Democrats Embarrass Themselves

This sit-in over gun control is the most childish, embarrassing display by Congress I've seen yet. Some news article said Bernie Sanders showed up but I don't know if its true because I refused to read it due to auto-play video. I turned on the TV and watched for 5 minutes. It was cringe-worthy. The Republicans were no better, but this is all so ridiculous and undignified. They should all go back to kindergarten.

< Yoga Day and Open Thread | Supreme Court Splits on Obama's Appeal of Immigration Program >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I am waiting to see (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 10:30:32 PM EST
    whether Paul Ryan manages to make himself look worst of all by calling the Capitol Police on them.

    lol. No need; he's not a fool. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:53:10 PM EST
    Besides, age will do the job.  It's no fun sitting on the floor after the age of, say, living in dorm rooms.

    I don't see it that way at all (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by lawyerjim on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 11:32:24 PM EST
    I believe about 120 or so Americans have been killed in the U.S. by terrorists in the last 14 years and we have the patriot act, limits on everything when it comes to air travel, a new special driver's license to fly, insane amount of surveillance of phone records and emails, etc.

    In the same amount of time, 400,000 Americans killed by Americans by guns and we can't do anything?

    Were the Greensboro sit-ins ridiculous?  Was Rosa Parks undignified for her sit-in in the front seat on a bus?  

    Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt. -  Mahatma Gandhi

    400,000 mostly suicides (2.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 06:36:14 AM EST
    Are you opposed to physician assisted suicide, or only the do it yourself variety.

    I was of same opinion until I thought it through (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by beowulf888 on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 11:34:42 PM EST
    I thought it was a silly publicity stunt, until I thought through the ramifications.

    1. The sit-in puts Speaker Ryan in tight spot. He can't adjourn Congress so the Rethuglicans can campaign (and a lot of them are worried about keeping their seats, now that Trump seems to be drag on the down-ticket races). So he's going to either have call in the Capitol Police to remove the opposition party (and that WILL be very ugly, with lots of great photo ops for the people being removed). Or he's going to have to give in and allow some sort of vote to come to the floor (which will fail by party lines). But either way, his Speakership has been weakened, and he might lose the Speakership.

    2. It sit-in plays well with the activist side of the Democratic Party. It puts the spotlight on the Democratic agenda, which can only be good for the Dems. Likewise, it seems to be taking away the spotlight from the Cheeto Jesus, and it forces the media to not drop the focus on gun violence (which always happens within a few days after a mass shooting).

    3. It serves notice to the GOP that the Democratic Party is getting fed up with their obstructionist ways. Fine you want to obstruct? We can obstruct your obstruction. So the Mitch and Paul are being served notice: don't expect us to be our usual milquetoast selves if we regain power in the Senate and the House. And it might make them realize that it might be best to compromise while they still hold a few cards rather than lose everything when November rolls around.

    As to #2, the ACLU opposes (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:04:28 AM EST
    the Dem. bills introduced in the Senate.

    You can usually count on the ACLU.. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 01:50:03 PM EST
    to look at the big picture...props respect.

    Eh.. (none / 0) (#83)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    the ACLU backed Citizen's United.

    I'm starting to wonder if they're as susceptible to big donor influence as any other organization made up of fallible human beings; no matter how admirable and principaled-sounding their mission statement may be.


    Ya got me there... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 03:05:51 PM EST
    Citizens United is the exception to the rule...but everybody gets a mulligan.  Still gotta love and admire the ACLU and be grateful for all they do.

    As long as they don't just engage (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    in principaled border skirmishes and then turn around and Benedict Arnold us to the corporate red coats when it matters most..

    As a board member for nearly 20 years (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 05:30:32 PM EST
    of my ACLU affiliate, I can tell you for a fact that the ACLU is never moved to change its position on an issue by donor influence. A substantial number of national board members, by the way, moved by expressions of dismay by a number of state affiliate boards (including mine), caused the ACLU to re-examine its position on campaign finance issues after Citizens United, and the ACLU's present position is not the same today as it was then.

    Just as true in Florida (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Michael Masinter on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 08:10:15 PM EST
    I chaired the Florida affiliate's legal panel from 1991 until two years ago, and donor support never entered into our decisionmaking. If donor support mattered, the ACLU would never have supported the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie.

    The ACLU filed an amicus in Citizens United, but not on the basis of corporate speech; rather we argued that the boundary between permissible  independent expenditures and forbidden electioneering, defined by McConnell v. FEC and later cases to turn on the reasonable understanding of the listener/viewer, violated the first amendment.  We took no position on whether to overrule Austin, and argued that the Court need not reach that issue since the relevant provision of McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional anyhow.


    FIFY (4.00 / 1) (#11)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 01:18:18 AM EST
    It . . . forces the media to not drop the focus on gun violence (which always happens within a few days after [omitted]).

    That's your opinion. (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 01:10:15 AM EST
    There are others who disagree with you on the subject of gun control, myself included. Why are you hellbent on dismissing us as "childish," rather than trying to actually engage us as concerned adults in an effort to find common ground here, and thus resolve a serious problem in the country by which 30,000-plus people are losing their lives annually and often unnecessarily?

    Personally, I don't get it. But then, I think of what the late Hawaii Gov. John Burns once said about any damned fool being able to draw a line in the sand -- and who are we to argue with one? If you don't care to be part of a mutually acceptable and equitable solution, then you run serious risk of being assessed as an inherent and intransigent part of the problem. And when public opinion reaches critical mass, the intransigent tend to be swept aside by events.

    There is more than ample evidence showing a direct correlation between the level of gun violence and the prevalence / proliferation of firearms in this country. There is absolutely no sane reason for military-grade, semi-automatic weaponry that fires 40+ rounds per minute to be in civilian hands, outside of our modern-day equivalent of militia, our respective states' National Guards. And that's just for starters.

    Our founding fathers and mothers were not constitutional absolutists. They envisioned our U.S. Constitution as a living document that could be adapted and even amended in accordance to the times in which people live. Were it otherwise, people of color would still be counted as 60% of a human being for purposes of the U.S. Census.

    The Second Amendment as it is written is reflective of a long-bygone era, in which the United States was a rural and agrarian society, its largest city (Philadelphia) had a population of just 100,000, and its citizenry saw little or no need for a large-scale standing army.

    Within six months of the Bill of Rights' adoption in Dec. 1791, Congress passed the very first law in accordance with the rights granted under the Second Amendment, "An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence (sic) by establishing an Uniform Militia through the United States." The law required every able-bodied male citizen between 18 and 45 years of age to enroll in their respective state's militia, and further:

    "[E]very citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger and espontoon, and that from and after five yeas of the passing of this act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound."

    So, Congress was already regulating arms in accordance with our rights under the Second Amendment as early as May 1792. Any legal arguments that our Constitution prohibits government from regulating the use and type of arms in our personal possession are only of recent vintage.

    Specifically in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court for the very first time and by a narrow 5-4 majority undertook to decouple the two clauses of the Second Amendment, by declaring the aforementioned first clause of the Second Amendment about a "well-regulated Militia" to be merely a "prefatory clause" which neither limited nor expanded the scope of its second "operative" clause, by which our right "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    In my own opinion as an historian, the Supreme Court in Heller pointedly ignored the Second Amendment's actual history, in order to render a politically-motivated decision that would (a) greatly inhibit the capability of a local municipality to regulate and control an otherwise undue and dangerous proliferation of firearms in those areas under its jurisdiction, and (b) further provide a convenient precedent for the eventual preclusion of any such regulation altogether.

    I must admit my bias from a practical standpoint as a member of a modern, highly mobile and urbanized society, when stating that I found the Court's Heller ruling to be just this side of insane, and yet entirely reflective of the summary abrogation by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, et al., of any sense of personal responsibility on their part to promote the public good and protect the public welfare.

    Nevertheless, Scalia is now dead, and with him hopefully goes the far right's hopes and desires for a uniform rollback of state and local firearms regulations. Change is going to come on this issue, Jeralyn, because increasing numbers of citizens from across the political spectrum have become increasingly disgusted with the intransigence of the gun lobby, its NRA mouthpieces and its lackeys on Capitol Hill.

    Common sense is ultimately going to prevail, and in fact it has to prevail, because the lives of untold thousands of people depend on it. You best prepare yourself for that forthcoming event, whether you like it or not, because it's inevitable.


    "reflective of the summary abrogation... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 01:01:08 PM EST
    by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, et al., of any sense of personal responsibility on their part to promote the public good and protect the public welfare."

    WTF does that have to do with the function of the Supreme Court?

    The Court's Heller decision in 2008, ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 04:56:41 PM EST
    ... as authored by the late Justice Scalia, inflicted harm on the country by decoupling the two clauses of the Second Amendment. Scalia, et al., effectively ruled that the first clause had nothing to do with the second, an unprecedented finding which blatantly ignored the documented history of the Second Amendment, and cavalierly tossed aside decades of case law (such as U.S. v. Miller) regarding the right of states and municipalities to regulate both the use of firearms by citizens residing in their respective jurisdictions and further, the type of weapons they could own and possess.

    Heller led to further harm by serving as legal precedent for the Court's 2010 decision in McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Court's activist majority once again set aside the longstanding legal precedent of U.S. v. Cruikshank (an 1876 decision which had heretofore limited the Second Amendment's applicability to federal law regarding an individual's right to keep and bear arms), and instead extended such restrictions on firearms regulation to both state and local governments, in part by employing a somewhat novel stretch of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    The Supreme Court's mission is to interpret the law in light of the United States Constitution and prior legal precedent, and as such that body stands as the final arbiter of that law and our ostensible guardian of constitutional liberties.

    Yet in Heller and McDonald, as also happened in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, the Court's activist majority deviated substantively from that mission to render politically motivated decisions on behalf of well-documented special interests, with which at least two justices of that majority had likely personal ties by virtue of their open association with the conservative Federalist Society.

    In my opinion, and speaking for myself only, given the actions undertaken by the Court's activist majority in both these cases were wholly intentional, such actions could further be construed to have been undertaken in willful and even malicious disregard to the collective well being of the citizenry.

    The majority's findings in both cases have no real basis in long-established case law. Indeed, the primary motivation of these activist justices appears to be their own personal desires to render prior legal precedent for firearms regulation as wholly null and void. As such, these rulings were underscored only by the majority's own determined willingness to actually go there, come hell or high water.

    In dissenting from the Court's majority in Heller, Justice John Paul Stevens decried their decision as "strained and unpersuasive" and further, constituted "a dramatic upheaval of the law":

    "The history of the adoption of the [Second] Amendment thus describes an overriding concern about the potential threat to state sovereignty that a federal standing army would pose, and a desire to protect the States' militias as the means by which to guard against that danger. But state militias could not effectively check the prospect of a federal standing army so long as Congress retained the power to disarm them, and so a guarantee against such disarmament was needed. As we explained in Miller: 'With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.' 307 U. S., at 178. The evidence plainly refutes the [majority's] claim that the Amendment was motivated by the Framers' fears that Congress might act to regulate any civilian uses of weapons. And even if the historical record were genuinely ambiguous, the burden would remain on the parties advocating a change in the law to introduce facts or arguments '"newly ascertained,"' Vasquez, 474 U.S., at 266; the Court is unable to identify any such facts or arguments.

    "Although it gives short shrift to the drafting history of the Second Amendment, the [Court majority] dwells at length on four other sources: the 17th-century English Bill of Rights; Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England; postenactment commentary on the Second Amendment; and post-Civil War legislative history. All of these sources shed only indirect light on the question beforeus, and in any event offer little support for the Court's conclusion."


    "The Court concludes its opinion by declaring that it is not the proper role of this Court to change the meaning of rights 'enshrine[d]' in the Constitution. Ante, at 64. But the right the Court announces was not 'enshrined' in the Second Amendment by the Framers; it is the product of today's law-changing decision. The majority's exegesis has utterly failed to establish that as a matter of text or history, 'the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home' is 'elevate[d] above all other interests' by the Second Amendment. Ante, at 64.

    "Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The Court's announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations. Today judicial craftsmen have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a 'law-abiding, responsible citize[n]' the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is 'off the table.' Ante, at 64. Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, I fear that the District's policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.

    "I do not know whether today's decision will increase the labor of federal judges to the 'breaking point' envisioned by Justice Cardozo, but it will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries.

    "The Court properly disclaims any interest in evaluating the wisdom of the specific policy choice challenged in this case, but it fails to pay heed to a far more important policy choice -- the choice made by the Framers themselves. The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court's opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice." (emphasis in mine.)

    Finally, I would refer you to the combined constitutional and judicial oath of office, to which Supreme Court justices must swear upon their assumption of their duties:

    "I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [associate justice / chief justice] under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God." (Emphasis is mine.)

    And so in my opinion, the Court's activist majority violated their oaths of office by committing legal malpractice.



    Donald (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 05:20:22 PM EST
    I'm going send you a roll of that teletype paper Jack Kerouac used to use.

    So many words; (none / 0) (#132)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 11:44:30 AM EST
    Now try answering my question.

    beowulf (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:07:22 PM EST
    i reposting that link because your comment will probably be deleted because you have to post links in the proper format, using the link button or with tinyurl.

    and its a good link


    you're right, the comment (none / 0) (#115)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 07:57:13 PM EST
    was deleted for posting an overly long url which will skew the margins of the site. Thanks.

    We've got a congress that won't debate actual (4.83 / 6) (#2)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 10:40:37 PM EST
    proposed laws in the way we expect serious issues to be discussed. This 'stunt' is the only way members will be able to give speeches on the topic in the House - I wish it were not true but it appears to be the case. It may be undignified but at least voters get a chance to see who stands for what.

    Ditto (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 11:39:14 PM EST
    And it empowers the rest of us to press on too

    And it changed the Thursday news (none / 0) (#150)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 09:44:15 PM EST
    The blah blah blah. Usually I am so interested in the Pre election news of the day, but with all the 'round tables' on all the news stations,it is boring. I end up with all the Law & Order and Blue Blood repeats.  OK Donald, the Five 0's too.

