^ I'm just fucking with you, F.U.
I bet 96% of our population believes they have no reason to fear they'll end up on this list.
What are the other 4-5% doing tha makes them nervous?
(06-23-2016, 02:34 PM)Donovan Wrote: [ -> ] (06-23-2016, 02:17 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-23-2016, 01:53 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]It'll be interesting to see how the Democrats' protest on the House floor plays out, Duchess. One thing's certain, they got a lot of exposure for their cause and themselves with the historic sit-in. It was really something to see and hear.
Publicity stunt.
On Cspan? Doubtful. More likely it was a spontaneous outburst of frustration on the part of genuinely decent people being stymied in the simplest of protective measures, led by a man who was one of the OG civil rights leaders back when it meant something. That it went so viral is a testament to just how many people are sick of stories that begin with slaughter and end with nothing changed.
It was news, the media grabbed it and ran with it. Depending on which outlet you watch, it was either a publicity stunt or a "spontaneous outburst of frustration!!!"
"It went VIRAL!!!" OMGODZZZZ!!!!1111!!!!11!!!!
(06-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
No, the Government doesn't want the suspected terrorists red flagged and prevented from buying guns because then the terrorist will know that the Government is on to them.
You think I'm kiddin'.
Feinstein's (D) bill proposed banning people whose names appear on any of the various FBI Terror Watch Lists from buying a gun.
If the person on the list claimed it was a mistake, he/she could appeal in court.
It makes the most sense to me and has gotten the most bi-partisan support, but not enough.
I'm thinking a compromise bill co-sponsored by a Democrat and a Republican will be what it takes to get a terrorist-related gun restriction bill passed.
This is a quick helpful overview of the four bills that were recently voted on.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...d-to-know/
Compromise Ban Bill Moves Forward...
Following Wednesday's Democratic protest on the House floor, the Senate voted Thursday to allow further consideration of bipartisan legislation banning gun sales to people on the terrorism "no-fly" list.
"We won the vote, Collins won that vote," Democratic Leader Harry Reid , Nev., said, adding that the National Rifle Association "lost this one." (Republican Senator Susan Collins authored the bill with input from Democratic Senators.)
He called on Republican leaders to allow another vote to actually try and pass the proposal. "It’s the right thing for the country," Reid said.
The effort to forge the compromise began last week after Democrats led by Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy filibustered for nearly 15 hours on the Senate floor demanding a vote on gun control. The chamber took votes Monday defeating four partisan gun proposals largely along party lines.
The Collins' bill would ban gun sales to roughly 109,000 people, including 2,700 Americans, who are on two lists: The no-fly list, which prevents them from boarding commercial planes flying to, from or over the United States; and a so-called “selectee list,” which mandates they receive extra scrutiny at airports before flying.
The measure, proposed as an amendment to a spending bill funding the Justice Department, would allow individuals denied firearms to appeal in court. It would also mandate notification of law enforcement if someone who was on broader terrorism watch lists within the past five years tries to buy a gun.
Orlando shooter Omar Mateen had been on a watch list in 2013 and 2014 but was taken off when the FBI closed its investigation of him. He legally purchased a semi-automatic rifle and pistol before launching the killing spree at Pulse nightclub that left 49 dead and 53 others injured.
Under Collins’ amendment, federal authorities would have had to have been notified of the purchases, giving them an opportunity to surveil him and possibly prevent his tragic scheme.
Ref:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit.../86288040/
(06-24-2016, 10:25 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]The Collins' bill would ban gun sales to roughly 109,000 people, including 2,700 Americans, who are on two lists: The no-fly list, which prevents them from boarding commercial planes flying to, from or over the United States; and a so-called “selectee list,” which mandates they receive extra scrutiny at airports before flying.
The measure, proposed as an amendment to a spending bill funding the Justice Department, would allow individuals denied firearms to appeal in court. It would also mandate notification of law enforcement if someone who was on broader terrorism watch lists within the past five years tries to buy a gun.
Orlando shooter Omar Mateen had been on a watch list in 2013 and 2014 but was taken off when the FBI closed its investigation of him. He legally purchased a semi-automatic rifle and pistol before launching the killing spree at Pulse nightclub that left 49 dead and 53 others injured.
Under Collins’ amendment, federal authorities would have had to have been notified of the purchases, giving them an opportunity to surveil him and possibly prevent his tragic scheme.
Ref: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit.../86288040/
In a real world scenario, does anyone really believe "federal authorities" would/could react quickly enough to surveil him? Do they have the resources to surveil each potential threat they've been notified about? Serious question. I personally don't have that kind of faith in our "federal authorities."
Serious answer:
Yeah, I think if one of the relatively small number of people on a Terror Watch List attempted to purchase a gun and the Feds were notified, it would be prioritized and moved on as quickly as possible considering the current public safety risks.
Even if one believes the Fed doesn't care about public safety, 'cover your ass' mode would be a motivator. No LE agency or officer would want to be known as the one that ignored a tip that a mass shooter or terrorist had attempted to buy a firearm.
There is legislation underway to increase funding for terrorist and firearm law enforcement; I believe that's got bi-partisan support. More resources are needed to address the increased threat. If that funding comes to pass, I think it would further improve the timeliness and effectiveness of the tip response.
