Blood is on the NRA's hands

[IDBillzFan]

Brilliant idea, making the no-fly list a no-gun list. Very well thought out.

How can anyone listen to a man who promotes this concept and still somehow consider him to have any level of intelligence?

 

I mean, anyone other than birdog...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

That's the cute thing about it: since a determination of putting someone on the no-fly list can involve intelligence information (including identifying assets and procedures), Therefore, the method of determination itself is classified. So really...no one knows. If you're on it, they won't tell you why (because if you're on the no-fly list, I pretty much guarantee you're not cleared to know why you're on it.) And they can't tell you how to get off it, because then they'd have to tell you how you got on it.

 

 

 

But wait, there's more!

 

 

 

As it turns out, Ted Kennedy was not on the no-fly list. "T. Kennedy" was on the selectee list, of people who require extra scrutiny before boarding a plane. Naturally, since "T. Kennedy" is so non-specific, the airlines have to pull aside everyone with the name "T. Kennedy," including the senior senator from Massachusetts who'd at the time been a national public figure for over 40 years. Fortunately, these days the TSA is on top of things, so the no-fly list is much better maintained and mis-identification never happens - oh, yeah, did anyone mention that this has the effect of giving the Transportation Safety Administration the responsibility of deciding who is or is not allowed to own a gun?

 

But even then, that may not be a bad thing. What's one more hidebound bureaucracy amongst friends, even if it is one as dysfunctional and backstabbing as DHS? As long as the information is shared...

 

...wait a minute, isn't "information sharing" what the formation of Homeland Security was supposed to provide? You mean, adding a bureaucracy hinders rather than facilitates information sharing? Who'd've thunk it? I'm sure adding yet another bureaucratic check for gun purchases will work out just fine...

 

...but wait, there's even more!!!

 

Since it turns out Ted Kennedy was misidentified off the selectee list and not the no-fly list, Ted Kennedy would not then, under what's being proposed, have had his Second Amendment rights abridged without due process. Nor would "T. Kennedy." Since we're only talking about names on the no-fly list not being allowed to legally buy or own guns. People on the selectee list would still be allowed to legally buy and own guns...and on the terrorist watch list...as long as they weren't on the no-fly list...uh, wait, what?

 

Brilliant idea, making the no-fly list a no-gun list. Very well thought out.

Again, Hussein and his fellow leftists hold ZERO regard for the constitution, why does this come as a surprise?

[Bob in Mich]

Well, OK, there are then obviously problems using this list as it is to restrict weapons purchases. Is there any better list of international bad guys out there? Why couldn't this list be taken as a starting point? Give the prospective gun owners a better path to correct errors than the air industry gives. Perhaps that would delay any purchases by a week for eventual qualifiers. Might that be acceptable?

[Chef Jim]

Well, OK, there are then obviously problems using this list as it is to restrict weapons purchases. Is there any better list of international bad guys out there? Why couldn't this list be taken as a starting point? Give the prospective gun owners a better path to correct errors than the air industry gives. Perhaps that would delay any purchases by a week for eventual qualifiers. Might that be acceptable?

 

The bad guys that we should be concerned about owning guns are not anyone that would be on a no-fly list. The bad guys are US citizens that typically live in urban areas. Unfortunately most of them don't go through legal channels to acquire their firearms so any changes in the law will have little effect.

[B-Man]

Again, Hussein and his fellow leftists hold ZERO regard for the constitution, why does this come as a surprise?

 

 

 

Founders: Constitution protects people from government

 

Liberals: All unregulated activity is a "loophole" we need to close

WELL, LIKE COMPUTERS, GUNS ARE ANOTHER TECHNOLOGY THAT EMPOWERS INDIVIDUALS:

Pew poll says millennials support gun rights, WaPo calls this “mysterious.”

Also, anti-gun hysteria was a specific boomer phenomenon, and the people affected by it are as old as Hillary and Bernie now. Later generations are reverting to the American norm.

.

Edited December 9, 2015 by B-Man

[Bob in Mich]

The bad guys that we should be concerned about owning guns are not anyone that would be on a no-fly list. The bad guys are US citizens that typically live in urban areas. Unfortunately most of them don't go through legal channels to acquire their firearms so any changes in the law will have little effect.

There are lots of bad guys. I think we do need to be concerned about most on the no fly list. Just because some of the bad guys may be able to skirt the law and acquire weapons, is not a good reason to make it simple and legal for them to get weapons.

[DC Tom]

Well, OK, there are then obviously problems using this list as it is to restrict weapons purchases. Is there any better list of international bad guys out there? Why couldn't this list be taken as a starting point? Give the prospective gun owners a better path to correct errors than the air industry gives. Perhaps that would delay any purchases by a week for eventual qualifiers. Might that be acceptable?

 

Yes. It's called the terrorism watch list. But nobody's talking about restricting gun ownership for that, are they?

[Chef Jim]

There are lots of bad guys. I think we do need to be concerned about most on the no fly list. Just because some of the bad guys may be able to skirt the law and acquire weapons, is not a good reason to make it simple and legal for them to get weapons.

 

How many Americans have been killed by terrorists with guns since 911 vs the number killed by criminals illegally possessing firearms over the same time period? Terrorists getting firearms is the least of my concerns.

[DC Tom]

 

How many Americans have been killed by terrorists with guns since 911 vs the number killed by criminals illegally possessing firearms over the same time period? Terrorists getting firearms is the least of my concerns.

 

As of last Friday? Not many.

 

As of yesterday? Well, since the President's speech, a lot more violent crime is now defined as terrorism. So I'd say it's probably 50-50.

[Bob in Mich]

There are numerous types of mass shootings. There is no one practical solution that will address all. We need to be careful about completely dismissing an idea simply because that idea will not correct every mass shooting case.

 

Just like when we decided automobile deaths were more preventable. We addressed brakes, crumple zones, seat belts, guard rails, pavement, lighting, signage, drunk driving, insurance, inspections, etc, etc. There can be different angles that combine to reduce deaths, imo.

 

Any chance some of you could take a break from winning the discussion and throw out some 'outside the box' ideas?

[DC Tom]

There are numerous types of mass shootings. There is no one practical solution that will address all. We need to be careful about completely dismissing an idea simply because that idea will not correct every mass shooting case.

 

Just like when we decided automobile deaths were more preventable. We addressed brakes, crumple zones, seat belts, guard rails, pavement, lighting, signage, drunk driving, insurance, inspections, etc, etc. There can be different angles that combine to reduce deaths, imo.

 

Any chance some of you could take a break from winning the discussion and throw out some 'outside the box' ideas?

 

Here's an out-of-the-box idea: enforce the currently existing laws.

[unbillievable]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/needed-domestic-disarmame_b_8739712.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

 

At least this article finally admits that their goal is to disarm the population.

 

Deporting 18million illegal aliens is impossible, but confiscating 250million guns is worth a shot...

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

 

 

 

 

Founders: Constitution protects people from government

 

Liberals: All unregulated activity is a "loophole" we need to close

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WELL, LIKE COMPUTERS, GUNS ARE ANOTHER TECHNOLOGY THAT EMPOWERS INDIVIDUALS:

 

Pew poll says millennials support gun rights, WaPo calls this mysterious.

 

Also, anti-gun hysteria was a specific boomer phenomenon, and the people affected by it are as old as Hillary and Bernie now. Later generations are reverting to the American norm.

 

 

 

.

Interesting, my parents are boomers and I guess I am probably lumped in with various definitions of millenials.

 

My parents were anti gun, never owned one, grew up in a gun free home.

 

I have changed my views and I am very pro gun rights and will be buying my first ever very shortly.

 

I also have many peers whom I have talked with in a similar scenario.

[Nanker]

There are numerous types of mass shootings. There is no one practical solution that will address all. We need to be careful about completely dismissing an idea simply because that idea will not correct every mass shooting case.

 

Just like when we decided automobile deaths were more preventable. We addressed brakes, crumple zones, seat belts, guard rails, pavement, lighting, signage, drunk driving, insurance, inspections, etc, etc. There can be different angles that combine to reduce deaths, imo.

 

Any chance some of you could take a break from winning the discussion and throw out some 'outside the box' ideas?

I already did. Look upstream.

 

Who's hands is this blood on? http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/12/euric_cain_accused_of_kidnappi.html#incart_most-commented_crime_article

 

 

"I know! I know! Oooh-Oooh! The NRA, Batman!" [/LA Grant]

[IDBillzFan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/needed-domestic-disarmame_b_8739712.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

 

At least this article finally admits that their goal is to disarm the population.

 

Deporting 18million illegal aliens is impossible, but confiscating 250million guns is worth a shot...

 

Disarm all Americans and push for a Socialist as president.

 

You SoProgs are a special batch of crazy.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

There are lots of bad guys. I think we do need to be concerned about most on the no fly list. Just because some of the bad guys may be able to skirt the law and acquire weapons, is not a good reason to make it simple and legal for them to get weapons.

The problem as already stated, there is no due process for the no fly list. Using that to stop someone's 2nd ammendment right is a very slippery slope.

 

Bad analogy, but maybe demonstrates the point in a similar way, you are a devout peaceful muslim who is a member at a mosque where jihadis have been radicalized. Now the gvt says you are no longer able to practice Islam You l

Have lost your right to do so. If you go to a mosque you will be a criminal and thrown in jail for doing so.

 

Bad analogy I know but trying to show the point in another way and how quickly things can spiral down the black hole if people are willing to disregard constitutionally protected freedoms and rights.

 

And for the record no one wants bad guys to have weapons. But using the no fly list is not the way to stop it.

There are numerous types of mass shootings. There is no one practical solution that will address all. We need to be careful about completely dismissing an idea simply because that idea will not correct every mass shooting case.

 

Just like when we decided automobile deaths were more preventable. We addressed brakes, crumple zones, seat belts, guard rails, pavement, lighting, signage, drunk driving, insurance, inspections, etc, etc. There can be different angles that combine to reduce deaths, imo.

 

Any chance some of you could take a break from winning the discussion and throw out some 'outside the box' ideas?

You are looking at it differently. Driving a vehicle is a choice, a privilege. Owning a gun is a constitutionally protected right.

 

If someone wants to drive a death trap or ride a motorcycle they should be able to. Its a free market, consumers are or at least should be smart enough to want to drive a safe vehicle but comparing vehicle regulations to mass shootings isn't the right comparison.

 

There are already too many laws on the books restricting gun ownership. I know, Im going through an extremely long and invasive process right now trying to exercise my 2nd amendment right. I see how difficult it is for a legal, law abiding citizen. If I didn't care and was a criminal I could go out and procure a gun now, but i'm not. I follow the overly intrusive and restrictive laws, and i'll make sure I don't load more than 7 rounds in my 10 round magazine.

Edited December 9, 2015 by drinkTHEkoolaid

[Chef Jim]

 

Here's an out-of-the-box idea: enforce the currently existing laws.

 

That's what I'm saying. That vast majority of mass shooting (I'm getting tired of that term) murders, things that go bang in the night are committed by people that have acquired and own their firearm illegally.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

 

That's what I'm saying. That vast majority of mass shooting (I'm getting tired of that term) murders, things that go bang in the night are committed by people that have acquired and own their firearm illegally.

 

The majority of "mass shootings" are black on black urban crimes with illegally owned guns. The media conveniently ignores that reality.

 

Its a convenient narrative to use to further restrict law abiding citizens from owning weapons. Look at the monstrosity that NY rammed through after sandy hook. Every incident is an opportunity for those with an agenda to push and there are enough idiots yelling loudly enough. And if I hear BO say "common sense reform" one more time, my remote may go through my tv.

[Bob in Mich]

The problem as already stated, there is no due process for the no fly list. Using that to stop someone's 2nd ammendment right is a very slippery slope.

 

Bad analogy, but maybe demonstrates the point in a similar way, you are a devout peaceful muslim who is a member at a mosque where jihadis have been radicalized. Now the gvt says you are no longer able to practice Islam You l

Have lost your right to do so. If you go to a mosque you will be a criminal and thrown in jail for doing so.

 

Bad analogy I know but trying to show the point in another way and how quickly things can spiral down the black hole if people are willing to disregard constitutionally protected freedoms and rights.

 

And for the record no one wants bad guys to have weapons. But using the no fly list is not the way to stop it.

You are looking at it differently. Driving a vehicle is a choice, a privilege. Owning a gun is a constitutionally protected right.

 

If someone wants to drive a death trap or ride a motorcycle they should be able to. Its a free market, consumers are or at least should be smart enough to want to drive a safe vehicle but comparing vehicle regulations to mass shootings isn't the right comparison.

 

There are already too many laws on the books restricting gun ownership. I know, Im going through an extremely long and invasive process right now trying to exercise my 2nd amendment right. I see how difficult it is for a legal, law abiding citizen. If I didn't care and was a criminal I could go out and procure a gun now, but i'm not. I follow the overly intrusive and restrictive laws, and i'll make sure I don't load more than 7 rounds in my 10 round magazine.

I disagree with most of this, though it is well stated. Why can't the no fly list be used as a starting point to create a weapons sale restriction list. Give the prospective buyer some method of appeal and correction and over time, come up with a better list.

 

This idea that anything in the constitution is sacrosanct is ridiculous. The founding fathers put in ways to change it. Can it be more apparent that they thought that need might arise?

 

Wanting to stop deaths from auto accidents is a very valid comparison, imo. Your distinction between right and privilege is not really relevant to my point. My point was that a problem can be addressed lots of different ways.

 

The other point is that the expression of your rights are not unlimited. Your rights extend up to the point where exercising your rights begins to infringe on the constitutional rights of others. Extremely difficult to say where that point is, but there is a point

[FireChan]

I disagree with most of this, though it is well stated. Why can't the no fly list be used as a starting point to create a weapons sale restriction list. Give the prospective buyer some method of appeal and correction and over time, come up with a better list.

 

This idea that anything in the constitution is sacrosanct is ridiculous. The founding fathers put in ways to change it. Can it be more apparent that they thought that need might arise?

 

Wanting to stop deaths from auto accidents is a very valid comparison, imo. Your distinction between right and privilege is not really relevant to my point. My point was that a problem can be addressed lots of different ways.

 

The other point is that the expression of your rights are not unlimited. Your rights extend up to the point where exercising your rights begins to infringe on the constitutional rights of others. Extremely difficult to say where that point is, but there is a point

How does my right to bear arms infringe on anyone else's rights? I'll wait.