Las Vegas Shooting

[Tugg Speedman]

What you post above 100% proves you wrong, just like everyone is saying.  It confirms these companies were legitimate companies, that circumvented a poorly written law by producing weapons on US soil, instead of importing them.  What it says is that laws need to be written properly, if the law said that such substandard cheap weapons were illegal period, these companies would have never been created.  Saturday Night Specials would not have been produced and sold in the US. 

So why wasn't the law written that way?  The same reason why, after these new legitimate companies products became problems, laws like requiring the weapon to survive 1000 degrees celsius were shut down.  And why laws to ban such weapons entirely, failed...The NRA donated massive amounts of money, had concerts and massive campaigns to shut down any legislation that tried to restrict the manufacture and sale o "saturday night specials."

These were not rogue operations.  They were legitimate companies, that were registered, that tested the weapons to certify they met existing standards.  They were the subject of numerous lawsuits related to the poor quality of their legitimate weapons. 

If they were illegitimate companies, why not shut them down instead of suing them in open court...or creating new laws to outlaw it.  Why would you need new laws to shut down illegal rogue operations?

Finally, it is sad that you cannot ever admit how incredibly wrong you are.  You also have to flat out invent attacks on people.  Never once have I said that corporations are immoral.  But you invent that attack, while defending your position with information that proves you wrong.  That is pretty special.

First you say ...

these companies were legitimate companies, that circumvented a poorly written law by producing weapons on US soil, instead of importing them.

and then you said ...

They were legitimate companies, that were registered, that tested the weapons to certify they met existing standards


How can they be both circumvented a poorly written and also registered, that tested the weapons to certify they met existing standards

The ATF does not test or certify individual guns.  It does MANUFACTURERS but with lots of loopholes so many fall outside their regulation, including many SNS manufacturers.  It does register buyers (individuals) and sellers (gun shops).  SNS manufactiers got around this by selling to pawn shops.

I understand you equal "corporation" with "immoral" and need to put these companies on the same level as Remington and Smith & Wesson so you can then tar all of them with the same brush.

And regarding homemade guns, they have been used in mass shootings as this article details.

Homemade guns exploit gun law loophole
Homemade guns exploit gun law loophole

And my point in all of this is if you try and ban a certain type of gun, a black market will immediately develop and that gun will not go away.

We banned the import of cheap pistols in 1968 and immediately Saturday Night Special manufacturers popped up so effectively nothing changed.

[Jockey]

lol

Goalpost shifted.  Noted.


Heisy:  "Completely wrong ... gun free zone means what the word says, no cops, security guards or any other type of gun ... period."

Sultan:  "But seriously, you think that police can't bring guns into something marked as a "gun free zone?"  With few exceptions, police can bring a gun wherever they want."

Heisy:  "Of course they can."

We all know he does this on a daily basis.

[Tugg Speedman]

Throughout the 21 pages of this thread, I have asked what are these "common sense" and "no-brainer" gun laws that everyone agrees upon and should be done.

Instead, I get the typical virtol, moral superiority and ad hominem attacks that so often come from anyone that does not share the worldview around here.  One even admitted he cannot read anything that he disagrees with and prefers to not understand the counter argument and would rather scream at the person disagreeing with him.

So I will ask one last time.

 Please bullet point all these "common sense" and "no-brainer" gun laws we need to do.

Me thinks you are afraid because you will get a reasonable argument against it and then instead of trying to understand them, you will continue you unrelenting attacks against people that do not agree with you in hopes of bludgeoning them into submission.

[forgetful]

First you say ...

these companies were legitimate companies, that circumvented a poorly written law by producing weapons on US soil, instead of importing them.

and then you said ...

They were legitimate companies, that were registered, that tested the weapons to certify they met existing standards


How can they be both circumvented a poorly written and also registered, that tested the weapons to certify they met existing standards

The ATF does not test or certify individual guns.  It does MANUFACTURERS but with lots of loopholes so many fall outside their regulation, including many SNS manufacturers.  It does register buyers (individuals) and sellers (gun shops).  SNS manufactiers got around this by selling to pawn shops.

I understand you equal "corporation" with "immoral" and need to put these companies on the same level as Remington and Smith & Wesson so you can then tar all of them with the same brush.

And regarding homemade guns, they have been used in mass shootings as this article details.

Homemade guns exploit gun law loophole
Homemade guns exploit gun law loophole

And my point in all of this is if you try and ban a certain type of gun, a black market will immediately develop and that gun will not go away.

We banned the import of cheap pistols in 1968 and immediately Saturday Night Special manufacturers popped up so effectively nothing changed.

