so.

But we are now fighting the threat here at home, and I believe that suspected terrorists – particularly those who are too dangerous to board a plane -- should not be able to purchase guns. I also believe in protecting Americans’ 2nd Amendment and due process rights.

Last night we voted on two proposals – one from a Republican and one from a Democrat – aimed at accomplishing both those goals. I had concerns with both proposals, but voted to move forward with debate to force a conversation and come to agreement on a real solution that will actually pass the Senate.


Both measures failed on near-party line votes. There is no room for partisan games and gridlock when it comes to keeping our country safe from terrorism. So, I'm joining today with several colleagues to offer a common-sense solution that targets terrorists and protects the rights of law-abiding citizens – and that both parties can support.


Here's the solution we're offering:
•Target Terrorists: let's prohibit the sale of guns to terrorism suspects who are on the “No Fly” list or the “selectee” list for additional airport screening.

•Protect Americans’ Rights: let's make sure that if you are an American citizen who feels you've been put on one of these lists unfairly, you get an expedited review in court to remove yourself from the list and that your attorney's fees are paid for by the government if they were in the wrong.

•Look-Back at Previous Threats: let's guard against intelligence gaps and ensure that the FBI gets a head's up if a person who has been on the broader terrorist watchlist within the past five years - like the Orlando terrorist - tries to buy a gun.

We can destroy ISIS and defend our rights.

My colleagues and I are working toward that goal, and we're calling on the full Senate to step up and join us.

I know these are issues about which many people are very passionate. So, if you have any additional comments or concerns, please don't hesitate to reply at kelly@kellyfornh.com
 
jonny5 said:
At what point can you lock someone up for thoughts? The guy didnt harm anyone until he did.
Click to expand...

That's what's wrong with liberal thinking. This guy was on terror watch lists. He was investigated by the FBI for years. He was a known threat but we live in a liberal society where you have the right to murder as many people as you want and, if you don't die in the process, we are going to throw the book at you - after 49 people are already dead. And then we wonder how we could have stopped it. Duh.

On a smaller scale (or your could say a larger scale) we have thousands, if not millions, of domestic violence issues where we let the guy kill the woman. The police have been repeatedly called to the residence, threats to her life have been made, protective orders have been issued, and guess what? The guy kills her when we should have known that he would. How many women are smart enough to be afraid of getting a restraining order against a guy because they know it is nothing but a worthless piece of paper that is not going to protect her life? When are we going to wake up and remove dangerous people from the streets who are a threat to society? If we had a complete ban on assault weapons, do you think this Orlando guy would have never been a threat to anyone?
 
tres borrachos said:
Below is an email I got from Kelly Ayotte's mass email (if anyone is curious why she broke ranks on the one bill):

[...]
Click to expand...

Here's the parts that I STILL have a major problem with:

But we are now fighting the threat here at home, and I believe that suspected terrorists – particularly those who are too dangerous to board a plane -- should not be able to purchase guns.
Click to expand...
If the government has evidence that you're too dangerous to fly on an airplane, then you're too dangerous to walk freely around in public, and the government should charge you with a crime, take you to court, and get you convicted of whatever crime you've committed.

•Target Terrorists: let's prohibit the sale of guns to terrorism suspects who are on the “No Fly” list or the “selectee” list for additional airport screening.

•Protect Americans’ Rights: let's make sure that if you are an American citizen who feels you've been put on one of these lists unfairly, you get an expedited review in court to remove yourself from the list and that your attorney's fees are paid for by the government if they were in the wrong.

•Look-Back at Previous Threats: let's guard against intelligence gaps and ensure that the FBI gets a head's up if a person who has been on the broader terrorist watchlist within the past five years - like the Orlando terrorist - tries to buy a gun.
Click to expand...

What the above says, is that we are still guilty until proven innocent, and we have to prove our innocence in court - that is not the way the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment work, and it's also against standing settled law in Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) codifying the Presumption of Innocence of persons accused of crimes.

This is just more pandering to fear, and still a threat to our freedom and liberty.

I am so disappointed in her, and many others in the Senate right now.
 
