Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 19 Nov 2015, 10:48 am

According to the NRA, and a fair number of Congressmembers, no.
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ ... -1.2437868

At least no homegrown ISIS sympathiser hasn't been able to get hold of an AR-15 at a gun show. Well, this one didn't but not because he was turned away ... http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/19/ ... t-Gun-Show

Apparently in the last 10 years, 2000 people on the terror watch list have been able to buy guns.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Nov 2015, 11:41 am

danivon wrote:According to the NRA, and a fair number of Congressmembers, no.
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ ... -1.2437868

At least no homegrown ISIS sympathiser hasn't been able to get hold of an AR-15 at a gun show. Well, this one didn't but not because he was turned away ... http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/19/ ... t-Gun-Show

Apparently in the last 10 years, 2000 people on the terror watch list have been able to buy guns.


The theory is the no-flight list is quite bad. In fact, Senators and Congressmen have been on it.

Further, how did gun control stop the attacks in France?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Nov 2015, 12:46 pm

ANYONE who is not a citizen, should not have access to a gun. Purchasing should be not an option.

If a citizen wishes to purchase a firearm and passes a background check, then fine.

The Constitution provides rights for citizens regarding 2nd Amendment issues.

Perhaps those who are coming into this country for citizenship can wait to purchase a firearm until citizenship is obtained?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Nov 2015, 1:56 pm

fate
The theory is the no-flight list is quite bad. In fact, Senators and Congressmen have been on it.

Shouldn't one err on the side of caution? It takes 18 months for a refugee to be vetted and allowed to move freely in the US. And yet cautious governors don't want them in...
But because one or two people might be inconvenienced, people on a terrorist watch list can get guns easily..
Hard to say how someone could hold both those views at the same time.

Fate
Further, how did gun control stop the attacks in France?

Didn't.
But in France 3.09 per 100,000 people a year die from gunfire.
In the US 10.5 per 100,000 people die each year from gunfire.

Thats more than 7 people per thousand saved due to stricter gun laws.
If you are claiming the lack of guns may have contributed to the recent terror deaths in France, you have to accept that they also contribute to fewer deaths generally.
Conversely the much higher presence of guns in the US has not stopped events like Columbine, the Colorado shooting etc. either ... but has lead to 7 people per thousand more Americans dying by guns. So the supposed benefit has not been delivered but the negative has....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Nov 2015, 2:12 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
The theory is the no-flight list is quite bad. In fact, Senators and Congressmen have been on it.

Shouldn't one err on the side of caution? It takes 18 months for a refugee to be vetted and allowed to move freely in the US. And yet cautious governors don't want them in...
But because one or two people might be inconvenienced, people on a terrorist watch list can get guns easily..
Hard to say how someone could hold both those views at the same time.

Fate
Further, how did gun control stop the attacks in France?

Didn't.
But in France 3.09 per 100,000 people a year die from gunfire.
In the US 10.5 per 100,000 people die each year from gunfire.


1. I'm betting your stats are filled with stuff that doesn't really fit the profile (like suicide).
2. I'm guessing the per capita terrorist homicide rate is much higher in France this year than the US.
3. Had the Parisians been armed, I doubt so many of them would have been murdered.
4. The problem is radical Islam, not guns. If all guns were banned, they would still commit murder . . . review Paris.

Thats more than 7 people per thousand saved due to stricter gun laws.


That's garbage. Prove it.

If you are claiming the lack of guns may have contributed to the recent terror deaths in France, you have to accept that they also contribute to fewer deaths generally.


I can guarantee you no one in Paris during those attacks was thinking, "Thank God I don't have a gun right now!"

Conversely the much higher presence of guns in the US has not stopped events like Columbine, the Colorado shooting etc. either ...


More bilge.

How many students and teachers were armed during the Columbine attack?

but has lead (sic) to 7 people per thousand more Americans dying by guns. So the supposed benefit has not been delivered but the negative has....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate


Your link fails to tell us how they calculated this.

You don't like the Second Amendment? Why don't you move to . . . Canada.

