Serious question for Gun Advocates.

[Taichiliberal]

The law is full of loopholes. You don't fix that problem with more laws.

Ever hesr of the Amendments of the Constitution? And are you agreeing with me that there is a potentially dangerous gap in the laws referred to in the OP.?

I believe that the crux of the issue is that the means of being put on a terrorist watch list are relatively arbitrary and can be done without your knowledge, i.e. any sort of hearing or notice. The courts have ruled that the government cannot do something like that with a constitutionally protected right. One would think that since the courts have ruled that travel is an inherent constitutional right, apparently that only applies to your foot travel and nothing else.

Ahh, but you still have a system to that effect that can be addressed in court on a individual basis. Just Google "is there a no fly list?" That being said, the OP question stands.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

1. I'm sorry. I did a quick search and found this is relatively old news. Check it out from 9 years ago:

Why can people on the terrorist watch list buy guns, and other FAQs​

www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/why-can-people-on-the-terrorist-watch-list-buy-guns-and-other-faqs

2. You state 2 moot points while overlooking the connecting factor. POLICE AND NATIONAL SECURITY ENTITIES are there to protect all citizens from violators of STATE AND FEDERAL law. That is why you have parole boards and officers, crimes that are categorized as "treason", etc., etc. A right to bear arms does not equate a gun owner being able to carry their weapon anywhere they want regardless of individual state law .... this is why the gun reciprocity bill has not to date been passed.

3. Spare us all the gun monkey mantras. To date, any law-abiding citizen can choose from a plethora of handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. That SOME are prohibited for civilian use (i.e., full auto) has been the law long before you or I were born. That the second the 1994 AWB law was let sunset by GOP gun monkey flunkies, the weapon du jour for a hefty amount of mass shootings has been AR-15 style weapons that were previously on that list. You can't BS past that no matter how hard you try ... especially with the default "mental illness" mantras, since the GOP is now fulfilling it's wet dreams of cutting various forms of public health resources (recent example being the ACA).

your point #2 is wrong. Law enforcement has no legal obligation or duty to protect citizens. they are there merely to enforce the laws. the rest of that point, while technically legal, is not constitutional.

your conclusions in point 3 are intellectually dishonest. If the AR-15 is the most popular and widely owned weapon, it should only stand to reason that it might be used in most 'mass shootings'. The full auto isn't prohibited from civilian ownership, UNLESS, it was manufactured after May 19, 1986. That means that if a full auto that was manufactured on May 18, 1986, it can then be owned by a citizen. This alone shows the capricious and arbitrary crap reasoning of a so called full auto ban.

 

[WinterBorn]

A reminder of the facts.

There are an estimated 400 million guns in private ownership in the US. There are around 46,000 gun deaths in the US annually. Of that, 58% (or 26,680) are suicides. The other +/- 19,000 are all murders, police shootings and civilians using a gun to defend themselves.

That comes to less than 7% of guns being used in a murder. 93% of guns are not used in any murder.

Seems a pretty slim reason for banning anything.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Ever hesr of the Amendments of the Constitution? And are you agreeing with me that there is a potentially dangerous gap in the laws referred to in the OP.?

Ahh, but you still have a system to that effect that can be addressed in court on a individual basis. Just Google "is there a no fly list?" That being said, the OP question stands.

that redress in court of being on the no fly list assumes that traveling by flight is not constitutionally protected, whereas owning/carrying a firearm is a constitutionally protected right. To deny someone that right arbitrarily until a 'hearing' can be convened is prior restraint.

 

[Taichiliberal]

your point #2 is wrong. Law enforcement has no legal obligation or duty to protect citizens. they are there merely to enforce the laws. the rest of that point, while technically legal, is not constitutional.

your conclusions in point 3 are intellectually dishonest. If the AR-15 is the most popular and widely owned weapon, it should only stand to reason that it might be used in most 'mass shootings'. The full auto isn't prohibited from civilian ownership, UNLESS, it was manufactured after May 19, 1986. That means that if a full auto that was manufactured on May 18, 1986, it can then be owned by a citizen. This alone shows the capricious and arbitrary crap reasoning of a so called full auto ban.

who taught you that nonsense? You have laws to protect citizens. A matter of fact, a matter of history. Thai why if someone is trying to rob or assault you, you can literally call a cop. If cops are nearby but are lax or refuse to respond, they are in violation of the law and can be fired. PLEASE FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THE 4TH, 5TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENTS to the Constitution.

And spare us all this gun monkey "logic". There was a shitload of formerly banned weapons that were released to the public in 2004. The REASON they were on the list in the first place was that they were deemed too close to being military efficient in killing PEOPLE! The AR-15 was originally designed for military use. It was changed to semi-auto for commercial sales, with numerous attachments. It does EXACTLY what it's sold to do .. give a lighter, high impact weapon to make a civilian a better, more effective shot. It's the pri.e choice for peppers and mass shooters. And newsflash; pre-ownership exemptions has been the standard for gun control laws before you er born ... throws the gun monkey's "confiscation" right in th toilet.

All points in Post #42 stands. Your personal acceptance is irrelevant. Si what about the question in the OP? Should that loopholes be closed?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

who taught you that nonsense? You have laws to protect citizens. A matter of fact, a matter of history. Thai why if someone is trying to rob or assault you, you can literally call a cop. If cops are nearby but are lax or refuse to respond, they are in violation of the law and can be fired. PLEASE FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THE 4TH, 5TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENTS to the Constitution.

And spare us all this gun monkey "logic". There was a shitload of formerly banned weapons that were released to the public in 2004. The REASON they were on the list in the first place was that they were deemed too close to being military efficient in killing PEOPLE! The AR-15 was originally designed for military use. It was changed to semi-auto for commercial sales, with numerous attachments. It does EXACTLY what it's sold to do .. give a lighter, high impact weapon to make a civilian a better, more effective shot. It's the pri.e choice for peppers and mass shooters. And newsflash; pre-ownership exemptions has been the standard for gun control laws before you er born ... throws the gun monkey's "confiscation" right in th toilet.

All points in Post #42 stands. Your personal acceptance is irrelevant. Si what about the question in the OP? Should that loopholes be closed?

that 'nonsense' as you call it is simply the written law. you call the cop, not for protection, but because someone is breaking the law by attacking/robbing you. I have posted numerous stories of cops not doing a damned thing while someone is being attacked and they suffered zero consequences. https://www.washingtondcinjurylawyerblog.com/city_argues_the_police_had_no/

speaking of familiarizing ones self with the law, you should do that before making such ignorant posts. Also, stop using giffords talking posts to try and make a point. they are every bit as wrong as you are now.

I have repeatedly debunked your stupid bullshit, yet you still act like the entitled feminist exclaiming that you are always right, despite the fact that i've given you clear facts to prove otherwise. It's rather tiresome.

 

[Taichiliberal]

that redress in court of being on the no fly list assumes that traveling by flight is not constitutionally protected, whereas owning/carrying a firearm is a constitutionally protected right. To deny someone that right arbitrarily until a 'hearing' can be convened is prior restraint.

Inoted that you don't have the guts to admit your error regarding law enforcement. Not surprising.

And according to your "logic", any yahoo THAT THE FEDERAL AND STATE LAW ENFORCEMENTS DEEM IS A RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY (passengers, crew, people on the ground if they cause the plane to crash) SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUY A GUN SO LONG AS HE DOESN'T GET ON A PLANE because flying isn't directly covered by the Constitution. Got it.
And for the record open or concealed carry us regulated by individual states. "reciprocity" across state lines has NOT been passed as law. Carry on.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Inoted that you don't have the guts to admit your error regarding law enforcement. Not surprising.

And according to your "logic", any yahoo THAT THE FEDERAL AND STATE LAW ENFORCEMENTS DEEM IS A RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY (passengers, crew, people on the ground if they cause the plane to crash) SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUY A GUN SO LONG AS HE DOESN'T GET ON A PLANE because flying isn't directly covered by the Constitution. Got it.
And for the record open or concealed carry us regulated by individual states. "reciprocity" across state lines has NOT been passed as law. Carry on.

i'm curious, do you only accept SCOTUS decisions that align with your ignorant beliefs? They have repeatedly opined that law enforcement has no legal duty to protect you. I even gave a link to the latest case about it.

And for the record, the whole across state lines/different state laws for guns is still being run through the court system, finally

 

[Taichiliberal]

that 'nonsense' as you call it is simply the written law. you call the cop, not for protection, but because someone is breaking the law by attacking/robbing you. I have posted numerous stories of cops not doing a damned thing while someone is being attacked and they suffered zero consequences. https://www.washingtondcinjurylawyerblog.com/city_argues_the_police_had_no/

speaking of familiarizing ones self with the law, you should do that before making such ignorant posts. Also, stop using giffords talking posts to try and make a point. they are every bit as wrong as you are now.

I have repeatedly debunked your stupid bullshit, yet you still act like the entitled feminist exclaiming that you are always right, despite the fact that i've given you clear facts to prove otherwise. It's rather tiresfun

that 'nonsense' as you call it is simply the written law. you call the cop, not for protection, but because someone is breaking the law by attacking/robbing you. I have posted numerous stories of cops not doing a damned thing while someone is being attacked and they suffered zero consequences. https://www.washingtondcinjurylawyerblog.com/city_argues_the_police_had_no/

speaking of familiarizing ones self with the law, you should do that before making such ignorant posts. Also, stop using giffords talking posts to try and make a point. they are every bit as wrong as you are now.

I have repeatedly debunked your stupid bullshit, yet you still act like the entitled feminist exclaiming that you are always right, despite the fact that i've given you clear facts to prove otherwise. It's rather tiresome.

link the statute from any state where protection is exactly as your bizarre interpretation. See what you describe and demonstrate is what's known as dereliction of duty and subsequent corruption on prosecution of such. WTF do you think all those lawsuits against cops are about? Or how CCRB came about in many cities? Try looking up some ACLU cases on the subject. GET EDUCATED MAN!

Logically or factually prove one one point in my previous link that was wrong. Not you opinion.

As shown here, you confuse two different aspects as the same, which I clarified. Then you just babble you usual opinions, supposition and conjecture as conclusive fact. You may stubbornly believe that along with like minded folk, but ALL the facts comprehensively read will always be your undoing. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

i'm curious, do you only accept SCOTUS decisions that align with your ignorant beliefs? They have repeatedly opined that law enforcement has no legal duty to protect you. I even gave a link to the latest case about it.

And for the record, the whole across state lines/different state laws for guns is still being run through the court system, finally

Again, LINK THE LAW, FEDERSL OR STSTE THAT PROVES IN NO UNCETTAIN TERMS WHAT YOU SAY. If you can't, don't waste more time and space with your stubborn clap trap. And I've acknowledged nothing thread tha reciprocity gun laws Have not yet been passed. You'd know tha if you carefully read my responses to you and others on this thread.
I referred to specific Constitutional Amendments to back what I say at times. Can you?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

link the statute from any state where protection is exactly as your bizarre interpretation. See what you describe and demonstrate is what's known as dereliction of duty and subsequent corruption on prosecution of such. WTF do you think all those lawsuits against cops are about? Or how CCRB came about in many cities? Try looking up some ACLU cases on the subject. GET EDUCATED MAN!

Logically or factually prove one one point in my previous link that was wrong. Not you opinion.

As shown here, you confuse two different aspects as the same, which I clarified. Then you just babble you usual opinions, supposition and conjecture as conclusive fact. You may stubbornly believe that along with like minded folk, but ALL the facts comprehensively read will always be your undoing. Carry on.

i'm perplexed as to why some of YOU can't seem to comprehend that SCOTUS has removed all responsibility of owed protection to any member of the public. That affronts your infantile sensibilities so badly that you ask stupid questions like the above about what statute tells police they don't need to protect individuals in public. The cognitive dissonance and cope you are employing leads me to question just how you managed to survive in a world where you seem to know absolutely nothing about how it operates in reality.

As to whatever tangent of Constitutional Amendments means.....................be more specific.

I gave you case law and court precedent about law enforcement having no duty to protect you. deal with it.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

i'm perplexed as to why some of YOU can't seem to comprehend that SCOTUS has removed all responsibility of owed protection to any member of the public. That affronts your infantile sensibilities so badly that you ask stupid questions like the above about what statute tells police they don't need to protect individuals in public. The cognitive dissonance and cope you are employing leads me to question just how you managed to survive in a world where you seem to know absolutely nothing about how it operates in reality.

As to whatever tangent of Constitutional Amendments means.....................be more specific.

I gave you case law and court precedent about law enforcement having no duty to protect you. deal with it.

but many times they come anyway, when called.

anarchy is for Zionist globalist fools.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I recently watched some podcaster state that while you can be on a "terrorist" watch list (whether you're actually one or not) that can prevent you from getting on an airplane, you can still buy as many guns you want, depending on individual state laws.

Is this true? If so, does that make sense to you and why?

It is not true.

The background check that you Marxists pretend doesn't exist (though it has since 1967) will red flag anyone on the watch list.

You are just posting leftist lies again.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The airlines have to make snap judgements on who gets on a plane. And often, the judgement is made on the spot.

When buying a gun from a licenced dealer, the customer's name is entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
This is designed to prevent certain people from buying a gun. Felony convictions, domestic violence convictions, unlawful users of or those addicted to controlled substances, adjudicated as mentally defective, committed to a mental institution, or being dishonorably discharged from the US military.

Being on the watchlist is an automatic disqualifier in NICS.

EDIT - This is California law.

On the national level the FBI is notified if a person on the list attempts to buy a gun.

Hollywood and gun grabbers claim that anyone can walk into KMart and buy a fully automatic Glock machine gun pistol with a silencer along with 100 boxes of bullets (no cartridge required) and walk out with it stuck in their waistband.

But is that true? Is anything the left claims ever true?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hptmhEuRnhs

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your missing the point and the question: If your national security agencies are saying you are a enough of a potential threat to people that you're banned from flying commercial, then why isn't that are flag for a background check prior to buying a gun?

It is - straw man dismissed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your missing the point and the question: If your national security agencies are saying you are a enough of a potential threat to people that you're banned from flying commercial, then why isn't that are flag for a background check prior to buying a gun?

I assume you also demand that they be denied the right to vote?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

but many times they come anyway, when called.

anarchy is for Zionist globalist fools.

I never said that they wouldn't. I said that they are not obligated to, duty bound to, or liable for failure to do so.