deirdre
Senior Member.
Neither Congress, guns nor terrorism is one of my strong suits.. so I'm wondering what i'm missing here.
Alex Jones (Infowars) in thier list of why
SAN BERNARDINO SHOOTING HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS
says (bold mine)
other liberal papers seem to repeat this "no-fly zone" claim as well
it seems to me this "on the no-fly list" is just inference (? not sure that's the right word) Because the bill doesnt read that way at all. The bill, the way it's written, and looking up the definition of "domestic terrorism" is way to vague and does not at all focus on the "no-fly list" only.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1076
But my question: from the page of the Bill, i see NO activity on it since last March. So that means Alex Jones is full of it, right? or am i missing something? Are some debates about bills not recorded under "activity?"
and just to show how wide the definition of "domestic terrorism" is (quoted in the bill), and why i believe this Bill has zero chance of ever getting passed:
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
Alex Jones (Infowars) in thier list of why
SAN BERNARDINO SHOOTING HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS
says (bold mine)
The shooting occurred hours after House Republicans blocked debate on a bill to prevent people on the government’s no-fly list from exercising their Second Amendment right
other liberal papers seem to repeat this "no-fly zone" claim as well
The NRA — and their gun-loving Republican cohorts — are refusing once more to stop terrorists intent on getting armed in the U.S.A.
A legal loophole allows suspected terrorists on the government’s no-fly list to legally buy guns, but a bill to fix that will likely wither on the vine. The federal Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, even in the wake of last week’s terrorist killing of 129 people in Paris, remains a long shot due to its rabid pro-gun opponents.
The legislation was initially proposed in 2007 by the Bush administration, with King formally introducing the bill in Congress two years later
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868
it seems to me this "on the no-fly list" is just inference (? not sure that's the right word) Because the bill doesnt read that way at all. The bill, the way it's written, and looking up the definition of "domestic terrorism" is way to vague and does not at all focus on the "no-fly list" only.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1076
But my question: from the page of the Bill, i see NO activity on it since last March. So that means Alex Jones is full of it, right? or am i missing something? Are some debates about bills not recorded under "activity?"
and just to show how wide the definition of "domestic terrorism" is (quoted in the bill), and why i believe this Bill has zero chance of ever getting passed:
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or