Repeal the Second Amendment

Restrict anything deemed a "right" based on an arbitrary lost with no due process whatsoever and you open the door to same for other rights.

― socka flocka-jones (man alive), Wednesday, June 15, 2016 1:28 PM (56 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^^ my fear too. Like I said yesterday, SCOTUS has said owning a handgun is a protected right. It would need an act of Congress amending it or SCOTUS to say otherwise. Elect Democrats to Congress and the White House if you want to make headway.

Not to mention you are kind of validating the "terror watch list" as a meaningful thing rather than just a crude investigatory tool.

What if we restricted access to guns based on a "communism watch list"?

"SCOTUS has said owning a handgun is a protected right."

it doesn't say how many though, right? how about just one!

i guess i just don't get why the right to own a gun has to mean a right to own ALL the guns.

"About three out of four household property crimes involving stolen firearms occurred in households headed by white non-Hispanic persons.
From 2005 through 2010, the majority of household burglaries (56 percent) or other property crimes (59 percent) involving stolen firearms occurred in the South."

"About 1.4 million firearms were stolen during household burglaries and other property crimes over the six-year period from 2005 through 2010, according to a report released today by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)."

at the very least, white southerners should be banned from owning guns because they apparently can't hide them well enough.

i'm kidding. don't shoot me, white southerners!

ok you guys have convinced me

xp

Careful, them's shootin' words.

whoa, I persuaded someone on the internet, crazy

I am susceptible to well-reasoned arguments based in precedent and evidence, unlike most of the American public

You're a flip flopper, is what you are! Socialist!

This Maddow segment goes into the possibility that the FBI could at least receive a special alert when someone who is or was on the terrorist watch list tries to buy a gun. They might then be able to check in on the person and see if there's been any other recent change in their patterns. I don't know if this happens to any extent already.

white house fact sheet has stuff on it. about things that would be good maybe. if you haven't read it. and if you want to see thru the eyes of a helpless president.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

This Maddow segment goes into the possibility that the FBI could at least receive a special alert when someone who is or was on the terrorist watch list tries to buy a gun. They might then be able to check in on the person and see if there's been any other recent change in their patterns. I don't know if this happens to any extent already.

― jmm, Wednesday, June 15, 2016 1:52 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This seems like less of a bad idea. I'm sure someone would raise a privacy challenge, but I think it would be easier to argue that there's a compelling reason for having the system, the burden is minimal, etc.

Right now I have no idea what kind of infrastructure is in place -- is there any kind of national or even state system that tracks who is buying guns/notified law enforcement when certain individuals buy guns?

the answer to that last question is on the fact sheet.

killer loophole by the way:

"The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions on sales of some of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. But because of outdated regulations, individuals have been able to avoid the background check requirement by applying to acquire these firearms and other items through trusts, corporations, and other legal entities. In fact, the number of these applications has increased significantly over the years—from fewer than 900 applications in the year 2000 to more than 90,000 applications in 2014."

Everything seems to be in order here. Carry on.

Good reminder that we also need reform of LLC anonymity.

so we aren't talking about the filibuster?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/sen-chris-murphy-starts-talking-filibuster-over-gun-control-224369

i guess what is there to say except it's a pleasant surprise to see democrats take a stand for anything

some good news

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/sen-chris-murphy-starts-talking-filibuster-over-gun-control-224369

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, June 15, 2016 10:00 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this happened after newton -- big legislative effort, blocked by the usual fuckers.

we need a new supreme court majority.

if the supreme court were more amenable to gun control, states and municipalities could pass their own restrictions and not see them overturned.

Clint Smith just tweeted this:

Clint Smith ‏@ClintSmithIII 17 min.17 minutter siden
To place gun ownership in historical context, it's worth noting that the Second Amendment was ratified in large part to preserve slavery.

Clint Smith ‏@ClintSmithIII 15 min.15 minutter siden
Slavery could only be maintained in a police state & in many states men were required to serve in armed militias to prevent slave uprisings.

and uprisings by meddlesome peasants like Shays Rebellion

and to keep what was left of the Native American population in line.

xxpost that sounds like an oversimplification. the militias were also preserved to avoid the need for a large permanent standing army, which most of the framers were opposed to.

all these articles coming out today about ppl going into gun shops and buying AR 15's in 5 minutes are just O_O

also they're like 1200 bucks!! that's a lot of money for a useless death machine.

you could have so much more power just saving that money for rent or w/e. people are so fuckin hateful and stupid.

The usual point I see in these articles is that booms in sales after major shootings come in response to the fear of a crackdown, but is that the major factor? It isn't that a shooting is incredible advertising for what a gun can do?

i'd like to believe that only a minuscule percentage of our population is getting excited by the number of civilian casualties the AR 15 can inflict in a small space in a short period of time and rushing out to buy it on that recommendation. i may be wrong but if i am i don't want to know it.

I've worked around construction workers and oil men for over 15 years now and I hear garbage all day every day. Usually I'm able to steer the conversation somewhere else or just tune out. But now after what has happened, the Homophobia, racism, and gun talk has been raised to a level that for me is unbearable. I almost yelled at one guy today. But it's everywhere at work, coworkers on Facebook, all day at work. Today a guy had to leave early so he could go purchase more AR-15s. He already owns more than one, he is buying more! If anything, on a very basic human level, as parent, there is no excuse for not feeling sympathy for what happened and to desire change. I cried sunday feeling exhausted with how heartless this all feels to me. Sorry to interrupt this thread, I don't have much to add to gun regulation except that I feel hopeless knowing so many avid gun owners.

I feel like you go to a store to defiantly buy an AR-15 simply to flout your right to have one after a mass shooting where 49 people died and people's emotions are raw....that you're pretty much a rotten piece of shit

like I mean if your whole reason for going out and getting em is 'FUCK THEY'RE TAKIN MY GUNS' y'know maybe save your tone-deaf protest for a later time like after people have had a chance to bury their dead.

even if nobody knows you bought it, it's like - good on you, you wasted more money on a horrible instrument.

i'm sorry you have to work with thugs, jacob.

Is this thread googleable?

I'm sure we could make it ungoogleable if it isn't

can you call them on that shit or are they gonna throw you down an oil well if you do? because sometimes a little cold water on racist/dumbass talk is a really effective deflation device. you would be surprised how how often tough talk crumbles if you put a few incredulous questions out there. but i don't want you to get thrown down an oil well.

some people are obviously impervious to questioning/logic/argument though.

hugs to you, jake

The worse that could happen would be losing my job or being blacklisted from my line of work. I honestly care about what I do, it's constructive and I'm very good at quality control/inspection. But man, it has it's price.

it's kinda like being in the military. or being a cop in a lot of places. i dunno, ultimately it's up to you and how much you can take. i mean you've been doing that kinda work for a while, right?

Is this thread googleable?

― JacobSanders, Wednesday, June 15, 2016 10:27 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I've deindexed the thread, but it may take a few days for it to filter out of search results. From a few cursory searches using combinations of your name and gun-related keywords though, this thread doesn't turn up in the first few pages. Hope it helps, anyway.

woo just saw the news: https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/743320464408248325

Good analysis of the "quiet" pro gun control trend in federal courts.
http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2016/06/13/federal-courts-are-quietly-allowing-gun-control-and-scotus-is-letting-them/

estrict anything deemed a "right" based on an arbitrary lost with no due process whatsoever and you open the door to same for other rights.

There's no right to board commercial flights. Nor have the Federal courts supported an individual right to possess firearms.

I don't have a problem with repeat visitors to the ISIS web magazine <i>Dabiq</i> being placed on anti-terror watchlists. I do recognize the slippery slope of curtailing freedom of speech by making readers fearful of accessing controversial viewpoints. I'd draw the line at websites advocating violence, for example, those with "assassination lists" of abortion providers. And provide some means for individuals to appeal their placement. Journalists, for example, should be able to visit <i>Dabiq</i> without repercussions.

Nor have the Federal courts supported an individual right to possess firearms.

There's this obscure federal court you might want to check out called the Supreme Court

I would 1000% rather have domestic violence abusers unable to buy firearms than people on the FBI watch list, in whatever form that takes (which they can neither confirm nor deny).

Also p sure even the constitutionality of the no-fly list is an open question.