    Now that the Donald is reading the prompter, it is boring watching him calmly reading his speech. I thought watching the golf speech this morning made him look even more pitiful. He really slowed down and I was thinking, hmmmmm, what drug did they put him on.

    When people start with the 2nd Amendment, I ask them if they ever really read it. That it is for defending our homeland as a militia. And they used a musket and not an automatic assault rifle. There is no reason to have one for even the sport of target practice because just aiming the rifle in the general direction and rat rat tating is bound to hit a LOT of targets. Heh. No sport there. Nothing left of Bambi even for dinner. So I am not thinking a miracle of a vote will happen tomorrow, but at least the people see one part of the government is reacting.


    I hesitate to label Rep. John (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 11:54:20 PM EST
    Lewis' actions a "stunt."

    Agree, oculus (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 09:46:33 AM EST
    Perhaps, the "take" on how a sit-in appears to anyone is a good example of the saying: "Where you stand depends upon where you sit."  So to speak.  And, on this one, I stand (and sit) with the Democratic House and Senate members that have are engaged in the demonstrative sit-in.

    In a direct way, John Lewis and all of the participants are sending a message that--bit by bit--we will move forward (eventually) and off the same bs, the same talk that seems routinized after the unacceptable numbers of killings by this kind of gun violence in our country.

    Again, there is no "perfect" solution.  We all know that.  In the context, imo, what is the sad "stunt" that has existed way too long is the continued pretext of those who oppose everything offered ... they oppose but do not offer or set out what they are for.  That is a teller, as negotiators would say.  Resist, don't give an inch, call everything a slippery slope or not the perfect solution ... then hunker down until the next go-round .. the patented response of the NRA.

    Finally, we might want to consider the lesson of history and the eventual effectiveness of protests, sit-ins, and the like.  IMO, it is the uncompromising and offer-no-alternative position such as adopted by NRA that will lose.  That type of response always does.  

    Thanks for letting me say what I've been feeling and wanting to say about gun violence tragedies for a long time.


    Hence my half quotes...others are calling it that (none / 0) (#16)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 06:12:55 AM EST
    Jerkin herself did not call it that, so I did not go with full quotes!

    aargh, auto correct!Sorry Jeralyn! You may delete (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 06:13:59 AM EST
    that comment!!!!!

    Trump supporters thank (1.00 / 2) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 09:06:40 AM EST
    the Democrats for helping them bring the Independents to their side.

    On a side note, I never dreamed that our Congress would ever look like a Third World country's dictator supporters.

    But then I never thought our Congress would refuse to discuss radical islam and blame guns instead of the killer. Yeah, I know. I was naive.

    In the meantime ISIS and the other radical islamist killers are keenly watching us. They spell a victory just like North Vietnam's.

    I (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 09:33:55 AM EST
    think you are pulling this added "support" from your nether regions.

    Polls decidedly say otherwise, from CNN

    But support for specific gun control measures was very strong, with 92% saying they wanted expanded background checks, 87% supporting a ban for felons or people with mental health problems and 85% saying they would ban people on federal watchlists from buying guns. Among Republicans, that number is even higher -- 90% say they favor preventing people on the terror watch list or "no fly" list from buying a gun. That number is at 85% for Democrats

    BTW: comparing a 50 year old relic of the cold war to the current fight against Jihadism is a silly apples to oranges comparison at best.


    Can't keep yourself from making (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 10:01:59 AM EST
    vulgar references, eh??

    BTW - The Senate voted down 4 proposals. 2 Demo 2 Repub.

    You should remember 1968. Many people opposed the war but the Demo's tactics in Chicago... the riots they supported...gave Nixon a victory.

    And comparing what's happening now to then is spot on. Only an elitist who think radical islamists are stupid would believe that they haven't studied history and know how North Vietnam beat us.


    Jim (none / 0) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 10:10:16 AM EST
    I sincerely apologize for offending your delicate fee fees, I expected a brave ex-Navy warrior such as yourself would have a thicker skin, but obviously I was wrong. I promise to be more politically correct in my replies to you in the future.

    Thank you. And thank you for (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 06:42:05 PM EST
    showing your lack of support and studied disrespect for all military service people by your snark regarding bravery.

    Neither I nor my peers considered ourselves brave. That includes those who's bodies have never been recovered from the sea, the one burned to a crisp in a botched take off and the ones who have their names on the wall.

    I know you are not capable of understanding this but we merely saw our duty and did it as best we could so that people like you could be safe and secure and enjoy your misplaced sense of superiority.

    Again, thank you.


    Who is we? (none / 0) (#122)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 08:53:36 PM EST
    We is the millions who have served. (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 12:07:22 PM EST
    Spoken like the self-appointed unknown soldier (none / 0) (#145)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 02:56:00 PM EST
    in this case, unknown for good reason.

    The CNN quote you provide reflects low-info (none / 0) (#128)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 09:32:23 AM EST
    members of the public.  Let's unpack:
    92% saying they wanted expanded background checks,

    Nowhere do they mention what is meant by "expanded" background checks.  Is that "background checks in more circumstances" or "background checks in greater detail than already"?  Or both?  Keep in mind that each background check costs the checkee a good $40 or more.  

    87% supporting a ban for felons or people with mental health problems

    Felons and persons adjudicated insane, mentally incompetent, addicted to or regular users of illegal drugs (including MJ), or habitual drunkards have been banned from possession and/or purchase of firearms since 1968.  That's a federal criminal statute.

    85% saying they would ban people on federal watchlists from buying guns.

    That provision is opposed by, among other smart people, the ACLU.  It's a due-process-free thing.  Sort of like Obama's decision to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki and his son in 2 strikes a few years back.  Some bureaucrats in a room deciding to off someone.  The watchlist idea was first proposed by Joe Lieberman several years ago.  That alone makes it an idea whose proper place is the trash bin.  And if you think anyone, anywhere, is ever going to win an appeal you've never dealt with a bureaucrat concerned "that someone might get hurt".

    There's a lot of details in these kinds of proposals that few people pay attention to and few understand.  


    Let's start with (none / 0) (#129)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 10:08:26 AM EST
    A) I don't care HOW much it costs the checkee to get a background check.  It should be WAY more than $40 and a background check should be comprehensive into someone's mental health, their currebt situation, any complaints (criminal or civil against them), driving history,  employment history, etc. It should be hard.

    B) There are tons of loop holes, including at gun shows, as this 13 year old shows us.

    So, I feel safe in saying there's a lot of low information gun enthusiasts too.


    Its funny how a poll with results (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 10:10:40 AM EST
    You don't like has all the problems not seen in polls you like.

    Isn't it?


    While we're at it (none / 0) (#148)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 05:14:27 PM EST
    we'll just make sure that every blog post-er, writer of letters to the editor, and speaker on public issues gets to go through a background check each time they want to speak or write (as the case may be), just to make sure they're not nuts or spreading dangerous (mis)information, said check to be paid for by them and run through a government database.
    After all, the pen is mightier than the sword, so we really have to watch out that speech isn't misused.

