America's safety and well being are being held hostage by "hobbyists" and "enthusiasts"

[jpak]

who tell us that mass shootings are a small price to pay so they can enjoy their "pass time".

No one needs an assault rifle - or large capacity clips.

They play no essential role in our society, except to endanger it.

Hobbies are optional - the lives of our loved ones are not.

Fuck these selfish assholes.

yup

[DustyJoe]

1. and now for something completely different

Americas safety is being held hostage by a federal politically correct government tripping all over each other concerning muslims to see which agency can be most politically correct as people die. Orlando was completely preventable as was Ft Hood.

[jpak]

2. proceed governor...

[Dem2]

4. Yes, please proceed

[world wide wally]

5. Of course, guns play no role whatsoever in this

duh

[jpak]

6. Please enlighten us regarding "politically correct"

Trump uses that phrase quite a bit - yes?

[DustyJoe]

10. a favorite term used by ALL politicians and forums like this n/t

[jpak]

13. No - it's used by conservative fuckwads like Trump to legitimize hate thought & speech

yup

[jberryhill]

7. "completely preventable" - how?

I'd be interested to know precisely what would have prevented this, in your opinion.

[DustyJoe]

9. easy

As terrorist investigated twice and known to fbi being flagged in NICS database (run by the same fbi) for 'do not approve', you know kinda like if grandpa can't handle his VA disability benefit he's flagged and can't buy a gun.

[Crunchy Frog]

14. Take that one up with the gun humpers here

(and presumably in the NRA), who keep saying that you can't "rob someone of Constitutionsl rights" without due process.

Are you calling our resident gun nuts "politically correct"?

[Indydem]

21. Do you support that?

Robbing someone of their Civil Rights without due process?

Should we allow searches and seizures, "just because?"

Should we silence speech because we don't like it?

I'd be interested to see how you stand on the other rights guaranteed by the constitution being restricted based on a secret government list that has no oversight or accountability.

[jpak]

22. You can do this with due process

Anyone on the a terror watch list should be informed of their status and allowed to challenge it at the govt's expense.

Anyone on a watch list should be flagged immediately when buying a gun from an FFL dealer (note: terrorists are now "free" to buy them through private sales without a background check - thank you GOP, gun nutz and NRA) - and have a mandatory 30 day holding period where the individual would be vetted by the FBI/BATF.

The individual in question would also be able to challenge his prohibition in court at the govt's expense.

yup

[Indydem]

25. So which part of this was proposed previously?

Because the bill proposed a few months ago had exactly ZERO of those safeguards.

"You are on the secret government terrorist watch list - no second amendment rights."

I wholeheartedly agree with your implementation (thought I would require a judge to evaluate placing a citizen on the list before their rights are infringed). If that is what is actually proposed, we should do that.

[jpak]

28. You could use a gun and ammo taxes to fund on-line courts to adjudicate these proceedings

gunners would not oppose this as they have "personal responsibility"

yup

[Indydem]

33. I was thinking a panel of 5 judges.

En paneled at random to make the call via teleconference.

Again - these are great options. None of this was proposed in the previous bill.

There were absolutely no safeguards for Constitutional Rights in the bill which was voted down in congress.

[jpak]

36. I agree with that - due process must be part of the solution.

[Indydem]

41. Glad you and I could agree.

I have a feeling we don't agree on much else regarding guns, but there are COMMON SENSE measures that can take place to protect people, and protect our Constitutional rights at the same time.

[jpak]

45. Unfortunately, as my grandmother used to say...

Common Sense isn't Common

[PoliticAverse]

34. Note that the Orlando shooter was not on the terror watch list. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

47. Thank you for the illustration. Do you consider yourself to be "politically correct".

I don't take a position, as I consider it to be moot anyway. Powerful special interests make these policies. I don't.

[jpak]

15. He was flagged as 'do not approve'?

linky?

[DustyJoe]

51. should have been flagged

In responding to the question of 'how' was just explaining the fbi 'could have' flagged the shooter to hold off a purchase for review. NICS is the fbi's database and they easily could have known about the intended purchase if flagged and stalled. Case in point: I was buying a shotgun years ago and the SSN on the NICS application is not mandatory as the drivers license number is and they can get the SSN from the dmv database. Being leery about putting my SSN out there and it was optional, I ommitted it. I ended up on a three day hold. Now if the fbi can withhold my purchase because I ommitted an optional box on the form then they 'could' have 'should' have flagged him for being on their radar in spite of them placing him on the watch list then removing him from the list.

[jpak]

53. OK

n/t

[lark]

23. It's the NRA and Cogress that enabled this, not the president.,

Congress (all Repugs and some Dems) voted against the presidents' bill that would have disallowed terrorists from obtaining guns. Gun nuts in conress said terrorists have a constitutional right to do so. President tried to stop the madness, they would have none of it. Pay attention.

[Indydem]

27. All people have Constitutional Rights

Unless they are lost through due process, you can't just take them away arbitrarily.

[lark]

29. Being a suspected terrorist isn't that arbitrary.

If you are an ISIS supporter, you shouldn't be able to get a gun, end of story.

[Indydem]

32. And what if the person writing the list isn't your ally?

What would have kept GWB or one of his douche canoe staff from putting you, and every other member of the DU, or ACLU, or whatever on a secret government watch list and suspending your second amendment rights?

[jpak]

40. Exactly - or a spiteful POS like a President Trump

yup

[lark]

42. 1 - that wouldn't happen in reality.

It's too broad an action with too many repercussions. 2 - I was paranoid about a lot of things during the Bush years, because they would get us if they could. Used alternative addresses and phone #'s on petitions going to the WH on Congress during those years and was always careful of the language I used. I'd rather do this and maybe a few innocent people couldn't get a gun rather than openly have terorrists sending their supporters here to buy all the munitions they want, which is what's happening now. SCOTUS got it way wrong, just like they did with Citizens United. Judicial activism at it's worst.

[Indydem]

43. YOU WOULDN'T KNOW

The Terrorist Watch List is a secret document.

You would never know you were on the list until you went to buy a gun. Even then, you don't get told WHY your application was rejected.

There would be no repercussions because it's all shadow government bullshit.

[lark]

63. Some of it is BS, true

like Bush unilaterally deciding that no person from Saudi Arabia was to be stopped from coming to the US, even if they were on the no fly list which 1-2 of the plane flyers were. Still think stopping people on this list from buying guns is better than nothing.

[sarisataka]

52. Fear is an interesting motivator...

1- It is happening right now. In 2007 the ACLU estimated there were 700,000 people on the watch list, 2014, 1.5 million+ Now it is likely over two million. What repercussions? It is a secret list so those on it can't complain or challenge it. Who is going to oppose it? Republicans created the lists and Democrats are leading the charge to expand the use of these lists.

2- You are willing to give up your First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights to safeguard yourself from terrorism. Yet in return you will then accept living in fear of the government 24/7. {Note those actions you took would definitely get you on the list once they are noticed.}

[X_Digger]

55. IT ALREADY DID..

http://www.thenation.com/article/how-two-peace-activists-wound-up-on-the-governments-no-fly-list/

How Two Peace Activists Wound Up on the Government’s No-Fly List
When it comes to national security, the government has given up pretending that it has to obey the law.

[lark]

62. Sigh

Did they get removed?

[Crepuscular]

46. ...

It's totally arbitrary depending on your definition of terrorist. The government being empowered to formulate a super-secret list of people and then deny them constitutional rights, without any transparency or judicial involvement is a very, very bad idea. Watch a Republican administration decide that SSCS is a terrorist organization whose members should be denied the right to peaceably assemble and see how many people on these forums start howling like crazed wolves. Due process is a fundamental bedrock of our society, throw that out and we might as well just sign everything over to the oligarchs who would be happy to seize control of this country.

[Crunchy Frog]

11. Could you explain exactly how that works?

I can make the connection mentally between extremely lethal firearms and mass shootings. Can't quite do the same with "political correctness".

Is the proper solution to deport all Muslims, or place them in internment camps? Or do we just rant and rave about the evils of radical Islam? What is the non-politically correct solution that would have prevented these events, and how would it have worked?

[SwankyXomb]

26. Found the Republican

[jtuck004]

31. You are talking out of your ass. How was it preventable, for an American citizen

with a clear mental health issue, (just enough religion for the xenophobic freaks to point it out, but it had nothing to do with it) to buy a legal gun and walk into a club and start shooting people? The only people that think religion had much to do with it are the supporters of the real estate swindler, and a few Democrats who no longer have black folk to beat up on, like they did in the 70s.

So, tell us, like we haven't heard enough hot air about this already...

[jtuck004]

39. btw - "politically correct" is a term ass clown conservatives substitute for the word respect.

They prefer their racist and bigoted ways, and use that as a derisive term.

Why do you want to emulate ass clown conservatives?

[scscholar]

44. What does a club shooting have to do with workplace violence?

You're confusing two completely different issues.

[Dem2]

3. I agree

[Adrahil]

8. IN 2014, nearly 9,000 people died in drunk-driving accidents in the USA.

And yet, I don't hear you calling all drinkers "selfish assholes."

I favor restrictions on guns (and magazines), but let's not be huge hypocrites.