Moderate Right said:
Gun violence can never progress in a positive direction until the left comes to their senses and realizes that it isn't gun control we need but people control. Time and time and time again the people that commit these horrendous acts, including Orlando, have had warning signs all over the place. If he had been properly taken care of and we implied people control before the fact instead of after the fact by keeping dangerous people off the streets we wouldn't even need gun control and a lot of people wouldn't even feel the need to own guns because they would be rather useless and unnecessary. This guy was a radical, hell bent on killing a bunch of people. Would it really have made any difference if there was a total ban on assault weapons and he couldn't get one? Wouldn't he have just bought some pressure cookers filled with nails and brought them into the club somehow? Aren't we wasting our time talking about the weapon of choice when this guy really shouldn't have been on the streets in the first place? That's the real issue, letting these people who are an obvious threat to society have the freedom to do this at all.
Click to expand...

But how do you arrest or confine someone who hasn't committed a crime? If all Mateen did prior to going on his terrorist killing spree was exercise his 1st Amendment right to free speech and voiced anti-American/anti-gay sentiments, how do you lock him up and throw away the key for that? I could understand if he communicated a direct threat against someone or a specific group, but if all he did was talk smack against the U.S. (without committing treason) and didn't directly threaten anyone, how do you put him away? Where's the justification for that? Mental instability maybe? He'd need a psych eval proving that he's insane to make that stick. So, what would have been the recourse prior to the shooting spree?
 
ludin said:
while it was won in the senate it was lost at the SCOTUS as they failed to uphold the constitution yet again and allowed the ban on assault weapons in a couple of states stand.
more so when it violates their previous rules on weapon bans. I don't see how the lower courts can override the SCOTUS.

we need an overhaul of the SCOTUS to replace these people with people that will follow the constitution not their ideology as they are supposed to.
they are a disgrace to the bench.
Click to expand...

You don't need an assault riffle for self protection. In any case, the SCOTUS has long ruled that gun safety/control measures do not violate an individual's right to keep and bear any type of fire arm a citizen may want to own. Moreover, the states have long been given the right to control how fire arms are sold, distributed and monitored within their boundaries.
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
Here's the parts that I STILL have a major problem with:


If the government has evidence that you're too dangerous to fly on an airplane, then you're too dangerous to walk freely around in public, and the government should charge you with a crime, take you to court, and get you convicted of whatever crime you've committed.



What the above says, is that we are still guilty until proven innocent, and we have to prove our innocence in court - that is not the way the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment work, and it's also against standing settled law in Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) codifying the Presumption of Innocence of persons accused of crimes.

This is just more pandering to fear, and still a threat to our freedom and liberty.

I am so disappointed in her, and many others in the Senate right now.
Click to expand...

You should send her that in an email. I think feedback is good.
 
Objective Voice said:
You don't need an assault riffle for self protection. In any case, the SCOTUS as long ruled that gun safety/control measures do not violate an individual's right to keep and bear any type of fire arm a citizen may want to own. Moreover, the states have long been given the right to control how fire arms are sold, distributed and monitored within their boundaries.
Click to expand...

That's neither for you, nor the the government to decide.
 
Beaudreaux said:
If the government has evidence that you're too dangerous to fly on an airplane, then you're too dangerous to walk freely around in public, and the government should charge you with a crime, take you to court, and get you convicted of whatever crime you've committed.
Click to expand...
But what if that person is too dengerous to fly and there aren't enough evidance to get a conviction or that the evidance putting secret agents in danger during the ongoing investigation ?
 
VanceMack said:
"Do nothing"...
ABC Reporter STUMPS Democratic Lawmaker Who's Pushing For Gun Control With One Simple Question

The only thing worse than DOING NOTHING is doing something stupid. You are advocating for a whole lot of stupid. When your whole plan is to pass legislation that EVEN THE LEGISLATORS THAT ARE PROPOSING IT ADMIT DOES NOT WORK....you are backing stupid. A ****ing dumptruck load full of stupid. And of course that's redundant because you already admit..."vote democrat". Vote stupid.
Click to expand...

