Despite wishing that all guns could be removed from society..

[Kentonio]

I have to admit it worries me deeply that one of the causes that has finally led to house Dems having the courage to stand up and fight is an attempt to remove rights from 'suspected' terrorists. It's bad enough that people can be prevented from flying based on secret government agency determinations with little or no right of appeal, and I'd expect Dem reps to be opposing that, not working to add to the list.

Honestly with all the different gun control measures that are possible, and indeed all the other causes that were screaming out for direct action and protest, I'm kind of sickened that this is what triggered action. 20 dead primary school kids didn't do it, but a nutjob convert to Islam going on a killing spree suddenly causes #NoFlyNoBuy and mass party protest?

Don't get me wrong, anything that gets guns off the street is good, but this isn't going to do that, at best its just going to add a little extra power to the authoritarian powers that appeared post-9/11.

[Meldread]

1. It's a necessary step in the right direction.

I agree about concerns over due process. This is something that should be fixed with the lists regardless of whether or not gun control legislation passes, and should absolutely be part of the bill if it does. It is the only legitimate criticism offered by the pro-gun lobby.

However, this isn't an argument against the existence of such a list. The First Amendment allows people to have the right to view and spread terrorist propaganda, and even declare their moral support for terrorism. This is not a bad thing--it is helpful when people declare themselves in such a way, or are simply clumsy and end up getting caught. However, it is equally acceptable for the government to declare someone a risk for terrorist actions, and create a list restricting their ability to fly, buy guns, and engage in other activities that may be a danger to others. Such restrictions are not a violation of their rights anymore than it is a violation of a domestic abuser or a convicted felon's right to own a gun. Dangerous people should not be given dangerous weapons or given the opportunity to hurt or kill innocent people.

You are right, this is not enough. Not by a long shot. However, right now this is legislation that is supported by 90% of the American people. It is not controversial. It is common sense and most people will support it. This makes it easy to organize around, easy to energize people into action, easy to dramatize just how deeply the Republicans are in the pocket of the gun lobby, and it is an easy first step toward something bigger. It is important to win a victory, because it is important to break the narrative that nothing will change, that this is the new normal, and that nothing will happen. When people believe that things CAN change and WILL change, and they know that there are people willing to fight for that change, they will be willing to come out and organize behind those people who are fighting. A change in the narrative is important. It begins to shift momentum toward our side and away from theirs... and we are fighting on favorable ground.

[Kentonio]

2. If you are a risk to society, that should be something dealt with openly in a court of law.

Just restricting people's rights because the government says that persons beliefs are dangerous is terrifying.

I do agree a win is hugely important right now, I'm just worried that it won't be a first step, but rather a distraction that will change little but make people feel like something has been done, so then they can go back to not worrying.

I'm probably being too cynical, but it just feels like an old record being played again.

[Meldread]

3. The First Amendment can prevent that from happening.

People have the right to free speech, including openly empathizing with ISIS and supporting its ideology. Just as people in the United States have the right to spread KKK and Neo-Nazi propaganda, support their ideology, and even join such groups. They are equally dangerous for the same reasons. However, we cannot imprison them if we do not have any evidence that they plan to engage in criminal activity. That does not mean, of course, that they are not dangerous individuals who SHOULD be monitored and COULD potentially engage in criminal activity--particularly violent criminal activity--based on previous actions from members of such groups.

I mean, literally, we could haul someone into court, they could stand there and say, "I hope ISIS gets nuclear weapons and kills every single American, and I also hope that members of ISIS get lots of guns and kill as many people as possible" and so long as they are not actively helping ISIS achieve such goals (i.e. helping / plotting an attack) they will be able to walk free. ...because they have the right to voice such an opinion.

Obviously, there are people on the lists who do not belong. We should want those people who don't belong removed, and everyone given due process. Not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it makes the list stronger and more efficient and doing what it is designed to do--keep potentially dangerous people from hurting innocent people.

I think you are right to be worried that a small incremental step could be taken, and then we'll pretend as if we have actually achieved something. I agree that it is by far not enough. However, we have to take an incremental step to move forward, to break the current narrative, and swing political momentum into our favor. Democrats are winning PR victories. They are motivating people and sending a strong message. Even getting this incremental legislation, that will do virtually nothing to stop gun violence in this country, feels like a steep mountain to climb. However, once we have a victory under our belt and prove that the NRA can be successfully challenged, it opens up the opportunity to do it again and again and again. Then slowly over time we chip away at the pro-gun lobby and their entrenched influence. Right now, people believe the NRA is undefeatable. Once it loses, people will no longer believe that. It is hard to get people mobilized behind a cause that many people feel is hopeless. Seizing control of the narrative is important.

[pipoman]

4. The only thing the NRA has is

We will challenge on constitutional grounds. This whole idea that they are only as powerful as their pocketbook is wholly wrong. Contrary to popular meme, there are volumes of restrictions involving guns. They are crafted around SCOTUS rulings and opinions. The reaaon the majority of proposals, including the last 4, fail is because they cannot pass constitutional scrutiny.

No, we will not be removing constitutional rights without due process and shame on Democrats for pretending such a move is possible or worse the right thing to do.

[hunter]

10. Fuck the second amendment and piss on guns. I can say that all day.

The second amendment is an ugly eighteenth century relic in our Constitution, just as slavery was. It's always been used as a tool of oppression and terror.

Slaves revolting, workers striking, Indians won't leave? Call your fucking "militia." Tell a bunch of fools with guns they are patriots and they'll shoot anyone.

