Trump to meet with NRA on terror watch list

danb · Jun 15, 2016

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politics/donald-trump-nra-meeting/index.html

I also cross posted this the mega Trump thread in the water cooler.

Just might deserve special call out though.

The real issue in my mind here is the lack of due process for the terror watch list.

Should someone under FBI investigation have their rights abridged, or be able to run for president?

Inigoes · Jun 15, 2016

Examining the issue is not a bad thought.

If there is a way to involve due process to correct erroneous entries, it may be worth a look.

OrbitalEllipses · Jun 15, 2016

It's in the establishment's best interest to keep due process out and build on the list.

BeoBill · Jun 15, 2016

True that. What good is a secret list if one can both (1) confront their accuser and (2) obtain relief?

Rack&Roll · Jun 15, 2016

Disqualified while under FBI investigation? Our side cannot hammer HildaBeast enough on this.

We have just fought this No Fly No Buy battle in our own backyard. Our defeat of the Maryland "No Fly No Buy" legislation is THE template for how to respond to this nationally. Wouldn't be surprised if Wayne La P has pics of us in his wallet to show around.

Here, we did the following:

--derided them for abandoning Due Process
--linked them to Sen. Joe McCarthy
--derided them for abandoning Liberal principles
--challenged the Leftists as UnAmerican
--demanded explanations for how someone clears their name
--labeled the No Fly List as the new Internment Camps of the modern age
--derided the No Buy list as the advent of Thought Crimes
--criticized it as prone to Executive Branch "Enemies" listing, outside of judicial checks
--used the controversy to talk about the Constitution at every opportunity
--rallied support from the sidelines by being PUBLIC day after day with signage
--boosted the confidence of our legislators to act by conducting PUBLIC demonstrations
--made sure our PUBLIC support for our legislators was magnified on social media
--conducted PUBLIC demonstrations among regular folks, away from the legislature
--sought media attention with signage that could not be altered by the media

Despite a veto-proof Democrap majority in the MD General Assembly our side went 12-0 this year. We can do this nationally but we have to leave the keyboards, like Persistent Patriot Bikebreath below:
.

EL1227 · Jun 15, 2016

And I'll add ...

Rack&Roll said:
Disqualified while under FBI investigation? Our side cannot hammer HildaBeast enough on this.

We have just fought this No Fly No Buy battle in our own backyard. Our defeat of the Maryland "No Fly No Buy" legislation is THE template for how to respond to this nationally.

Here, we did the following:

--derided them for abandoning Due Process
--linked them to Sen. Joe McCarthy
--derided them for abandoning Liberal principles
--challenged the Leftists as UnAmerican
--demanded explanations for how someone clears their name
--labeled the No Fly List as the new Internment Camps of the modern age
--derided the No Buy list as the advent of Thought Crimes
--criticized as prone to Executive Branch "Enemies" listing, outside of judicial checks
--used the controversy to talk about the Constitution at every opportunity
--rallied support from the sidelines by being PUBLIC day after day with signage
--boosted the confidence of our legislators to act by conducting PUBLIC demonstrations
--made sure our PUBLIC support for our legislators was magnified on social media
--conducted demonstrations among regular folks, away from the legislature
--sought media attention with signage that could not be altered by the media

With a veto-proof Democrap majority our side went 12-0. We can do this nationally but we have to leave the keyboards, like Persistent Patriot Bikebreath below:
.

If you can't 'leave your keyboard', post your online rebuttals with this.

MDFF2008 · Jun 15, 2016

I'm hoping that this could be the issue that really paints Trump in a new light. While Hillary is going to be all out anti-gun, Trump has the potential to go to this meeting and say "How can we make this work?"

Then Trump comes out with a proposal that affords due process of law, and is acceptable to gun rights groups.

Then when the Democrats block it, or try to hijack it with an AWB, Trump can point out the Democrats as obstructionists.

Trump needs a course correction. Apparently polls are showing he's not willing the PR war. Honestly, "I told you so" isn't the best answer after something like Orlando happens.

