Sousuke

This certainly opens a new angle. Failures by local law enforcement.

An an alert salesperson refused to sell to Mateen, and Abell said he contacted authorities about Mateen before the massacre. The local sheriff's office said it was unaware of the incident at the gun store, and other local authorities, including the localFBI office, have not responded to ABC News' requests for comment.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/orlando-shooter-turned-away-different-gun-store-being-141628142--abc-news-topstories.html

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/british-labour-party-lawmaker-attacked-man-arrested-2016-06-16?mod=MW_story_latest_news

An attacker killed a lawmaker from the U.K.’s main opposition Labour Party on Thursday in her parliamentary constituency of Birstall, West Yorkshire, in a midday assault that prompted a halt to official campaigning ahead of next week’s referendum on the U.K.’s continued European Union membership.

Its a violation of the 6th amendment:

How does it violate the 6th amendment? That is about your rights as a criminal defendant. We are not talking about crime or the allegations of crime.

The list alleges a person may commit a crime.

Hegel had this down pat when he discussed the master/slave dialect.

Time for the ontologically superior slaves to fight back!

Get me to the bar!

I have to admit Philosophy is not my strong suit. I'll try to wrap my head around it.

Abbas says the number of innocent people on the list, like Mohamed, is probably extremely high because the Terrorist Screening Center, the agency responsible for determining who is on the Terrorist Watchlist, accepts 98.96 percent of all nominations to the list.

Abbas told MintPress he asked the TSC what made them reject 1.04 percent of the nominations from federal agencies, but the agency was unable to answer the question. According to the attorney, the TSC told him the electronic form agents fill out when nominating a person for inclusion on the list includes a text box where agents are required to give a reason for the rejection. But Abbas said he was told that the reason given in the text box may not actually be the real reason for a person’s exclusion from the list.

Of those included on the watch list, many are actually not suspected of being known terrorists, but are known as “non-investigative subjects.” In other words, the federal government is, as Abbas says, “literally putting people they decided not to investigate on the federal government watch list” — a matter Abbas said all American should find disconcerting because it’s proof that the “government is playing games with folks.”

http://www.mintpressnews.com/startling-number-of-americans-are-on-terrorist-watchlist/194356/

According to the ACLU the general watch list has over a million people on it now.

https://www.aclu.org/terror-watch-list-counter-million-plus

Any idea of the actual numbers on the list? This is an interesting discussion.

I know the no fly list is around 20,000. I recently learned that there are actually two lists. The no fly list is the more restrictive one and there is a more general watch list as well. On the general watch list, I'm not sure how big it is.

If the no fly list is not accurate, fix the no fly list. If we feel it is accurate then we have reason to believe that this person is a risk. If they really want a gun, give them a legal appeal.

If you are saying that they must appeal a list that has taken away a protected right....well you get where this is going right? Its a violation of the 6th amendment.

And yes, the fly list is not accurate. Were you alive during McCarthyism? In someways this list is similar because people HAVE been put on the list due to political views that endanger no one.

But those are "Ghost Guns" and thus they are untraceable and able to fire a 30 Caliber 30 round magazine in under half a second. Thus they would be firing hundreds of rounds a minute making it a Fully Automatic Assault Machine Gun.

That was funny when he made that statement, but its painful too that this unintelligent man is getting his "ghost gun" bill passed this year. Along with "a shovel" is a firearm Gibson, who also has a bill going through.

Are you for or against folks on the watch list possessing guns?

I don't think the watch list in and of itself should stop gun possession. I like the compromise that allows a judge to review the purchase especially as the American people cannot control the criteria that the government uses to put a citizen on the list.

There are also issues with errors in the list that this compromise would allow for correction of.

I shudder at the thought of our Government being able to deny people constitutional rights by placing them on a list, without any due process. That's scary stuff .

The broader issue is that there needs to be a clear, speedy way for a US Citizen to who finds themselves on a list to adjudicate the status with the government.

The ACLU has been bringing this up for years.

Sorry, left the link off.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cornyn-feinstein-in-talks-to-find-gun-control-compromise/article/2594003

Not sure why the Dems aren't signing on to this compromise.

It allows a gun purchase to be stalled 3 days and put before a judge for a decision.

From the article Dems are currently rejecting it because:

Democrats reject the GOP bill because it forces the government to show probable cause in order to block a gun purchase by someone on the watch list. Democrats say there would be no way for federal officials to vet every challenge, and that thousands of guns would wind up in the hands of people on the terror watch list.

So basically they believe that rights can be removed without probable cause? Wow. The other thing that strikes me is how many people are on their terror watch list. Democrats make it sounds like there are 10s of thousands.

Baah. You ain't been to London. Seriously NY is getting too square.

Talking of which I googled Albany-place needs all the help it can get.

Bloody Mary and a hamburger in NY for brunch my definition of paradise.

Have you been to the Church in London? They would have sunday morning parties.

Not sure if its still open or not.

I do not want an AR15, but I feel Obama is backing me into a corner and I need to get one.

Agreed. Now that the bullet button bill is going to be passed in California, I'm going to build one so it gets grandfathered. Ironically, as soon as its a RAW I shouldn't need a bullet button anymore.

I got a kick out of this:

The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201

I wonder if someone has to hold his hand every time he walks outside...

I would imagine this will come back on the police department, the officer will be put on leave.

I agree with one of the posters that a dash cam or body camera is a good thing to have in case you have a run in with the police or anyone else.

So from what I'm reading the ar15 was developed for mass killing during war time, and is now put to excellent use killing some kind of creature called a wild hawg(?).

Are these creatures so intimidating? Wouldn't mind one for a pet. They sound awesome.

If you want to say it was developed for taking enemy combatants out of the conflict, I'm okay with that I suppose per the Hague Convention of 1899. Strictly speaking ammunition was regulated for combatant survivability not death.

(IE. by the 1900s warfare was no longer about killing people but rendering them incapable of sustaining a fight. One can argue that all firearms post 1900 are no longer strictly speaking "designed to kill".)

How would you feel about laws against spreading hateful speech and messages? And would you feel this is against the first amendment?

Let's be real, the more you hear something that is negative and hateful, the more susceptible you can become to it.

Is it okay to put out internet blogs and youtube videos about gay people and saying they should die? Or you support a tragedy that has befallen them?

Its okay so long as its not a specific threat IMO. The UK has a law that allows hate speech to be prosecuted. Slippery slope IMO.

Are you suggesting Religion is a gun?

I think there are similarities for sure. Its all about the 1st and 2nd amendments after all.

religion is not to blame in the same respect that guns are not to blame. it's about potential and the user.

Are you suggesting "religion control" ?

religion is very often a mental illness. no matter what country.

Religion is not to blame. Its just an idea or a concept. Its how that idea or concept is used.

I am not wasting my time reading stuff to form an opinion

?

I, for one, am relieved all this gun knowledge makes the 49 murder victims okay now. Not a gun problem, just a lack of gun knowledge issue.

If a shooting victim doesn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine the bullet is much more damaging.

The discussion relates more to legislators not the victims.

Here is a lovely example of why gun knowledge is important when writing laws. This clip is only a few weeks old btw. The guy is either clueless or lying with every word he speaks.

No difference in these weapons none soever other than the looks.

Even with the paperwork it takes nothing short of an act of god.

A competition shooter would prefer the bottom one for accuracy of course. Guns like the min14 and their older brethern (m1 garand & m14) have bedding issues with age.

There is a bit of a joke about the m1 in that the more you take it apart the less accurate it is. Its due to the wooden stock stretching over time.