Easy.  The law banned the import of such weapons.  The people that owned the foreign companies moved shop to the US.  So they could legally manufacture and sell the weapons in the US. 

They circumvented the law meant to outlaw the weapons by making them on US soil. 

Nothing illegal.  Are you that dense that you cannot understand simple words and business principles? 

I'll repeat.  If they were illegal, and the companies making them illegal.  Why was there a massive effort to make them illegal and pass new gun laws to restrict their manufacture and sale?  Why did the NRA spend millions to fight against these new laws if they were already illegal?  Again, are you really that dense?

[ATL MU Warrior]

Easy.  The law banned the import of such weapons.  The people that owned the foreign companies moved shop to the US.  So they could legally manufacture and sell the weapons in the US. 

They circumvented the law meant to outlaw the weapons by making them on US soil. 

Nothing illegal.  Are you that dense that you cannot understand simple words and business principles? 

I'll repeat.  If they were illegal, and the companies making them illegal.  Why was there a massive effort to make them illegal and pass new gun laws to restrict their manufacture and sale?  Why did the NRA spend millions to fight against these new laws if they were already illegal?  Again, are you really that dense?

Let me help you out because you will never ever get a straight answer from him.

Yes, he is.

[MU82]

Interesting (and I think spot-on) column in the Washington Post this week. Basic upshot is that Jesus wouldn't want Christians to be content giving "thoughts and prayers" after every shooting.

Jesuit priest James Martin summed it up to me this way: “If your thoughts and prayers are truly with somebody, it means you are going to do something to help them. Jesus prayed. But he prays and then he acts. We also have to act.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/10/03/why-thoughts-and-prayers-is-starting-to-sound-so-profane/?utm_term=.d1570a1d7a4d

I especially liked this paragraph:

Strangely, when it comes to other issues these same Christians don’t feign helplessness and limit solutions to “thoughts and prayers.” If the shooter in Las Vegas had been named Mohammed, you can be sure that these same leaders would be offering a laundry list of “solutions” to keep more Mohammeds out of America. For that matter, have you ever seen a politician just throw up his or her hands about legalized abortion — which has been the law of the land for 40 years — and say there is nothing that can be done, but “thoughts and prayers” all around?

[GooooMarquette]

see, this is the intolerance of people like you that is disgusting.  as i told naginif-i can respect his opinion, just not agree with it.  am i "disgusted" by it?  not in the least.  i understand that there will be people who don't think like me.  if i didn't, that would be unreasonable and i'm a pretty reasonable guy.  it wold also be narcissistic.

   as for your disgust-i hope you're gonna be alright.  but for you "not getting it?  either you missed the last paragraph or you think a little too highly of yourself and your opinions.  but check it out-it's worked on a lot worse

So you're disgusted that he said he's disgusted?  Just trying to keep track....

[GooooMarquette]

Throughout the 21 pages of this thread, I have asked what are these "common sense" and "no-brainer" gun laws that everyone agrees upon and should be done.

Instead, I get the typical virtol, moral superiority and ad hominem attacks that so often come from anyone that does not share the worldview around here.  One even admitted he cannot read anything that he disagrees with and prefers to not understand the counter argument and would rather scream at the person disagreeing with him.

So I will ask one last time.

 Please bullet point all these "common sense" and "no-brainer" gun laws we need to do.

Me thinks you are afraid because you will get a reasonable argument against it and then instead of trying to understand them, you will continue you unrelenting attacks against people that do not agree with you in hopes of bludgeoning them into submission.

Look back at my posts a few pages back.  I suggested a few common-sense restrictions, and you insulted me by saying I didn't know what I was talking about...and then made the absurd claim that the average life of a gun is 145 years.  And you further told me what I really want - a total ban on all guns - which I have categorically said isn't my goal.  Telling others what they want is the height of arrogance and ignorance.

You have a keen sense of irony - accusing people of ad hominem attacks when you regularly use them yourself.

[rocket surgeon]

So you're disgusted that he said he's disgusted?  Just trying to keep track....

swingggha and.... a miss
 
   the intolerance of opposing viewpoints is disgusting-respect my good man, respect. 

  for those of you in rio linda-
     "am i "disgusted" by it?  not in the least." 

  now, back to your regularly scheduled channels

[Tugg Speedman]

Look back at my posts a few pages back.  I suggested a few common-sense restrictions, and you insulted me by saying I didn't know what I was talking about...and then made the absurd claim that the average life of a gun is 145 years.  And you further told me what I really want - a total ban on all guns - which I have categorically said isn't my goal.  Telling others what they want is the height of arrogance and ignorance.

You have a keen sense of irony - accusing people of ad hominem attacks when you regularly use them yourself.

If that’s what you lefties truly think passes for sensible gun regulation, this.  Is why there’s never any common ground and never any gun regulation.

I have a sensible idea that everybody can agree ... let’s ban all abortions after conception.    You essentially are you the same thing when it comes to guns

[brewcity77]

Throughout the 21 pages of this thread, I have asked what are these "common sense" and "no-brainer" gun laws that everyone agrees upon and should be done.

Instead, I get the typical virtol, moral superiority and ad hominem attacks that so often come from anyone that does not share the worldview around here.  One even admitted he cannot read anything that he disagrees with and prefers to not understand the counter argument and would rather scream at the person disagreeing with him.

So I will ask one last time.

 Please bullet point all these "common sense" and "no-brainer" gun laws we need to do.

Me thinks you are afraid because you will get a reasonable argument against it and then instead of trying to understand them, you will continue you unrelenting attacks against people that do not agree with you in hopes of bludgeoning them into submission.

Common-sense, no-brainers?

• No gun sales to the mentally ill
• No gun sales to people on no-fly lists
• No gun sales to people on terror watchlists
• Background checks for all guns, including private sales or gun shows
• Banning assault weapons
• Tracking individual sales so when someone suddenly buys 33 guns in a year it triggers some alerts

Personally, however, I am for actually enforcing the Second Amendment. It reads the following:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

First and foremost, the Second Amendment as written ONLY applies to maintain a well-regulated militia. If you want gun ownership, you need to be an active member of their state's National Guard (not to be confused with the United States National Guard). States would be responsible for management, regular training sessions which must be attended, determining when to call them to active duty, and they would report to the governor. This would be a fully voluntary organization.

If you are not a member of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does NOT grant any right to bear arms. If you are a member of a militia that steps down, misses trainings, or violates a designated code of conduct, your membership (and thus any gun ownership rights) are immediately stripped.

This is all about the Constitution. It does not grant some unlimited access to firearms. It grants ownership rights for the express purpose of maintaining a WELL-ORGANIZED militia. That's it. Not for sport, not for collecting, but to maintain a militia.

[WarriorInNYC]

Common-sense, no-brainers?

• No gun sales to the mentally ill
• No gun sales to people on no-fly lists
• No gun sales to people on terror watchlists
• Background checks for all guns, including private sales or gun shows
• Banning assault weapons
• Tracking individual sales so when someone suddenly buys 33 guns in a year it triggers some alerts

Yup, I know you replied to one of my earlier posts and asked for it.  Instead of re-typing it all out, I'll just quote this.

I will add (because I know you're going to go there), that there would need to be some definitions around "assault weapons" in regards to fire rate, magazine capacity, and power.

[WarriorInNYC]

First you say ...

these companies were legitimate companies, that circumvented a poorly written law by producing weapons on US soil, instead of importing them.

and then you said ...

They were legitimate companies, that were registered, that tested the weapons to certify they met existing standards


How can they be both circumvented a poorly written and also registered, that tested the weapons to certify they met existing standards

The ATF does not test or certify individual guns.  It does MANUFACTURERS but with lots of loopholes so many fall outside their regulation, including many SNS manufacturers.  It does register buyers (individuals) and sellers (gun shops).  SNS manufactiers got around this by selling to pawn shops.

I understand you equal "corporation" with "immoral" and need to put these companies on the same level as Remington and Smith & Wesson so you can then tar all of them with the same brush.

And regarding homemade guns, they have been used in mass shootings as this article details.

Homemade guns exploit gun law loophole
Homemade guns exploit gun law loophole

And my point in all of this is if you try and ban a certain type of gun, a black market will immediately develop and that gun will not go away.

We banned the import of cheap pistols in 1968 and immediately Saturday Night Special manufacturers popped up so effectively nothing changed.

Looks like the article you included isn't linked at all.  There's nothing there.

In regards to this previous claim for which we asked support for:

You have no idea how easy it is to make a gun.  And in some gang neighborhoods, you don't buy a handgun, you buy them by the crate for as little as $10/each.  They are made in illegal tool and die shops here and especially in Mexico (and smuggled in by the drug runners).  Where do you think the really bad Nacros/Breaking Bad types get their automatic weapons?  They are manufactured in foreign countries by illegitimate outfits.  Why?  Becuase the technology is very easy to reproduce.

The only support provided was around actual gun manufacturers making guns.

