Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

More Stupidity on the Progressive Left

YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 1:19:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Currently, Democrats are attempting to take hold of the House by staging a "sit in" to force a vote on gun control. Democrats' goal is to vote on a measure that would make it such that if you are on a no-fly list, you cannot buy a gun.

Most Democrats, and indeed most politicians, do not have a clue how no-fly lists work. The ACLU, however, knows *exactly* how they work: they are racist, arbitrary, discriminatory, over-inclusive, ineffective, and generally impossible to get off of.

There is a way to pass gun control, but using over-inclusive, arbitrary, discriminatory "watch lists" is not the way to do it.

John Lewis's impassioned speech was nice to watch, but constitutional rights do not give way to the pursuit of an indeterminate feeling of security done for no purpose other than to feel like congress has "done something" in response to episodes of terrorism.

The ACLU is right. Hillary Clinton is wrong.
Tsar of DDO
Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 1:39:33 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 1:19:43 PM, YYW wrote:
Currently, Democrats are attempting to take hold of the House by staging a "sit in" to force a vote on gun control. Democrats' goal is to vote on a measure that would make it such that if you are on a no-fly list, you cannot buy a gun.

Most Democrats, and indeed most politicians, do not have a clue how no-fly lists work. The ACLU, however, knows *exactly* how they work: they are racist, arbitrary, discriminatory, over-inclusive, ineffective, and generally impossible to get off of.

There is a way to pass gun control, but using over-inclusive, arbitrary, discriminatory "watch lists" is not the way to do it.

John Lewis's impassioned speech was nice to watch, but constitutional rights do not give way to the pursuit of an indeterminate feeling of security done for no purpose other than to feel like congress has "done something" in response to episodes of terrorism.

The ACLU is right. Hillary Clinton is wrong.

It seems like rightists care less about statistics and facts than anyone. The United States has the most guns yet we have the largest amount of gun deaths in any developed country. (Adjusted for population) If you are not even allowed to fly a plane then you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun period. If you don't belong on the list then you can take it to court. But, the simple truth is that there are people on that list that DESERVE to be on the watch list. We imprison people who are innocent. But, is the answer to that shut down prisons? No. Because tons of guilty criminals go to prison every year.
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 1:45:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 1:39:33 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/23/2016 1:19:43 PM, YYW wrote:
Currently, Democrats are attempting to take hold of the House by staging a "sit in" to force a vote on gun control. Democrats' goal is to vote on a measure that would make it such that if you are on a no-fly list, you cannot buy a gun.

Most Democrats, and indeed most politicians, do not have a clue how no-fly lists work. The ACLU, however, knows *exactly* how they work: they are racist, arbitrary, discriminatory, over-inclusive, ineffective, and generally impossible to get off of.

There is a way to pass gun control, but using over-inclusive, arbitrary, discriminatory "watch lists" is not the way to do it.

John Lewis's impassioned speech was nice to watch, but constitutional rights do not give way to the pursuit of an indeterminate feeling of security done for no purpose other than to feel like congress has "done something" in response to episodes of terrorism.

The ACLU is right. Hillary Clinton is wrong.

It seems like rightists care less about statistics and facts than anyone. The United States has the most guns yet we have the largest amount of gun deaths in any developed country. (Adjusted for population) If you are not even allowed to fly a plane then you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun period.

Do you know how people come to not be allowed to fly on planes?

Do you possess the intellectual capacity to distinguish between the non-constitutional right to fly on planes, and the constitutional right to buy guns?

Are you aware that YOU could be put on a no-fly list just for the stuff you do online?

If you don't belong on the list then you can take it to court.

Do you know anything about the appeal process for that? If so, tell me how it works. Describe for me the methods and procedures. Estimate the costs. Compare the costs with average disposable income Americans have.

So, basically, you should be thinking more than one step ahead of your stupid misguided idea.

But, the simple truth is that there are people on that list that DESERVE to be on the watch list.

Yeah like one in 200. Those are acceptable odds to you? Maybe we raid 200 people's homes next, on the occasion that one of them might be suspected of being terrorists.

We imprison people who are innocent.

We do everything possible to avoid that.

But, is the answer to that shut down prisons? No. Because tons of guilty criminals go to prison every year.

Your analogy is stupid, and your emotional, reactionary, misguided disregard for constitutional rights is repulsive.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 1:47:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 1:39:33 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/23/2016 1:19:43 PM, YYW wrote:
Currently, Democrats are attempting to take hold of the House by staging a "sit in" to force a vote on gun control. Democrats' goal is to vote on a measure that would make it such that if you are on a no-fly list, you cannot buy a gun.

Most Democrats, and indeed most politicians, do not have a clue how no-fly lists work. The ACLU, however, knows *exactly* how they work: they are racist, arbitrary, discriminatory, over-inclusive, ineffective, and generally impossible to get off of.

There is a way to pass gun control, but using over-inclusive, arbitrary, discriminatory "watch lists" is not the way to do it.

John Lewis's impassioned speech was nice to watch, but constitutional rights do not give way to the pursuit of an indeterminate feeling of security done for no purpose other than to feel like congress has "done something" in response to episodes of terrorism.

The ACLU is right. Hillary Clinton is wrong.

It seems like rightists care less about statistics and facts than anyone. The United States has the most guns yet we have the largest amount of gun deaths in any developed country. (Adjusted for population) If you are not even allowed to fly a plane then you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun period. If you don't belong on the list then you can take it to court. But, the simple truth is that there are people on that list that DESERVE to be on the watch list. We imprison people who are innocent. But, is the answer to that shut down prisons? No. Because tons of guilty criminals go to prison every year.

Oh... I just saw that you are 14.

I might have moderated my tone if I'd seen that before I wrote the above. Your perspective is delusional, but I might not have been so demeaning if I'd realized you were just a kid.
Tsar of DDO
vortex86
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 2:02:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
The sad reality of the situation is it will probably work as Republicans are very weak and have no backbone. I very much agree that as of right now the no-fly list does not allow for proper due process and the rules for putting you on it are very arbitrary. As you pointed out flying is not a constitutional right, whereas the right to bear arms is.

I am reminded of a temper tantrum that 2 year olds have when they don't get their way. Where were the democrats' gun control when they had control of both houses? This is political grand standing at it's lowest point.

http://i64.tinypic.com...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 3:08:05 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 2:02:09 PM, vortex86 wrote:
The sad reality of the situation is it will probably work as Republicans are very weak and have no backbone. I very much agree that as of right now the no-fly list does not allow for proper due process and the rules for putting you on it are very arbitrary. As you pointed out flying is not a constitutional right, whereas the right to bear arms is.

I am reminded of a temper tantrum that 2 year olds have when they don't get their way. Where were the democrats' gun control when they had control of both houses? This is political grand standing at it's lowest point.

http://i64.tinypic.com...

Making this, no fly-no-buy, the mantra of this... effort, was a sh1t idea. As much as I hate guns, they are a right, and the SCOTUS has upheld rights like concealed carry. Just sitting on the floor for a night does not change the rulings of the SC or the constitution.

Now. It is arguable that your CAN use the no-fly list, I am not arguing that it would be impossible to make a law using the no-fly list that would pass constitutional muster, but it is still the wrong place to make the battle. It isn't enough to fundamentally change anything. If you are going to the wall to make this point, they should have picked a much better gun-control plan.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 3:48:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 1:19:43 PM, YYW wrote:
Currently, Democrats are attempting to take hold of the House by staging a "sit in" to force a vote on gun control. Democrats' goal is to vote on a measure that would make it such that if you are on a no-fly list, you cannot buy a gun.

Most Democrats, and indeed most politicians, do not have a clue how no-fly lists work. The ACLU, however, knows *exactly* how they work: they are racist, arbitrary, discriminatory, over-inclusive, ineffective, and generally impossible to get off of.

There is a way to pass gun control, but using over-inclusive, arbitrary, discriminatory "watch lists" is not the way to do it.

John Lewis's impassioned speech was nice to watch, but constitutional rights do not give way to the pursuit of an indeterminate feeling of security done for no purpose other than to feel like congress has "done something" in response to episodes of terrorism.

The ACLU is right. Hillary Clinton is wrong.

Would you support it if it included due process?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 4:54:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 1:19:43 PM, YYW wrote:
Currently, Democrats are attempting to take hold of the House by staging a "sit in" to force a vote on gun control. Democrats' goal is to vote on a measure that would make it such that if you are on a no-fly list, you cannot buy a gun.

Most Democrats, and indeed most politicians, do not have a clue how no-fly lists work. The ACLU, however, knows *exactly* how they work: they are racist, arbitrary, discriminatory, over-inclusive, ineffective, and generally impossible to get off of.

There is a way to pass gun control, but using over-inclusive, arbitrary, discriminatory "watch lists" is not the way to do it.

John Lewis's impassioned speech was nice to watch, but constitutional rights do not give way to the pursuit of an indeterminate feeling of security done for no purpose other than to feel like congress has "done something" in response to episodes of terrorism.


While usually, I disagree, in this case, I have to agree. The No-Fly lists are notoriously ineffective and riddled with errors. Of the 3 amendments proposed on Monday, I would have voted for all of them, but that one, because the others I figured would work, but the no fly one is an attack on our rights.
The Cornyn amendment was a much better bill because instead of an outright ban, it would make it so suspected terrorists would not be able to get a gun for 72 hours after they make the initial purchase, and the DOJ must find probable cause/evidence as to why that person is a threat by the end of the 72 hour period. It affirms our right to due process and it also helps to clear up some of the issues with the watchlist.