hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392 
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jun 13, 2016 15:14:13 GMT -5
Yeah, that's far more effective than actually stopping radical extremists from buying weapons, something most Congressional Republicans oppose.  Oh, you mean the no-fly list? The list for which the criteria for inclusion are so broad and vague that they inevitably ensnare innocent people engaged in First Amendment-protected speech, activity, or association (so sayeth that conservative watchdog known as the ACLU)? The list that once you're on it (if you ever know you're on it), is nearly impossible to get off? The list that is actually a subset of an even larger watch list (the Terrorist Screening Database)? That list? Back in February, Rep. King from NY and Sen. Feinstein introduced a bill that would allow the government to deny people suspected of being involved in terrorism from obtaining a gun. The bill would also make it illegal to sell or give firearms to anyone the government has determined is a terrorist. Since Republicans control both chambers, their leaders have prevented the bills being brought to a vote. They are on record as saying that new gun laws are not the answer to gun violence. And yes, same thing with the assault weapons ban, gun show loophole, and extended background checks. Won't even let the bills come to a vote. Instead of demeaning the effort, seek ways to improve it. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 13, 2016 15:56:23 GMT -5
Oh, you mean the no-fly list? The list for which the criteria for inclusion are so broad and vague that they inevitably ensnare innocent people engaged in First Amendment-protected speech, activity, or association (so sayeth that conservative watchdog known as the ACLU)? The list that once you're on it (if you ever know you're on it), is nearly impossible to get off? The list that is actually a subset of an even larger watch list (the Terrorist Screening Database)? That list? Back in February, Rep. King from NY and Sen. Feinstein introduced a bill that would allow the government to deny people suspected of being involved in terrorism from obtaining a gun. The bill would also make it illegal to sell or give firearms to anyone the government has determined is a terrorist. Since Republicans control both chambers, their leaders have prevented the bills being brought to a vote. They are on record as saying that new gun laws are not the answer to gun violence. And yes, same thing with the assault weapons ban, gun show loophole, and extended background checks. Won't even let the bills come to a vote. Instead of demeaning the effort, seek ways to improve it. How about we improve the background checks already taking place, since they only preventing a miniscule percentage of persons on the no-fly list who sought to purchase a gun from actually purchasing a gun. BTW, how many people on the no-fly list have sought to purchase a firearm recently? Let's not pretend like this will be anything other than window dressing. |
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jun 13, 2016 17:04:35 GMT -5
If you say so, kc...
BTW
Orlando: AR-15
Aurora: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Umpqua Community College: AR-15
I guess hunting people is a sport now.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 13, 2016 18:42:41 GMT -5
If you say so, kc... BTW Orlando: AR-15 Aurora: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Umpqua Community College: AR-15 I guess hunting people is a sport now. I love you fail to respond to my point. I guess you have nothing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2016 18:48:42 GMT -5
As I have stated before, I am not a lawyer. However, I have done a great deal of reading about the 2nd amendment. It was enacted in 1789 at a time where there was no standing army or police force. Basically it says " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Now the overwhelming majority of current constitutional scholars interpret this as a militia amendment and does not give the general public the right to own say, an assault rifle in the presence of an armed police force and a standing army.
At any rate, I challenge anyone to provide me with a rationale why any citizen needs an assault rifle???
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,202
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 13, 2016 19:50:24 GMT -5
Back in February, Rep. King from NY and Sen. Feinstein introduced a bill that would allow the government to deny people suspected of being involved in terrorism from obtaining a gun. The bill would also make it illegal to sell or give firearms to anyone the government has determined is a terrorist. Since Republicans control both chambers, their leaders have prevented the bills being brought to a vote. They are on record as saying that new gun laws are not the answer to gun violence. And yes, same thing with the assault weapons ban, gun show loophole, and extended background checks. Won't even let the bills come to a vote. Instead of demeaning the effort, seek ways to improve it. How about we improve the background checks already taking place, since they only preventing a miniscule percentage of persons on the no-fly list who sought to purchase a gun from actually purchasing a gun. BTW, how many people on the no-fly list have sought to purchase a firearm recently? Let's not pretend like this will be anything other than window dressing. These are stats for the Terrorist Watch list and background checks. I'm not certain that much can be inferred from these stats, constitutional issues aside but 91% of people who were on the Terrorist Watch list were allowed to proceed with a purchase of a firearm and/or explosives. A March 2015 GAO report found that between 2004 - 2014, there were 2,233 background checks on persons listed on the Terrorist Watch list. Of those 2,233, 91% (2,043) were allowed to proceed with their purchase and 190 were denied. Between February 2004 and December 2014, the FBI started keeping tabs on people on the list trying to buy guns. Having worked with the Terrorist Watch list, it has its own set of problems especially with the nomination process. I think I read that Mateen was on the list then removed. www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/dec/29/patrick-murphy/terrorist-watch-list-no-obstacle-buying-guns-rep-m/ |
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jun 13, 2016 20:14:22 GMT -5
Wonder how Ryan et al. respond to Trump's rhetoric today?
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jun 14, 2016 10:55:22 GMT -5
If you say so, kc... BTW Orlando: AR-15 Aurora: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Umpqua Community College: AR-15 I guess hunting people is a sport now. I love you fail to respond to my point. I guess you have nothing. Oh, c'mon kc. You know me better than that!  Just choosing not to engage any further... |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 14, 2016 11:55:42 GMT -5
How about we improve the background checks already taking place, since they only preventing a miniscule percentage of persons on the no-fly list who sought to purchase a gun from actually purchasing a gun. BTW, how many people on the no-fly list have sought to purchase a firearm recently? Let's not pretend like this will be anything other than window dressing. These are stats for the Terrorist Watch list and background checks. I'm not certain that much can be inferred from these stats, constitutional issues aside but 91% of people who were on the Terrorist Watch list were allowed to proceed with a purchase of a firearm and/or explosives. A March 2015 GAO report found that between 2004 - 2014, there were 2,233 background checks on persons listed on the Terrorist Watch list. Of those 2,233, 91% (2,043) were allowed to proceed with their purchase and 190 were denied. Between February 2004 and December 2014, the FBI started keeping tabs on people on the list trying to buy guns. Having worked with the Terrorist Watch list, it has its own set of problems especially with the nomination process. I think I read that Mateen was on the list then removed. www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/dec/29/patrick-murphy/terrorist-watch-list-no-obstacle-buying-guns-rep-m/This identifies the problem (one of them) as I see it. Let's not pretend that more background checks, more gun control measures are the answer. From the numbers you cited, it's clear that if the persons in the Terrorist Screening Database were really that much of a danger to national security, yet allowed to proceed with a purchase of a firearm 91% of the time, either the background checks are faulty, or the Terrorist Screening Database is sweeping up large swaths of persons who are not that dangerous. Would automatically banning those in the Terrorist Screening Database or on the no-fly list from purchasing firearms stop a fewshootings. Sure. But that doesn't address the problem. |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,202
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 14, 2016 12:05:47 GMT -5
These are stats for the Terrorist Watch list and background checks. I'm not certain that much can be inferred from these stats, constitutional issues aside but 91% of people who were on the Terrorist Watch list were allowed to proceed with a purchase of a firearm and/or explosives. A March 2015 GAO report found that between 2004 - 2014, there were 2,233 background checks on persons listed on the Terrorist Watch list. Of those 2,233, 91% (2,043) were allowed to proceed with their purchase and 190 were denied. Between February 2004 and December 2014, the FBI started keeping tabs on people on the list trying to buy guns. Having worked with the Terrorist Watch list, it has its own set of problems especially with the nomination process. I think I read that Mateen was on the list then removed. www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/dec/29/patrick-murphy/terrorist-watch-list-no-obstacle-buying-guns-rep-m/This identifies the problem (one of them) as I see it. Let's not pretend that more background checks, more gun control measures are the answer. From the numbers you cited, it's clear that if the persons in the Terrorist Screening Database were really that much of a danger to national security, yet allowed to proceed with a purchase of a firearm 91% of the time, either the background checks are faulty, or the Terrorist Screening Database is sweeping up large swaths of persons who are not that dangerous. Would automatically banning those in the Terrorist Screening Database or on the no-fly list from purchasing firearms stop a fewshootings. Sure. But that doesn't address the problem. kc, I tend to agree with you on this one. I think it's more in the line of security theater. As I alluded to, the list has it own set of problems, which at the time I retired had not been fully resolved. As one tool in the toolkit of countering terrorism, there may be a marginal benefit but not certain that is robust enough to be as effective as those who want it believe it may be. Additionally, I will not bash the FBI on the fact that Mateen was on then off that list, given the volume of threats constantly under review by the FBI in conjunction with DOJ, NSD. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 14, 2016 14:23:33 GMT -5
If you say so, kc... BTW Orlando: AR-15 Aurora: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Umpqua Community College: AR-15 I guess hunting people is a sport now. You may want to check your sources. |
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jun 15, 2016 10:43:34 GMT -5
Trump to endorse Obama's gun control plan.  Maybe. Knowing Trump, his position will change by this afternoon... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2016 12:47:18 GMT -5
I thought that Mateen was NOT on the terror watch list. The investigation had been closed. If that is true, a rule not allowing people on the terror watch list to guy a gun would have made no difference in this case.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jun 15, 2016 14:28:59 GMT -5
^^^In this case. But as we all know, it's about more than this one incident.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2016 16:46:02 GMT -5
Another thought. If Omar Mateen had been on the terror watch list, what would have prevented his wife from buying the assault rifle.
|
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Jun 15, 2016 17:16:02 GMT -5
^^^In this case. But as we all know, it's about more than this one incident. I wonder how many mass shooters in the US have been on the watch list since it had been created. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Jun 15, 2016 20:01:04 GMT -5
Another thought. If Omar Mateen had been on the terror watch list, what would have prevented his wife from buying the assault rifle. A background check? |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 15, 2016 23:23:11 GMT -5
Another thought. If Omar Mateen had been on the terror watch list, what would have prevented his wife from buying the assault rifle. A background check? How so? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 6:20:08 GMT -5
If she had had a background check, it is highly unlikely that anything would have turned up.
I still cannot figure out why any private citizen in this country needs an assault rifle???
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Jun 16, 2016 7:24:29 GMT -5
From what I've read, spouses can be watchlisted without any suspicion that they are involved : theintercept.com/2014/07/23/blacklisted/Even deceased spouses can be watchlisted after they have died in case their identities are repurposed. |
|
Just choosing not to engage any further...
Maybe. Knowing Trump, his position will change by this afternoon...