Bigfoot21075 · Jun 15, 2016

gprimr1 said:
I'm hoping that this could be the issue that really paints Trump in a new light. While Hillary is going to be all out anti-gun, Trump has the potential to go to this meeting and say "How can we make this work?"

Then Trump comes out with a proposal that affords due process of law, and is acceptable to gun rights groups.

Then when the Democrats block it, or try to hijack it with an AWB, Trump can point out the Democrats as obstructionists.

Trump needs a course correction. Apparently polls are showing he's not willing the PR war. Honestly, "I told you so" isn't the best answer after something like Orlando happens.

This really could be a pivotal moment to deal a death blow to the Clinton Cartel. I HOPE he is well advised enough to go at it from this approach. The good news is LA Pierre is no dummy and certainly would suggest this to him.

EL1227 · Jun 15, 2016

It's a legal minefield ...

gprimr1 said:
I'm hoping that this could be the issue that really paints Trump in a new light. While Hillary is going to be all out anti-gun, Trump has the potential to go to this meeting and say "How can we make this work?"

Then Trump comes out with a proposal that affords due process of law, and is acceptable to gun rights groups.

Then when the Democrats block it, or try to hijack it with an AWB, Trump can point out the Democrats as obstructionists.

Trump needs a course correction. Apparently polls are showing he's not willing the PR war. Honestly, "I told you so" isn't the best answer after something like Orlando happens.

Bigfoot21075 said:
This really could be a pivotal moment to deal a death blow to the Clinton Cartel. I HOPE he is well advised enough to go at it from this approach. The good news is LA Pierre is no dummy and certainly would suggest this to him.

And been like that since Lautenberg & King first introduced their bills in 2011, as Shannon notes above.

NRAILA.org -
Why NRA Opposes Gun Control Supporters` "Terrorist Watchlist" Bills

Laws don't stop criminals, or terrorists for that matter. 95% of people on the watchlists are already prohibited from buying firearms.

Besides this. Hello MDS members ...

The troubling DHS-FBI “rightwing extremism” report

There’s a concern that the FBI might watchlist a person as a “suspected terrorist” on dubious grounds. In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the FBI, said that “rightwing extremists” prone to “confrontations” with “government authorities” could include:

•Americans who have fought in the Global War on Terrorism;
•Americans who are concerned about issues such as abortion, immigration, the economy, our loss of jobs overseas, including the loss of America’s manufacturing base to China and India, the decline of our construction industry, and home foreclosures;
•Americans who disagree with the policies of the Obama Administration and who encourage others to disagree with such policies, or who believe in federalism;
•Americans who post their political opinions on the Internet;
•Americans who oppose gun control and who, in anticipation of a new push for federal gun control, buy firearms and ammunition;
•Americans who disagreed with the Brady Act and semi-automatic firearm ban, and the FBI’s and BATFE’s actions at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas, in the 1990s; and
•Americans whose religious beliefs hold that there will occur a time of hardship accompanied by the rise of unscrupulous or evil political leaders.

Trump should stick to now new middle-eastern (n.e. Muslim) immigrants until proper vetting can be achieved and lifting Obama's unspoken profiling rules for surveillance and questioning. If they buy a gun or suspect material, See something / Say something should NOT be automatically considered racist by the FBI.

BeoBill · Jun 15, 2016

Rack&Roll said:
Disqualified while under FBI investigation? Our side cannot hammer HildaBeast enough on this.

We have just fought this No Fly No Buy battle in our own backyard. Our defeat of the Maryland "No Fly No Buy" legislation is THE template for how to respond to this nationally. Wouldn't be surprised if Wayne La P has pics of us in his wallet to show around.

Here, we did the following:

--derided them for abandoning Due Process
--linked them to Sen. Joe McCarthy
--derided them for abandoning Liberal principles
--challenged the Leftists as UnAmerican
--demanded explanations for how someone clears their name
--labeled the No Fly List as the new Internment Camps of the modern age
--derided the No Buy list as the advent of Thought Crimes
--criticized it as prone to Executive Branch "Enemies" listing, outside of judicial checks
--used the controversy to talk about the Constitution at every opportunity
--rallied support from the sidelines by being PUBLIC day after day with signage
--boosted the confidence of our legislators to act by conducting PUBLIC demonstrations
--made sure our PUBLIC support for our legislators was magnified on social media
--conducted PUBLIC demonstrations among regular folks, away from the legislature
--sought media attention with signage that could not be altered by the media

Despite a veto-proof Democrap majority in the MD General Assembly our side went 12-0 this year. We can do this nationally but we have to leave the keyboards, like Persistent Patriot Bikebreath below:

.

