dems try no-fly no-buy battle cry: why?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > dems try no-fly no-buy battle cry: why?

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

Democrats on Wednesday began a courageous sit-in, entrenching themselves on the House floor, chanting, like activists, �No bill, no break!� as Paul Ryan vainly attempted to shunt the proceedings.

They were fighting to bar those on the no-fly watch list from buying firearms. They were fighting for racism, Islamophobia, empowering the surveillance state, and unconstitutional overreach on guns and due process.

Before it became cause celebre on Wednesday, the �no-fly, no-buy� concept had already been floated in December in response to the San Bernardino shooting, but it was widely panned. On December 7, the LA Times ran an editorial entitled: Should people on the no-fly list be able to buy guns? Yes.

LA Times posted:

One problem is that the people on the no-fly list (as well as the broader terror watch list from which it is drawn) have not been convicted of doing anything wrong. They are merely suspected of having terror connections. And the United States doesn�t generally punish or penalize people unless and until they have been charged and convicted of a crime. In this case, the government would be infringing on a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution � and yes, like it or not, the right to buy a gun is a constitutional right according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Writer Jamelle Bouie agreed, writing:

Slate posted:

The list is conceptually flawed, and using it to deny gun ownership is wrong on its face. Add racial and religious profiling to the mix�the people on the list, including Americans, are disproportionately Arab or from Muslim countries�and you have an anti-gun measure with deep disparate impact.

Even one of the proponents of the measure, Joe Manchin, agreed that there were due process issues, although his take on this was slightly different: Due process �is killing us right now.� This is quite a turnabout from the Bush years, when one might recall liberal critics assailing the no-fly watch list, calling it Orwellian and a violation of civil liberties. Those placed on the watch list are not informed of that fact, they can�t find out why they�re on the list, and they can have trouble being removed. One would especially expect Rep. John Lewis, one of the sit-in leaders, to be able to recall these criticisms.

"CNN posted:

A second prominent lawmaker said Friday that he's been subjected to extra security at airports because his name appears on a list designed to prevent terrorists from boarding planes.

Rep. John Lewis, D - Georgia, a nine-term congressman famous for his civil rights work with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., has been stopped 35 to 40 times over the past year, his office said.

Lewis contacted the Department of Transportation, the Department of Homeland Security and executives at various airlines in a so-far fruitless effort to get his name off the list, said spokeswoman Brenda Jones.

Nevertheless, Democrats in Congress voted down separate gun control bills introduced by Republicans Chuck Grassley and John Cornyn, and are making their stand on the no-fly, no-buy measure. Grassley�s measure would have expanded background checks, and Cornyn�s would have installed a three-day waiting period for those on the watch list to buy guns, during which time the Justice Department could ask a judge to intervene. Democrats pointed to flaws in those bills, but really, how about some Matthew 7:3 you fucekrs. But their motivations are clear:

Democrats don�t care about the shortcomings of the no-fly list, and they don�t care about the constitutionality of their proposals, because this is nothing more than political gamesmanship. The historic sit-in is in fact historically cynical grandstanding, aimed not at cracking down on guns in the slightest, but solely at pandering to the public and shaming the opposition for cheap political points. Neither the San Bernardino shooter nor the Orlando shooter was on the no-fly watch list at the time of their violent sprees, no instance of someone actually on the list buying guns used for violence comes to mind, and other shooters like James Holmes aren�t likely to have been on the no-fly list. But the courage of these Dems, staging their sit-in, only goes as far as terror fearmongering, as they are decidedly not sitting to enact an assault weapons ban, or anything of the sort. Thus, even if their campaign succeeds and enough Republicans cave, it won�t be a victory.

Elizabeth Warren has stood up as a vocal leader of the protest, passing on this particularly absurd statement over twitter:
https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/745030474339323905
Of course, this is a generalization, it's fearmongering, and it's hypocritical to boot. If anyone has put weapons into the hands of ISIS lately, factually it would have to be the Dems. ISIS, the actual ISIS and not a demented lone shooter in Orlando, is flush with American weapons and military gear, which we've been providing both to rebels in Syria and to nations like Saudi Arabia to the tune of billions.
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/745041961787228161
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/u-s-announces-60b-arms-sale-to-saudi-arabia-says-israel-doesn-t-object-1.320307

But "If you can't fly on an airplane, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun" simply sounds so good, Democrats can't resist making political hay out of it. Polls show huge swaths of America are in support of greater restrictions on access to guns. 92% of Americans support increased background checks, and 85% support banning those on the watch list from buying guns. Meaningful reform, like restrictions on assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips, only garnered the support of 54%. It's a majority, and it'd make a real difference, but again, Democrats would prefer to fight for the low-hanging rotten fruit instead. Maybe they've learned this lesson from Trump, that it doesn't matter what's right or what makes sense, the important thing is that racist populism resonates. Senator Chris Murphy had introduced a universal background check amendment, which as shown above has even higher public support than the watch list restriction, but notably that is not where Democrats are making their stand, preferring to shame Republicans as being soft on terror.
https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/745714414989508608
https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/745794967658979328

For the time being, it's working. The "Republicans give terrorists guns" line has been trickling down to the public, as seen below:
https://twitter.com/igorvolsky/status/745025255542915072

https://twitter.com/meadowgirl/status/745659237271908352
Here's a response for you, meadowgirl. Democrats talked a good game about civil liberties when George W. Bush was in office. Now we know that was pandering too.
https://twitter.com/roqchams/status/745102067207802880The common sense sentiment that terrorists shouldn�t be able to buy guns breaks down when one realizes most people on the no-fly list are not terrorists and haven�t committed any crimes. It breaks down again when one considers the fact that flying on an airplane is not a constitutionally protected right. But it�s still too tempting for Democrats to pass up. Any restriction based on the no-fly list would be a continuation of existing gun control history: like with the Mulford Act, the right to bear arms can only ever be limited with a helping hand from racism. Thursday morning, Democrats continued to break House rules by using cell phones to videotape one another in a self-congratulatory orgy celebrating their empty-gesture protest. Democrats will also have to hope the political ammo gained by this theater isn't wiped out by a pending Susan Collins compromise amendment.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 17:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 13:11

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO: May 8, 2006

I for one am surprised that the Democrats have seized the initiative on racial profiling in this extremely competitive election cycle. Sad!

# ? Jun 23, 2016 17:27

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

lol that "Sad!" just reminded me

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/745717108533780481

bonus tweet
https://twitter.com/emmettrensin/status/745764219031785472

# ? Jun 23, 2016 17:29

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO: May 8, 2006

If you can't buy a plane ticket or a gun should you be allowed to own a newspaper or adopt a baby? You will soon be required to register your address in New York if you're on a watchlist. Looking forward to the continued evolution of our new racial precrime code.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 17:33

EugeneJ: Feb 5, 2012; by FactsAreUseless

Fast Luck posted:

Rep. John Lewis, D - Georgia, a nine-term congressman famous for his civil rights work with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., has been stopped 35 to 40 times over the past year, his office said.

"You've made enough money off black people, John - they've suffered enough"

# ? Jun 23, 2016 17:35

Thump!: Nov 25, 2007; Look, fat, here's the fact, Kulak!

All gun owners should be shot into space, imho

# ? Jun 23, 2016 17:36

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

You can take my guns when you fly me to a cold, dead planet.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 17:40

Karl Barks: Jan 21, 1981

quote:

Nevertheless, Democrats in Congress voted down separate gun control bills introduced by Republicans Chuck Grassley and John Cornyn, and are making their stand on the no-fly, no-buy measure. Grassley�s measure would have expanded background checks, and Cornyn�s would have installed a three-day waiting period for those on the watch list to buy guns, during which time the Justice Department could ask a judge to intervene. Democrats pointed to flaws in those bills, but really, how about some Matthew 7:3 you fucekrs.

lol this is the important bit, gently caress the democrats

# ? Jun 23, 2016 17:40

paranoid randroid: Mar 4, 2007

# ? Jun 23, 2016 17:54

xwing: Jul 2, 2007; red leader standing by

Thump! posted:

All gun owners should be shot into space, imho

If we all point our guns at the ground and collectively fire all our ammo at once... I think we have a plan! You wouldn't miss us and you'd get your gun-nut free utopia. WIN-WIN because I know I'd love to not hear about how you want to violate due process for everyone. Make it so.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 17:57

ate shit on live tv: Feb 15, 2004; by Azathoth

EugeneJ posted:

"You've made enough money off black people, John - they've suffered enough"

lol

Also Democrats are garbage, but that's only because people are garbage.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 18:13

mannerup: Jan 11, 2004; ♬ I Know You're Dying Trying To Figure Me Out♬

♬My Name's On The Tip Of Your Tongue Keep Running Your Mouth♬

♬You Want The Recipe But Can't Handle My Sound My Sound My Sound♬

♬No Matter What You Do Im Gonna Get It Without Ya♬

♬ I Know You Ain't Used To A Female Alpha♬

# ? Jun 23, 2016 18:22

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

I don't love the bill, they're doing it because it's overwhelmingly popular and they want to force Republicans to vote no.

That being said, I don't believe owning a gun is a right and I'm in favor of any steps that will limit people's access to guns. And certainly if the government is comfortable saying 'we don't trust this person on planes' then not trusting them to own a gun is a no brainer.

More appealing wrt to being able to fly makes perfect sense, but the gently caress do I care if someone can't buy a gun?

# ? Jun 23, 2016 18:35

G.C. Furr III: Mar 30, 2016

gunz rule dems drool

# ? Jun 23, 2016 18:37

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

Xandu posted:

That being said, I don't believe owning a gun is a right and I'm in favor of any steps that will limit people's access to guns.

but it is a right, whether you believe it or not. 2nd Amendment has been held to say so and supreme court not changing that any time soon.

zen death robot posted:

Political theater in an election year, holy poo poo!

I just wish they were decent enough to at least have an acceptable cause behind their political theater, instead of hot garbage. Too much to ask?

# ? Jun 23, 2016 18:56

Karl Barks: Jan 21, 1981

imagine a sit in for raising taxes on the rich LOL

# ? Jun 23, 2016 18:58

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.