harryreid

“If you’re on terrorists watch lists you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun.” – Harry Reid, via The Hill

Recommended For You

59 Responses to Quote of the Day: Harry Reid Believes that Gun Owners Don’t Deserve the 5th Amendment

  1. Several years ago in a speech, gov Cuomo (in praising the proposal, mind you) called it, in effect, the Known Maybe Possible Terrorist List ™. Been using that ever since.

    • Jon, you realize that you are talking about one of the biggest “buffoons” in our country. So anything goes.

  2. I love the title of the Hill article. As if the list is a list of terrorists pure and true.
    “I was against the watch list before I was for the watch list” – MSNBC, ACLU, HuffPo, every neo-progressive lefty in DC.

    Well, I’ll give DiFi and Harry a pass. They’ve always been fascists.

      • He probably didn’t even know he was on the Senate floor. Probably thought he was at the cowboy poetry festival.

      • That’s why we need age limits in addition to term limits. If you wouldn’t trust your 90 year old parent / grandparent behind the wheel of a car or making their own financial decisions, then they absolutely should not be the ones running the country and deciding what laws we must follow and what schools / hospitals we bomb. The overwhelming majority of our politicians are over 65 and that needs to change for anything to improve.

  3. The ‘progressive Liberals’ have the solution, ban all gun ownership in America. That’s the real agenda, not gun control.

    Wake up out there people.
    They have the votes now with all the world living here and the poor.
    America’s idealism is dead and gone.
    They now fight for the right to wear woman’s clothing and to be legalized dopers.

    A socialist utopia where we can share needles in the park and stand in line with our hand out and wait for the police to show while somebody is beating you in the head with a baseball bat.

    • “They now fight for the right to wear woman’s clothing and to be legalized dopers.”

      How does this conflict with gun rights? Possesing weapons, wearing women’s clothes, and smoking pot should be unfettered by laws.

      The question you should be asking is why do they have to fights for these rights? Why did government interfere with any of these activities in the fist place?

      • Those are rights, I’d concede. The problems emerge when people transform their rights for themselves into obligations on others. That’s where the fissure in philosophy resides.

        I can exercise my rights to free speech all day. If someone doesn’t like that, then walk away, hang up the phone, or don’t read my posts. My exercise of my rights don’t cost anyone else anything. Similarly, my RKBA doesn’t impinge on anyone else. Don’t break down my door at zero dark thirty and you won’t have a problem.

        However, the rights you mention, which are really more applications of underlying rights (like ideas expressed are an application of the free speech right), are outside the mainstream. No, that doesn’t mean we only protect popular activities as rights. It does mean that unpopular subcultures have a tendency to demand full acceptance and impose themselves on others. That’s how certain rights, or applications thereof, transform into obligations shoved down others’ throats.

        If you believe in abortion or the pill, hey, that’s great! Why must I as an insurer or employer pay for it?

        If you believe minorities should be allowed to attend college, we’re cool. Why must a more accomplished non-minority applicant be denied admission because affirmmative action let the other guy cut in line?

        If you believe in gay marriage, then do your thing. Why must a christian baker be forced, under penalty of law backed by men with guns, to provide you with service?

        Want to smoke your dope? Toke it up, big daddy. Why must an employer hire you, incur your safety risk and low productivity, and finance your rehab?

        This is the objection to so many of these so-called rights. These people want to live nontraditional lifestyles, but they want others to pay for and accept it. They’re not content to live and let live or to conduct themselves only in the privacy of their own homes, as they claim.

        • “If you believe in abortion or the pill, hey, that’s great! Why must I as an insurer or employer pay for it?”

          Huh? Medical insurance that people purchase shouldn’t pay for their medical care?

    • You just gave me a great idea for a political terminology – not Liberal Progressives, not Progressive Liberals, or even Lib/Prog. The are Proglibites. (See “The Time Machine” – H.G. Wells. (Also known to have been a supporter of fascism.)

  4. I’m selling my point of view on this issue to gun control advocates that the problem with this idea is not only that it infringes on rights protected by the Second Amendment, but rights protected by the Fifth. The precedent this sets is that the government can simply take away our rights on a whim without any accountability, due process, or judicial oversight. It turns the Bill of Rights into a Bill of Privileges. If the government doesn’t like the shape of your face, it can free itself from any obligation to not infringe upon your rights as a citizen or even as a person. You won’t even know about it until you’re victimized when your rights are violated. At that point, good luck appealing.

    Where’s the ACLU? I’ve spoken with them about gun rights and sent them a message about this issue. I know they’re really just a left-wing organization that at only supports civil rights unpopular in New York City and San Francisco halfheartedly at best, but this ought to be a good litmus test for supposed “civil rights” organizations. Anyone who supports this isn’t just a hoplophobe, they’re authoritarians willing to wipe their ass with the constitution and surrender all liberty for the empty promise of enhanced safety. Bootlickers who want a police state so we’ll all have to lick boots just as they do. That’s “equality”, don’t you know. They’d rather bring you down to their lowly level than allow you to live with an advantage over them.

    • The ACLU has always been for gun control, never met a gun control law they didn’t like. That is why I have not contributed in the past 40 years. SERIOUSLY hypocritical.

    • I agree with Larrybon this. The ACLU may take the occasional KKK free speech case to try to show how allegedly non-leftist are and how purely committed to civil rights they are. However, those are only show cases taken for that exact PR purpose, and only reassert longstanding decisions anyway.

      They won’t pursue civil rights cases that actually move the chain forward if its a “conservative” cause. Even by using KKK cases as their token non-leftist cases, they’re still taking swipes at conservatives, for suggesting that the KKK represents conservatives. Never mind all the prominent Democrat politicians who came up through the KKK.

      • Can you provide a single example of ACLU refusing to take action on something because “it would further conservative cause”?