Oh. Nevermind.

Stop telling us how to run our country. Frankly, no one cares about what Canadians think about how our country "should" be.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 20 Nov 2015, 6:12 pm

Stricter guns laws (than most other U.S. cities) do not seem to have done much for Chicago or Washington D.C., unless you want to assume things would be even worse than they already are; or assume things are okay there because of their stricter gun laws.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 21 Nov 2015, 4:14 am

bbauska wrote:ANYONE who is not a citizen, should not have access to a gun. Purchasing should be not an option.

If a citizen wishes to purchase a firearm and passes a background check, then fine.

The Constitution provides rights for citizens regarding 2nd Amendment issues.

Perhaps those who are coming into this country for citizenship can wait to purchase a firearm until citizenship is obtained?

The white kid in the story is a citizen.

Also, you are technically incorrect. The Second Amendment does not mention "citizens", instead it refers to "the people". This is different, and courts in the US have held that non-citizens are covered as well.

Where the Constitution is designed to include or exclude citizens it explicitly says so using the word "citizen".
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 21 Nov 2015, 4:19 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:According to the NRA, and a fair number of Congressmembers, no.
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ ... -1.2437868

At least no homegrown ISIS sympathiser hasn't been able to get hold of an AR-15 at a gun show. Well, this one didn't but not because he was turned away ... http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/19/ ... t-Gun-Show

Apparently in the last 10 years, 2000 people on the terror watch list have been able to buy guns.


The theory is the no-flight list is quite bad. In fact, Senators and Congressmen have been on it.
So you would ignore it for flights? Or keep it and allow it to be updated and corrected?

Further, how did gun control stop the attacks in France?
Who is claiming it did? No more than open borders between Belgium and France did.

Question - do stricter gun laws make it easier to stop the plots before they happen?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Nov 2015, 4:38 am

danivon wrote:Question - do stricter gun laws make it easier to stop the plots before they happen?


Apparently not.

What they might do: inconvenience the terrorists, causing them to need an illicit source. Then again, they might well resort to an illicit source anyway. You can't go to a gun store and buy a suicide vest. One thing about terrorists: they're never short of ideas on how to commit mass murder.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 21 Nov 2015, 4:43 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:Question - do stricter gun laws make it easier to stop the plots before they happen?


Apparently not.
Is that based on evidence and data, or supposition. Are you including attacks that have been foiled or just those that succeed.

Because we could conclude that alarm systems don't stop burglaries based on a few burglaries on alarmed properties, or we could look a bit wider.

What they might do: inconvenience the terrorists, causing them to need an illicit source. Then again, they might well resort to an illicit source anyway.
All the more reason to enforce such laws, so as to not only target illicit sources, but those who might use them.

You can't go to a gun store and buy a suicide vest. One thing about terrorists: they're never short of ideas on how to commit mass murder.
Nope, but let's not make it easy for them by making it easy to legally buy semi-automatics.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 21 Nov 2015, 6:29 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez

Chief Justice Rehnquist authored the Opinion for the Court, joined by Justices White, Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor, contending that "the people" intended to be protected by the Fourth Amendment were the people of the United States, and that the defendant's "legal but involuntary presence" on U.S. soil (a direct result of his arrest) failed to create a sufficient relationship with the U.S. to allow him to call upon the Constitution for protection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

An earlier case, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), dealt with nonresident aliens and the Fourth Amendment, but led to a discussion of who are "the People" when referred to elsewhere in the Constitution:[165]

The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people" ... While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.


This is pretty interesting, considering that the left considers that the 2nd Amendment applies only to Militias, and it appears you want non citizens to have weapons.

Now... would you be ok with only citizens having guns and only after background checks?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Nov 2015, 6:49 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:Question - do stricter gun laws make it easier to stop the plots before they happen?


Apparently not.
Is that based on evidence and data, or supposition. Are you including attacks that have been foiled or just those that succeed.


It's based on Paris and 9/11, for starters.

