IHOPSkins Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Reposted from another thread....for reaction Since the cat is out of the bag that you are on the watch list MAYBE Don't allow gun purchase if you are on the watch list until you EARN the right to be removed? I don't have any details.....and sounds a little Big Brother....but there should be some kind of hold on Gun purchases if you pass a certain "Hate Index"....but you would have the ability to get off the list with some penance? Thinking out loud here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Larry there is validity to both sides of the argument. See what I posted right above. I quoted my post from the other thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 On the vote, only one Republican voted for the rights of people on the terrorist watch list to have their gun rights limited. Only one Democrat voted to make sure those on the terrorist watch list would have their gun purchasing power unabridged. Pretty one-sided. As for mistakes... that's what appeals are for. If I were wrongly on the terrorist watch list I'd want to get myself off it. I'd want to prove myself a good citizen. I don't think people are put on the list for dart board reasons (random name gets picked). Mistakes can happen though... the answer is not to assume that every name on the list is a mistake though. The answer is to appeal the decision. Someone glibly wrote in a different social media conversation I'm having that it is important to protect the rights of terrorists. I do hold with the notion that it is important to protect the right of all Americans and that it is important to maintain innocent until proven guilty... but I still contend that there can be a process inbetween where rights are suspended during inquiry and investigation. After all, do we really want to defend the rights of terrorists who have been accurately identified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 As for mistakes... that's what appeals are for. If I were wrongly on the terrorist watch list I'd want to get myself off it. I'd want to prove myself a good citizen. I don't think people are put on the list for dart board reasons (random name gets picked). Mistakes can happen though... the answer is not to assume that every name on the list is a mistake though. The answer is to appeal the decision. I've at least read stories about eight year old American citizens being denied ability to board an airplane. Supposedly the reason was because the kid has the same name as a suspected alias. Which isn't exactly a case of "random name picked". But it seems pretty close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 One way to pass more restrictions for the watch list is to LOWER restrictions for everybody else?....like more concealed carry permits, and more general acceptance by the public. If two or three (more?) people at the club had guns...maybe more lives would have been saved? First responders are those that were there to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 That's what we need, drunk people with guns. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 As for mistakes... that's what appeals are for. If I were wrongly on the terrorist watch list I'd want to get myself off it. I'd want to prove myself a good citizen. I don't think people are put on the list for dart board reasons (random name gets picked). Mistakes can happen though... the answer is not to assume that every name on the list is a mistake though. The answer is to appeal the decision. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140624/15302927673/court-says-process-getting-off-no-fly-list-is-unconstitutional.shtml There are a bunch of other articles that show how ridiculous the No fly list is with how people are put on it and how hard it is to get off it. But here is just one article about it. This is why I have an issue with saying you can't exercise a constitutional right if you are on the list. Now if they did a better job managing the list, then I would fully support such action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140624/15302927673/court-says-process-getting-off-no-fly-list-is-unconstitutional.shtml There are a bunch of other articles that show how ridiculous the No fly list is with how people are put on it and how hard it is to get off it. But here is just one article about it. This is why I have an issue with saying you can't exercise a constitutional right if you are on the list. Now if they did a better job managing the list, then I would fully support such action. Really admiring the way people like to pretend that the ability to buy an AR-15 is a constitutional right, but the right to sit on an airplane isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Really admiring the way people like to pretend that the ability to buy an AR-15 is a constitutional right, but the right to sit on an airplane isn't. Is this referring to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 That's what we need, drunk people with guns. Nope But one sober thinking club goer could have made a big difference if armed 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Is this referring to me? You and everybody else who doesn't have a problem with a "no fly" list, but who has a problem with a "no gun" list. And who lists "constitutional right" as their reason. My position is, I can certainly see someone having a problem with both lists. For lots of reasons. (No due process, no defined criteria for being on the list, no notification that you're on the list until it's too late for you to correct a mistake, no process for ever correcting a mistake. there's probably more.) I can't justify the argument (that I'm pretty sure I'm seeing, from multiple posters), that well, putting people on the no fly list, they don't feel obligated to object to. But, forbidding those same people from buying a gun? Well that, they're sure, is unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 I've at least read stories about eight year old American citizens being denied ability to board an airplane. Supposedly the reason was because the kid has the same name as a suspected alias. Which isn't exactly a case of "random name picked". But it seems pretty close. but seems like a mistake pretty easily fixed upon appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 To the people who think limiting magazine capacity is going to help: Have you ever changed a magazine in a gun? At best you're just hopping the person doesn't have the financial means to afford the number of magazines they need to do whatever crazy **** they plan. And if you're not planning on living past it, you can spent quite a bit of money on it. Unless you're poor. Sounds like a policy that'll stop the crazy, poor people from shooting places up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Nope But one sober thinking club goer could have made a big difference if armed Course, the armed guy at the door couldn't. I think somebody said that there was a cop in the club, too? But yeah, pull out the oft-repeated fantasy that if only somebody in the club had pulled out a can of spinach, . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 I don't know crap about AR-15's, but as long as the magazine fits and works I don't think it matters if you plan dying as part of your grand attack. https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/category/parts-and-accessories/magazines/ar-15-magazines.do 10-20 per magazine. A backpack and $200 and your magazine limit idea becomes useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Oh, they already dealt with that argument, Larry. The first response is stereotypically--- If only good guy with a gun was there it could have been prevented. Well, in this situation there were multiple good guys with guns and it still happened. So,the argument flips to... if only there were more good guys there and they happened to be perfectly sober, excellent marksmen, immune to panic, had a clear line of vision, and in the panic and chaos of a shooting incident the ways parted for him while somehow leaving the shooter ignorant of his sudden peril. or you could go with twa's argument... Well, the good guys guns weren't powerful enough to compete with the bad guy's guns. Clearly, the good guys need to be armed with bigger and badder guns it would have been stopped because clearly the good guys guns were of the non lethal, non bad guy stopping variety. Frankly, the obvious solution would have been to have a robot controlled machine gun nest set into the ceiling. Then, the robots could have taken out anything it decided was a threat. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacon Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Nope But one sober thinking club goer could have made a big difference if armed The security guard with a state-issued pistol at the door didn't accomplish much against an AR-15. At what point does one wake up from the NRA-sanctioned fantasy of "good" citizens protecting us with obscenely powerful guns and start addressing the ease with which the "bad" citizens are acquiring them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 To the people who think limiting magazine capacity is going to help: Have you ever changed a magazine in a gun? At best you're just hopping the person doesn't have the financial means to afford the number of magazines they need to do whatever crazy **** they plan. And if you're not planning on living past it, you can spent quite a bit of money on it. Unless you're poor. Sounds like a policy that'll stop the crazy, poor people from shooting places up. I said earlier that I realize how quickly a mag can be changed on a weapon. That's why I said it was a harm reduction effort, not a panacea.As for your argument that it's about poor people, that's nonsense. So as a measure to help low income gun owners, how about we allow belt-fed weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 (edited) All in all if a high capacity magazine ban were in place and we were talking about 10 people dead instead of 50 would you say that would be worth the inconvenience to law abiding gun owners? What about 30? 40? 49? Where's the threshold?Sure. Obvious problem is you not only can't say that, you can't even produce a reasonable argument that it would have any meaningful probability of working out that way.Unless the conversation is between a bunch of people who are clueless about guns, then you can come up with all kinds of good sounding ideas with no meat. And I'm for going back to bolt action and revolvers, so it isn't some 2nd amendment bull**** I'm stuck on. It's just not an idea that makes any sense if you understand how guns work. 3 hours in a building with people and you're talking about magazine limits. Like I said, it'll stop the crazies that are poor and cannot afford tons of $10-20 magazines for their $1500 AR 15. Ironically, my idea (that would make rifles bolt action only) would actually do something like what you suggest, but has no chance of being implemented. Your idea, which does nothing of substance, likely will get passed because of the number of people who will support it. Round and round we go. I'm not trying to be an ass. Just sick of the meaningless ideas and the defending the 2nd ammendment stuff. And when it comes to mass shooting incidents like this, I happen to find the magazine limit meaningless (even if well intended.) That's all. Edited June 12, 2016 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 You and everybody else who doesn't have a problem with a "no fly" list, but who has a problem with a "no gun" list. And who lists "constitutional right" as their reason. My position is, I can certainly see someone having a problem with both lists. For lots of reasons. (No due process, no defined criteria for being on the list, no notification that you're on the list until it's too late for you to correct a mistake, no process for ever correcting a mistake. there's probably more.) I can't justify the argument (that I'm pretty sure I'm seeing, from multiple posters), that well, putting people on the no fly list, they don't feel obligated to object to. But, forbidding those same people from buying a gun? Well that, they're sure, is unconstitutional. I never said I have a problem with one and not the other. In fact, I don't think I have seen anyone say that. I, and I bet most people, would be fine with both if there were transparency to the system. And some sort of appeals system so I can be quickly removed if it's found to be an error. but seems like a mistake pretty easily fixed upon appeal. It would be except the government is involved. Hell, Ted Kennedy had trouble getting his name off the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Sure. Obvious problem is you not only can't say that, you can't even produce a reasonable argument that it would have any meaningful probability of working out that way. Unless the conversation is between a bunch of people who are clueless about guns, then you can come up with all kinds of good sounding ideas with no meat. While a mag limit wouldn't prevent everything, it allows more of a chance for something to be done. Every time a mag is changed, there is a chance for error. It allows a few seconds for someone to try to stop the person. You also can only carry so many mags so you would have to get mags out of a bag. A mag limit would help a little and has more of a chance of passing than your "everything needs to be bolt action" idea. Go ahead and try to lump me into the "clueless about guns" crowd. I dare you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Seems pretty clueless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 It would be except the government is involved. Hell, Ted Kennedy had trouble getting his name off the list. Well, Ted Kennedy has proven himself pretty dangerous. :silly: I'll agree with you here that this is a problem that needs to be fixed, but I think it's a problem worth fixing. If we have a terror watch list, it should have checks and balances, should be soberly applied, and those who are on it should face certain difficulties... like acquiring firearms. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Well look at that! Burgold and I agree again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Posting some links for when weapons Defend lives.....For those individuals who don't live in fantasy land and refuse to stereotypically react Do citizens (not police officers) with guns ever stop mass shootings? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/ 10 Cases Where An Armed Citizen Took Down An Active Shooter http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2015/03/10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter/#10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter-2 Case Two, which took place in Cape Town, South Africa, in 1993. In that incident, four terrorists armed with fully automatic assault weapons and hand grenades attacked the Saint James Church. Their sudden, violent assault killed 11 victims and wounded 58. But a single armed citizen named Charl van Wyk was able to draw his personal carry gun, a five-shot snub-nosed .38 Special revolver, and open fire. He wounded one of the attackers, and all four were so jarred off their plan by this unexpected return of gunfire that they broke off the attack and fled. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts