Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Wildtree]

Category - Dumbest Pro Gun Arguments Of All Times.

Just a couple min ago, Larry Pratt the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America
argued that the Shooting in Orlando happened in a gun free zone.
When pointed at the law, and how there was an armed guard, he said, that the people should have guns because once the guard was taken care of, it was open season for the shooter.
Pointed further at the Florida laws, regarding no guns in bars, because Alcohol and Guns aren't a good combination, he comes back with. Then they should sell less alcohol in bars.


Is the answer to guns now some soft prohibition? LOL

- - - Updated - - -

Supreme Court turns away challenge to state bans on assault weapons

[Stormdash]

Category - Dumbest Pro Gun Arguments Of All Times.

Just a couple min ago, Larry Pratt the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America
argued that the Shooting in Orlando happened in a gun free zone.
When pointed at the law, and how there was an armed guard, he said, that the people should have guns because once the guard was taken care of, it was open season for the shooter.
Pointed further at the Florida laws, regarding no guns in bars, because Alcohol and Guns aren't a good combination, he comes back with. Then they should sell less alcohol in bars.


Is the answer to guns now some soft prohibition? LOL

Are you referring to the law that plainly prohibits civilians from carrying on premises whose main purpose is serving alcohol? There's an exception for employees, but the employee (former Sgt. Youssef, who still managed some heroism by risking fire to get an extra exit open) was not armed?

As for the armed police officer, who was doing extra duty for OPD at Pulse, not working for Pulse? He, not for nothing, was at least keeping the savage's attention until he had to withdraw. It would actually have been a sterling opportunity for a civilian carrier or actual employee of Pulse to get the primitive in a crossfire.

We have a peculiar redundancy in FL law on the "bar/club" subject -- it's illegal to carry on the premises where the main purpose is serving alcohol, and it's illegal to use (and this would basically include holding/carrying) a gun while under the influence of alcohol. Personally, I'd have been more than happy for a few DDs at the place to have at least had the choice to carry. Neither of these laws are built around the remarkably unlikely circumstance of the gun being wrested from the carrier by some other drunk person.

[Wildtree]

Are you referring to the law that plainly prohibits civilians from carrying on premises whose main purpose is serving alcohol? There's an exception for employees, but the employee (former Sgt. Youssef, who still managed some heroism by risking fire to get an extra exit open) was not armed?

As for the armed police officer, who was doing extra duty for OPD at Pulse, not working for Pulse? He, not for nothing, was at least keeping the savage's attention until he had to withdraw. It would actually have been a sterling opportunity for a civilian carrier or actual employee of Pulse to get the primitive in a crossfire.

We have a peculiar redundancy in FL law on the "bar/club" subject -- it's illegal to carry on the premises where the main purpose is serving alcohol, and it's illegal to use (and this would basically include holding/carrying) a gun while under the influence of alcohol. Personally, I'd have been more than happy for a few DDs at the place to have at least had the choice to carry. Neither of these laws are built around the remarkably unlikely circumstance of the gun being wrested from the carrier by some other drunk person.

I am referring to an interview, that just took place earlier on CNN with Larry Pratt.
When he was pointed to the fact that Florida law prohibits guns in bars (as you also explained), his answer was to limit the amount of alcohol served in bars.

[Svifnymr]

Am i wrong but isn´t this confirming my point? The mere mentioning of records changed the behaviour, now imagine what actual fines would do. If this study is to be trusted than it´s quite obvious how easy guns can get into the hands of criminals by "legal" means.

That straw purchasers will simply shift to reporting them stolen immediately after purchase?
We already have straw purchaser laws, now what needs to happen is simply to prosecute the folks on an individual level. Currently ATF only goes after "gun traffickers" that have a lot of gun straw purchasers rather than busting individuals.

- - - Updated - - -

In 2015, individuals on the terrorist watch list attempted to purchase firearms 244 times. 91% of the purchases were approved and allowed to proceed.

Just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing how much freedom we have when it comes to purchasing firearms.

"The problem we have, and really the firewall we have right now is due process. It’s all due process. So we can all say we want the same thing, but how do we get there? If a person is on a terrorist watch list like the gentleman, the shooter, in Orlando, he was twice by the FBI. We were briefed yesterday about what happened, but that man was brought in twice. They did everything they could. The FBI did everything they were supposed to do. But there was no way to keep him on the NICS list or keep him off the gun-buy list. There was no way to do that … due process is what’s killing us right now."
Senator Manchin.

Those gosh darn rights getting in the way of arbitrary penalties, darn it all!

- - - Updated - - -

From your article Pre: "On the flip side, the number of people on the watch list who legally purchased weapons may be far higher because the tally doesn't include transactions made at gun shows, where federal background checks aren’t conducted."

Now, we've discussed the fact that being at a gunshow is not some loophole or exemption. Why can't they just say "private sales", why involve categories such as gun shows, online, newspapers or any other methodology for facilitating private sales between individuals? It really (quite falsely) portrays it as dealers not having to do background checks at gun shows.

[lockedout]

In 2015, individuals on the terrorist watch list attempted to purchase firearms 244 times. 91% of the purchases were approved and allowed to proceed.

Just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing how much freedom we have when it comes to purchasing firearms.

Did these people commit any crimes?

[GennGreymane]

Any of this true?

[Stormdash]

In 2015, individuals on the terrorist watch list attempted to purchase firearms 244 times. 91% of the purchases were approved and allowed to proceed.

Just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing how much freedom we have when it comes to purchasing firearms.

Thankfully, people who actually know anything know that even if you ignore the shocking rate of people being added to the terrorist watch list for no apparent reason who only discover it when they run afoul of it, the watch list isn't actually meant for anything other than scrutiny of investigation, it's not a judicial process. To wit; if someone on the watch list buys a firearm, yeah, you should pay attention to that. But since "being on the list" isn't actually proof of a crime or even probable cause of a crime*, you don't presumptively curtail people on the list from the lawful activities that they have constitutionally protected rights to engage in, because this isn't the Soviet Union.

As a practical matter, as well, you let them, because to deny them sends up a red flag to the actual bad guys you are worried about that they are under scrutiny or investigation -- a point that FBI Director James Comey made in Senate hearings in 2015, that it can actually blow counter-terrorist investigations.

*Due process, according to Senate Democrat Joe Manchin, is killing us. But hell, if the 2nd Amendment has to go for our safety, and the 5th Amendment has to go to get through the 2nd Amendment, what the hell is left worth fighting for? And the requirements of due process aren't all that high in the grand scheme of things. Let's compare the watch list to 4th Amendment probable cause. I remember a survey of judges to quantify the various standards of proof in our justice system, and probable cause worked out to about 30% certainty, a little less than a one in three chance that a crime had been or was about to be committed is all to clear the constitutional safeguards to search a home, to seize a harddrive, to arrest someone. Now, the percentage of certainly that a crime has been or is going to be committed to be put on the terrorist watch list is... 0%. Because there is no probable cause requirement, or the slightly less burdensome Terry stop requirement of "reasonable suspicion". There is no quantum of proof required whatsoever, and that is in large part because nothing actually happens to you for being put on the watch list that affects your civil rights.

You don't think it is reasonable for a free society to be at least 30% or so sure you have done or will actually do something before you get your rights stripped? Or that, if you're going to start stapling people's civil rights for being on the list, that in a free and just society at least some, any show of proof that you've done something or are going to has to be made to an impartial authority?

[Wildtree]

http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aRegZxA_460s.jpg]

Any of this true?

All of it, yes.

Reagan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
Palin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska..._Force#History
Romney: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-gun-rhetoric/

And Obama never campaigned on the premises to take all guns away. He did/does campaign for limited magazine capacities.

[Annoying]

In 2015, individuals on the terrorist watch list attempted to purchase firearms 244 times. 91% of the purchases were approved and allowed to proceed.

Just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing how much freedom we have when it comes to purchasing firearms.

Due process? Like, if you were on a watchlist and didn't know, why should they be allowed to take your second amendment right from you without due process? If they're enough of a threat to disallow buying guns, why haven't we arrested and charged them yet?

[TZucchini]

Those gosh darn rights getting in the way of arbitrary penalties, darn it all!

Such an easy fix. Provide people on the watch list with due process. A means of being removed.

Or, an even better fix, remove the right to own a firearm. Thus no due process would be breached.

But it's really quite logical. If you're a suspected terrorist under investigation by the FBI, your purchases should be flagged until the FBI can review.

Now, we've discussed the fact that being at a gunshow is not some loophole or exemption.

Politifact doesn't call it a loophole or exemption.

[GennGreymane]

All of it, yes.

Reagan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
Palin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska..._Force#History
Romney: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-gun-rhetoric/

And Obama never campaigned on the premises to take all guns away. He did/does campaign for limited magazine capacities.

Thats funny. You have my blessing to use the image forever.

[Wildtree]

Thats funny. You have my blessing to use the image forever.

http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uplo...akens7Text.gif

Thank you!
But I cherish my infractions. I tend to collect them when I deem it worth to call out an asshole for what they are.
Not big on using picture memes for that matter lol

[TZucchini]

Due process? Like, if you were on a watchlist and didn't know, why should they be allowed to take your second amendment right from you without due process? If they're enough of a threat to disallow buying guns, why haven't we arrested and charged them yet?

I've been saying, throughout the entirety of this thread, that the 2nd Amendment makes reasonable gun control measures impossible. This is yet another example. The constitutional protection afforded to individuals that want to purchase firearms, in my opinion, is not grounded in logic.

But yeah. I'm sure we can fix the system to provide due process. There's only 10,000 Americans on the list anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

As a practical matter, as well, you let them, because to deny them sends up a red flag to the actual bad guys you are worried about that they are under scrutiny or investigation -- a point that FBI Director James Comey made in Senate hearings in 2015, that it can actually blow counter-terrorist investigations.

Their purchases should be flagged and sent to the FBI for review. If they want to stop the purchase, they can. If they don't want to, just as well.