So I will go ahead and say that this previous statement is quite a ridiculous hyperbole:

And since a Gun is 140 year old technology, and tens of thousands that passed a machine shop class in high school and can find their local Home Depot, they are capable of manufacturing a semi-automatic in their basement, we will have an active black market in guns for centuries.

You want to start a national registry of blue collar workers?  Every mechanic, plumber, welder, etc possesses the skill and knowledge to make a gun.  Should we restrict and regulate their activities?

[GooooMarquette]

If that’s what you lefties truly think passes for sensible gun regulation, this.  Is why there’s never any common ground and never any gun regulation.

I have a sensible idea that everybody can agree ... let’s ban all abortions after conception.    You essentially are you the same thing when it comes to guns

First you say there are no suggestions, then you change course and say there were no "sensible" ones...with you presumably being the sole oracle on sensibility.  Talk about more irony - at least you're really good at that. 

And you are again showing your stupidity by referring to me as a "lefty."  This "lefty" has voted in 10 presidential elections... and 8 of my votes were for Republicans.  (Hint:  the current Dotard in Chief was not one of them.)  I just have enough common sense to view each candidate and issue separately instead of blindly checking off every box on one party's platform.  And I allow my opinions to change as facts and circumstances warrant.  You, on the other hand, will likely go to your grave with the same stupid notion you had about guns when your dad gave you your pistol at 12.  Grow up.

[naginiF]

Highlighted is exactly the problem ... you made up your mind and will literally stop reading when something might go against your worldview.  You have your conclusions and either we agree with you or you, and others like you, will yell and yell until you bludgeon opposing views into submission.

And no I do not find the level of violence acceptable.  But unlike you, I'm searching for a real answer not screaming until some meaningless law is passed designed to just make you feel better and superior to those that disagree with you.

Character revealed

Yikes!  Your inability to concede even the smallest point in most arguments is weird, your inability to even acknowledge another perspective in this grave situation is just a crapty world approach. 

I need to go back through the records but i think i had a reasonable exchange of differing perspectives with Rocket on this topic (props to him btw).  I don't think we could differ more on the ultimate solution, but we (mostly) agreed that there is a complex issue that needs to be addressed and that's a start.  If you want to further your position you should take a similar approach.  If you think being a complete ass will further your position.....keep on, keep'n on.

Edit: Tip o' the cap to the mods on the 'crapty' auto correct. 

[GooooMarquette]

Yikes!  Your inability to concede even the smallest point in most arguments is weird, your inability to even acknowledge another perspective in this grave situation is just a crapty world approach. 

I need to go back through the records but i think i had a reasonable exchange of differing perspectives with Rocket on this topic (props to him btw).  I don't think we could differ more on the ultimate solution, but we (mostly) agreed that there is a complex issue that needs to be addressed and that's a start.  If you want to further your position you should take a similar approach.  If you think being a complete ass will further your position.....keep on, keep'n on.

Well stated.  His opinion is rigid and absolute...with any proposal immediately dismissed as "not sensible."

[Tugg Speedman]

Brew, serious responses in blue, general comment below.
Look forward to any rebuttals, and ad hominems that will naturally come with it.

Common-sense, no-brainers?

• No gun sales to the mentally ill

This is already the law.  I agree it is a good law.  The one issue here, what is the definition of mentally ill?  If I visit a psychiatrist?  Take certain medications?  Have a family history?  What is the due process?

On this issue even the ACLU sides with the NRA and why Trump signed an executive order giving the mentally ill due process in buying a gun.  Again, because there is no real definition of "Mentally Ill."  Hillary is making the rounds saying Trump "wants mentally ill people to buy guns.  No, he wants due process for people accused of being mentally ill, and the ACLU agrees with him.

Forget guns, once you get on this list can employers and landlords look up these names and deny these people because a government list labeled them mentally ill?  Do we really want the Government labeling its citizens in this manner?  A very slippery slope.  Further such a list a ripe for huge abuses by the government.  Will the "righties" want people that attempted suicide and had abortions on this list, and then landlords and employers look at it? (the list doesn't say why, HIPA prevents that information to be made public.  It only says you're mentally ill).  Will the "lefties" abuse this by putting hate speech on the list?  Cam Newton, congratulations, you are now mentally ill.  Please turn in all your guns!

• No gun sales to people on no-fly lists

Good idea but one problem ... this list is a mess.  names go on for lots of reason, very inconsistent and no due process.  So once it is fixed, yes.

• No gun sales to people on terror watchlists

see no-fly comment.

• Background checks for all guns, including private sales or gun shows

I think this is a good idea but has some big issues.  With 300 million guns, first, you would have to register every gun in the country.  Maybe a third or more do not even have serial numbers.  The Government cannot fix the no-fly list, voter registration, cannot fix air traffic control ... it cannot even maintain a list of those with firearms licenses.  The Government has proven largely incapable of doing these kinds of lists effectively.  So beyond costing tens of billions of dollars, most admit such an undertaking by the government is all but impossible. 

And there are some that do not want this to happen for a very practical reason.  Once the government has a list of guns, it has to be public.  Bad people can look up your address and see if you are unarmed.  See my post above about the map posted after Sandy Hook. Ditto the mentally ill list. 

Without such a list, how does one even know if there has been a private sale?  It is not recorded anywhere.  When a husband dies, does the wife have to go through a background check if he owns guns?  Do your kids?  Again, until you can figure out a way to register 300 million guns, this will remain a good idea that cannot be done.

• Banning assault weapons

You do know we banned assault weapons in 1994.  Then we repealed it in 2004.  Why?  Because "assault weapon" is a made up term.  It has no definition.  After 10 years of trying and failing to define them, the Government repealed the law because of its futility.

So define an assault weapon ... bearing in mind legal minds on both sides of this issue struggled with this for a decade and could not come up with one.

• Tracking individual sales so when someone suddenly buys 33 guns in a year it triggers some alerts.

There are plenty of reasons someone would buy a lot of guns.  If they are a gun dealer for one.  A collector for another.  An avid sportsman for a third.  Guns are like tools, they come in many shapes and sizes each for a different purpose so hobbyist and professional will own lots of guns so they can use the tool that fits the situation.

Regarding Vegas, as noted above, we still cannot figure out what the motivate was.  As also noted above, this guy owned 5 houses and made $5 million in 2015 alone.  He traveled the world on cruises.

So, when the FBI is asked to investigate a millionaire with five houses and no real police record as to why he bought 33 guns in a year, they are going to find nothing.  Also, he did not use 33 guns in the shooting.  From what I read, it is anywhere between 2 and 5.  Buying lots of guns has no correlation with committing violent crimes.

So, sure go ahead and ask why people bought so many guns.  99% of the time nothing will come of it.  Go through all the shootings you hope to stop and you will find it will have stopped none of them with this rule.

Waste of resources better deployed elsewhere.
[/list]

So, in the end ... you listed existing laws, laws that have been tried, things that cannot be done for practical reasons and things that will not really matter.

This is the problem with this argument ... the demand to do ineffective things by calling it "common sense."

[brewcity77]

Brew, serious responses in blue, general comment below.
Look forward to any rebuttals, and ad hominems that will naturally come with it.

So, in the end ... you listed existing laws, laws that have been tried, things that cannot be done for practical reasons and things that will not really matter.

This is the problem with this argument ... the demand to do ineffective things by calling it "common sense."

Except 45 just pulled back the restrictions on the mentally ill. People that do not have the capacity to manage their affairs because of a mental disorder. I'm sorry, but this one is damn personal to me. I have a friend who committed suicide using a gun she bought legally. She had a long history of suicide attempts, all documented by physicians. She had a history of being in psych wards, both voluntary and involuntary. You cite HIPAA, but nothing on a generated list would need to list a reason. All that would be needed would be a portion of the mandatory background check with a flag that comes back denying the purchase. The dealer doesn't need to know why, but there are people out there who should not be allowed to purchase firearms and deliberate actions by this administration have altered who can and cannot make such purchases.

Who cares is the list is a mess? If you are on either list, you don't get to buy guns. If you shouldn't be on the list, take legal action to fix it. Otherwise, we as a society are safer when the people that are accurately on these lists cannot purchase guns. If some people have to wait or take legal recourse to get off the list, so be it.

And every time, we get the "big issues" and discourse about how difficult it would be. Screw that. Difficult isn't a reason to not do something, especially when we are having more than one mass shooting a day in this country for the past year and a half. And yes, every single gun should have a serial number and documentation. And it should be on record. We already know that guns created without serial numbers are illegal weapons, so why on earth would any honest American NOT support this? Begin the process with currently known serial numbers, then allow gun owners 90 days to register any guns that do not currently have serial numbers. If these guns are discovered after the 90-day grace period, possession of such weapons is a felony. Allow people to come forward in the future in the event they buy such a weapon and discover it is unlicensed, but if the police are the ones that find it, seizure of the illegal weapon and felony charges.

My assault rifle definition would likely be far more encompassing than most would like. But creating a definition should be one handled by the legal system and the courts, not lobbyists or the NRA. WarriorInNYC covered many of the main topics that would need to be addressed, but it does need to be addressed. Including a specific definition.

