Auchincloss: If We Increase Vetting for
Migrants, We Should Also Tighten Vetting
for Gun Purchases
Breitbart Clips,
by
Ian Hanchett
Original Article
Posted By: ladydawgfan,
11/28/2025 7:35:15 PM
On Friday’s broadcast of “CNN This Morning,” Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) stated that Congress should look at vetting for people coming to the country under the asylum or parole systems and there can also be an examination of vetting “during critical moments in someone’s journey.” And stated that “If this administration is going to be tightening the screws on vetting, they should tighten the screws on vetting for purchasing a weapon as well.”
Auchincloss said, “At the national level, if we’re worried about public safety and vetting in regards to this tragedy, yes, we should be looking at vetting for asylum or parole,
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
winmag 11/28/2025 7:38:33 PM (No. 2035091)
Hey commie, that would be infringing on American citizens constitutional rights, something pigs like you could care less about.
43 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
franco 11/28/2025 7:45:12 PM (No. 2035093)
Considering that every act of violence (since the Civil War... and Democrats started that, too) rooted in political disagreement in this country has been perpetrated by Democrats, I have a suggestion for the legislation: if you register Democrat, you're immediately subject to suspicion and you're to be routinely denied. Independents and Republicans get the status quo.
31 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
earlybird 11/28/2025 7:49:11 PM (No. 2035094)
Hedidn't buy tat gun legally and shot young soldier in head with her weapon after first shooting her i chest.
19 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
DVC 11/28/2025 7:53:49 PM (No. 2035096)
There is NO right to immigrate.
There is a Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms.
56 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
kono 11/28/2025 7:55:56 PM (No. 2035098)
Sure, Jake, except American citizens have a constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms, while foreigners have a process to filing to be granted asylum. They aren't analogous enough to be treated symmetrically like that.
But a Massachusetts liberal like you probably thinks delusional men have a right to use the girls bathroom in public, too.
33 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
kennedylaw 11/28/2025 7:57:36 PM (No. 2035099)
I am all in favor of restricting gun purchases by aliens and democrats.
36 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Encore 11/28/2025 7:58:01 PM (No. 2035100)
How about really tightening the vetting on democrats.
18 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Omen55 11/28/2025 8:03:26 PM (No. 2035101)
Does Jake have private security?
15 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
anniebc 11/28/2025 8:07:10 PM (No. 2035104)
Which amendment protects illegals, dumb-dumb?
20 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
bighambone 11/28/2025 8:22:41 PM (No. 2035109)
Any so-called bipartisan plan, at least on the Democrat side of the aisle in Congress to change the immigration laws would turn out to be a massive amnesty for just about the entire illegal alien population. Remember the Democrats do not want any illegal aliens to be deported and instead as part of their comprehensive immigration reform amnesty want to put all the illegal alien beneficiaries on “a path to citizenship” and be transformed into future Democrat supporters and voters in the years ahead. To get their amnesty through Congress the Democrats, just as the Democrats did before their big 1986 amnesty, no doubt will pledge to support defending the borders and the effective enforcement of the immigration laws in the future, a pledge that will turn out to be false just as happened after the 1986 amnesty passed Congress and was signed into law by the “hoodwinked” President Reagan. Remember the current illegal alien population is now, no doubt, five times bigger than it was before the 1986 Democrat amnesty. The Democrats also want the future immigration laws regarding illegal aliens subject to arrest and deportation to be limited to illegal aliens with known serious criminal records, and simply allow all illegal aliens without serious criminal records to stay in the USA and be put on “a path to citizenship” in unlimited numbers. Common sense will tell you if the immigration laws are changed to allow unlimited numbers of illegal aliens without known criminal records to stay in the USA without the consequence of being arrested and deported, as soon as that word gets out throughout especially the so-called Third World, that hundreds of millions of poor, uneducated, and unskilled people from all over the world would rush through the US borders knowing that they would then be legally able to stay in the USA and be put on “a path to citizenship”, thus permanently changing the political, ethnic, and racial population demographics of the USA, past the point where the Democrats believe that they would then increase their “New American” voter numbers enough to be able to transform the current USA into some sort of future socialist Democrat run socialist utopia.
10 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
JHHolliday 11/28/2025 8:43:37 PM (No. 2035118)
Some 35 years ago, a legal immigrant from Columbia SA told me that if we kept letting in people from third world countries like the one he left it would turn the US into the ****hole he fled.
20 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
hershey 11/28/2025 9:05:31 PM (No. 2035125)
Stupid is as stupid says...where did they dig up this idiot?
10 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
voxpopuli 11/28/2025 9:10:15 PM (No. 2035130)
We Should Also Tighten Vetting
for skool teecherz
13 people like this.
Two totally unrelated issues. Apples and oranges, to put it mildly. Leave it to a ****head Massachusets congressman to connect the two.
8 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
PlayItAgain 11/28/2025 9:30:59 PM (No. 2035134)
Do a bit more vetting of voters.
1.) Are you alive?
1.) Are you a citizen?
3.) What is your voting precinct?
