Ryan: No vote for Dems' 'no fly, no buy' gun legislation unless they can win the House

[KamaAina]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ryan-dems-vote-gun-legislation-win-house-article-1.2699787

House Speaker Paul Ryan dug in his heels even further against gun control on Tuesday, declaring that the only way Democrats would be able to get a vote on their version of legislation to keep suspected terrorists from buying guns is to take control of the House in November.

“Win elections and get the majority, then you can set the agenda,” Ryan (R-Wis.) said on Milwaukee conservative talk radio host Charlie Sykes' show Tuesday.

Democrats took over the House floor two weeks ago to protest Ryan's refusal to give “no fly, no buy” gun legislation a vote, refusing to leave for 25 hours with the rallying cry “No bill, no break.”

Ryan and other Republicans remain furious about House Democrats' sit-in protest, but decided last week to give a National Rifle Association-approved alternate version a vote this week that would make it much harder to stop gun purchases from suspected terrorists than the one Democrats support. Both bills have already failed to pass the Senate.

[MADem]

1. Wow, he always played the reluctant speaker--now it is obvious

that he doesn't want the job.

Is that a threat, or a promise? I hope the voters give him what he wants--a Democratic House.

[pipoman]

5. I can't figure why Democrats are so in love with Bush's "no fly list"?

Why would Democrats want to set a precedent of denying due process in the removal of civil liberties? Myself and about every other Dem protested the lack of due process for the detention of people in Cuba.. this is anti-democratic imho....

[MADem]

8. It's a first step in securing public safety.

And no one's talking about denying due process--there's supposed to be an avenue for appeal built right in.

The idea is to protect the greater public. No one is being "detained" (which is a polite way of saying "imprisoned.&quot

Apples and oranges, there.

[pipoman]

9. No it isn't...rights are not taken, then the due process occurs

It's the other way around....you are accused, tried, convicted, then rights can be abridged....they may even be abridged while awaiting trial....not just on some fucking spook's whim.

You do not get to strip rights arbitrary in the name of public safety.

This is anti-democratic, anti-liberal; anti-progressive unconstitutional bullshit and it will not happen.

[MADem]

10. Good luck with that. nt

[pipoman]

11. Pretending shit like this is liberal or democratic is why this party is torn apart. .

[MADem]

12. Pretending it's no big deal when a maniac with a legally purchased WMD

cuts down people by the dozens in the streets, or a nightclub, is something most Dems take issue with.

Most of us want gun control, reasonable restrictions on who can buy/what can be purchased.


Those who don't are in the distinct minority--or Republicans.

[pipoman]

13. Want...I want to win the lottery....I want to go to space....I want to own a summer home in Aspen...

Want away....pretend the impossible is possible....or seek to understand the reality and wish accordingly...it is much less disappointing....suit yourself.

In the mean time you will not usurp our Constitution on a whim...our government will either operate within the existing constitution...i.e. not remove rights without due process...not restrict civil liberties enumerated in our bill of rights....OR will use the existing process to amend the constitution....that is the two options....

[MADem]

14. What you deem impossible is what most people call "common sense."

I won't usurp the Constitution, a decent crew of Supreme Court justices will read the document properly for a change.

[pipoman]

18. Not in your lifetime

Hoping for an overturn puts you in the same camp as the Roe overturners....disappointed, frustrated, and wrong.

[MADem]

19. Oh, I plan on living for awhile. I will see the day when America grows up.

And how you can compare limiting the unfettered ability of crazed gun nuts to mow down vast numbers of citizens on a wholesale basis to a woman's right to exercise choice and autonomy over her own body is a bit of a bridge too far.

That's a bit of a painful and obvious over-reach.

[pipoman]

21. Well...

One is specifically stated in no uncertain terms, the other is a finding by a SCOTUS....

Roe isn't likely to be overturned, the English language isn't likely to change, and the second amendment isn't likely to be repealed.

[MADem]

22. Roe is not likely to be overturned. You got that right. nt

[pipoman]

23. I got it all right...;)

[Duckhunter935]

26. And that person was not on a list

And passed the mandated background checks. Not to mention he had additional weapon endorsements that required deeper background checks.

[MADem]

28. He was mentally ill and should have gotten a general discharge.

The Army screwed up.

[Scootaloo]

33. The problem is the use of hte no-fly list.

if you're on that list, you don't know it until you try to fly. You don't have to have committed a crime. You don't even have to be associated with anyone who has committed a crime. All you have to do is have a name that someone might think is similar to someone who might be associated with a potential terrorist. Your parents named you Mohammed? Good luck getting on that plane, Mo!

The No-Fly list has always been arbitrary and hugely based on profiling.Using that to take away someone's rights - even their dumb rights - is asinine. As has already been brought up to you, most of these mass murderers were not on that list.

[MADem]

34. They can adjust the manner in which the list is administered, if they would like.

In fact, I think they should.

I've had my troubles with the TSA--rather ironic given my background of government service. I spent the entire Bush years enjoying "secondary screening."

When Obama was inaugurated, all that disappeared.

The linkage of the No Fly List and Weapons Acquisition is simply a first step. Much more needs to be done in this area. We are a nation of gun nuts, and people are sick of seeing people mowed down by unhinged assholes. It's got to stop. We need to change our culture.

[Scootaloo]

35. You're completely - and I think intentionally - missing the point

1) The plan would strip people of their rights without a guilty verdict in a criminal trial.