I agree with the reporter that in this case since Mateen was taken off the terrorist watchlist and he didn't have a criminal or mental health background to speak of, nothing in Sen. Murphy proposed bill would have prevented him from legally buying a gun. Still, I agree with the logic that if you're considered to be dangerous enough to be on a terrorist watchlist, you're enough of a threat to society not to own a gun.

My question is why did the FBI remove him from the watchlist IF he was still spewing anti-American/pro-ISIS rhetoric that potentially threatened the lives of others?
 
RELATED


White House denounces senators as cowards on gun control

The White House accused U.S. senators of sacrificing national security for their political ambitions on Tuesday, a day after four gun control measures failed to advance after the nation's largest mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, last week.

"What we saw last night on the floor of the United States Senate was a shameful display of cowardice," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on MSNBC. Earnest said the bills put forth for votes on Monday evening should have drawn strong bipartisan support aimed at shoring up the country's defenses by keeping firearms away from people on terrorism watch lists.

He said U.S. law enforcement officials are concerned that there are individuals in the United States who could have ties to terrorism or are susceptible to online recruitment efforts of the militant group Islamic State.

Obama: senators 'failed the American people' on gun control | Reuters

Seems the Republican Senator who voted to keep the right of terrorists to freely buy weapons………
Fear the NRA more than the 92% of American voters who want more regulations to prevent terrorists from buying weapons……….
 
Beaudreaux said:
A Divided Senate Rejects Gun Curbs, Despite Orlando Massacre | ABC NEWS



Just about as biased of an article title I've seen in recent history.

Who won, was the US Constitution, specifically Article V, as well as the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments - that's what was at stake folks, not guns. Who lost, were knee jerk reactions to oppress fundamental rights due to scary things happening.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in general, but I got lost in that string of amendments. I understand the Second Amendment problem and the Fifth Amendment due process problem these measures present, but I don't know what you mean by the others. Then again, I haven't studied the bills in detail.
 
tres borrachos said:
It's so at odds with her other votes today. Interesting.

I'll bet her phones'll be ringing off the hook tomorrow.
Click to expand...

She's in a tough reelection campaign, people need to give her a break.

part of politics is show, I guarantee you the Republican leadership and the NRA probably both told her to vote yes, satisfies some New England voters by voting yea on a bill that could not possibly pass.
 
finebead said:
Your stupid little propaganda article shows nothing, Chicks on the Right, yea, that's funny. We need to change several laws to get to a place that works, such as, in addition to universal background checks, if you get on the terrorist watch list, and we clearly need to change it so that if you were on the terrorist watch list, even if you are taken off, you are flagged and can't buy a gun for 5 more years, unless you submit to a police or FBI investigation (give them due process).

It is only small mindedness and cowardice (fear of the NRA) that will not allow the republicans to come up with legislation to better protect american lives, than it protects home grown terrorists rights to acquire guns to kill our fellow citizens.
Click to expand...

But chicks on the right is not the source, this was an interview with Senator Murphy on ABC.

The rest of your rant shows you have no idea how the terror watch list even works
 
Objective Voice said:
I agree with the reporter that in this case since Mateen was taken off the terrorist watchlist and he didn't have a criminal or mental health background to speak of, nothing in Sen. Murphy proposed bill would have prevented him from legally buying a gun. Still, I agree with the logic that if you're considered to be dangerous enough to be on a terrorist watchlist, you're enough of a threat to society not to own a gun.

My question is why did the FBI remove him from the watchlist IF he was still spewing anti-American/pro-ISIS rhetoric that potentially threatened the lives of others?
Click to expand...
They interviewed him twice. Cant say why he was removed. And since it is so easy to be wrongfully included on the list, as it stands the list cannot be used as a standard for the denial of rights. It will not pass legal muster.
 
Objective Voice said:
I agree with the reporter that in this case since Mateen was taken off the terrorist watchlist and he didn't have a criminal or mental health background to speak of, nothing in Sen. Murphy proposed bill would have prevented him from legally buying a gun. Still, I agree with the logic that if you're considered to be dangerous enough to be on a terrorist watchlist, you're enough of a threat to society not to own a gun.

