President calls for reinstatement of assault weapons ban

[Middle Age Russ]

However, I'm reading, that as I expected, the reason the FBI stopped their investigation of this guy was that he was Muslim and that would be racist. I've read that the State Department under Hillary ordered the investigation of this guy stopped. I have even read that DHS was required to purge their database of data on Muslims for the same reason.

...and I am hearing that DHS' Jeh Johnson wants in on "gun control"... The slope just gets slipperier.

[LucasMcCain]

I think they do "get it". They do not fear guns, they surround themselves with body guards with guns, they have large bureaucracies that are armed, they fear people, free people, you and me. It's not about safety or saving lives, it's about control and tyranny.

Thank you. This is what I have been saying for quite some time. An armed populace is the only thing tyrannical governments fear. It is only the threat of violence that keeps evil despots at bay. If the 2nd falls, we lose them all.

[Soccerdad1995]

On the "no fly" list, why are we not talking about taking away people's right to access the internet or use mobile communication devices if they are on the list? Those activities are much more dangerous than the ability to buy a gun.

[cb1000rider]

On the "no fly" list, why are we not talking about taking away people's right to access the internet or use mobile communication devices if they are on the list? Those activities are much more dangerous than the ability to buy a gun.

Just to be clear, you're proposing that once you're added to this "list" (without judicial process, mind you) that we restrict their ability to communicate? Even if that was technical feasible, let alone practical, do you trust your government - or any government that much? Sounds like a horrible idea to me and very anti-American.

So, there's no debate that the Orlanda shooter had been investigated by the FBI twice. But was he actually ever put on any watch list? No fly list? of any sort? I saw that he'd gone to Saudi Arabia, if that's true then #2 wouldn't have worked. So if he wasn't on a list, of these three suggestions #3 is the only one that "might" have worked and if the guy were really determined, he would have just gone behind his local McD's and bought one illegally.

I wouldn't say that either rule would have the Florida issue. It wouldn't have solved Columbine. It wouldn't have stopped Timothy McVay. I don't debate any of that. However, it just "makes sense" to me that if we think someone is so dangerous that they can't fly on a commercial aircraft after substantial security screening that they shouldn't be able to buy firearms. The only part I'm conflicted about is the whole non-judicial nature of the list, lack of transparency, and lack of an appeal process.

I think the "assault" weapon ban is less pragmatic than either of the first options. I think Obama should take it off the table and address the first two issues, which are likely less contentious and much more likely to (eventually) have some sort of impact.

[Solaris]

On the "no fly" list, why are we not talking about taking away people's right to access the internet or use mobile communication devices if they are on the list? Those activities are much more dangerous than the ability to buy a gun.

Just to be clear, you're proposing that once you're added to this "list" (without judicial process, mind you) that we restrict your ability to communicate?
Even if that was technical feasible, let alone practical, do you trust your government - or any government that much?

I agree. IF we are OK with taking away 2A rights, take away 1A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, & 8A. Also publicly name them, so we can ban them from neighborhoods like we do child molesters.

[cb1000rider]

....Also publicly name them, so we can ban them from neighborhoods like we do child molesters.

This is a great example of what might have been a legitimate idea to protect the public that got widened to something else. We have a "registered offender" list that has some cases of much lesser crimes. We produce one list, name everyone on it, make it pretty hard to figure out what exactly they were convicted of, and make it impossible to get off that list. I don't feel bad for a single child molester on that list, but there are quite a few examples of people who are ruined for life that never posed a threat to you, me, or any children...

Be careful with stuff like this.

[bblhd672]

I think they do "get it". They do not fear guns, they surround themselves with body guards with guns, they have large bureaucracies that are armed, they fear people, free people, you and me. It's not about safety or saving lives, it's about control and tyranny.

Thank you. This is what I have been saying for quite some time. An armed populace is the only thing tyrannical governments fear. It is only the threat of violence that keeps evil despots at bay. If the 2nd falls, we lose them all.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I know, I posted this in another thread also. It's that good.
Chas.

[JALLEN]

The government has a rich history of requiring lists which soon are inaccurate, meaningless, and serve only to give a false sense of something being done, and worse, can become a political weapon for whatever administration happens to feel the need. Anybody need an enemies list? Anyone ever sign off on not being a member of any organization on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations I always wanted to say "why no, I'm a Republican," but that would have been considered eccentric.