[Annoying]

Thank you!
But I cherish my infractions. I tend to collect them when I deem it worth to call out an asshole for what they are.
Not big on using picture memes for that matter lol

I mean, if you post an image like that with context and actual substance to your post you won't get hit. If it's the only thing a post has it'd be spam.

I've been saying, throughout the entirety of this thread, that the 2nd Amendment makes reasonable gun control measures impossible. This is yet another example. The constitutional protection afforded to individuals that want to purchase firearms, in my opinion, is not grounded in logic.

But yeah. I'm sure we can fix the system to provide due process. There's only 10,000 Americans on the list anyway.

- - - Updated - - -



Their purchases should be flagged and sent to the FBI for review. If they want to stop the purchase, they can. If they don't want to, just as well.

I think we've discussed that in this thread before. I'm all for if people want to modify the constitution, but your alternative answer is fine, too. If the watchlist had an actual legal use, it wouldn't be hard to use for prevention of firearm purchases. Without a legal use, and with it being a "secret", you can't really prevent someone from doing something without them knowing why or having any recourse to fix it. Which is why the do-not-fly list is a load of shit, but that's for a different thread.

[Stormdash]

I've been saying, throughout the entirety of this thread, that the 2nd Amendment makes reasonable gun control measures impossible. This is yet another example. The constitutional protection afforded to individuals that want to purchase firearms, in my opinion, is not grounded in logic.

It makes reasonable controls possible, we pretty much already have all the reasonable ones. What's broken here is your sense of reason.

But yeah. I'm sure we can fix the system to provide due process. There's only 10,000 Americans on the list anyway.

The "no-fly" list is at least 70,000; the terrorist watch list is thought to include over a million people. Not sure where you pulled that 10k nonsense, but considering it's very clear that the "list" in mind for Congressional democrats will be the most broadest possible interpretation, 10,000 is a joke.

Their purchases should be flagged and sent to the FBI for review. If they want to stop the purchase, they can. If they don't want to, just as well.

They don't actually need any new legislation to do that, an NICS check can be checked against the watch list right now. Can the NICS check be refused solely because of list status, probably not, but if the FBI did see a name come in for an NICS check and they felt strongly enough to stop the purchase they must have reasons for that specific individual that would constitute probable cause to move their investigation to the next step of an arrest. The only thing they can't do right now is stop the purchase "because reasons".

[Mayhem]

That straw purchasers will simply shift to reporting them stolen immediately after purchase?
We already have straw purchaser laws, now what needs to happen is simply to prosecute the folks on an individual level. Currently ATF only goes after "gun traffickers" that have a lot of gun straw purchasers rather than busting individuals.

Hence why i´m writing for pages now that a need to report firearms stolen in combination with safe storage laws would help with that problem. Reporting a firearm stolen isn´t as easy if you have to provide proof that you stored them the way you´re supposed to.

[Stormdash]

Hence why i´m writing for pages now that a need to report firearms stolen in combination with safe storage laws would help with that problem. Reporting a firearm stolen isn´t as easy if you have to provide proof that you stored them the way you´re supposed to.

Except "safe storage" laws run contrary to several of the likely (and certainly some of the constitutionally protected) reasons for owning a firearm in the first place. You'll be tacitly encouraging home carry, almost demanding it, for people to have any chance of using a firearm for defense in their home.

[TZucchini]

The "no-fly" list is at least 70,000; the terrorist watch list is thought to include over a million people. Not sure where you pulled that 10k nonsense, but considering it's very clear that the "list" in mind for Congressional democrats will be the most broadest possible interpretation, 10,000 is a joke.

Citation for the "nonsense".

-There are approximately 420,000 individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist.
-Approximately 98 percent of these individuals are non-U.S. persons.

The only thing they can't do right now is stop the purchase "because reasons".

Because reasons?

How about "Individual made inflammatory remarks to co-workers regarding possible terrorist ties."

How about "Individual, already under investigation, made contact with a Florida citizen who traveled to Syria and carried out a suicide bombing."

Those seem like pretty good reasons to flag a purchase for FBI review.

[Mayhem]

Except "safe storage" laws run contrary to several of the likely (and certainly some of the constitutionally protected) reasons for owning a firearm in the first place. You'll be tacitly encouraging home carry, almost demanding it, for people to have any chance of using a firearm for defense in their home.

Wait what? Safe storage in when the guns get stolen while you´re not home, not safe storage as in when you´re home.

[TITAN308]

Such an easy fix. Provide people on the watch list with due process. A means of being removed.

That is exactly why it has been opposed because there is no clear process to do so.

Or, an even better fix, remove the right to own a firearm. Thus no due process would be breached.

And then your posts went back to the same old "when pigs fly this will happen" rhetoric.

Started off strong, then bottomed out. /sadpanda

i r disappointed son

- - - Updated - - -

Any of this true?

Just remember, there are quite a few of us gun owners that check off the "fuck every politician" box.

Or better yet, we don't check any boxes when the time comes, because, well, fuck every politician.