General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmerica's safety and well being are being held hostage by "hobbyists" and "enthusiasts"
who tell us that mass shootings are a small price to pay so they can enjoy their "pass time".
No one needs an assault rifle - or large capacity clips.
They play no essential role in our society, except to endanger it.
Hobbies are optional - the lives of our loved ones are not.
Fuck these selfish assholes.
yup
DustyJoe
(849 posts)Americas safety is being held hostage by a federal politically correct government tripping all over each other concerning muslims to see which agency can be most politically correct as people die. Orlando was completely preventable as was Ft Hood.
jpak
(41,757 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)world wide wally
(21,740 posts)duh
jpak
(41,757 posts)Trump uses that phrase quite a bit - yes?
DustyJoe
(849 posts)jpak
(41,757 posts)yup
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I'd be interested to know precisely what would have prevented this, in your opinion.
As terrorist investigated twice and known to fbi being flagged in NICS database (run by the same fbi) for 'do not approve', you know kinda like if grandpa can't handle his VA disability benefit he's flagged and can't buy a gun.
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)(and presumably in the NRA), who keep saying that you can't "rob someone of Constitutionsl rights" without due process.
Are you calling our resident gun nuts "politically correct"?
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Robbing someone of their Civil Rights without due process?
Should we allow searches and seizures, "just because?"
Should we silence speech because we don't like it?
I'd be interested to see how you stand on the other rights guaranteed by the constitution being restricted based on a secret government list that has no oversight or accountability.
jpak
(41,757 posts)Anyone on the a terror watch list should be informed of their status and allowed to challenge it at the govt's expense.
Anyone on a watch list should be flagged immediately when buying a gun from an FFL dealer (note: terrorists are now "free" to buy them through private sales without a background check - thank you GOP, gun nutz and NRA) - and have a mandatory 30 day holding period where the individual would be vetted by the FBI/BATF.
The individual in question would also be able to challenge his prohibition in court at the govt's expense.
yup
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Because the bill proposed a few months ago had exactly ZERO of those safeguards.
"You are on the secret government terrorist watch list - no second amendment rights."
I wholeheartedly agree with your implementation (thought I would require a judge to evaluate placing a citizen on the list before their rights are infringed). If that is what is actually proposed, we should do that.
jpak
(41,757 posts)gunners would not oppose this as they have "personal responsibility"
yup
Indydem
(2,642 posts)En paneled at random to make the call via teleconference.
Again - these are great options. None of this was proposed in the previous bill.
There were absolutely no safeguards for Constitutional Rights in the bill which was voted down in congress.
jpak
(41,757 posts)Indydem
(2,642 posts)I have a feeling we don't agree on much else regarding guns, but there are COMMON SENSE measures that can take place to protect people, and protect our Constitutional rights at the same time.
jpak
(41,757 posts)Common Sense isn't Common
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)I don't take a position, as I consider it to be moot anyway. Powerful special interests make these policies. I don't.
jpak
(41,757 posts)linky?
DustyJoe
(849 posts)In responding to the question of 'how' was just explaining the fbi 'could have' flagged the shooter to hold off a purchase for review. NICS is the fbi's database and they easily could have known about the intended purchase if flagged and stalled. Case in point: I was buying a shotgun years ago and the SSN on the NICS application is not mandatory as the drivers license number is and they can get the SSN from the dmv database. Being leery about putting my SSN out there and it was optional, I ommitted it. I ended up on a three day hold. Now if the fbi can withhold my purchase because I ommitted an optional box on the form then they 'could' have 'should' have flagged him for being on their radar in spite of them placing him on the watch list then removing him from the list.
n/t
lark
(23,091 posts)Congress (all Repugs and some Dems) voted against the presidents' bill that would have disallowed terrorists from obtaining guns. Gun nuts in conress said terrorists have a constitutional right to do so. President tried to stop the madness, they would have none of it. Pay attention.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Unless they are lost through due process, you can't just take them away arbitrarily.
lark
(23,091 posts)If you are an ISIS supporter, you shouldn't be able to get a gun, end of story.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)What would have kept GWB or one of his douche canoe staff from putting you, and every other member of the DU, or ACLU, or whatever on a secret government watch list and suspending your second amendment rights?
jpak
(41,757 posts)yup
lark
(23,091 posts)It's too broad an action with too many repercussions. 2 - I was paranoid about a lot of things during the Bush years, because they would get us if they could. Used alternative addresses and phone #'s on petitions going to the WH on Congress during those years and was always careful of the language I used. I'd rather do this and maybe a few innocent people couldn't get a gun rather than openly have terorrists sending their supporters here to buy all the munitions they want, which is what's happening now. SCOTUS got it way wrong, just like they did with Citizens United. Judicial activism at it's worst.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)The Terrorist Watch List is a secret document.
You would never know you were on the list until you went to buy a gun. Even then, you don't get told WHY your application was rejected.
There would be no repercussions because it's all shadow government bullshit.
lark
(23,091 posts)like Bush unilaterally deciding that no person from Saudi Arabia was to be stopped from coming to the US, even if they were on the no fly list which 1-2 of the plane flyers were. Still think stopping people on this list from buying guns is better than nothing.
sarisataka
(18,600 posts)1- It is happening right now. In 2007 the ACLU estimated there were 700,000 people on the watch list, 2014, 1.5 million+ Now it is likely over two million. What repercussions? It is a secret list so those on it can't complain or challenge it. Who is going to oppose it? Republicans created the lists and Democrats are leading the charge to expand the use of these lists.
2- You are willing to give up your First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights to safeguard yourself from terrorism. Yet in return you will then accept living in fear of the government 24/7. {Note those actions you took would definitely get you on the list once they are noticed.}
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)How Two Peace Activists Wound Up on the Governments No-Fly List
When it comes to national security, the government has given up pretending that it has to obey the law.
Did they get removed?
It's totally arbitrary depending on your definition of terrorist. The government being empowered to formulate a super-secret list of people and then deny them constitutional rights, without any transparency or judicial involvement is a very, very bad idea. Watch a Republican administration decide that SSCS is a terrorist organization whose members should be denied the right to peaceably assemble and see how many people on these forums start howling like crazed wolves. Due process is a fundamental bedrock of our society, throw that out and we might as well just sign everything over to the oligarchs who would be happy to seize control of this country.
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)I can make the connection mentally between extremely lethal firearms and mass shootings. Can't quite do the same with "political correctness".
Is the proper solution to deport all Muslims, or place them in internment camps? Or do we just rant and rave about the evils of radical Islam? What is the non-politically correct solution that would have prevented these events, and how would it have worked?
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)with a clear mental health issue, (just enough religion for the xenophobic freaks to point it out, but it had nothing to do with it) to buy a legal gun and walk into a club and start shooting people? The only people that think religion had much to do with it are the supporters of the real estate swindler, and a few Democrats who no longer have black folk to beat up on, like they did in the 70s.
So, tell us, like we haven't heard enough hot air about this already...
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)They prefer their racist and bigoted ways, and use that as a derisive term.
Why do you want to emulate ass clown conservatives?
scscholar
(2,902 posts)You're confusing two completely different issues.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)And yet, I don't hear you calling all drinkers "selfish assholes."
I favor restrictions on guns (and magazines), but let's not be huge hypocrites.
jpak
(41,757 posts)are selfish fucking assholes
yup
Dem2
(8,168 posts)Why to people become so personally attached to their guns being "special"
Sorry.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Basically, you're saying anyone who owns an "assault gun" or a "hi-cap clip" as a hobbyist is an asshole, but only drunk drivers are assholes. The make your analogy equal, you'd need to call all drinkers assholes. After all, drinking alcohol isn;t necessary. We do it for pleasure, and most people (including myself) do so responsibly.
Another interesting statistic: in 2010, a survey showed than over 28 million people have admitted to drunk driving.
Anyway, I don't want to push this any further. But I do think there is some selective outrage happening here. Gun owners don't want all gun owners blamed, and drinkers don't want all drinkers blamed. More people drink than own guns, so one doesn;t get mentioned so much. People are willing to tolerate a lot of deaths so long as their ox doesn't get gored.
I'm probably more sensitive to this than most. I had two close family members killed by drunk driver, and no one I know (yet) has been killed with a gun.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)I don't think prohibition would work. We already tried it 100 years ago, I don't think it would work any better this time.
On the other hand, I think that prohibition of certain types of guns/ammo... or even ALL guns would work.
Reasons: alcohol is a drug and addicting. Guns are not. No one is going to have withdrawals from not having a gun. Alcohol is also a lot easier to make than guns and especially ammo are.
pansypoo53219
(20,972 posts)PRACTICE. bang bang. crazy. the NRA cult.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)jpak
(41,757 posts)yup
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)Deal with it.
Yup.
ileus
(15,396 posts)jpak
(41,757 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)Who are nowhere to be found when these events occur.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Sivart
(325 posts)However, the issue is that is it in the constitution....
My thoughts lately are turning towards law enforcement. Specifically, putting the fair share of responsibility on them.
We can look at the existing laws, and we can look and see what types of weaponry are being bought and sold. So, we know what's out there, and what has the potential to be out there.
Why can't law enforcement find a way to keep innocent people safe? There are many many questions about law enforcement relative to the Orlando tragedy, but if you talk about law enforcement as anything other than heroes in this situation, it doesn't even matter if you have valid concerns.
Blaming it on a "lone crazy unstable gunman who you can't really identify ahead of time" is only a valid excuse once or twice. We now know that there are lone crazy unstable gunmen out there. This should no longer be accepted as an excuse.
Saying that law enforcement has to be right 100 percent of the time, and the bad guy only has to be right once should no longer be accepted as an excuse.
In fact, I don't think any excuses whatsoever should be accepted for these gun tragedies. Unless and until the laws are changed, we simply cannot accept that this will just have to be a reality. We should demand that it be addressed by law enforcement.
Every other law enforcement issue that kills innocent people dozens at a time gets PREVENTATIVE law enforcement. We should demand preventative law enforcement solutions in lieu of safe gun laws.
So, back to my original thought - Washington sucks on this issue, and it would be foolish to wait on Washington to fix it, given what we know. I think it is time to start leaning on law enforcement. If they cannot address it, then they should be compelled to admit it, and join the push for gun laws that keep innocent people safe.
jpak
(41,757 posts)and ultimately be determined by *Hillary's* Supreme Court.
yup
Skittles
(153,149 posts)Beartracks
(12,809 posts)The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to promote "the security of a free State." It says so right there in the Amendment.
If, however, a liberal reading (which in this case is the politically conservative interpretation) of the language leads down a path to Americans killing Americans, that is rather antithetical to the purpose of the intended security. And that's because the collective population of gun-owners is not "well-regulated" (read "disciplined" or "trained" for that purpose -- especially those that are purchasing assault weapons, who, despite bearing such military arms, are not serving society as the intended "militia"; rather, they seem, as you suggest, largely a bunch of hobbyists who just like shooting guns.
======================
jpak
(41,757 posts)yup
hunter
(38,310 posts)Slaves revolting, workers striking, Indians won't leave? Call the "militia!"
Piss on guns.