This all comes back to the Second Amendment. Nowhere does the Second Amendment make a provision for collectors or sportsmen. Per the Second Amendment, neither of those are valid reasons for gun ownership. The only reason for gun ownership is to maintain a well-organized militia. That is it.

So again I go back to the portion of my post you ignored. If you want to be a gun owner, you must be a voluntary member of your state's National Guard. You must go through training and routinely drill, per the Militia Act of 1903. This right only exists to insure a free state, and it exists for exactly zero other reasons. If at any point your service is terminated, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, so are your rights to bear arms. The Second Amendment is about preserving freedom, not stockpiling enough ammunition and firepower to start your own Jihad.

And strictly adhering to the Second Amendment and the Militia Act would allow the states to determine which weapons are issued to their members, thus getting us past the problem of "what is an assault rifle"? Militia members are allowed only what the state is willing to sell them. My personal thought is it should be one standardized rifle and one standardized pistol/sidearm.

All other guns in the country would be banned. Possession (like above) would be a felony with a grace period to turn them in or to have currently held firearms approved by your state Militia upon approval of application to said agency.

[jficke13]

...

Who cares is the list is a mess? If you are on either list, you don't get to buy guns. If you shouldn't be on the list, take legal action to fix it. Otherwise, we as a society are safer when the people that are accurately on these lists cannot purchase guns. If some people have to wait or take legal recourse to get off the list, so be it.

...

The problem is that there is no due process procedure surrounding the no-fly list. It's an arbitrary prohibition on flying that routinely gets people listed who share a name with a bad actor or typos, or children, or legendary civil rights activists that are current members of Congress.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/no-fly-mistakes-cat-stevens-ted-kennedy-john-lewis/index.html

Do we want to strip a civil right from people using the same level of due process that gets an 18 month old on a no-fly list and then removed from a plane? Using the no-fly list as a no-gun list isn't a new idea, and the flaws then exist now. Why everyone is so hurry to give away their due process rights will never make sense to me.

And as for "If you shouldn't be on the list, take legal action to fix it." Well... uh... there's not much legal action to take.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-if-you-think-youre-no-fly-list

The ACLU describes the process as "constitutionally-inadequate" and basically you shoot off letter appeals to anonymous bureaucrats who don't have to provide you with any evidence as to why you're on the list in the first place, so hopefully whatever you cite as why you shouldn't be on addresses their concerns.

[Tugg Speedman]

Except 45 just pulled back the restrictions on the mentally ill. People that do not have the capacity to manage their affairs because of a mental disorder. I'm sorry, but this one is damn personal to me. I have a friend who committed suicide using a gun she bought legally. She had a long history of suicide attempts, all documented by physicians. She had a history of being in psych wards, both voluntary and involuntary. You cite HIPAA, but nothing on a generated list would need to list a reason. All that would be needed would be a portion of the mandatory background check with a flag that comes back denying the purchase. The dealer doesn't need to know why, but there are people out there who should not be allowed to purchase firearms and deliberate actions by this administration have altered who can and cannot make such purchases.

Again we are arguing about a law that exists that we both in agreement that it is a good idea.  But you want to demonize to bludgeon critics into silence.

Now, your description is wrong.,  He did not change the law.  He offered a certain narrowly defined group due process in the gun buying process.  It affects about 75,000 people out of 4.6 million that are on this list.

Here is that dangerous radical group the ACLU arguing in favor of this change.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair

If we want to move forward with gun laws we have to stop the inaccurate Jimmy Kimmel talking points.

Finally, I'm sorry about your friend.  I too know people that committed suicide with a gun.  But the gun was not the problem, their mental illness was.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide

There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world.  According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.:  Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000.  By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.   

Suicide is a mental health issue.  If guns are not available other means are used.  Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%).

Who cares is the list is a mess? If you are on either list, you don't get to buy guns. If you shouldn't be on the list, take legal action to fix it. Otherwise, we as a society are safer when the people that are accurately on these lists cannot purchase guns. If some people have to wait or take legal recourse to get off the list, so be it.

So throw the constitution away.  Who cares about liberty and rights, if names wind up on a list, you cannot buy an airplane ticket, period, no exceptions.  And while we're at it, let's deny them a gun.  Again, I'm in favor of this once we fix the list.

You gave me an anecdote, I'll give you one.  I l know a woman named Susan Johnson.  She was on the no-fly list.  Why?  Becuase some women named Susan Johnson was connected with terrorism so every woman named Susan Johnson was put on the list.  This is how you want your government to operate.