2) The plan would not actually address the problem, since the people causing the problem are almost certainly not on the no-fly list.

it's a bad plan. I'm sorry but "any port in a storm" legislation is how we got the PATRIOT act.

[MADem]

36. No--I'm expressing a view held by a majority of Americans.

We've had enough of this crap and we want it to stop. This is just the opening salvo.

[Scootaloo]

37. Except using the no-fly list as a basis will stop nothing.

Which is what has been getting pointed out to you again and again.

The no-fly list is an arbitrary list. it has no legal basis. You do not have to be convicted of anything. You do not have to have done anything. If you're on it, you don't know until it comes up. it's a secret list of random individuals with a heavy bias against certain religious and ethnic minorities. That is a terrible place to start for anything, much less a proposal to strip thosep eople of their constitutional rights - and whether we like the right or not, it's there, and this proposal clearly violates it.

Further, as has also been brought up to you, the overwhelming majority of gun violence perpetrators have not been on the no-fly list. You would actually have a better chance of preventing gun crime with this sort of proposal if you were to draw names out of a hat.

[MADem]

38. It's a method of starting the conversation.

This isn't really about the no fly list so much as it is about all these weapons of mass destruction that people cart around, claiming they have some relationship to a musket.

The culture in America is changing. We're sick of people dying in the streets at the hands of idiots with weapons.

[Scootaloo]

39. it IS about the no-fly list, because that thing is the core of the proposal

The proposal is to legally forbid anyone on the no-fly list from purchasing firearms. it's not a "conversation starter," it's proposed legislation. As in, if it were passed, it would actually be a law. And since you're lamenting its lack of passage up-thread, I'm reasonably certain that you understand that perfectly well.

[MADem]

40. If you want to believe that, go right ahead. nt

[Takket]

2. This should be part of a nationwide ad campain by the DNC

The majority is with the Dems on this and we need to make the populace understand that voting for Hillary isn't enough to advance a progressive agenda. We need every person who votes Hillary to vote for their Dem rep/senator too. Ryan just provided us with the best quotes yet to get the populace to rally to our cause

[pipoman]

6. There isn't one single thing progressive or democratic about denying due process... nothing.

[yallerdawg]

3. An awful lot happened since Ryan said that.

Three days later:

Ryan alluded to last month's heated gun control debate in his address, noting that "every member" of Congress would like to see less violence perpetuated by firearms.

"Every Republican and every Democrat -- wants to see less gun violence," he said. "Every member of this body wants a world in which people feel safe regardless of the color of their skin. And that's not how people are feeling these days."

Though Ryan planned to hold a House vote earlier this week on gun control measures that would have restricted purchases by suspected terrorists, the House speaker backed away from scheduling it this week.

He said Wednesday that the House would vote on it "when we're ready," adding that "we have members from both sides of the aisle who want to make improvements, who want to make changes to the bill."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paul-ryan-dallas-police-shootings-attack-on-all/

[davidn3600]

4. Not all Democrats are in favor of "no fly, no buy"

I am a Democrat and I would vote no on a "no fly, no buy."

Sorry but I feel it's a bad proposal that is unconstitutional. And I don't like the idea of the government creating a secret list that removes constitutional rights with no due process of law. To me, that's something I could not accept. So if I were a member of Congress, I would vote no on this. And I would be urging my representatives to vote no on this.

You need to get rid of the 2nd amendment first.

[Statistical]

7. Agreed. I can't believe the tyrannical Bush no fly list is now seen as a good thing by some.

[Duckhunter935]

27. Yep, I fail to see how

Many here love that arbitrary Bush secret list.

[gratuitous]

15. The Republican agenda is clear

They don't want to protect citizens, they want to protect terrorists.

Yes, it's a flawed proposal, but how are we going to fix the No-Fly list? Pointing up the list's shortcomings by connecting it to reasonable regulation of firearms would seem to be a good way of getting attention for both issues. If a person's right to freely associate with others and travel can be abridged by the No-Fly list, why not restrict their access to firearms on the same basis? If it's a constitutionally impermissible law for one right, why not for both rights?

[sofa king]

16. Challenge accepted.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. Well

Let's take him up on that challenge, what say you?!

[CTyankee]

20. This is what you want to say to me? I want to spit in corrupt face.

You son of a bitch.

[Initech]

24. Worst. Speaker. Ever!!!!

[KamaAina]

25. Worse than Newt?!

[Initech]

30. Ooh... tough call!

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. I am convinced that Ryan is SCREAMING for the Left to unify and sink the gop ...

but will the Left listen?

[longship]

31. A challenge!!! A challenge!!!

Hey Ryan! Do you know who your party is going to nominate for POTUS?

Good luck with those down ticket races with rabid-weasel-hair at the top of the ticket.

BTW, D'ya know that Evan Bayh is running for Senate in IN?

And have you seen the latest polling from AZ?

Poor Ryan. Poor GOP. Clueless as always.

[TeddyR]

32. The proposed law is unconstitutional

Can't believe that so-called "progressives" are backing a law that denies someone a constitutionally-protected right based on a secret government list that is vetted by, well, I'm not sure whom it is vetted by. The FBI? Thankfully the ACLU would file suit challenging this law if ever enacted.

Chicago has identified a small group of people that the city believes is responsible for the vast majority of gang-related crimes in that city. Those individuals haven't actually been convicted of a crime, much less tried for one, but perhaps we should prevent those individuals from voting, or buying a gun. Does that sound reasonable?