        Other than those involving the Second Amendment, that is. Which ACLU does not consider to be an [individual] civil right, and hence does not defend. But that is a very narrow and publicly documented exception.

        • The ACLU has sided with the NRA in several lawsuits, including several (Florida, Texas, Louisiana in recent memory) where Police refused to return guns confiscated from law abiding citizens.
          It was also the ACLU who helped defend Rush Limbaugh against the state’s illegal seizure of his medical records.
          The ACLU has sued the government over the “no fly” and similar lists, believing them to be unconstitutional, winning a partial victory last year.
          They’re an organization everyone loves to hate, but they are in truth fairly blind to ideology.

    • As I have said repeatedly:

      If you are willing to concede that the government has the authority to create, maintain and enforce a list of people who, in the opinion of the very government the Second Amendment was meant to enjoin, may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, HOW WILL YOU KEEP YOUR NAME OFF OF THAT LIST?

      The “Terror Watch List” and/or the “No-Fly List” are only two examples of the government attempting to use the power to infringe that too many Americans (and SCOTUS) have conceded to them. It’s time to wake the hell up – the Second Amendment means EXACTLY what it says, and for this very reason.

    • It’s a sad, albeit accurate, commentary on the man when one cannot distinguish Massive Head Wound Harry’s blatherings from the Senator’s usual, pre-accident gibberish.

  5. Time to get Harry, Shannon, and others on the watch list just like Ted “I only had one drink, I swear” Kennedy

  6. per liberals, all gun owners are terrorists
    ergo, per liberals, all current or potential gun owners should be on the terrorist watch list
    ergo, per liberals, we should not sell guns to people who want guns

    Dunning _ Kruger Effect: when you are so clueless you can’t be clued in to how clueless you are, because you think you are brilliant.

  7. I believe it was Sen Cornyn, that during the debate, pointed out that the late bloated Sen Ted Kennedy was on the watch list.

  8. Barack Obama says, “Right now, people on the No-Fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane. If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun.”

    I say, “If you’re too dangerous to be on a plane or to buy a gun, why aren’t you in jail?” It sucks when the government gets to make the definitions and due process goes out the window, The Federal government makes the list, won’t tell anybody who’s on it or why and refuses to tell you how you can have your name removed from it. The Democrat and most of the Republican politicians are the real danger here, not so called terrorists.

    • The real shocker, to me, is the ease with which some mentally deranged and extremely dangerous people can become POTUS.

      • As a boy, I was always taught that anybody could become President.

        As a man, watching Obama, now I know it’s true.

  9. The terrorist watch list is a red herring. It’s something for the gun control crowd (aka Democrat Party) to beat us over the head with and fundraise off of. It generates a lot of sound bites but has no substance. It’s ultimate effect is to be used as a campaign speech or debate retort for the election. The Democrats have nothing of substance to offer this country any more other than a final lurch to outright socialism. I saw a car the other day with a Bernie sticker. I had to shake my head in dismay. The simplest way to fight this is to show up at the polls on Election Day. Then, demand our elected officials adhere to the Constitution every day. Unless the American people are willing to get engaged with the people running this country, they will continue to seek their own interests and not the country’s.

    My analogy of gun control is pretty simple:

    Methamphetamine is illegal throughout the world. It is a drug that has decimated thousands upon thousands of lives. Yet criminals manufacture, aquire, distribute, and use this product globally. When gun control proponents can show factual proof that they’ve successfully eradicated this drug from the planet, I’ll take them seriously about making guns illegal.

    No one can point to any experiment where Gun control or socialism has succeeded. Yet, we keep hearing how great it is and what a wonderful world this would be. What was that definition of insanity again?

  10. This comes from the same clown who called Islam a religion of peace.

    At least he’s not senate majority leader anymore.

  11. The 5th Amendment has the Grand Jury. If there is enough evidence to call some one a terrorist, then convene a Grand Jury and indict them with the evidence. Hmmmm…who said that? Wait! That was me as I was reminding my Civics students that I had taught them about this concept of Due Process which is also in the 5th Amendment. Plus, I was wear my wearing my assault style clothing…errr..khakis when I reminded the students of those lessons.

  12. Strangely, it seems that one CAN be on the terrorist watch list and work for the Dept of Homeland Security, dozens do. How many others occupy space in other branches of the Federal Govt ?

    • There are (were) instances of US Air Marshals being denied access to flights they were scheduled to protect because of that list.

  13. The only terrorist I see is an old man from Nevada…SERIOUSLY the NRA needs to tighten up their ratings for dumbocrat politicians.

  14. Every gun owner is a potential terrorist according to these folks. So we all should be on the list, then follows seizures and incarceration in reeducation camps. Sound familiar to anyone?

  15. AGAIN, STILL

    THIS IS YOUR GOVERNMENT TELLING YOU IT CANNOT PROTECT YOU. TELL REID IT’S OK, WE UNDERSTAND, JUST PACK YOUR SH_T AND GO HOME.

  16. I’d like Harry Reid to answer why if the Terror Watch List/No-Fly List is so infallible, in the inspector general’s August 2015 audit of the TSA, they found that 73 employees of the Department of Homeland Security were on the so-called “Terror Watch List”?!??

    Surely such “terrorists” should not be employed to “protect” us? Unless of course the list is another piece of completely unreliable bureaucratic horse-shit and many people are on it that should not be.

    Incidentally, the TSA scored a 95% failure rate of discovering guns&explosives in the same audit.

  17. The only upside to living in a country with “leaders” like this, is that, should Isis win and forcibly enroll us in the Caliphate, it will be, at worst, a lateral move.

  18. Amazing how the leftists who hated the list back when GWB made it suddenly love it now that they can use it as a tool for their own evil, fascist means.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *