Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Stuart G

(38,365 posts)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 11:37 AM Jun 2016

Senators Hail Themselves For Unveiling Gun Bill That Affects 2,700 Americans

Source: Huff Post.

WASHINGTON — Congress might (and that’s a big “might”) finally be getting ready to do something about gun violence. There’s a catch, though. The effort will affect only about 0.00083 percent of the U.S. population.

A bipartisan group of senators, led by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), unveiled a bill Tuesday that they think can unite people within the gun debate. It would ban firearm sales to the 81,000 people on the Transportation Security Administration’s no-fly list, as well as another 28,000 “selectees” who can fly but are subject to extra screening.

The day before, the Senate had failed to pass any measure to deal with gun violence despite the Orlando, Florida, massacre in which a man who pledged allegiance to ISIS shot and killed 49 people in a gay nightclub. Instead, the lawmakers spent Monday voting down bills that would have tightened background checks on weapon sales and blocked people on all terrorist watch lists — there are many — from buying guns.

Nearly all Republicans opposed those measures, as did a couple of Democrats. Even lawmakers who voted no, however, realize that most Americans don’t understand why the country should sell high-powered weapons to potential terrorists.

Enter Collins’ compromise bill. Since it only targets people on two watch lists, it eases some GOP concerns about Americans who erroneously end up on such lists being denied their constitutional right to possess a gun. Democrats like the proposal because it’s doing something to curb gun violence. Enter Collins’ compromise bill. Since it only targets people on two watch lists, it eases some GOP concerns about Americans who erroneously end up on such lists being denied their constitutional right to possess a gun. Democrats like the proposal because it’s doing something to curb gun violence.

But the vast majority of people covered by the bill are foreigners. Approximately 2,700 of the individuals on those two lists are Americans, which is about as many as could fit into a suburban high school.



Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senate-gun-bill-susan-collins_us_5769ad74e4b09926ce5cee88?section=



I guess the details show that this is totally nothing bill the Republicans are putting out to make themselves look good..2700 out of all those who shouldn't be able to buy an assault gun like an AK 47.(actually no one should be able to buy one)....and note these two sentences...the last two


But the vast majority of people covered by the bill are foreigners. Approximately 2,700 of the individuals on those two lists are Americans, which is about as many as could fit into a suburban high school.


Another con job worthy of Donald Trump!!!!!!!!
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Senators Hail Themselves For Unveiling Gun Bill That Affects 2,700 Americans (Original Post) Stuart G Jun 2016 OP
It's a start. The alternative to the status quo doesn't have to be perfect to be better underpants Jun 2016 #1
It may be a start, but it is not enouigh...looks to me like a con job.. Stuart G Jun 2016 #3
Maybe you're thinking about this all wrong. Don't think of it as a useless gun control bill that hughee99 Jun 2016 #2
Sorta already happened. zipplewrath Jun 2016 #4
I'm one of the 'Selectees' they talk about. SeattleVet Jun 2016 #6
The best kind of compromise... yallerdawg Jun 2016 #5
GO AWAY COLLINS AND THE REST OF YOU "COMPROMISING RETHUGS" harrose Jun 2016 #7
That is exactly how I see it too.... Stuart G Jun 2016 #8
I don't care if it covers everyone... harrose Jun 2016 #9
Yep Cosmocat Jun 2016 #10
Lyin' Ted Cruz had to open his trap about it RussBLib Jun 2016 #11
So what about the secondary market? Bradical79 Jun 2016 #12
I favor 5th Amendment Due Process protections appal_jack Jun 2016 #13
I wonder what you would think of becoming #2701? No big deal, right? Marengo Jun 2016 #14
... Crepuscular Jun 2016 #15

Stuart G

(38,365 posts)
3. It may be a start, but it is not enouigh...looks to me like a con job..
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 12:01 PM
Jun 2016

Do something, but not enough to solve any aspect of the problem..and...still get approval of the NRA..and that is really what this may be all about....a Republican Con Job..

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
2. Maybe you're thinking about this all wrong. Don't think of it as a useless gun control bill that
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 11:52 AM
Jun 2016

affects almost no one, think of it as Republicans and Democrats coming together to set a clear precedent that the government can take away someone's constitutional rights without any due process. Doesn't that make you feel safer?

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
4. Sorta already happened.
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 12:10 PM
Jun 2016

This is basically "prior restraint", and the precedent was already set for them with the lists upon which one can land without any of the normal due process, and it can be very hard for them to get off.

SeattleVet

(5,468 posts)
6. I'm one of the 'Selectees' they talk about.
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 12:52 PM
Jun 2016

I'm on their 'Selectee' list. I share a name with a few hundred other people in the country. One of them may have done something at some time to raise suspicions, so for the past 15 years every time I try to fly I get a boarding pass with a series of 'S's' across the bottom, and have to undergo 'enhanced screening' as a 'Selectee'. I haven't had even a simple traffic ticket since 1975, served 12 years in the Air Force and have held the highest security clearances and accesses that the country has.

This is the usual routine: I get taken out of the TSA security check line when they examine my boarding pass. "Please step behind the screen. Lift your shirt. Now unbuckle your belt and open the front of your pants. Stand here with your arms out and legs spread. I'm going to touch you *here* now...", all the while spreading most of the contents of my carry-on out on a table. I get wanded and patted down, and my carry-on and tote bag are swabbed for explosive residue.

I have a metal plate in my leg, and that also usually gets a rapid reaction from them when they wand it. One guy grabbed my leg, felt nothing but flesh (the plate was installed in the mid-70's after I broke my femur) and realized that he should NOT have grabbed me that way...apologized to hell and back, but I think he was worried about what it was going to look like if I complained and they reviewed the video of the screening area.

How are they going to verify that the 'name on the list' is actually the person that is *supposed* to be on their list? I can see several major lawsuits in the future if they try to do it this way. There are probably a few thousand on that list that are only there by virtue of having the same name as someone else. They included a 'redress' clause (reimbursement of attorney's fees) if, after going through the hassle of suing them you are cleared to make the purchase. Allowing someone to file for reimbursement of attorney fees after being cleared isn't 'just compensation' for the wasted time and hassle. If the list was 'clean' to begin with it wouldn't be such a problem, but I've spent the past 15 years essentially getting a strip search any time I try to board a commercial flight, and know that there are gross errors in their list.

I think that there are far more than just 2,700 Americans that will be affected by this...a LOT of people will be affected just by having the same name. In my case, there are several hundred that already have to go through the 'enhanced screening' every time we fly. If this passes we will all now have to go through a special additional process any time we purchase a commercial product.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
5. The best kind of compromise...
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 12:12 PM
Jun 2016

is the kind that pisses off both sides!

Senators from both sides came together and identified what could be possible - what can get their bipartisan support.

harrose

(380 posts)
7. GO AWAY COLLINS AND THE REST OF YOU "COMPROMISING RETHUGS"
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 01:46 PM
Jun 2016

Look, we get it. It's a con game. You're just doing this to appease the people and to make it look like you're doing something. But we know the truth that you and your Rethug ilk are still obstructionist creeps hell-bent on destroying our country, returning women and minorities to slavery and enriching yourselves and yourselves only.

So don't give us this claptrap about a "compromise." Just be yourselves so everyone can see just how ugly your soul is.

Stuart G

(38,365 posts)
8. That is exactly how I see it too....
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:06 PM
Jun 2016

If it really covered a whole lot of people..but it doesn't...perhaps amendments will be added that will make it more useful and inclusive, but I doubt that will be allowed..The truth is in what it is now,,,not what the next one will be, or what it can become.. This is my opinion.

harrose

(380 posts)
9. I don't care if it covers everyone...
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:12 PM
Jun 2016

... the fact of the matter is that this is all a sham to garner votes. I'd rather the vote fail, have the Rethugs be shamed before the nation, voted out in disgrace and then, when we have the majority of the Senate and House, pass the required bills and (f we're lucky enough to have a 2/3 majority) expel the remaining few Rethugs from the Senate and House.

In short, I want nothing less than the death of the Republican Party (the party, not necessarily the people) and the complete and utter collapse of conservatism in the US.

Cosmocat

(14,543 posts)
10. Yep
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:45 PM
Jun 2016

a useless fucking bill (that won't pass the house anyways) that does nothing, LITERALLY other than taking heat of republicans, who can point to it and say they did SOMETHING. AND, for extra added bonus, the next time there is a mass shooting, they can point to ti and say THERE, WE TOLD YOU THAT LEGISLATION IS USELESS!

RussBLib

(8,985 posts)
11. Lyin' Ted Cruz had to open his trap about it
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 03:23 PM
Jun 2016

...with his usual nauseating dramatic flair.

(Paraphrase) "This (the Orlando shooting) is not about gun control. It. Is. About. Terrorism."

I guess the Repukes just cannot EVER acknowledge that an action like the Orlando shooting could possibly have more than one serious angle to deal with. It's either about THIS, or about THAT, but it CANNOT be about BOTH, according to the main obstructors of progress and freedom.

Yes, it can, Lyin' Ted (I like the nickname), you disgusting piece of filth, be about two things. Or 3. Or 4.

In Orlando we got
1) terrorism
2) gun control
3) gay hatred

 

Bradical79

(4,490 posts)
12. So what about the secondary market?
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 03:33 PM
Jun 2016

Would people who don't have to do background checks get in trouble if one of their customers turns out to be on the list?

 

appal_jack

(3,813 posts)
13. I favor 5th Amendment Due Process protections
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:15 PM
Jun 2016

Susan Collins' bill is the first proposal I've seen from either side of the aisle that builds-in a means to challenge the list and regain rights that are removed. Why is this a "con job?" I would say that passing laws that violate the Bill of Rights is the real con job.

And yes, I do think I ought to be able to buy a semi-automatic rifle based upon the Kalashnikov action, just like the Garand action is OK, and various actions designed by John M. Browning.

-app

Crepuscular

(1,057 posts)
15. ...
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 09:33 AM
Jun 2016

Before any such bill gets voted on, one needs to ask the question, "how many people were killed last year by someone listed on the no-fly list, who legally purchased a firearm to do so?" Are we talking, 10, 20, 100 murders that we are trying to prevent? Or is the answer actually zero? So we are passing a law to address a problem that has resulted in zero actual deaths. Yet meanwhile, Chicago has had over 300 homicides so far this year, none committed by people on the no-fly list and only one committed by someone using an assault weapon.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Senators Hail Themselves ...