My question is why did the FBI remove him from the watchlist IF he was still spewing anti-American/pro-ISIS rhetoric that potentially threatened the lives of others?
Click to expand...

Since your opinion is that he was enough of a threat to restrict his 2nd amendment rights, why isn't he enough of a threat to restrict his 4th amendment rights and detain him indefinetly?

This inherently is the problem wtih the approach by Senate Democrats. They are opening up a can of worms with the logic that a secret government list, of which you have zero recourse to determine if you are included or fight to be removed, is the basis of which the Federal Government can suspend any number of rights(based on the existing approach of restricting your 2nd and 5th amendment rights).
 
EMNofSeattle said:
But chicks on the right is not the source, this was an interview with Senator Murphy on ABC.

The rest of your rant shows you have no idea how the terror watch list even works
Click to expand...
Thats always a favorite. People can SEE the video...SEE that it is a network news source and then shriek about biased sites.
 
Beaudreaux said:
A Divided Senate Rejects Gun Curbs, Despite Orlando Massacre | ABC NEWS



Just about as biased of an article title I've seen in recent history.

Who won, was the US Constitution, specifically Article V, as well as the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments - that's what was at stake folks, not guns. Who lost, were knee jerk reactions to oppress fundamental rights due to scary things happening.
Click to expand...

Not a biased article title, since the purpose of the proposed legislation was because of the largest mass slaughter by the use of a weapon of mass destruction by a private citizen...the Orlando massacre.

The Democrats were likely to win the Presidential election before this.

Now, the Republicans have sealed their fate. They will lose the Presidential election and will lose some Senate seats. You will forget this vote by the end of the year, but I'll remember and remind you. This is the one thing that sealed their fate. Failure to protect the citizens of the country from death and destruction by other citizens. Failure to protect our constitutional right to life.

This was common sense, even weak, legislation. The bozos couldn't even get THAT done. The total obstruction continues. A party that does not believe in governance cannot govern.
 
tres borrachos said:
You should send her that in an email. I think feedback is good.
Click to expand...

I'm not one of her constituents, so it wouldn't matter. I have, however, sent a very in-depth email to both of my US Senators and my Representative in the House. One of my Senators actually replied to me, which surprised me, and I don't think it was a staffer doing it for him. As for the other two, I haven't heard back yet.
 
imyoda said:
RELATED


White House denounces senators as cowards on gun control

The White House accused U.S. senators of sacrificing national security for their political ambitions on Tuesday, a day after four gun control measures failed to advance after the nation's largest mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, last week.

"What we saw last night on the floor of the United States Senate was a shameful display of cowardice," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on MSNBC. Earnest said the bills put forth for votes on Monday evening should have drawn strong bipartisan support aimed at shoring up the country's defenses by keeping firearms away from people on terrorism watch lists.

He said U.S. law enforcement officials are concerned that there are individuals in the United States who could have ties to terrorism or are susceptible to online recruitment efforts of the militant group Islamic State.

Obama: senators 'failed the American people' on gun control | Reuters

Seems the Republican Senator who voted to keep the right of terrorists to freely buy weapons………
Fear the NRA more than the 92% of American voters who want more regulations to prevent terrorists from buying weapons……….
Click to expand...

That's a sign that Congress obeyed the law.
 
JumpinJack said:
Not a biased article title, since the purpose of the proposed legislation was because of the largest mass slaughter by the use of a weapon of mass destruction by a private citizen...the Orlando massacre.

The Democrats were likely to win the Presidential election before this.

Now, the Republicans have sealed their fate. They will lose the Presidential election and will lose some Senate seats. You will forget this vote by the end of the year, but I'll remember and remind you. This is the one thing that sealed their fate. Failure to protect the citizens of the country from death and destruction by other citizens. Failure to protect our constitutional right to life.

This was common sense, even weak, legislation. The bozos couldn't even get THAT done. The total obstruction continues. A party that does not believe in governance cannot govern.
Click to expand...

Not selling out The Constitution isn't going to lose any votes...lol!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom