I have serious concerns and reservations about the official version of 9-11, but they're based on data and evidence, not hearsay.

So, Trump agrees with Dianne Feinstein that people on the "No Fly" list should not be eligible to buy a gun legally.

He said he's going to meet with the NRA to discuss his position, which the NRA has in the past claimed is a violation of second amendment and other rights because people on the list are 'suspected' not 'convicted' of being threats to national security (my paraphrase).

Adding people on the "No Fly" list to those blocked from passing a firearm background check would not have stopped the Orlando shooter from purchasing guns because he was taken off that list when the FBI cleared him of being a terrorist threat.

However, if the criteria is changed to include barring legal gun purchase for people investigated as national security threats for 10 years or something like that, it might help prevent a similar situation in the future (though I'm sure the ACLU and plenty of others will object to a restriction of rights based on suspicion).

Anyway, I'm glad to see changes at least being discussed by the Republican candidate, IF Trump doesn't flip flop on his current position.

(06-15-2016, 11:54 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: So, Trump agrees with Dianne Feinstein that people on the "No Fly" list should not be eligible to buy a gun legally.

I heard Hillary address this the other day, I can't remember if it was during her speech or during an interview but she said there is a problem when people aren't allowed to fly but can still go out an purchase weapons. I agree!

(06-15-2016, 12:09 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(06-15-2016, 11:54 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: So, Trump agrees with Dianne Feinstein that people on the "No Fly" list should not be eligible to buy a gun legally.

I heard Hillary address this the other day, I can't remember if it was during her speech or during an interview but she said there is a problem when people aren't allowed to fly but can still go out an purchase weapons. I agree!

All Democratic politicians, to the best of my knowledge, support Hillary's position and the legislation Feinstein is trying to get passed.

Maybe if Trump is elected, he'll also go back to sharing Clinton's support for a ban on assault weapons, like he did before he decided to run for President as a Republican.

Dems Demand Action on Gun Violence -- Take Over the Senate Floor

Led by the senators who represent Newtown, Connecticut — where a gunman fatally shot 26 people, including 20 children, in 2012 — Democrats took control of the Senate floor Wednesday and vowed to keep talking until lawmakers start doing something about gun violence.

“Newtown is still putting itself back together, probably will be for a long time,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who launched the filibuster-style takeover, declaring it was time for the Senate to do something about gun violence beyond the usual ineffective debates.

He said lawmakers could not go about business as usual after a mass killing at a gay club in Orlando, Florida, on Sunday claimed 49 victims.

“This is a different moment today than it was at the end of last week,” Murphy said. “There is a newfound imperative for this body to find a way to come together and take action, to try to do our part to stem this epidemic of gun violence and in particular this epidemic of mass shootings.”

“There is a fundamental disconnect with the American people when these tragedies continue to occur and we just move forward with business as usual,” he continued. “So I’m going to remain on this floor until we get some signal, some sign that we can come together on these two measures, that we can get a path forward on addressing this epidemic in a meaningful bipartisan way.”

Full story: http://new.www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...4d586ec7b5

(06-15-2016, 01:25 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Maybe if Trump is elected, he'll also go back to sharing Clinton's support for a ban on assault weapons, like he did before he decided to run for President as a Republican.

I just heard him blowing his own horn. He said that his pals the NRA gave him the earliest endorsement they have ever given anyone. He's very proud of that. I don't see him changing his mind. Weird given he changes his mind almost daily.

I appreciate Senator Murphy's sentiments, and he's trying to show his Connecticut constituents that he takes their outrage seriously, but, you, me, and everybody else knows nothing will ever change.

What have I said a million times?

It's up to fate as to whether or not you or your loved ones will become victims of gun violence.

This country will never be proactive when it comes to getting guns out of our society.

(06-15-2016, 01:35 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(06-15-2016, 01:25 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Maybe if Trump is elected, he'll also go back to sharing Clinton's support for a ban on assault weapons, like he did before he decided to run for President as a Republican.

