General Discussion

lancer78

(1,495 posts)

39. It is not 72 hours

Reply to Straw Man (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:32 PM

Jun 2016

It is 3 business days.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why didn't we pass the GOP no-fly-no-buy bill? [View all] Recursion Jun 2016 OP

Well... Scootaloo Jun 2016 #1

The "no fly, no buy" bill had an appeals process. EL34x4 Jun 2016 #17

Only 3 business days though n/t lancer78 Jun 2016 #38

Call me cynical, but I think some elected Democrats just want an issue BlackLivesMatter Jun 2016 #2

.+1 840high Jun 2016 #3

I won't call you cynical ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #4

It is not 72 hours lancer78 Jun 2016 #39

Even better. Straw Man Jun 2016 #45

"don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #6

Oh, I know that; I've worked on K St Recursion Jun 2016 #9

I agree the Cornyn bill did not seem bad, though I think a week would be a better time period. Amishman Jun 2016 #15

Their constituents are lancer78 Jun 2016 #40

"Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good" Voltaire. jtuck004 Jun 2016 #5

the issue was a 72 hour timeline to present evidence. it's not realistic Exilednight Jun 2016 #7

So, nothing is better than 72 hours? Recursion Jun 2016 #8

it's not realistic. Republicans have a habit of passing such bills Exilednight Jun 2016 #10

And, not to, as they say... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #31

I agree that there has to be some form of due process. It just Exilednight Jun 2016 #33

It is my position that a solution... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #44

Not 72 hours lancer78 Jun 2016 #42

Those warrants being issued are after months of Exilednight Jun 2016 #46

One reason, as explained by Corey Booker, is that the FBI would have to go to court Vinca Jun 2016 #11

And you're against that? Recursion Jun 2016 #12

The point is, if they don't have probable cause to arrest the person outright, Vinca Jun 2016 #13

If they can't show why the person is a probable terrorist, how can we deny the gun purchase at all? NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #19

I think they should also be able to purchase airline tickets over the Internet and then be able Vinca Jun 2016 #22

"Inconvenience of the few" - sounds like an excuse for apartheid or segregation... NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #27

All I can say is I will err on the favor of preserving life. Vinca Jun 2016 #30

It's not about guns at all. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #34

Yes, it is about guns and a number of other things. Vinca Jun 2016 #35

And that somehow justifies allowing a secret list to be used to deprive a citizen of any right. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #36

If 1 person's right is violated in that they can't immediately buy a gun and it saves 50 lives, it's Vinca Jun 2016 #37

NO - I love my CIVIL LIBERTIES. I oppose a Police State! NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #41

No, lancer78 Jun 2016 #43

Exactly. Justice Jun 2016 #21

There are plenty of times when a prosecutor can meet probably cause for arrest, but not aikoaiko Jun 2016 #28

That's a BS excuse. You can often get an court order like a restraining order with evidence that Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #32

I watched the gun sense debates tofay on C-span and underthematrix Jun 2016 #14

And I guess nothing SickOfTheOnePct Jun 2016 #16

i think the Collins which addresses the concerns of both GOPs and DEMS and is underthematrix Jun 2016 #24

It looks like the upcoming Collins amendment might be a compromise aikoaiko Jun 2016 #18

Yes. It's a start and a good start underthematrix Jun 2016 #25

And what's the end? Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #26

No, GOP bill was idiotic. Justice Jun 2016 #20

Yep. BootinUp Jun 2016 #23

Letting "Them Win" doesn't elect more Democrats One_Life_To_Give Jun 2016 #29