    If that includes (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 05:23:47 PM EST
    Commenters I'm in.

    Nobody (none / 0) (#131)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 11:42:49 AM EST
    is saying that "low information voter" is going to write the laws. We have elections to select "high information" leaders to do that for us, same as it always was.

    Dumb argument there Scribe.


    How/d this work out/ (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 12:10:30 PM EST
    We have elections to select "high information" leaders to do that for us, same as it always was.

    I (none / 0) (#139)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 01:10:26 PM EST
    should have added "in theory", sometimes we elect leaders who are NO information.

    Independents.. (none / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 03:53:53 PM EST
    i.e., the Tea Baggers who previously thought Trump was way too liberal.

    It's perfectly reasonable and eminently sane to talk about the weapons that violent militants can lay their hands on all too easily in this country.

    The situation is a little more complicated than your typically simplistic either/or, radicals or guns, scenario.


    You do realize that there are probably (none / 0) (#101)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 05:27:42 PM EST
    just as many left-leaning Independents as there are right-leaning Independents.

    I mean in the country, not in your immediate circle.


    is this correct? (none / 0) (#6)
    by linea on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 11:44:31 PM EST
    someone posted on this forum that trump is working with the nra and will be proposing a bill prohibiting people on the fbi terrorist watch list from buying guns. isnt that much like the dem proposal? wouldnt that be a good thing?

    oh, and... (none / 0) (#7)
    by linea on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 11:50:09 PM EST
    couldnt it be narrowly tailored so it doesnt include members of the Insane Clown Posse and those fun prepper guys on tv? maybe include just isis supporters and supporters of islamic terror groups?

    The ICP or (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ragebot on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 10:43:53 AM EST
    Insane Clown Posse is a musical group probably best known for having earned two platinum and five gold albums which given they get no radio play is somewhat shocking.  Followers of the ICP are known as Juggalos and hold The Gathering of the Juggalos annually.  ICP was also involved in a law suit against the FBI who under the FBI clown Eric Holder designated the Juggalos as a gang.  The ICP/Juggalos won the law suit and noted"

    "Discrimination against someone based solely upon the type of music they listen to is just flat out wrong and it's time that the legal system acknowledges that," the Insane Clown Posse said in a statement.

    I will not stand for any bashing of the ICP and provide this link to one of their songs, Miracles, that I am sure Donald will claim is not representative of their music.


    rather like The Stooges (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 10:51:27 AM EST
    I hate the music and love the idea.

    Never seen the Stooges (none / 0) (#53)
    by ragebot on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:38:16 PM EST
    ever use profanity, but never seen the ICP not use profanity.

    Are you thinking of the 3 Stooges? (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by parse on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 12:49:28 PM EST
    Because if you never heard Iggy and the Stooges use profanity, you need to hunt up a copy of Metallic K.O.

    Yes (none / 0) (#12)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 05:11:01 AM EST
    It was strictly a publicity stunt.
    The Republicans are abiding by House rules, how many times did Madame Speaker Pelosi refuse to bring bills up for a vote. How soon we forget the dictatorial approach to the Senate adopted by Harry Reid, at least now the Senate is abiding by its long standing rules, which were trashed by Harry Reid strictly for political purposes.

    No (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 05:26:19 AM EST
    A publicity stunt is shutting down the government and getting our credit rating downgraded.

    A publicity stunt is voting 50+ times to try and repeal Obamacare.

    A publicity stunt is Paul Ryan posing in his workout clothes, "pumping iron".

    A publicity stunt is trying to silence this sit in by holding a vote toniverride a veto that you know is going to fail.

    A publicity stunt is Paul Ryan posing in a soup kitchen and then doing nothing except getting in the way.

    Republicans are the kings and queens of publicity stunts.

    Sorry again, Jeralyn.  Gotta disagree.  I'm not embarassed at all - I'm proud that the Dems finally found their spines and are standing up to the Republicans and the NRA.


    Yes, and (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    the publicity (political) stunt of refusing to so much as meet with the president's nomination to the Supreme Court.

    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 05:56:09 AM EST
    a publicity stunt, a very good one at that. They have dominated the news cycle and have kept the gun control issues front and center for at least a few more days, the Senate dogs barked and the caravan was just about to pass but these house Dems said not so fast.

    Politicians, at least subconsciously, have noted the success Trump has had with his over the top rhetoric and actions sucking up oxygen, they will follow suit to an extent. Lewis and his colleagues could do a thousand talking head spots and get nowhere near the bang this stunt is generating.


    Republicans protested Pelosi and Reid in their own (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 06:10:26 AM EST
    ways too. Effectively it seems - maybe those actions by the Dems were partially responsible for them losing control. GOP should take heed.

    Democrats are taking this issue (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 07:26:52 AM EST
    To the election.  Finally.   They only had to wait until 90% of the public agreed with them so I restate to wax rhapsodic about them growing a spine but they do seem to have learned to count.

    I would say it's a stunt.  An effective one.


    I got no problem... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 09:49:30 AM EST
    with the sit-in tactic, I love it actually...I just wish it wasn't over feel-good measures that won't accomplish much of anything to reduce gun violence & violence in general in a country with more guns in circulation than people.

    Where's this fighting spirit to end the foreign occupations, cut defense spending by 50%, raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks, universal health care, surrender the drug war, affordable education, fair markets, etc, etc, etc?  The selective deployment of civil disobedience makes me think it's just a political stunt in an election year.  

    It took approval of 90% of the populace (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 09:57:49 AM EST
    to give them the spine to even try to tackle getting assault rifles out of the hands of suspected terrorists.

    Maybe when there is 90% support for any of those other things they will sit-in for those.


    "Suspected" isn't grounds... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 10:27:28 AM EST
    to deny any rights to anybody in my book.  I guess I'm a 10 percenter.

    "Suspects" shouldn't be on any list...no fly, no gun, no nuthin'.  Such lists, if we need them at all, should be reserved for convicts not "suspects".


    Agree, to the (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 11:19:03 AM EST
    extent of the "suspected" being denied rights.  However, being denied purchase of a firearm/ammunition in accord with regulations to acquire such is not a denial of a right, but failure of a condition of purchase.

    If any conditions of purchase (e.g., age, address,felony conviction) are not met there is no sale.  If the disqualifying condition is, in fact, in error, this can be sorted out.  I believe the House bills were subject to amendments that may have dealt with such worries, but if the majority does not, flat out, permit discussion, it is unwholesome to democracy.


    It depends on how they came to be suspected (none / 0) (#99)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 05:14:44 PM EST
    and what they're suspected of.

    We're not talking here about people suspected of growing weed in abandoned corn field in Schenectady, after all..

    And it's not like they can't ever be vetted and taken off the list.

    So someone in America might not get an assault weapon under the Christmas tree this year. Oh the humanity. Patrick Henry is spinning in his grave


    if only the "10%" (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 10:30:22 AM EST
    were the only ones who died because freedom.

    If only 90%... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 10:41:59 AM EST
    realized that trading liberty for security leaves you with neither.

    Or maybe I'm "suspect"...put me on the list Cap'n.  If Eugene Victor Debs was here he'd say put him on the list too, for as long as their is a suspect class he is of it.


    Get off the abstract libertarian high horse (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 04:46:40 PM EST
    and get back in the Real World.

    You think the most vulnerable who, through no fault of their own, are forced to live in gun and crime ridden neighborhoods, live in "liberty" in any meaningful sense of the word?


    Sometimes there (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 06:18:23 PM EST
    seems to confusion between Libertarianism and Anarchism on the gun issue.  And, Libertarianism is to Anarchims as nudists are to naked people.....  ...they are just middle class and organized so they appear less crazy.

    My horse ain't high... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 07:10:16 PM EST
    I am.

    If I thought for a second the pens of Congress could save us from death by bullet here in the land of guns and bullets, I could maybe be swayed that it is worth shi#ting on somebody else's rights. But but my logic, all we'd get is the same threat of death by a bullet with a side threat of being placed on some list by some Fed and jamming up some poor guy who gets his kicks from guns.


    The gun nuts will live (none / 0) (#146)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 03:07:55 PM EST
    Trust me.

    They'll just have to find other inanimate objects to project their erotic power fantasies onto..

    A pair of cowgirl boots or a still-in-the-box Lionel Train set for instance..


    maybe you (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 10:50:03 AM EST
    should write him in.  makes more sense than Jill Stein.

    Not a bad idea... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 10:58:28 AM EST
    a former Democrat who turned third party candidate under the Socialist label who ran for President from a prison cell in 1920.  That's like my dream candidate right there!

    What liberty would we give up (none / 0) (#37)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 11:12:50 AM EST
    if we don't do anything to be on a no fly or terrorist watch list?

    Fact is like debates around FISA, the idea should be let's improve the process not have no process.

    Seems to me, my life and the lives of most of those around me would go on just fine.


    Am I understanding you correctly Vic? (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 11:43:39 AM EST
    Being on the no-fly list would not deny you essential liberty?  What about the right to travel freely?  Say you want to go to a funeral in California tomorrow but some little jerk in the FBI put you on the no fly list because they suspect you are suspect...that's kosher?  

    You misunderstand, apologies if not clear (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:02:48 PM EST
    If I do nothing to end up on the list, and thus am not on it, how is my liberty harmed?

    Regarding your question - "if someone decides" if there are issues w/the process, that should be improved, and can be, should Congress, i.e. republicans allow that to happen.  Why would some random FBI person decide I'm a threat?  I don't do twitter, never use Facebook and generally live my life w/in the bounds of law.  Even if I was a social media person, I'm not spouting ISIS propaganda or making random internet death threats.  Seems like misplaced fear to me.  

    There are approximately 800 Americans on the list if this report is accurate, an incredibly small number.  I doubt most are there by accident or malicious intent by FBI agents.

    The fact is, the list is out there now and large numbers of Americans do not have any issue traveling.  At the very least these same folks should be prevented from buying a gun.  Death is inevitable, but we take steps to prevent it in a civilized world.

    I say this as a gun owner.


    I live in a gun culture (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:13:32 PM EST
    everyone i know owns many guns.  we have discussed this and not one of them, not one - and we are talking about serious republican 2nd amendment types - not one will defend the idea that you cant get on a plane but you can buy an assault weapon.  my family represents pretty much the political spectrum.  i honestly cant remember the last time we all agreed on anything.  but we agree on this.   which is why i know this is a winning issue for democrats.  and i assume its why they know it.

    If you are mixed up... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:14:58 PM EST
    with another guy named Vic from the Boogie Down who posts crazy sh&t online, that's how you end up on a list with the late Senator Ted Kennedy and Rep. John Lewis.

    800 is a very small number of mistakes if that is accurate...sounds like no biggie till unless you are one of those 800 poor souls.  I just can't take that kinda thing lightly, especially when the people on the list who by all rights should be on the list could still get a weapon of mass destruction pretty damned easily via illegal channels.



    I can appreciate the concern (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:26:27 PM EST
    for the unjustly victimized.  I  truly can.  There are all kinds of unjustly victimized though.  Little kids, abused spouses, beat up ex girlfriends, Moms, Dads, Uncles, Cousins.

    I can keep going.

    You get my point.  We can improve the process if we have the will to do it.

    Inconvenience should not prevent us from acting.

    I would note "damned easy via illegal channels" wouldn't be as easy if we took some steps to make it a little harder.  


    I don't know... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:39:30 PM EST
    there is no place in the lower 48 to buy a bag of smack legally, and our streets are flooded with that garbage as you know.

    If they tighten up the gun regs in Georgia and the Carolinas, the guns on the streets of NY will just come via a different avenue.  As long as the smack dealers wanna buy 'em.  If we seriously want to curb the availability of weapons from the supply side, we should start at the manufacturing level.  Sh&t maybe we could bribe all US gun manufacturers to just stop making them, for civilians, law enforcement, and military alike...I'd pay more taxes for that!


    Agree we won't eliminate it (none / 0) (#56)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:43:44 PM EST
    reduce is best we can hope for.

    I would think... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    in the history of mass murder by firearms, the vast majority of the scum who do such things would not be on any of the proposed expanded lists and would pass any background check anyway.  Sh*t this last impersonation of a human being was an armed security guard for a living!  Another was active military.  Another was a minor whose moms bought him the weapon.  

    Any reduction will be minimal imo, and I question whether it is worth all this political capital and endless debating in circles. Perhaps a more significant reduction could be attained on the availability of mental health care and voluntary disarmament via buyback programs and whatnot.  Focus on possible alleviations that do not involve an endless second amendment debate or violations of due process.    


    I do beleive that too (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    It might not help at all for a ban limited only to people on these lists, and the existence of the lists themselves has taken over the debate on the left.

    I am for a total ban on assault weapons. But I'll take getting my foot in the door with a ban to people on the no fly list. That just seems logical, if we have a no-fly list.


    Of the three you mention (none / 0) (#70)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 01:45:04 PM EST
    two could've been prevented IMO with proper oversight. Security man was already under investigation by the FBI.  Some alert should've went out once he purchased his assault rifle.  The Ft. Hood shooter, well, I seem to remember MilitaryTracy mentioning something about violation of rules on base regarding access to firearms.  Don't remember for sure.

    I agree we need to do a lot more re: mental health care and preventing folks who've sought treatment for serious issues from gaining access to guns.  Personally, I would've held Lanza's mother accountable if karma hadn't already done so.  I say this as a person w/a close family member that has a serious mental illness. Many of these issues are lifelong - how to deal w/that?

    You can question whether it's worth it because (I assume) you've not been impacted.  Not that I would ever wish something like that on you, but you get my meaning.

    As you say, agree to disagree. I do get your point and largely agree w/it. I'm certainly down with protecting individual liberties.  We've got to do something though.  Perfection is not something we should be looking for here.  If it doesn't work, laws can always be repealed.


    Appreciate the pleasant... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 02:03:09 PM EST
    discussion and food for thought sir...in conclusion I will just say sometimes doing nothing is better than doing the wrong something, as strong as the urge and need to do something may be.  The worst laws get passed in haste and it is often harder to repeal the real doozies than it should be.  

    Here's your answer, Vic (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 01:07:11 PM EST
    At this very moment you are reading and writing on a Blog owned and operated by a known associate and public defender of a convicted American Terrorist, Timothy McVeigh.

    There's no reason you shouldn't be on a list.  No reason at all.


    This isn't true at all (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 01:36:41 PM EST
    It's not easy to get on the watch list.  Look no further than the Orlando shooter who was taken off.  The idea that people get put on this list at a whim is ridiculous fantasy.

    Ted Kennedy was put on it. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 02:21:51 PM EST
    You're the one spinning fantasy.

    oh my goodness (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 02:28:07 PM EST
    is he still on it?  how about that dipsh!t from FOX? is he still on it?

    In addition to CH's post below (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 01:50:37 PM EST
    (assume it's below for folks)

    I never read where she advocated for McVeigh's viewpoint, rather, she defended his right to fair trial.  I certainly believe in that.

    C'mon man.

    Even still, this again is where rules and regulations defined by Congress would come into play.


    "C'mon, man" (none / 0) (#80)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 02:37:27 PM EST
    Yeah, tell that to a Judge.

    Read a little history.  When have people not been put on lists for knowing certain other people?  They're put on lists for the same reason you consider suspicion sufficient grounds for denying people civil liberties.  Because "better safe than sorry," and "no harm done if they're not guilty of anything, right?"  

    We "know" Jeralyn Merritt.  She knew McVeigh.  McVeigh blew up a bunch of people, a lot more than any wannabe ISIS/Taliban/whatever guy has managed to do, with the exception of bin Laden et al..  Two degrees of separation.

    So why shouldn't we all go on a list?


    your cheese (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 02:53:29 PM EST
    has slipped off your cracker pal.  it really has.

    I made a point. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 03:36:58 PM EST
    But you're the guy who likes lists of suspects, so you respond with a personal attack.

    Gotta wonder who got put on lists after the Stonewall riots.


    No interest in denying civil liberties (none / 0) (#87)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 03:27:29 PM EST
    well-regulating the militia however, I'm all for it. Buying any type of gun you want is not a civil right.  Sorry, it's just not and shouldn't be allowed.  

    Beyond that, a majority of your fellow citizens want to see tougher regs - do we not count in this bastion of liberty you're part of?

    Should we push to amend the constitution?  Would that be better?

    How about we make all us gun owners come in for training to ensure we've got the know how to handle the gun in case, well, militia duties are needed?  I wouldn't want to be shot by the fellow militia member who doesn't know what he/she's doing.

    In all seriousness though, people ending up on the list in error is something that can be remedied easily.  Judicial oversight would also assist and surely provide recourse for impacted people.  Again, as far as I know Jeralyn ain't no terrorist.


    Nobody said she was a terrorist (none / 0) (#88)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 03:33:44 PM EST
    And that's my point.  Learn to read.

    Personally I'd like the security (none / 0) (#97)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 05:01:08 PM EST
    of being able to eat the fish in Lake Ontario safely, but we were outvoted by the people who demanded the Liberty to be able to dump their toxic shit in the Lake.

    We weren't outvoted... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 07:18:01 PM EST
    we had no money to grease our representatives...the polluter did.

    Besides, pollution is direct harm. Joe Redneck popping a chubby firing his AR15 at Bubbas Gun Range and Bait Shop is not harming anybody, hence he should not be bothered. I don't like to be bothered when I'm not bothering...do you my friend?


    Joe Redneck is also selling those directly (none / 0) (#147)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 03:20:29 PM EST
    or indirectly to in-jeopardy danger-to-themselves-and-others folks who have no hope in part, because the Joe Rednecks in high places and on the street fill their neighborhoods with death and apathy.

    I don't happen to recognize (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 11:40:30 AM EST
    the ability to purchase an assault rifle as a human right.

    I know that is an minority opinion, even in my party...Obama and Hillary are not coming for your guns.....but I am.

    I agree suspects should not be locked up. Ever.

    Denied the right to travel via weapons of mass destruction (i.e. airplanes)? I want that no-fly list under strict judicial review and the people be notified if they are on it, and have every opp to challenge it, all expenses paid. I have no problem adding the denial of rights to purchase assault weapons to people on that list. As I said before, I just do not see that as an undeniable right.

    As I asked yesterday, I will leave the gun supporters to define what constitutes the number of people killed per minute that makes a weapon an assault rifle. 5? 10? Someplace in that range I would imagine. Should be plenty for the average citizen to defend himself.


    Agree to disagree... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 11:48:41 AM EST
    in a more perfect world these weapons would not exist, and everybody would make do with a bow and arrows.  But much to my chagrin they do exist, and self-defense is an inalienable human right, so the right to own them must also exist...I don't like it anymore than you do Ruff.  

    I wish it was a right left unexercised, as I proudly and without reservation choose not to bear arms beyond my Louisville Slugger Home Defense system.


    So kdog (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by smott on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 02:28:48 PM EST
    Does the right to self defense include the right to own a nuclear weapon?

    Ask Iran... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 02:31:49 PM EST
    They'd say yes and I'd have to agree with them.

    Luckily they are expensive...and though plutonium may be available in every corner drugstore in 2046, here in 2016 it's a little hard to come by.


    JeeZus (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by smott on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 05:05:00 PM EST
    So only the cost stands between you and your neighbor with a plutonium bomb?
    And that is fine w you?

    You've left the planet my friend.


    I never said I liked it... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 05:52:16 PM EST
    Speaking of Doc Brown, if you wanna hop in the Delorean and sabotage the Manhattan Project I am down with that. And we can stop at Kalishnakov's house too.

    But how is it ok for Entity A to have a nuke but not Entity B. How is it ok for police to have assault style weapons and not Joe Blow. That's the out of this world thinking to me.

    If anything, we should try banning production before possession if we're serious about limiting the ways to kill each other. And destroy all our nukes before we b#tch about anybody else's.


    I know, I am in the 50 shades of grey world (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:02:59 PM EST
    and you are more black and white about these things.
    Wish we were hashing it out over a hot dog!

    May we set an example to the world... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:18:04 PM EST
    on how to disagree without being disagreeable ;)

    I do always value and respect your opinion...and believe you me my heart is with you on this, but my reason must part with my heart on this one.  


    Yes! We can even get snarky with eachother (none / 0) (#55)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:41:43 PM EST
    and we know our hearts are in the right place. I always pay attention to you and definitely am influenced...for better or worse :-)

    Some of the worst things (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 01:53:14 PM EST
    In the sad history of the world were done by people who's "hearts were in the right place" and their head was up their ass.

    My sentiments exactly... (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 02:56:48 PM EST
    the road to hell is paved with good intentions of the heart and no thought of unintended consequences.

    My money's on worse! lol (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:45:20 PM EST
    Testament to how tough a nut this is to crack when two people like us disagree, when we are on the same page on most everything else except this and the horse we liked in the 2016 White House Derby.

