Home | About | Donate

House to Vote on Controversial Gun Bill that Equates Terrorism with Islam


House to Vote on Controversial Gun Bill that Equates Terrorism with Islam

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday will vote on a gun reform bill that, if passed, would require the establishment of a new government "counter-terrorism" office—a controversial rider that is far from what Democrats demanded during their sit-in last month, unlikely to quell tension between the parties, and is and a slap in the face to those demanding meaningful action.


The name McCarthy, in the U.S. congress, seems familiar when it comes to ferreting out "those who do not have America's best interest at heart", although that was about 60 years ago. Well, Communists and Islamists are both atheists - that is to say, anti-Americans,


They're not on record as having voted on it by 7:30 EDT Tuesday. It's HR 5611, the "Homeland Safety and Security Act," PDF version (before it was assigned a number, but I got to it from Ryan's page) here.

Congress.gov says it was introduced 7/1 (that was Friday, in the pro-forma session to keep from being in recess), and that it was referred the same day to the Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, and Homeland Security Committees.

The declaration that Islamists are the "premier threat" to the US is in a finding of Congress. That would be a great place for opponents (I won't presume partisanship) to make amendments. This may not be as frantic as the article makes it sound, though Ryan is certainly backing it.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


The Democrats opened the door to this with their 'watch list' provisions. Of course the Republicans ran with it to expand the reach of the law---that's what they do best.
Now, as the article points out, "As ThinkProgress notes, the legislation also implicitly ignores mass shootings conducted by white extremists:
--A recent FBI report found that only a small percentage of terrorist attacks carried out on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 were perpetrated by Muslims. Right-wing terrorists, meanwhile, are killing more Americans than Jihadists--."
So, what to expect next? Let us reflect back on the 'war on drugs' era and the hysteria that inspired. Considering that, it won't be surprising to see from this sick congress the 'bi-partisan' solution would be inclusion of these other domestic groups.
Next stop, American Third Reich.

edit:punctuation error corrected


"No fly, no buy" was not the Democrats' idea. I believe that original bill was authored by a Republican. The Dems were more pushing the background checks. They mostly wanted Republicans to be counted.


McCarthy got 'goosed' by the NRA's AR-15, I think he liked it, or didn't, and this is the kind of sh*t that flows out of the scum that seems to run us into the ground every time we turn around. Every time they sh*t, we clean it up and they get more money.


Where it originated doesn't matter, the Democrats adopted it and went to extraordinary lengths to defend it. Instead of rejecting it, they made the issue theirs.
As the article indicates: "More than a dozen Democrats, led by Rep. John Lewis (D-Georgia), occupied the House for 25 hours in late June to demand the chamber vote on two measures that would expand background checks and prohibit gun sales to people on the government's controversial "watch lists." "

The 'watch list" hypocrisy didn't go unnoticed at the time as Bruce Dixon's commentary in Black Agenda Report shows:
"Worse still, the so-called “sit-in” piggybacks on the secret and arbitrary “no-fly” and “terror watch” lists, which some of those same Democrats denounced back in the Bush Cheney era.
...But now it's election year and they have very few issues to differentiate themselves from the other capitalist party. So they want to use the secret government blacklist and the civil rights brand to score meaningless points against Republicans.
Congressional Democrats are not stupid. They know perfectly well they could be sitting in to end these secret lists. They could be sitting in to explain how the second amendment was put in the Constitution to permit armed slave patrols, and land theft and genocide against Native Americans. They could be sitting in for a living wage and universal single payer health care, or cutting the Pentagon budget by two thirds. Instead Democrats deliberately chose to sit in for this, instead of forgiving student debt, instead of addressing climate change or black unemployment or mass incarceration.
Since John Lewis and his hypocritical crew are just as much the party of the one percent as Republicans, their disputes with Republicans are confined to carefully staged food fights between meaningless brands. This is the party that wants to control Congress instead of Republicans."


So we're back around to last week's argument? No thanks. Take a look at the bill that Ryan got put in the mill the day after the sit-in, the Homeland Safety and Security Act, HR 5611 (PDF text as linked from Ryan's page here), the topic of this article, and tell me what you think of that.


There's nothing to argue about, the specifics you want to parse are all distractions and take away from the very real fact that all of the legislation put forward by both parties has been a perverse combination of grandstanding and pursuit of ulterior agenda. What are you defending? What's your agenda?


I'm not defending. I'm concerned about this bill, placed on the House agenda by the supercontrolling GOP, now. Particularly the "finding" that the primary threat to the safety of the citizenry is "Islamic terrorists" will do real damage to real citizens, including people I know and love, even though it will never become law. And my tax dollars will be used to promote it while others of my neighbors and loved ones go hungry and homeless and my car falls into potholes. Again, I'm here in this thread to talk about this bill.


Three letters: N R A


From your keyboard to Paul Ryan's ear.


The difference between the USA and the Muslim world.

In the USA, women have the right to bear arms.

In the Muslim world, women do not have the right to bare arms.

Neither of these cultural behaviours makes any sane sense.


As USAians murder 15000 other USAians a year and rape a good many more in the course of a year of everyday life in the USA, I would have thought that the premier threat to USAians was other USAians.


authority to revoke the U.S. passports of people who belong to or have helped terror groups

You already know who that's going to be used against.


Cute, George, but off topic, inaccurate (there is no such thing as A Muslim world), and verging on misogyny.


ho hum


There is nothing mysogynist about either comment. In the USA women are allowed to carry guns. What is mysoginist about that comment? In countries where Muslim theocracy is the prime politico-religious force (the Muslim world as distinguished from the Christian world), women have to wear clothing that covers all, by law, Saudi Arabia being the worst. What is mysoginist about that comment? Yes, I have lived and worked in a Muslim country, among many others.

As far as I am concerned, no-one should be allowed to carry guns and ownership of guns should be restricted severely and women should be allowed to wear what they choose in safety from predation, legal or illegal.


There's a lot more Muslim to the world than you or the writers of this bill think about, and the dress rules are entirely particular to each state. In the US, it varies even more widely, because Muslims come from many cultures and acculturate to the US rapidly. The Christian world, by your definition, would be limited to the Vatican, where it's the men who wear the floor-length dresses.

And unless your name is masking something, you don't get to say what verges on misogyny.