Feinstein’s amendment to suspend the rights of the People without Due Process did no make it. Still, too many senators who sworn to protect and defend the constitution, voted to dump on it. The other motion for background checks in the internet and at Gun Shows also died. I don’t care for the other two other that they were poison pills and embarrassments for the Dems. They did their job.
I took the pic as the senate was voting on the resolution. Feinstein is the one in red toward the lower right corner. Notice she is isolated.
That is what failure looks like.
I have been silent about this on purpose as not to suddenly give the Opposition any ideas and I am a firm believer in not helping the enemy while they are making a mistake. Gun Control groups had in their hands a fantastic chance that went to waste today.
If instead of stupidly go for the easy morsel, any of all the major Gun Control groups had come out with a simple statement saying that although they continue to be passionately engaged in the control of “gun violence,” they could not support a bill that would infringe so deeply into the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens of the United States. That they found the potential for abusing the Feinstein’s Terror List amendment so huge, they in good faith could not support it. That a bill which places an American in a secret list without probable cause and restrict him from freely exercise his rights goes against everything this country stands for.
Funny part? They didn’t have to mean it, just publish the note.
Imagine the ton of brownie points they could have collected. After a statement like that, they could say that they do care for the Constitution and they “proved it” by opposing the Feinstein bill. It would have certainly made our jobs more difficult.
But instead of getting of their moral high horse, they shot it in the back of the head, decided to join the other political worms and crawl in the mud. If anybody sitting in the fence ever had doubts about how much respect the Gun Control entities had for the Constitution, today is the perfect evidence that they have none.
Or perhaps it is because is such an overreach of our rights that even some Liberal publications are warning about it?
If the government can revoke your right to access firearms simply because it has decided to place you on a secret, notoriously inaccurate list, it could presumably restrict your other rights in a similar manner. You could be forbidden from advocating for causes you believe in, or associating with like-minded activists; your right against intrusive, unreasonable searches could be suspended. And you would have no recourse: The government could simply declare that, as a name on a covert list, you are owed no due process at all.
When Reid and his accomplices argue that nobody on the “terror watch list” should be permitted to buy a gun, they are saying in effect that the government should have the power to deprive you of your enumerated constitutional rights purely by entering your name into a database. This is unacceptable. Even if the “terror watch list” were transparent and well-regulated, there would be serious philosophical problems with such an arrangement. But for the government to propose using a system that is as opaque, as messy, and as downright bloated as is this one . . . frankly, it beggars belief.
We shouldn’t revoke ANY constitutional right based on “predictive judgments” of the government—that includes the Second Amendment. What’s at stake here isn’t just national security; it’s the bedrock of our liberty. If we’re going to treat American citizens like criminals before they’re even charged with a crime, we’ve stepped into dangerous territory. We’ll continue to debate gun issues, but we must not throw out constitutional safeguards in the name of election year political expediency.
I caught a trailer for a third movie in the Purge franchise, The Purge: Election Year.
At first, the Purge series seems to be following the SAW series of movies, the first one was novel and interesting, if only because of the new concept and the rest are murder porn.
Watching the trailer for the third movie, it seems that the powers at be in Hollywood have tried to spice up the plot with some political intrigue.
At this point, I can’t ignore the obvious anymore. The Purge series is the ultimate liberal/progressive fantasy projection. The overall plot of the three movies is:
There is a crisis of some sort, and a group of people known as the “New Founding Fathers” decide the best way to fix everything is with one night – 12 hours – once a year, in which everyone can go murder happy and “release” their anger and aggression. Middle class and rich (and predominately white) people use the purge to kill the poor, working class, and minorities, which magically fixes the economy and social strife.
Of course, economically, this wouldn’t work. If you kill all the working class people, who will fix the pluming, keep the lights on, drive the trucks that carry goods cross country, and so on, who will do it? How does killing all the unemployed allow for any room for economic growth? Who will all the upper middle class middle managers manage? It is a ludicrous position. But there are better economists than I to deconstruct the economics of the Purge for you.
My issue with the movie is the psychological projection inherent in the movies. The writers would have you believe that American conservatives believe that the best way to fix this country is to kill everyone that liberals believe that conservatives don’t like – namely the poor and minorities.
I minored in military history in college. Thinking back to my history of warfare of the 20th century, I can’t think of one mass murder committed by a conservative/classical liberal political party or group. What does come to mind is:
The concentration camps of Nazi Germany
The Soviet Red Terror, Holomodor, Gulags, and Great Purge.
The Chinese Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries and Great Leap Forward
The Killing Fields of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge
The concentration camps and mass starvation in North Korea
The political left always comes up with a case of convenient amnesia when it comes to the mass murder and atrocities committed by regimes they are sympathetic to.
The central theme to conservatism/classical liberalism is individual rights and freedom. We want our rights to private property and to express ourselves freely and then to be left alone to compete in the free market.
It is progressivism/neo-liberalism that is compelled to control what people say, own, and do in order to impose top-down “fixes” for societal problems.
But never mind history and reality, progressive Hollywood has to foist the motivations of the most murderous regimes of the 20th century onto conservatives, because…
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, such remedial procedures and judicial review shall be subject to procedures that may be developed by the Attorney General to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information.
And you can rest assured the AGwill get the procedure done fast, openly and will NEVER be abused. <coughbullshitcough>
One more thing I need to expand on. Again from the Feinstein bill:
the Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm if the Attorney General determines, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the transferee represents a threat to public safety based on a reasonable suspicion that the transferee is engaged, or has been engaged, in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources therefor.
According to Cornell’s Legal Information Institute: “Reasonable suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure. It is looser than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is sufficient to justify brief stops and detentions, but not enough to justify a full search. When determining reasonable suspicion, courts consider the events leading up to the brief stop and a decide whether these facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to reasonable suspicion.
Courts look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.”
The important part in my IANAL diploma is Not Enough to Justify a Full Search. Basically, it cannot violate the Fourth Amendment, you know? The one that goes:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So they need to ignore the Fourth to kill the Fifth and finally eliminate the Second. That is about 1/3 of the Bill of Rights they are aiming to destroy.
the Attorney General may deny the
transfer of a firearm if the Attorney General determines,
based on the totality of the circumstances, that the
transferee represents a threat to public safety based on a reasonable suspicion that the transferee is engaged, or has
been engaged, in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in
aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material
support or resources therefor. For purposes of sections
922(t)(1), (2), (5), and (6) and 925A of title 18, United
States Code, and section 103(g) of Public Law 103-159 (18
U.S.C. 922 note), a denial by the Attorney General pursuant
to this provision shall be treated as equivalent to a
determination that receipt of a firearm would violate section
(g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or
State law. A denial described in this section shall be
subject to the remedial procedures set forth in section
103(g) of Public Law 103-159 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) and the
intended transferee may pursue a remedy for an erroneous
denial of a firearm under section 925A of title 18, United
States Code. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, such remedial procedures and judicial review shall be subject to procedures that may be developed by the Attorney General to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information that
reasonably could be expected to result in damage to national
security or ongoing law enforcement operations, including but
not limited to procedures for submission of information to
the court ex parte as appropriate, consistent with due
process. The Attorney General shall establish, within the
amounts appropriated, procedures to ensure that, if an
individual who is, or within the previous 5 years has been,
under investigation for conduct related to a Federal crime of
terrorism, as defined in section 2332b(g)(5) of title 18,
United States Code, attempts to purchase a firearm, the
Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General shall
be promptly notified of the attempted purchase.
And here we have the Cornyn amendment (Poison Pill?):
At the end add the following: Sec. 5__. Hereafter, the Attorney General shall establish a process by which– (1) the Attorney General and Federal, State, and local law enforcement are immediately notified, as appropriate, of any request to transfer a firearm or explosive to a person who is, or within the previous 5 years was, investigated as a known or suspected terrorist; (2) the Attorney General may delay the transfer of the firearm or explosive for a period not to exceed 3 business days and file an emergency petition in a court of competent jurisdiction to prevent the transfer of the firearm or explosive, and such emergency petition and subsequent hearing shall receive the highest possible priority on the docket of the court of competent jurisdiction and be subject to the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.); (3) the transferee receives actual notice of the hearing and is provided with an opportunity to participate with counsel and the emergency petition shall be granted if the court finds that there is probable cause to believe that the transferee has committed, conspired to commit, attempted to commit, or will commit an act of terrorism, and if the petition is denied, the Government shall be responsible for all reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; (4) the Attorney General may arrest and detain the transferee for whom an emergency petition has been filed where probable cause exists to believe that the individual has committed, conspired to commit, or attempted to commit an act of terrorism; and (5) the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation annually reviews and certifies the identities of known or suspected terrorists under this section and the appropriateness of such designation.