Would any of our allies in NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia or LA be willing to do some water tower painting one night, and then call their non-hostile paper and sympathetic TV News outlets? On a tower that faces a major commuter artery? Not sayin' to tag or deface anything - that would be illegal... :innocent0

AssMan · Jun 15, 2016

I hope you guys are right and that I'm wrong, but my take is that this is just the beginning of Trump's "deal making" - and I'm not convinced that we're the ones that stand to benefit. We'll see.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Free Radical · Jun 15, 2016

Once again we have demonstrated for us that the NRA is not serious about gun rights. The NRA is an incrementalist gun-grabber organization, and anyone who supports them wouldn't know an infringement if it bit them in the ass.

Bigfoot21075 · Jun 15, 2016

Free Radical said:
Once again we have demonstrated for us that the NRA is not serious about gun rights. The NRA is an incrementalist gun-grabber organization, and anyone who supports them wouldn't know an infringement if it bit them in the ass.

Sorry - i am not following you on this one. How again is the NRA a "incrementalist gun-grabber organization" because I SURE AS HELL DO NOT WANT TO BE the enabler let alone donor to such an organization.

Jim12 · Jun 15, 2016

Rack&Roll said:
Disqualified while under FBI investigation? Our side cannot hammer HildaBeast enough on this.

We have just fought this No Fly No Buy battle in our own backyard. Our defeat of the Maryland "No Fly No Buy" legislation is THE template for how to respond to this nationally. Wouldn't be surprised if Wayne La P has pics of us in his wallet to show around.

Here, we did the following:

--derided them for abandoning Due Process
--linked them to Sen. Joe McCarthy
--derided them for abandoning Liberal principles
--challenged the Leftists as UnAmerican
--demanded explanations for how someone clears their name
--labeled the No Fly List as the new Internment Camps of the modern age
--derided the No Buy list as the advent of Thought Crimes
--criticized it as prone to Executive Branch "Enemies" listing, outside of judicial checks
--used the controversy to talk about the Constitution at every opportunity
--rallied support from the sidelines by being PUBLIC day after day with signage
--boosted the confidence of our legislators to act by conducting PUBLIC demonstrations
--made sure our PUBLIC support for our legislators was magnified on social media
--conducted PUBLIC demonstrations among regular folks, away from the legislature
--sought media attention with signage that could not be altered by the media

Despite a veto-proof Democrap majority in the MD General Assembly our side went 12-0 this year. We can do this nationally but we have to leave the keyboards, like Persistent Patriot Bikebreath below:
.

Jim12 · Jun 15, 2016

gprimr1 said:
I'm hoping that this could be the issue that really paints Trump in a new light. While Hillary is going to be all out anti-gun, Trump has the potential to go to this meeting and say "How can we make this work?"

Then Trump comes out with a proposal that affords due process of law, and is acceptable to gun rights groups.

Then when the Democrats block it, or try to hijack it with an AWB, Trump can point out the Democrats as obstructionists.

Trump needs a course correction. Apparently polls are showing he's not willing the PR war. Honestly, "I told you so" isn't the best answer after something like Orlando happens.

But they've still managed to distract and change the subject from ISIS and obama/hillary failures to gun control and their success in achieving it despite R and trump obstructions.

They must not be allowed to control the debate like this.

The problem is ISIS, not AR15's that were invented in 1959!

csanc123 · Jun 15, 2016

Free Radical said:
Once again we have demonstrated for us that the NRA is not serious about gun rights. The NRA is an incrementalist gun-grabber organization, and anyone who supports them wouldn't know an infringement if it bit them in the ass.