[jpak]

12. Deflection - but yes, drunk drivers and assault gun/hi-cap clip "hobbyists"

are selfish fucking assholes

yup

[Dem2]

16. No kidding huh?

Why to people become so personally attached to their guns being "special"

[jpak]

17. My eyes!!!111

[Dem2]

19. LMAO

Sorry.

[Adrahil]

18. Apples and oranges.

Basically, you're saying anyone who owns an "assault gun" or a "hi-cap clip" as a hobbyist is an asshole, but only drunk drivers are assholes. The make your analogy equal, you'd need to call all drinkers assholes. After all, drinking alcohol isn;t necessary. We do it for pleasure, and most people (including myself) do so responsibly.

Another interesting statistic: in 2010, a survey showed than over 28 million people have admitted to drunk driving.

Anyway, I don't want to push this any further. But I do think there is some selective outrage happening here. Gun owners don't want all gun owners blamed, and drinkers don't want all drinkers blamed. More people drink than own guns, so one doesn;t get mentioned so much. People are willing to tolerate a lot of deaths so long as their ox doesn't get gored.

I'm probably more sensitive to this than most. I had two close family members killed by drunk driver, and no one I know (yet) has been killed with a gun.

[MillennialDem]

59. You're right it's apples and oranges

I don't think prohibition would work. We already tried it 100 years ago, I don't think it would work any better this time.

On the other hand, I think that prohibition of certain types of guns/ammo... or even ALL guns would work.

Reasons: alcohol is a drug and addicting. Guns are not. No one is going to have withdrawals from not having a gun. Alcohol is also a lot easier to make than guns and especially ammo are.

[pansypoo53219]

20. no shit. i have a semi rational epal. but gun enthusiast. BUT BIG CLIPS MAKE IT EASIER FOR TARGET

PRACTICE. bang bang. crazy. the NRA cult.

[jtuck004]

24. Also called voters. n/t

[jpak]

30. They have a party for that

yup

[Inkfreak]

61. Gun owners are Dems, too.

Deal with it.

Yup.

[ileus]

35. Yeah....Up theirs.

[jpak]

38. That's the spirit!!!

[JustAnotherGen]

37. Don't forget the 'good guys'

Who are nowhere to be found when these events occur.

[smirkymonkey]

48. Hear, hear!

[Sivart]

49. I completely agree with OP.....

However, the issue is that is it in the constitution....

My thoughts lately are turning towards law enforcement. Specifically, putting the fair share of responsibility on them.

We can look at the existing laws, and we can look and see what types of weaponry are being bought and sold. So, we know what's out there, and what has the potential to be out there.

Why can't law enforcement find a way to keep innocent people safe? There are many many questions about law enforcement relative to the Orlando tragedy, but if you talk about law enforcement as anything other than heroes in this situation, it doesn't even matter if you have valid concerns.

Blaming it on a "lone crazy unstable gunman who you can't really identify ahead of time" is only a valid excuse once or twice. We now know that there are lone crazy unstable gunmen out there. This should no longer be accepted as an excuse.

Saying that law enforcement has to be right 100 percent of the time, and the bad guy only has to be right once should no longer be accepted as an excuse.

In fact, I don't think any excuses whatsoever should be accepted for these gun tragedies. Unless and until the laws are changed, we simply cannot accept that this will just have to be a reality. We should demand that it be addressed by law enforcement.

Every other law enforcement issue that kills innocent people dozens at a time gets PREVENTATIVE law enforcement. We should demand preventative law enforcement solutions in lieu of safe gun laws.

So, back to my original thought - Washington sucks on this issue, and it would be foolish to wait on Washington to fix it, given what we know. I think it is time to start leaning on law enforcement. If they cannot address it, then they should be compelled to admit it, and join the push for gun laws that keep innocent people safe.

[jpak]

50. An assault gun ban/buy-back would certainly challenged in court - as it should

and ultimately be determined by *Hillary's* Supreme Court.

yup

[Skittles]

54. "cowards"

[Beartracks]

56. "no essential role in our society, except to endanger it."

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to promote "the security of a free State." It says so right there in the Amendment.

If, however, a liberal reading (which in this case is the politically conservative interpretation) of the language leads down a path to Americans killing Americans, that is rather antithetical to the purpose of the intended security. And that's because the collective population of gun-owners is not "well-regulated" (read "disciplined" or "trained&quot for that purpose -- especially those that are purchasing assault weapons, who, despite bearing such military arms, are not serving society as the intended "militia"; rather, they seem, as you suggest, largely a bunch of hobbyists who just like shooting guns.

======================

[jpak]

58. The 2nd Amendment has failed

yup

[hunter]

60. Piss on the second amendment. It's been used as a tool of oppression from the beginning.

Slaves revolting, workers striking, Indians won't leave? Call the "militia!"

Piss on guns.

[leeroysphitz]

57. and more than a few screwballs. n/t