I just heard him blowing his own horn. He said that his pals the NRA gave him the earliest endorsement they have ever given anyone. He's very proud of that. I don't see him changing his mind. Weird given he changes his mind almost daily.

I'm not convinced Trump ever changed his mind about it.

It's equally possible to me that he just changed his tune on guns to maximize support from his target market and to get the NRA behind him.

If he really did support a ban like he claimed before he became a politician, and he hasn't changed his mind about it, he could switch back to supporting the ban if he's elected though. I agree that would be unlikely, however.

(06-15-2016, 01:40 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: I appreciate Senator Murphy's sentiments, and he's trying to show his Connecticut constituents that he takes their outrage seriously, but, you, me, and everybody else knows nothing will ever change.

What have I said a million times?

It's up to fate as to whether or not you or your loved ones will become victims of gun violence.

This country will never be proactive when it comes to getting guns out of our society.

I understand your frustration and why you feel this way, MS.

But, I continue to believe that the NRA's greed-driven power over for-sale conservative politicians is being reduced by citizen activists, some local and state politicians, and now by national political candidates in the wake of the Orlando mass murder.

Bernie, Trump and (later) Clinton have all made their objections to "big money and special interest control over politics" key campaign issues. The NRA is the epitome of big money controlling politicians, even when it results in those politicians defying the vast majority of their constituencies' wishes and compromising public safety in the process.

Bernie and Hillary were already in full support of legislation prohibiting people on the no-fly and terrorist watchlists from purchasing firearms legally. It's smart of Donald to climb on board now too. His unfavorable rating today is 70% to Clinton's 55% with the general population. A large majority of his base, a good portion of whom are gun owners, support the prohibition.

Supporting the prohibition is, in my opinion, a way for Trump to reduce the risk of losing supporters and to improve his potential to pick up some Independent and Undecided voters who support the prohibition - even (especially?) if he ruffles the feathers of the NRA leaders and the NRA-controlled politicians in his party.

So, how many known suspected domestic terrorists and sympathizers have purchased guns legally?

From February 2004, when the background check system began monitoring the terror watch list, through 2015, 2,477 names of would-be gun and explosives buyers were on the watchlist. Nearly all were for gun purchases.

Of those, 91 percent, or 2,265, of the transactions were permitted. Yep, 91 percent of those being watched by the government for suspected terrorist affiliation were allowed to legally buy guns because they weren't felons or known to be diagnosed with dangerous mental illnesses.

Over 80% of Republicans, 85% of Independents, and 90% of Democrats support changing the law and prohibiting such gun purchases, and that's before the Orlando shooting.

I don't object to the Republican stipulation that if the prohibition is passed into law, those on the list who fail the background check can appeal the decision if they feel that they're unfairly suspected -- as long as there are no riders attached to that stipulation, and as long the appeal process is objective and consistent. I don't think the Democratic politicians will object to the stipulation under those conditions either.

I support the Democratic filibuster in progress today. And, I think the prohibition is going to be passed into law with bi-partisan agreement this year. If so, I think and hope it opens the door for future bi-partisan cooperation on gun access/control legislation and diminishes the NRA's power to override the predominant will and safety of the American people.

Very few Americans have room any longer for the "slippery slope" argument made by gun extremists when any gun legislation is broached, in my opinion. And, it's currently the right political climate for politicians to acknowledge that and take appropriate gun control action which is favored by a large majority of Americans.

Refs:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/why-...ther-faqs/
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Boston Globe Editorial



There is nothing more American today than a mass shooting, the quickest way for the wicked among us to join the ranks of the reviled. Their motives are many, but their opportunity is limited only by their gun and ammunition magazine brand preference.

In this country, the federal government limits duck hunters to weapons that carry only three shells, to protect the duck population. But you can buy an assault weapon in seven minutes and an unlimited number of bullets to fire with it. For every McDonald’s in the United States, there are four federally licensed gun dealers and an untold number of unregulated private dealers who can legally sell an unlimited number of guns out of their homes, backpacks, and car trunks without requiring a criminal background check or proof of ID.

These weren’t the guns, and this wasn’t the America, that the Founders foresaw. That is why we need a new assault weapons ban, written for the realities we face in 2016.

From the origins of the country, there has been a broad understanding that all constitutional rights are subject to reasonable exceptions, and that the purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the government doesn’t violate rights indiscriminately. The Supreme Court has ruled, and there is no legal problem with a new assault weapon and high-capacity magazine ban.

Of all the exceptions, those involving public safety have been regarded by generations of jurists as the most reasonable and constitutionally acceptable. Simply put, banning weapons of war that fire dozens of rounds per minute is no more of a restriction on the rights of hunters and gun collectors and those seeking self-defense than controlling crowds is a violation of the right to assemble, or allowing slander judgments is a violation of the right to free speech, or banning grotesque forms of genital mutilation is a violation of the right to practice religion.

Full piece: https://apps.bostonglobe.com/graphics/20...nu_Article

I saw that the family of the inventor of the AR-15 has spoken out for the very first time. They said, "he'd be as horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more, by these events". He designed the AR-15 and M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers the advantage. He didn't intend them to be available to civilians.

Story

All automatic weapons should be banned and not sold to civilians.

^ That would be kind of a funny proposal considering automatics are already banned without background check, federal registration, fingerprinting, and fee.

Semi-automatic rifle and high capacity mag restriction is what's being advocated now, Maggot.

Maybe a compromise to fully banning semi-automatic rifles would be to require the same background check, federal registration, fingerprinting and fee for those civilians who want to purchase any semi-automatic weapons (rifles and handguns) and high capacity magazines?

(06-16-2016, 11:46 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Boston Globe Editorial



There is nothing more American today than a mass shooting, the quickest way for the wicked among us to join the ranks of the reviled. Their motives are many, but their opportunity is limited only by their gun and ammunition magazine brand preference.

In this country, the federal government limits duck hunters to weapons that carry only three shells, to protect the duck population. But you can buy an assault weapon in seven minutes and an unlimited number of bullets to fire with it. For every McDonald’s in the United States, there are four federally licensed gun dealers and an untold number of unregulated private dealers who can legally sell an unlimited number of guns out of their homes, backpacks, and car trunks without requiring a criminal background check or proof of ID.

These weren’t the guns, and this wasn’t the America, that the Founders foresaw. That is why we need a new assault weapons ban, written for the realities we face in 2016.

From the origins of the country, there has been a broad understanding that all constitutional rights are subject to reasonable exceptions, and that the purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the government doesn’t violate rights indiscriminately. The Supreme Court has ruled, and there is no legal problem with a new assault weapon and high-capacity magazine ban.

Of all the exceptions, those involving public safety have been regarded by generations of jurists as the most reasonable and constitutionally acceptable. Simply put, banning weapons of war that fire dozens of rounds per minute is no more of a restriction on the rights of hunters and gun collectors and those seeking self-defense than controlling crowds is a violation of the right to assemble, or allowing slander judgments is a violation of the right to free speech, or banning grotesque forms of genital mutilation is a violation of the right to practice religion.

Full piece: https://apps.bostonglobe.com/graphics/20...nu_Article

No you can't. Assault weapons are illegal. An assault rifle is fully automatic. The AR-15 and M16 fire one shot at a time.

That's how you define 'assault weapon' and it's not wrong, Gunnar -- it's in line with how the Fed referred to 'assault weapons' when they banned fully-automatic firearms from being sold to civilians (with exceptions).

But, both fully-automatic and semi-automatic rifles are categorized as 'assault weapons' in some government legislation and by a lot of other sources.

I don't care about the subjective semantics -- that has nothing to do with addressing the problem of semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines/cartridges being legally sold by dealers to anyone who passes a background check and used too often to maximize the number of people mowed down in a limited amount of time.