There are hundreds of laws which require the President to certify a certain state of affairs, usually regarding some foreign country of area of the world, compliance with some standard or another, assurance that some fact is true, some condition actually exists. How many of these are glossed over under the weight of politics of the moment? North Korea isn't a sponsor of state terror, because Boeing needs to sell a bunch of airplanes to meet their numbers this quarter, etc.

Anyone who gives a lick of credence to these bureaucratic antics is a fool, and anyone who suggests these as a solution or contribution to our security certainly is.

[lfinsr]

The government has a rich history of requiring lists which soon are inaccurate, meaningless, and serve only to give a false sense of something being done, and worse, can become a political weapon for whatever administration happens to feel the need.

But you're okay with a list to buy ammo?

[G.A. Heath]

With the terror watch list and the no-fly list we have no way of knowing if we are on them, or ow we get on them, and it's extremely difficult to get removed from them. If they want to make these lists part of the NICS background check system it should be a quick cross reference and alert for a possible re-evaluation of the buyer for possible terror ties. No rights denied, no rights delayed, the buyer who has not been convicted of any disqualifying crimes should be allowed to purchase their firearm and go on about their business.

Additionally should these lists actually be used to control who purchases a firearm then we MUST have a codified system which starts off from a clean slate that by law provides:
1. Notification of being added to list
2. The ability to check your own status
3, Judicial oversight (read warrant required to add a person to the list)
4. A path to correct errors along with a process to that the person on the list knows exactly why they were denied a RIGHT and added to the list.
5. A system similar to the uPIN process in NICS so that a gun buyer can avoid wrongful denials/delays.

Think of it as being something akin to your credit report, no secret lists, no secret processes, and no unchecked and unbalanced denial of rights.

Note: I do not support the system I described above, I list it as the minimum standard that Americans should accept and even then we must acknowledge that this type system will be abused. Also once we add such a measure it will NEVER go away so we have to fight it off as best we can.

[gljjt]

The government has a rich history of requiring lists which soon are inaccurate, meaningless, and serve only to give a false sense of something being done, and worse, can become a political weapon for whatever administration happens to feel the need.

But you're okay with a list to buy ammo?

Yes. Make an ammo shopping list so you don't forget anything important.

[Papa_Tiger]

With the terror watch list and the no-fly list we have no way of knowing if we are on them, or ow we get on them, and it's extremely difficult to get removed from them. If they want to make these lists part of the NICS background check system it should be a quick cross reference and alert for a possible re-evaluation of the buyer for possible terror ties. No rights denied, no rights delayed, the buyer who has not been convicted of any disqualifying crimes should be allowed to purchase their firearm and go on about their business.

Additionally should these lists actually be used to control who purchases a firearm then we MUST have a codified system which starts off from a clean slate that by law provides:
1. Notification of being added to list
2. The ability to check your own status
3, Judicial oversight (read warrant required to add a person to the list)
4. A path to correct errors along with a process to that the person on the list knows exactly why they were denied a RIGHT and added to the list.
5. A system similar to the uPIN process in NICS so that a gun buyer can avoid wrongful denials/delays.

Think of it as being something akin to your credit report, no secret lists, no secret processes, and no unchecked and unbalanced denial of rights.

Note: I do not support the system I described above, I list it as the minimum standard that Americans should accept and even then we must acknowledge that this type system will be abused. Also once we add such a measure it will NEVER go away so we have to fight it off as best we can.

To #3 I would add it cannot be in a secret Federal court. It must be in a federal court with oversight where the person being accused lives. There are far too many things that the Feds get away with under the Patriot act that are just rubber stamped by secret courts with no external oversight and this should definitely not be one of them.

[SewTexas]

The government has a rich history of requiring lists which soon are inaccurate, meaningless, and serve only to give a false sense of something being done, and worse, can become a political weapon for whatever administration happens to feel the need.

But you're okay with a list to buy ammo?

Yes. Make an ammo shopping list so you don't forget anything important.

yes! absolutely!

[JALLEN]

The government has a rich history of requiring lists which soon are inaccurate, meaningless, and serve only to give a false sense of something being done, and worse, can become a political weapon for whatever administration happens to feel the need.

But you're okay with a list to buy ammo?

Where did you get that impression?