More Thoughts & Prayers

[Tank]

21 minutes ago, Jason said:

The FBI does the background check

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thetrace.org/2015/07/background-checks-nics-guns-dylann-roof-charleston-church-shooting/amp/

as you can see, our system needs a lot of work before adding anything else to it

you'll get no argument from me on fixing the broken parts of the system.

i think stories like this emphasize the need to fix it. maybe roof and cruz don't do what they end up doing if the the feds did their job better. maybe the feds will be more motivated to do their (%*&%^ jobs so more of these tragedies can avoided down the road.

[Jason]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/trump-signs-a-memo-telling-attorney-general-sessions-to-ban-devices-that-turn-weapons-into-machine-guns.html

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, Jason said:

My whole issue with the no fly list is that it is arbitrarily put together without due process. In all seriousness, who makes the call to put someone on that list?

[Tank]

12 minutes ago, Jason said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/trump-signs-a-memo-telling-attorney-general-sessions-to-ban-devices-that-turn-weapons-into-machine-guns.html

good. i hope this moves through the system quickly.

i also anticipate there'll be a big run on these online.

[the dude abides]

@Blarg, I can only imagine what the other search results were when you googled that.

[red321]

3 minutes ago, the dude abides said:

@Blarg, I can only imagine what the other search results were when you googled that.

um...why would you want to?

[the dude abides]

1 minute ago, red321 said:

um...why would you want to?

You mean you aren't into TSA erotica?

[Jason]

18 minutes ago, Tank said:

good. i hope this moves through the system quickly.

i also anticipate there'll be a big run on these online.

I doubt you’ll see many sold. Most people, including gun owners, never heard of them until after the Vegas shooting. They are annoying to shoot and waste expensive ammo. 

[red321]

dude...I told you that in strict confidence

[floplag]

4 hours ago, Jason said:

Permit, yes. Simple ownership of a firearm, no. 

a lawyer/judge is in no position to make that judgement regardless of either option.  law enforcement is. no one else could assume that role effectively. 
If not the local police then the FBI but noone else makes any sense whatsoever 

[Jason]

22 minutes ago, floplag said:

a lawyer/judge is in no position to make that judgement regardless of either option.  law enforcement is. no one else could assume that role effectively. 
If not the local police then the FBI but noone else makes any sense whatsoever 

But where do they get the person's background and whether they are suitable for firearm possession? They can't just arbitrarily make that decision. 

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

But where do they get the person's background and whether they are suitable for firearm possession? They can't just arbitrarily make that decision. 

in law enforcements case it isnt arbitrary, they have the records of any misbehaving, lawyers/courts would not have this without subpoenas which would gunk up an already hammered system

[arch stanton]

Law enforcement's role is right in the title. Enforce the law. Not judge. Not jury. Enforce. It's not their place and never will be

[floplag]

13 hours ago, arch stanton said:

Law enforcement's role is right in the title. Enforce the law. Not judge. Not jury. Enforce. It's not their place and never will be

And lawyers and judges are to interpret the law and penalize those who break it.  what possibly makes them qualified?   
Law enforcement has the history of the person, right there, in their databases, to evaluate if they are or have been a danger to themselves or others.. isnt that the key determining point in this argument?  the entire crux of whether or not a person should be permitted?
We dont go to the courts to get a drivers license, we go to those who evaluate our ability to drive.   Same logic applies in this case. 

I would never give this right to the courts under any circumstances.  they are already overloaded and simply do not have the required knowledge.  This isnt a matter of law.  

[arch stanton]

Evaluate my ass. It’s not like a breathalyzer or something. If you’re going to start stripping away rights you better have some pretty compelling reasons backed by more than some bullshit on a database. You might think that proactively is a good thing but I beg to differ. I’ll keep this simple. If you don’t think I should have a gun, don’t try pushing the responsibility off on someone else. Come and get it 

[floplag]

43 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

Evaluate my ass. It’s not like a breathalyzer or something. If you’re going to start stripping away rights you better have some pretty compelling reasons backed by more than some bullshit on a database. You might think that proactively is a good thing but I beg to differ. I’ll keep this simple. If you don’t think I should have a gun, don’t try pushing the responsibility off on someone else. Come and get it 

That i agree with completely, the question isnt the need for compelling reasons, the question is who is best suited to make that call.  
In my view, its a matter for law enforcement, not the courts.  
But to use your hostile example, who would it be to come and get that weapon, a lawyer, or a cop? 

[mtangelsfan]

The day the government actually tries to come and take people's weapons will be a very bloody day indeed.

[red321]

3 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

The day the government actually tries to come and take people's weapons will be a very bloody day indeed.

Where has that been proposed?

[Blarg]

Your commentary isn't much of an addition to the topic as well. 

[mtangelsfan]

9 minutes ago, red321 said:

Where has that been proposed?

But to use your hostile example, who would it be to come and get that weapon, a lawyer, or a cop? 

 

 

[mtangelsfan]

6 minutes ago, calscuf said:

Seriously guys, the “cold dead hand” talk is pretty cliche and is coming off as a bit fruity, to tell you the truth.

It is a statement of fact.  Do you dispute it?

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, arch stanton said:

Evaluate my ass. It’s not like a breathalyzer or something. If you’re going to start stripping away rights you better have some pretty compelling reasons backed by more than some bullshit on a database. You might think that proactively is a good thing but I beg to differ. I’ll keep this simple. If you don’t think I should have a gun, don’t try pushing the responsibility off on someone else. Come and get it 

You know that would be challenge except...

You're kinda cheating in this game.

[arch stanton]

24 minutes ago, floplag said:

That i agree with completely, the question isnt the need for compelling reasons, the question is who is best suited to make that call.  
In my view, its a matter for law enforcement, not the courts.  
But to use your hostile example, who would it be to come and get that weapon, a lawyer, or a cop? 

Law enforcement is never going to be the correct answer for determining competence. And to answer your question, whoever thinks I shouldn’t have it should come get it 

[red321]

10 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

But to use your hostile example, who would it be to come and get that weapon, a lawyer, or a cop? 

 

 

you mean you expect me to read the posts in the thread? posh...doesn't work that way.

[mtangelsfan]

20 minutes ago, red321 said:

Where has that been proposed?

Here is a question.  Suppose that they ban assault weapons. (which I am not strongly opposed to).

How will that work?  How does it play out?  Who makes sure that the folks who have them give them up?