I don't follow. Care to elaborate or was that a rhetorical statement?

fred333 · Jun 15, 2016

Free Radical said:
Once again we have demonstrated for us that the NRA is not serious about gun rights. The NRA is an incrementalist gun-grabber organization, and anyone who supports them wouldn't know an infringement if it bit them in the ass.

???

Free Radical · Jun 15, 2016

Bigfoot21075 said:
Sorry - i am not following you on this one. How again is the NRA a "incrementalist gun-grabber organization" because I SURE AS HELL DO NOT WANT TO BE the enabler let alone donor to such an organization.

"hall not be infringed" is an absolutist statement. This means that the federal government shall have no power—ever—to impede an individual's right to arm himself, and carry said arms. The NRA has a history of being either complicit or complacent when it comes to gradual infringements upon the right to bear arms. In the 1960s, the NRA supported Governor Reagan's Mulford Act, which, among other limitations, prohibited the carrying of firearms in public in the state of California. In recent decades, the NRA has recited "We must enforce the laws on the books" (y'know, the ones that already greatly infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms) as if it were the damn Hare Krishna.

Supporting a ban on arms ownership by people who have been neither tried nor convicted of a crime is a glaring infringement. People end up on no-fly or terrorist-watch lists for a multitude of innocuous, even mundane, reasons. Lip service to due process aside, the NRA has a long history of supporting "just the right amount of infringement."

aray · Jun 15, 2016

Free Radical said:
Once again we have demonstrated for us that the NRA is not serious about gun rights. The NRA is an incrementalist gun-grabber organization, and anyone who supports them wouldn't know an infringement if it bit them in the ass.

Were you not at the General Assembly with the rest of us fighting MD on pushing this same bill through? Because Shannon Alford of the NRA certainly was there. I saw and heard her and testified later that same day. Were you there with us? Had you been there and heard her excellent testimony you might not have made the uninformed statements you just made. And the NRA-ILA has fought this at the national level in Congress as well, along with a thousand other gun rights fights. In addition First Freedom, the NRA monthly magazine to which I subscribe, has had scores of articles on the dangers of gun control tied to the terror watch list over the last few years, educating its membership to make a more informed citizenry. What have you done more than the NRA? Did you even hit the streets with us along with R&R's sign protests?

It was hard work turning back this bill in particular. "No fly no buy" seems prima facie to be a no-brainer. (Of course MD's bill was really "no fly no carry" - it wasn't clear the bill's author even read his own bill!) Who wants to be seen as on the side of terrorists? The logic of our position was important, but nuanced and difficult to make. I'm proud of all of the people who worked really hard to successfully make the case that this was a bad bill despite the uphill climb against us. NRA was with us every step of the way.

MDFF2008 · Jun 15, 2016

Free Radical said:
"hall not be infringed" is an absolutist statement. This means that the federal government shall have no power—ever—to impede an individual's right to arm himself, and carry said arms. The NRA has a history of being either complicit or complacent when it comes to gradual infringements upon the right to bear arms. In the 1960s, the NRA supported Governor Reagan's Mulford Act, which, among other limitations, prohibited the carrying of firearms in public in the state of California. In recent decades, the NRA has recited "We must enforce the laws on the books" (y'know, the ones that already greatly infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms) as if it were the damn Hare Krishna.

Supporting a ban on arms ownership by people who have been neither tried nor convicted of a crime is a glaring infringement. People end up on no-fly or terrorist-watch lists for a multitude of innocuous, even mundane, reasons. Lip service to due process aside, the NRA has a long history of supporting "just the right amount of infringement."

1.) The Consitution does provide a way to deny people rights, due process of law. " nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

2.) If people are convicted of a crime and lose their rights, they have been afforded due process of law.

3.) Would not Trump look like a hero to both sides if he came out of that meeting and said "We are going to add due process and make this happen?"

Trump to meet with NRA on terror watch list

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

dont be a dumbass

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

R.I.P

Attachments

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

Crank in the Third Row

Meh...

Banned

Ultimate Member

Let Freedom Ring

Let Freedom Ring

Ultimate Member

Banned

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics