Mr. President, do NOT ban assault weapons!

[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.

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.

I had no idea state and local police officers were federal agents.

[Big Jim P]

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.

Well, until a crime is actually committed, suspicion or accusation is still no legitimate reason to bar their ownership. That still violates due process.

[Grinning Dragon]

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.

Ok now we are getting somewhere. The only issue I have is the very nature of the subjective nature of of psych evals. I would propose a panel of psychologists and just like the United States Supreme Court a majority of a consensus must be reached to proceed with Due Process and place said person on the forbidden list.

[Geilinor]

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.

"Jihad on weapons"

Reminds me of how some people think Obama is secretly a Muslim.

[Gauthier]

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.

Well, until a crime is actually committed, suspicion or accusation is still no legitimate reason to bar their ownership. That still violates due process.

The unstable types most likely to shoot up people inevitably have violence in their history, especially if they have domestic relationships or they have serious mental illness. No need to violate due process.

[The East Marches]

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.

I had no idea state and local police officers were federal agents.

They can report people to the FBI and get them put on that watch list. I doubt the FBI wouldn't believe a fellow law enforcement officer. Thanks to the proposed laws (3 out of 4 I think), there would be no way to get off. Nice try at dodging my point though. Do you have any response to the due process concerns? Or are you that disingenuous that you are incapable of a replying to a simple question?

[Big Jim P]

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.

Ok now we are getting somewhere. The only issue I have is the very nature of the subjective nature of of psych evals. I would propose a panel of psychologists and just like the United States Supreme Court a majority of a consensus must be reached to proceed with Due Process and place said person on the forbidden list.

Very reasonable. There also needs to be a mechanism to contest being put on the list and having ones self being removed from it as well.

[Big Jim P]

Well, until a crime is actually committed, suspicion or accusation is still no legitimate reason to bar their ownership. That still violates due process.

The unstable types most likely to shoot up people inevitably have violence in their history, especially if they have domestic relationships or they have serious mental illness. No need to violate due process.

Then that would fall under "crime already committed" not "suspicion or accusation".

[Grinning Dragon]

Ok now we are getting somewhere. The only issue I have is the very nature of the subjective nature of of psych evals. I would propose a panel of psychologists and just like the United States Supreme Court a majority of a consensus must be reached to proceed with Due Process and place said person on the forbidden list.

Very reasonable. There also needs to be a mechanism to contest being put on the list and having ones self being removed from it as well.

I should have expanded further to include that to proceed with Due Process would entail a person's day in court and the ability to appeal/removal from list after the panel found said person no longer a threat, and restore a person's Constitutional Rights.

[Gringostan]

What if I told you... AR-15s aren't fully automatic and shouldn't be called "assault weapons".
But honestly though, what is this argument? "Yee, we shud ban ass-ault wepons cuz sum gai shot up peeple." How about we get more law abiding citizens guns and abolish "gun-free zones". Outlaws take advantage of gun free zones, imagine if someone had a gun and was able to shoot and kill the gunman at Orlando?

Good thing that cop who was armed, present, and opened fire stopped him within the first few kills.

Or maybe in crime as in war, the aggressor dictates the initial tempo of the conflict.[/quote

I got to say opposite. After the Sandy Hook murders, I took a vow. My vow was this:Seeing how the non-disabled public can think straight, surely they would put measures that would keep firearms away from mentally il people and non- mentally I'll people. They did not.
Therefore, I have made up my mind to watch the blood to flow like the Niagara Falls. Keep killing each other until the last man or woman is alive and chooses to launch a nuclear bomb. I must say that my rationale for believing your not mentally I'll is gone. Your as crazy as can be. Still, keep doing the same shit and when you eventually destroy all life on Earth, hopefully, my people and I will begone. Go ahead, point a gun to your head and threaten me with suicide. See if I care.

[United Dependencies]

What?

[FutureAmerica]

If ar15s aren't banned, then every adult needs to have one.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

Even if the wrong name was mistakenly put down on that psych eval and is was actually legit - it's still fraudulent, because it's incorrect.
But it's G4S so odds are good it's actually fraudulent.

You see in other countries, we have one mass shooting, learn lessons and then put measures in place to try and stop it happening again. They're not 100% effective, but nothing is, and suggesting anything that fails to meet 100% effectiveness is therefore a failure is completely dumb.
Pretty sure that after the 2010 shooting in England, gun laws were not significantly changed. I say significantly, because I recall no discourse on changing them. We'd already banned semi-automatic centrefire rifles and handguns, Bird's shooting was only so deadly because he roamed a very large rural area and spread out his targets.

Hungerford and Dunblane were both (Hungerford only in part) school shootings. I'd say the new regulations were successful.

[The Enclave Government]

I fail to see the need for an assault rifle other than "I want it, therefore I should have it!"

[Washington Resistance Army]

I fail to see the need for an assault rifle other than "I want it, therefore I should have it!"

This thread isn't about assault rifles, though we are getting very close to getting those back.

[The Enclave Government]

I fail to see the need for an assault rifle other than "I want it, therefore I should have it!"

This thread isn't about assault rifles, though we are getting very close to getting those back.

Assault weapons, rifles, it's semantics.

I support legal pistols, shotguns and to an extent rifles. But I do not see need, for example, for an AR-15.

The UK has them outlawed by law and the UK don't seem to be falling apart into a government of tyranny with crime running rampant.

[Washington Resistance Army]

This thread isn't about assault rifles, though we are getting very close to getting those back.

Assault weapons, rifles, it's semantics.

I support legal pistols, shotguns and to an extent rifles. But I do not see need, for example, for an AR-15.

