John Lewis leads sit-in on House Floor to pass gun control legislation.

[Green Line]

Yes it does...?  That's the whole point of the waiting period.  It allows the government to present proof that the person on the no fly list is too dangerous to purchase a gun.  It addresses exactly that.

Your answer was more of a cop-out.

The government presenting proof should occur when the person is initially put on the list. We need to improve the no-fly list; at the beginning. I think we can all agree on that. Cornyn's bill does not fix the initial mistakes.

This debate is about the ease of acquiring guns. It's ridiculously easy to the point that terrorists openly encouraged people to take advantage of it. Cornyn's bill and the other GOP bill did not go far enough. The defeat of these bills wasn't a "we need to do something, anything" because "something, anything" won't fix the easy access to guns.

Er, yeah, I agree that the government should have to present that proof when they initially put someone on the list, but the fact is they don't have to right now.  The Democrats bill doesn't address the problems with the No Fly List, in fact it just completely ignores them and bars anyone on it from buying a gun, whether or not the person is justified to be on the list at all.  Like I said, the Republican bill gives the government a 72 hour period to present their case for denying someone their 2nd amendment rights. The Democrats bill gives absolutely no checks to the governments list, despite the fact that you yourself are admitting that the list is flawed.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The correct solution, of course, would be to place the burden of proof on the government as to why a person is on the no-fly list in the first place.  As long as we have a database that arbitrarily labels people as suspected terrorists and gives them no notification and limited means of appealing, a waiting period is pointless.  But I am extremely disappointed in Democrats for not offering any amendments to reform a list which disproportionately affects Arab Americans and builds on the same Orwellian security state that many of these same "progressives" claim to oppose.  This should not be an either/or problem.  Both parties deserve blame for giving these problems little acknowledgment.

[Green Line]

The correct solution, of course, would be to place the burden of proof on the government as to why a person is on the no-fly list in the first place.  As long as we have a database that arbitrarily labels people as suspected terrorists and gives them no notification and limited means of appealing, a waiting period is pointless.  But I am extremely disappointed in Democrats for not offering any amendments to reform a list which disproportionately affects Arab Americans and builds on the same Orwellian security state that many of these same "progressives" claim to oppose.  This should not be an either/or problem.  Both parties deserve blame for giving these problems little acknowledgment.

The Cornyn bill does place the burden of proof on the government.. It has 72 hours to present the proof.  If not, the person in question can purchase the gun.

[Deblano]

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The correct solution, of course, would be to place the burden of proof on the government as to why a person is on the no-fly list in the first place.  As long as we have a database that arbitrarily labels people as suspected terrorists and gives them no notification and limited means of appealing, a waiting period is pointless.  But I am extremely disappointed in Democrats for not offering any amendments to reform a list which disproportionately affects Arab Americans and builds on the same Orwellian security state that many of these same "progressives" claim to oppose.  This should not be an either/or problem.  Both parties deserve blame for giving these problems little acknowledgment.

The Cornyn bill does place the burden of proof on the government.. It has 72 hours to present the proof.  It not, the person in question can purchase the gun.

But is their name expunged from terrorist watch lists entirely, or are they merely given the right to buy a gun?

[RaphaelDLG]

As someone  in favor of most gun control I LOLed

[Mr. Reactionary]

Ben Shapiro's tweets about #NoBillNoBreak are ing hilarious.

I find Shapiro grating at times, but I did enjoy these gems:

[Green Line]

It really is surprising to see the Democrats turn so Islamophobic all of a sudden.  I thought they were better than that!

[Deblano]

It really is surprising to see the Democrats turn so Islamophobic all of a sudden.  I thought they were better than that!

Eh?

[Green Line]

It really is surprising to see the Democrats turn so Islamophobic all of a sudden.  I thought they were better than that!

Eh?

"No-Fly, No-Buy" is basically, "Muslim? No-Buy"

[Deblano]

It really is surprising to see the Democrats turn so Islamophobic all of a sudden.  I thought they were better than that!

Eh?

"No-Fly, No-Buy" is basically, "Muslim? No-Buy"

I think that might be a bit of a stretch. Let's agree to disagree.

[freepcrusher]

well i'm of the view that there's nothing wrong with being skeptical of 2A and that they've run out of seats where being anti-2A could cost them anything. Nonetheless this is very 3rd world to occupy places and do the whole "call and respond" thing. I'm very much of the view that the dems have a lack of institutional control and that someone like Gephardt would never have let this happen. Was he pro-2A? I don't recall he was, but it seemed he had better discipline over his party

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

As someone  in favor of most gun control I LOLed

As someone in favor of gun control, I didn't. I mean, 4 columns by 4 rows? Seriously? There's supposed to be 5 each!

[Deblano]

well i'm of the view that there's nothing wrong with being skeptical of 2A and that they've run out of seats where being anti-2A could cost them anything. Nonetheless this is very 3rd world to occupy places and do the whole "call and respond" thing. I'm very much of the view that the dems have a lack of institutional control and that someone like Gephardt would never have let this happen. Was he pro-2A? I don't recall he was, but it seemed he had better discipline over his party

The problem is that the DNC is so incompetent that they can't get the desired number of seats, and thus they have to do silly political feel-good theater because they went "My Way Or The Highway" on gun control (remember the Cornyn bill, y'all?).

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It really is surprising to see the Democrats turn so Islamophobic all of a sudden.  I thought they were better than that!

Eh?

"No-Fly, No-Buy" is basically, "Muslim? No-Buy"

Glad to know you suddenly care about Muslims.

[Green Line]

It really is surprising to see the Democrats turn so Islamophobic all of a sudden. I thought they were better than that!

Eh?

"No-Fly, No-Buy" is basically, "Muslim? No-Buy"

Glad to know you suddenly care about Muslims.

I've always cared deeply about law abiding Muslim-American citizens!  Good to know you don't, though

[Deblano]

It really is surprising to see the Democrats turn so Islamophobic all of a sudden.  I thought they were better than that!

Eh?

"No-Fly, No-Buy" is basically, "Muslim? No-Buy"

Glad to know you suddenly care about Muslims.

Brown Line BTFO

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

The correct solution, of course, would be to place the burden of proof on the government as to why a person is on the no-fly list in the first place.  As long as we have a database that arbitrarily labels people as suspected terrorists and gives them no notification and limited means of appealing, a waiting period is pointless.  But I am extremely disappointed in Democrats for not offering any amendments to reform a list which disproportionately affects Arab Americans and builds on the same Orwellian security state that many of these same "progressives" claim to oppose.  This should not be an either/or problem.  Both parties deserve blame for giving these problems little acknowledgment.

I agree wholeheartedly. The Cornyn bill seems to do better than the Dems' proposal from what I can tell.

[dead0man]

The correct solution, of course, would be to place the burden of proof on the government as to why a person is on the no-fly list in the first place.  As long as we have a database that arbitrarily labels people as suspected terrorists and gives them no notification and limited means of appealing, a waiting period is pointless.  But I am extremely disappointed in Democrats for not offering any amendments to reform a list which disproportionately affects Arab Americans and builds on the same Orwellian security state that many of these same "progressives" claim to oppose.  This should not be an either/or problem.  Both parties deserve blame for giving these problems little acknowledgment.

This is the correct answer.  Fix the stupid list (like we should have done LAST year when this sh**t first came up) then nobody in their right mind would be against banning people on it from owning guns.  It's suspicious that nobody in the two parties have figured this out.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Isn't it touching that Republicans suddenly care so much about the civil rights of terrorist suspects?

Of course they didn't give a flying fyck when Bush and Cheney were torturing and spying on them without warrant but nobody is perfect.

[136or142]

Yes it does...?  That's the whole point of the waiting period.  It allows the government to present proof that the person on the no fly list is too dangerous to purchase a gun.  It addresses exactly that.

Your answer was more of a cop-out.

The government presenting proof should occur when the person is initially put on the list. We need to improve the no-fly list; at the beginning. I think we can all agree on that. Cornyn's bill does not fix the initial mistakes.

This debate is about the ease of acquiring guns. It's ridiculously easy to the point that terrorists openly encouraged people to take advantage of it. Cornyn's bill and the other GOP bill did not go far enough. The defeat of these bills wasn't a "we need to do something, anything" because "something, anything" won't fix the easy access to guns.

Er, yeah, I agree that the government should have to present that proof when they initially put someone on the list, but the fact is they don't have to right now.  The Democrats bill doesn't address the problems with the No Fly List, in fact it just completely ignores them and bars anyone on it from buying a gun, whether or not the person is justified to be on the list at all.  Like I said, the Republican bill gives the government a 72 hour period to present their case for denying someone their 2nd amendment rights. The Democrats bill gives absolutely no checks to the governments list, despite the fact that you yourself are admitting that the list is flawed.

The Republicans say that a gun bill that prevents people from buying guns based on the inaccurate terror watch list and/or no fly list is unconstitutional. But, based on the United States vs Wheeler decision of 1920, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitutional protections of Freedom of Movement also included the freedom to travel without unreasonable restrictions. So, based on that, the inaccurate terrorist watch list/no fly list should already be regarded as unconstitutional, and the government should have long ago been required to make it as accurate as possible.

Yet, the Republicans didn't seem to care about this violation of Constitutional protections at all. (I believe the ACLU has taken the government to court over the violation of the right to travel) and only now is concerned that the watch lists seem to have a lot of problems. So, we know the Republicans don't really care about the Constitution, just about the votes of gun nuts and pleasing the psychopaths in the NRA

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As someone  in favor of most gun control I LOLed

As did I; this was actually pretty funny.

[LLR]

Am I the only person who sees the irony in the fact that John Lewis has gone from a civil rights leader to leading a protest against civil liberties?

So owning a dangerous killing machine is now a "civil liberty"?

John Lewis is doing much the same thing 50 years later - protecting people and making sure their lives are better.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So owning a dangerous killing machine is now a "civil liberty"?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The only thing they'll get out of the sit in is hemorrhoids.