Mr. President, do NOT ban assault weapons!

[Paddy O Fernature]

Like how gun-huggers don't really have a problem arming Omar Mateens.

I know stupid shitposting is your thing, but this is just wow.

Gonna guess you can't back this bullshit up?

Did I say anything about directly handing over guns? No. Cute. But impeding any attempt to make it harder for terror suspects to legally arm themselves certainly is not minding them getting armed so readily.

Doesn't look like he can.

[Gauthier]

I know stupid shitposting is your thing, but this is just wow.

Gonna guess you can't back this bullshit up?

Did I say anything about directly handing over guns? No. Cute. But impeding any attempt to make it harder for terror suspects to legally arm themselves certainly is not minding them getting armed so readily.

Doesn't look like he can.

It's sure a good sign when al'Qaeda made a video singing the virtues of how easy it is for would-be jihadis and lone wolves to get firearms in the U.S.

Al Qaeda video resurfaces claiming how easy it is to buy guns in U.S.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Doesn't look like he can.

It's sure a good sign when al'Qaeda made a video singing the virtues of how easy it is for would-be jihadis and lone wolves to get firearms in the U.S.

Al Qaeda video resurfaces claiming how easy it is to buy guns in U.S.

And?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Doesn't look like he can.

It's sure a good sign when al'Qaeda made a video singing the virtues of how easy it is for would-be jihadis and lone wolves to get firearms in the U.S.

Al Qaeda video resurfaces claiming how easy it is to buy guns in U.S.

Given that video claims you can buy full autos at gun shows I'm just going to laugh it off.

[Gauthier]

It's sure a good sign when al'Qaeda made a video singing the virtues of how easy it is for would-be jihadis and lone wolves to get firearms in the U.S.

Al Qaeda video resurfaces claiming how easy it is to buy guns in U.S.

And?

The fact that you don't see a problem at all with terrorists catching onto how easy getting guns can be speaks volumes.

[The East Marches]

Doesn't look like he can.

It's sure a good sign when al'Qaeda made a video singing the virtues of how easy it is for would-be jihadis and lone wolves to get firearms in the U.S.

Al Qaeda video resurfaces claiming how easy it is to buy guns in U.S.

Well Gauth, how do you justify this position considering it will mainly hurt those who are brown and/or muslim? You are essentially going to make profiling and denying somebody their rights legal. Most of the options presented had no ability for due process to be exercised. You've still yet to address my point on that.

[Spirit of Hope]

Doesn't look like he can.

It's sure a good sign when al'Qaeda made a video singing the virtues of how easy it is for would-be jihadis and lone wolves to get firearms in the U.S.

Al Qaeda video resurfaces claiming how easy it is to buy guns in U.S.

You know that video is full of lies? First you legally can't get a fully automatic gun anywhere in the US without a background check. Going to a store means a background check no matter what gun you buy. But sure al'Qaeda posted a video on the internet there fore it must be true!

[Big Jim P]

Like how gun-huggers don't really have a problem arming Omar Mateens.

I would have loved a way to keep him from getting his guns, but how do you do it? The FBI didn't have him on a watch list when he committed the shooting. So the terror watch list idea wouldn't have worked. How many other shootings have been carried out by people on that list who legally bought their guns? As far as I can tell none, so using the watch list would do nothing at all.

He had a license which required 60+ hours to get, and a physiological evaluation.

Certain people also blamed Christians (even though he was a Muslim), Republicans (even though he was a registered democrat) and the NRA (even though he wasn't a member). You really can't expect much truth, honesty or accuracy from the gun-grabbers.

[Paddy O Fernature]

And?

The fact that you don't see a problem at all with terrorists catching onto how easy getting guns can be speaks volumes.

Given that video claims you can buy full autos at gun shows I'm just going to laugh it off.

The fact that I don't believe every bit of ill informed bullshit on the internet like you apparently do, does indeed speak volumes. Though not just about me....