Here's the thing: Democrats are always trying to find ways to short-circuit the 2nd Amendment. In California, there is talk of background checks for ammunition. They're always chipping away at it.

So, banning sales to those on the watch list seems like one of these. For crying out loud: if they are Americans, what's to preclude an expanded "watch list?" How do you get off of it if you're not a terrorist? If you are a known threat, I would hope the waiting period would be sufficient for the FBI.

Because we could conclude that alarm systems don't stop burglaries based on a few burglaries on alarmed properties, or we could look a bit wider.


Actually, alarms do work: burglars rarely hit homes with alarms.

What they might do: inconvenience the terrorists, causing them to need an illicit source. Then again, they might well resort to an illicit source anyway.
All the more reason to enforce such laws, so as to not only target illicit sources, but those who might use them.


If the government knows of illicit arms dealers, they should shut them down ASAP.

We have enough gun laws. Enforce them!

You can't go to a gun store and buy a suicide vest. One thing about terrorists: they're never short of ideas on how to commit mass murder.
Nope, but let's not make it easy for them by making it easy to legally buy semi-automatics.


It's not "easy" to buy weapons. We could make it more difficult. Here's a compromise: let's have tamper-proof ID required to buy guns and to vote.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Nov 2015, 10:22 am

fate
1. I'm betting your stats are filled with stuff that doesn't really fit the profile (like suicide)
.
The profile I said was death. Whtehr suicide or homicide or accident, deads dead.
And hionestly are you to lazt to click oin a kink and read? Or is that just your aversion to evidence?

Fate
2. I'm guessing the per capita terrorist homicide rate is much higher in France this year than the US
.
Are the people who were mowed down in a Colorado movie theater as dead as the people mowed down in Paris?

Fate
3. Had the Parisians been armed, I doubt so many of them would have been murdered.

Maybe. But there are plenty of cases where mass shootings ocurred in the US and all the guns that people carry around didn't help did they.
What we do know is that over 30,000 Americans will die from guns this year. And even with this atrocity only about 2,000 French.

Fate
4. The problem is radical Islam, not guns. If all guns were banned, they would still commit murder . . . review Paris.

The problem is crazies with guns. Or just people with impulse control with guns.
Review the history and th facts in the US...

Fate
Here's the thing: Democrats are always trying to find ways to short-circuit the 2nd Amendment

There have been no changes to federal gun laws since 2008.

When republicans and the NRA refuse to even keep those on a terror watch list, they are saying they don't care about actually protecting citizens.

Fate
Actually, alarms do work: burglars rarely hit homes with alarm
s
This is true. Look at the actual statistical evidence and homes with alarms have fewer break ins per capita.
Why is it that this argument doesn't carry the same weight for you with gun ownership. Because its exactly the same argument.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 21 Nov 2015, 12:27 pm

Double post.
Last edited by danivon on 21 Nov 2015, 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 21 Nov 2015, 12:27 pm

bbauska wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez

Chief Justice Rehnquist authored the Opinion for the Court, joined by Justices White, Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor, contending that "the people" intended to be protected by the Fourth Amendment were the people of the United States, and oi that the defendant's "legal but involuntary presence" on U.S. soil (a direct result of his arrest) failed to create a sufficient relationship with the U.S. to allow him to call upon the Constitution for protection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

An earlier case, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), dealt with nonresident aliens and the Fourth Amendment, but led to a discussion of who are "the People" when referred to elsewhere in the Constitution:[165]

The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people" ... While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.


This is pretty interesting, considering that the left considers that the 2nd Amendment applies only to Militias, and it appears you want non citizens to have weapons.
No, I am just pointing out that the Constitution does not only cover citizens.

This year the Seventh Circuit has held that 2nd Amendment rights do apply to non-citizens. The case above appears to be a specific situation where someone is brought into the US under arrest. That is very different from someone who has a long term visa and residency.

Now... would you be ok with only citizens having guns and only after background checks?
[/quote]I don't think citizenship is the issue. The quality and application of background checks is. One would be "Are they on a terror watch list?". But Congress has blocked that.