    Here's a liberal bridge building way to look at it (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 01:09:07 PM EST
    via Amanda Marcotte...people that support the no-fly list but do not support keeping assault weapons out of the hands of people on it show they do not really take the no-fly list seriously.

    Security theater.


    Amen... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 01:19:52 PM EST
    I think they are both security theater. If you support the no-fly list and oppose a no-gun list, I'd say that makes you a posterchild of hypocrisy.

    and self-defense is an inalienable human right (none / 0) (#95)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 04:50:07 PM EST
    Written in 1803, one of the first written studies of the US Constitution  ( I would say his words written back then mean more than how people today think they actually meant)


    In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

    And some other sentiments expressed in early writings

    For example, Anti-Federalists at the New Hampshire ratification convention wanted it made clear that, "Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion." Anti-Federalists at the Massachusetts ratification convention wanted the Constitution to "be never construed...to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable, from keeping their own arms."

    Meanwhile, in the Anti-Federalist stronghold of Pennsylvania, critics at that state's ratification convention wanted the Constitution to declare, "that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."

    What (none / 0) (#58)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:45:39 PM EST
    about my rights to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", to me (and apparently our founders) these were the unalienable rights from which all others flow. Having random people allowed to purchase and carry weapons of mass destruction sure seems like it's walking over those rights.

    I think that Americans have a right not to live in a heavily armed madhouse.


    Life, Liberty, & Pusuit of Happiness... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 01:13:48 PM EST
    is a beautiful ideal that this nation has never lived up to.  Preachin to the choir Brother.

    Have you considered some of your countrymen's pursuit of happiness involves a shiny scary-looking AR-15 in their gun cabinet and on a shooting range...and as much as I think that defines unhappiness, as long as they don't shoot nobody with it I can accept it and let them pursue their happiness, as I wish to be allowed to pursue mine in a spliff of Bubble Kush at a legal poker game...both currently illegal in my jurisdiction.  Which is why I may be so sensitive to the rights of gun lovers even though I think they're f&cking freaks.


    Amen (none / 0) (#85)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 03:09:59 PM EST
    Humanity is incapable of reaching any kind of ideal, but our blunts will not slaughter dozens of school kids and our poker games will not deprive anybody of anything(except, hopefully, our opponents mad money). How much gun freak happiness is equal to the life of one child?

    I don't mind protests. The Demos (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 10:06:37 AM EST
    could have went to the lawn of the White House...instead they chose to stop democracy.

    How Third World of them.


    The Demos (none / 0) (#28)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 10:25:06 AM EST
    Could have went [gone] to the lawn but they were smote with tradition.

    have you been outside (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 10:28:53 AM EST
    it prefect weather for an air conditioned protest.   and boo freakin hoo if the republicans are inconvenienced in their effort to take the 8439th vote to repeal Obamacare.

    I am smitten with shame (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 06:55:42 PM EST
    Exactly what did they stop? (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 11:29:52 AM EST
    The 200th attempt to repeal Obamacare?

    The naming (none / 0) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 11:41:22 AM EST
    of six post offices.

    all after Reagan (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:03:47 PM EST
    I believe they were prevented (none / 0) (#91)
    by midcenturymod on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 04:00:25 PM EST
    from voting on the repeal of a regulation requiring those with a fiduciary responsibility in some capacity from acting against the best interests of those they represent. Requested by the financial services industry, of course. That was a real loss to Democracy!

    From a historical view (none / 0) (#27)
    by ragebot on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 10:25:04 AM EST
     the US government was set up in a different time and some of the goals of those who set it up were not things many folks would agree with.

    The founding fathers were not in favor of direct democracy and in fact worried about those who were not good citizens by their definition (white land owners and tax payers)being able to vote.

    The result was a congress designed to make it hard to pass laws without widespread support.  In today's political climate there is more or less a 50/50 split on many issues; definitely not wide spread support.  To make matters worse even on issues where there is wide spread support a lot of horse trading goes on for votes both for and against it.

    Just my two cents but this sit in is another sign that the current system by which congress operates is not working.  I would add to Jerlyn's point of this embarrassing Democrats that it is embarrassing to the congress as a whole.

    The poster boy (none / 0) (#59)
    by ragebot on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:50:26 PM EST
    for how silly the no fly list is has to be Steve Hayes.  He is a regular on FOX News shows.  He was a host on some type of European cruise for conservatives.  The boat left from Turkey and docked somewhere in Europe.

    So he bought a one way airplane ticket to Turkey, went on the cruise, and then flew back to the US on another one way ticket.

    Next time he flew he discovered he was on the no fly list.  As something of a celeb it was not so much of a problem for him and a FOX reporter brought it up to embarrassed administration officials in multiple pressers.  Sad to say most ordinary folks don't have this recourse and if they are put on the no fly list for silly reasons like this they just have to live with it.

    John Lewis (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 04:24:09 PM EST
    ommenters across the political spectrum have noted that the Democratic Party's proposals to ban gun sales from individuals on the "no-fly list" raise major due-process concerns; the system by which individuals are put onto the list is notoriously opaque and unreliable. In fact, it turns out that Rep. John Lewis--who led the gun-legislation sit-in on the floor of the House of Representatives that just ended--once announced publicly that he'd been subjected to considerable inconvenience when he was mistakenly put on the no-fly list. From a 2004 CNN article:

    A second prominent lawmaker said Friday that he's been subjected to extra security at airports because his name appears on a list designed to prevent terrorists from boarding planes.
    Rep. John Lewis, D - Georgia, a nine-term congressman famous for his civil rights work with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., has been stopped 35 to 40 times over the past year, his office said.
    Lewis' office said at the time that his name had remained on the list ever after he contacted multiple federal agencies about the mistake. (The other prominent lawmaker alluded to in the CNN article, by the way, was Ted Kennedy.)

    I anxiously await... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 01:57:35 PM EST
    widespread Republican support for repeal or serious reduction of the no-fly list.  Surely now they realize how it was a mistake and does not jive with our supposed values of due process and individual liberty.

    Waiting, waiting, waiting...


    The list is not established by law (none / 0) (#103)
    by coast on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 05:40:53 PM EST
    So I'm not sure what you are waiting for from Republicans.  In fact the list is maintained by a section of the FBI established by a Presidential Directive after 9/11.  As such, I think it's more appropriate to turn to President Obama to address the list and not Congress.

    That explains it... (none / 0) (#106)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 06:26:25 PM EST
    overreach by a Brand R admin is cool...if it was Obama's idea maybe we could get rid of it;)

    7 years and $3.5 Million dollars (none / 0) (#93)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 04:34:27 PM EST
    of an attorney's time gets one man off the no fly list.


    The Ibrahim case marks the first and only successful challenge to the terrorist watch-listing program, which arose following the 9/11 attacks. But Ibrahim's case, as just one of hundreds of thousands of individuals who have been placed on such lists, shows the system's opacity. First, the only surefire way to even determine if one is on such a list in the US is to attempt to board a flight and be denied.