[Gauthier]

It's sure a good sign when al'Qaeda made a video singing the virtues of how easy it is for would-be jihadis and lone wolves to get firearms in the U.S.

Al Qaeda video resurfaces claiming how easy it is to buy guns in U.S.

Well Gauth, how do you justify this position considering it will mainly hurt those who are brown and/or muslim? You are essentially going to make profiling and denying somebody their rights legal. Most of the options presented had no ability for due process to be exercised. You've still yet to address my point on that.

I had no idea every single brown Muslim person in the U.S. are all going to be placed on a terror watch list and interviewed by the FBI at some point in their lives.

[United Dependencies]

I continue to remain baffled by people who seem to think that the president is on the verge either banning or banning and confiscating guns.

[The East Marches]

Well Gauth, how do you justify this position considering it will mainly hurt those who are brown and/or muslim? You are essentially going to make profiling and denying somebody their rights legal. Most of the options presented had no ability for due process to be exercised. You've still yet to address my point on that.

I had no idea every single brown Muslim person in the U.S. are all going to be placed on a terror watch list and interviewed by the FBI at some point in their lives.

The point is continually made by yourself about how racist the United States and how the U.S. government profiles brown people. Yet now you are loath to defend that point because it could contradict you. You've not addressed the due process point and simply bypassing my concerns with a snide remark won't work.

[Gauthier]

I continue to remain baffled by people who seem to think that the president is on the verge either banning or banning and confiscating guns.

Muh Preshus.

[Spirit of Hope]

Well Gauth, how do you justify this position considering it will mainly hurt those who are brown and/or muslim? You are essentially going to make profiling and denying somebody their rights legal. Most of the options presented had no ability for due process to be exercised. You've still yet to address my point on that.

I had no idea every single brown Muslim person in the U.S. are all going to be placed on a terror watch list and interviewed by the FBI at some point in their lives.

Well the ACLU has noted that the No Fly List does use racial profiling, and has at times used credit scores (aka discriminating against the poor). So not every single "brown Muslim" is on it, but it does target poor people of certain backgrounds more than, say, rich white people.

And?

The fact that you don't see a problem at all with terrorists catching onto how easy getting guns can be speaks volumes.

Considering the video is all a lie, with no basis in fact, I'm not seeing it as trustworthy. Unless we should trust al'Qaeda word on how things work in the US.

[Big Jim P]

I continue to remain baffled by people who seem to think that the president is on the verge either banning or banning and confiscating guns.

He and other politicians keep trying. We the people keep telling them to stuff it.

[Gauthier]

I had no idea every single brown Muslim person in the U.S. are all going to be placed on a terror watch list and interviewed by the FBI at some point in their lives.

The point is continually made by yourself about how racist the United States and how the U.S. government profiles brown people. Yet now you are loath to defend that point because it could contradict you. You've not addressed the due process point and simply bypassing my concerns with a snide remark won't work.

The United States government proper for the most part has not profiled Muslims unfairly, save for a few Republican politicians and candidates who want that to change. What's disingenuous is how you're using the bigotry they face in public life as an excuse to do nothing about making sure that future would-be lone wolves and terrorists don't have an easy time of it getting firearms.

[United States of Natan]

I just received an email today from Vice President Joe Biden calling for the banning of AR-15s and similar weapons from civilian ownership. I completely disagree with this. I myself own an MP-15, and use it for target shooting every other weekend. I use it as a sporting weapon, not a weapon of murder. I agree that we should force the employment of background checks on all purchasers purchasing ANY weapon, but banning a certain type of weapon is just plain stupid. I can also agree that it is unconstitutional and violates the second amendment. Sure, we'll still have the right to bear arms such as bolt action rifles, if they ban ARs. But, no where does it say that civilians have the right to NOT a own assault weapons, let alone does the government have the right to take them away. Additionally, if they ban assault weapons, criminals will just use another weapons, and slowly the government will ban every firearm ever. Sure, people use assault weapons for mass shootings, but statistically I'd bet that most gun violence is linked to handguns because they are easier to carry and hide.

