The New Exchange » The misguided ferocity of the anti-gun left

Goose · 6/15/2016 4:31 pm

I want universal background checks.
I want to ban weapon sales to people on terror no fly lists.
I want to re-institute the assault weapons ban, and make it even more restrictive.
Outlaw high volume magazines.
Increase penalties for weapons trafficking.
Ban weapons sales to people with protect from abuse orders.
Penalize those who make straw man purchases of guns.
Consider removal of guns from people with documented mental disorders.

And,yes, I know that none of these measures will prevent all gun crimes.

Tarnation · 6/15/2016 4:58 pm

Goose,

Those are reasonable proposals.

I'd like to see a working definition of "high volume magazine" because some legislative proposals have used a number so low that it would outlaw some otherwise legitimate sporting firearms.

The no-fly = no-buy could also be problematic because at present there is no appeal process if one is placed on the no-fly list.

Rongone · 6/15/2016 5:14 pm

Actually, there is an appeals process for persons that have been placed on the no-fly list to appeal that placement, and the appeals process was eased in a June 2014 decision by a district court in the state of Oregon in a case brought by 13 plaintiffs and supported by the ACLU.

Brady Bunch · 6/15/2016 6:27 pm

Thanks for sharing Goose.

I agree with you on the universal background checks,increased penalties for weapons trafficing, and to penalize those who make straw man purchases of guns.

For bans on for people that have a PFA filed against them, I can agree with that as long as the PFA is valid. I don't mind a temporary ban for emergency PFA's or ex parte PFA's, but if a final PFA isn't granted the person should no longer be banned.

Because of the lack of due process, I can't support a ban for people on "no fly" or "terror watch lists". I am for the FBI being notified if someone on either of those lists or someone who has ever been investigated by the FBI for terror links purchases a weapon so they can closely watch that person.

The Man · 6/15/2016 6:36 pm

If no fly = no buy, what would keep our government from simply placing everyone on the no fly list?

I mean that as a legitimate question. I wouldn't put anything past our government.

Rongone · 6/15/2016 6:59 pm

The Man wrote:
If no fly = no buy, what would keep our government from simply placing everyone on the no fly list?

I mean that as a legitimate question. I wouldn't put anything past our government.

I would say the airline industry would have some objections to that. Not to mention millions of the traveling public, including our elected officials who travel constantly (for official reasons, of course).

But, that's a straw man argument (the government putting everyone, or selected groups of people) on the no-fly list perpetrated by conservative gun rights aficionados. In other words -- a scare tactic proposal that could never become a reality.

The Man · 6/15/2016 7:09 pm

Rongone wrote:
The Man wrote:
If no fly = no buy, what would keep our government from simply placing everyone on the no fly list?

I mean that as a legitimate question. I wouldn't put anything past our government.

I would say the airline industry would have some objections to that. Not to mention millions of the traveling public, including our elected officials who travel constantly (for official reasons, of course).

But, that's a straw man argument (the government putting everyone, or selected groups of people) on the no-fly list perpetrated by conservative gun rights aficionados. In other words -- a scare tactic proposal that could never become a reality.

But they could though. Like, if Trump became president, we had another Muslim commit a mass murder, Trump could have every Muslim put on the no fly list. Or, name your president and group. Hillary could have every NRA member put on the no fly list if she wanted to, or every person who didn't donate $1 million to her.

Regardless of candidate/political preference, I'm not comfortable with our federal government having that power even remotely near their realistic grasp.

Brady Bunch · 6/15/2016 7:17 pm

Rongone,

You mentioned the ACLU and the case they brought against the "no fly" list. While the government might have eased some restrictions, the appeal process still is not neutral. See below article from the ACLU back in December:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms

Rongone · 6/15/2016 7:33 pm

Brady Bunch wrote:
Rongone,

You mentioned the ACLU and the case they brought against the "no fly" list. While the government might have eased some restrictions, the appeal process still is not neutral. See below article from the ACLU back in December:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms

Tarnation contended that there was no appeals process attached to the no-fly list. I was merely clarifying the point that there is indeed an appeal process and, although restrictive and confusing, there was a case filed to ease and simplify the process. Plus the fact that the ACLU was party to that case and their efforts had eased some of the restrictions. The article you linked verifies this and indicates that the ACLU continues to strive for more clarification of the appeal process through that case.

I did not say that there were no problems with the appeal process.

Goose · 6/15/2016 10:14 pm

The Man wrote:
If no fly = no buy, what would keep our government from simply placing everyone on the no fly list?

I mean that as a legitimate question. I wouldn't put anything past our government.

Well, if we consider the paranoid absurd to be likely, we will never take any action at all, ,,,,
about anything.

And, Im sorry, but someone must state this:
The idea that the Gummit would put all 319 million of us on a terror no fly list simply to prevent us from buying guns is, well, crazy.

And not just a little crazy. No, I'm talking irresponsibly, those military exercises are really a cover for imposing martial law, crazy.

And, the idea that Hillary could just call up the FBI and put every member of the NRA, or people who didn't contribute to her on a no fly list is preposterous.The President is not a king.
It is a ham-fisted scare tactic. It is not only wrong. It is mendaciously wrong.
Ron is correct. It is simply a scare tactic designed to appeal to fear.

Last edited by Goose (6/16/2016 8:53 am)

Index
» National News
» The misguided ferocity of the anti-gun left

6/15/2016 4:31 pm #11

Re: The misguided ferocity of the anti-gun left

6/15/2016 4:58 pm #12

Re: The misguided ferocity of the anti-gun left

6/15/2016 5:14 pm #13

Re: The misguided ferocity of the anti-gun left

6/15/2016 6:27 pm #14

Re: The misguided ferocity of the anti-gun left

6/15/2016 6:36 pm #15

Re: The misguided ferocity of the anti-gun left

6/15/2016 6:59 pm #16

Re: The misguided ferocity of the anti-gun left

The Man wrote:

6/15/2016 7:09 pm #17

Re: The misguided ferocity of the anti-gun left

Rongone wrote:

The Man wrote:

6/15/2016 7:17 pm #18

Re: The misguided ferocity of the anti-gun left

6/15/2016 7:33 pm #19

Re: The misguided ferocity of the anti-gun left

Brady Bunch wrote:

6/15/2016 10:14 pm #20

Re: The misguided ferocity of the anti-gun left

The Man wrote:

Index
» National News
» The misguided ferocity of the anti-gun left

Board footera