(06-16-2016, 02:50 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: That's how you define 'assault weapon' and it's not wrong, Gunnar -- it's in line with how the Fed referred to 'assault weapons' when they banned fully-automatic firearms from being sold to civilians (with exceptions).

But, both fully-automatic and semi-automatic rifles are categorized as 'assault weapons' in some government legislation and by a lot of other sources.

I don't care about the subjective semantics -- that has nothing to do with addressing the problem of semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines/cartridges being legally sold by dealers to anyone who passes a background check and used too often to maximize the number of people mowed down in a limited amount of time.

In the US, the legal and political term "assault weapon" generally includes firearms that are semi-auto (1 bullet per trigger squeeze), have pistol grips, and have detachable magazines.
The term "assault rifle" means a fully automatic (multiple bullets per trigger squeeze) selective-fire rifle, which uses intermediate cartridges and a detachable magazine.
The key difference between the terms is "weapon" versus "rifle." People who disagree are missing that seemingly-minor, but important, difference.

Does this really matter when you have high capacity magazines that allow you to kill many people in a matter of moments. Whatever it is that does that, get it out of the hands of civilians. Period.

(06-16-2016, 02:35 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 11:46 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Boston Globe Editorial



There is nothing more American today than a mass shooting, the quickest way for the wicked among us to join the ranks of the reviled. Their motives are many, but their opportunity is limited only by their gun and ammunition magazine brand preference.

In this country, the federal government limits duck hunters to weapons that carry only three shells, to protect the duck population. But you can buy an assault weapon in seven minutes and an unlimited number of bullets to fire with it. For every McDonald’s in the United States, there are four federally licensed gun dealers and an untold number of unregulated private dealers who can legally sell an unlimited number of guns out of their homes, backpacks, and car trunks without requiring a criminal background check or proof of ID.

These weren’t the guns, and this wasn’t the America, that the Founders foresaw. That is why we need a new assault weapons ban, written for the realities we face in 2016.

From the origins of the country, there has been a broad understanding that all constitutional rights are subject to reasonable exceptions, and that the purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the government doesn’t violate rights indiscriminately. The Supreme Court has ruled, and there is no legal problem with a new assault weapon and high-capacity magazine ban.

Of all the exceptions, those involving public safety have been regarded by generations of jurists as the most reasonable and constitutionally acceptable. Simply put, banning weapons of war that fire dozens of rounds per minute is no more of a restriction on the rights of hunters and gun collectors and those seeking self-defense than controlling crowds is a violation of the right to assemble, or allowing slander judgments is a violation of the right to free speech, or banning grotesque forms of genital mutilation is a violation of the right to practice religion.

Full piece: https://apps.bostonglobe.com/graphics/20...nu_Article

No you can't. Assault weapons are illegal. An assault rifle is fully automatic. The AR-15 and M16 fire one shot at a time.

Well, I know you know more than I do, BG, about assault weapons, but the Boston Globe just said that the ban on these weapons expired in 2004 and Congress had done nothing to reactivate this law...did I misunderstand this? I guess I think that all the people who want to use these guns or any other weapon capable of killing max # of people in minimum time, should just join the Army and do all the shooting you want at the bad guys.....

I don't think many people with command of the English language would miss the difference between a 'weapon' and a 'rifle', Gunnar.

'Weapon' is a broad term; many everyday items can be used as weapons and some items are designed to serve as weapons -- like guns (handguns, rifles, automatic, semi-automatic, or otherwise), switchblades, certain bombs....

We know that handguns (including semi-automatic ones) account for most gun violence in the U.S. and semi-automatic rifles are the preferred weapons for public mass-murderers and terrorists in the U.S.

So, again, whether one chooses to label the weapons referred to in the Globe editorial as 'semi-automatic' or 'assault' is irrelevant to the the issue itself. It's clear, and defined in the article itself, what constitutes a 'semi-automatic' or 'assault' firearm and that the author believes that semi-automatic arms (including the rifles used in most public mass murders and terrorist attacks) to be weapons of war which should not be available to any interested civilian who passes a background check and pays for the firearm.