In a nutshell, I agree with the call for enforced background checks on all weapon purchasers, but banning weapons is just stupid.

The Second Amendment only allows a person to own weapons (and event that's sort of a matter for debate), it doesn't say the government can't ban certain types of weapons. The government has the full right to ban assault weapons. There is no reason why you should own a weapon of that kind of power. the Founding Fathers didn't envision weapons like that when the wrote the second amendment. I'll admit that I'm sort of OK with a shooting range having some of these weapons to rent out for sport, only to be used under the supervision of the shooting range. But there's no reason why a private citizen should have need of these weapons. Sure, criminals will use other weapons, but these weapons will be weaker, have a shorter firing rate, and won't kill as many people. By the time the police get there, the shooter won't have killed as many people as he could have with an assault weapon. And the government is not trying to take away your damn weapons! They are just trying to keep people save! Shame on people like you, who think that its OK to own a weapon that you have no reason to own! Shame!

[Grinning Dragon]

The point is continually made by yourself about how racist the United States and how the U.S. government profiles brown people. Yet now you are loath to defend that point because it could contradict you. You've not addressed the due process point and simply bypassing my concerns with a snide remark won't work.

The United States government proper for the most part has not profiled Muslims unfairly, save for a few Republican politicians and candidates who want that to change. What's disingenuous is how you're using the bigotry they face in public life as an excuse to do nothing about making sure that future would-be lone wolves and terrorists don't have an easy time of it getting firearms.

Quit dancing around the question at hand. Answer how you are going to accomplish your jihad on weapons and still maintain the protections of Due Process as laid out in the Constitution?

[Gauthier]

The United States government proper for the most part has not profiled Muslims unfairly, save for a few Republican politicians and candidates who want that to change. What's disingenuous is how you're using the bigotry they face in public life as an excuse to do nothing about making sure that future would-be lone wolves and terrorists don't have an easy time of it getting firearms.

Quit dancing around the question at hand. Answer how you are going to accomplish your jihad on weapons and still maintain the protections of Due Process as laid out in the Constitution?

"Jihad on weapons." Because keeping people who shouldn't be allowed near capguns away from real firearms is a conspiracy to disarm the country's populace.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I just received an email today from Vice President Joe Biden calling for the banning of AR-15s and similar weapons from civilian ownership. I completely disagree with this. I myself own an MP-15, and use it for target shooting every other weekend. I use it as a sporting weapon, not a weapon of murder. I agree that we should force the employment of background checks on all purchasers purchasing ANY weapon, but banning a certain type of weapon is just plain stupid. I can also agree that it is unconstitutional and violates the second amendment. Sure, we'll still have the right to bear arms such as bolt action rifles, if they ban ARs. But, no where does it say that civilians have the right to NOT a own assault weapons, let alone does the government have the right to take them away. Additionally, if they ban assault weapons, criminals will just use another weapons, and slowly the government will ban every firearm ever. Sure, people use assault weapons for mass shootings, but statistically I'd bet that most gun violence is linked to handguns because they are easier to carry and hide.

In a nutshell, I agree with the call for enforced background checks on all weapon purchasers, but banning weapons is just stupid.

The Second Amendment only allows a person to own weapons (and event that's sort of a matter for debate), it doesn't say the government can't ban certain types of weapons. The government has the full right to ban assault weapons. There is no reason why you should own a weapon of that kind of power. the Founding Fathers didn't envision weapons like that when the wrote the second amendment. I'll admit that I'm sort of OK with a shooting range having some of these weapons to rent out for sport, only to be used under the supervision of the shooting range. But there's no reason why a private citizen should have need of these weapons. Sure, criminals will use other weapons, but these weapons will be weaker, have a shorter firing rate, and won't kill as many people. By the time the police get there, the shooter won't have killed as many people as he could have with an assault weapon. And the government is not trying to take away your damn weapons! They are just trying to keep people save! Shame on people like you, who think that its OK to own a weapon that you have no reason to own! Shame!