The UK has them outlawed by law and the UK don't seem to be falling apart into a government of tyranny with crime running rampant.

No, it isn't really semantics. Assault rifles are a real thing, assault weapons is a nonsensical term made up by anti-gun Democrats.

I see plenty of need for them myself, plus it's strange you support legal pistols and not "assault weapons" when the former is responsible for 80%+ of all gun crime and the latter is maybe 2% if we're being generous.

[The Enclave Government]

Assault weapons, rifles, it's semantics.

I support legal pistols, shotguns and to an extent rifles. But I do not see need, for example, for an AR-15.

The UK has them outlawed by law and the UK don't seem to be falling apart into a government of tyranny with crime running rampant.

No, it isn't really semantics. Assault rifles are a real thing, assault weapons is a nonsensical term made up by anti-gun Democrats.

I see plenty of need for them myself, plus it's strange you support legal pistols and not "assault weapons" when the former is responsible for 80%+ of all gun crime and the latter is maybe 2% if we're being generous.

Because pistol rounds are lower in caliber, magazines are smaller, and pistols are actually usable in day to day life. You're not going to go around lugging an AR-15 around your back.

Also the higher proportion of pistol to assault rifle crime is simple. Bigger supply of pistols, less cost and easier to obtain due to more limited regulations.

[Imperializt Russia]

Last breakdown estimate I saw, rifles, handguns and shotguns (all types ofc) were approximately equal in number. Shotguns the lowest I think at about 90 million, handguns at 110-120 million and rifles somewhere in the middle.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No, it isn't really semantics. Assault rifles are a real thing, assault weapons is a nonsensical term made up by anti-gun Democrats.

I see plenty of need for them myself, plus it's strange you support legal pistols and not "assault weapons" when the former is responsible for 80%+ of all gun crime and the latter is maybe 2% if we're being generous.

Because pistol rounds are lower in caliber, magazines are smaller, and pistols are actually usable in day to day life. You're not going to go around lugging an AR-15 around your back.

Also the higher proportion of pistol to assault rifle crime is simple. Bigger supply of pistols, less cost and easier to obtain due to more limited regulations.

Bigger supply is incredibly debatable, it's pretty commonly believed that the AR platform is the single most popular gun in the US with some 10 million+ of them. That isn't even adding other scary black guns to the mix.

I use a rifle all the time in life, obviously not as my carry gun but for range trips, competition shooting (though I haven't done much of this lately), my designated home defense gun should the need ever arise etc.

[The Enclave Government]

Because pistol rounds are lower in caliber, magazines are smaller, and pistols are actually usable in day to day life. You're not going to go around lugging an AR-15 around your back.

Also the higher proportion of pistol to assault rifle crime is simple. Bigger supply of pistols, less cost and easier to obtain due to more limited regulations.

Bigger supply is incredibly debatable, it's pretty commonly believed that the AR platform is the single most popular gun in the US with some 10 million+ of them. That isn't even adding other scary black guns to the mix.

I use a rifle all the time in life, obviously not as my carry gun but for range trips, competition shooting (though I haven't done much of this lately), my designated home defense gun should the need ever arise etc.

Why on god's green earth you're using a 5.56mm rifle for home defense befuddles me. That round isn't just going to stop in the guy unless you have hollowpoint rounds, in which case that's a tad overkill.

Also, i'm not saying guns don't have entertainment purposes. But I think their negative impact significgantly outweighs it.

[Imperializt Russia]

Google "5.56mm wound".

It'll stop them.
I take no responsibility for emotional distress you experience.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Bigger supply is incredibly debatable, it's pretty commonly believed that the AR platform is the single most popular gun in the US with some 10 million+ of them. That isn't even adding other scary black guns to the mix.

I use a rifle all the time in life, obviously not as my carry gun but for range trips, competition shooting (though I haven't done much of this lately), my designated home defense gun should the need ever arise etc.

Why on god's green earth you're using a 5.56mm rifle for home defense befuddles me. That round isn't just going to stop in the guy unless you have hollowpoint rounds, in which case that's a tad overkill.

Also, i'm not saying guns don't have entertainment purposes. But I think their negative impact significgantly outweighs it.

I know exactly what 5.56 is capable of and I'm not in the least bit worried about overpenetrations, especially given I keep that mag loaded with subsonic rounds.

My guns have never negatively impacted anyone, minus myself one time where I had a small accident with a slide.

[The Enclave Government]

Google "5.56mm wound".

It'll stop them.
I take no responsibility for emotional distress you experience.

Not saying they won't. I'm just saying, that round's going to go down range. Probably through your house, possibly into another person's house or property if you live in an apartment or neighborhood. If you are legally justified to shoot someone, you're definitely not legally justified to send a bullet into someone else's property.

[The Enclave Government]

Why on god's green earth you're using a 5.56mm rifle for home defense befuddles me. That round isn't just going to stop in the guy unless you have hollowpoint rounds, in which case that's a tad overkill.

Also, i'm not saying guns don't have entertainment purposes. But I think their negative impact significgantly outweighs it.

I know exactly what 5.56 is capable of and I'm not in the least bit worried about overpenetrations, especially given I keep that mag loaded with subsonic rounds.

My guns have never negatively impacted anyone, minus myself one time where I had a small accident with a slide.

There are two widely different main groups of gun owners. Those with good intent and those with ill intent. Most of the good intent rarely hurt or impact anyone in any way, though there are terrible accidents that happen (mostly due to being new to guns or slipping up in locking them.) Most of the ill intent do have an impact. There's about a 60-40 ratio in favor of good intent.

Edit: Also, if you're loading it with subsonic rounds, that kinda defeats the point of an AR-15 for home defense.