(06-24-2016, 12:34 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Serious answer:
Yeah, I think if one of the relatively small number of people on a Terror Watch List attempted to purchase a gun and the Feds were notified, it would be prioritized and moved on as quickly as possible considering the current public safety risks.
Even if one believes the Fed doesn't care about public safety, 'cover your ass' mode would be a motivator. No LE agency or officer would want to be known as the one that ignored a tip that a mass shooter or terrorist had attempted to buy a firearm.
There is legislation underway to increase funding for terrorist and firearm law enforcement; I believe that's got bi-partisan support. More resources are needed to address the increased threat. If that funding comes to pass, I think it would further improve the timeliness and effectiveness of the tip response.
"Cover your ass" often turns into "cover it up" when the feds don't react quickly.
Do you object to law enforcement being informed when a suspected terrorist attempts to purchase a gun so LE has the info/opportunity to prevent an attack, even if the suspect has an opportunity to appeal his/her inclusion on a Terror Watch List?
(06-24-2016, 12:58 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Do you object to law enforcement being informed when a suspected terrorist attempts to purchase a gun so LE has the info/opportunity to prevent an attack, even if the suspect has an opportunity to appeal his/her inclusion on a Terror Watch List?
If he's brown it could be considered profiling so in today's PC world we would need to tread lightly. I don't object to LE being informed, I'm just not going to get all warm and fuzzy over the idea that LE could have prevented it with this new improved legislation. I suppose anything that could slightly reduce the chances is a good thing, but I'm not a firm believer that this would go a long way to prevent what happened in Orlando. I don't think LE has the resources and I know bureaucracy moves very slowly.
I haven't seen anyone getting all warm and fuzzy about legislation to address one slice of a public safety threat. That wasn't the question.
I've seen some people proclaiming -- and others, like you, reluctantly admitting -- that of course it's the right thing to do. LE should be given the opportunity to stop suspected terrorists from legally buying guns, and those who feel that they're mistakenly suspected should be given a chance to appeal.
I think the Collins' bill or something like it will be passed by the end of the year or early next year. I hope so.
OK, here is a new firearm that is sure to drive the gun grabbers wild. Black aces tactical firearm beat the ATF at their own word games and designed it around the ATF wording to make this firearm available to the masses without tax stamps, extra paperwork, or extra hoops to jump through.
Practical? Not really. Can you hunt with it? Probably not very well. Long range shooting? Yea... NOT. Target practice? Doubtful. Do I want one? Oh hell yes.
http://www.blackacestactical.com/
http://americangg.net/copy-tb-12-gauge-firearm/
(07-01-2016, 08:14 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Practical? Not really. Can you hunt with it? Probably not very well. Long range shooting? Yea... NOT. Target practice? Doubtful. Do I want one? Oh hell yes.
I can sorta relate. I don't need anymore boots or handbags but that won't keep me from buying more.
I like that shotgun. I don't care if he calls it a birthday candle. I don't like the stock though.
(07-02-2016, 09:11 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]I like that shotgun. I don't care if he calls it a birthday candle. I don't like the stock though.
Its not a stock and its against the law to be used as one. It is a "arm brace" . That's how they get around that portion of the law.
A 14 yr. old was killed yesterday at a gun range that has been referred to as the safest of its kind. That's all the details that have been released. I'm going to assume one of his parents was with him given their rules state no underage shooters unless accompanied by a parent.
This is their motto -
![[Image: 35EE0E2100000578-3673049-image-a-101_1467608677346.jpg]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/07/04/06/35EE0E2100000578-3673049-image-a-101_1467608677346.jpg)
(07-04-2016, 05:32 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
A 14 yr. old was killed yesterday at a gun range that has been referred to as the safest of its kind. That's all the details that have been released. I'm going to assume one of his parents was with him given their rules state no underage shooters unless accompanied by a parent.
This is their motto -
I dislike the photo they use there. Not because its a photo of a kid holding a Cricket 22lr, manual cocking, single shot rifle. But because of that hat. Its one thing for a adult to use that phrase, but a child of that age really doesn't know the true meaning of it. Let the kid grow and develop their own opinion as to weather or not they are willing to kill or be killed over their 2
nd amendment rights.
I feel they would have had a better photo if they showed the youngin wearing safety glasses, hearing protection, holding the rifle with proper muzzle control [like they did] and proper finger control [like they did] .
I wonder how this will all work out? I can see additional laws being passed saying that business owners that allow permit holders to carry in their place of business, will be liable if they are shot while on their premises.
Can of worms comes to mind.
On July 1, businesses that disarm concealed carry permit holders with gun-free signage will be liable for the safety of those permit holders.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ir-safety/
(07-04-2016, 11:45 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ] (07-04-2016, 05:32 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
A 14 yr. old was killed yesterday at a gun range that has been referred to as the safest of its kind. That's all the details that have been released. I'm going to assume one of his parents was with him given their rules state no underage shooters unless accompanied by a parent.
This is their motto -
I dislike the photo they use there. Not because its a photo of a kid holding a Cricket 22lr, manual cocking, single shot rifle. But because of that hat. Its one thing for a adult to use that phrase, but a child of that age really doesn't know the true meaning of it. Let the kid grow and develop their own opinion as to weather or not they are willing to kill or be killed over their 2nd amendment rights.
I feel they would have had a better photo if they showed the youngin wearing safety glasses, hearing protection, holding the rifle with proper muzzle control [like they did] and proper finger control [like they did] .
Agreed