14 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
earlybird 11/28/2025 9:32:14 PM (No. 2035135)
Another dopey Kennedy shirttail hanger-on.
11 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
MindMadeUp 11/28/2025 10:01:54 PM (No. 2035141)
If Democrats didn't have logical non-sequiturs, they'd have no logic at all.
10 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
JunkYardDog 11/28/2025 10:16:05 PM (No. 2035145)
Ok, just because it needs to be said one more time, CRIMINALS DO NOT BUY GUN FROM STORES. THEY DO NOT LEAVE A PAPER TRAIL THEY WILL BREAK INTO A STORE TO STEAL GUNS BUT NOT TO FILL OUT PAPERWORK. I've never owned a gun, but also never committed any crime save for a speeding ticket or two. I want to protect my wife and my sons from anyone looking to harm us. The only people that gun legislation hurts are those who follow the law. Conservative use guns for protection and see them as tools because that is how they use them LIberals see guns as ways to use force and kill people because that is how they use them.
13 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
ldb51 11/29/2025 12:39:46 AM (No. 2035159)
Auchincloss (Demotyrant, MA) felt a tingle up his leg when he heard about tightening the vetting. He's probably one of the NAZI-dreaming Leftists that don't know where to stop with their giddy selves, constantly looking for opportunities to vet everybody for everything - who works where, who goes where, who says what, how much coffee you drink in the morning...
No, you jerk, we need to vet these people because they are foreign petitioners who may really be terrorists, and who have no right of entry or presumption of benign intent... as contrasted with a CITIZEN, you idiot.
5 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
mifla 11/29/2025 5:28:33 AM (No. 2035174)
How about increase vetting for those running for Congress?
12 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
5 handicap 11/29/2025 6:02:05 AM (No. 2035188)
I'm positive he meant more vetting for NON-CITIZENS, I might agree with that. I do not think the Constitution specifically mentions that scenario.
2 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
BarryNo 11/29/2025 8:18:09 AM (No. 2035224)
The whole point is to arm the citizen against the threat - from criminal and tyrant. To that end, the only determination to be made, is, "Are you a US Citizen!"
Now I am all for vetting whether someone understands their rights and responsibilities as a US Citizen. Resurrect Civics classes and have national tests like the SATs to qualify children as full citizens. But if they pass the tests, then they get the Rights and Responsibilities.
School should teach Reading Writing and Arithmetic, as the old saying goes. And they MUST teach American history and CIVICS and nothing else!!!
Parents are responsible for philosophy and/or Religion.
2 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
Strike3 11/29/2025 9:07:54 AM (No. 2035244)
The last time I checked there was no amendment to the Constitution that says, "The right for illegal aliens to enter America and parasite off the American working people shall not be infringed." Surprise, a modern Democrat from Massachusetts is stupid while people who died a couple of hundred years ago in that same region are very wise.
To buy a firearm I must produce picture ID, answer a bunch of stupid questions and wait while the pencil-necked geeks at three or four different agencies bless my application. I would call that vetting.
4 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
paral04 11/29/2025 10:08:22 AM (No. 2035263)
This is an example of how our country has been derelict in teaching the history of or country and the Constitution. Once upon a time, people who immigrated to our country came through Ellis Island and were processed there. If they had a known criminal record, no visible means of support or were sick they went right back where they came from. Nothing was mentioned about gun rights there and they have nothing to do with each other.
3 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
JackBurton 11/29/2025 10:23:00 AM (No. 2035269)
When I bought a pistol, there was a thorough check of my bona fides. Took about 30 minutes. I wasn't concerned, bothered, or upset. In fact, I think we should all have to re-register to vote and the same check should be required. But doing any of this for the law abiding as a reaction to an alien procuring a gun thru illegal means is ... stupid.
I think even DJT would call it that.
1 person likes this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
dwa 11/29/2025 11:00:28 AM (No. 2035289)
Apples and oranges, brainless Jake, apples and oranges.
1 person likes this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
Socio 11/29/2025 12:25:38 PM (No. 2035321)
I have a better idea instead of making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their 2nd amendment rights how about making illegal gun ownership a mandatory 20 year prison sentence.
2 people like this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
caljeepgirl 11/29/2025 3:48:59 PM (No. 2035400)
Nailed it, #17!
2 people like this.
Reply 29 - Posted by:
kangus 11/29/2025 9:05:37 PM (No. 2035437)
For pistols we already have to be a resident and have photo ID, pass FBI checks, local law enforcement checks (background checks), fill out a form including finger prints, if we have a concealed carry permit we can take the firearm that day, if not there is a waiting period depending on the BATF sometimes. The above is not needed for rifles or shotguns or for private sales. Some of us keep track of our firearms and insist the buyer does a form 4473 and we call BCI for the background check.
1 person likes this.
Reply 30 - Posted by:
rochow 11/29/2025 10:51:35 PM (No. 2035442)
Moron Auchincloss just shut your dumb trap and eat some turkey leftovers.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "ladydawgfan"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
And as night turns to day, the left shows its anti-2A intentions!!