Should they ban assault weapons?

[Strychnine]

the no fly thing doesn't make much sense to me. If you're a potential hazard on a plane why do you deserve a gun.

Right! No Fly = No buy
But the system would have to have a way to challenge your status. Like for instance if you were put on it and it's a mistake.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Right! No Fly = No buy
But the system would have to have a way to challenge your status. Like for instance if you were put on it and it's a mistake.

Yeah I'm In agreement with this. the hijacked NRAs militant base doesn't want this though.

 

[IDL]

Right! No Fly = No buy
But the system would have to have a way to challenge your status. Like for instance if you were put on it and it's a mistake.

How do people even know if they are put on the list?

 

[Strychnine]

How do people even know if they are put on the list?

Well it's not in place. But you could get a postcard, like a draft notice. It could then have the steps to take to challenge your status.

 

[SMEAC]

im saying civilians carrying firearms in public is not normal. same reason why people cant wear swords

Please apply what is normal from your obscure place in the world to everywhere else

 

[My Spot]

Fine, bring back the AWB. All manufacturers have to do is remove the threaded portion of the barrel, remove the bayonet lug, and fix/pin the stock. Voila, it's no longer considered an "assault" weapon.

See, not quite as scary looking.

 

[IDL]

Well it's not in place. But you could get a postcard, like a draft notice. It could then have the steps to take to challenge your status.

There is a no-fly list already, but yeah if it was going to be expanded then sending out letters would really be the only way to do it.

 

[SMEAC]

no because it becomes too easy for 2nd amendment nutjobs to shoot people

Please post all these examples of "2nd Amendment nutjobs" shooting people up?

I'll wait

 

[Strychnine]

There is a no-fly list already, but yeah if it was going to be expanded then sending out letters would really be the only way to do it.

I talk to some of the "old-heads" at the gym on base and they say, "That's how I got drafted!"

 

[My Spot]

There is a no-fly list already, but yeah if it was going to be expanded then sending out letters would really be the only way to do it.

And it was found to be unconstitutional by a federal judge (courtesy of the ACLU and NOT the NRA).

 

[My Spot]

Please post all these examples of "2nd Amendment nutjobs" shooting people up?

I'll wait

"There are more irresponsible gun owners than responsible gun owners."
"Do you have a reputable source for that?"
"No, but it's based on my experience of seeing some dude wearing sweatpants and not using a holster for his pistol."

An actual conversation I had with a gun controll on here yesterday...

 

[IDL]

I talk to some of the "old-heads" at the gym on base and they say, "That's how I got drafted!"

Is there a big problem with people on no-fly lists buying guns and shooting people though?

All the 'solutions' being put forward look like solutions to non existent problems, or at least relatively minuscule ones.

 

[IDL]

And it was found to be unconstitutional by a federal judge (courtesy of the ACLU and NOT the NRA).

Yeah I heard about that. So does that pretty much put an end to it or does the ACLU just sort of 'make stances' on things and the government can listen or ignore at will? I'm not sure how that organization factors in to things.

 

[Strychnine]

Is there a big problem with people on no-fly lists buying guns and shooting people though?

All the 'solutions' being put forward look like solutions to non existent problems, or at least relatively minuscule ones.

No. But do you want to share a seat on a plane with someone on the no-fly list? Do we wait until it becomes a recurring problem? I don't know, I'm just spitballing here...

 

[My Spot]

Yeah I heard about that. So does that pretty much put an end to it or does the ACLU just sort of 'make stances' on things and the government can listen or ignore at will? I'm not sure how that organization factors in to things.

It means the federal government can have as many secret watchlists as they want but they can't be used to deny someone a Constitutionally-guaranteed right because...there's no due process.

mindblown.gif

 

[IDL]

No. But do you want to share a seat on a plane with someone on the no-fly list? Do we wait until it becomes a recurring problem? I don't know, I'm just spitballing here...

So the pros are that maybe it would prevent someone in the future on a no-fly list from shooting people (assuming they could not get an illegal gun, or from some other means, which is a big assumption) despite there not being a precedence to foresee such a problem becoming significant.

The cons are that it would hand over more patriot act type of power to the government, require new systems and processes put in place, and may be in breach of constitutional rights.

Seems like a net loss to me.

 

[TeTe]

Even if they ban "assault" weapons, I'm not getting rid of mine.

Also, the only gun control law I support immediately passing is the "One gun a month" law.

I feel like we can cut down on straw purchases and help get rid of some of the gang shootings if we keep these sellers from dumping a bunch of guns on the streets at once. Maybe the cops will be able to confiscate them faster than they buy them.

See, that's where the real problem is, in the inner city where people are killing each other daily. But, people only care about gun control when they see a mass shooting on TV. Ban one type of gun that is used in a very low percentage of gun homicides annually. Makes sense.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

But do you want to share a seat on a plane with someone on the no-fly list?

What's a rational reason I should give a shit? Did the guy not go through security same as me or are you saying security is too inept to search suspicious people?

 

[IDL]

On a side note, in the policing world the idea of pre-crime is becoming more and more pushed. As the IT systems become more integrated, automated, and centralized, this opens up such possibilities for algorithms to be used to determine statistical chances of offending.

It makes sense on the surface from purely a crime prevention point of view, but it opens up a pandoras box as well.

In any case we're going to be seeing a drive for it. It would apply more to inner city crime I'd think though.

 

[raty tat tat]

I would suggest that you study history. Unarmed populations are victim populations.

Urban/Guerilla warfare would be a nightmare in the united states. There are millions and millions of guns owned in the US and gun owners would never give them up lightly. While the population is armed, there is hope for freedom and liberty.

Like I said just because you have some guns doesn't mean you're going to able
defend your self against the government.