SCOTUS has ruled weapons in common usage are protected under the 2A, "assault weapons" are some of the most popular in the country. Good luck with banning them nowadays, we have a lot of stuff on our side.

[Big Jim P]

The United States government proper for the most part has not profiled Muslims unfairly, save for a few Republican politicians and candidates who want that to change. What's disingenuous is how you're using the bigotry they face in public life as an excuse to do nothing about making sure that future would-be lone wolves and terrorists don't have an easy time of it getting firearms.

Quit dancing around the question at hand. Answer how you are going to accomplish your jihad on weapons and still maintain the protections of Due Process as laid out in the Constitution?

Add: without violating the Second Amendment as well.

[Spirit of Hope]

The point is continually made by yourself about how racist the United States and how the U.S. government profiles brown people. Yet now you are loath to defend that point because it could contradict you. You've not addressed the due process point and simply bypassing my concerns with a snide remark won't work.

The United States government proper for the most part has not profiled Muslims unfairly, save for a few Republican politicians and candidates who want that to change. What's disingenuous is how you're using the bigotry they face in public life as an excuse to do nothing about making sure that future would-be lone wolves and terrorists don't have an easy time of it getting firearms.

The ACLU apparently disagrees with you.

[Grinning Dragon]

Quit dancing around the question at hand. Answer how you are going to accomplish your jihad on weapons and still maintain the protections of Due Process as laid out in the Constitution?

"Jihad on weapons." Because keeping people who shouldn't be allowed near capguns away from real firearms is a conspiracy to disarm the country's populace.

Yawn. You're deflecting. Being accused or under suspicion is NO grounds for infringing upon a person's Due Process without being charged, so again, propose a viable, constitutional means of achieving a process in which a person under suspicion is barred from bearing arms.

[The East Marches]

The point is continually made by yourself about how racist the United States and how the U.S. government profiles brown people. Yet now you are loath to defend that point because it could contradict you. You've not addressed the due process point and simply bypassing my concerns with a snide remark won't work.

The United States government proper for the most part has not profiled Muslims unfairly, save for a few Republican politicians and candidates who want that to change. What's disingenuous is how you're using the bigotry they face in public life as an excuse to do nothing about making sure that future would-be lone wolves and terrorists don't have an easy time of it getting firearms.

Your hypocrisy on this topic is excellent. I'm rather impressed by the mental gymnastics you've pulled here. However, that aside, I am not generally considered to be on the right. Trying to pull the "holier-than-thou" attitude over me believing that a group may be unfairly profiled doesn't work. Afterall, I'm brown too which according to you makes my opinion bulletproof. As well, I am generally consistent in my belief in the rule of law and due process.

I'll ask again and see if you will give me an honest answer, what if any, is your solution to the due process problem?

To quote your belief that the authorities are prone to profiling, I hope you don't mind if I borrow a few quotes from yourself.

This from someone who rants about BLM all being criminals but remains silent on disparate police profiling and killing of blacks that gave rise to BLM in the first place.

The OP is one big Fallacy of Relative Privation designed to tell Those Uppity Darkies that they need to shut up about things like racial profiling and criminal justice disparities because They Could Be In Africa Where It's Worse.

[Gauthier]

"Jihad on weapons." Because keeping people who shouldn't be allowed near capguns away from real firearms is a conspiracy to disarm the country's populace.

Yawn. Your deflecting. Being accused or under suspicion is NO grounds for infringing upon a person's Due Process with being charged, so again, propose a viable, constitutional means of achieving a process in which a person under suspicion is barred from bearing arms.

Screening the history of people suspected along with psychiatric evaluations that aren't doctored by sleazeshit security firms to pick out things like domestic violence, battery and such. If some examples of those pop up along with noted instance of terrorist interests or sympathies then maybe it's a good sign they shouldn't be allowed to get armed.