Again, the ACLU thinks this list is an injustice
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/no-fly-list-grows-along-injustice-those-wrongly-stuck-it

And the liberal 538 blog says it will not matter anyway
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-problems-with-using-the-terrorist-watch-list-to-ban-gun-sales/

So again, fix the list and I'll go for this.  Until then it is just a random violation of constitutional rights that does nothing to reduce gun violence.

And every time, we get the "big issues" and discourse about how difficult it would be. Screw that. Difficult isn't a reason to not do something, especially when we are having more than one mass shooting a day in this country for the past year and a half. And yes, every single gun should have a serial number and documentation. And it should be on record. We already know that guns created without serial numbers are illegal weapons, so why on earth would any honest American NOT support this? Begin the process with currently known serial numbers, then allow gun owners 90 days to register any guns that do not currently have serial numbers. If these guns are discovered after the 90-day grace period, possession of such weapons is a felony. Allow people to come forward in the future in the event they buy such a weapon and discover it is unlicensed, but if the police are the ones that find it, seizure of the illegal weapon and felony charges.

This the emotional part of the ranting ... "I don't care, get it done!! I made up so parameters around 90 days, do that!!!

A far more liberal country tried with rifles and gave up, it was impossible.  You may have heard of it

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#4d7b37475a1b

My assault rifle definition would likely be far more encompassing than most would like. But creating a definition should be one handled by the legal system and the courts, not lobbyists or the NRA. WarriorInNYC covered many of the main topics that would need to be addressed, but it does need to be addressed. Including a specific definition.

What is your definition of an assault rifle?  Apparently, you have one.  Is it semi-automatic ... suggesting you don't fully understand what the word means and what banning semi-automatic guns means (goo surely doesn't get it).

This all comes back to the Second Amendment. Nowhere does the Second Amendment make a provision for collectors or sportsmen. Per the Second Amendment, neither of those are valid reasons for gun ownership. The only reason for gun ownership is to maintain a well-organized militia. That is it.

The Constitution tells the government what it cannot do, not what it can do.  The second amendment says it cannot restrict a well-regulated militia (which includes guns).  Just because it does not say something does not mean it is illegal.  Please re-take 8th-grade government.

So again I go back to the portion of my post you ignored. If you want to be a gun owner, you must be a voluntary member of your state's National Guard. You must go through training and routinely drill, per the Militia Act of 1903. This right only exists to insure a free state, and it exists for exactly zero other reasons. If at any point your service is terminated, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, so are your rights to bear arms. The Second Amendment is about preserving freedom, not stockpiling enough ammunition and firepower to start your own Jihad.

This is not what the Militia act of 1903 is about.  Unless we are no longer a nation of laws, you cannot google something that sounds relevant and pretend that you can apply it as you did above.  Why not use the Housing Act of 1965 if you're making up regulations?

And when you googling you discover we also have a Militia Act of 1908, the National Defense Act of 1916, the National Defense Act of 1920, and the National Defense Act Amendments of 1933 ... you cannot pretend that those too mean that the government can "see" a law in them that says every gun owner must be a member of the national guard.

Related question ... If you are so insistent on this, would you be in favor of mandatory military service for everyone between 18 to 20, like Isreal?  That way we can give everyone two years of proper gun training.

And strictly adhering to the Second Amendment and the Militia Act would allow the states to determine which weapons are issued to their members, thus getting us past the problem of "what is an assault rifle"? Militia members are allowed only what the state is willing to sell them. My personal thought is it should be one standardized rifle and one standardized pistol/sidearm.

All other guns in the country would be banned. Possession (like above) would be a felony with a grace period to turn them in or to have currently held firearms approved by your state Militia upon approval of application to said agency.

See this gets at what is all the "sensible" and "common sense" laws stuff is really about.  You want a total ban on all guns.  You are willing to violate constitutional rights to get rid of them.  You are willing to have the government use violence against it citizen to accomplish these goals.  Of course, you will flame me for saying this but it is painfully obvious this is your endgame (as it is what all the anti-gun loudmouths here).

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Saconstitutional neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin

[MU82]

First you say there are no suggestions, then you change course and say there were no "sensible" ones...with you presumably being the sole oracle on sensibility.  Talk about more irony - at least you're really good at that. 

And you are again showing your stupidity by referring to me as a "lefty."  This "lefty" has voted in 10 presidential elections... and 8 of my votes were for Republicans.  (Hint:  the current Dotard in Chief was not one of them.)  I just have enough common sense to view each candidate and issue separately instead of blindly checking off every box on one party's platform.  And I allow my opinions to change as facts and circumstances warrant.  You, on the other hand, will likely go to your grave with the same stupid notion you had about guns when your dad gave you your pistol at 12.  Grow up.

Yep, GM, like you, brew and others, I also provided a list. Smuggles and his ilk choose to ignore them, move the goalposts, pontificate, cite meaningless statistics - and offer nothing themselves.

Smuggles then takes it one step further by continuing to go with the "maybe Paddock was working for ISIS" story line ... because it's a lot easier to accept that than the fact that a rich white guy just starting shooting people. Not sure why. The vast majority of terrorist acts in this country have been perpetrated by white male d-bags.

As the columnist I mentioned in my earlier post said: If the shooter in Las Vegas had been named Mohammed, you can be sure that these same leaders would be offering a laundry list of “solutions” to keep more Mohammeds out of America.

But OK ... let's play. What if Paddock WAS an ISIS "agent" or sympathizer? So? How does anything proposed by any of the right-wing extremists or con-man political opportunists (Trump fits in the latter category) keep the next American ISIS Dude from doing exactly what he did?

Travel ban from Mesquite to Vegas? Build a wall around St. George, Utah?

[forgetful]

But OK ... let's play. What if Paddock WAS an ISIS "agent" or sympathizer? So? How does anything proposed by any of the right-wing extremists or con-man political opportunists (Trump fits in the latter category) keep the next American ISIS Dude from doing exactly what he did?

Travel ban from Mesquite to Vegas? Build a wall around St. George, Utah?

These are good points.  Heisy's defense against many suggestions is there are flaws in the design that may render them less effective or burdensome. 

But he was a supporter of the travel ban, which has immense flaws and would not be stopping the actual terrorist acts in the US.

He was a supporter of the border wall, that will not affect drug/weapons smuggling into the US (already going through tunnels or the air), nor illegal immigration (also traveling through the air, or legally across the border as tourists then staying too long).  For all his pet projects, he ignores far more extensive and documented flaws than he mentions for gun control. 

Disallowing the purchase of firearms for the mentally ill is a common sense idea.  The definitions can be developed to make sure it is very specific, like was required for the partial-birth abortion ban to be constitutional. 

Requiring background checks for all sales, including at gunshots is a common sense idea.  Not difficult to implement.  And make the charges for violating the law immense, like was done with crack instead of coke.

Tracking all sales and having mandatory investigations for purchasing large quantities of guns in a short amount of time is an obvious law.  We track sudaphedrine, we can track guns.  Heisy's explanations for why this is too hard does not make sense.  It is easy to exempt licensed gun dealers from this, besides licensed gun dealers, no one has a need to buy 33 guns in a year.  It infringes on no one. 

On the licensed gun dealers side, make it illegal and heavily punished (see above) to sell a weapon if you are not a licensed gun dealer.  If I can a prescription for opioids and then sell them to a friend, I'm breaking the law.  It should be the same with guns, period.  Infringes on no ones constitutional rights. 

This is from a gun owner and defender of the 2nd amendment. 

[jficke13]

[..]

On the licensed gun dealers side, make it illegal and heavily punished (see above) to sell a weapon if you are not a licensed gun dealer.  If I can a prescription for opioids and then sell them to a friend, I'm breaking the law.  It should be the same with guns, period.  Infringes on no ones constitutional rights. 

This is from a gun owner and defender of the 2nd amendment.

So every gun in private hands must in the hands of the one who purchased it... forever?

[Tugg Speedman]

So every gun in private hands must in the hands of the one who purchased it... forever?

... and who owns the gun when the current owner dies?  Does the spouse or children have to go through a background check upon their death?  Or, isn't it illegal for you to die because that constitutes an illegal transfer of your guns?

And, the day after you die, your wife (or kids) have to go through a background check.  And if their name is the same name as someone on the no-fly list, or have mental illness or arrest in their background, they do not pass and the ATF arrests them at your funeral for being an illegal owner of guns.  They cannot sell them after you die because they are not the registered owner.

Regarding the mentally Ill definition ... It is not the definition, it is about due process.  If someone is determined to be mentally ill, they need a way to contest this, via the courts.  And, like any list the government keeps, it has to be public (no secret lists anymore).  So what is to stop landlords and employees from using this list to deny leases and jobs.  Do you want to go down this road?

[jesmu84]

Regarding the mentally Ill definition ... It is not the definition, it is about due process.  If someone is determined to be mentally ill, they need a way to contest this, via the courts.  And, like any list the government keeps, it has to be public (no secret lists anymore).  So what is to stop landlords and employees from using this list to deny leases and jobs.  Do you want to go down this road?

Do you have the same problems with the no-fly list?