    Wiki: Terrorist Screening Database:

    The Terrorist Screening Database or TSDB is the central terrorist watchlist consolidated by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center and used by multiple agencies to compile their specific watchlists and for screening. As of June 2016 the list is estimated to contain over 2,484,442 records, consisting of 1,877,133 individual identities.[1][2] ... Approximately one out of twenty of the people on the list are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents.

    That's 90,000+ suspected American or legal U.S. resident terrorist suspects.

    Wiki: No Fly List

    There were 10,000 names on the list in 2011, 21,000 in 2012, and 47,000 in 2013.

    Wiki: Secondary Security Screening Selection

    The number of names on the list fluctuates and is a secret, although the Transportation Security Administration apparently says there are tens of thousands of names on it.

    Chilling... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 06:31:54 PM EST
    Ya know what I want to be safe from? That kinda sh:t
    being done in my name to poor Ibrahim.

    The threat of violent death at the hands of a deranged individual I can live with...paying taxes to see people f;cked over by our government is much tougher to live with. One can only hurt flesh and bone, the other hurts my conscience and soul.


    What does the death of a little (none / 0) (#113)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 07:34:19 PM EST
    kid in the hood caught between dueling gangbangers do to your soul?

    Silly (none / 0) (#114)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 07:56:33 PM EST
    Jondee, don't you know that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of innocents, tears will only make us weak and encourage the terrorists and corrode our freedoms.....or something,something. Collectively America is quickly losing it's soul.

    Crushes it... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 08:00:13 PM EST
    of course. Sensible drug policy would save that child's life faster than new gun policy. Sensible economic policies. Tell me I'm wrong.

    You know gun control up the wazoo wouldn't gore my ox, I just think we're kidding ourselves. We'll have better luck giving people more to live for than trying to keep a gun outta there hand in this nation of 350 million existing guns and 7.7 million background checks for purchases conducted in 1st Quarter 2016 and way too much anger. Shows over, a change in national consciousness and nothing less will change that. Hate to be a bummer, I really do...but that's how I see it.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 08:39:27 PM EST
    reasonable person expects to unwind the gun problem overnight, incrementalism in bending the curve from more guns in more places to less guns in less places absolutely must be attempted.

    You seemed confident that the big banks, insurance companies, the DC power structure and all the rest of the oligarchy would dispatched in one fell swoop  by Bernie's revolution but now you insist that even trying to put a little dent in the problem is absolutely impossible.

    More guns in more places, there be monsters.


    Hardly... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 08:16:07 AM EST
    the oligarchal economy problem is a tougher nut than the gun problem Joe.  Grifting is more engrained than guns...Banks are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies, never mind armed citizens.

    You think it's hard to pry a gun from a gun enthusiast's hands?  That's nothing like trying to get the grift out of banking and finance.

    jondee asked about a kid in the ghetto from being caught in a gangwar crossfire...I stand by my comment that drug and economic policy reforms would be more effective than gun reforms. Feel free to disagree.


    I think (none / 0) (#136)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 12:29:51 PM EST
    that is my point, the oligarchy is the toughest enemy we face. If we are willing to say screw the odds and take them on, why can't we say the same thing about gun violence or for that matter any of the other daunting issues that we face?

    We as a society and civilization as are facing monumental problems with no easy answers. Global warming, income inequality, gun violence and on and on. None of these problems will be solved through a single election or a simple set of laws and policies.

    Like it or not we are facing an epic battle on multiple fronts, it is imperative that we fight every battle as hard as be can even if we are only making incremental progress or in fact only desperately standing ground.


    If Australia can do it we can do it (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 01:53:56 PM EST
    while we're reviving the national recovery spirit we had in the thirties and reviving hope and unleashing positive human potential  by "comforting the widow and visiting those in prison" and driving a spritual-moral stake through the heart of the bankrupt and unsustainable national mythology of every-man-for-himself.

    Will all that require significant consciousness raising? No doubt. But what is consciousness for if not for raising, deepening, and expanding it.


    Here is a link (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 07:12:56 PM EST
    to a thread regarding FISA. Watching some of you twist in  the wind for demanding that we not listen in to suspected terrorists over seas conversations while now demanding that we just put people on watch lists is highly amusing.

    You might think it was a Democrat now and a Repub then...;-)

    Well the good news is that (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 08:11:10 PM EST
    you're not going to have to lose sleep over people questioning a Repub president's policies for a long long time.

    No...what is amusing is watching you (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 09:13:27 PM EST
    say we should listen to people because we are so scared of them...but let them have all the guns they can get anyway.

    that thread (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 09:33:00 PM EST
    made me miss slado

    Old School Thread Jim... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 08:21:17 PM EST
    So I take it you are cool with the lists? What good is listening to a phone call if you can't put the suspect on a list, right? What could go wrong?

    You'd better watch out
    You'd better not cry
    You'd better pout
    I'm tellin' you why

    We're making a list
    We're checking it twice
    We're gonna find out
    Who's naughty or nice


    Checking it twice? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 08:46:30 PM EST
    You should only wish. The problem is -- or, one of the problems is -- they're not checking the list even once, and no one really knows how the list might be checked. Sorry, Santa.

    I was on a different kind of list (none / 0) (#127)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 08:24:18 AM EST
    for a few years, when reentering the country.  It was the kind of list where they pull you into secondary, and the colonel of customs comes out for a chat.  There was another guy, a bad guy they said, with my exact same name.  One customs guy said I would soon rotate of the list.  I didn't ask any questions, and he was right, they don't stop me anymore.

    Been on the same list. (none / 0) (#137)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    Only I never got attention from the BigWigs - just at the checkpoint. Questions, lots of questions.

    Haven't been out of the country for awhile because of the medical issues, so don't know if I'm still on that list.  


    Kdog, you haven't been paying (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 12:19:09 PM EST

    I'm for actions based on intelligence regarding an individual. If your telephone number is found on a terrorists cellphone then yes, you should be watched very closely,

    Now, think back about 10 years and you'll remember all the Left wingers here screaming against that...
    Of course Bush was Prez... Now most are all for lists much worse than that...and Obama is Perz...

    I smell a connection.


    Partisans... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 01:12:50 PM EST
    never met a idea where they didn't have to check the letter after the ideaman's name prior to deciding how they feel about it.

    Should "watched closely" include being placed on the no-fly, no-gun, no-soup lists or other variations of being denied due process?


    If you remember the issue was (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 02:18:38 PM EST
    running down people whose phone number had been found on captured terrorists in the ME.

    The screaming was over the CIA/FBI placing a tap on their lines as soon as they had the info and then asking the FISA court for a search warrant.

    I'd like to see more effort on iding the threat maker and following them rather than mass computer data bases. In both San Bern and Orlando the watchers dropped the ball.


    I wouldn't say that... (none / 0) (#143)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 02:43:32 PM EST
    To say the watchers dropped the ball is to expect too much of the watchers imo...their powers are strictly limited for good reason.  

    As I recall some the loudest (none / 0) (#144)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 02:49:07 PM EST
    "screamers" were right-libertarians and isolationist paleo-conservatives.

    Which you'd be aware of if for five minutes you could get your mind out of that 1968 US vs the hippies cartoon world it lives in.