Jim Gray attacks Rand Paul for protecting the 2A.

[unknown]

Jim Gray challenges Rand Paul to block gun sales to suspected terrorists (http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article83948022.html).


Waving a newspaper story about last weekend’s shooting rampage in Orlando that killed 49 people, Lexington Mayor Jim Gray on Wednesday criticized Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., for opposing a bill that would ban gun purchases by people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list.

“How many headlines like this do we need to see before Congress does something?” asked Gray, the Democratic Senate nominee, standing outside Paul’s Lexington field office. “Senator Paul voted to let potential terrorists buy guns. He chose to protect the rights of radical Islam over the safety of innocent Americans. What was Rand Paul thinking? Where is his common sense? Where’s the backbone?”

Rand needs to fall in line with the other cucks and support the "no fly/no buy" list like Chump, Hitlery and the NRAint.

[bunklocoempire]

The backbone not to urinate on one's oath, Jimbo?

Protecting rights and leading men -you're doing it wrong Dimbo.

[Chieppa1]

Define terrorist you assholes. Even the ACLU and Glenn Greenwald are calling out the Dems for attempting to us the "terrorist watch" list as part of any legislation.

[jllundqu]

Dangerous times, folks.

We could be months away from a different country....

[Matt Collins]

Rand needs to fall in line with the other cucks and support the "no fly/no buy" list like Chump, Hitlery and the NRAint.He already has (http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-gop-alternative-to-the-democrats-terror-watch-list-gun-ban/article/2000231)... trying to find out why...

[jmdrake]

He already has (http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-gop-alternative-to-the-democrats-terror-watch-list-gun-ban/article/2000231)... trying to find out why...

What are you talking about? Rand isn't even mentioned in the article you linked.

[CaptUSA]

Are people not smart enough to recognize a politician who is trying to capitalize on a tragedy for personal and political gain? I think they are. At least enough of them in Kentucky.

[erowe1]

“Senator Paul voted to let potential terrorists buy guns."

Banning gun sales to "potential terrorists" means banning all gun sales to anyone at all.

[FindLiberty]

It's gone FUBAR. Take guns away from everyone else, but specifically in the
case of the recent (now dead) Florida shooter, he would keep his gun (with
an fbi check and receive a permit to carry 'cause he works for the government)
while everybody else gives up theirs. That eliminates the ability to defend
from a crazed terrorist and/or the government while arming the attacker.

What a goofy, shameful "got to do something in response" plan.

[wizardwatson]

I posted this on related thread. Thought I'd duplicate here..food for thought.

************

The thought occurred to me, "how many U.S. citizens or legal residents are actually on the watch list?"

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror...ening_Database it's about 1 in 20.

So only 5% of people on this list are even "Americans" with rights under the constitution. Which brings up other questions like when a background check is done, do you get to buy guns if you're not a citizen? I assume you do.

Anyway, point is, politically, if they were really concerned about increasing safety with respect to shady immigrants on this list, then why not simply exclude citizens and legal residents since they are only a fraction on the list anyway.

Not necessarily my position, but curious no one's brought it up. Perhaps it's too "offensive" and "racist" to treat non-citizens as second class non-citizens.

[Matt Collins]

What are you talking about? Rand isn't even mentioned in the article you linked.
From the article:

What's been lost in the debate is the fact that Republicans have an alternative (https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/2912/text) to the Democratic proposal. Under Republican legislation sponsored by Senator John Cornyn, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause"--the same legal standard used to obtain a search warrant--that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. The measure received 55 votes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00318) in the Senate. It it secured the backing of staunch conservatives like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio as well as moderate Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and moderate Democrats Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly. The only Republican to oppose it was Mark Kirk.


Here is the roll call vote to the Cornyn proposal:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00318

[jmdrake]

Are people not smart enough to recognize a politician who is trying to capitalize on a tragedy for personal and political gain? I think they are. At least enough of them in Kentucky.

Oh yeah. This is only going to help Rand in KY. I'm guessing his opponent is hoping to cash in on some national donations or something.

[ChristianAnarchist]

I posted this on related thread. Thought I'd duplicate here..food for thought.

************

The thought occurred to me, "how many U.S. citizens or legal residents are actually on the watch list?"

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror...ening_Database it's about 1 in 20.

So only 5% of people on this list are even "Americans" with rights under the constitution. Which brings up other questions like when a background check is done, do you get to buy guns if you're not a citizen? I assume you do.

Anyway, point is, politically, if they were really concerned about increasing safety with respect to shady immigrants on this list, then why not simply exclude citizens and legal residents since they are only a fraction on the list anyway.

Not necessarily my position, but curious no one's brought it up. Perhaps it's too "offensive" and "racist" to treat non-citizens as second class non-citizens.

So he supports a "compromise" which at least requires a showing of "probable cause" to deny the purchase. You're the one who keeps saying we must try establishment tactics to win elections... As far a compromises go, this one's pretty mild.

[phill4paul]

"Senator Paul voted to let potential terrorists buy guns."

Well, everyone could be considered a potential murderer so the next logical step would be just to banish firearms entirely.

[jmdrake]

From the article:

What's been lost in the debate is the fact that Republicans have an alternative (https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/2912/text) to the Democratic proposal. Under Republican legislation sponsored by Senator John Cornyn, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause"--the same legal standard used to obtain a search warrant--that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. The measure received 55 votes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00318) in the Senate. It it secured the backing of staunch conservatives like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio as well as moderate Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and moderate Democrats Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly. The only Republican to oppose it was Mark Kirk.


Here is the roll call vote to the Cornyn proposal:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00318

Hmmm....it does answer the biggest problem I have with the NRA proposal which is no specified timeframe for the investigation. But taking away a fundamental right on nothing but probable cause is troubling. Of course someone loses gun rights if they lose on an order of protection hearing. But those only last a certain amount of time.

[Brian4Liberty]

The Democrats really think they have the GOP trumped on this one. They want to claim that ~90% agree with them on gun control. No doubt based on some weaselly worded poll of 100 selected "average" people.

[wizardwatson]

So he supports a "compromise" which at least requires a showing of "probable cause" to deny the purchase. You're the one who keeps saying we must try establishment tactics to win elections... As far a compromises go, this one's pretty mild.

I "keep saying" that? Are you sure you're referring to me?

[ChristianAnarchist]

I "keep saying" that? Are you sure you're referring to me?

Sorry, directed at Matt... Somehow I must have gotten a bit corn-fused...

[Danke]

Sorry, directed at Matt... Somehow I must have gotten a bit corn-fused...

Wizards will do that to a person

[unknown]

From the article:

What's been lost in the debate is the fact that Republicans have an alternative (https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/2912/text) to the Democratic proposal. Under Republican legislation sponsored by Senator John Cornyn, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause"--the same legal standard used to obtain a search warrant--that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. The measure received 55 votes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00318) in the Senate. It it secured the backing of staunch conservatives like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio as well as moderate Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and moderate Democrats Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly. The only Republican to oppose it was Mark Kirk.


Here is the roll call vote to the Cornyn proposal:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00318

So thats it, that shit just passed the Senate?

[RandallFan]

It's a shit bill. Trump is wrong. The others are wrong. But this is somewhere Rand really needs to do his smirk and troll the Democrats on this.

Let the judges take the heat; it is good politics regardless of other aspects.