Gun love is disgusting.

We're not going to get rid of all the guns. Properly stored, guns are indestructible and there are millions of them. But we can recognize every gun lover as a potential terrorist, suicide, or tragic accident waiting to happen.

Smoking and drunk driving have yielded to social pressure. Gun love will follow.

[Kentonio]

12. I fully agree with everything you just said in case I wasn't clear.

[Delmette]

15. I whole hearty agee!

Thank you.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. "nutjob convert to Islam"?

What did he convert from?

[Glassunion]

16. Veganism?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

17. Radical veganism, no doubt. nt

[Glassunion]

18. Actually evangelical

[Vinca]

6. Chris Cuomo on CNN interviewed a GOP congressman a few minutes ago.

The meme seems to be - at least in GOP minds - that gun control is only for (make sure you say it) "radical Islamic terrorists." No one talks about the other 600 people who died last week from gun owners who were of unknown religion and sometimes under 5 years old. We need to skew the talking point around to the deaths unrelated to "radical Islamic terrorists." Overall, deaths due to terrorism are right up there with deaths from lightning strikes. The vast majority of people are killed by their fellow Americans who are free to stockpile weapons to the roof and are only turned away if they go to a licensed gun dealer and have been deemed crazy in a court of law or have a criminal record. It's easier to buy weapons in this country than cough syrup and that's got nothing to do with the Muslim religion.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. The killer was not a 'convert' but practiced the religion into which he was born and raised.

nt

[Kentonio]

8. Does it matter?

Does it change the fact that #NoFlyNoBuy is in essense aimed at Muslims rather than guns?

[FXSTD]

29. He was not on the no fly list.

I'm all for doing something to curb the sickening violence, but why do we propose laws that would have had zero effect on the recent shooting?

[Kentonio]

30. Even if it would have had an effect..

It still seems crazy to be legislating against hugely rare events when every single day people are being gunned down.

[Brickbat]

9. Many gun control pushes have racist roots.

I see a lot of people cheering "no fly no buy" a few days after cheering Sotomayor's dissent in Utah v. Strieff. Ouch.

[hunter]

14. The second amendment itself has always been used in racist and regressive ways.

It's always been about white guys with guns.

It's always been about white guys with guns freaking out about anyone else with guns.

The "gun controls have racist roots" argument is just more "reverse racism" bullshit.

U.S. American tradition is for black people or Indians with guns to be shot dead.

[Eleanors38]

31. Actually, the attempts to control guns have been used in "racist and regressive ways."

From antebellum times, through Jim Crow, well into the modern era. The record is quite clear. Even NYC's anti-gun "Sullivan Laws" were passed on a wave of anti-Italian sentiment in the 'teens.

1968 Gun Control Act: "An attempt not to control guns, but to control blacks."

Guess who said that?

[ileus]

11. So he was a Christian before converting to Islam...

[Kentonio]

13. His religion is only relevant here in terms of #NoFlyNoBuy being aimed at Muslims.

[NaturalHigh]

19. "Despite wishing that all guns could be removed from society.."

I stopped reading after that. Have fun.

[Kentonio]

20. Why would that be a bad thing exactly?

[NaturalHigh]

21. Just one point is good enough for me.

Guns are used (despite what anti-gunners will tell you) for self defense. To me, taking away a tool used for self defense is immoral.

[Kentonio]

22. If there weren't any guns, what would you need defending from?

[NaturalHigh]

23. Knives. Methheads. Any jackal that tries to break into my house.

Your argument is bullshit. Not everyone is physically equal. You are being intentionally obtuse as best.

[Kentonio]

24. If you have a gun, then the person breaking into your house will bring one too.

The only people who win arms races are arms manufacturers. Your TV is not worth dying (or killing) for.

[NaturalHigh]

25. Again, you are being intentionally obtuse only seeing your own POV.

When you come up with some magical way to take all the guns away from the bad guys, maybe I'll listen. Until then, I just count you as one more anti-gun zealot who would gladly see me or my family sacrificed to further your agenda. Goodbye.

[Kentonio]

26. The statement you had an issue with was me saying I'd like all guns to disappear from society.

As for me wanting your family 'sacrificed' that is completely ridiculous and meladramatic to the point of obnoxiousness. This selfish paranoia that you have to have guns for the one in a million chance that a bad thing might require one just leads to a society awash with guns where bad things happen to lots of innocent people. Spare me your twisted morality.

[NaturalHigh]

27. "Spare me your twisted morality."

Consider yourself spared. Now, again, goodbye.

[Eleanors38]

32. "If there weren't any alcohol..."

Logic is best used in the world of the probable, not as art stored in the attic.

[One_Life_To_Give]

34. Someone with access to smuggled illicit firearms

Not like the international market isn't flooded with weapons made in half a dozen different arms supplying countries. Heck the AR15 is only the 5th most common gun in the world.

[My Good Babushka]

28. I think this was an impetus

because there was an actual proposal to ban the sale of guns to persons on the terrorist watch list which may have, if it were enforced, made a difference in this case. So far, other than being male, we've had no way to screen out and winnow down the potential pool of mass murderers. Some of that is because of restrictions on gun violence research, most likely.
I do not wish all guns to be removed from society, I want all murderous persons removed from society. Or at least all firearms removed from the murderous persons.

[Eleanors38]

33. The impetus is most reformers of any type see the 5th as the weakest link.